February 21, 2012

Poll Watch: PPP (D) Washington 2012 Republican Caucus Survey

  1:23 pm

PPP (D) Washington 2012 GOP Caucus Poll

  • Rick Santorum 38% 
  • Mitt Romney 27%
  • Ron Paul 15%
  • Newt Gingrich 12%
  • Someone else/Not sure 8%

Very Conservative

  • Rick Santorum 50%
  • Mitt Romney 19%
  • Ron Paul 12%
  • Newt Gingrich 11%
  • Someone else/Not sure 8%

Somewhat Conservative

  • Rick Santorum 36%
  • Mitt Romney 33%
  • Newt Gingrich 15%
  • Ron Paul 11%
  • Someone else/Not sure 6%

Would you say you are strongly committed to that candidate, or might you end up supporting someone else?

  • Strongly committed to that candidate 50%
  • Might end up supporting someone else 50%

Second Choice

  • Rick Santorum 37%
  • Newt Gingrich 20%
  • Mitt Romney 18%
  • Ron Paul 9%
  • Someone else/Not sure 15%

If the Republican candidates for President were just Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum, who would you vote for?

  • Rick Santorum 49%
  • Mitt Romney 28%
  • Ron Paul 16%
  • Not sure 7%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

  • Rick Santorum 69% / 18% {+51%}
  • Mitt Romney 47% / 42% {+5%}
  • Newt Gingrich 39% / 46 {-7%}
  • Ron Paul 38% / 49% {-11%}

Do you consider yourself to be a member of the Tea Party?

  • Yes 35%
  • No 50% 

Are you an Evangelical Christian, or not?

  • Are an Evangelical 50%
  • Are not 50%

Among Evangelical Christians

  • Rick Santorum 50%
  • Mitt Romney 18%
  • Ron Paul 14%
  • Newt Gingrich 12%
  • Someone else/Not sure 6%

Among Non-Evangelicals

  • Mitt Romney 36%
  • Rick Santorum 26%  
  • Ron Paul 15%
  • Newt Gingrich 12%
  • Someone else/Not sure 10%

Survey of 400 likely Washington caucus voters was conducted February 16-19, 2012.  The margin of error is +/- 4.9 percentage points.  Political ideology: 39% Very conservative; 37% Somewhat conservative; 17%Moderate; 5% Somewhat liberal; 2% Very liberal.

Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal



by Oldest
by Best by Newest by Oldest
Firecracker (Romney/ West/ Christie/ Huckabee/ Rand Paul)

This will change next week. I am skeptical of the ideological breakdown, especially with the 50% Evangelical breakdown.


I always thought Washington to be a little more independent than the latest national trend...but 50% EV?


I'm torn.

On the one hand if Romney is not good enough to beat Santorum, he doesn't deserve it.

On the other hand, if Republicans are dumb enough to vote for Santorum, they do deserve it.

Reginald from texas

it is a bad sampling. Ppp is developing a bad reputation


Caucus states are notoriously difficult to poll. But this poll would be worthless even if Washington was a primary state. It's not smearing a pollster to discount one after a series of MASSIVELY wrong polling.

So, Mitt has gained 11 points in Michigan in the last week? Or, was the original "poll" a joke!

2 other, better, legitimate pollsters polled the state dead even, and one today shows a 2-point Mitt lead. He was NEVER down 15....and NO other pollster, and this, after numerous polls, had him down anywhere close to that.


No way, no how. 50% evangelical???

Yeah right.

Called another 10 friends in family last night, got them their caucus locations, timing, etc. Probably got a total of 30 friends/family so far to commit to going on march 3rd.

Mitt will take washington state if I have anything to do about it. I have yet to meet a single Rick supporter. Not a one. But I know a lot o mitt supporters.

Not to mention there are 300,000 Mormons in Washington state. Now I know only a fraction of them will turn out, but the ones I know are pretty motivated to turn out.



