PPP Illinois:

[SCOTUSman]

PPP Illinois: March 17th-18th
Romney 45, Santorum 30, Gingrich 12, Paul 10

Overall:
Romney 45
Santorum 30
Gingrich 12
Paul 10

Early Voters (9% of those polled):
Romney 48
Santorum 30
Paul 13
Gingrich 8

Election Day/Not Sure Voters (91% of those polled):
Romney 45
Santorum 30
Gingrich 13
Paul 10

Favorables Among GOP primary voters:
Gingrich-46% Favorable, 43% Unfavorable (+3)
Paul-35% Favorable, 54% Unfavorable (-19)
Romney-57% Favorable, 34% Unfavorable (+23)
Santorum-55% Favorable, 36% Unfavorable (+19)


http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_IL_318.pdf



PPP surveyed 506 likely Republican primary voters on March 17th and 18th. The margin of error for the survey is +/-4.4%. This poll was not paid for or authorized by any campaign or political organization.

[sailingaway]

I never get that nonsensical 'net favorables' if you aren't their FIRST choice, they can't vote against you more than once because they hate your guts, or anything.

Still, these numbers are bizarre. His favorables were quite high. Hm.

[Dogsoldier]

Well he had 5000 people at a rally in illinois.I don't know that I believe this poll.

[sailingaway]

Well he had 5000 people at a rally in illinois.I don't know that I believe this poll.

I understand the delegates are proportional by district so he only has to be popular in discrete districts, not everywhere.

[alucard13mmfmj]

dang.. i hope romney wont run away with it.

we should utilize plan X and maybe support Santorum to prevent ROmney from amassing bound delegates. i don't quite understand why people don't want to do it. if romney gets 1144 in the first round of voting... it is over.

if ron cant get 1144, we have to prevent others from getting 1144. when time comes... i might vote for Santorum to prevent Romney from winning bound delegates. Depends on how close Romney is to the magic number. If Romney is very unlikely, I will vote for Ron. If Romney is very very close, I will vote for Santorum (If Santorum has chance to win that state).

We have to vote smart... Now... Santorum makes me want to throw up... but Santorum can't win the nomination anyways. Even if he can, he will lose general elections against Obama. I rather have 4 more years of Obama so it is easier for us in 2015. I just want to stop Romney from getting to that goal. Our whole plan hinges on a brokered/open convention!

Be delegates for Santorum for first round of voting... then vote for Ron in second and third and etc etc.

ALTHOUGH, if you are in a congressional district, vote for Ron ^^.

[Aigik]

Ron will have 4 votes from my family. :)

Although I have to say, my state is sickening me right now.

[Give me liberty]

Ron will have 4 votes from my family. :)

Although I have to say, my state is sickening me right now.

Unless they have it rigged for Romney, because they really want a Romney Vs Obama show down.

[JJ2]

dang.. i hope romney wont run away with it.

we should utilize plan X and maybe support Santorum to prevent ROmney from amassing bound delegates. i don't quite understand why people don't want to do it. if romney gets 1144 in the first round of voting... it is over.

if ron cant get 1144, we have to prevent others from getting 1144. when time comes... i might vote for Santorum to prevent Romney from winning bound delegates. Depends on how close Romney is to the magic number. If Romney is very unlikely, I will vote for Ron. If Romney is very very close, I will vote for Santorum (If Santorum has chance to win that state).

We have to vote smart... Now... Santorum makes me want to throw up... but Santorum can't win the nomination anyways. Even if he can, he will lose general elections against Obama. I rather have 4 more years of Obama so it is easier for us in 2015. I just want to stop Romney from getting to that goal. Our whole plan hinges on a brokered/open convention!

Be delegates for Santorum for first round of voting... then vote for Ron in second and third and etc etc.

ALTHOUGH, if you are in a congressional district, vote for Ron ^^.

I understand what you're saying, but I definitely disagree for Illinois.

There will not be enough Paul voters voting for Santorum--he's too far behind Romney to win IL. The best case scenario is that Romney destroys Santorum, Paul beats out Gingrich (they're very close in this poll), and Gingrich then drops out of the race paving the way for Santorum (along with Paul collecting delegates) to stop Romney from getting to 1144. I think Newt might drop out if he comes in 4th, or at least drop out if he comes in 3rd or 4th in Louisiana on the 24th also (after which there is a break until April 3).

[SCOTUSman]

Newt may drop out, and everything says he probably should from a standard political perspective, but Newt is taking this to the convention if he means what he has said.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Rick Santorum: If I Win The Illinois Primary, I Win The Nomination (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/17/10737243-rick-santorum-if-i-win-the-illinois-primary-i-win-the-nomination)

Taking this to its logical conclusion: Santorum is saying he will lose the nomination if he loses Illinois. Looking forward to Santorum's dropping out on Wednesday.

