Santorum Appears to Have Momentum Going into Tuesday Night
The Des Moines Register is out with its final poll before the Iowa caucus on Tuesday night. Its survey shows Mitt Romney ahead by 2 points over Ron Paul with Rick Santorum in third place. The poll, reflecting interviews with 602 likely voters (mostly Republicans, with some independents), was taken over four days from December 27 to December 30.
The results of the Des Moines Register poll almost exactly match the results of an NBC-Marist poll and a Rasmussen poll, each taken on a single day within the four-day window and a CNN/Time survey taken a few days earlier. Two other surveys by Insider Advantage and Public Policy Polling (PPP) that were taken in the same time frame have similar results, but show Newt Gingrich a bit stronger and Rick Santorum a bit weaker.
The leading themes of the last week’s news stories on the Iowa race have been that Gingrich has been badly hurt by an assault of negative ads from Ron Paul and a pro-Romney PAC, and that Santorum, who has worked the state the hardest, has finally begun to emerge as the favorite of the state’s evangelical Christians, generally thought to be 40-50% of those who will show up on Tuesday night. In addition, there have been more sustained attacks on Ron Paul for his foreign policy isolationism and for the racist content of some newsletters that went out under his name over a decade back.
Signs of Santorum’s emergence include endorsements by some leading evangelicals, larger crowds, and the first negative ads or criticism directed against him by opponents, most notably from Rick Perry, who is competing with Santorum for some of the same voters.
The Des Moines Register poll, in an unusual announcement, revealed that Santorum was much stronger in interviews that were conducted on the final two days of the four-day survey period than in the first two days. Santorum placed second to Romney in that later period. The overall results were Romney at 24%, Paul at 22%, and Santorum at 15%. But in the final two days, Romney was at 24%, Paul was down to 18%, and Santorum was at 21%. If the same number of interviews were conducted in the first two days as the last two, that would mean Paul actually led at 26% in the first two days, and Santorum was well down the list at 9% for these days. Given that only 602 interviews were conducted in the four-day period, and the survey at that size had a margin of error of 4%, it is easy to read too much into the apparent dramatic upswing for Santorum in the final two days of the survey, when perhaps 300 interviews were conducted and the margin of error was even higher.
Several of the other surveys mentioned earlier all showed Santorum in the mid teens earlier in the week. It is a good bet that Santorum’s numbers have been climbing all week, but a move from 9% to 21% from one two-day period to the next is highly unlikely.
The Des Moines Register’s final survey before the Iowa caucus has had a good track record in recent presidential cycles. The breakdown of the final two day results may have been an attempt to keep the paper’s track record intact of spotting late trends. In 2004, their final poll showed Howard Dean and Rich Gephardt dropping off , and John Kerry and John Edwards rising. In 2008, the paper’s survey showed Barack Obama jumping into the lead.
Santorum’s single-minded focus on winning in Iowa is reminiscent of John Edwards’ campaign in the state in 2008. Edwards, competing with two far better-funded campaign machines — Hillary Clinton’s and Obama’s — hoped a surprise Iowa win would knock back Obama and make Edwards the principal alternative to Clinton for the remainder of the race.
Only in Iowa did Edwards even register in the top tier in the polls, and he counted on momentum from a victory in the Hawkeye State to carry over to New Hampshire. Santorum barely registers in national polls, or in any state poll other than Iowa (except for his home state of Pennsylvania). In New Hampshire, where Mitt Romney has led in every survey, Santorum is in sixth place in the RCP average, with just over 3% support. For Santorum to emerge, he would likely need to win in Iowa and have Perry and Bachmann drop out after poor performances there. In New Hampshire, it might not help much, since evangelical voters represent a far smaller share of all GOP and independent voters than they do in Iowa. When the primary cycle moves South, Gingrich is likely to be stronger among conservative voters than Santorum.