A 50% Evangelical sample, in one of the 3 or 4 least religious states in the nation, is outlandish.


Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

Rick Santorum 69% / 18% {+51%}

Mitt Romney 47% / 42% {+5%}

Newt Gingrich 39% / 46 {-7%}

Ron Paul 38% / 49% {-11%}

When I see a disparity like this, I have to be suspect...

Firecracker (Romney/ West/ Christie/ Huckabee/ Rand Paul)

I really think the polls coming from PPP, are purposefully being skewed against Romney. I still cannot get over the 50% Evangelical sample. What rubbish! In Florida it was like 25%, was it not?


5 - Dude.

I've followed PPP for years, and bet when their results were in line with my view of the fundamentals.

And made a bunch of cash.

In this cycle, PPP has done a lot of polling. A lot. And have been incredibly prescient.

Honestly. It's ridiculous to say they've been massively wrong. Quite the opposite.

Furthermore, you can readjust their headline numbers by reajusting the demographic ratios

They provide all the data you'd need in their crosstabs.

You Americans are spoiled regarding polling. Your pollsters are much more transparent and reliable than Canadian, British and European ones.


Is it possible people in Washington don't know the difference between "evangelical Christian" and "Christian" and didn't want to declare themselves to not be a Christian (as in part of that 50% believe in God even though they might not actually be "evangelical")?


Yeah, most washington GOPers think banning contraceptives

Is a great idea. Lol.



Marko took over PPP a lot more recently than that. If there were no empirical evidence that the quality of polling went down on KOS management, that would be one thing.

There is.

BTW, didn't you say yesterday that you weren't going to read my stuff?


13-- I did. But I can't hardly stand baseless attacks against PPP.

I feel like I owe them a lot!


Haven't read anything from here today, but got to love Drudge's takedown of Santorum today!



Thats not how polling is supposed to work. You don't front page a poll with your results and then force people to go through your cross tabs to evaluate whether or not your random sample was skewed and then apply local knowledge you may or may not have to figure out what the true number should be.

The average person, eg one who is not a political junkie or betting on intrade, looks at a poll to determine who is winning and who has momentum. They don't even know what a cross tab is. Pollsters should be responsible for publishing a poll based as closely on the demographics of the population they are polling or not publish the poll as truly representative.


http://unravelthesweater.com/ Here's some interesting info on Santorum from contributors of mittromneycentral.


Yeah, most washington GOPers think banning contraceptives

Is a great idea. Lol.

Exactly which candidate are you implying supports "banning contraceptives" or are you just a liberal troll trying to spew the Obama trash talk?


The contraception talk Santorum has just found himself all in the middle of..........EXACTLY what Obama's group wants. Way to go.


ccr Says:

February 21st, 2012 at 2:06 pm

http://unravelthesweater.com/ Here’s some interesting info on Santorum from contributors of mittromneycentral.


Reginald from texas

PPP is a democratic pollster, and they only seem to get accurate right before the polls. How can they in good faith think that 50% evangelcial in WA is anywhere close to accurate. A good pollster caps the number of certain groups in a survey, realizing that certain other groups are less likely to pick up the phone, and a pollster may have to work a little harder to get an accurate picture. I saw a special on Fox News last year that said pollsters have a tough time getting edicated voters to respond. The less educated and lower-income voters are much more likely to respond in a poll.

Flroida Conservative


I thought Scott Rasmussen was saying Romney was surging in Michigan? What the heck


that was just a lie someone on here started


I keep telling you these last 2 polls out of Michigan did NOT show momentum for Romney, they were messing with the underlying assumptions is all. Heck the one earlier today had something like 25% of the REPUBLICAN primary voters down as liberal! lol

Flroida Conservative


That figures, still its a tight race right now in MI and hopefully Mitt starts pulling away over the weekend


The Rasmussen sample is

40% very conservative

34% somewhat conservative

26% other

And despite severely "very conservative" sample, Romney still leads 41-40 in certain of their vote category.

