PPP numbers looking ahead to the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination contest in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania find Mitt Romney looking strong in New England and the West and Mike Huckabee with a slight edge in the Midwest.
In the critical early state of New Hampshire Romney continues to hold a dominant polling advantage, with 40% to 13% for Huckabee and 10% each for Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin. If Tim Pawlenty, Mike Pence, Mitch Daniels, or John Thune somehow emerges as the winner in New Hampshire they'll be able to truthfully say they started out with nothing- they poll at 4%, 3%, 1%, and 1% respectively.
If Romney really does run he puts the New Hampshire primary at some risk of being irrelevant. If he continues to post huge leads in the polls there other top contenders could end up just writing it off and focusing their efforts on states like Nevada, South Carolina, and Florida that could have more competitive contests.
Romney has a wide lead with both moderates and conservatives in New Hampshire and the same is true for him in Connecticut where he has 28% to 15% for Huckabee, 14% for Gingrich, and 11% for Palin. He looks to have a strong home court advantage in Massachusetts' neighboring states.
In California and Colorado Romney's leads are much narrower and speak to what might have to be his path to the nomination: breaking even with conservatives and cleaning up with moderates. In California he has 25% to 18% for Palin and 15% for Gingrich and Huckabee. He and Palin are actually tied with conservatives at 24% each. But with moderates Romney leads her by a whooping 30-2 margin, giving him the 7 point overall advantage. It's a similar story in Colorado. Overall there Romney's at 22% with Gingrich and Palin tied at 17% and Huckabee back at 14%. With conservatives there it's basically a three way tie with Romney and Gingrich each at 20% and Palin getting 19%. But Romney gets 27% of moderates with Gingrich and Palin both in single digits and that gives him the overall lead.
In Pennsylvania and Illinois it's Huckabee holding a small lead and the results in Illinois are particularly interesting. There Huckabee's at 18%, Gingrich at 17%, Palin at 14%, and Romney all the way back at 12%. An interesting explanation for Romney's poor showing in Illinois is that Tim Pawlenty (7%) and Mitch Daniels (6%) register higher than they do elsewhere. The two of them are particularly strong with Romney's otherwise strong core of moderate voters, getting a total of 18% of the GOP centrist vote between the two of them. It'll be interesting to see, if they do end up running, if they hurt Romney.
Huckabee's lead is wider in Pennsylvania, where he gets 23% to 16% for Palin and Romney and 15% for Gingrich. We'll total it all up when we're done releasing all 18 of these polls but for now it's Romney 4 Huckabee 2 Gingrich 0 Palin 0.
Full results here
I know you get tired of these questions, but was there a reason why Ron Paul wasn't included?
ReplyDeleteHe was previously polling in 5th, and occasionally in double digits.
Groan....the same crowd of wannabees except for Palin who the establishment fears and no lesser woman would ever consider voting for - because, after all, she's jus5t a woman!
ReplyDeleteWhy did you guys drop Ron Paul...?
ReplyDeletePlease include Ron in these polls, as you have in the past. He has consistently polled in the top 5, and even polled within one point of Obama (higher among independents) not too long ago. While it is unlikely that Ron will take any one state, he certainly will be a significant factor in the elections.
ReplyDeleteRon Paul won more votes than any of those you mentioned last primary. He'll do well again so why don't you include him in any of these poll numbers?
ReplyDeleteI guess if you don't ask, nobody will vote for him.
Would have liked to see Ron Paul in the mix. I see more signs for him out already than any other candidate.
ReplyDeleteRon Paul not included?? He has polled about 13% nationally. He would certainly have done better than all the single digit candidates in this poll.
ReplyDeletePlease include him in future polls
Why is Ron Paul (who consistently comes 5th) not there but the likes of Pawlenty and Pence (who are lower than Paul) are?
ReplyDelete"He was previously polling in 5th, and occasionally in double digits."
ReplyDeleteHe was only ever once in double digits, at 10% in NH in one poll. And when you say he polled in fifth, that's the same as saying he polled in last, because we only used to name five candidates. We can only include 9 candidates, and while Pence declared for IN governor after these polls were in the field, making him unlikely to run now, he still was probably more likely to make a bid and do well than Paul.
I just don't see Gingrich running. If he's out, who would his numbers go to?
ReplyDeleteSorry to inform you, but Ron Paul got more than 10% when you polled him last in New Hampshire. Ron paul got third place the last time you polled the 2012 GOP primary numbers in New Hampshire, beating Huckabee, Palin, Pawlenty, and Daniels. http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/07/romney-continues-to-lead-in-nh.html
ReplyDeleteWhy can't we find some fresh faces? Enough of the old establishment candidates. Palin is the only fresh face and I do not think she would be elected. She is a great cheerleader for Conservatism and can raise money and motivate better than Steele has.
ReplyDeleteRomney: Romney-care in MA. before Obama
Huckabee: Easy on Illegals, wanted instate tuition for them. Paroled a life without parole who later raped and murdered in the Northwest. (Remember Willie Horton)
Palin: no experience, quit after half of term as Governor. Remember Ross Perot? She would make a great Chairman of the Party
Gingrich was removed from speaker because of an affair he was having while prosecuting Clinton for his affair with Monica.