Santorum has other issues to deal with. While he likes to crow about his two Senate victories in a blue state, he lost by 18% as an incumbent in 2006. I am unfamiliar with any incumbents who lost by more in a Senate race. Santorum also has a problem with gays. While Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin says he is swimming against the gay rights tide, the evidence suggests worse than that. Santorum has compared consensual gay sex to beastiality, as practices that have no right to privacy and can be regulated by the states. He also rudely responded to a gay soldier at an earlier debate, failing even the common courtesy of thanking the Marine for his service while referring to gays serving in the military (as they have in many countries, including Israel) as social experimentation in the armed forces.
A little known fact is that the exit polls in 2008 showed that gays were one of the few groups in which GOP performance improved from 2004 to 2008, reaching 31% in the Obama/McCain race, 10% higher than the support for McCain among Jewish Americans, and about the same as McCain’s support level among Hispanics and young voters aged 18-29.
It is difficult to imagine that the Republicans would nominate a racist candidate in 2012, and it is hard to see how nominating someone who may be homophobic is any better.
At this point, it is likely that Romney will finish no worse than third in Iowa, and could win. But he does not need to win in Iowa to win in New Hampshire, or to stay in the race for the long haul. Ron Paul, with his dedicated supporters, is also likely to be around for a long time, whether he finishes first, second, or third in Iowa. To the extent Paul finishes third, he may be less the focus of attacks from his rivals, particularly in New Hampshire where there are many libertarians. Jon Huntsman is banking on New Hampshire as his breakout state, but he is still way behind Romney after many days of campaigning there. Michele Bachmann will likely be the next one to end her campaign, since she is now below 10% in some Iowa surveys and may finish a disappointing sixth in a state where she once had high hopes of winning. Rick Perry has little chance to be nominated if he finishes no better than 4th in Iowa. Newt Gingrich will likely continue on, even if he finishes 5th in Iowa, though a weak performance in Iowa will badly damage his numbers in the upcoming states.
At the moment, there is a little more clarity in the race than was the case a week or two ago. Rick Santorum will have an opportunity to consolidate the evangelical vote in Iowa, and perhaps a few other states, much as Mike Huckabee did in 2008, when he won Iowa. Ron Paulis facing more scrutiny, which may be putting a ceiling on his numbers. And Mitt Romney, steady as you go, seems to be moving forward and remains the favorite for the nomination.
Also, PJ Media Is Going to Iowa.
Really? You can’t be against the Lawrence v. Texas extension of Griswold and be a mainstream conservative now? Being against gay marriage and open homosexuality in the military makes you a bigot now? When did the 5% of the GOP that agrees with you about that decide to exile the other 95% from the party?
You sure you’re on the right team?
Yes, being a bigot makes you a bigot, TB. 95% of conservatives are not anti-gay, and even if they are, they’re still wrong. Consensus doesn’t makes something right. There is nothing “evil” about having a genetic predisposition to be with a member of your own gender.
Nobody said 95% of Republicans were against “gays”, he wrote specifically against “gay marriage” and “open homosexuality in the military”.
Nobody used the word “evil”, except you.
Similarly, the only one displaying bigoted behavior is you.
“Genetic predisposition” to members of your own gender has not been proven (so either you are lying or misinformed) and that is irrelevant anyway. I am a man who is “genetically predisposed” towards adult females but that doesn’t make it ok for me to have sex with anything in a skirt. If fact, if I were to do that, such activity would be evil. And make no mistake, while feeling sexually attracted to members of the same gender, whatever the root cause of that disordered orientation, is not evil, acting on it most certainly is.
You know what else is evil? Using calumny against anyone whose opinion doesn’t jibe with yours, i.e. calling everyone who disagrees with you a “bigot.” That is evil.
There should be a rule where the first person to use the word bigot in an argument gets chained until they can back up the statement.
Meridian I am against gay marriage and tenativly for open gay service in the military provided they don’t politicize their service. It’s the right for every citizen who passes the physical to serve in the military in some capacity.
I’m also against uberfeminism, and affirmative action.
That’s not bigoted. That’s not buying into a particular idea that is essentially political in nature. If that’s all it takes it be considered a bigot then you need to get your head straight.
Rick Santorum’s social conservatism makes him virtually unelectable in the general election. He may be trying to reposition himself via economic/jobs issues now, but his rhetoric regarding gays and gay marriage are here to stay.
