« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Oh MY! Obama Trails Santorum, but Leads Romney in Four Key States

By: quill67 (Diary)  |  March 17th, 2012 at 02:25 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

A stunning new poll by Rasmussen:

Santorum leads the president 48% to 44% in the so-called Core Four states.

BUT….

Obama remains ahead of Romney 46% to 42%

Does this Mark the Beginning of the End for Romney’s Campaign?

For a candidate whose main base of support comes from Republicans who believe he is best able to beat Obama, but have never been enthusiastic about him as a candidate; this news is simply devastating. Republicans supporting Romney to beat President Obama, have tolerated many of Romney’s moderate views and liberal actions as governor.

However, satisfaction with the leading candidate for the Republican nomination has never been great. Many conservatives in the Republican party are deeply dissatisfied with Romney as their potential nominee. Concerns have been raised not just over his skills as a candidate, his record, but also over his wooden, John Kerry like personality.

Economic conservatives distrust Romney partly because Romney as governor worked with Ted Kennedy to push through a government directed health plan in Massachusetts that mandated not only that everyone must purchase health insurance (the individual mandate) but that also directed what must be covered by these insurance policies.

Social conservatives are particularly distrustful of Romney perhaps explaining Santorum’s rising support. In particular, abortion opponents question Romney’s action as governor that forced Catholic hospitals to provide abortion procedures over the objection of his state’s health agency that had determined Catholic hospitals were within the law to not provide abortions.

Illinois: A Test for Romney’s Strength?

We may get an indication of the damage these new polls have created as early as Tuesday when Illinois votes in the Republican primary. Romney had been expected to win by a margin of at least 20 points but recent polls only show him up on Santorum by only 11%. A smaller than expected Romney victory may be yet another indicator that the Republican race is far from over and may yet experience another lead change.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • On_the_Right

    That is a fascinating poll there by Rasmussen. I’d like to see some state-by-state breakdowns, both by Rasmussen and some other polling firms.

    Full disclosure: I voted Gingrich in the Georgia primary and prefer Santorum to Romney. But with that said, it will take several political miracles for Romney to be denied the nomination at this point.

    • LibertyWins

      is Newt dropping out.

      Which he better do after Louisiana!

      • Juggernaut

        as the Senator said he’d consider Newt for Veep which gives us a policy wonk who can work the gov books and serve as the bully pulpit in the senate when needed.

        50% said they’d shift to Santorum if Newt drops out, others would shift if the momentum swings Ricks way. The race is not over till after Texas. After that its blue states and squish voters.

  • jdaman

    Santorum is leading Obama in my own home state of Virginia! YES! Romney may have won Virginia by default, but Republicans here still prefer Santorum!

  • Kyle-MI

    The four core states are FL, VA, OH, and NC. Rasmussen has not polled NC individually as far as I can find. A PPP poll has them at 46/49 R/O and 44/49 S/O. The rest are the most recent Rasmussen polls for the particular state.
    FL 43/46 R/0 43/45 S/O
    VA 43/49 R/O 43/51 S/O
    OH 41/45 R/O and the report just says that Santorum and Obama are tied but does not give a number.

    To me, doesn’t look like Santorum has any significant advantage except in OH. With these poll numbers don’t see how Santorum leads Obama over a composite four state poll. With the way the Electoral College works, I don’t see how a composite poll says much of anything.

  • redmymind

    Who’d settle for a carbon copy of the original deal???

  • quill67

    I was going to disagree but over the long term I’m not sure how different they would really be (To be clear, I think Obama would purposely move us left. Romney would do nothing to stop our falling leftward):

    Romney claims he would repeal ObamaCare..but then says that in addition to Medicare he would provide money to the states for the “uninsured” How long until Washington tells the states what and who they must cover to get their tax money back?

    Would Romney reallly appoint more conservative judges? Does he have a track record of doing so?

