Skip to comments.NYT/CBS poll shows conservatives consolidating behind Santorum
Posted on 02/14/2012 6:47:22 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Consider this a corroboration of Gallup and Pew, both of which have recorded a surge for Rick Santorum that makes him the national frontrunner — if not in each state. The CBS/New York Times poll shows Santorum gaining 14 points in a single month, eclipsing Mitt Romney by three points (still within the MOE), whose support stayed virtually unchanged from January. Almost all of the gain comes at the expense of Newt Gingrich, who dropped to fourth place behind Ron Paul among Republican primary voters:
Rick Santorum has pulled slightly ahead of Mitt Romney in Republican primary voters’ preference for the presidential nomination, a national CBS News/New York Times Poll shows.
Ron Paul is now in third, followed by former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.
Among self-described conservative voters, the shift has been fairly dramatic. A month ago in this poll series, conservatives were equally split between Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum at 25/25/24 respectively. Now, however, Santorum’s support in this demo has risen to 38%, while Romney has remained steady at 24% and Gingrich dropped by about half to 12%. The same thing has happened to Tea Party support and evangelicals. The dynamic seems to be a movement away from Gingrich and a consolidation among conservative voters behind Santorum as the alternative to Romney, at least for now.
There are a few things to note about this poll, however. This is a poll of registered voters, not likely voters, which is not as predictive a model and is a curious sampling choice in the middle of the actual primary voting. These results come from a larger survey, most of whose results will be announced later. The overall sample was 1,064 registered voters, but only 331 of those planned to vote in a Republican primary. At least a few of those will be independents rather than Republicans, so the partisan split of the overall survey is likely to be highly skewed to Democrats. That doesn’t matter for these results, but a sample of 331 registered voters for a national poll is on the small side. Keep that in mind.
Now that Santorum has become a legitimate force in the race, he’s getting some attention from the usual suspects. Member of Occupy Tacoma tried to crash a Santorum event, and Politico reports that Santorum responded by calling them agents of “true intolerance”:
Filling the front row at the Washington State History Museum where Santorum spoke, a group of Occupy protesters disrupted the event, forcing Santorum to engage them. Occupy Tacoma, the local branch of the Occupy Wall Street movement, is camped out right next to the museum, and advertised Santorums visit on its web site.
I think its really important for you to understand what this radical element represents, because what they represent is true intolerance, Santorum said, after two protesters were taken to the ground and placed in handcuffs by police.
The protesters, Santorum suggested, instead of standing here unemployed, yelling at somebody should instead go out and get a job.
Santorums supporters roared their approval, chanting get a job back at the Occupiers.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then …
Obama can’t debate his way out of a paper bag.The SOB endorses,aids and abets and provides comfort to the enemy terrorists.Even WITH a teleprompter Obama loses any debate to anyone.NEWSFLASH:Obama’s magic is done,finito,gone.Besides Santorum debates very well.
I am a registered Independent after the McCain debacle.I take GREAT offense to being called an anti american.You don’t have a clue what you are talking about.Without the independent vote no one beats Obama.
Libertarians are fiscal conservatives, and social liberals, and that makes them only half way there.
If a libertarian is actually a thoughtful conservative (I'm sure a handful are), then they will vote for one of the two conservatives left in the race. Newt or Rick.
Sorry for the disconnected double post. I have no idea what happened. :)
If the GOP nominee only gets a handful of libertarian-leaning people in the general election, he has no chance. Here's another won that will just kill him:
One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country. And also, Many of the Christian faith have said, well, thats okay, contraception is okay. Its not okay. Its a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.
Imagine how well that is going to play with undecideds. Ugh.
The same sick, prideful arrogance posted here when the following video was posted.
Would you believe that people (Gingrich only bully ping list) bashed Santorum for not getting out completely to be with his baby all because thy’re candidate (NEWT) was there —only— choice?
Would you also believe that these very same people posted the word RINO and the Pelosi sofa picture in a thread I posted when Gingrich announced he was running?I have always been open to all but Romney.
Which is precisely why libertarians are so dangerous.
The goal should be getting rid of Obama with the most conservative candidate possible, and libertarians don't share that goal.