2008 Michigan Republican primary ideological distribution gives Romney 2 point lead from cross tabs.


MI will be decided by whoever has momentum going into Tuesday's voting because

he will put the undecideds. I would also expect that Gingrich's actual total

will be less than the polling since he is not competing.

The key might be whether Romney can outperform his polling. Santorum can.


19 I haven't been following this birth control issue to closely, but from what I've seen saying Santorum wants to ban birth control is a lot more accurate than stuff thrown against Romney. It's kind of late in the game to act all upset.


"The Rasmussen sample is

40% very conservative

34% somewhat conservative

26% other"

Well, thats skewed. "Very Conservative" should be no more than 30%.


I would add about 3 points+ to Santorums numbers everywhere because Gingrich voters will desert him at the last moment and vote startegically for Santorum


#31 that seems to be the battle right now. All the good pollsters say it's like this, all the crappy ones say it's tons of liberals and few conservatives. Take your pick


Debate will be MAJOR decider.


Skewing samples is the best way to foist an inaccurate result on an unsuspecting public. Wonder if this has anything to do with Rasmussen's relationship with FOX?


"Take your pick"

My pick is: There is no reason Conservatives should turn out in larger droves in Michigan, relative to 2008, than they did in Florida, relative to 2008.

If the share of the electorate defining itself as "very Conservative" increases by the same % in Michigan (relative to their 2008 share), then they should account for no greater than 30% of the electorate next week.


I would add about 3 points+ to Santorums numbers everywhere because Gingrich voters will desert him at the last moment and vote startegically for Santorum

Did Romney vs Santorum with 2008 ideology distribution, it's a tie.

Gingrich is at 8%, I think that is pretty much floor for him, he isn't going much down.


Romney/Paul 2012


#37 my pick is ... there is NO freaking way that 25% of the REPUBLICAN primary voters are "liberal" as in that bogus poll earlier that showed Romney leading

so you can believe Rasmussen, PPP, and ARG or.... you can believe the world reknown... We Ask America.. and... Mitchell? lol


"Pollsters should be responsible for publishing a poll based as closely on the demographics of the population they are polling or not publish the poll as truly representative."

Prescriptive bollocks.

The fact that PPP is absolutely transparent with their data speaks volume about their integrity.

Very very few pollsters do that.



Liberals would be pulling for Santorum, of course. Obama's spent a small fortune trying to take down Mitt over the course of the last few months. Operation Hilarity isn't an attempt to get CONSERVATIVES to the polls.

And, as Ann Coulter and others have explained, Mitt's the true Conservative in the race.


all the crappy ones say it’s tons of liberals and few conservatives.

New Mitchell poll had "36% very conservative" which is way too much. It had lot's of liberals because there was no moderate category, the moderates had to pick either "somewhat conservative" or liberal.


"my pick is … there is NO freaking way that 25% of the REPUBLICAN primary voters are “liberal” as in that bogus poll earlier that showed Romney leading"

If I had to put money on it, I would say that Santorum currently leads in Michigan by 2-3%. PPP had a "Very Conservative" sample of, I believe, 33%. Rasmussen had it at 40%. Both of those, based on my calculations of similar shifts in the electorate to what we say in Florida, are somewhat overstated.


believe who you wish, I am going with PPP and Rasmussen



How many times do I have to repeat this to you, the mitchell poll did NOT have moderate, moderates had to pick either somewhat conservative or liberal

2008 MI Republican Primary

3% very lib

9% somewhat lib

33% moderate

This adds to 24% lib rather easily if moderates are forced to choose somewhat conservative or lib.



>>The fact that PPP is absolutely transparent with their data speaks volume about their integrity.

Very very few pollsters do that.