Of course, in political spin world, Santorum will somehow claim with a straight face that Illinois only mattered if he won it.

[SCOTUSman]

Rick Santorum: If I Win The Illinois Primary, I Win The Nomination (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/17/10737243-rick-santorum-if-i-win-the-illinois-primary-i-win-the-nomination)

Taking this to its logical conclusion: Santorum is saying he will lose the nomination if he loses Illinois. Looking forward to Santorum's dropping out on Wednesday.

Of course, in political spin world, Santorum will somehow claim with a straight face that Illinois only mattered if he won it.

That's god awful logic and not the right line of logic following. He is saying if A then B. You cannot say if not A then not B. What you can say is if not B then Not A. That would mean if Santorum didn't win the Republican Nomination, he didn't win Illinois. This is far different than saying if he doesn't win Illinois, then he doesn't win the nomination.

What you did is an incorrect negation, an incorrect logical following.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

That would mean if Santorum didn't win the Republican Nomination, he didn't win Illinois. This is far different than saying if he doesn't win Illinois, then he doesn't win the nomination.

What you did is an incorrect negation, an incorrect logical following.

One would hope you don't actually believe that this make any real sense.

[SCOTUSman]

One would hope you don't actually believe that this make any real sense.

LOL. Take a LSAT test with your logic. Please do. Or take a basic Logic 101 class. You simply don't understand logic.

Lets take this for example:

Statement
If I win $500, I make rent.

We will call win $500 (WF) and make rent (MR).

Now we can say, If WF then MR. What I could also say is that If I don't make rent, I didn't win $500. Why can I say this? Because If I did win $500, I would have made the rent. So we can abbreviate If not MR, not WF.

Now just because I didn't win $500 doesn't mean I failed to make rent. There are other possible ways to make rent, such as taking a loan...getting paid from a job, etc. You cannot logically say I didn't win $500, I didn't make rent. So you cannot say If not WF, not MR.

Also what you couldn't say is if I did make rent, I won $500. For the reason I said above. If I made rent, it could be for a number of reasons. Yes, it is possible that I did win $500 and made rent. But making rent could have been for many reasons. It could because I got paid (GP) for my job or I took a loan (TL). There is too many possibilities. It could be MR->WF or MR->GP or MR->TL. We cannot say.

There is only two things you can make from the original statement.

If I win $500, I made rent.....because well that is simply restating the original statement. I can also make only one other logical conclusion. If I didn't make rent, I didn't win 500 dollars because if I did, I would have made rent.

[SCOTUSman]

So if we want to put that analogous to the Santorum statement. He didn't say, if I win Illinois, I win the nomination AND if I lose Illinois, I lose the nomination.

He only said, If I win Illinois, I win the nomination.

We will call win Illinois (WI) and win the nomination (WN).

So what we can say If WI, then WN. We are simply restating what he said. Now say if he doesn't win the nomination (under this logical premise of Santorum's), then he didn't win Illinois. If not WN, then not WI. Had he won Illinois he would have won the nomination. Nothing he said precludes him from losing the nomination just because he lost Illinois. He can still win the nomination through other states and means with his statement.

Like making rent in multiple ways, you can win the nomination multiple ways under his statement, he just gave one possibility, so say just like MR (Make Rent) could be due to many reasons, we can't say. Just because the guy didn't win the $500 bucks doesn't mean he can make his rent other ways. Just like here WN (Win Nomination) COULD be WI (Win Illinois) OR it could be WN-->WC (Win California) or WN-->WT (Win Texas) or it could be WN-->WC & WT (Win California and Win Texas). His statement doesn't preclude such things.

He DID NOT SAY, if Lose Illinois, Lose GOP nomination. Huge difference.

[Tinnuhana]

I would say, "ONLY on a Ron Paul grassroots website do you see this sort of conversation!" but that is probably illogical.

[skyorbit]

It's known in logic as a conferse error.

IF a statement is true, it doesn't neccessarily follow that either the converse or the inverse is true.

If A, then B does not imply "if not-a, then not-b" nor does it imply "if b, then a"

It does imply the contrapositive, "If Not-b, then Not-a"

TRacy

[PaulConventionWV]

dang.. i hope romney wont run away with it.

we should utilize plan X and maybe support Santorum to prevent ROmney from amassing bound delegates. i don't quite understand why people don't want to do it. if romney gets 1144 in the first round of voting... it is over.

if ron cant get 1144, we have to prevent others from getting 1144. when time comes... i might vote for Santorum to prevent Romney from winning bound delegates. Depends on how close Romney is to the magic number. If Romney is very unlikely, I will vote for Ron. If Romney is very very close, I will vote for Santorum (If Santorum has chance to win that state).

We have to vote smart... Now... Santorum makes me want to throw up... but Santorum can't win the nomination anyways. Even if he can, he will lose general elections against Obama. I rather have 4 more years of Obama so it is easier for us in 2015. I just want to stop Romney from getting to that goal. Our whole plan hinges on a brokered/open convention!

Be delegates for Santorum for first round of voting... then vote for Ron in second and third and etc etc.

ALTHOUGH, if you are in a congressional district, vote for Ron ^^.

They're still going to curve the results in Romney's favor. The jig is up. They know what we'll do and they're already a step ahead.

[klamath]

If Romney wins IL he pretty much has a lock on the nomination. That is a must win state for Santorum. He cannot win with just winning the lesser populated midwest and southern states. Romney has already taken the other two big midwest states.

[brendan.orourke]

PPP has been very accurate this year. No reason not to believe this is what we will see.

[69360]

I don't think IL will matter much. All 4 current candidates are going all the way now.

[BUSHLIED]

If Romney wins IL he pretty much has a lock on the nomination. That is a must win state for Santorum. He cannot win with just winning the lesser populated midwest and southern states. Romney has already taken the other two big midwest states.

If we have learned anything by now is to not make predications...who ever thought that Santorum would be the main challenger to Romney. Everyone assumed it would be Paul...the math suggests that Romney has to win with over 40% in every state. As long as it's a four man race with Ginigrich and Paul taking there small percentage of delegates...

[klamath]

I actually wouldn't be surprised if santorum and Newt aren't staying in beyond a reasonable chance of winning just because they dont't want RP to becaome the lone anti Romney candidate. As seen in VA if it is one on one paul pulls a lot of votes. He would have a very little cahance of winning but they don't want RP's views to be the dominent opposition at the convention and the compromises that would bring.

[69360]

I actually wouldn't be surprised if santorum and Newt aren't staying in beyond a reasonable chance of winning just because they dont't want RP to becaome the lone anti Romney candidate. As seen in VA if it is one on one paul pulls a lot of votes. He would have a very little cahance of winning but they don't want RP's views to be the dominent opposition at the convention and the compromises that would bring.

Possible. GOP bigwigs could be urging them to stay in, sure. My thoughts are that Santorum is delusional enough to think he can win and Gingrich is too egotistical to quit.

[klamath]

If we have learned anything by now is to not make predications...who ever thought that Santorum would be the main challenger to Romney. Everyone assumed it would be Paul...the math suggests that Romney has to win with over 40% in every state. As long as it's a four man race with Ginigrich and Paul taking there small percentage of delegates...
I guess I am not "everyone". I never assumed it would be Paul. It very well could have been had he won IA or NH but he didn't. I did not discount Santorum. He was a fiery debater and he poured days into hitting every county in IA. I will stand by my prediction. Santorum is running out of bible belt states and the need to win IL is huge.

[SCOTUSman]

LOL. RonPaulFaninGA says that is pseudo-intellect non-sense. Because he makes a logical argument that is absolutely incorrect and is shown he is wrong he gets hurt over that. He is an absolute joke.

Don't say "this is the logical following," when you cannot use correct logic to follow. Absolute fail on RonPaulFanInGA. Shame on him.

[Crotale]

LOL. RonPaulFaninGA says that is pseudo-intellect non-sense. Because he makes a logical argument that is absolutely incorrect and is shown he is wrong he gets hurt over that. He is an absolute joke.

Don't say "this is the logical following," when you cannot use correct logic to follow. Absolute fail on RonPaulFanInGA. Shame on him.

Bit harsh...

You're right about the logic, but no need to be nasty about it.

[Gravik]

54% unfavorable??? WHy do people hate Paul's guts so much???

[Brett85]

54% unfavorable??? WHy do people hate Paul's guts so much???

MOOOOORE WAAAAAR. The GOP is still the war party.

[rideurlightning]

Just run as a delegate no matter what even if you have to pledge for another candidate. That's how we win in a brokered convention.

[PauliticsPolitics]

Just run as a delegate no matter what even if you have to pledge for another candidate. That's how we win in a brokered convention.
Illinois delegates were chosen by the campaigns a long time ago. The stealth delegate strategy is not really applicable here, unless months ago someone had the foresight to convince the Romney campaign to chose them as a Romney delegate, or the like.