Of the past 10 national GOP polls that have included Ron Paul (from February 2010 to September 2010), he placed last in 5 of them. The five instances in which he didn't place last, there were 11, 9, 9, 9, and 13 candidates included. He placed 7th, 4th, 5th, 5th, and 5th, respectively.
ReplyDeleteI think it's worth considering including him when you conduct polls in the future.
You can view the polls I mentioned here: http://bit.ly/aWUfKj
"while Pence declared for IN governor after these polls were in the field..."
ReplyDeletePence hasn't declared for governor. There are a couple of people who are saying that Pence's underlings have told them off the record that he's going to run for governor, but nothing has been officially announced. Publicly, at least, Pence says that he's not going to make a final decision on what to do next until after the first of the year:
http://www.gop12.com/2010/11/pence-2012-decision-after-january.html
Rasmussen had Obama vs. Paul at 41% to 40%. He should be included.
ReplyDeleteThough I'm not one of those Ron Paul obsessed people who insist on seeing him in every poll, excluding him now makes it more difficult to compare your newer polls to the older ones.
ReplyDeleteTaking these recent results at face value, it looks like Gingrich has seen a collapse in support while Huckabee has seen a surge, though the differences most likely are only due to changes in who you included in the polls.
Unfortunately, we just won't be able to glean much information from this kind of apples-to-oranges comparison. Consistency is vital for those of us who are tracking polls over time, etc.
"Sorry to inform you, but Ron Paul got more than 10% when you polled him last in New Hampshire."
ReplyDeleteOK, I stand corrected; he got 13%. But that wasn't the last time we polled him in NH. The last time we did, in September, he was in fifth with 8%, still ahead of Pawlenty and Daniels, but not by much.
Jesus, leave Ron Paul out of it. The real question is "why isn't Gary Johnson in your polls?!"
ReplyDeleteKidding. I think Huckabee's numbers would drop precipitously if people find out about the pardoning issue. I say "would" because I think he won't run for president, almost entirely because of this. He's got a good thing going, why rock the boat?
Will all the Ron Paul cultists please give it a rest? He was wiped out in 2008 because Republicans don't want him. We don't want him because we're patriotic, see America as the good guy, and want to let our troops win. Ron Paul agrees with our enemies that we're the villain in the world and that we should run away in shameful and humiliating defeat from battlefield we are contesting with our vicious enemies. Nobody wants this elderly kook for President other than anti-American loonies, anti-Semites, and overgrown teenagers who want to play with their guns, drugs, and imaginary online girlfriends.
ReplyDeleteWhen will the rest of the polls be out? Will any of them be out today?
ReplyDeleteGo Mitt! You're the only one who can beat BHO.
ReplyDeleteCan't wait to see Iowa and SC numbers, those states could play a big role in narrowing the field. Will you ask for 2nd choices to see where voters would move if some candidates don't run?
ReplyDeleteRon Paul consistently polls better than any of the last four, so why are you polling them, and not him?
ReplyDeleteSince it's difficult to poll for a primary where many of the candidates won't even end up running (and the results will be skewed based on consideration of who will/won't wrong), perhaps a more useful approach would be to ask people to *rank* their choices. Not all of them, but more like top three. That way, it gives some idea of how easy/hard it would be for a candidate to grow his/her support as potential contenders drop out and the field reduces itself.
ReplyDeleteWhy didn't you poll Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania ?
ReplyDelete"Can't wait to see Iowa and SC numbers, those states could play a big role in narrowing the field."
ReplyDeleteWe don't have current plans to do those states as of yet, but obviously will in the future.
"Will you ask for 2nd choices to see where voters would move if some candidates don't run?"
Generally no, but maybe in IA because of the unique caucus system.
"Since it's difficult to poll for a primary where many of the candidates won't even end up running (and the results will be skewed based on consideration of who will/won't wrong), perhaps a more useful approach would be to ask people to *rank* their choices."
Can't do that with a IVR phone poll. Besides, I don't think, especially at this early stage, that people actually have ranked choices, even a top three.
"Why didn't you poll Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania?"
We have in the past, but we usually do a uniform field of candidates in every state so we can compare numbers across the country.
RON PAUL
ReplyDeleteDidn't Ron Paul come in first at CPAC2010?
ReplyDeleteClearly your readers think omitting him (which really couldn't have been a simple oversight from such a professional polling agency) was the wrong choice. I'm no Frank Luntz, but my eyeball's estimate is that a large majority of comments here think you should have included him, and maybe you should think about that.
@Carney
He was wiped out in 2008 because Republicans don't want him. We don't want him because we're patriotic, see America as the good guy, and want to let our troops win. Ron Paul agrees with our enemies that we're the villain in the world and that we should run away in shameful and humiliating defeat from battlefield we are contesting with our vicious enemies. Nobody wants this elderly kook for President other than anti-American loonies, anti-Semites, and overgrown teenagers who want to play with their guns, drugs, and imaginary online girlfriends.
You are hopelessly out of your league if you think you can use such absurd slanders to dissuade anyone anymore. Let the grown-ups have a real discussion please.
Any plans to throw Bobby Jindal into the mix, considering he's got a new book coming out (as they usually do when they're considering running)?
ReplyDeleteOh, and Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul blah blah blah blah blah. I see the Paulbots are getting an early start with their tired spambot routine. LMAO
*rolls eyes*