By The Right Scoop


This is another national poll conducted February 8-13, confirming what we are seeing virtually everywhere else that Santorum is now at the front of the pack, if not tied with Romney for the lead. In the CBS News/New York Times poll below, Santorum has a 3 point lead:

Here are the poll details, via CBS News:

This poll was conducted by telephone from February 8-13, 2012 among 1,197 adults nationwide. 1,064 interviews were conducted with registered voters and 331 with voters who said they plan to vote in a Republican primary. Phone numbers were dialed from samples of both standard land-line and cell phones. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus three percentage points. The margin of error for the sample of registered voters could be plus or minus three points and five points for the sample of Republican primary voters. The error for subgroups may be higher. This poll release conforms to the Standards of Disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls.

For more analysis check out Ed Morrissey’s writeup on this poll today.

About 

Blogger extraordinaire since 2009 and the owner and Chief Blogging Officer of the most wonderful and super fantastic blog in the known and unknown universe: The Right Scoop

Trending Now

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.


NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

  • Anonymous

    Good, so long as Mittwitt isn’t leading anymore, not that I put a single iota of trust in any polls.

    • B-Funk

      I have to agree with you. The disparity between the different polls suggests that the same standards of polling are not being used by everyone, which makes it tough- if not impossible- to trust polling data of any sort.

      • Anonymous

        I’ve said it before, but I have a lot of veteran friends who will engage any pollster who asks and lie like a cheap rug. They will tell the pollster the exact opposite of what they think and feel just for kicks. This is the first thought I have when I hear the word “poll.”

        • Anonymous

          You rascally devils…lying to the poor pollsters for kicks! That made my day..thanks!

          • Anonymous

            Marines have a bad habit of looking down on all non-Marines. After you’ve been a civilian for a while you learn that that isn’t fair and moderate some. Certain classes of people never improve in our minds, like politicians and media and pollsters.

            • Anonymous

              LOL

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Chris-Dias/1680711668 Chris Dias

      I’d click “like” a 100 times if RS would change the settings. :P

    • Anonymous

      I love Santorum, i just dont think he is the right pick. I hope I am wrong about him. He is the purest conservative there is in that bunch, but that is where it ends for me. The danger of what the Conservative Right is doing is mind boggling. Bill Buckley once said:

      1. Choose the most conservative
      2. Who can win

      I dare to add a third point to it:

      3. Who will do a good job

      I have broken down his comment into the two most important aspects it has. If the only criteria for our choice of a leader at this time is that he/she must be conservative, then the conservative movement is digging America’s grave unwittingly.

      When conservatives begin to do a better work at politics, the right order of the criteria would look something like this.
      • Who can best do the job?
      • Who has the best ideas ?
      • Whose plans seems best to solve the problems the country has?
      • Who is most conservative?
      • Whose ideas are closest to conservative ideology
      • Who has a history of walk and talk conservatism?
      • Who is best amenable to conservative views

      http://fathersmind.blogspot.co

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2AYRITGII2XF25M7FQLGJIS6KM KM

    Appears that republicans are paying attention and are trending conservative. Of course, any of the candidates will be better than what we have in the White House today.

  • Anonymous

    Good for Rick. Agreed, I’m glad Mittens is slipping in the standings (finally). But again, polls are suspect.

    Romney should drop out – he’s our worst candidate.

    • ApplePie101

      But he’s so electable!

      • Sober_Thinking

        Lol! And so was that “orange juice can”. :)

  • http://www.facebook.com/kingofthehokies Jim Land

    In all honesty this scares me worse than Romney. I actually think that Romney would at least try to lower the deficit any way he can get away with politically. He might not show courage, but it would be something. Santorum=Bush with better public speaking. All of the compassionate conservatism, and the big government social issues that we have come to sadly expect from republicans.

    • Anonymous

      Give me a break. Maobama has spent more money than all the other US Presidents combined and your worried about someone like W winning? Fool. W. dealt with hurricane Katrina and 09/11. Two of the worst disasters in the history of our country. What has Maobama had to deal with on his watch? Not one darn thing.

      • http://www.facebook.com/kingofthehokies Jim Land

        Now what makes you think that I am defending Obama? So we will slow our approach to the cliff from 70 to 65 if Santorum wins. So what.

        • Anonymous

          You are sounding like a classic alarmist. This isn’t the best field the GOP could have put up for election but quit whinning and do something about it. I’ll take king tut’s mummy over the indonesian / kenyan.