    Romney would control spending more than BHO (so better in this regard)

    Romney does respect the free market but I’m not sure he can sell this view to others (he doesn’t seem convinced himself honestly)

    Romney would be far better on national defense.

    Romney does not have contempt for America and Americans.

    So maybe a better analogy would be Obama intends to crash our national plane on the LEFT.

    Romney does not intend to crash our plane on the LEFT but would not take the actions needed to stop it.

    • Viet71

      Impossible to predict. His flip-flopping proves the point.

      I trust him far more than Obama on all levels. He’s an open book (no skeletons). Obama is a tightly closed book, for good reason.

  • quill67

    This is a serious question for Romney supporters. If Romney does turn out to be unelectable what would you do then?

    a) Would you try to get a brokered convention because you don’t like Santorum or Newt?

    b) Support Santorum thinking he would go down to bitter defeat and stop social conservative candidates in the future

    c) Support Gingrich knowing (in your view) that he will lose but at least put up a good fight

    d) Support Gingrich in the hope of getting a brokered convention so you could get Governor Chris Christie or some other candidate

    • clintonformccain

      This is a serious question for Romney supporters. If Romney does turn out to be unelectable what would you do then?

      I would kick the dog, cuss a little bit, hide under the covers, and then — the next morning — check to see if the Republicans took control of the Senate.

      We aren’t going to know if Romney is electable until election day.

    • David123

      I thought Romney’s supposed advantage was his “electability”. If Santorum is as or more “electable”, why not just support him?

      Some here have criticized Santorum for his past support of Specter and some of his “team player” votes, but I would think that being a team player would make Santorum acceptable to the “establishment”.

      • snowshooze

        That is your answer. Santorum is not a drop more or less electable.
        But he is seriously short on establishment.

      • clintonformccain

        I’ve always been turned off by Santorum’s constant harping on Christian Coalition hot button so-con issues. It’s so last century, 90s style politics and, frankly, not one that has broad-based appeal.

    • honoraryintern

      Delegates can’t vote for someone that’s not on the ballot. No caucus will send delegates that can’t be heard/received.

      http://www.redstate.com/honoraryintern/2012/03/21/delegates-as-free-agents-or-no-nomination-for-ron-and-newt-at-the-convention/

      As of today it really is a 2 man race!

  • clintonformccain

    These polls are just silly. All dems are going to pick Obama. The Republicans who support one candidate or the other in the nomination battle aren’t stupid. They’ll pick Obama to make the guy they are against look bad, even though that is not reflective of what they would actually do in November.

    • texastaxpayer

      We are now to believe they mean nothing? Convenient yes?

      LOL…

      • avagreen

        nt

  • elizaliza

    Rasmussen predicted on November 1st that McCain would win Pennsylvania by 4 points, when he actually lost it by about 10 points. As was fully predictable.

    SANTORUM winning any swingstate from Obama??? Git real. I like fairy tales with Happy Endings just like anybody, but this is simply too much.

    Santorum wants a theocracy, which is why he sometimes comes off as a liberal, since he’s all about that whole Christian taking-care-of-others-thing. Liberals won’t see him like that, though, they will only see is misogynist side, ignore the rest.

    If we’re gonna win this, we’ve got to stop believing in these Rasmussen sagas.

    • Dave_A

      Santorum isn’t really any ‘further out’ on social issues than W Bush or Reagan….

      He supports the GOP party line as it has been since the 80s…

      As for Rasmussen, up until 2008 they were the most accurate pollsters out there.

      • dpmaine

        It is somewhat hard to tell how far out he would go in an executive position because of a relatively thin record compared to either Pres. GW Bush or Pres. Reagan. Both of the former Presidents had extensive executive history as Governors of large states.

        Sen. Santorum does not have the sort of executive record that makes it easy to tell how far, if at all, he would pursue his personal religious convictions, or to what extent he would seek to rebalance the Church/State gulf that has opened up in the last 20-25 years.

