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 ...
Looks like Saint Rick is losing Newtmentom.
It’s divide and conquer. 54% Anti-Romney vote split evenly.
But since the Newtbots are too stubborn to realize Newt has 0, ZERO, NADA, ZILCH, traction in any Non-Interstate 20 state, they will suicide bomb us into getting Romney as the nominee.
In the event of a tie, aren’t the names supposed to be alphabetized?
Romney, Newt, Santorum, then Nut?
Even in a state like Mississippi, there will always be that third of the registered GOP who are establishment schlub types. How else do you think they gave us Thad Cochran and Trent Lott?
This is just one isolated point as far as it goes - do we have any context, such as previous polls so we can try to read a trend?
If this poll is accurate, Romney better be careful. He needs Gingrich to come back at this point. Better to lay low and peel votes off Santorum, so Gingrich can rise.
I have to agree with your post. Newt is toast and giving us Romney due to his super, duper ego. I like Newt, but, he is spoiling this for us. If he had done better, and not crashed and burned - then I would’ve supported him. However, he can’t touch Romney now - and Rick has a chance, if only Newt would put country first.
If I were Gingrich, or his campaign manager, this would be my strategy:
Hit on three issues, constantly, over and over and over:
1) Gas prices, and energy production in general.
2) The debt and deficits.
3) Repealing ObamaCare.
Constantly. Every speech, every venue, every crowd. Blanket the airwaves with ads to these effect.
In Alabama, I might also make an occasional comment about supporting the state with their new immigration law, too.
Ricky has been losing it since 7 - 10 days before Super Tuesday which was his high watermark.
You know, I see comments like this, and I wonder whether people like you really don't understand the difference between primaries and general elections.
yeah, and when he brings up the Alabama immigration law, the other candidates can jump on him that he supports amnesty for those illegals that have managed to break the law the longest (20+ years).
No amount of strategy will ever help Newt with his real problem which is lack of trust and likeability. He can talk conservative things out of his mouth all day long, but there will be SUBSTANTIAL numbers of people who will not TRUST him.
TRUST and LIKEABILITY are REQUIRED to get Elected President. No one has EVER been elected without the General Electorate believing the candidate possessed those 2 traits. Newt doesn’t have them. It’s a fact. Santorum does. It’s a fact.
Nope, and noway:
That's very true. Santorum at his high mark was a shoe in to win Ohio, and should also have won Michigan.
The Santoroons can whine about "Newt stealing votes from Santorum" (which, wrongly, assumes that all Newt's support would have gone to Santorum had Newt bowed out - a lot of those folks might not even have voted at all), but the fact remains that Santorum lost Michigan and Ohio because he is, in fact, seeing his support level erode.
At his high-water mark, Santorum was doing so well because a lot of people beyond the hard-core politicoevangelical base of the So-Con wing of the Party were thinking, "well, hey, he won in Minnesota, Colorado, and a few other states, so let's take a look at him as a viable non-Romney."
Even I was looking at him much more closely (and defending him on the internet) back then. But since then, he has basically shown that he doesn't have any fire discipline, and is pretty much destined to tick off anybody who is NOT part of the hard-core politicoevangelical So-Con portion of the base. Which makes him unelectable (and I say this as someone pretty far to the Right on social issues myself, probably more so than most FReepers reading this).
There's also the fact that Newt actually has more pledged delegates than Santorum - despite the disparity in primaries won. When Newt talked about a "strategy" for the primaries, he meant it. Part of his choices in where to campaign, I've noticed, doesn't *just* seem to centre about where he thinks he will do well, but where there are actual delegates to be had. Why waste time in a Missouri primary that awards not a single delegate? Why waste time in Maine, where they're still trying to figure out how to apportion? Why spend money in Alaska which has 14 total delegates, when you can invest that money in Oklahoma, eek out a statistical third, and still come away with one less delegate than the winner, and one less than you would have gotten from winning Alaska?
IMHO Rick is out jousting at windmills with this morality stuff.
Newt is the only guy who seems to stay focused on the matters of actual concern this election cycle.
Ricky has half the nation believing that we want to ban birth control just because he couldn’t resist demonstrating how pious he is when the Obama administration threw him a red herring.
He is not ready for prime time.
Newt is in 2nd place ahead of Santorum. Why would Newt quit?
Seems someone below him should quit.
And that first ‘someone’ should be Ron Paul.
Why is this man still in the race?
Does Romney really need the cover that badly?
Oh I do. To the point I’ve studied all of the voting demographics of most of the states.
To be sure, a Newt candidacy would at a minimum carry every McCain state from 2008. North Carolina and Indiana are also pretty much being ceded by the Democrats.
The problems come in FL, VA, and OH. Newt was slaughtered along the I-4 corridor by Romney and did absolutely horrible among Seniors, Hispanics, and Women. While it wouldn’t kill him in the states I just mentioned, he would almost be forced to be a Floridian on the ticket just to be safe. Santorum, who would also look to a Floridian, at least in the demographics was not poisonous with women, he just didn’t really run in FL since it was WTA. Both would kill in the Panhandle where Obama did poorly, but FL is always won along the I-4 corridor. 53% of the voting electorate in FL is female.
Then there’s OH. Santorum won incredibly strong in the areas the Republican need to win to offset the margins in Cleveland. In fact, Santorum was so strong with his margins in the conservative parts, he nearly won the state despite huge deficits in both Cleveland and Cincy. I don’t think either Newt nor Romney are going to perform at the level they need to to carry OH, which would need to be closer to 2004, where Bush ran up a 371,000 vote advantage outside of Kerry’s 200,000 vote advantage in Cleveland. Last time, McCain and Obama ran dead even outside of Cleveland. That won’t be enough.
