Skip to comments.Rasmussen GOP MS Poll: Romney 35% Santorum 27% Gingrich 27% Paul 6%
Posted on 03/09/2012 9:47:44 AM PST by parksstp
Rasmussen Reports first Republican primary survey in Mississippi shows former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney leading his closest competitors by eight points. A new statewide telephone survey of Likely GOP Primary Voters in the Magnolia State shows Romney with 35% of the vote, while former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich each draw support from 27%. Texas Congressman Ron Paul runs last with six percent (6%). One percent (1%) prefers some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
This Mississippi survey of 750 Likely Republican Primary Voters was conducted on March 8, 2012 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
(Excerpt) Read more at rasmussenreports.com ...
Restore our Future, the Super PAC supporting Romney, has been on the air in Alabama and Mississippi with anti-Santorum ads for days, spending nearly $3 million.
The group is already buying $1.4 million in advertisements in two states that do not vote for weeks. Restore our Future spent more than $909,000 in Illinois, which holds its primary on March 20, and more than $431,000 in Louisiana, where the primary is March 24.
A pro-Santorum Super PAC, called the Red, White and Blue Fund, retaliated by spending $500,000 to air ads attacking Romney in Alabama and Mississippi.
Rasmussen poller’s transcript:
Rasmussen: “Hello, sir, I’m with Rasmussen Polling. Are you going to vote for Mitt Romney?”
Rasmussen: “So, yes, you will vote for Romney?”
Voter: “No, I mean, yes, I’m serious, I mean I’m not voting for Romney.”
Rasmussen: “Are you sure?”
Voter: “Yes, I’m sure.”
Voter: “Yes, really!”
Rasmussen: “Wow, you’re the first one I’ve had today. Did you hear he’s surging?”
Voter: “Uh, no, I didn’t, I didn’t really know.”
Rasmussen: “Yeah, it’s pretty much unanimous at this point. They’re saying he’s so far ahead that he’s inevitable.”
Voter: “Oh, uh, okay.”
Rasmussen: “So is there any chance you’d vote for Romney, maybe if he’s running against someone you really can’t stand?”
Voter: “Well, yeah, then, I mean, I guess.”
Rasmussen: “OK, great, I’ll put you down for Romney. Good-bye!”
What is going on in MS? Is this just establishment spin to help Romney?
If this is true, than Romney will have the nomination locked up before the convention, and there will be no brokered contest.
This is not a good thing, we cannot afford to give the MSM and Obama all summer to attack the nominee as they did in 2008.
We need the fight to continue, if for no other reason, than to force the MSM to continue covering the Republican arguments against Obama and the attack upon him all summer.
My opinion, Newt gives up FL and puts Santorum on as V.P. which gets him PA and 1 or 2 other of the toss-up states. FL is hopeless for the Republicans this year and they need a strategy that does not include it. They are simply not going to bring any Hispanic Obama voters over. The racial identification based on his coloring is too great a factor to overcome. Democrats understand how important light brown skin is to their election strategy of getting both black and Hispanic votes. Liberal, light-brown-skinned candidates are their dream candidates. Any they can find will rocket to the top of the Democrat party faster than Obama did. The visual coloring means more than ethnicity or language to getting these voters which is why Rubio would not even help the Republicans with Hispanics much against Obama.
“Democrats understand how important light brown skin is to their election strategy of getting both black and Hispanic votes.”
I’m not sure if I should thank you or curse you for reminding me of the vacuousness of American politics; however, I will volunteer to pay for Newt’s tanning booth sessions! (smile)
He is owned by rino inc.
This analysis gets Romney to 1071 pledged delegates by the end, and he would need over half of the “unpledged” delegates to have a majority at that point.
This goes with a rough analysis I did myself of what will happen if the remaining states vote as the previous similar states to them did. I ended up with Romney in the high 1000s or low 1100s, not quite at a win before the convention.
However, Ron Paul would end up with enough delegates to put Romney over-the-top. Newt and Rick need to start doing better than they have been to have a combined total that could beat Mitt and Paul’s at the convention. As of now, the most likely scenario is a contested convention where Ron Paul hands Romney a solid for the win.
The poll’s margin of error of +/-4% means that it’s essentially a 3-way tie.
Why do you think Obama instituted the tanning tax? Another anti-Republican effort. ;)
This is a reflection of racial reality in this country. Obama is half-white but is perceived as black due to his color. Racially mixed people are increasing. We also have more immigration from other ethnicities, many of which people can’t even always specifically identify. Hispanics and blacks are much friendlier than they were in past decades and there is more intermarriage among them.