          • http://www.facebook.com/kingofthehokies Jim Land

            Classic alarmist? The US currently has the largest debt in the history of the world and it is currently 102% of GDP. It is increasing by more than a trillion dollars a year. I wouldn’t be surprised if we are passed 2 trillion a year to be honest. The monetary base is several times larger than it has ever been before. Even Paul Ryan just said that we only have a couple of years to fix this. Now tell me how I am being an alarmist. Do something about it? There are only two candidates in the race that I have any confidence in turning the ship around. Newt and Paul. Newt because he was SOH the last time we ran a surplus and Paul because he is the only Austrian in the race. I’m doing what I can to spread the word about Paul in particular, but as you can see they are currently polling last and 2nd to last.

            • Anonymous

              Paul may correct our economy but we wouold have chinese soldiers in our streets in under one term. I do admire your focus but I’ve got to ask. Were you this exorcised during the last presidential election or did you buy into all the hope and change crapola?

              • http://www.facebook.com/kingofthehokies Jim Land

                Last election I had the same political/economic views, but I did not have the same sense of urgency. The economy was bad, but we have seen bad times before. The debt was bad, but it wasn’t yet insurmountable. The Ron Paul foreign policy thing is a bit overblown too. Paul isn’t against wars per se. Its just that he wants congress to declare war, and he only wants to do it when national security is threatened.

                • Anonymous

                  I understand that. It is becoming a VERY urgent problem. We are running out of time and if elections are actually being stolen, then it is already too late.

                • http://www.facebook.com/kingofthehokies Jim Land

                  It probably is too late. The two biggest reasons I say so are the monetary base and medicare’s unfunded liabilities. There is very little that can be done about the monetary base. The fed knows it is a problem and is paying interest on reserves to prevent huge inflation. The problem is that why it prevents inflation in the short term, you can’t do it forever. Its the classic “No honey we aren’t broke. See we have a new credit card.” Nothing the president or congress can do about that. Medicare liability is 80 trillion + another 20 trillion for prescription drugs. We obviously can’t afford 100 trillion dollars worth of entitlements, but there is no political way I can see of bringing that down. Old people vote and they are not going to vote for a candidate who runs on cutting Medicare. Try getting congress to pass a law cutting medicare and see how many lose their next elections.

                • Anonymous

                  Yeah, but I don’t think Uncle Martin has yet seen a single instance where our national security is acutally threatened…

                  If there were any credibility on this issue he could gain, he’d first have to quit saying 9/11 was basically our fault, and then point to a few unambiguous examples of what he considers to be national security threats–of course, not Iran, according to him…..

                • http://www.facebook.com/kingofthehokies Jim Land

                  Paul voted to go after Osama in Afghanistan, so there goes that argument. The blame America for 911 thing is also way overblown too. Neither Paul nor the vast majority of Pauls supporters think that either America nor the victims deserved what happened to them. However we don’t want this to happen in the future and how we treat other States goes a long way here. Actually after WWI when Europe was going through the mandate system, Syria actually requested a United States mandate because they trusted America and though we stood for freedom and would generally leave them alone. My how things have changed.

                • Anonymous

                  I don’t see the argument as having gone away at all…

                  I’ve never heard Paul say this or that would be a clear national security threat–a president has to do more than vote…

                  I have heard Paul repeatedly say that Iran is no threat.

                • http://www.facebook.com/kingofthehokies Jim Land

                  Your argument is essentially that we would never go to war because Paul doesn’t believe that we have ever been threatened. Considering he voted for military action that would seem to negate your argument. One would assume that if he voted for it in congress he would actually do it as president. The Iran thing is another kinda gray area. It is a very scary situation, especially now that Russia has weighed in. However it is true than Iran really has no ability to directly attack the US. Even if they can get nukes they really have no way to get them here. That said I still want to make two points.

                  1. Iran having nukes would be very very very bad for everyone except Iran.
                  2. Paul also said that if congress votes to go to war than we will go to war.

                • Anonymous

                  No. My argument is that Paul is weak, and apparently terribly misquided, on national security. He’s running for president of the United States of America, at least ostensibly, and he has yet to even once promote American strength abroad, or point out a single unambiguous national security threat–he tends, in fact, to do the opposite..

