Unelectable

Santorum 45, Obama 44 according to Rasmussen.

Doesn’t exactly sound like Johnson-Goldwater to me.

I should add, by the way, that it’s just a snapshot of the current mood, and by no means indicative that Santorum would have a free and easy path to a general election victory.  It does show that the grave concerns about Santorum’s ultimate electability are overwrought to say the least.

So, to sum up, Santorum polls better than Gingrich against Obama, is more conservative than Gingrich, and has certainly far less personal baggage than Gingrich.  For those of you still clinging to Gingrich as the anti-Romney of your choice, why?

36 Responses to Unelectable

  • What is truly remakable about the polling numbers that most of the Republican candidates have been racking up recently against Obama is that this is while the Republicans are cutting each other up. These numbers would send a chill down my mind if I were a political analyst for Obama. Also note that this is the week of the State of the Union address which has normally given most presidents a temporary bounce in the polls. Not Obama.

  • Indeed, Donald. We get so caught up in the doom and gloom on one side that we forget that the Democrats can’t exactly be feeling good themselves about their November prospects.

  • Means nothing. Less than nothing, it is deceptive. Where’s the electoral college numbers?

    Frankly, Obama wipes the floor with any of the four Republicans out there. The only ones who could have beaten him are out (Huntsman) or didn’t run (Jeb).

    I pray I’m wrong but I see no outcome but another four years of Obama.

  • Means nothing.

    Well it doesn’t mean the world, but it’s certainly not nothing. The fact that a little-known (compared to the other two major GOP candidates) contender is polling even with Obama suggests that the president is vulnerable and that Santorum should not be written off.

    Where’s the electoral college numbers?

    The electoral votes of states in which Obama is polling at less than 50% adds up to 313. I would say that puts him at something of a disadvantage against any potential opponent.

    Frankly, Obama wipes the floor with any of the four Republicans out there.

    The polling suggests otherwise. Even the largely despised Gingrich is within sniffing distance.

    The only ones who could have beaten him are out (Huntsman)

    Really? The guy who couldn’t get beyond 3% in the polls was going to defeat Barack Obama in an election?

    or didn’t run (Jeb).

    I think that a third Bush running for the White House would have posed some electoral difficulties.

    And while pessimism is warranted with the stupid party, the actual numbers do not justify the notion that Obama is unbeatable.
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/152438/States-Move-GOP-2011.aspx

  • A poll has 20% Obama approval rating among uncommitted voters.

  • I believe the electoral map strongly favors the GOP this time around. Here is where we are at now based on most polls:

    http://www.270towin.com/

    I would give Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorada, Missouri and New Hampshire to the Republicans. That gets them to 272, without Ohio, Iowa and Wisconsin, all of which I think the Republicans have a decent chance to win. If the Republicans take Ohio, they could lose Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado and still be at 270. The Republicans have a number of paths to 270. Assuming that Obama doesn’t take any state in the south this time, he has a narrow path. Assuming he takes Pennsylvania and loses Ohio, he must take New Hampshire, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado which gets him to 272 when added to his base states.

  • “Democrats have lost their solid political party affiliation advantage in 18 states since 2008, while Republicans have gained a solid advantage in 6 states. A total of 17 states were either solidly Republican or leaning Republican in their residents’ party affiliation in 2011, up from 10 in 2010 and 5 in 2008. Meanwhile, 19 states including the District of Columbia showed a solid or leaning Democratic orientation, down from 23 in 2010 and 36 in 2008. The remaining 15 states were relatively balanced politically, with neither party having a clear advantage.”

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/152438/States-Move-GOP-2011.aspx

    When it comes to the political landscape, 2008 might as well have been a century ago.

  • Democrat Party affiliation is now at 32.9% of voters according to Rasmussen, the lowest on record. In November of 2008, the Democrats had 41% of voters. The Republicans are at 35.9% In November 2010 when the Democrats suffered a historic loss, they were at 34.7% compared to 36% for the Republicans.

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/archive/mood_of_america_archive/partisan_trends/summary_of_party_affiliation

  • You have my sympathies. I would much rather see Santorum, as well. In spite of the facts, however, sometimes the wise things are not done and we are left to deal with the ill consequences. I would not at all be surprised for the incumbent to be victorious and to carry a large chunk of the “Catholic” vote.

    God help us!

  • The mainstream media has asked all of the questions of Mitt and Newt. They have chosen the candidate for you and you will like it. YOU WILL COMPLY!!!!!

  • I dunno. Rasmussen polls are noticeably skewed toward Republicans, and one must never underestimate the power of the “better the devil you know” urge once the media (and Obama’s negative advertisement machine) get done trashing the GOP nominee.