That’s the problem with mixing your religion with your politics. Also, the hypocrisy behind his claims to respect the dignity of the human person while basically standing for the government prying into your bedroom doesn’t sit well with most Americans. Even those who are religiously against homosexual practice think twice about someone who wants to essentially legislate what two consenting adults may or may not do in the privacy of their homes.
Given Santorum’s beliefs, as a woman I’d be nervous about a guy who probably would have no issue with making contraception illegal. The Catholic Church would chain all women to the kitchen sink and only allow them to lie down for breeding purposes. Their take on women as some kind of necessary evil, as walking incubators, is very, very creepy.
Oops, don’t know why this ended up here — will put it at the end of the thread of general comments. This wasn’t in response to Carn or OP of this particular sub-thread, sorry!
I’m sorry, Santorum is OK, but he’s not, IMHO, presidential material. Of course, he’d be better than Obama, but that’s not the only criteria, or at least it shouldn’t be. We need a president who knows what needs to be done to turn this train around and knows how to get it done.
Unless the Democrats get shellaced, they’re going to be like a wounded animal fighting and screaming to keep “their” healthcare legislation as intact as it can be, they’ll be singing the same tunes and fighting the conservative agenda every step of the way, through the Senate, just like they are now.
To me, Newt is still the guy who will recognize the problems and will get together with the leaders of both parties and get stuff done. The funny part is everyone knows this, which is why they’re scared. Newt may be the only guy who can come up with the tough choices, make the tough choices, and sell the tough choices to the American people. Obama’s made the tough choices, you have to give him credit for that. The problem is they were the wrong choices, not only that, but he could never sell them, they were so bad.
I do wish that this statement, while technically correct, was a bit more carefully explained. Santorum did NOT say after Lawrence that gay sex was the same as bestiality [note correct spelling of this word], adultery, polygamy, and other sexual morality offenses in terms of the behavior. He was making the point that if Lawrence‘s logic was logically and consistently followed, no law prohibiting sexual behavior between consenting adults would be constitutional.
Relatively few Americans are actually in agreement with making bestiality, polygamy, or adultery lawful (and these remains crimes in a number of states today). The reason is simple: most Americans agree that moral disapproval is a legitimate reason for a state to prohibit a private, consensual act. Most Americans just don’t think homosexuality should be prohibited.
If Lawrence‘s logic is correct, all sorts of really repulsive actions are going to have to be made legal, contrary to strong majority support. What happened with Lawrence was that a very powerful minority group with great sympathy from judges, the entertainment business, and many younger people, was given a special exemption from the broader principle that states may criminalize behavior because it is contrary to majority standards.
Nicely stated, but you’re parsing here. The truth is Santorum has had a problem with his attitude toward gays for some time. He’s such an extreme social conservative he just can’t handle it, as with the Marine in Baehr’s post. This kind of social conservatism is a dead on loser for the Republicans in a national election. Sanotrum comes off as a busybody and a prig. Wait until the Dems start reprising the Terri Schiavo affair! It’s easy to predict Iowa will be Sanotrum’s high point.
“Gay” is a politics. “Homosexual” is a sexual preference.
So Santorum has a politics and it’s not the “gay” one. So what?
I’m not sure that being a social conservative is THAT much of a loser. Even in California, a majority of voters disapproved of same-sex marriage. I would agree that it should not be anyone’s main focus…which would completely discredit those primary voters who are completely obsessed with this issue: Log Cabin Republicans.
Its worse than that for those who hate on socons. Prop 8 was more popular than REpublicanism in California.
Time to kick those libertarians out of the party. They’re dragging down the vote!
Maybe the tide APPEARS to be turning on gay issues because no one makes a vigorouse pro-traditional marriage argument anymore. Santorum is just what we need. The idea that two men could/should adopt a child is repulsive to our instincts as human beings as well as the natural law.
You seem to have a bigger problem with gays than Santorum, especially by the way you purposefully mischaracterize Santorum’s position. Also, it is about time we start thinking about the consequences of gay marriage, and they are myriad. One especially dreadful one is the prospect of turning every believer in the tenets of the Catholic, Jewish, and Muslim faiths into bigots worthy of societal scorn. Of course, that is just what will happen if gay marriage becomes mainstream; schools will teach children that gay marriage is the same as real marriage, and those who dissent, on a religious basis, will be condemned by teachers, peers, etc.
