|
Title: Chicago-Tribune: Romney +4 in Illinois Post by: Lief 🗽 on March 11, 2012, 01:38:24 AM http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-illinois-poll-20120311,0,1617767.story
Romney 35% Santorum 31% Gingrich 12% Paul 7% Title: Re: Chicago-Tribune: Romney +4 in Illinois Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on March 11, 2012, 01:39:16 AM Looks like something that can be easily changed with some Santorum or Gingrich victories in MS and AL.
I'd expect a completely orange map with a spot of green on the northeastern part of the state. Title: Re: Chicago-Tribune: Romney +4 in Illinois Post by: redcommander on March 11, 2012, 01:59:36 AM A week of Romney Superpac ads should clinch this for Mittens.
Title: Re: Chicago-Tribune: Romney +4 in Illinois Post by: Lief 🗽 on March 11, 2012, 02:01:07 AM And Gingrich winning MS and AL on Tuesday should see him surge and eat away at Santorum. Safe Romney.
Title: Re: Chicago-Tribune: Romney +4 in Illinois Post by: ajb on March 11, 2012, 02:26:17 AM Clearly, Romney is either +4 in IL, or +8 in MS. He isn't both.
Title: Re: Chicago-Tribune: Romney +4 in Illinois Post by: Lief 🗽 on March 11, 2012, 02:28:32 AM Clearly, Romney is either +4 in IL, or +8 in MS. He isn't both. Any poll showing Mitt Romney above 30% in MS or AL is bull, IMO. Those states are hard to poll and it's likely that he's over-polling in both of them at the moment. Title: Re: Chicago-Tribune: Romney +4 in Illinois Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on March 11, 2012, 02:51:38 AM Database entry: https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/PRESIDENT/2012R/polls.php?action=indpoll&id=1720120309126
Title: Re: Chicago-Tribune: Romney +4 in Illinois Post by: Franzl on March 11, 2012, 05:08:33 AM This is what I anticipate as Romney's bare minimum in Illinois. If he didn't lose Ohio or Michigan, which seem less favorable to him, he won't be losing the CHI-suburb dominated IL-GOP this year.
Title: Re: Chicago-Tribune: Romney +4 in Illinois Post by: Tender Branson on March 11, 2012, 05:11:26 AM Depends a little on the results in Missibama, but if Gingrich does well there he'll probably eat into Santorum in Illinois, which means Romney wins by 5-10% in the end.
Title: Re: Chicago-Tribune: Romney +4 in Illinois Post by: Antonio the Sixth on March 11, 2012, 05:28:09 AM Chicago Tribune ?
This Chicago Tribune ? () Great news for Santorum ! ;D Title: Re: Chicago-Tribune: Romney +4 in Illinois Post by: J. J. on March 11, 2012, 05:46:46 AM Too early and it is a newspaper poll.
Title: Re: Chicago-Tribune: Romney +4 in Illinois Post by: Eraserhead on March 11, 2012, 06:26:06 AM At least it's close (for now). I guess Willard will have to spend his ass off yet again.
Title: Re: Chicago-Tribune: Romney +4 in Illinois Post by: J. J. on March 11, 2012, 06:45:59 AM And Gingrich winning MS and AL on Tuesday should see him surge and eat away at Santorum. Safe Romney. Somewhat, but don't overlook MO. It is assigning delegates before IL. Title: Re: Chicago-Tribune: Romney +4 in Illinois Post by: © tweed on March 11, 2012, 11:13:19 AM flicker of light somewhere in the cave. now it is our job to locate it.
Title: Re: Chicago-Tribune: Romney +4 in Illinois Post by: ajb on March 11, 2012, 11:22:45 AM If the Democratic primary of 2008 is any guide, we may be entering a phase largely devoid of momentum for either candidate, where they each win and lose on the basis of existing demographic categories of support rather than building strength from one primary to the next.
Title: Re: Chicago-Tribune: Romney +4 in Illinois Post by: I'm JewCon in name only. on March 11, 2012, 11:31:33 AM lol
Title: Re: Chicago-Tribune: Romney +4 in Illinois Post by: Keystone Phil on March 11, 2012, 11:39:48 AM Taken after Tuesday but before yesterday's result? Perfect. Sadly, though, Newt is still doing his damage...
Title: Re: Chicago-Tribune: Romney +4 in Illinois Post by: J. J. on March 11, 2012, 01:37:07 PM Taken after Tuesday but before yesterday's result? Perfect. Sadly, though, Newt is still doing his damage... Gingrich may have dropped out by that point. IL is too far out. |