« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Today’s New Rasmussen Poll Results … Romney 29%, Santorum 21%, Newt 16%, Paul 12%, Huntsman 4%, Perry 4%.

By: mikeymike143 (Diary)  |  January 5th, 2012 at 01:00 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, coming off his photo finish with Mitt Romney in the Iowa caucuses, is now in second place among Republican voters in the race for the party’s 2012 presidential nomination.

The news for the rest of the field, save Mitt Romney, is less than stellar:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, taken the night after the caucuses, shows Romney again in first place with support from 29% of Likely Republican Primary Voters, followed by Santorum with 21%. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, is third with 16%. Texas Congressman Ron Paul, the third place finisher in Iowa, picks up 12% of the vote.

The two remaining Republicans in the race, Texas Governor Rick Perry and former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, each earn four percent (4%).

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/election_2012_republican_presidential_primary

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • mikeymike143

    and we are a major party of the republican party.

    • bzip

      If Tea Party people support a guy that loves ear marks, big spending, big gov’t opposed National Right to Work legislation, tec

      I don’t think the Tea Party people will support Santorum once they see this video of Santorum.

      Rick Santorum’s “Real Concerns” About The Tea Party
      http://youtu.be/vLQnoVpkyqc

      • chrysostom15

        His main point — which I agree with — is that earmarks are less than 1% of spending, and that our main budget problem is entitlements. I agree with that.

        As to libertarians — he is talking about people who think we should have no military. I agree with him and I think — as did our founding fathers — that we need some government.

        • barleycorn

          Most people who holler about earmarks don’t even know what they are.

          Earmarks can in fact be a good thing when they are used to take spending power out of the hands of unelected bureaucrats.

          • texashistorian

            I don’t know how you support a statement like “Most people who holler about earmarks don

          • thirstyboots

            are much more informed than you are about them.

            The problem with earmarks isn’t the amount of money that is appropriated.

            It’s a process issue. How they’re used to buy votes for bad legislation. How they’re used by incumbents to protect their seats and reward special interest groups that support them,

            Would the 2005 Transportation Bill that Santorum voted for be approved without earmarks? I doubt it.

            Once you take away earmarks, it’s much more difficult to get enough votes to pass those huge spending bills. The last debt ceiling deal wasn’t awesome, but as Jeff Flake said, it wouldn’t even be close to possible if rampant earmarking was still allowed.

        • JSobieski

          Why is it bad for people to exaggerate Conservative comments, but it is ok and good for conservatives to exaggerate Libertarian beliefs?

          Libertarians support limited government, but there is no libertarian that I am aware of who supports no government, not courts, no military, etc.

          A better question for Rick Santorum to answer is what the differences are at the federal level between a conservative who believes in government of limited enumerated powers and libertarians.

          There are plenty of libertarians out there who support the GWOT. There are many libertarians out there who are pro-life.

          The “want NO government” libertarian characterization is a poorly constructed straw man, so what Rick Santorum said is NOT true.

          • jakeofalltrades

            The better the government, the less it governs.

            You can’t achieve pure anarchy because the unwashed masses would be wallowing in their own feces and eating each other in a month – tops. (How long did OWS take?) And it’s best that government be powerful enough to prevent its usurpation and to defend the natural rights of man.

            I’m a minarchist, I guess.

          • JSobieski

            My ideal is few but well enforced and clearly written rules. Not rules that are capable of evaporating because society is temporarily problem free. Nor should the encounter of new problems mindlessly result in new rules.

            I also like federalism and the idea of communities to make their own rules.

            Anarchy is not an ideal—it is a threat that often results in statism.

          • jakeofalltrades

            Is for the general government. Communites are more like quasi-private prosperity cooperatives that you can enter and leave at any time, so I’m less concerned with them.

            Anarchy is unreachable because we are not angels. If we were, we would need no government. I mean “ideal” in the sense of “fantasy”.

            This also incorporates the notion that the less moral the society, the more government is needed.

            I agree with you in effect – a few rules always enforced. The minimum good government.

          • jakeofalltrades

            would be filled with people who do not wrong each other. That society needs no government.

            On the nano level, I have had employees who need no supervision because they will always get their job done on time and excel. I allowed them to set their own schedule and the number of hours they work a week and whether they come in the office or work from home, and they could be trusted.

            I have had others who proved untrustworthy and so had to stick to 9-5 Monday through Friday where I could watch them.

            The first case needed no government from me to ensure they were not stealing from the company. The second case did.

        • joshdunn

          We must curtail entitlement spending. Earmarks should also be done away with. But only after we’ve significantly reduced entitlement spending.

      • chrysostom15

        His main point — which I agree with — is that earmarks are less than 1% of spending, and that our main budget problem is entitlements. I agree with that.