And by the way, the gay population makes up about 2-3% of the populace. I wouldn’t lose too much sleep over losing support in that demographic.
Hispanics, on the other hand, are a different story.
However, support is much larger than the 2-3% that are actively homosexual or bisexual. Partly this is because of a very effective propaganda campaign that has been going in in the entertainment industry ever since Hal Holbrook’s That Certain Summer (1972), and partly because much of America is very reluctant to take a position against sexual immorality of any sort. If homosexuality (which used to be called by statute “the unspeakable crime against nature”) is okay, then adultery, premarital sex, promiscuity, wife swapping, group sex, and all the rest of how much of America now operates, is just peachy keen by comparison.
It is maddening when anyone (candidates and voters, alike) zero in on issues like gay rights. Hello???? National security, anyone? Big picture, please.
Most of the media and both major party establishments want to distract the public from evaluating the candidates’ positions on the economy and rising foreign threats. For some reason, social wedge and character issues come to dominate every election. Meanwhile, our national debt goes up, the government grows without pause, and our liberties are further curtailed.
No kidding Sarah, the curtain’s been drawn and exposed identity politics for it’s corrupt divisive impact. None of the special interests are particularly special to me.
I’ll just go ahead and say it…”I don’t think about you! I don’t care about you! I don’t care about your weiney little pet peeves, personal problems and perversions! Screaming in the streets induces nausea, not awareness!
OWS and special interest; I vomit on thee!”
I hope that Rick Santorum does win in Iowa. Why? Because it will force Romney to work harder. I think Romney thinks that he is “owed” this, that he can just buy his way to the nomination. Romney may still win, but he has to prove to us, especially conservatives, that he deserves it. If not, candidates like Santorum will keep on winning, especially in conservative states.
Rick Santorum, despite being a generally good fellow and an acceptably conservative Republican, has a major demerit that would surely tell heavily against him in the general election: He’s a Catholic who takes Catholic teaching on sexual matters seriously, and is up-front about it.
The Left and its media handmaidens will use that against him as viciously as you can imagine. They’ll parody his famous statement against same-sex marriage — “If you have a right to that, you have a right to anything” — as an indication that he’d promote legislation against homosexuals. They’ll do the same with his quite sensible stance against open homosexuality in the military. They’ll attack his convictions about the ugly trends in contemporary, no-fault divorce. They’ll imply that a President Santorum would install government-monitored cameras in every bedroom in America.
At this time, a conservative who takes any sort of public position on sexual or sex-related matters has a giant vulnerability. He won’t be allowed to distinguish between his personal preferences and commitments, and his political intentions. And he’ll likely suffer defeat by virtue of being honest and traditionally inclined.
I’m a Catholic, by the way.
Mr Baehr, can you please explain why any sane-of-mind conservative would object to Santorium’s views on homosexuality ?
Liberals (cultural marxists actually) advancing gay rights know exactly what they are doing; or at least the clever ones do and don’t give a jot about queers.
Conservatives who view homosexuality as normal are much more dangerous. They really believe the new gospel. Deep down they are like zombies, their brains taken over by the liberal demon. Their grand-parents would not recognise them.
Better to have 4 more years of the real unaldulterated thing than 4 years of the same but under camouflage.
The core problem is that homosexuality has been given victim status by the mainstream media, and Republicans already have so many things going against them: they support national security; some restraint on spending and government regulation; opposition to abortion. Adding disapproval (and just disapproval is enough) of homosexuality is just one more obstacle to getting mainstream media acceptance. In a country that excuses sexual misconduct of all sorts, homosexuality is just one more little issue.
Sorry, I understand your reasoning but it is wrong.
Homosexuality is no “little issue”.
Tolerance for it in the public, political discourse is for the social body the equivalent of an aids infection. And will lead to the same fatal outcome, which btw was the goal from the very start.
Second, if you want to have any chance of saving your country, the last thing you want is a president whose program is approved by its worst enemy, the mainstream media.