Nonsense. You can get cross tabs from virtually every reputable poll. But that is hardly the point. Putting out a poll to the public in bright lights that claims one thing while hiding the fact that it is highly unrepresentative of the underlying population is what is bollocks.

Polls often drive behavior which is why PPP was so widely condemned when they were doing push polls for Kos to "prove" his hypothesis. The vast majority of people do not read the cross tabs, just the headlines, and pollsters know this very well.


CNN/ORC just out

Romney 36%

Santorum 32%


Granny t,I've been on

This site since 2007, or when you were still trying to figure out how the Internet worked.

Santorum believes that states should have the right to ban contraceptives if they want to, but doesnt personally think they should. How does that work and why should states have that right?

I can get you the link if you wish. Would it surprise you to know tha lost conservatives/libertarians think that the govt (state or fed) have enough power as Orbison, without sticking their hands in the bedroom.


And here's something interesting from the CNN cross tabs

Among Tea Partiers

Santorum 35%

Romney 32%

Tell me again how Romney can't get Tea Party voters.


mitchell and we ask america are junk, especially we ask america. Anyone who doubts Rasmussen and PPP (especially if you have money on the line) does so at their own peril


"CNN/ORC just out

Romney 36%

Santorum 32%"

That a Michigan poll?


#48 that's arizona


Have you guys ever been polled?

It's only at the end of the questioning they usually ask these 'are you conservative, very conservative, moderate, etc.' questions.

Doesn't that breakdown depend on who answers their phone calls?

It's useful to know, but do you think they should throw out poll respondents if they get too large a sample of certain self selected groups?

And maybe someone who considers themselves 'very conservative' may not actually be as conservative as someone who considers themselves just 'conservative.'

I don't think it's fair to claim the pollsters are trying to 'skew' the results.


Arizona poll confirmed



No, sorry, AZ.


" Anyone who doubts Rasmussen and PPP "

A poll is made or broken by its Sample. Rass, and even PPP, can be very good pollsters. But that is contingent on having a good sample.

If you want to chain yourself to PPP, please explain to me what caused such a significant number of "Very Conservative" voters to go from being likely voters (in the Santorum +15% poll) to not likely voteres (in the recent one).

If you want to claim PPP is infallible, you have to defend that.

What you also need to defend is why you believe "very conservative" voters would be far more likely to turn out in Michigan than in Florida.

Because if they aren't, then the best sample is 28%-30% "very conservative"...which probably cuts Santorum's lead down to 2-3%.


This is where I think this race is... Michigan - Santorum ahead by 4-5 points and that's stable and hasn't moved in quite awhile and probably wont till after the debate tomorrow. In Arizona, Romney is ahead 4 to 5 points - but Santorum is gaining slowly, but again this race will also be determined by the debate tomorrow.


49 - should read "would it surprise you to know that most conservatives/libertarians think that the govt has too much power as it is. "

Stupid auto- correct.


#57 that's easy, Romney depressed the "very conservative" vote in Florida (which was inclined towards Gingrich at the time) with the negative ad carpet bombing. If fact one of the best indicators that Romney is going to win or not has been turnout. If turnout is low ... Romney suceeded in depressing the conservatives, and will win. If turnout is high, conservatives are turning out in droves to say hell no to Romney.


"Santorum ahead by 4-5 points and that’s stable and hasn’t moved in quite awhile"

...based on a Sample that inflates the share of voters that belong to his key group, yes.


Maybe pollsters are doing too many questions. Maybe people suffering from severe RDS are more willing to spend 15 minutes or whatever it takes to answer all these extra questions, whereas more moderate people are like: "Sure I spend some time to vote for Romeny but can't be bothered to spend as much time answering on this poll..."


It doesn't really matter because by tomorrow night all these polls will be garbage. The debate is all that matters. In particular if Santorum or Gingrich does well. It doesn't really matter what Romney does.


CNN/ORC AZ poll interesting because Romney nearly ties Santorum with Tea Party.

