Romney Leads by 21 Points in S.C.?

Posted on | January 14, 2012 | 89 Comments

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has opened a wide lead over his rivals in the South Carolina primary election race, trouncing Newt Gingrich and gaining momentum in his march toward the party’s nomination, a Reuters/Ipsos poll shows. . . .
The poll showed 37 percent of South Carolina Republican voters back Romney. Congressman Ron Paul and former Senator Rick Santorum tied for second place with 16 percent support.
Gingrich, a former speaker of the House of Representatives, has fallen far back after holding a strong lead in South Carolina in December. He was in fourth place at 12 percent in the Reuters/Ipsos poll.

Do not despair, conservatives! There is good news here, too:

After Gingrich, Texas Governor Rick Perry placed next in the Reuters/Ipsos poll with 6 percent support. Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, who was third in the New Hampshire primary, came in the lowest in the South Carolina poll with 3 percent support.

Perry and Huntsman have less than 10 percent between them and if they finish that low, they’re finished. Subtract them from the field, and there’s that much less distraction going into Florida. And still more good news:

At a forum hosted by Mike Huckabee with 800 undecided South Carolina Republicans, Newt Gingrich was loudly booed when he criticized Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital, according to a Republican who attended the closed-press event.

To quote Allahpundit: “Oh my.”

If Newt’s getting booed, so that his fade continues, that benefits . . .?

Yeah: Rick Santorum, fresh off his endorsement by the social conservative conclave. There are two debates this week — Monday on Fox and Thursday on CNN — and therefore a chance that Romney can say something stupid enough to cost him 10 points. And never underestimate the sweater vest. There is still hope to stop Romney, and therefore . . .

Exit Question: Why is it that so many conservatives who have said their top priority is to stop Romney at all costs don’t support Rick Santorum?

Update (Smitty): linked by Surber.

Category: Election 2012, Mitt Romney, Polls, Rick Santorum, South Carolina

Comments

89 Responses to “Romney Leads by 21 Points in S.C.?”

ThePaganTemple
January 14th, 2012 @ 8:29 pm

RSM all you have to do is read your own comments section and you’ll know the answer to your exit question. A lot of us think he’s a big government conservative and that’s unacceptable. I say us collectively, I personally don’t know what to think. But that’s your answer.
Reuters: Mitt up 21 in SC « Don Surber
January 14th, 2012 @ 8:29 pm

[…] Robert Stacy McCain: Carolina […]
Bert Spence
January 14th, 2012 @ 8:54 pm

The answer to your question is, “because Romney and Santorum are indistinguishable.” Not in their rhetoric, but in their records in office. Both are for more government, not less.
steve benton
January 14th, 2012 @ 9:16 pm

If Santorum is our nominee, we’re doomed. He looks like someone’s twerpy little brother.
CO
January 14th, 2012 @ 9:23 pm

The answer to your question is, Santorum is a statist, he is
is a GOP man.

Back at the ranch IDP asked, “which nominee would do the most damage to the GOP establishment?” Ron Paul received 72.7% of the vote. These guys on Huckabee, except for Perry, are all establishment candidates.

I never thought I would say it but I’m so disgusted with statist Republicans I’m going with Paul.
ThePaganTemple
January 14th, 2012 @ 9:30 pm

I’m seriously thinking of doing that myself, just as a protest vote. Its going to take something extreme to get the message across. Plus, I’m starting to think more and more everyday that the establishment pushed Palin out of the race, and that really pisses me the fuck off.
Adjoran
January 14th, 2012 @ 9:31 pm

As I noted in the other thread, this is Reuters/Ipso’s first poll in SC, so there is nothing to which to compare these numbers. We can’t draw any conclusions on one poll.

It does fit the feel of the land in my part of the state. Not many fans of Marxist rhetoric around here.

As to “how a conservative state like SC could go for Romney,” we see him as being as conservative as anyone else in the field. There are no Reagans in this group. The only one with a clearly more conservative record than Romney is Perry, and he wasn’t pure even before he went all OWS-batship-crazy on us. Cain, Bachmann, and Pawlenty had more conservative records, but none remain active.

I know a lot of commenters on conservative boards disagree with that assessment, but I believe it is the plurality view here in SC and in the party at large.