Now’s the time for Bachmann, Perry and yes, Gingrich voters and yes, even Paul voters to get behind Santorum. Only way to stop Romney and offer the general public a clear conservative alternative to Obama in November.
There’s good logic in what you say, ricpic. Romney is the establishment’s man, and if he should prevail nothing will be done to staunch the bleeding of our founding freedoms. Mr. Gay Friendly Romney doesn’t seem to care that the free exercise of religion will become as extinct as the dodo bird once DOMA disappears and same-sex marriage has the sanction of the law; moreover, traditional marriage will suffer further debasement, the family will suffer irretrievably, and you can kiss good-bye forever America’s once decent Western culture.
There will be nothing remaining of it for virtuous young men to give their lives to protect — what, a form of government that sanctions every evil and punishes the good? May as well let the country be overrun by today’s barbarian equivalent; but pardon me, that’s fast becoming us!
you MUST see this! rick perry’s putdown of mike allen, politico. bit.ly/ueCY4u
Santorum is nothing but a socio-con, but even worse, he has an IQ that’s about the same as room temperature. On top of that, he got creamed the last time he ran for Senate in Pennsylvania, a seat he could have kept except for his tin ear. People here didn’t want to hear about abortion or Teri Schiavo, and neither does the general electorate in 2012.
I hope Iowa doesn’t embarrass itself by putting this half-witted schmuck in the top 3.
We go farther into the hole by about 2 trillion dollars each year (defecit). We are already 15 trillion in debt. If we liquidate everyone’s assets and give those assets to the government we still will not pay back the 15 trillion debt! Only 1 candidate wants to do anything about that, his name is Ron Paul. So, keep talking about gay this, drugs that, terrorists here and there. Once our economy implodes what will you talk about then, other than how long the soup line is?
Get a clue…..Ron Paul 2012.
It would be nice if you had a less abhorrent candidate pushing the idea of fiscal responsibility. I contributed to Ron Paul’s 1988 presidential election campaign. Then I received the Ron Paul Survival Newsletter that we now find out wasn’t really written by Ron Paul, that he did not know what was in it, and yet made him vast quantities of money. It must be wonderful to not be responsible for stuff that goes out with your name on it.
The circular firing squad of anti-romneys have knocked each other out. To see a Ron Paul jump indicates we’ve reached the bottom of the barrel. I like Santorum, a good man, but destined to fail also. Well, I’ve about had it. Let’s just settle in and hope Romney can hold his own in the debates. Romney has an uneven cadence, and stutters on occasion.
Hopefully, the American people are fed up enough to vote for anyone but Obama. To his credit, Romney has flipped and flopped and has locked in some good conservative positions and I believe that republicans usually stick with their newer “convictions”. Plus, we should have a good republican majorities in both houses of congress to help out.
I’m not quite sure about Santorum’s numbers, especially with the “accurate” Des Moines Register poll that has cross tabs of 61% men and 39% women as respondents. I’m a little disappointed that the punditry is not picking up on this, but it would destroy their Santorum/Romney/Paul predictions. Women are not supporting Paul, so one wonders why such a cooked poll would be given credibility.
On the other hand, the conservative punditry appears willing to do just about anything to make Romney the nominee, no matter how many Republicans may refuse to vote for him in the end.
SJR
The Pink Flamingo
Rick Santorum is stonewalling gun owners.
He is refusing to tell gun owners in Iowa where he stands on important Second Amendment issues.
Despite repeated attempts for Rick Santorum to return his National Association for Gun Rights Presidential Survey 100% in favor of our gun rights, he has time and time again remained silent.
Please call Rick Santorum right now and demand he return his National Association for Gun Rights Presidential Survey — at once.
His Iowa office: 515-421-7224
His South Carolina office: 855-206-7425
His New Hampshire office: 603-518-5199
Would Rick Santorum repeal the Brady Gun Owner Registration Scheme? Oppose the UN “Small Arms Treaty”? Call for a repeal of the Lautenberg Gun Ban and the Criminal Safezones Act?
My experience shows me that candidates who refuse to return gun rights surveys and answer important Second Amendment questions are almost always hiding something. Hiding anti-gun political views.