    The scenario that is playing out nationally in 2012 is, to me, becoming eerily reminiscent of the 2006 Illinois gubernatorial election. That year, Governor Hairdo was running for his second term armed with gazillions in campaign cash, vs. a fragmented GOP with multiple candidates of different ideological stripes running in the primary. The eventual GOP nominee, Judy Baar Topinka, was a moderate/RINO somewhat comparable to Romney.

    Blago, meanwhile, had been under investigation for over a year, everyone with functioning brain cells knew by then that he was crooked, and IIRC one of his inner circle was indicted only two weeks before the general election. Yet in spite of all that, he still won, though NOT with an absolute majority of the vote. Why? Because Blago was able to pollute, er, bombard the airwaves with campaign commercials depicting Topinka as inextricably tied to the previous governor who had just been convicted of corruption. (Picture an endless barrage of Obama commercials this fall with the theme that “Romney is the second coming of Dubya!”)The tagline for most of these commercials was “What was she thinking?” On top of that, Blago promised everyone all kinds of goodies (like free health insurance for all kids, through a program called, you guessed it, All Kids) AND “no new taxes” to boot.

    The result? Voters got the impression that they might as well stick with Blago since Topinka was “just as bad” ethically and also would take away their goodies (she was very upfront about the state’s fiscal situation which even then was pretty bad). Illinois Republicans in general were not all that enthused about Topinka, just as they are not enthused nationally about Romney today. Plus, a Green Party protest candidate (leftist doppelganger of Ron Paul, perhaps?) got into the mix and drew about 10 percent of the vote. In the end, Topinka only got about 40 percent of the vote, and even though Blago got LESS than 50 percent of the vote, he still won. The rest, as they say, is history.

    To top it all off, Blago had the previous year issued an overreaching and pretty much unnecessary executive order/rulemaking compelling all pharmacists to dispense emergency contraception/abortafacients on demand. (One of the lawsuits stemming from that order is STILL working its way through the courts, 7 years later.) He was heartily endorsed by Planned Parenthood and other pro-abort groups, while Topinka was not; although she was pro-choice, she was in favor of parental consent and other restrictions the abortion lobby found entirely intolerable.

    I realize there are different factors at work on a national level, not the least of which is the Electoral College system which prevents a POTUS from being elected by raw popular vote. Even so, you can see some obvious parallels here.

    All that being said…. I do think that IF Catholics and evangelicals stay united and vocal in their opposition to the HHS mandate (which has much more far reaching consequences than Blago’s pharmacist order ever did) AND if Obama does not backtrack on it before the election, that alone MAY be enough to ensure his defeat in November. If the economy continues to founder or sink, then Obama will be toast.

  • Actually Elaine, Rasmussen polls skew to being accurate. He was dead on in regard to his final poll for the 2008 Presidential race:

    http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2008/11/the-list-which-presidential-polls-were-most-accurate/

    In regard to the pro-abort Judy Bar Topinka, she ran the most lifeless and hapless campaign for governor that I can recall in my lifetime. I doubt if the Weathervane, if the gets the nomination will be that bad, but we shall see. Fortunately, blue state Illinois is no longer a bell weather for the nation, Chicago dominance having taken that title from us, beginning with the 2000 election. Topinka was of course running in 2006, a very bad year nation-wide for Republicans. The race that of course indicated, as you know, how triple-doomed our beloved State is, was when Quinn, Blago’s Liuetenant Governor who took over after Blago was tossed out, managed, barely, to win election in 2010, the best year for the Republicans since the Twenties, against a strong Republican candidate.

  • I hate to say it, but by the time Obama spends his $1 billion reelection war chest, and the media completely dissembles the Republican candidate, no matter who he is, Obama will be reelected, by a vote of about 280-260 in the electoral college. Many Independents who voted for Obama in 2008, and who desperately want to vote for someone else in 2012, will very reluctantly conclude, based, in part, on the “incompetence” and in-fighting during the Republican primary process, that they have no choice but to vote again for Obama.

    Defeating Obama in 2012, based on his record, should be relatively easy. I HATE to say this, but the longer the Republican selection process is drawn out, and the nastier it is, the more likely is Obama’s reelection.

  • Rasmussen tracks likely voters as opposed to registered voters. Considering that Republicans normally vote in higher percentages than Democrats, that would explain any supposed GOP bias in their polls.