Because half of what Obama believes is OK with them........their leftist half.
Scary. A lot scarier than Rick Santorum's actually believing what his church teaches, isn't it?
If it`s in the NYTIMES it must be so...roll eyes... or CBS or PEW or whoever...roll eyes
Pollsters would choose are candidate, that much I predicted and did know.
Having said that,we could do worse.. I think we can trust him to appoint a Conservative to the High Court.
The polsters could have given us Romney if they wanted, thankfully they dropped him, perhaps just out of boredom they wanted a change?
Oh, please! First off, it is a complete and total MISNOMER that Obama is some incredible debater. I was not at all impressed with his debate performances even when he went toe-to-toe against Milquetoast McCain in 2008. Second, I think Santorum has done quite well for himself in the Republican debates. Did you not see how he completely took Romney apart in their exchange over RomneyCare during the last Florida debate? In fact, I would argue that you could trace beginning of Romney’s current decline in the polls from that exchange.
Rick Santorum is NOT weak and CAN beat Obama in a general election.
I know exactly what I am saying. If Obama wins, so be it. Better to have the official evil than the one in disguise.
And probably has a very low regard for women in general.
I won't participate in a circular firing squad between Rick and Newt. They are both capable and qualified, both conservative, and both would be a gazillion times better than Obama.
When the entire future of our nation is at stake, the idea that people are shooting each other with comments like "You only like Rick because he's cuter" is reprehensible.
I would suggest that you get up to speed on the potentially irreparable damage he will do with another four years in office before you post again.
Obama won PA by 10 pts, Rick lost by 13.
The DNC is clearly trying to set up out candidates as "anti-contraception" -Morris is really on to something there about how that question showed up out of nowhere in those early debates- and Santo will be very easy to paint as 'too kooky religious right' on women's "reproductive rights".
Here is a good article.Gingrich and Santorum have one goal get Obama out.I kindly disagree with Gingrich having any comeback though.
You don’t know PA politics.Apples and oranges and a very bad talking point.
Chuck Norris says no to big spending, Romney-backing (2008)
Santorum. Here’s his reasons why he picked Newt over him.
>>Newt would govern conservatively but without trying to lecture or coming off as holier-than-thou. <<
Coming off as “holier-than-thou” is his stock in trade. And he makes his living lecturing others on how things ought to be.
I’m not saying this should count against him, but c’mon...get real here. Newt is “holier-than-thou” personified.
Newt Gingrich is done, in fact, burnt toast. Romney is on life support!!! A vote for either Gingrich or Romney is a wasted vote!!! It’s time to fish or cut bait, by getting behind Rick Santorum. I’m sick of seeing Freepers fawning all over Gingrich. For goodness sakes, give it up. Newt had his wonderful chance and he blew it big time. Folks broom Newt and Mitt, NOW!!!!
Obama won PA by 10 pts, Rick lost by 13.
Those numbers mean absolutely nothing now. Santorum lost his 2006 senate race in what was a HORRIBLE election year for the GOP overall. Many voters had become war-weary then and began buying into the relentless non-stop negative media propaganda against Bush over the previous four years. Meanwhile, much of the public got swept up in Obamamania and all the HopeandChange crap in 2008 and Obama was able to win states without even having to show he was qualified for the job of the presidency.
It’s a whole different world now and Obama now has a record of failure, lawlessness, recklessness, and destruction to try and defend.
The GOP was walking on sunshine in 1994 and failed to win the WH in 1996, so anything can happen, unfortunately.
Gingrich is going nowhere!!! And....if Newt really loved his country, he would withdraw from the race immediately like he cajoled Santorum to do!!! He has not yet withdrawn, meaning he loves himself more then his country. The handwriting for Newt is clearly on the wall for all to see, in fact, he is ten times worse then Santorum was, when he was prodding Santorum to withdraw!!! He had his run at the prize, and he, and only he, blew it away!!!
That was a good one. Thanks for the laugh.