        As to libertarians — he is talking about people who think we should have no military. I agree with him and I think — as did our founding fathers — that we need some government.

        • JSobieski

          just as stupid, false, and misleading as the “libertarians want no government” meme.

          Santorum should make peace with the libertarians and tea party types—not insult their positions by mischaracterizing them.

          After getting people to walk back the “Santorum is a statist” line last night, it is really annoying to see this kind of shallow drivel stated or defended.

          • jakeofalltrades

            If even one side courts morons, the other side is obliged for competitive reasons to follow suit.

          • JSobieski

            and one can court morons with truth.

            I have a choice to either dive in to shallow drivel or not, and I choose not.

            I expect my candidates to do the same.

    • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

      No two are alike, and not that you’ve done it, but I’m getting a little tired of hearing the tea party get the blame for candidate X not being the front runner. Tea partiers played a large part in electing conservatives in 2008, in getting people involved and educated, and in exposing the bad in both parties. I expect they’ll do the same this year. Yes, there were some missteps, but not nearly as many as have been made by the GOP.

      I can tell you that what I hear from various members of ours here in Birmingham is that there is support for each of the candidates. We’ve done a pretty good job of marginalizing the Paul supporters and keeping them on the sidelines instead of letting them take over the tea party or the local GOP. There is support for Perry among those who have read Fed Up and know his record. There is support for Gingrich along the lines of he is a known quantity, and they like what he’s saying, how he’s saying it, and what he accomplished as speaker. There is support for Santorum among social conservatives, but I just posted a blog on our website linking to a couple of redstate diaries about his fiscal record. There is very little support for Romney.

      Interesting as well is the list of delegates for the ALGOP. There are 55 committed to Gingrich, 40 to Romney, 34 to Paul, 6 to Perry, 4 to Santorum, and 2 to Cain. Our deadline is January 13. The process opened up about a month ago, so it will be interesting to see what happens after the debates this weekend as well as how Iowa affects things, if at all, before our deadline.

    • kestrel

      and the people who do it. I like Santorum fine, and I don’t believe the “big government” smears against him, but I don’t think he will have as wide an appeal in the general election as Perry. To me, the two men are pretty equal in their conservative and so-con bonafides (Santorum is more outspoken on some things, but I doubt their policies would differ much) but I don’t think Santorum’s plan of favoring America’s manufacturing base by giving them a zero percent corporate tax will make up for what I perceive as his lack of natural appeal to blue collar people. Maybe in person they like him, but he can’t speak to every person, or shake every hand in America.

      I don’t know what it is about Perry, but somehow it is just obvious that he has a profound respect for hard, physical labor and for the people who do it. And he has a proven record of job creation that they will like. Blue collar people are sick of their young adult kids not being able to get good jobs, and they are sick of making their families live lean with no overtime pay. In sum, they are sick of the Obama economy.

      By the way, Perry drops the corporate tax from 35 percent to 20 percent across the board (lower than Romney’s 25 percent, and not much above Santorum’s 17.5 percent for non-manufacturers). This will restore U.S. global competitiveness. But the workers don’t understand this so much as the boss does, so I don’t know how much of a selling point it is to the average person. To a lot of people, nothing will speak like the Texas job creation record under Perry, especially when contrasted to Obama’s dismal record.

      Memo to Perry: Put a welder in every one of those “hard hat” ads, especially a New England shipbuilder for the USN. :)

  • jrfromdallas

    The pumps and drops of these Candidates are ridiculous and makes us look like we’re idiots. I can’t believe Santorum jumped to 21%. Good gravy!

    • acat

      All of this has a simple explanation, jrfromdallas.

      Nobody likes Romney.

      Mew

      • gabs

        but that being the one thing Republicans who don’t vote for him have in common is playing into his favor. All that’s happening to him is that there’s a different guy at #2 every other week, not one guy gaining on him.

        • acat

          at 25%. Erick put up a piece today about Romney breaking 26% for the first time. (guess he picked up some Bachman supporters)

          Romney has not been “#1 with a different guy at #2″, Romney has been at #4 with different people at #1, #2, and #3.

          The people who have polled above Romney include, at various points, Bachman, Cain, Gingrich, Pawlenty, Perry, and now Santorum.

          Romney is not inevitable. He’s only likely because the anti-Romney vote hasn’t coalesced. Yet.

          Mew

          • gabs

            and as long as it’s a search for the anti-Romney instead of an actual cohesion behind someone on their own merit, he’s “safe.” As fervent as supporters of every other candidate are, that fervor is all spread out. The longer that is the case, the better for Romney.

          • acat

            And why I’m glad there’s a nice long lull between Florida and Super Tuesday.

            Santorum can’t last, the reason for his rise is too narrow and his negatives are too high. (he’s Huckabee only without the executive experience)

            That leaves a race for the majority of the party between Gingrich, Perry, and Crazy Uncle Ron.

