Can not hear you!
Posted on 02/27/2012 10:44:53 AM PST by RobinMasters
There’s a chance Rick Santorum may still scrape out a win in Michigan tomorrow. This morning’s Public Policy Polling survey has Mitt Romney leading him by just a few points, 39 percent to 37 percent. But the internal numbers look worse for Santorum, and his ongoing slide in the state seems to be due to his focus on social issues:
One place Santorum may have hurt himself in the last week is an overemphasis on social issues. 69 percent of voters say they’re generally more concerned with economic issues this year to only 17 percent who pick social issues. And with the overwhelming majority of voters more concerned about the economy, Romney leads Santorum 45-30. Santorum’s winning those more concerned about social issues 79-12 but it’s just not that big a piece of the pie.
Santorum’s net favorability has also taken a hit:
The last week of the campaign in Michigan has seen significant damage to Santorum’s image with GOP voters in the state. His net favorability has declined 29 points from +44 (67/23) to now only +15 (54/39). Negative attacks on Romney meanwhile have had no negative effect with his favorability steady at +20 (57/37). Two weeks ago Santorum’s net favorability in Michigan was 34 points better than Romney’s. Now Romney’s is 5 points better than Santorum’s. Those kinds of wild swings are the story of the GOP race.
(Excerpt) Read more at commentarymagazine.com ...
“69 percent of voters say they’re generally more concerned with economic issues this year to only 17 percent who pick social issues”
All 17% are here at FreeRepublic.
While I do like to read Commentary, especially on foreign policy, they are all pro-Romney so are not to be trusted for objective analysis this election. Some are even involved with the Romney campaign, like Max Boot.
Also, I think this analysis is flawed as it completely ignores the fact that Santorum is actually up by 5 points amongst people who will be voting on election day. Romney’s lead only occurs when taking into account the 16% of people who have already voted, where he has a huge lead. So if there is a high turnout on Tuesday Santorum will probably win. If not Romney will win.
Union and Muzie land.
Conservatives can, and should, multi-task. I am concerned about both. Santorum is a much better candidate on that basis alone.
His stance on social issues is one of the primary reason he has a chance of winning a state Romney won easily in the last election.
*
Until I see how the question was worded, from experience I’m going to call bull on this survey.
That's why I love this site.
Santorum has to differentiate himself from Romney and energize his supporters.
If two guys are running, who are considered to be more or less “Republican” on economic issues, one of the seemingly peripheral issues may make the difference between brand a and brand b.
For some it is guns, others illegal immigration, others, it’s life issues. It does provoke people to say, “I’m NOT voting for that guy because of it.”
People don’t usually react that way to the guy who is going to reduce a certain tax more than the other guy.
And no one (save maybe Paul) will get TOO specific about where the $$$ cuts will come, that’s the real trap for the general. All the stuff Santorum’s saying is in his book. Get it out now, so its old news for the general.
Also, some of us like the
Turn Michigan RED for Rick tomorrow....thanks!
http://www.conservativestats.com/p/mapping.html
Please call into Michigan...it will make the difference and it’s easy to do....
http://callfromhome.ricksantorum.com/
Note to Ricky:
It’s the economy, stupid.
It is the new narrative. You can find it on every news network on every channel. They are trying to drive this into our heads as much as possible.
A case of, if you repeat something enough, hopefully it will come true.
It is impossible to separate the two, social issues do impact the economy. The breakup of the family unit, resulted in the government taking over the role of the traditional family.
The fundamental--the functional foundation--for social policy in the American Federal Union;--has always been left to the States. It was never delegated to the Federal Government, but reserved to the States as the "Police Power," the power to deal with questions of health, safety & morals. Santorum has openly shown disrespect for the limitations that this puts on the Federal Government with respect to certain issues. That disrespect assails the fundaments of American conservatism.
William Flax
You don’t seem to understand that you can not separate the two. Great Society social programs amplified by Obama have record numbers of people getting food stamps. Record numbers of babies are being born out of wedlock. The biggest predictor of using food stamps is being born out of wedlock. What part of this don’t you get?????????????????
Can not hear you!
Just another poll designed to scare the GOP moderates back to the plantation.
But frankly, I don't want to hear a President talking morally about premarital sex, or sex in general. It's not his business, or the government's, if chose to have sex before I was married.
Exactly, they sure do.
Btw, SoCons all tend to be FiCons. (Think Rubio, Pence, Kasich, etc..)
On the other hand, FiCons don’t all tend to be SoCons. (Think Willard -minus RomneyCare, massive business taxes, and hundreds of millions in MA fees raised-, Rudy, Charlie, etc..)
“Just another poll designed to scare the GOP moderates back to the plantation.”
Bingo!
We shouldn't abandon them but we also shouldn't put them at the top of the priority list this particular election. This isn't your average Democrat/Republican election. Obama isn't a democrat. He's an evil radical hell bent on changing this country like nothing we've ever seen. His first three years are Exhibit A. Our children and grandchildren will never know what was our America if he gets a second term. It was the independents who put obama over the top last election. Do you honestly thing we can win without them? Let's get rid of obama and then focus our attention on our agenda.
What do you expect from an electorate that has compromised their moral values in a misguided sense of freedom.
Conservatives can, and should, multi-task. I am concerned about both. Santorum is a much better candidate on that basis alone.
*********
Good observation. But all issues should be raised in common sense terms that most folks can grasp. For example: “If you want to believe that we are descended from monkeys, OK, but I don’t,” rather than, “There is no provable scientific basis for the evolutionary tree-diagram.”