        The only thing I have read that concerns me is his promise to aggressively pursue obscenity charges against those who distribute pornography to adults who are actively seeking it. The is “mainstream” pornography – available at hotels, in the privacy of their own home via the internet, and the like. Although perhaps morally obnoxious, pornography should be the ultimate litmus test for conservatives: private, consensual creation of pornography for the consumption by other private, consensual adults, that conforms to the contemporary standards of the community [i.e. the internet] should continue unimpeded by the Federal government.

    • Dave_A

      That Santorum might take PA from Obama, for example… Same for OH.

    • joeydavis

      I have no doubt that Santorum would fair far better in the 4 states mentioned than Romney would.

      North Carolina and Virginia have very strong evangelical populations. Their election outcomes are almost entirely dependent on socially conservative Dems in southwestern VA and eastern NC. I quite frankly don’t see Romney winning or Santorum losing either state.

      Ohio is a little more union and a little more urban than those two but again it’s rural conservative blue collar Democrats in the Appalachain region with evangelicals along the Kentucky border against metro Cleveland. Santorum ran far stronger in the Republican regions than Romney did. I’d have to say Ohio would also tilt more to Santorum than Romney. I’d give Santorum even odds in Ohio and leans Obama against Romney.

      Florida… tough one to call. It could break either way with Santorum being very strong in the panhandle and Romney playing well in the northeastern retiree sections down state. If I had to wager, I’d say Romney is a slight favorite there and Santorum’s even money.

      Incidently the Ohio argument would also hold true in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Pennsylvania (where Santorum would run up big numbers in the Pittsburgh arean).

      Looking at the race state by state, it’s very conceivable, maybe even likely that Santorum is a stronger candidate than Romney.

  • APA Guy

    But who cares? Let’s cherry-pick the polls we like and run with them so we can feel better about a candidate who will get whomped in November.

    Meh…

    • quill67

      As you know, the President is picked by the electoral college. Romney might lose NY and Mass by 10 pts. instead of 20 pts but that does not help win the election. So looking at the swing states is important.

      • dpmaine

        Is it possible to construct an electoral scenario where a candidate defeats the incumbent while having a 7-8 point national popular vote deficit?

        Absolutely – there are dozens of ways to cook that one up. Pres. Obama could run up huge margins in a few states – Mass., California, Illinois, etc, and then squeak under in all of his key swing States.

        But at this stage of the campaign, we need to be seeing the GOP candidate close to even to have a realistic chance of winning the electoral college.

        PS: The implications for the country – of having a Republican president with a huge negative mandate (7 or 8 point loss in popular vote) – would be very bad. The next President will need to do thing that will not be popular. Massive entitlement reform, massive spending reductions – not just in the rate, but real reductions, plus very likely some sort of revenue increases – elimination of deductions, elimination of various exemptions or a vast revamp of the tax code. Both of these paths – spending reform and revenue reform – are going to be endlessly derided in the professional government class as well as the media class. We know that.

        The GOP candidate needs not just a win, but a mandate.

        • Filibuster Keaton

          I’d rather have Santorum lose the popular vote and still win than have Romney lose without even North Carolina and Georgia.

      • APA Guy

        I was actually paying attention in POLS 103 :)

        But by and large, when a candidate is losing by that large of a margin nationally, he/she is doomed to get squashed when the Electoral College tally rolls in.

        • joeydavis

          Then you would understand what you’re looking at when you see an incumbent/challenger race in March. If you did you’d know that incumbent elections are generally referendums on the incumbent. Undecideds are “waiting to meet” the challenger at this point. If the election were truly held today those 9% would not be undecided, they’d support the challenger overwhelmingly.

          Also typically the challenger # will be “hard” while the incumbent # will be soft. A lot of voters are indifferent to the incumbent and the challenger is largely unknown. Until they turn their election ears on in mid to late October they’ll support the incumbent.