Also, as I’ve said here before, South Carolina has never failed to pick the eventual nominee.
Valley Forge
January 14th, 2012 @ 9:39 pm

I think the question is why are so many conservatives who purportedly support small government not supporting Ron Paul yet? If all the Republicans put their vote where their beliefs were he would be trouncing Romney.

By the way, this poll is complete bunk.
ThePaganTemple
January 14th, 2012 @ 9:39 pm

Santorum just said on Huckabee we have our priorities fucked up when we want to spare the life of a rapist but “murder” the unborn child that results from that rape. Number one, I’m fine and dandy with executing rapists, but that’s neither here nor there. It might come as a shock to Santorum to know that a woman-or teenage girl-isn’t required to carry her fucking rapist in her womb for nine months.

This is one of the reasons that 1., he’s seen as an extremist, and 2., he’s seen as a big government conservative.

And newsflash, if abortion is murder, that’s still irrelevant, because the last time I checked, murder is not technically against federal law, unless it involves federal property, federal employees, or somehow involves interstate commerce or otherwise crossing state lines.

As far as just the taking of life, a capitol murder charge, manslaughter, etc., federal law is not involved. And we’re talking about people who are US citizens being murdered.

So if an unborn infant has a “right to life” in the constitution, and this becomes the law of the land, doesn’t it stand to reason that the federal government should take precedence in the prosecution of all other crimes involving murder?

Yeah, think about that. We really need the federal government sticking its beak into a state prosecution of a capitol crime, don’t we? After all, the states might not be capable of conducting an adequate prosecution. Or a fair one. Or a just one. Or a politically correct one. Etc.
Dana
January 14th, 2012 @ 9:39 pm

Our esteemed host asked:

Why is it that so many conservatives who have said their top
priority is to stop Romney at all costs don’t support Rick Santorum?

Because our real top priority is to enable President Obama to get a four-years-earlier-than-planned start on his memoirs; stopping Governor Romney at the cost of having four more years of President Obama really is too high a price to pay.

I live in Pennsylvania, and I remember what a strong candidate Senator Santorum was in 2006, which is why Bob Casey now holds that seat.
newrouter
January 14th, 2012 @ 9:44 pm

oh my rickys lost in 2006. so did alot rethuglicans. can you reid and pelosi?
Anonymous
January 14th, 2012 @ 9:59 pm

RSM, what exactly is the point of posting stuff that you know will be refuted in 5 minutes. You picked out one crap insta-poll of 398 voters in an attempt to confirm your bias, while ignoring the half a dozen polls showing Newt just behind Romney, sometimes within the margin of error. Nate Silver, who’s a lib but who has no dog in a intra-party Republican fight, rates this Reuters poll as unreliable (2 out of 5 bars); the worst of the lot:

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/fivethirtyeight/primaries/south-carolina

Here’s the Realclearpolitics average of SC polls, showing Romney at 27, Gingrich at 22, and Santorum tied with Ron Paul at 15.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/sc/south_carolina_republican_presidential_primary-1590.html#polls

That’s right, Santorum isn’t even beating Paul – in South Carolina.
CO
January 14th, 2012 @ 10:33 pm

Hope RSM picks horses better than he does candidates.
Multimedia Group
January 14th, 2012 @ 10:39 pm

Maybe because Paul is not a conservative? Just a guess.
Multimedia Group
January 14th, 2012 @ 10:43 pm

I think RSM is picking the most conservative candidate that is running. The polls don’t matter if the point is to back a conservative. If we’re supposed to pick the guy at the front of the pack then feel free. That’s not RSM’s goal.
Jayden
January 14th, 2012 @ 10:51 pm

This poll is not reliable (I don’t trust online polls) but it does seem to correlate with other polls that Romney is in the lead and gaining momentum, while Newt is sinking like a rock.

If Mitt wins SC it’s over, and I would argue it’s already over even if he places 2nd.
smitty
January 14th, 2012 @ 10:57 pm

If conservatives can’t support the nominee better than they did J.S. McCain in 2008, we’re doomed.
smitty
January 14th, 2012 @ 10:57 pm

I’m leaning toward supporting Paul in the primary, as a protest vote against Mitt, since VA has the goofiest ballot going this year.
smitty
January 14th, 2012 @ 10:58 pm

Paul’s foreign policy and infamous newsletters would be oppo gold for the general.
CO
January 14th, 2012 @ 11:03 pm

He’s the anointed one.
MrPaulRevere
January 14th, 2012 @ 11:13 pm

I agree completely. Reintroducing POTUS into private life must be the focus: Because our real top priority is to enable President Obama to get a four-years-earlier-than-planned start on his memoirs; stopping Governor Romney at the cost of having four more years of President Obama really is too high a price to pay.
Adjoran
January 14th, 2012 @ 11:15 pm

A lot lost. Not many incumbents lost by 18%, though.
Paul Zummo
January 14th, 2012 @ 11:18 pm

Actually I think this does answer the question. So many people have bought this tripe about Santorum that they’ve allowed themselves to resign themselves to Romney. As I said in a previous thread, conservatives better not moan about the Establishment when Romney gets the nomination, not when their own pigheadedness handed Romney the nomination.
Paul Zummo
January 14th, 2012 @ 11:20 pm

I actually look forward to the day after election day when Romney has been trounced by Obama, and throwing these comments back in all the Mittbot faces.
Paul Zummo
January 14th, 2012 @ 11:22 pm

This is one of the reasons that 1., he’s seen as an extremist, and 2., he’s seen as a big government conservative.

So abortion is wrong only when the child is not conceived through rape? There is no logical consistency in being anti-abortion except in the case of rape or incest.
ThePaganTemple
January 14th, 2012 @ 11:23 pm

Oh if I lived in Virginia there’s no doubt in my mind I’d vote for Paul. I could do that and not even have to come close to swallowing a honker. So yeah, go for it. It would be a principled stand. The way it stands now we’re going to be stuck with a guy who has zero reason to reduce government and the regulations that have helped his company thrive.

And that even assuming he could win in the first place, a dubious proposition at best.
Adjoran
January 14th, 2012 @ 11:27 pm

Oh, please! The only “anointing” in this race was the failed attempt to portray Perry as Reagan 2.0. Of all the declared candidates who made at least two debates, there were three influence-peddlers (Cain, Newt, and Santorum) and four current/former legislators without a minute of executive experience (Newt, Santorum, Bachmann, and Paul). That was the DC-centric contingent, the real “establishment” types.

Romney’s power base has never been in or around Washington, DC. We also have or had Perry, Pawlenty, Huntsman, and Johnson as candidates from outside the Beltway orbit.

You don’t have to like him, there is plenty I don’t like about him, too – but it is just silly to call him “establishment” or “anointed” by the elite.
ThePaganTemple
January 14th, 2012 @ 11:28 pm

And here’s another thing. Let’s say they pass some big national one size fits all law that protects life in the womb. So what then? What if your wife or daughter loses her child? Is there going to be a federal investigation about it? What if they decide to prosecute her because she smoked a joint, or had a few mixed drinks here and there or a few beers? What if she smoked cigarettes? Even just a few here and there. What if she went to McDonalds a few times even though her doctor advised her not to. Can she be prosecuted for callous disregard for life, for manslaughter, for some kind of abuse? Hell who knows maybe the child wouldn’t even have to die. Maybe nothing at all might be wrong with it and your wife, daughter, hell even you could be prosecuted for reckless endangerment. Like say if you smoked around your pregnant wife and daughter. That could be gross neglect and abuse.

People need to get off their high horses and start thinking about the possible consequences of shit like this.
Emperor Mittens
January 14th, 2012 @ 11:40 pm

what’s the point of picking Santorum because he’s “more” pro-life when basically the only influence GOP presidents have on abortion is to nominate conservative justices? Romney may not feel any personal burning passion on the issue but as long as he nominates Roberts/Alito types, and any potential new Miersgate is met with the same backlash Bush got, we’re good. you can’t do much in the way of legislation so long as “Roe” stands, besides blocking funds.

bottom line is Santorum isn’t nationally competitive, and regardless of how unfair people think it is the media will successfully paint him as a religious extremist in the general. Romney may be a weak frontrunner but he’s the frontrunner for a reason.

i don’t do this whole “checklist” conservatism either, where someone who’s raised taxes to balance the budget or supported an establishment Congressional candidate is officially labeled an Apostate from True Conservatism. just because Romney won’t go on a Ronulan crusade for minarchy does not make him a crypto-liberal, despite protests from people who’re willing to go squishy on social issues but consider minor tax increases when the situation calls for it a crime against humanity.
ThePaganTemple
January 14th, 2012 @ 11:58 pm

You still don’t get it. It has nothing to do with what’s right or wrong, the point is the federal government shouldn’t get to make that call and impose it on the states, which should be sovereign to the greatest extent possible. The feds have never involved themselves in capitol murder cases that don’t involve the things I mentioned, or a murder that happens in the commission of a federal crime. Why should abortion be any different. Just appoint conservative, constitution abiding judges, overturn Roe v Wade, stop putting federal dollars into abortion clinics, or anything else to do with abortion, and be done with it. Let the states deal with it from then on.
Adjoran
January 14th, 2012 @ 11:59 pm

The poll is worse than I thought – missed the line about “online” the first read through. You are correct about that.

But if Ron Paul were not completely insane, he’d have made a lot more progress over the last thirty or so years. His foreign policy is the elephant in the room, of course.

Had we followed Paul’s principles after WWII ended, we would be living in Soviet America today. Of this there can be no doubt at all. Our foreign bases, military aid and alliances, use of sometimes unsavory surrogates, and clandestine operations were all that kept the Soviets from rolling over Europe and the Middle Eastern oil fields and the Chicoms from ruling Asia and the Pacific.
ThePaganTemple
January 15th, 2012 @ 12:00 am

You don’t watch Fox News very much, do you?
Anonymous
January 15th, 2012 @ 12:03 am

Newt was not loudly booed, I watched the debate and I take issue with that. As for the reuters poll, I was worried when I saw it( I want anyone but Romney to win.) until I scrolled down and noticed that they polled 380 democrats, and that the margin of error was 5% It is misleading and irresposible of any site to tout it as fact!
ThePaganTemple
January 15th, 2012 @ 12:05 am

What bothers me about Romney is he would probably pick a judge more like Souter or Kennedy than Roberts or Alito. And he would do it with that smooth, polished smile while telling us he was reaching across the aisle for “advise and consent” in finding a candidate, whoops I mean appointee who will not be a divisive influence, one who would unite the country.

And what bothers me about Santorum is he is painting himself as an extremist who can be expected to waste the country’s time promoting a right-to-life amendment to the constitution that would inspire a pro-choice version that would probably come closer to becoming the law of the land.

And in the meantime other more serious things would be left undone, or half done, including other constitutional amendments on which time would be far better spent.
Adjoran
January 15th, 2012 @ 12:07 am

I don’t think there is any daylight between Santorum’s positions on abortion and my own, with the possible exception of our view of legal remedies and legislation.

I am unaware of him advocating any national legislation. I would only support legislation which would overturn Roe v Wade and its descendants, and return the law to the status quo ante, the states.

This wild and crazy scare tactic of predicting “investigations” of miscarriages sounds like a Planned Parenthood propaganda piece. That didn’t happen before Roe v Wade and there is no reason to assume it would happen if that decision were overturned.

I cannot say definitively that Santorum hasn’t proposed some egregious and misbegotten legislation in an attempt to correct the situation, but I don’t know of any.
Adjoran
January 15th, 2012 @ 12:12 am

So you hope Obama will win, condemning the country to four more years of the far-left regulatory regime, more Justices like Kagan and Sotomayor and 2-300 more lifetime judicial appointments, just to satisfy your personal pique?

What an asshole.
Adjoran
January 15th, 2012 @ 12:14 am

Not to excess.

Why? Are you so weak of mind that their coverage affects your decisions?

Do you assume other conservatives are?
Tennwriter
January 15th, 2012 @ 12:18 am

This is like Rush’s ‘I hope he fails’. We know its going to happen. Since its going to happen, we might as well take some joy out of mockery.

But if you want to stop it happening, you can support Santorum.
richard mcenroe
January 15th, 2012 @ 12:26 am

So exactly in what way is Santorum any more liberal than Gingrich during their shared tenure in Congress?
Adjoran
January 15th, 2012 @ 12:30 am

Do you have any basis for believing that, or is it just an irrational fear?

The “liberal judges” Romney appointed in Massachusetts disturbed me – until I found out that the legislature nominates three or more judges and the Governor must choose from them. How many Alitos do you suppose the Massachusetts legislature nominated, given it ranged from 85%-90% Democratic in one of the bluest states?

Romney had an adversarial relationship with his legislature, but they were a bunch of commies. There is no reason to assume he would fight a conservative Republican Congress from the left.

And the moral of the story is: elect a conservative Republican Congress. No matter who is President, that’s what we and he need.
Adjoran
January 15th, 2012 @ 12:38 am

I didn’t watch, so I don’t know what it sounded like on television. Different venues give different levels on the crowd noise. Those who were in the room and spoke later were pretty unanimous about it. As one said, “They were very unhappy with him when he said that.”

I can tell you this much: everyone I talk to leaves knowing all about Newt. All the fights with conservatives where he wanted more social spending, all the broken promises to members of the House, all the ethics questions and the sweet deal he got, how conservatives finally dumped him, how he has backstabbed us and sucked up to every stupid “green” scam that came down the pike every since, how he talked trash about conservatives who supported Hoffman in NY-23 right up until Dede endorsed the Democrat Owens, what a self-serving liar he is, etc.
Adjoran
January 15th, 2012 @ 1:06 am

Hilarious. Let’s put a legislator-lobbyist with no administrative experience in charge of the world’s largest operation, the US government?

And politically, should the election be fought on the economy, or on Santorum’s social agenda?
Anonymous
January 15th, 2012 @ 1:29 am

Hmmm, I understand you don’t like Newt. He has sinned in the past, and said things that you have to scratch your head at…but I look at what he accomplished. We are at the very edge now in debt and potentionaly headed for a Greece-like crisis. He is the only one to do what everyone in Washington only promises. Thomas Sowell has a great article regarding that. I look past the other minutia and sastisfy myself that he can do it again. Sometimes you have to be the bad one to get things done. Sometimes people and their feelings have to be put aside to do what is over-all right. As for the ‘consensus’ about the booing. I saw tweets from people that were there that said it was over-blown.
Pathfinder's wife
January 15th, 2012 @ 1:32 am

This is where I’m at, but I would like to say that while I find the act of abortion a tragedy when push comes to shove I just cannot find the will to tell a victim of rape that they MUST keep the child.
After all, they were unwilling in the act, thus it is understandable that they may not be willing to go through the pregnancy. They deserve the choice as choice wasn’t given to them.

As for incest, well, my mom was an labor/delivery nurse in the time before and after RvW…it was a rare occurance, but sometimes they did get very young girls in that had been essentially raped, usually by an uncle, cousin, or stepfather. 10 – 12 year olds should not be carrying a pregnancy to term, and again it was hardly a consentual act.
I’m afraid that sometimes we really do need to take these things on a case by case basis, and that’s something no legal status can do.
Pathfinder's wife
January 15th, 2012 @ 1:48 am

It comes down to this: for myself, I’ll vote for either Paul or Santorum as a protest vote in the primaries (and it will come down to which one is running stronger by the time the vote gets to me — I’m betting on Paul at the moment), as I’m not a fan of Newt, disdain Romney, and absolutely loathe Perry.

I highly doubt either of them will win the nomination, but if they can garner enough votes that both social conservatism (Santorum) and Constitutionalism and economic policies (Paul) get on the agenda at the national primary then it will not be a completely wasted vote.

As for the general: anyone, and I do mean anyone including Perry, but Obama.
With one caveat: if the GOP refuses to take the hint at the national convention, then all bets are off, and I go completely rogue and vote Libertarian (still won’t vote for Obama, but then the GOP doesn’t get my vote either). And I will encourage others to do so as well.
AngelaTC
January 15th, 2012 @ 2:04 am

The newsletters maybe, but Obama could lose voters on foreign policy.
AngelaTC
January 15th, 2012 @ 2:05 am

If you believe that, you believe that communism is a sustainable form of government.
Lisa Graas
January 15th, 2012 @ 2:37 am

Paul Zummo is 100% correct. It is tripe and everyone spreading it can own it if Romney wins.
Lisa Graas
January 15th, 2012 @ 2:38 am

Romney ’12 = McCain ’08 with one exception. I voted for McCain. I’ll sit Romney out.
Lisa Graas
January 15th, 2012 @ 2:40 am

Oh yes, that guy who authored and led on the only legislation ever to end a federal entitlement in American history, he’s a “statist”. Puhleese.

About

This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Romney Leads by 21 Points in S.C.?

Comments

THE FULL METAL JACKET REACH-AROUND AWARD

HIT THE FREAKING TIP JAR!

Search

Recent Posts

RSS reader subscription

MEMEORANDUM

Recent Comments

THE AMAZING GONZO FEED

Major Leagues

Archives

Free Agents

SHAMELESS CAPITALISM

Triple-A Franchises

Blogroll

About

Subscribe to our feed

Search

Admin