Romney leads Santorum 57% to 24% among voters who emphasize a candidate who can beat Obama. Santorum leads Romney by a much narrower 43% to 35% among those who prefer a candidate who best represents GOP values....
Among Wisconsin Republicans who describe themselves as Very Conservative, Santorum edges Romney 43% to 39%. Romney leads his chief rival by roughly 20 points among voters who are Somewhat Conservative or not conservative.
Romney leads among both Tea Party voters and non-Tea Party members in the state. Santorum holds a small lead among Evangelical Christian voters, but Romney is well ahead among other Protestants, Catholics and voters of other faiths in Wisconsin.
March 23, 2012
Rasmussen on the Wisconsin primary: Romney, 46%, Santorum 33%, Paul 8%, Gingrich 7%.
Ah! I hadn't seen a poll more recent than last February for Wisconsin, and Santorum had been in the lead. This surveys "Likely Republican Primary Voters in Wisconsin favor Romney" (but in Wisconsin you don't have to be a Republican to vote in the Republican primary):
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
29 comments:
How does Romney poll against Obama in Wisconsin? That's the important one.
but Romney is well ahead among other Protestants, Catholics and voters of other faiths in Wisconsin.
Does that include the AGW supporters?
Gerald Ford, Bob Dull, John McClain (aka McCain).... and now Willard. It's no wonder the R's lose the big one.
By-by, Newt and Ron. Rick, you're next.
(Jeb endorses Rubio as VP candidate.)
(Jim DeMint (!) says Rick should consider getting out.)
Have we noticed yet that Mitt is the only GOP candidate who is not erratic? Apparently that matters.
Have we noticed yet that Mitt is the only GOP candidate who is not erratic? Apparently that matters.
I’ll take “competent but boring” any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
Rick.
"Gerald Ford, Bob Dull, John McClain (aka McCain).... and now Willard. It's no wonder the R's lose the big one."
This is standard wisdom among the die-hard Republican right. However you left out Barry Goldwater from your list of losers, and you fail to explain how the winners - Reagan, Nixon, Eisenhower - differ in some ideologically consistent way from the losers. Reagan was conservative (though not by hard right standards now) Ike was a centrist and Nixon was the most liberal Republican since TR. What Romney will be is absolutely not governed by what Ford, Dole or McCain were. In any case, if Romney is unelectable, how do you explain the failure of the others in the field to defeat him even among the Republican primary electorate? They are even more unelectable. Why is that? I thought the right had the pulse of the nation. Apparently not.
As a practical matter, Santorum cannot win the Republican nomination. He simply cannot win enough of the remaining delegates to defeat Romney and it's doubtful that he could win enough delegates to deny Romney the nomination and force a contested convention. (Romney needs to win less than 45% of the remaining delegates to win the nomination. He's won over 55% of the delegates to date.) I know that the anybody-but-Romney crowd doesn't like these facts, but that doesn't change them.
So, why is Santorum remaining in the race? Yesterday he said electing Romney would be the same as re-electing Obama. Does he really believe Romney and Obama would appoint the same justices to the Supreme Court or that a President Romney would veto a repeal of Obamacare? One doesn't have to like Romney to recognize that he would govern far differently than Obama. Obama is the most liberal President in our history. Even if you believe Romney is liberal for a Republican, you have to grant that "liberal for a Republican" is far less liberal than Obama. (You don't have to make that concession, but you'll come off as delusional if you don't.)
The Fat Lady has sung!
This is standard wisdom among the die-hard Republican right. However you left out Barry Goldwater from your list of losers, and you fail to explain how the winners - Reagan, Nixon, Eisenhower - differ in some ideologically consistent way from the losers. Reagan was conservative (though not by hard right standards now) Ike was a centrist and Nixon was the most liberal Republican since TR.
Where does Bush 43 fit in on this list? I’m told that he was pretty “liberal” when it came to spending and on things like NCLB and Medicare Part D (all of which Senator Santorum helped support) but he’s considered “conservative” because of his Supreme Court nominees and how he prosecuted the War? It seems to me that narrative falls apart among those who both want to distance themselves from many of Bush’s domestic policies – which lead in large part to the TEA Party movement that is supposed to be the new gold standard of conservatism– but at the same time argue “only candidates who I think are pure enough can win in the general election.”
I'll bet all those deeply religious Unitarians can barely contain their enthusiasm for the undiscommoding Romney.
I will be voting for Romney in the WI Primary. I didn't start out a fan, I had thought Newtie would be fun, but I am truly sick of the process and ready for the ABB campaign to begin full force.
I think alot of R's are ready to end the internal warfare and take on the Prez.
Bush was a big time liberal both on the domestic spending side and in terms of his war lust.
So tea party <> evangelicals?
Seems an interesting point that hasn't received focus.
So tea party <> evangelicals?
I'm not sure what “<>” means.
Love to see something on LA right about now, but, yeah, it would stand to reason he would poll well in the Badger State.
Especially after Ann anointed him the Romster.
David said...
(Jim DeMint (!) says Rick should consider getting out.)
It's going to be a pretty loud chorus before long.
Have we noticed yet that Mitt is the only GOP candidate who is not erratic? Apparently that matters.
All over the place.
How does Romney poll against Obama in Wisconsin? That's the important one.
I believe Romney was polling about 8% behind Obama in the Marquette Law School poll back in February, if memory serves. That was the same poll that had Walker with a approval rating over 50%.