  • Tom, in the best electoral year imaginable for Democrats, 2008, with the economy in melt-down and the blame for it being given to the Republicans, with almost all of the mainstream media acting as unpaid press agents for Obama, running against a very weak opponent and with the Democrat party at its strongest point in post war history, Obama managed to get 52.9% of the vote. The gloom and doom is completely unwarranted as to the prospects of beating this bozo in November.

  • I will pray a decade of the Rosary every day from now till November for the defeat of Barack Hussein Obama. I prefer Santorum. But I would accept either Gingrich or even Weathervane. I hope Donald’s optimism is justified.

  • Donald, I desperately hope that I am wrong. I do think that it is more likely that Republicans will retain control of the House and win back the Senate.

    However, increasingly, the election of our President resembles the political equivalent of a continuous running episode of American Idol (amazingly, I nearly fell out of my chair when this is exactly what occurred at a recent Democratic event . . . Obama is REALLY good at this stuff!!), and we all know who is going to win that contest if it is between Obama and any Republican. When it comes down to style over substance, Obama wins hands down.

    The key electoral states in 2012 are: Ohio, Florida, Iowa and New Hampshire. Republicans must win Florida. Whoever wins Ohio, will be our next President. If you live in Ohio, Florida, Iowa or New Hampshire, your electoral efforts in this presidential cycle are critical. Other key states are: Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada. While Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan are in play, Obama will most likely win them again, and they are not necessary for a Republican victory in 2012.

  • Whoever wins Ohio, will be our next President. If you live in Ohio, Florida, Iowa or New Hampshire, your electoral efforts in this presidential cycle are critical.”

    If so, then it’s critical that the GOP nominee is someone for whom I’d be willing to vote (i.e. NOT Dullard Flip Rino).

  • My oh my, “Flip Rino,” and a “Dullard” to boot. Sounds like the lead-in to a soon-to-be-aired Obama campaign ad.

    Well, assuming that “Flip Rino” is the Republican nominee, it’s either “Flip” or Obama. If your not willing to vote for Flip “the Dullard” Rino, especially if you live in Ohio, Florida, Iowa or New Hampshire, then you will help to re-elect Obama. The choice is yours.

  • I agree with TomD.

  • “Whoever wins Ohio will be our next President.”

    Probably true as Ohio is one of 6 “bellwether” states with a long-standing record of matching the outcome of the national POTUS vote. Since 1896, Ohio has failed to pick the winner only twice — a 93 percent accuracy rate. Nevada is #1, since it has only missed once since 1912, a 96 percent accuracy rate. Missouri used to be in first place but dropped to third after going (just barely) for McCain in 2008; the Show Me State has only been “wrong” one other time since 1904 (92.8 percent accuracy). New Mexico, Florida and Tennessee also have reflected national results with 90 percent or more accuracy for at least the past 80 years.

    Of all these bellwether states, I’m guessing, Obama has no chance in Tennessee, very little if any chance in Missouri, not much chance in Florida (especially if Rubio ends up on the GOP ticket), and probably not much chance in Nevada either. That leaves Ohio and New Mexico in play, but New Mexico has, what, 3 electoral votes so it probably won’t make much difference.

  • Also, can someone tell me what makes Iowa or New Hampshire particularly decisive in the GENERAL election as opposed to the primaries?

  • Jay, if Romney is the nominee but you don’t want to contribute materially to an Obama victory either, you may still have time to move to a non-swing state! One of the few consolations of being an Illinois resident is that I can vote however I want in the general without fear of “helping re-elect Obama” since Obama already has the appropriately named Sucker State in the bag anyway.

  • Presidents Buchanan and Huckabee think they are very decisive in the General election Elaine! :)

  • I am convinced now that the GOP leadership is going to throw the election (like they did in ’08) because they don’t want to be at the helm when the Titanic sinks.

  • Y’all will never convince me to vote for Romney, so save your keystrokes. If mine was the single deciding vote in Ohio, I still wouldn’t vote for him.

  • I am convinced now that the GOP leadership is going to throw the election (like they did in ’08)

    Since, there has been only one occasion (in seven opportunities to do so) where a political party was awarded the Presidency for three terms running. The incumbent administration was by the fall of 2008 among the most disdained in the history of scientific polling. In the middle of the campaign, the occidental world went into a banking crisis of a sort unknown in affluent countries for the previous 70-odd years. You think the Republican candidate threw the election? What have you been drinking?

  • Prepare for the worst: economic and societal collapse. Good place to start would be the disaster “prepper” series beginning Tuesday night at 9PM Eastern on, I think, Discovery Channel.

    And, drink heavily.

    Four more years of Obama and you will fondly reminisce about how good things were in 2008.