News orgs have been linking Romney to the gay sheriff, which is absurd but you

have to think it may be causing polls to tighten.


Wow, 50% Evangelical! I was born and raised in Washington state, and although that was some years ago, it was not 50% Evangelical back then and is EVEN LESS SO now. I still have family in Tacoma and was just there last summer.



>>If turnout is low … Romney suceeded in depressing the conservatives, and will win. If turnout is high, conservatives are turning out in droves to say hell no to Romney.

This is just getting stupid. Labels mean crap. Go look at the cross tabs of the Time/CNN/ORC poll in AZ. Romney and Santorum are doing virtually the same with conservatives. Newt, by the way, is getting punked once again. Newt's vote got depressed because the facts about Newt's record finally got out and he started getting his ass kicked in the debates.

Pointing out someones actual record is not negative campaigning, its pointing out the facts. None of these candidates is pure when it comes to conservative orthodoxy but only one of them had to make actual decisions as an executive, Romney. This constant argument on blogs about who is the mostest and bestest conservative is inane and childish.

The reason the vote was down in FL is because in 2008 there was a highly contentious property tax plan on the ballot and that drove a lot of people to the polls. Not everyone lives and dies by who is the mostest conservative crap.


There are times/pollsters when you adjust your samples and the are other times you do not.

The breakdown on very-somewhat conservative-moderate- is very difficult to pin down everytime.

As for PPP...they had Romney ahead by 3pts in AZ...now CNN has it 4 pts Romney.

PPP had Santorum up by 4 in MI, and now Ras has Rick up by 4.

Pollsters want to get it right.the only think they have is their reputation.

I can see Michigan being difficult to do...AZ maybe a little easier.


"I can see Michigan being difficult to do…AZ maybe a little easier."

Really? I would think AZ would be harder.


When you get a heavier (likely voter) LV response from a sub group than from other sub groups historically when you are doing you polling..it's difficult to know if you need to throw out some of the sample or not in that sub group.

Santorum has outdone his polling numbers in these Caucus states thus far because certain sub groups are coming out harder than others....but does that mean Pollsters should adjust their sample according to this?...or adjust the sample according to historical results from each state?

Not easy to do...difficult polling choices. And when those choices are made it does not mean their is a conspiracy against one candidate or another.


Also actually absentee and early vote were up in Florida, during absentee and early vote the race looked more exciting, but in the election day, the feeling on inevitable double digit victory for Romney in a winner-take-all system suppressed turnout.


Matthew Kilburn,

Maybe you are right, now that I think about it more.


Remember in "96" when Forbes went down to AZ and won with his pro-growth (Flat tax) message?

I think that is what Mitt is doing with his new economic messaging...and it might work.

I do think Santorum & Gingrich will need to counter act that with messaging that Mitt switched again...if they don't, Mitt is going to get a nice 48 hour news cycle in AZ with this messaging.

Mitt is trying to boost turnout in the Moneyburbs with this new message and I think it has a good chance of working...IMO.


Checking in it seems like Romney moved to a commanding lead in Arizona, is moving into a lead in Michigan, yet Santorum is lighting up the national polls. Seems to me that Romney has the better campaign and message, and Santorum's being held up by the media.


Smack - what new messaging? I haven't heard anything about any new policies?


My friends in Spokane are caucusing TODAY. How does this work?


Have no clue. We don't caucus until march 3rd.

Give em he'll mitt!!


The PPP MI poll had many more Female than Male in their poll:

Mitt up 4% with Females

Rick up 12% with Males

Total result: Rick up 4%

If number of Female & Male respondents were equal, Rick would be roughly up by 8%..not 4%

The Mitchell Research poll MI had many more Female respondents than Male in thier poll.

Mitt up %3 with Female

Rick up %6 with Male

Total result: Mitt up 2% total.

If respndents were equal Rick would be up a couple of points.