Some liberatarians do -- it all depends on how you define "conservative". "That government is best which governs least" has long been a prime tenet of conservatism -- at least one branch of it. And a lot of people support that statement as a general rule even if they aren't as extreme about it as Ron Paul. Heck, that was Reagan's brand of conservatism. And I don't want to alienate those people, but some of Santorum's statements may well do that.
A lot scarier than Rick Santorum's actually believing what his church teaches, isn't it?
I've got zero problem with Santorum believing what his church teaches. I do have a problem with him beeliving thinking that everything his church teaches regarding morality involves something in which the govenrment should be involved. I don't want the government being involved in subsidizing contraception because I don't believe in subsidies period.
But I also do not want a President who believes it is his role to impress the teachings of his church on the rest of us. Nor am I thrilled with the idea of a President who thinks it is his role to stop people from using birth control because they'll engage in sex that he doesn't think is for the right purpose. None of his business.
I'd still vote for him over Obama, but if it comes down to a choice between just him or Romney, I'll either write in someone else's name or not vote at all.
Christie at the beach wrote:
I think so too and by his poor performance with David Gregory, the other day shows he cannot even understand nor handle when the left wing anchor referred to some of his ideas as bigoted and sexist. Rick just giggled and smiled. It was very telling. Newt would not have allowed Gregory to got away with that nor Palin.
You could probably fill a small auditorium with the number of people who ever even watch David Gregory’s dull and boring program. In fact, I didn’t even know Rick Santorum appeared on his show until reading your post. So if Santorum would’ve wasted his time and energy lashing back at Gregory, it would’ve been the equivalent to the analogy of a tree falling in the woods with nobody around.
Newt has surrendered far too many issues to be a viable candidate. It takes more than a debate performance and a few soundbites to get voters motivated, and thus far Santorum has the momentum while the rest of the field stagnates or sink like a stone.
I think hell be a good president but we can make him a great president.
That was a great performance with Gregory! He was polite and kind to those stupid gotcha questions, but he mocked them with laughter. It was perfect.
I'm quite sure that it is not Rick Santorum's goal to 'impress the teachings of his church on the rest of us.'
I'm not sure where or when your earlier quote is from, but I've heard no talk of a church-imposed theocracy from Santorum, and think it's a bit bizarre to believe that's what he'd really try to do.
What I find interesting about the CBS poll is that Santorum picked up points from Paul too.
I think a lot of Republicans were expressing support for Ron Paul in polling because of his “put the federal government back in its constitutional box” attitude.
Romney wasn’t going to do it, and so until it became clear who was going to prevail amongst Cain, Perry, Gingrich, and Santorum, those people just said “Ron Paul” when asked who they supported.
Now that it’s becoming clear that Santorum is likely to be the last man standing amongst the above four candidates, those same voters are dropping their placeholder, Paul, and expressing their support for Santorum. If Gingrich or Perry were in Santorum’s position now, they’d be getting that support instead, but they aren’t.
Personally, I’m glad Santorum stayed in it. Gingrich is far more likely to implode at any moment than Santorum is. And the fact that Santorum has much higher favorables than Gingrich is a huge plus.
Besides, Gingrich’s “big ideas” could very well lead to “big spending” in a lot of areas that we can’t afford. Remember, it wasn’t all that long ago that he thought cap and trade was a good enough big idea that it was worth throwing in with Pelosi to push it along.
As Rush has (accurately) said, mid-term elections are ALWAYS a referendum on the incumbent. It really doesnt matter who the opponent is. So if the country is as angry at Obama as it was a year ago, Rick should have no trouble winning.
We have to be careful for what we wish for on this one. The polls I’ve seen show Obumwad with a 70+% personal approval rating, and just over 50% job approval. He does less well on the economic issues but what I find crazy is that as a party the ‘Rats come our ahead of the ‘Pubs in polls where the question is “trust to manage the economy”. That is pretty remarkable and a strong indictment of the lack of intelligence of the average voter that a so-called President and party that has caused so much harm to the country would pull those kind of ratings. And he hasn’t really started campaigning yet, at least not in his typical style. He’ll be sitting on a huge mountain of illegally-raised cash for the campaign that he really hasn’t tapped yet. This is going to be a tough battle, more so than most people on FR seem to think. Whoever the nominee is on our side, they’re going to have to make a strong case for themselves, not just count on an anti-Obama landslide, because right now it doesn’t look like that is shaping up.