                  Did you hear John Bolton’s speech at CPAC where he said that American weakness abroad is provocative to our enemies? Would Paul agree or disagree, or equivocate…

                  http://www.therightscoop.com/full-speech-john-bolton-at-cpac-2012/

                • http://www.facebook.com/kingofthehokies Jim Land

                  Why should America show strength abroad? There are very few states that seriously want to do damage to America and even fewer that can. America is blessed with a very good piece of real estate where even today it takes some extreme technology for a state to pose a major threat. Now what about non-state actors, and terrorist groups. We can talk all day about what muslims do or do not believe, but it really comes down to this. Where Muslims more or less radical before the United States was heavily involved militarily in the middle east. Were anti American feelings higher or lower then?

                • Anonymous

                  Bingo.

                • Anonymous

                  The muslim movement was in full swing during WWII and were allied with the nazis.

                • http://www.facebook.com/kingofthehokies Jim Land

                  I don’t want to get too far into that as it is a very complicated subject, especially with antisemitism, and given that they were essentially revolting against being British colonies. Yes its a lot more complicated than that, which is why I don’t want to go farther. Besides. Writing a book this close to the edge of the screen would be a pain to read.

                • Anonymous

                  True but it throws a wrench in your Paul argument that the muslim movement was nothing to worry about proir to US intervention. You can’t have it both ways.

                • http://www.facebook.com/kingofthehokies Jim Land

                  Reply in new post.

                • K-Bob

                  The Paul fans keep confusing “showing strength abroad” with “logistical superiority.” They say they wish to give up the displays of muscular foreign policy because it angers the jihadists.

                  What they are actually calling for is the abandonment of logistical superiority, simply because a bunch of sleazy opportunists have used our positive impact on world peace as an excuse to kill children.

                • Anonymous

                  Jim,
                  Comes down to the defining term of national security. For example, what if Iran blocks the Straits? Is that a threat to our national security as our energy would be cut a significant amount?

                • http://www.facebook.com/kingofthehokies Jim Land

                  I would say it depends. As soon as Iran attacks any American merchant ships than yes that would be a matter of national security. If they don’t, than it is a gray area. I would say that it is not worth going to war over. At the end of the day you have to remember that going to war is a legal form of killing, and those being killed are rarely the decision makes, and are often non-combatants. While high energy prices are certainly bad for the economy they do not warrant killing. There are plenty of other ways to flex our political muscle.

                  ‎”There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.” Gen. Smedley Butler, USMC

                • Anonymous

                  Nice reference. I prefer current Marine General Mattis.

                  ” We come in peace and with tears in our eyes, but if you F$#% with us, I will kill you all.”

                • K-Bob

                  I get a warm, fuzzy feeling, every time I read that quote.

                • Anonymous

                  Me, too. Gets me all gung ho.

            • Anonymous

              Are you the famous Maj. Jim Land of the Marine Sniper School? If so, it’s an honor to have you on this board.

              • http://www.facebook.com/kingofthehokies Jim Land

                My sincere apologies, but I am not. Funny story about that though. I was watching Sniper on the history channel a few years ago with my family, and it came to that part of the show. They said “We wanted to start a sniper school so naturally we went to Jim Land.” Everyone in the room gave me a funny look.

              • Anonymous

                I think I would have known if it were he.

                • Anonymous

                  Put a BIG DUH in my collumn Mike :)

                • Anonymous

                  No worries, LOL. Remember, that is what I did for a living. I’m impressed you know who Jim Land is/was.

                • Anonymous

                  Read Marine Sniper about Carlos Hathcock. Been hooked on the legend ever since. Is it really true that he shot a counter sniper through his scope or is it myth/legend?

                • Anonymous

                  That is a true story. He got lucky that he pulled the trigger first.

    • Anonymous

      I think that Santorum will side 9 times out of 10 (if not 10/10) with the conservatives we send to Congress—who, in fact, hold the purse. Want spending controlled? Take the Senate over.

      • http://www.facebook.com/kingofthehokies Jim Land

        Now that I do agree with. Having a conservative congress is far more important than a conservative president.

        • Anonymous

          I agree with you on this point. A super majority in both houses would completely trump the presidential election. In fact, it might even be nice to see a super majority repeal all of the chairmans work while he was still in office. That would be beautiful but I don’t trust any congress critters enough to hope for this.

          • Anonymous

            Supermajority only works if you if it consists of real conservatives. We need at least 62-63 with Snowe and Collins.

            • Anonymous

              True.

            • Anonymous

              I think it is high time the RNC do what they tried to do to the Tea Party and mount a full scale back-office campaign to rid themselves of Collins, Snowe, and their ilk. But do they really want to? Many of us think not.

              We need to keep sending energized new blood akin to what happened in 2010, and demand that they get leadership positions. We keep doing it until they have the power to take over and remake the party to what it used to stand for.