The fact is, Rick Santorum does have a long history of supporting gun control.
I sure hope “catholic” democrats (and Republicans in the primary)will vote for Santorum the way they did for Obama who supports a woman’s right to kill her baby. Makes you wonder when such a majority of people who identify themselves as catholic, vote for a pro-abort. Who knows, maybe the Roman Catholics will begin to follow their own catechism !!
I am so tired of the bigoted smear that labels all believers in traditional religious morality as possessed by phobia . To the contrary those who view the deviant behavior squarely observing its devastating impact to the individual and society are courageous not fearful . Rick Santorum deserves nothing but admiration from every orthodox evangelical. Catholic.Je
Rick Santorum, Obama’s Latest Target
For some very explicable reason, true conservatives give liberals the heebie-jeebies.
Of course, the Obama attack machine consisting of the DNC and all his re-election affiliates and the president’s mainstream media is geared to rip any and all Republicans daring to oppose or speak ill of The Anointed One but their venom really gushes out when the threat is a conservative.
The attack machine mobilized its prodigious forces when Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, and Rick Perry scrambled to the top of the crowded Republican field and shot down each in turn, digging, digging, digging until they could find some dirt on the candidates and, when they couldn’t dirt, simply manufactured the venom.
They scored big time with Cain who seemed to have almost as many lady friends as their living icon, Bubba Clinton, and had to settle for undefined character assassination and baseless abuse of Bachmann’s and Perry’s I.Q.s.
In the week leading up to the Iowa caucuses, former Senator Richard John Santorum gained some traction and moved to the top of the Democrat hit list.
As Iowans trudge off to their caucuses, it’s worthwhile to re-consider the burning question, What is it about conservatives that gives liberals those heebie-jeebies. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=11990.
Rick Santorum’s social conservatism makes him virtually unelectable in the general election. He may be trying to reposition himself via economic/jobs issues now, but his rhetoric regarding gays and gay marriage are here to stay.
That’s the problem with mixing your religion with your politics. Also, the hypocrisy behind his claims to respect the dignity of the human person while basically standing for the government prying into your bedroom doesn’t sit well with most Americans. Even those who are religiously against homosexual practice think twice about someone who wants to essentially legislate what two consenting adults may or may not do in the privacy of their homes.
Given Santorum’s beliefs, as a woman I’d be nervous about a guy who probably would have no issue with making contraception illegal. The Catholic Church would chain all women to the kitchen sink and only allow them to lie down for breeding purposes. Their take on women as some kind of necessary evil, as walking incubators, is very, very creepy.
While Santorum is definitely anti gay rights, I think the article is going way to far to classify that with racism and bigotry. Lots of people oppose both gays in the military, and gay marriage, for reasons that do not make them some sort of anti gay string them up KKK type. I have relatives and friends who would strongly oppose any anti gay violence, or putting gays in jail, but still have reservations about both gays in the military, and gay marriage.
That being said, I think Santorum is the wrong candidate for this election. He is mostly about social conservativism, when this election is mainly about fiscal conservativism. He might attract social conservatives, but he has little to appeal to fiscally conservative, but socially moderate Tea Partiers, like me. I also dont see much appeal beyond the evengalical base, to fiscally conservative but socially moderate, independents. I also see repub attitudes on gays changing, as evidenced by the fact that Obamas change on gays in the military did not generate anywhere near the opposition, from both Tea Partiers and repubs, that his health care bill, stimulus, and green Solyndra agenda did.
I would hope that PJ media and the people commenting here would take a look at Jeffrey Lord’s piece from The American Spectator titled ‘The Passion of Rick Santorum.’ It will clear up what I think is misleading about this PJ media article. Santorum never said anything about consensual (gay) sex. The word ‘gay’ as it is shown was added into the piece by the AP reporter Lara Jakes Jordan. Santorum’s point was “that the Lawrence decision was yet one more step in an ongoing legal process that would ultimately lead to the elimination of traditional marriage between a man and a woman as a privileged institution.” Here is the link: http://spectator.org/archives/2012/01/03/the-passion-of-rick-santorum/2