Points taken, but on the flip side Obama is going to have to come up with something better than “my policies may not be working out quite the way I planned, but things would be FAR WORSE if we go back to the failed policies that got us here” if he thinks he has any chance of being re-elected.
Actually, Newt comes off more as smarther-than-thou rather than holier-than-thou, which Santorum comes across as.
You've probably researched this more than I.
I always assumed those posts were from mittbots for a couple of reasons. The notion all Ricks support would migrate to Newt is very flawed, not only would mitt get a good portion of Ricks followers, he would only have one target to take out.
Im not saying this should count against him, but cmon...get real here. Newt is holier-than-thou personified.
Newt is "smarter-than-thou" personified. Santorum has got the corner on "holier-than-thou".
I vote on Super Tuesday for the candidate with the best chance of denying Mitt Romney Ohio’s delegates.
Breathtaking stupidity. But if the party needs a total disaster to finally liberate itself from the ideas that Santorum represents I am prepared to accept the consequences.
Santorum's surge began when he took Mitt Romney apart limb by limb in the final Florida debate. Everyone with half an ounce of neutrality acknowledges that Santorum won that debate.
So, Santorum is a better debater than Romney, he has far less baggage than Romney, he is a real conservative with a lifetime 80 rating from ACU, he is the best pro-life candidate from the beginning of this primary season, and he has a streak of Reagan in that he wants the free market to work for the working, middle class.
He is not as good a debater as Gingrich is when Gingrich is on his game. That's a given. Very few are....maybe Cheney. Gingrich is on his game about every other debate.
So, I could easily support either a Newt/Rick or Rick/Newt ticket.
But, the Real Clear Politics average of the last 4 or 5 polls has Santorum in the lead. It is what it is.
Beat me by a few minutes. Good point, which is easy for me to say since I said the same thing.
Women vote most often on looks. Have for decades.
Perry, Cain, Gingrich......
The list of the Fallen Ones.
I supported Perry before his fall.
I never did get behind Cain. During the Cain surge, I slowly drifted over to Newt.
During the Newt surge, I was feeling great, like we couldn't lose and that we had a great candidate.
Now I'm left with Santorum (recognizing that Newt's fall, like Perry's, is all his own fault, and nothing can be done about it).
I like Santorum well enough but am not excited about him.
I tend to see Santorum as a slightly better looking, somewhat more intelligent version of Mike Huckabee. That's better than Romney, of course. Way, way better. And better than Obama, of course, way, way, way, way better.
But I wish we could look forward to a President Gingrich. Or a President Perry. We can't. I know. So I'll definitely vote for a President Santorum.
It seems like nowadays all one has to do is be just a social conservative to be popular. Fiscal conservatism is dying a slow death and nobody seems to care.
Santorum is a pro-life liberal.
Rick is no whack job. If you've been listening to the debates, he may not have a zing line every other breath like Newt, but he has consistently stayed on message and hammered Obama while the others have been making bloody chunks of each other. He has been the most steady and cogent critic of the POTUS's policies and their effect on the workforce and economy. When he gets a direct question on social stuff, he answers it and swings right back on message. Something else, I trust Rick more than anybody in the race with the Second Amendment. That's just a gut feeling so don't ask me to quantify it.
I will have no problem voting for him if he is the GOP candidate.
But, something is bothering me about the timing of the sudden announcement from the HHS secretary re: the mandate for religious institutions to cover contraception, etc.
Every pundit seems to agree that it was a stupid fight for Obama to pick at this time.
The consensus is that the Catholic vote went for Obama in 2008, and pissing them off now makes zero political sense.
But, this "surprise" mandate seems to coincide with the rise of Santorum.
I think that the Obama team wants Santorum as the GOP candidate. And I think that they used the HHS announcement as a way to help Rick's chances.
Or, maybe they just don't want Newt.
In which case helping out Santorum is an effective strategy.
Either way, I think the announcement by the HHS secretary was not at all about appeasing the liberal base.
It was about getting the opponent they prefer.