Now I point this out not to say these polls and their samples are incorrect. Females could vote more than Male in the GOP MI election, even though historically that does not happen much.

I bring this up to get it ready to compare the sample used in these two polls to the Rasmussen MI poll that just came out.

I will repost this in the Rasmussen MI thread.


#71 Smack

What new economic message are you refering to? any links?



Smack, you need your eyes checked. This is from the PDF they released:

Q18 If you are a woman, press 1. If a man, press 2.

Woman ........................................................... 47%

Man................................................................. 53%



Yes, I was going to say the same thing.


I'm sorry if I missed it, but is there a post or discussion about how Rick Santorum just lost any chance of being the nominee today?




Team Mitt took Mass Con advice and have retooled their economic plan. It will essentially talk about cutting rates instead of his 59 point plan that did not cut income tax rates. We do not know all the details, but this should help boost turnout in the white collar Moneyburns regions in the electorate for Mitt. Mitt is actually doing in a little better in rural/cultural regions in 2012, than 2008...but his raw numbers in the moneyburbs have decreased somewhat.

This should help....and that is why Team Santorum & Team Gingrich should get agressive with the message of "it took five years for you to come up with this??"

..because if they don't. Mitt will receive the windfall from this retooled pro-growth message.


Santorum get more help in Michigan.....from Obama's PAC which is running ads against Romney in Michigan:



Matthew Kilburn - Mass CON

If that is true..than how you explain the numbers I have layed out in comment 76#?

Why would rick only be up 4 in PPP if he is up 12 voer Mitt with males and only down 4 with females?

Are the Men voters more undecided?....that could be.


It IS true, Smack...

...and I'm at a bit of a loss as to what you want me to explain.

The information I posted in #79 comes directly from the PDF that PPP released with their Michigan Poll. Can you point me to something that shows Mitchell oversampled females? I didn't see it in their write-up, but I'd be happy to take a look.



Actually 8% of women are undecided, 4% of men

I think you have calculated something wrong, here's how it goes from cross tab back to totals.


0.47*0.38+0.53*0.28 = 0.3270 = 33


0.47*0.34+0.53*0.40 = 0.3718 = 37


#82 Smack,

Thanks....but where did you hear this? Just curious, it's the first time I'm hearing of it.


Mitchell also didn't seem to announce female vote directly, based on cross tabs, males were probably 51% at least.



I don't know.

Another reason to question PPP.


This should help….and that is why Team Santorum & Team Gingrich should get agressive with the message of “it took five years for you to come up with this??”

Didn't it take Cain and Perry for Gingrich to come up with his flat tax though? 😀


Yeah....I ran the calculations and what you guys saying is correct.

Teemu numbers is what I have...something like 224 vs. 197 in raw numbers.

About 4.4% lead with this sample.


we need a bloopers reel here...


All within moe. Big Mo will decide.



>>Thanks….but where did you hear this? Just curious, it’s the first time I’m hearing of it.

He announced he was going to be releasing the full details of his tax plan before the MI and AZ primaries on Kudlow about 3 weeks ago. Today, Kudlow announced that the plan will be released on Friday but Kudlow would be leaking details tomorrow.


Teemu - Mass Con - Matthew Kilburn.

All I know is that Forbes went down to AZ in "96" with his money advantage and drove the Pro-growth message to victory over Dole & Buchanan. That is the time when Pat held the rifle over his head when he should have been giving a serious Foreign Policy address in AZ. Pat has stated that bad decsion cost him AZ.

Mitt is going to drive this new pro-growth message in AZ Moneyburbs and make sure he wins this state.


Did they give the absolute numbers somewhere in the crosstabs, kinda hard to say where the roundings up or down are.

For example, it could be


0.47*0.383+0.53*0.283 = 0.3300


0.47*0.336+0.53*0.40 = 0.3699



I got something like this:

602 -total

Mitt = Women 108 - Men - 89

Rick = Women 96 - Men - 128

224 vs. 197.