Santorum isn't putting social issues first. The media keeps putting the emphasis on them and trying to bait Santorum into discussing issues like contraception.
Looks like the zot has been administered to the single-issue poster.
Very cleanly administered.
Little .22 Bersa w/silencer, one behind the ear.
Freedom is the right to do wrong with the limit at the next person’s nose.
When other people define right and get the power to enforce it, even for the best of intentions, tyranny inevitably ensues as the definition of right tightens and tightens.
We were in pretty good shape freedom-wise in 1865-1877.
I heard it on Rush today -
“wag the pill”
Free exercise of religion is a social policy? Well, obama thinks its is a gift of government.
Note to Ricky:
It’s the economy, stupid.
Actually it is both. Our morals in the country are down the tubes in the last three plus years. I think being the ONLY one discussing social issues is the reason why Santorum will win the nomination and Presidency.
Jobless people are more inclined to be repulsed by treatise bearers lecturing against contraception.
I don’t understand why Santorum couldn’t manage the issues that will determine the next president, and run on those.
He has launched a missile strike on himself by pushing this subject and placed a big yellow X on his own back, as the target of said missile strike, it seems to me.
To govern in office with your faith in hand is one thing, but to run a primary on it is something else, because it will bite you.
No one even knows what Santorum’s issues are now, because of such distraction.
AND, they haven’t even started on his votes alligned with unions. They will be saving that one, filing it under
“as needed”.
Nonsense. Santorum stands for the principal of subsidarity that underlies our federal system. He says that education is a family and local affairs that even the states should back off from trying to control every aspects of pubic education. he says it was mistake to support No Child Left behind. That he was against it in principle but went with the majority. Now that he sees what a monster it has become, he sees his misgiving were right.
0bama is the epitome of a leftist.
All wealth belongs to the government. If you get to keep more, it’s because the government “gave” you more.
All rights are given by government. Whatever rights they allow you to have, you should be thankful for. Also, the government may grant “rights” that incur an involuntary cost on another citizen (ie, slavery).
Voters more concerned about the economy, Romney leads Santorum 45-30.
Voters more concerned about social issues, Santorum leads 79-12.
wait a sec....
the writer concedes in the first line that Rick might win in Michigan, and that he is very competitive there and the headline says he is being killed???
Go this way -—><-—
Why would anyone need to read any further?
What you have to grasp is that Santorum’s only faint claim on ‘conservatism’ is his resistance to abortion. On all other issues he is a statist.
You have been deceived by Democratic and liberatrian propoganda. Birth control comes into this only because Catholics institutions have been commanded to provide services that they think is wrong. Obama doesn’t want the Catholic Church to have a role in providing social services and so if the regulation goes into effect, the Church will be forced out of this field as it has been forced out of adoption services. Obama is the slave of Planned Parenthood and the Gay Rights lobbies, and also of liberal Catholic groups who want to discredit the pope and conservative Catholics.
I fail to see anything good about Romney on economic issues.
Hardly an indication of his strength of character or judgment.
As for your statement that he stands for the "pricnipal of subsidarity," rather than for strict construction of the Constitution--which is the issue, here, not some philosophic substitute--that hardly recommends him.
He clearly showed his failure to recognize foundational principles--as opposed to inclinations of the moment--in his support for the Congressional intrusion into the Terri Schiavo case in Florida. See Abandoned Reason.
Frankly, I like the way Rick addresses some issues. He just does not understand what is really basic in the American context.
William Flax
I don’t understand why Santorum couldn’t manage the issues that will determine the next president, and run on those.
For the most part, he hasn't been the one to raise those issues. However, his problem is that he believes right down to his core in the immorality of some actions, and can't help but confirm them when asked. And more importantly, he doesn't even say that those kind of issues aren't the business of government, because I don't think he really believes it.
I met the guy at an event about two years ago, when he was barely a blip on the 2012 calendar and was schlepping around meeting with groups he thought would be receptive. My group was about 25 people, and he was there for a couple of hours. The one thing I got from him was the absolute core conviction that he believes this nation's crisis is fundamentally a moral one, and moral in the religious sense, not just hard work, etc.
The problem is that I'm not sure all that many Americans want to be preached to about their morality by any politician. Personally, I think the role of the government should be to set up a system that, by natural operation, rewards (or at least doesn't punish), people who engage in the "right" behaviors, and doesn't bail them out for poor moral choices. But other than that, I really don't want to hear it.
bump!!
The two are joined at the hip, you are very correct.
17% ONLY or are willing to bend?
What’s the use of having a job when your boss just came out as a fag and his wife recently had an abortion?
Bush establishment republican; kinda like Rush Limbaugh.
They never stood for taking power away from the insiders. imo
Voters always say they care more about economic issues than “social” issues.
But the majority vote for or against a candidate according to what the media says about their “social” issues stand.
The normalization of contraception -- or more specifically, recreational sex -- was the on-ramp to the superhighway to perdition. It's led to explosions in divorce rates, illegitimacy, poverty, disease and sex crimes -- not to mention the outright slaughter of 50 million American children. It obliterated the family until as we knew it. It's devoured our culture. And it turned us into a nation of brain-dead, self-serving nihilistic zombies. The poisonous fruits of the sexual revolution can be seen and felt in every aspect of our society. That includes a very real, very direct impact on the economy.
If Americans are too obsessed with getting their rocks off to have an honest conversation about how we got into this mess, then our fate is already sealed, and America will die a horrible death.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.