Once Romney clinches the nomination, I believe Wisconsin is a state he will spend a lot of time in. Its not necessarily a "must-win" state for him, but I think it will be one of the 4 or 6 state outcomes that will likely help decide the election.
Thorley Winston said...
So tea party <> evangelicals?
I'm not sure what “<>” means.
In some computer languages, does not equal.
In some computer languages, does not equal.
Not "!=" ?
Only the C-based languages.
I don't know why they are even bothering to have the Wisconsin primary. Romney is the nominee already. It is an outrage that we should be forced to go through this exercise.
Wisconsin voters are not entitled to have a say, they are entitled to fall in line and do as they are told.
So what if Romney the Nominee still can't get even half of the people to support him? What the hell does that have to do with anything?
As to Jason's comment that Romney will spend a lot of time in Wisconsin: both Romney and the Dems are aware that whoever wins Pennsylvania-Ohio-Michigan will win the election. And since those are all contiguous states I bet Romney will spend most of September and October bouncing from one to the other and since Wisconsin is just a hop away there too. Frankly Obama is in such trouble in all those states that IMO the election is already decided. Of course all bets are off if every graveyard in and around Detroit, Philadelphia, Cleveland and Madison vote.
And just what is wrong with .NE. I ask?
How does Romney poll against Obama in Wisconsin? That's the important one.
Between 8 and 14 points behind. (not sure what ricpic is looking at)
Romney is outspending Santorum 55-1 in Wisconsin. I can't wait to see how the anti union message from Romney will play out in WI, OH, PA, MI, etc.
The sooner the contest is done and Romney is the nominee is the sooner they can drag Mitt off and have public speech coaches work on the stuttering, the stiffness, the "programming" he has on stage? People that met him say isn't evident when he is off-camera.
Romney will still be a bit "off", (a tad wierd even, by some detractors standards). Like his Dad, Mitt by all reports is not a slick "natural" in the political arena. And there are limits. NIxon and Clinton were brilliant men, but you can only change so much to appeal to others - then you can't do more because your personality, character serve as hard stops...
But a time when the nomination is assured, before the Convention, will give Romney a chance to work on flaws that became clear during the 2011-2012 primary process. And everyone says he is a very bright guy dedicated to continuously improving his speaking skills, his message, his policies.
So Republicans want Romney - what a surprise. But Republicans, just don't whine about his (almost certain to be) passionless, rudderless POTUS campaign in October 2012 or his inevitably moderate Presidency after January 2013 - because that's what you wanted.
I'm sitting this one out.
As I wrote elsewhere:
Santorum's gaffe illustrate a paradox regarding many anti-Romney conservatives. Not all of them-- just those who insist on equating Romney and Obama, minimizing as much as possible the differences between Romney and Obama, making that difference out to be nominal and insignificant.
These people are ostensibly so conservative-- so much more conservative than Romney-- that they don't just see Romney's "moderate" political persona as insufficiently conservative. No, they see it as de facto equivalent to the most radical leftist ideologue POTUS we've ever had. They're so ideologically "right" that from their perspective, Romney (endorsed by Rush, Levin, Santorum in 2008 as the "conservative" choice) is WAY over there to the left. But looking at it from the other side, their equivalence of Romney and Obama has just located Obama WAY WAY WAY to the right of what Obama actually is. In minimizing Romney's conservatism so much that they equate him to Obama, they've at the same time *minimized Obama's extreme and extremely damaging leftism* so much that they equate perhaps the worst POTUS ever to an ideologically standard Republican like Romney (who was the "conservative" alternative to Mccain)!
The paradox is that someone so "authentically" conservative that for them Romney is like Obama, is at the same time so deficient a conservative as to misrecognize and downplay the threat posed by a second term of Obama, the extent of Obama's leftism and incompetence and top-down power grabs. So deficient a conservative as to equate the SCOAMF with a free-market-practicing and free-market-extolling businessman like Romney!
Which is why so many of the Romney = Obama conservatives come off as mobys, even if they're not.
Even if Santorum fudges ("clarifies") his statement now to say that he himself doesn't see Romney and Obama as equivalent, but just saying that "the general electorate" would see it that way, he's still legitimating such an equivalence as a reasonable POV. In other words, a GOP candidate for POTUS 2012 is pushing the meme that it's perfectly legitimate and understandable for the USA to see Obama and Romney as so similar that they might as well stick with Obama.
And many of the conservatives defending Santorum's statement now were the ones to despise McCain in 2008 or saying something as stupid as "there's nothing to fear from an Obama presidency"! McCain said that in 2008-- before we got see what an Obama presidency was actually like. Now, after experiencing 4 years of the O administration (including Holder et al), Santorum the true conservative is basically saying: America, it's perfectly legitimate for you to feel there's not much more to fear from an Obama second terms as there would be from a Romney presidency!
In making Romney out to be almost the equivalent of Obama, Santorum the 2012 GOP primary candidate has just made Obama out to be about as innocuous as a Romney.
WTF.
Just because you'd vote for a syphilitic camel over Obama in the general doesn't mean you should vote for the syphilitic camel in the primary.
@ yashu
What's a moby?
"What's a moby?"
Usually it's a pretend "Republican"/ "conservative" internet commenter who actually supports the other side and seeks to discredit or sabotage (or merely parody) Republicans/ conservatives. Or a pretend "Democrat"/ "liberal", same thing, though I believe those are less common.
There's a discussion of mobys in this Althouse post.
Post a Comment