The MSM types have developed a new term, “globals” for the sort of vague but distinctly non-white ethnicity that encompasses mixed races and others. In terms of racial polarization, the country is definitely coalescing between white and non-white. Color means more than anything to racial identity now. And if Clinton was the first black President, then Obama is definitely the first Hispanic President. My message to Republicans this year is don’t bet anything on increasing your percentage of Hispanic votes from 2008 at all.
LOL. From the statistics I have seen as recently as this past week, you are correct in your premise. That's just the sad truth; newly “minted” US Senators from FL notwithstanding.
The Bush's seem intent on taking us down that “blind alley;” however, I don't see that happening until we stop thinking of ourselves as unique ethnic enclaves of “hyphenated” pseudo-Americans. (Talk about your ultimate “divide and conquer” strategy; complete w/”Tower of Babel” linguistics challenges!!!)
It is the first ad I have heard, and I listen to the radio almost daily.
“What is going on in MS? Is this just establishment spin to help Romney?”
I can only give you my perspective. I have heard pro-Newt radio ads for the past couple of weeks. I heard the first Willard ad today, and it was all attacks on Newt. I heard the first Santorum ad today as well, and it was a pro-family, pro-prosperity message. Newt had a well attended rally yesterday morning in Jackson that represented a nice cross section of people. It wasn’t packed, but turnout was decent and it was an attentive, responsive and upbeat crowd. As people left, a number took yard signs and bumper stickers. In my neighborhood there is only one yard sign out and it is for Santorum. In my circle support is about even for Newt or Santorum, with neither arousing much passion either way and people willing to support either candidate. Willard’s pro-abortion record in particular is hurting him, and no one likes vapid suits much here anyway except the GOP barons, who do like him as he is as amoral and empty as they are.
Purely anecdotal, but that is what I have seen and heard.
Of course you don't. That's because your analysis is based on an unrealistic overestimation of Santorum's actual appeal in the voting populace at large, and a concurrent unestimation of Newt's. I didn't take it very seriously, to say the least.
Exactly! Part of the non-vetting of Santorum, I believe, also has to do with the fact that the MSM and Democrats know that (besides Ron Paul, who *obviously* has no shot of winning) Santorum is our weakest candidate in the general - even weaker than Romney.
I can’t think of anyone who will drive off non-religious right independents better than Santorum. I can’t think of anyone with less crossover appeal than Santorum (and please, folks, spare us the “Santorum appeals to unions” drivel). I can’t think of anyone less able to actually *fight* Obama in the general than Santorum.
The dirty little secret is that all our eventual nominee has to do is increase his percentage of the white vote over what McCain got by just 5%, and he's a shoe in.
My strategy would definitely be to target white males for increased turnout. If we could just make white males understand that the entire springboard for the Democrat/liberal/socialist/communist agenda is to make them the scapegoat for all of everyone else’s ills, I don’t see how we could lose.
I see you can't separate fact from opinion. It makes sense you'd be for Santorum.
Santorum's "likability" factor benefits from his being the nearest thing to "generic Republican" since he's not widely known compared with Clinton nemesis Newt or past contender Romney.
Santorum uses chest-thumping moralism to cover his Big Labor, big spender, crony capitalist, sabre-rattler, eventual Obama Supreme Court pick-confirming record.
He has been fundamentally dishonest in several debates and appearance about his own dalliances with mandates in '92 & '94 and is happy to take cheap shots at opponents no matter how much he's exploiting and depending upon voter ignorance.
His attack last fall on Perry's "binational health insurance" study is a prime example. By suggesting it was so outrageous even Obama wouldn't propose it, Santorum was either reflecting his own ignorance or simply, shamelessly wicked. I knew better because I found the study. I read the study. I found the legislation that lead to the study. I read that too. I even posted them on FR for others to make up their own minds. (Side note: it was Perry's inability or unwillingness to defend his record that lead me to conclude he was not in to win.)
Santorum talks a good game about faith and family but it's a smokescreen for who and what he is. I am angered and indignant to see voters good faith and good will exploited by a career lawyer-politician the way Santorum does it. It buys him trust he has not earned.
We know Newt's failings. We know what Romney is. In the sense that they are known knowns, neither hucks snake oil as successfully as the 'sainted' senator. In that sense they are more honest men.
The galling thing is, Santorum doesn't have to use these tactics to succeed. It's just in his nature to exploit faith, family, goodwill rather than win on the battleground of ideas. And for this reason, he's the last candidate we need as the nominee.
That's my opinion drawn from facts and observations.
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.