      • Anonymous

        Also, if He becomes president, he knows he can’t afford to loose the conservative base. So if we hold his feet to the fire on spending I think he would know he has no choice but to listen.

    • Anonymous

      I think you made a big typo and got everything backwards.

      The biggest big government thing outside of Obamacare is Romneycare.

  • Anonymous

    There’s a high number of undecideds (21%) in this poll.

  • Anonymous

    Would feel far more comfortable if the poll was just with likely voters as opposed to a mix. Read the story and did not disclose margin of error but imagine it’s about 3%. Looks like a dead heat to me and that turnout will play a big role in each contest.

    • Anonymous

      Ground game is always huge. That’s why I like the fact that RS is doing it the old fashioned way-meeting voters and speaking with them. There are some things that are always constants … and retail politicking/grassroots is one of them.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/EPNKCLUJ4F2PBVGOB7MU7O56ZA W.

    27% are still hoodwinked by Romney’s smears and opposite-speak (aka projection):
    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/08/romney-rivals-are-republicans-who-acted-like-democrats/

    More examples:
    Liberals call the Tea Party – terrorists.
    They call balancing the budget – treason.
    They call telling the truth – hate.
    Islamist Hamas called Israel a cancer.

    Liberals prove the childrens’ taunt true:“What you say is what you are.”

    • http://twitter.com/2Eskies2Many Kari George

      Why is Mittens’ PAC taking out half a mil in Michigan ads against Newt?

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_CKFGTNEKQQCXQZHLQ7EM72Q37E Michael Bittner

        Because he doesn’t have anything negative to say about Santorum….which means, you should probably be supporting Santorum like me and a growing number of people are. :)

        • wodiej

          lol….nothing negative about Santorum….haha…that’s a good one. How about this:

          http://www.politijim.com/2012/02/team-mitt-or-team-rick-reality-check.html

          or this:

          http://www.libertycounselaction.org/content/home/32905/rick_santorum_s_voting_record

          There’s plenty there.

        • http://twitter.com/2Eskies2Many Kari George

          I’m sorry, Michael. Senator Santorum has quite a bit in his record, personally and legislatively, that compels me to not support him. Not to mention that he surely *will* strongly motivate even those democrats who are disgusted and done with 0. I do not see that he will have coat tails to get the kind of majority we need in the Senate and to bolster the House. We can’t afford that. Not this election.
          As important as social issues are, a fiscally conservative government is literally life or death for this country at this time. Based on his record, his knowledge and experience, and his temperament, Newt Gingrich is the ONLY one who is likely/ most highly probable to be able to get where we need to be.

      • Anonymous

        Because he would prefer that Santorum do better than Newt in an attempt to get Newt out of the race before the southern primaries, thus trying to prevent Newt’s winning in the south, and then he can focus all his attention on destroying Rick.

        Santorum supporters should be on their knees praying Newt stays in the race, but many just don’t see what’s really going on here.

        • wodiej

          you got it.

        • http://twitter.com/2Eskies2Many Kari George

          :-) Yeah, I know. I was being subtle (sez me). There’s also that little matter of Santorum’s hearty support of Mittens in 08.

          And Thank You, wodiej! I’ve tried to post that Liberty Counsel link twice & it failed both times.

  • Anonymous

    Wow…the current standings are exact opposite of my order of preference

  • Anonymous

    **Is curled up in a ball, rocking in a corner saying “Oh God, Oh God” over and over**

    • http://twitter.com/2Eskies2Many Kari George

      Buck up and have faith, Sandy. Maybe head for the beach and soak up some peace when it gets to be too much (or wherever soothes your soul).
      As the song says, it’s a long way to the top if you wanna rock and roll.
      Scary as it is, God IS Watching over us.

  • Anonymous

    Definitely one of the most riveting primaries I’ve witnessed in a long time.

    • Anonymous

      well look at that..we agree!

      • Anonymous

        LOL

  • Anonymous

    I’m waiting for someone to ask Romney if he’ll run third party…lol

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

      I wish he’d run off a cliff

  • ReaganGirl199

    I’m waiting for someone to ask Romney if he’ll run third party…lol

  • Anonymous

    And which party would that be. We already have a socialist serving on PA ave.

    LOL

    • Anonymous

      The Elite ‘its my turn’ Republican Millionaire Party?