            Mew

    • david1313

      People that say they will vote for Rick S. don’t even know him, or his baggage or policies. They just know he isn’t Mitt Romney. They see a 30 second ad and believe it has to be all true, it is on TV! And if it makes to the internet, well golly.

  • bonnman

    If Romney can’t pull off a commanding win in NH then he may fade fast come SC and Florida. I think Santorum would do better than Romney in the general too once he starts getting National attention which he is now.

    • texastaxpayer

      On the one hand I do want Romney to fail. On the other I don’t really think Santorum is a president. I guess time will tell the tale.

  • greyeagle

    does not have the money or organization to run a national campaign. He will fade after S. C there will be Romney, Newt (maybe) and Perry. Perry can beat Romney and then Obama.

    • mikeymike143

      and you can ask mike castle and charlie christ about our ability to do that. both were heavy favorites that had plenty of funding and impressive organizations, but tea partiers put both of them on the sidelines.

      • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

        And the Christine O’Donnell experience is a good example when we’re talking Santorum. He’s about the same caliber candidate.

      • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

        You cite a “national” survey. In fact, the important numbers are out of New Hampshire as reported by The Hill and they show Santorum dropping into fourth place behind Newt at 8%.

        Santorum is going to get handed his head in NH on Tuesday and with the added exposure his numbers will crater.

      • Scope

        have the support of the Tea Parties, until he didn’t. It will be the same with Santorum.

  • bzip

    To the topic of the “national” poll – it doesn’t hold any water unless the media wants to spin it over and over and over to build a false surge for Santorum.

    How many times have we seen various candidates surge in the national polls and then come down. Do I have to remind those that Newt surged nationally and even in Iowa before he was hit with reality.

    I can see in very soon, right after Santorum gets his rear end beaten in NH by a landslide his “surge” will have officially ended.

    What really matters is state polling and for those states that are getting close like NH and shortly SC. Yhis nationally polling is a waste

  • mikeymike143

    there is no doubt about that. but santorum will do well in both south carolina and florida.

  • lineholder

    At least not where SC is concerned.

    The state has faced its share of challenges during the past year, with the situation pertaining to the NLRB probably being one of the most well-recognized. Jobs and protecting their status as a right-to-work state are major issues to them. And they won’t respond well to Santorum’s position on that issue. Not at all.

  • acat

    Willard needs to win ugly – to the point that the slaughter rule gets mentioned. He’s spent the most time there out of all candidates, and has spent quite a bit of money as well.

    An “Asian F”, i.e. an A-, a stronger-than-expected finish by Gingrich or Huntsman or both would further discredit Romney’s inevitability.

    Romney will win NH, no doubt in my mind. The question is whether he will win and lose at the same time.

    Mew

  • mikeymike143

    but i wholeheartedly agree with you that if the race somehow ends up close its a romney loss.

  • acat

    It just needs for Romney to not show that he can clearly swat away the riff raff, as George H.W. Bush was unable to swat away Ross Perot, and as Al Gore was unable to swat away Ralph Nader.

    In short, a finish that makes it clear that Romney’s not inevitable. Something like this:

    40% Romney
    12% Gingrich
    10% Huntsman
    10% Paul
    8% Perry
    5% Roemer
    5% other

    Mew

  • David123

    Santorum’s policy is to leave Right-to-Work up to the individual states.

    http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2010/12/rick-santorum-in-des-moines-discusses-right-to-work-social-conservatism-and-education/

    If the whole country is Right-to-Work, why would a company build a new factory in SC instead of merely expanding their existing factory in Seattle? If you want a job in SC, having some non-growth union-shop states out there probably helps your job prospects.

    Santorum is not going appoint leftists to NLRB like Obama has done, so I don’t see his stance, which actually improves job-growth in SC, hurting him in SC.

  • lineholder

    then tell me ho South Carolinians will respond

    http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/01/04/this-wont-play-well-in-south-carolina/

  • David123

    The anti-Santorum solution is to make the whole country RTW. So if Seattle becomes RTW under the anti-Santorum policy, why should a Seattle company build a new factory in SC when they can just build it in RTW Seattle?

    The Obama solution is to prevent companies from starting factories in RTW states – might have something to do with unemployment increasing since Obama became president.

    The Santorum solution is to let the states decide on RTW. SC has an advantage over those Union-Shop states in job creation, under Santorum’s policy. If SC voters vote for self-interest, they’ll vote for Santorum.

  • lineholder

    he’s toast. No matter what he may say about his positions now.

    And any derogatory comments he may have about DeMint…what was Santorum thinking? Just because Santorum may be an earmark “hog” doesn’t mean every other Conservative has to agree with him! DeMint has a fairly significant level of respect in the state. For Santorum to say word one against DeMint is like attacking the hometown war hero!