          At this point polls showing Obama in the 47-50 range are terrifying to team Obama, regardless of whether the opponent is polling at 47 or 42 or even 35%.

  • Viet71

    I know, I know, Reagan. Reagan won because in the fall of 1980 he sold himself directly to the American people. He wouldn’t be allowed to do that today. His handlers and the media and the PC police would see to that, along with the likes of those who bitterly opposed Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas.

    The only Republican candidate who stands a reasonable chance of winning the WH today is a candidate who clever enough to dodge the slings and arrows of the Left and win the votes of women and indies.

    Romney’s not great, far from it. But he’s the best shot the Republicans have this year, mainly because he’s not scary to women or indies.

    • texastaxpayer

      Reagan wouldn’t stand a chance today I am afraid. Let’s face it Romney and his smear machine would have people convinced he was a liberal….. ;)

      • Viet71

        Romney’s a lot more intelligent and better educated (by training and experience). He looks like a dufus here on RS. The Leftists fear him, and for good reason.

        He’s not a fundamentally bad or evil person, just a somewhat tone-deaf pol. I suspect he’d make a pretty good president as modern presidents go.

        • texastaxpayer

          Right now Romney depends on two things for his scorched earth campaign strategy to work. First a huge money and organizational advantage. He is unlikely to have this advantage with Obama and his activist backers. Second he needs a complacent media. He only gets away with bald faced lies like “I never advocated a nation wide mandate” if the media turns a blind eye. I doubt you believe this will be the case against Obama.

          I don’t think the liberals fear Romney at all. In fact he is practically tailor made for the Obama social justice anti-wall street strategy he has been previewing.

        • joeydavis

          The Romney smear machine to Obama will resemble the Gingrich smear machine to Romney in Florida. We know how well that turned out….

          Challenger campaigns have a very poor history of success going negative. Negative campaigning is most effective when used by incumbents to drive down voter turnout and those those more inclined to vote against the incumbent.

          Think about it Romney is the most widely known candidate to Republican primary voters and his message has been “Yeah I stink, but I smell way better than these guys”. As a result he wins marginally and turnout is abysmal.

          Why is it I always seem to be teaching Intro Campaign Politics to Rombots???

          • elizaliza

            will sit this one out, and wait for Rubio or Jeb or Cristie. Latest polls aren’t exactly inspiring.

  • trickamsterdam

    Can you Romney people at some point look at the rational evidence and understand that he is unelectable? I’m serious.

    Women and indies won’t like him so much once it’s pounded in by MSM surrogates that his Grandfather had four wives in Utah and took a fifth in Mexico and that the Mormon religion didn’t like Blacks when Romney was over 30 and a Bishop…nor will being depicted as a Wall St parasite help his cause.

    In addition the Base won’t turn out because of his record on abortion. I know you think it will but it won’t (understand if he only gets 97-98% of the base he’s done).

    I mean Nader only got 2.75% in 2000 and you can see how many eggs that broke to make the omelet.

    • Viet71

      And — as long as we’re throwing around opinions — think he CAN beat Obama. That’s what counts for me. Right now.

      • garfieldjl

        Seriously, I would rather stand by my principles and lose than sacrifice my principles in order to win, because winning becomes pointless at that point.

    • elizaliza

      … for romeny, because they’re seen as Very Religious Christians, like that interesting uncle you might have. Sure, some might hate on Mormons even on this site, but the stark majority doesn’t give one hoot about him being a Mormon.

      • elizaliza

        i did not mean to imply that mitt has multiple wives himself.

  • elizaliza

    … i mean, it’s ridiculous that folk are gonna stay home because they don’t like him, that he flip-flopped on abortion, the enviroment, individual mandates etc.

    Just remember that this isn’t 2010, and Dems are gonna be fired up as well, especially if Scotus rules against Obamacare.

    • ceili_dancer

      …

      • ceili_dancer

        n/t