PPP's final six state level 2012 GOP primary surveys, conducted right before this month's election, find Mitt Romney strong in another key early state, Sarah Palin weak at home, and Newt Gingrich's only first place finish out of the 18 states we polled.
Iowa and South Carolina were not among the states we included in these polls but the other key early states of New Hampshire, Florida, and Nevada were and they all found the same leader: Mitt Romney. In Nevada Romney is well out ahead of the pack with 34% to 21% for Gingrich, 16% for Palin, and only 11% for Mike Huckabee. He's doing equally well across the ideological spectrum there, getting 35% of conservatives and 34% of moderates. The state provided one of Romney's most important early victories the last time around and it looks as though it could do so again.
In Alaska the big story is Sarah Palin's strength- or more precisely lack thereof- only 15% of her home state Republicans say she's their pick to be President, putting her behind Huckabee at 17% and Gingrich and Romney at 16%. When you see that lack of support for Palin in the state Joe Miller's apparent loss in the state's Senate election begins to look more and more understandable. It's clear at this point that Palin is a lot more popular in the rest of the country than she is in her home state.
Newt Gingrich's one and only lead in this round of 18 polls comes from North Carolina where he gets 23% to 19% for Huckabee and Palin and 14% for Romney. Meanwhile Huckabee matches his largest lead in any individual state in Kentucky where he gets 26% to 19% for Palin, 17% for Gingrich, and 13% for Romney. Gingrich and Huckabee splitting these two states is somewhat emblematic of the fact that for either to win the GOP nomination may take the other not running since a strong across the board performance in the South would be vital for both of their chances.
In both of the remaining states- Ohio and Washington- Palin is narrowly at the head of a very closely bunched field. In Ohio she has 20% to 19% for Gingrich, 17% for Huckabee, and 14% for Romney. In Washington everyone's even closer together with Palin at 19%, Romney at 18%, Huckabee at 17%, and Gingrich at 15%.
For these 18 states as a whole Palin led in 6, Romney led in 6, Huckabee in 4, and Gingrich and Pawlenty each in one.
Full results here
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Well, considering she put a bunch of Republicans in jail and the ones she could not get are still in office... and because Alaska is sucking on the Federal hind teat for 80% of its revenue and Sarah and Miller wanted to start weaning the State off that pork by developing resources...
once on the hind teat, it is hard to get off. They are probably mad at her for threatening to take them off the pork.
Why did you run two separate NC polls?
"Why did you run two separate NC polls?"
Huh?
Palin cost Miller the election, if they wouldn't have got their panties in a wad when Miller was on with Wallace on Fox releasing emails via twitter and FB demanding he shows support for endorsing her and he finally bowed their wishes, he would have won...period.
Alaskans know all about the Palins and her playing both sides of the aisle over the years to get where she is, plus their vindictiveness if you don't...lower 48 is clueless...unfortunately.
Anybody but Palin for the repub side of the aisle...anybody.
Come on PPP, most of your results have three or four of the top tier contenders all within the margin of error of each other. How can you seriously say anyone has the lead in most of these states? Also, trying to construct a voter turnout model for the Republican nomination in each of these states is very difficult to do. When you give your top line results for each state, why don't you quote the MOE so that readers can see how meaningless most of these polls are?
Anonymous at 4:50 PM wrote,
Palin cost Miller the election, if they wouldn't have got their panties in a wad when Miller was on with Wallace on Fox releasing emails via twitter and FB demanding he shows support for endorsing her and he finally bowed their wishes, he would have won...period.
As much as I (& most Alaskans by now) despise Palin, Miller is well-despised on his own merits (or lack thereof). He didn't need Palin to cost him the election, he cost it himself by being one of the most despicable, dishonest creeps in this year's elections. Palin's endorsement of him is more a sign of the great love she has for creeps & looneys than anything else.
And she's been notably silent since its become clear Miller is losing, because his loss is yet another sign -- like this poll -- that this is not in fact "Sarah Palin's Alaska" -- no matter what she calls her crappy reality show.
I'm sure Palin could care less whether she wins Alaska. It only sends 26 delegates to the convention - and its a proportional - not winner take all state. That is why no presidential candidate ever wastes their time and money going up there. The difference between finishing first, or third or fourth place, amounts to a difference of only a couple of delegates
On the other hand, Texas (137 delegates) and Ohio (85 delegates)are winner take all, with Palin currently leading. That is nearly 20% of the 1,191 delegates needed to win the nomination.
Quite frankly, if not for Palin, no one would give a darn about Alaska. And by the way, the whole rationale for electing Murkowski over Miller - to continue getting earmarked pork - is now a failed strategy with the ban on earmarks. Time for Alaskans to earn their own living.
"Also, trying to construct a voter turnout model for the Republican nomination in each of these states is very difficult to do."
We're not trying to construct any models. This is just an early look. We've been clear about that, about who was polled, about when these states were polled, that the results are close in a lot of these states, and if you simply click on the link to the full results, you'll see the margin of error and all the crosstabs and demographics, just as with every poll. We're more transparent than really any other pollster. It's not hard to find out the juicy details of our polls.
"And by the way, the whole rationale for electing Murkowski over Miller - to continue getting earmarked pork - is now a failed strategy with the ban on earmarks."
There is no such ban. It's only a pledge that some senators have signed.
America has the unique opportunity to elect the greatest conservative candidate since Barry Goldwater in the person of Ron Paul.
Given the state of our country and our government, this could be the last chance to salvage any semblance of the republic our founding fathers devised.
I hope we'll have the sense as a country to make the right decision.
Hey Anonymous Ron Paul fan,
What do you Libertarian/Tea Party folks want to cut?
Do you think we should scrap 6 of 12 aircraft carrier battle groups and fire than their crews? Should we charge seniors $40,000 a year for their Medicare coverage? Immediately end the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan and fire the soldiers deployed there? Should we scrap Medicare Part D and make seniors pay out of pocket for their drugs? The GOP just put that one on the grandkid's tab, never even tried to pay a cent toward those huge subsidies for the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies. How about defaulting on the US debt so we don't have to pay interest on it anymore? The resulting int'l economic catastrophe would make the Great Depression look like a mild downtown but what the heck, we'd be living like it was 1789 right?
Oh sure we could do away with the Dept of Education and end all medical research by the NIH. We could close all the VA hospitals and make vets buy their own health care. But the problem is if you really want to balance the budget and pare down the debt you either have to raise taxes or take an ax to the big money in the federal budget. And that's Medicare, Dept of Defense and interest on the debt. The rest of it is peanuts.
So tell us where you'd like to chop the federal budget and how much it will realistically save. Until you do that we have no reason to take your demands seriously.
I'll pay more attention when you start running 2012 polls involving Obama where turnout is actually more indicative of what a presidential election really is. These polls are from a 2010 midterm where the GOP had a greater enthusiasm and turnout and are much more reliable regarding the GOP primaries than the general election.
Post a Comment