  • http://twitter.com/Chris100358 Chris

    Oh yeah – this carries alot of weight – by the time I got done reading the Hotair story linked above which did not even dive as deep as it could have – I realized what that my first instincts were right – if does not seem to make sense it probably doesn’t.
    Canary cage liner.
    I am getting so TIRED of every Media outlet trying to subvert the Republican Primaries!

  • Anonymous

    I wish we could see both parties split off and have some more options. Holding my nose while pulling the lever is getting old.

  • Anonymous

    Since I place no value on information I receive from either CBS or the NY Times, IMO this poll is just a useless piece of propaganda aimed at the push to get Newt out of the race so Romney can focus all his attention and money on destroying Rick.

    • Anonymous

      I agree. Polls serve the purpose of the pollster. Caucuses are apparently available on aisle 3, under the blue flashing lite.

      Show me the ballots.

      Newt.

    • http://twitter.com/2Eskies2Many Kari George

      No joke. Has anyone else thought about how separated and fragmented and disconnected (out of the loop) we’ve become as a society? No newspapers, no tv- you have to spend hours going around all over the internet, including around the world, just to try and patch together what’s really going on.
      It seems like unless “a regular person” (or people) is actually there, we don’t have a clue- just a bunch of squirrely “information”.
      DANG, this is SAD!

      And agreed!

  • http://www.facebook.com/kingofthehokies Jim Land

    Mikethemarine,

    I think it goes quite nicely with my argument. Why did the mideast generally side against the allies? Mostly because they didn’t like being colonies anymore than we did or Africans, Indians etc.

    • Anonymous

      Or is it because they hate everyone, other muslims included.

      • http://www.facebook.com/kingofthehokies Jim Land

        They certainly don’t make too many friends. I would actually argue that Iran having a nuke is worse for Arabs than anyone else save Israel. Syria is up in the air now, but other than them Iran really doesn’t have any friends in the Muslim world either.

        • Anonymous

          Agree, the Saudis won’t say it publicly but their scared as hell about a nuclear Iran. These shia nuts believe that the twelfth Imam will appear in Mecca in an even numbered year. I’d be crapping my pants if I was a member of the Saudi Royal family.

    • KenInMontana

      There is just one little hiccup in your theory there, you forgot to mention that they saw a “kindred spirit” in Adolph, because he wanted to annihilate all of the Jews in Europe as well as those in the USSR, and they (Muslims) wanted to do the same to all the Jews in the Middle East. The Mufti figured that between the two of them they could wipe out all of the Jews in that part of the world.

      • http://www.facebook.com/kingofthehokies Jim Land

        I’m not saying that they are angels in this by any means. Hardly any rational person is. I just believe we would be safer if we didn’t stir the hornets nest as much as we do.

        • KenInMontana

          Yes but at the same time, repeatedly beating that poor old carcass of a horse (Iranian coup) as if there was no history of Islamic “belligerence” towards the West prior to that, is in fact just a tad disingenuous. Wouldn’t you agree?

          • http://www.facebook.com/kingofthehokies Jim Land

            Not really, at least if you are talking about the Americas. You can go back and forth with Europe. We talk about the crusades, but we don’t mention the Muslim conquests. However, up until we started getting involved in middle east affairs, anti american sentiment in the middle east was virtually non-existent with trivial exceptions. You know you can say, “Oh what about the Barbary Pirates!!!” Well. I think you can come up with the counter arguments for that one easily enough.

            • KenInMontana

              I could in fact, make quite a substantial argument for America’s first encounter with the Muslim world as a starting point for our “troubles” with Islam. It was at that time that the US became a part of what the Muslims disdainfully refer to as “The West”. However, having just come off a 10 hour graveyard shift, another time. But for know I am off to bed.

      • Redz Ch

        yes moron that’s why for 14 hundred years they allowed the Jews to live in refuge sise bu side while christian Europe persecuted them and forced them out

  • wodiej

    NY times poll? LOL…of course the most conservative is at the bottom where they want one to be. People better wake up. If Romney takes out Gingrich, he’s coming after Santorum and then you really will have the second coming of Obama with Romney or a 2nd term w Obama. Neither is a good thing. Santorum is not the best choice. Put away your bible blinders and get behind Gingrich who obviously has the best qualifications to turn the country around.

  • Anonymous

    OMG!! How very exciting. Could it be the people are speaking?! I will vote for him!

  • ApplePie101

    I love it that Santorum is at the top of the polls now. But I’m more concerned with making sure that Romney and Paul stay at the bottom of the polls.

  • drphibes

    The RINO establishment is pinching themselves, hoping to awaken from a nightmare.