Then there’s VA. Santorum would pick up the areas McCain did less well than Bush from 2004. I also think Santorum has performed well in the cities and suburbs than Newt, who has been blown out by Romney everywhere a major population center exists. That doesn’t bode well for Northern VA.
But assuming all this and all the states above, which equate to 266 Electoral votes, there remains 1 Additional state both will have to carry to win, and it must come from one of the following (NH, PA, MI, WI, IA, NM, CO, NV).
New Hampsire is out for everyone, except Romney. Santorum has an edge in PA, but Gingrich would not do as well in the Philly suburbs (Berks, Montgomery, Delaware, Bucks, Chester). MI is probably out for everyone. WI is a toss-up, but Santorum’s union past helps him more than it helps Newt here. IA is a prime state for Santorum to carry if there are enough Republicans that haven’t fled the state due to unemployment. NV is also probably out for both. Santorum, however, showed strength in Colorado and has the backing of Tom Tancredo for being strongest on the immigration stances. NM is a toss-up, but with high numbers of Seniors, Hispanics, and Women, may pose just as much a problem for Newt as it would in Florida.
Because of the battleground states and the voting demographics, I give the edge to Santorum to get to 270. I don’t see how Newt gets there.
Rick Santorum campaigns on family values, but legislates to the unions and WITH the RINO Establishment, never doing anything for those family values in office when in a position to do so. Every. Single. Time. Check the record.
Newt started a revolution and brought the Republican Party and Congress into a majority after 40 years in the desert and has the record to prove it.
IF RECORDS still trump sniffing around one’s personal stuff while out of office or at home.
Wait until Romney resurrects Santorum’s wife’s personal business again, and Rick’s comment that he was a nominal Catholic up until his campaign.
It’s disgusting to ride a ballot with your nose in the air on false rightousness against candidates when the record of actual accomplishment is different as day from night.
Santorum, Gingrich, or Paul supporters aren't necessarily anti-Romney voters.
Many are just people that happen to like the given candidate, but don't consider Romney to be the embodiment of Satan (while very few people are enthusiastic about Romney, out in the real world, there aren't nearly as many people who despise him as FR would like to believe).
If Paul dropped out, probably 50-70% would switch to Romney, and 30-50% wouldn't vote.
If either Gingrich or Santorum dropped out I think you'd be shocked at how many of their supporters switched to Romney, or simply didn't vote.
Paul has never really been in the race to win. Only some of his most delusional followers actually think he could be nominated or elected President in 2012. Paul is attempting to build a movement over the long term - and he is having some success at it. I think the man is mostly a kook, but I will give him credit for having patience and persistence.
To add to your good posts.
Santo was not vetted in August, September, October, November, December, January, and half of February. Why would they vett Rick since he was once mired in polls @2% and behind RuuPaul? It hasn’t even been a full month of serious Ricky vetting, and Newt has been vetted up and down, sideways, and every other which way for a very long time.
Gingrich out means Romney in. Santorum doesn't have it. He's big gov't GOP-e and doesn't have fire, strength, or tenacity I want.
I want Sun Tzu leading my side - not pious sweater vest.
And likewise, what do I know? I am just a ignorant, drooling, rube that is too stupid to know that I owe my vote to the man that you are backing.
(As for the Suicide Bomb comment, check out Newt Supporter TitansAFC’s tagline. He’s the one that started the whole “suicide bomb” correleation)
TAFC’s Tag Line: (Rick Santorum is the Suicide Bomber of the 2012 Election. He’s going to take us all out with him)
Wait until Romney resurrects Santorums wifes personal business again, and Ricks comment that he was a nominal Catholic up until his campaign.
She was in her twenties and lived with or dated an abortion doctor. That is why she is so pro-life. She seen what she believed was wrong and wanted to spend the rest of her life doing the right thing. Isn’t that what we hope our kids do when they make a mistake? I know I did things in my twenties I regret. No I did not have an abortion, but I was a democrat who thought it was no big deal, until I became a Christian and God opened my eyes that what I believed was wrong, both about abortion and being a democrat.
I was a counselor at a Crisis Pregnancy Center for years. 75% of the women who volunteer at CPC’s are women who had an abortion and realized they were wrong. They want to tell women who are considering an abortion, “don’t do it, I did and I will have to live with it the rest of my life, it destroys you.”
If Ricks wife repented and Newt repented, why should either one not be forgiven? Look how old Newt was after his last affair?
Everybody knows Gromit is large and in charge!
Bishop Willard is attacking only Newt in Mississippi. Not Obama, who is effectively a policy clone, or Santorum, who is the Lhasa Apso in the pit.
Mitt is not LEADING in Mississippi.
Rasmussen has been notorious this cycle in overestimating Mitt’s numbers.
“If I were Gingrich, or his campaign manager, this would be my strategy:
Hit on three issues, constantly, over and over and over:
1) Gas prices, and energy production in general.
2) The debt and deficits.
3) Repealing ObamaCare.
Constantly. Every speech, every venue, every crowd. Blanket the airwaves with ads to these effect.”
Those are precisely the points he hit at the rally in Jackson yesterday, plus the fact that the US is not and should not be the enforcement arm of the UN.
“If Ricks wife repented and Newt repented, why should either one not be forgiven?”
Agreed. Lots of Xian Pharisees out there. Yes, the ‘Xian’ insult is deliberate, and is a distinction from Christian.
Mitt is not leading in MS or AL, period.
Rasmussen has been notoriously overstating Romney’s support this election cycle, and is doing so again.
Thank you for that. While I don’t completely agree with your conclusions, it is always good to see peoples reasoning.
What is your assessment of how would the picture change if either the speaker or the senator dropped out and took the VP slot?
Tag line shows my preference of which way around, of course!
Really, Mississippi... ROMNEY???
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.
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.