General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGallup, 1/27: Gingrich Maintaining Grip on New (National) Lead (32%, to 24% for Romney)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/152237/Gingrich-Maintaining-Grip-New-Lead.aspxPRINCETON, NJ -- Republican registered voters nationally continue to prefer Newt Gingrich over Mitt Romney for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination, with no sign in Gallup Daily tracking from Jan. 22-26 that Gingrich is giving back any of his recent gains.
The 32% of Republican voters now choosing Gingrich as the candidate they are most likely to support for the nomination is his highest level of support since the 2012 primary voting began in early January. The 24% supporting Romney is his lowest.
Despite the heavy media focus on the two front-runners, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum are each holding their own at just under 15%, putting the two men in a statistical tie for third.
As the Jan. 31 Florida primary nears, Gingrich remains at the top of the GOP field in national Republican preferences for the nomination, and his eight-percentage-point lead over Romney, in second place, is his widest since mid-December.
-snip-
tyne
(1,248 posts)MidwestTransplant
(8,015 posts)karynnj
(59,503 posts)There is something really weird in the media coverage. Consider that Romney was thought to have very narrowly won Iowa - though it really was a tie - and then NH and the coronation was on - no one could beat him. Gingrich beat him badly in atypical SC - for a few days the story was the race is on. Suddenly, every Republican source is trashing Gingrich and he was pretty awful in the debate - and suddenly it is back to no way can he win.
Yet, that does not show up in the Gallup tracking poll.
My take is that the Republicans powers that be are trying to make Mitt seem completely inevitable and the only choice.
Think back to 2004 or 2008. In 2004, Kerry genuinely was winning nearly everywhere - yet the media was not as certain that he was the winner until he won big on supertuesday and was near the number of delegates needed. (In fact, the NYT had an oped the week before that day saying the winner was John, but it could be Kerry (who had won 14 states and was ahead by double digits in all but VT of the next weeks contests) or Edwards (with SC and behind everywhere).
Think of how after Iowa did not declare a frontrunner until about April/May when it was clear Obama was ahead. They did not declare a winner until June.
So, far in actual votes, Romney - even if he wins Florida, is nowhere near where Kerry was having really won Iowa, NH, and 5 of the 7 states that were all on the same day. Although I dislike him, the person the media has given a cold shoulder to this time is Santorum. His Iowa performance was far above what was expected, but he got almost no coverage because of it. On the other hand, they have been quick to crown Romney.
highplainsdem
(48,975 posts)support, and the old topics I just found about those polls seem to bear that out, because none were close to the percentage he won by:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002188155
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002191811
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002193202
I don't know whether all pollsters have yet made enough adjustments to take into account cell-only households, which tend to be lower income. Newt's support also tends to come from lower-income Republicans.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)but does not do well once the negative ads start. The turnaround in Florida from the idea of Newt right after SC (+8) to the reality of Newt (-7) is striking.
RCP Average 1/22 - 1/26 -- -- 38.7 31.5 11.0 9.7 Romney +7.2
Sunshine State News/VSS 1/24 - 1/26 865 LV 3.3 40 31 12 9 Romney +9
Quinnipiac 1/24 - 1/26 580 LV 4.1 38 29 12 14 Romney +9
Rasmussen Reports 1/25 - 1/25 750 LV 4.0 39 31 12 9 Romney +8
Insider Advantage 1/25 - 1/25 530 LV 4.0 40 32 8 9 Romney +8
Monmouth/SurveyUSA 1/24 - 1/25 540 LV 4.2 39 32 11 8 Romney +7
11 Bravo
(23,926 posts)he does MUCH better in places where he isn't actually present.
gateley
(62,683 posts)HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)between Romney and Gingrich, Gingrich is probaby better for our side. He has more history, and baggage, on the national level than Romney. As an Independent of 30+ years, I would have been more likely to vote for a Romeny than a Gingrich. As a woman, I don't like Newt at all.
Putting aside my personal feelings about the two, Gingrich is the better candidate in a match of against Obama. Newt is going to lose the female, moderate, Independent, NE and West, and maybe MidWest, votes. While a lot of people think the South is the key to the election. I don't. I think the MIDWEST is probably the key to winning. The Southern states, minus Florida, just don't have the electorial votes. Florida is just plain too DIVERSE to count it in the "Southern mix".
JI7
(89,248 posts)and there is going to be a big let down feeling when they have to go to Romney.
at least Newt Pac is putting out the Ads against Romney for us so we don't have to start spending too much on it right now.
Uncle Joe
(58,355 posts)fuck him and the shetland pony he rode in on.
I believe Romney pissed off the Internet and he will continue to go down.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/romney-gingrich-taking-credit-for-jobs-like-al-gore-taking-credit-for-the-internet/
I believe Gingrich sucks big time but at least he had the grace and integrity to give Gore credit for his legislative accomplishments in opening the Internet to the people, Romney just parrots the corporate media.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_gore
There was talk of a potential run in the 2000 presidential race by Gore as early as January 1998.[103] Gore discussed the possibility of running during a March 9, 1999 interview with CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer. In response to Wolf Blitzer's question: "Why should Democrats, looking at the Democratic nomination process, support you instead of Bill Bradley," Gore responded:
I'll be offering my vision when my campaign begins. And it will be comprehensive and sweeping. And I hope that it will be compelling enough to draw people toward it. I feel that it will be. But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.[104]
In Manchester, New Hampshire campaigning for President of the United States in 1999Former UCLA professor of information studies Philip E. Agre and journalist Eric Boehlert argued that three articles in Wired News led to the creation of the widely spread urban legend that Gore claimed to have "invented the Internet," which followed this interview.[105][106][107] In addition, computer professionals and congressional colleagues argued in his defense. Internet pioneers Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn stated that "we don't think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he 'invented' the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore's initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet."[108][106] Cerf would later state: "Al Gore had seen what happened with the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956, which his father introduced as a military bill. It was very powerful. Housing went up, suburban boom happened, everybody became mobile. Al was attuned to the power of networking much more than any of his elective colleagues. His initiatives led directly to the commercialization of the Internet. So he really does deserve credit."[109] Former Republican Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Newt Gingrich also stated: "In all fairness, it's something Gore had worked on a long time. Gore is not the Father of the Internet, but in all fairness, Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet, and the truth is and I worked with him starting in 1978 when I got [to Congress], we were both part of a "futures group" the fact is, in the Clinton administration, the world we had talked about in the '80s began to actually happen."[110] Finally, Wolf Blitzer (who conducted the original 1999 interview) stated in 2008 that: "I didn't ask him about the Internet. I asked him about the differences he had with Bill Bradley [...] Honestly, at the time, when he said it, it didn't dawn on me that this was going to have the impact that it wound up having, because it was distorted to a certain degree and people said they took what he said, which was a carefully phrased comment about taking the initiative and creating the Internet toI invented the Internet. And that was the sort of shorthand, the way his enemies projected it and it wound up being a devastating setback to him and it hurt him, as I'm sure he acknowledges to this very day."[111]
Thanks for the thread, highplainsdem.
aaaaaa5a
(4,667 posts)Right now the only important polls are the numbers coming out of Florida. And they all point to a Romney win on Tuesday. As Romney piles up primary wins, the National numbers will change.
What the National number does tell us, is that Romney is winning entirely because he has more money. The National numbers are based on people who haven't seen the Romney campaign's millions of dollars in advertisements. This is why the Florida numbers are moving in a different direction from the National poll results.