I did a little rounding...but I think this is it...but I have been wrong in this whole thread so you might want to take a stab at it.

Just let me know what the sample is for Rasmussen MI numbers when they come out for Male vs. Female.


Newt Gingrich is scrapping scrapping plans to travel to Michigan at the end of the week.

That should help Rick Santorum a touch.

Now lets see if Santorum is smart enough to finally get his ass up there and spend some FRICKING TIME ON THE GROUND IN MI!!!


I don't think gender differences in samples are that significant, pollsters tend to keep it in realistic range rather easily, whether it is 51% men or 56% men doesn't make that huge difference in general.

Here are is the difference for PPP cross tabs for the realistic range, in which pollsters tend to stay


56% men, 44% women

0.44*0.34+0.56*0.40 = 0.3736

51% men, 49% women

0.49*0.34+0.51*0.40 = 0.3706

0.3% difference.


#98 Smack,

Santorum was in a suburb of Atlanta over the weekend taking a page from Huckabee's playbook. I personally think it is repulsive when politicians show up in churches to campaign and I think the pastors that invite them are equally disgusting.

Beyond that though, I didn't understand why he was in Georgia instead of Michigan but perhaps he believed he had that state won.



Or I meant to say, yeah there is differences in their voting, but since pollsters don't have samples where the female vote would be up 16 percentage points from last time, like they have with "very conservative" vote sometimes.



I don't understand why Rick has been in Ohio so much more than Michigan thus far. If rick wins MI he will win Ohio. I think they are putting the cart before the horse.

I have no problem with politicians doing speeches in churches....if the church is ok with that of course. But I do not like pastors telling...or even suggesting who you should vote for.


#102 Smack,

I think when pastors invite candidates, it's an implied endorsement.

Here in Georgia, Mike Huckabee just happened to show up in a very populous, very Republican(92%)county at the biggest Baptist mega-church on the Sunday before Super Tuesday. He spoke at each of their morning services.

The pastor reportedly said he had not invited him there to campaign but to offer his "testimony". In my opinion, the implication was that the pastor was unofficially endorsing Huck which I find revolting. If Huck merely wanted to offer his testimony, why not do it some other time or do it in a smaller venue. Obviously the answer is that it was calculated and it was political. It had nothing to do with the mission of the church and had nothing to do with encouraging Christians. It was about getting votes and I found the whole episode repulsive.


#100 because if Santorum beat Gingrich in Georgia... that would be the final nail in the coffin for Gingrich causing him to drop out, and that would result in a landslide victory in the primary for Santorum


"It was about getting votes and I found the whole episode repulsive." Hello, yes campaigning is about getting votes.



y friends in Spokane are caucusing TODAY. How does this work?

No, KG, it's Saturday. There was a caucus SAMPLE, yesterday, and a campaign stop by Josh Romney, today, that included a SHORT training and pitch about the caucus.


"I have yet to meet a single Rick supporter. Not a one. But I know a lot o mitt supporters."

You and Pauline Kael. This only tells us who you cavort with and nothing about the Washington electorate.


Reading through the posts it is apparent that those who support Romney support Romney and his positions.

But those who support others are also focused on Romney, not their own candidate and what they have to offer.

Which raises the question, How did Mitt become the enemy, rather than Obama.

Do you find Mitt so intrinsically evil that it doesn't matter who else goes against Obama and what they offer?

Rick Santorum's qualification is that he is not Romney. You can't beat Obama by being not Romney.

I am from WA and I have not seen one sign or any indication of support for Rick Santorum, and I have been traveling around the state some.

Not one indication of Santorum's support, only this poll. I disbelieve it.


Somebody essentially assist to make critically posts I'd state. This is the very first time I frequented your website page and to this point? I amazed with the research you made to create this actual put up incredible. Excellent process!

Comments are closed.

Recent Posts

Tweets by @Racefour

Search R4'16