  • “If mine was the single deciding vote in Ohio, I still wouldn’t vote for him.” Jay, if enough voters think like you do, Obama will be re-elected. In the key battleground states, a few thousands votes COULD be the difference. Again, it is YOUR choice.

    Elaine, while Ohio and Florida are decisive in terms of the number of electoral votes, Iowa and New Hampshire are critical, not so much for the actual electoral outcome, but as indicators of who is going to win. Even though Michigan can be classified as a “swing” state, no one would be surprised if Obama carried Michigan, for example, but if the Republican nominee is leading in the polls in Iowa and/or New Hampshire, then that is a very good indicator for the general election.

    So, the first tier of critical states is: Ohio, Florida, Iowa and New Hampshire.

    The next level is: Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico.

    Missouri is probably the only state in serious play that McCain won in 2008. The 10 critical battleground states, leaving out Missouri at number 11, were all won by Obama in 2008. That is where every vote counts as to the actual outcome in the electoral college. I think it is most likely that the election will be won or lost in Ohio.

  • Team Dullard is now attacking Santorum for … get this … not being a “real” conservative. Says Dullard Flip Rino: Ignore all the big-time liberal crap I’ve done throughout my career, Santorum supported some earmarks, so you should vote for me.

    The sheer arrogance and chutzpah it takes for that pro-abort, health-care-mandating, religious-liberty-trampling, gun-grabbing RINO liberal and his shills to argue for his election on that basis is one reason why I will NEVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, vote for that fraud.

  • “If your not willing to vote for Flip [']the Dullard['] RINO,…. then you will help to re-elect Obama. The choice is yours.”

    This is precisely the weak-minded (or sometimes elitist-pompous), appalling attitude that has crippled the Republican party and must be done away with. Jay Anderson is right on the mark and TomD is dead wrong.

    Every election now, the Republicans put up a lame, big-government, establishment, status quo, neocon candidate; and we are told that we must obey and support the party’s candidate lest we help the Democrat. And the vast majority of Republican lemmings get suckered into this trap, obey the party establishment, do what they’re told and support the worthless Republican neo-con. The party string-pullers know the sheeple will always do what they are told, and so we continue to have one worthless nominee after another as the cycle continues. I could tell that Romney was going to be this year’s typical neocon pick from miles away.

    This attitude has rendered the Republican party useless. I am tired of being fed garbage every Predidential election and being told that I have to eat it or else I might get something worse. Shove it. The Dems just voted in one of the most liberal Presidents in history, yet the Republicans are too weak-minded to ever vote for a true conservative and always and only manage to nominate establishment candidates who are barely right-of-center, if that. And they still do this even in the wake of the ultra-liberal Dem president victory. It’s utterly pathetic.

    The attitude that unless we support the Republican nominee, we’re essentially “helping” the Democrat is appalling and arrogant. It means that conservatives are expected to fall in line and compromise for the Republican establishment’s desires, but never the other way around. The better solution would be for Republicans to abandon their party’s establishment and support a true conservative third-party candidate. But the arrogance of these attitudes causes many Republicans to consider it blasphemy to ever question the establishment’s pick.

    Until Republican voters reject the establishment, or until the conservative base splits from the Republican party and finds a new home with a third party, we are reduced to merely hoping that the “least worse” candidate wins and that the collapse of America will simply drag out at a slower pace.

  • Bill99, any Obama supporter who is reading our exchange is smiling right now. I also do not understand what you believe you are going to accomplish with words like “weak-minded,” “elitist,” and “pompous.” Do you think this will help to coalesce conservatives against President Obama?

    All your explanations and personal condemnations aside, I am stating a simple fact. If you do not vote for the Republican candidate, you will help to re-elect Obama. This is especially true if you live in Ohio or Florida, and true to a lesser extent in Iowa, New Hampshire, Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, or Missouri. If you live in California or New York, Mississippi or North Dakota, your individual vote will most likely not make a difference. If you live in any of the “battleground” states, and do not vote for the Republican candidate, you will help to re-elect President Obama. THE CHOICE IS YOURS.

    Democrats clearly understand that in order to exercise political power, you must obtain it first. When it comes down to it, the American people are a fickle lot; they want smaller government in the abstract, but ask them about individual government programs and they want those funded. Too many Americans want a limited government that provides them with everything that they believe government should provide. Republicans are caught in the cross-fire of this incompatible objective. And Democrats smile.

    We Republicans squabble over ideology, and even though the majority of Americans self-identify as conservatives, we often snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I hope that this is not such an election, but it is increasingly looking as if 10 or 20 electoral college votes could be the difference.

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .