Skip to content
Advertisements

Rick Santorum continues to surge in Iowa

January 2, 2012

  With one day to go before Iowans begin to caucus, and as conservatives continue to look for a candidate who has been “ideologically consistent” over his career, they are looking more and more towards Rick Santorum. Rick Santorum has been surging in Iowa’s polls for about a week now and according to this latest PPP poll the surge continues.

Ron Paul is at 20%, Mitt Romney at 19%, and Rick Santorum at 18%.

  Rick Santorum has closed to within two points of the lead and you have to think that his timing couldn’t have been better. With the exception of Ron Paul, whose support seems to be consistent, other candidates who appeared to be an option to those who do not plan on voting for Mitt Romney have come and they have gone, but at this point in the game it would appear as if Rick Santorum is poised to shake up the GOP race in Iowa and beyond.

    This surge appears similar to one I watched and wrote about here in New Hampshire in 2010. The race I am referring to is the Senate race to replace retiring Republican Senator Judd Gregg. Kelly Ayotte was the Republican establishment candidate, was well funded, and had name recognition, but one week before the New Hampshire primary a little known candidate with no money began to surge in the polls by running a grassroots effort with a conservative message. His name was Ovide Lamontagne and in the end he came within 1,000 of pulling off a major upset, but he fell short.

  I see quite a few parallels between these two races; Mitt Romney has been chosen by the Republican establishment, is well funded, and has name recognition while Rick Santorum has no money and little name recognition. Rick Santorum is running a grassroots campaign while touting a conservative message, and he will also likely fall short in the end. But needless to say; where losing the Republican primary in Hew Hampshire was the end of the road for Ovide Lamontagne, losing the Iowa Caucus but having a surprising showing could be just the beginning for Rick Santorum.

  One thing is for sure at this point; nothing is sure. This is anyone’s game to win and nobody can predict who is going to win in Iowa tomorrow with 40% of Iowans saying they could still change their minds, but it is certainly getting fun to watch.

Advertisements
24 Comments leave one →
  1. January 2, 2012 12:24 pm

    This is great news! I hope his surge continues.

    Like

    • January 2, 2012 5:18 pm

      So do I, at least with Santorum we have a man who doesn’t change his beliefs based on where he is at the time. We know where he stands. The same can be said for Ron Paul, but I can’t get passed his foreign policy.

      Like

    • February 10, 2012 8:46 am

      Yes, Santorum is quite the dednefer of morals alright, HIS morals! And he needs the coercive power of the federal government to achieve these ends. Santorum and his ilk are only for individual rights when the individual makes decisions that he approves of and if not, then he has no compunction in using the feds to enforce conformity with his views. Smaller, less intrusive government? Yeah, sure!

      Like

  2. The Georgia Yankee permalink
    January 2, 2012 1:21 pm

    Doesn’t anyone else find it rather pathetic just how much weight is given to the Iowa caucuses by the GOP?

    I mean, if the GOP and its candidates are really serious about reducing the size of government and the influence of government in our lives, why would they imbue with so much importance the selection of a state whose main claim to fame is government subsidization of its major crop?

    I may have suggested in an earlier post that “ideologically pure” GOP candidates – and especially T-Party types – should denounce and renounce those subsidies when they campaign in Iowa. As you can expect, I heard nothing but crickets.

    There’s no point in arguing about why Iowa holds its caucuses so early – that’s just another element of the spoiled adolescent behavior that characterizes far too much political behavior today. There’s every point, however, in not relying on Iowa results too much in the following months – after all, the people who cast those ballots have a strong vested interest in the maintenance of a big-government wealth redistribution system and little interest in the sort of rugged individualism so many think is the message of today’s GOP.

    Take good care and may God bless us all!

    Like

    • January 2, 2012 5:30 pm

      I understand your point, but no I do not find it pathetic that candidates put so much emphasis on Iowa during the election. We have been given this primary process by both parties and this is the system we must live with until and unless it is changed, and the system dictates that Iowa is first and New Hamsphire is second so why would Republicans ignore a state so early on in the election just because they may have issues with these subsidies? If Republicans were to ignore Iowa because of this would you not be complaining that they were disenfranchising voters of a state for political reasons?
      I like the fact that two smaller states–Iowa and New Hamsphire–are given the first chances to vote in an election because otherwise these states would be ignored by the candidates. In the end Iowa doesn’t play a major role in selecting the nominee but Iowa and New Hampshire allow the candidates to mingle more closely with the voters before the campaigns become so big that people can’t get close to the candidates.
      Do I like the fact that the candidates pander to Iowa over the subsidies, no, but these are the first votes cast in the election and I don’t blame the candidates for giving Iowa so much weight–especially the second tier candidates.

      Like

      • The Georgia Yankee permalink
        January 2, 2012 6:50 pm

        You make excellent points, Steve, and the fact that Iowa seized the inside rail for itself when it has such a lucrative perk to defend doesn’t diminish their value.

        Remember, I’m the semi-resident liberal here, and by definition I support government subsidies when they prevent a collapse of part of the economy. Nevertheless, I think the point came when the subsidy was no longer necessary, in addition to which, from my perspective, it’s no longer a lifesaving crutch for the family farmer but a government teat for agribusiness.

        At the very least, the ethanol rules should be eased or eliminated – from what we know, it takes more than the equivalent of a gallon of gasoline to produce a gallon of ethanol which, when added to gasoline as required by law, reduces its mileage efficiency.

        Diminishing the importance of the Iowa caucuses by not giving them as much weight in subsequent funding and other support would amount to disenfranchisement, though, because the delegates selected by Iowa voters will still have the exact same value at the Convention as every other delegate.

        Even those from Virginia, whose leaders cleverly devised a way to keep their ballot uncluttered . . . (;-)).

        Overall, it’s a very complex issue, I think, and there’s no policy formulation, short of simply forbidding Iowa to hold its caucuses so early, that will change how things are done. But if I’m Bachman or Gingrich, who seem likely to come in the lower tier, I’m going to go to New Hampshire screaming to high heaven that whoever won in Iowa is the darling of the big government interventionists, the bailout babies, the candidates of special interests who believe in government subsidies for products no longer in need of subsidy. Bachman and Gingrich each have nothing to lose, and so would be justified (IMHO) in taking that tack.

        Happy New Year to all, and may God bless us all!

        TGY

        Like

      • The Georgia Yankee permalink
        January 2, 2012 6:53 pm

        um, “would amount to disenfranchisement” is missing the crucial word “not,” between “would” and “disenfranchisement.” My apologies to all.

        Like

      • January 2, 2012 8:20 pm

        No problem TGY, I knew what you meant. Disenfranchising was probably the wrong word. What I meant to say was that by having Iowa and New Hampshire holding their elections later on would mean their votes would be somewhat less relevent and carry less wieght then holding them at the beginning, of course I am biased in this opinion because I live in New Hampshire and relish the role our state plays in the election process.
        I agree with you about the subsidies but I understand why the candidates pander to Iowa in this regard.
        I also agree that those who lose Iowa could do well by portraying the winner in the light you have suggested.
        If I may use a football analogy: Patriot coach Bill Belichick has said in the past “you have to play the schedule you are given” and that is what these candidates are doing.

        Like

      • The Georgia Yankee permalink
        January 3, 2012 9:46 am

        Yes – play the schedule they’re given. But to see GOP candidates, in their first outing of the year, unanimously pandering to a constituency that lives on a government subsidy, makes one suspect the sincerity of some of their claims, like smaller government, reduction or elimination of welfare, etc.

        If the President has to make tough choices, they’ve all shown that they’re not capable of doing the job well.

        Have a grand day and may God bless us all!

        TGY

        Like

      • January 3, 2012 8:34 pm

        I do have to agree with you to a point, I have lost faith in the notion that anyone will make the tough decisions and shrink the federal government. We have heard it time and time again but nobody ever follows through on it once they realize it will cost them votes.

        Like

      • lou222 permalink
        February 10, 2012 9:25 am

        What would be wrong with the candidates visiting ALL the states equally AND everyone voting at the same time? The problem I have with ones voting so early is that by the time my state comes around there are those that are already dropping out of the race that would or could have gotten my vote. I guess I think it is biased that some vote earlier than others and then leave the people that can’t vote then with less to choose from. We have been short changed and limited on who we can choose. Do I think that there should be favoritism played with the states by the candidates, no. I am for voting on the same day, same month.

        Like

      • lou222 permalink
        February 10, 2012 9:33 am

        While I am at it, I think the military vote should be sent out early and no “calling of the race” until ALL the votes are counted. I am tired of seeing a race called before the polls are closed and possible people not voting because it is useless. I dislike the media. They should not have that control. And, as far as voting early, for convience, that should not happen. If you can prove you have to be away on voting day, fine, but it has become easier to do it and not have to go to the polls and stand in line. I know there are circumstances that warrant the early vote, but really, so many doing it now?
        O/T I have a station on the radio now in Illinois talking about us getting CC. It is so bad here that they are trying to even consider cutting out Chicago (north of I-80) from CC. Every other state has CC, but not us. Thank you Chicago, our Gov. Quinn and all the people that are afraid that we will have a higher death rate if it would go thru. I feel so much safer knowing that the thugs have guns, but WE can’t .

        Like

      • The Georgia Yankee permalink
        February 10, 2012 12:37 pm

        Lou, to tell the truth, I don’t think a single national primary day would be a good thing for the US, but I agree that it would be nice for the candidates to visit all the states. On the other hand, in this day of highly sophisticated communication and the Internet, is it really necessary for candidates to make a physical visit to a state to get their message out?

        Let me amplify – I never saw Ronald Reagan in person, but that didn’t prevent me from voting for him in 1980. (I hadn’t seen President Carter, either, to be honest.)

        As to calling the vote – are you suggesting yet another government regulation, this one stifling freedom of speech and freedom of the press? I didn’t think so.

        In fact, most journalists and broadcasters delay calling a race until the polls have closed, but they’re very fond of trying to be the first to make the call once the polls have closed. I was watching CNN in 2008 and they called the Presidential race for Obama perhaps 12 seconds or so after the California polls had closed. I wasn’t really aware that any broadcast outlets were calling races in this primary season before the polls closed – have you got any examples?

        And sorry, but when you mention talk about CC, I must be having a brain fart; I have no idea what you’re talking about. I hope it doesn’t diminish your respect for me!

        Take good care and may God bless us all!

        TGY

        Like

      • lou222 permalink
        February 10, 2012 3:00 pm

        TGY, you asked about the calling of the race early that I mentioned. First, let me say a big NO on another government regulation. It has been in the past that some local channels have voiced their opinions, before the polls have closed. I have known people that didn’t go vote because of that opinion, they figured it was a lost cause. It was not the big channels that I was speaking of. Even after the polls close, how can they call it at say 1% or 2% of the vote? I have never understood that, unless they know ahead of time. Curious why you don’t think it would work on a one day vote? Do you see my point, that by the time alot of states get to vote, we are so limited on candidates, that we didn’t have the chance to vote for the one we had wanted to. As to the CC, that is conceal carry. I will let you take it from there with what I posted. Illinois is the only state that has the pleasure of NOT protection ourselves outside the home. Brain farts happen, don’t they? Respect is still intact.

        Like

  3. January 2, 2012 4:42 pm

    He has ZERO chance of doing anything. I don’t know why some stories make it sound like he’ll win Iowa and somehow become president.

    Like

    • January 2, 2012 5:31 pm

      He is not going to win Iowa, and he probably won’t do much in New Hampshire. But a good showing in Iowa allows him to stay in the race past New Hampshire and once we get to the southern states I think he has a chance to do well. Will he be the nominee? Highly unlikely but this would change the dynamics of the race.

      Like

  4. January 2, 2012 7:22 pm

    I like Rick Santorum because I believe him to be a solid conservative. He is much more conservative than Romney. As for Ron Paul, I support him because of his views on the constitution and liberty. I’m with you in that his foreign policy is a tough pill to swallow, however if we don’t get our foreign intervention under control we will not only go bankrupt, bit we will continue to lose our liberties. On a side note I can see myself getting behind Rick Santorum long before Newt or Mitt. Rick is my overall second choice.

    Like

    • January 2, 2012 8:22 pm

      I agree John, and Paul would be my first choice if it weren’t for foreign policy. We have our one two candidates reversed. If I were not voting for Rick Santorum I would be voting for Ron Paul–he really is the one true constitionalist/originalist in the race.

      Like

      • lou222 permalink
        January 3, 2012 7:29 am

        Is there one candidate that “has it all”? I doubt it. I think that Dr. Paul is changing his thoughts a bit on foreign policy, guess we will have to wait and see what he has to say. I do like Santorum, he is an honest man, I believe. However, I just do not think it is his time, maybe in another 4 years.I do like hearing what TGY has to say, from a more liberal point of view. That is always welcome to hear different opinions. I still think that it will be Romney that will be the chosen one, I just don’t think we have much say in the matter anymore than when McCain was the one. I think the establishment tells them when it is “their time to run” and we just go thru the other motions, but in the end they are already chosen.

        Like

      • The Georgia Yankee permalink
        January 3, 2012 9:53 am

        Well, Lou, thanks so much for the very kind words. In this forum, it appears to me that we all love our country and have a grand vision for her – our differences lie perhaps in the details of the vision (Ronald Reagan called us a shining city on a hill – I think you folks want to power it with dirty coal, where I want efficient solar and wind power, for example . . .) and how we achieve it as well. I have no patience for those conservatives and liberals who think the other side is out to destroy the country – that’s unproductive.

        As to the perfect candidate . . . that’s been part of this debate since the last time out – and the conclusion is that there is no perfect candidate, and those in either party who hold the process hostage to achieve their vision of the perfect candidate are simply guaranteeing loss in the general election. IMO, of course. Anti-choice advocates are the clearest example, because they’ll try to exercise a veto power over any candidate whose stance is inconsistent with theirs, regardless of their position on the many many many other, more pressing issues tthat confront our nation.

        Have a grand day and may God bless us all!

        TGY

        Like

      • January 3, 2012 8:38 pm

        It will be interesting to see if Paul changes his tune on Iran with all that is going on over there, but I don’t think he will because I think he means exactly what he says. As for Santorum, there is no way he is going to win but he could possibly put a scare in a few people.
        And I agree with you on TGY, I always enjoy reading his comments, they are always well thought out.

        Like

      • January 3, 2012 8:40 pm

        I like that little dig about the coal TGY, but I think you know many of us want alternative energy as well, we just feel domestic coal and oil is part of a solution to our dependence on foreign oil/

        Like

      • The Georgia Yankee permalink
        January 3, 2012 9:02 pm

        😉 It was the best I could do on a deadline!

        But yes, I’m aware that there’s actually a very strong conservationist movement among conservatives and especially among the religious right, who take seriously God’s stricture that we take dominion over the earth and take good care of it, and all the things living there.

        Happy New Year, take good care and may God bless us all!

        TGY

        Like

      • lou222 permalink
        January 4, 2012 8:15 am

        TGY, we are really not so different, it seems. I would love to see us with wind and solar energy, but until then I would also like us to become independent of the other countries that are taking us for all they can get. I think our views on politics are formed at at early age, given who our parents are/were, how they voted and where we live/lived. I had a Democrat parent and a Republican parent. So, I have had to pick myself up and search for what I believe in when it comes to the “perfect” party. I guess I don’t need to tell you that I have yet to find that party. I think we just have to weigh all the pros and cons and take our most educated guess at who will do the best for what each of us want. That we are able to “agree to disagree” is what sets us apart from others. Everything that we learn from someone of a different party does shape our opinions. A smart person will listen to what another has to say and then form their opinion after that. A valid point is just that, it doesn’t matter what “party” it comes from.That is what sets us apart from other blogs that do nothing but bicker. That really serves no purpose and will get us nowhere.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: