Monday, January 24, 2011

Rasmussen Poll: Mitt Romney is the top Republican

If the 2012 Republican Primary for President were held today would you vote for Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich or Mitch Daniels?

Mitt Romney 24%
Sarah Palin 19%
Mike Huckabee 17%
Newt Gingrich 11%
Tim Pawlenty 6%
Ron Paul 4%
Mitch Daniels 3%
Other 6%
Undecided 10%
The survey of 1,000 Likely GOP Primary Voters was conducted on January 18, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. Likely GOP Primary Voters include both Republicans and unaffiliated voters likely to vote in a GOP Primary. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.
Click the icon below for the complete story:


marK said...

This should get good. All the Huckabites that trumpeted the last PPP poll showing Sarah and Mitt down by 10%. Here we have the Republican's most trusted poll showing Romney and Palin both ahead of Huckabee.

This is exactly why one should not get too excited about any poll until at least mid-year before the Presidential election. They are too volatile and flaky.

Doug NYC GOP said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Doug NYC GOP said...

This is the only outfit the C4P-Weepers trust, so it will be fun to watch than spin cycle.

1,000 LV and 3% MOE - Nice.

Ellie said...

Doug. Loving it.

OhioJOE said...

"This is the only outfit the C4P-Weepers trust," I cannot speak for C4P, but I for now, I essentially take all polls and average them. No doubt that this particular poll was good for Mr. Romney just like the last polls was good for Mr. Huckabee. While I of course like the results of neither poll, I actually like this one a little better because my camp has to compete in similar CDs as Mr. Huckabee.

No doubt, my camp has some catching up to do overall, but the election is not going to be tomorrow, so I just keep looking foreward to future polls.

Doug NYC GOP said...

From Rassumessen article:

:In November (2010), just after the midterm elections, it was a dead heat between Romney, Huckabee and Palin as far as primary voters were concerned. In October 2009, when likely Republican primary voters were given a choice of five potential presidential nominees, Huckabee led with 29% support, followed by Romney with 24% of the vote and Palin at 18%.

Based on these numbers, Romney and Palin have held steady while Huck's numbers have dropped a devasting 40%.

Maybe there is something to he PPP Polls propping up the preacher.

Doug NYC GOP said...

My keyboard has it's own mind any way of spelling things. I apologize.

marK said...


There is a lot of work left to do for any of the hopefuls. The polls just emphasize that point.

If there is anything that history teaches us, it is that it takes a lot of hard work to win the Presidential nomination. Remember four years ago when Giuliani was comfortably ahead by double digits in nearly every poll? He rested on that nearly the whole year of 2007. Oh, he would make an occasional speech here and there, and show up upon occasion at various political events. But he really didn't break a sweat until around December 2007. Meanwhile McCain and Romney were busting their guts working hard for the nomination. Rudy famously ended up with one whole delegate.

Moral of the story? It takes a whole lot of work to win the Presidential nomination no matter how far ahead in the early polls you might be.

kelly said...


TexasConservative said...

Last week was Huckabee's week, this week it is Mitt's.

Congratulations to Romney and his supporters.

marK said...

Seeking a reason for the disparity between PPP's recent poll and this one, PPP' sample was only half the size of Rasmussen's. PPP also polled "usual national Republican primary voters". Rasmussen polled "Likely GOP Primary Voters ... [which] include both Republicans and unaffiliated voters likely to vote in a GOP Primary."

So PPP appears only to have polled those who have voted in a Republican primary before. Since the Democrats were on the ascendancy in 2008, and they had a real contested primary between Obama and Hillary (and Edwards for a while), one might reasonably assume that more politically active Independents will vote in the GOP's primary this time around than last time.

Would that help explain the difference between the two polls?

Right Wingnut said...

Would that help explain the difference between the two polls?

Probably not, but it's a good theory. The reality is that less than 10% (according to Pew Research) of the electorate pay attention at this point in the campaign. The 90% or so that do not probably give the pollster a name just to get them off the phone.

Right Wingnut said...

This is the only outfit the C4P-Weepers trust, so it will be fun to watch than spin cycle. Doug

Nothing for Palinites to hang their heads about here. She's within the margin of error of Romney after enduring one of the most intense smear campaigns in modern history.

phil said...

Newt is toast. I think we are left with 2 top tier. Until he surpasses Gingrich in more than the NH poll, Pawlenty should not be included.

phil said...


Newt is toast. I think we are left with 3 top tier. Until he surpasses Gingrich in more than the NH poll, Pawlenty should not be included

OhioJOE said...

"The 90% or so that do not probably give the pollster a name just to get them off the phone." With respect, I do not think the number is as high as 90%. It is only one poll, but I have to agree with MarK on this one.

Right Wingnut said...

OJ, On average, only 10-20% pay attention, depending on the year. That's Pew Research's data, not mine. The data is contained in this post from a few weeks ago.

ConMan said...

Huckgoodbye is behind Sarah now and Newt is so toasted!

marK said...


In October 2007, John McCain had fallen way behind the pace. Some polls had him a distant third.

And those polls were only three months before the Primaries. We still have more than a year before the first vote is cast in the Iowa Caucus.

It is far too early to count anybody out or to lock anybody in as the winner.

Ann said...

Good for Mitt.

He is by far the most qualified Palin, Huckabee, and Gingrich.

Right Wingnut said...

Rasmussen undersampled Evangelical Christians:

The title to this post provides the answer to the question as to why today’s Rasmussen poll found different results from other polls. When you consider that even the California GOP electorate in 2008 was comprised of 35% evangelical Christians, it’s likely that evangelical Christians will comprise around 40-45% of the vote on average in any GOP primary electorate.

The crosstabs show that the Governor actually led Mike Huckabee by a one-point margin and Romney by a twelve-point margin among evangelical Christians. It seems pretty clear to me to whom most of Huckabee’s vote is going once he finally stops playing games and announces that he’s staying on Fox News.

Right Wingnut said...

More data.

evangelical christians (30% of the sample)

Palin 25
Huckabee 24
Romney 13
gingrich 10%

Tea Partiers

Palin 28%
Romney 19%
Huckabee 15%
Gingrich 14%

Right Wingnut said...

According to Nate Silver, white evangelicals make up 40% of the GOP electorate. I wonder why Rasmussen chose to only include 30% in his poll. Hmmm.

WHITE EVANGELICALS make up about 40% of the GOP primary electorate; BLACK VOTERS only make up 20% of the Democrat primary electorate. But Huckabee was nowhere near as dominant among EVANGELICALS as Jackson and Obama have been among BLACKS. He won the EVANGELICAL VOTE in about the half the states that voted through Super Tuesday (2008); almost all of those wins in the South. But McCain and Romney won the EVANGELICAL VOTE in other states and Huckabee wound up with only 37% of the EVANGELICAL VOTE overall (weighting for the approximate number of evangelicals in each state.) As Michael Barone suggests a Republican candidate could potentially win the nomination of he absolutely RAN THE TABLE among EVANGELICALS, even if he had little support elsewhere. But Huckabee didn’t do that in 2008, and with Sarah Palin a probable entrant in the primary next time around, the going isn’t going to be much easier in 2012. Meanwhile Huckabee won only 8% of NON-EVANGELICAL VOTERS THROUGH SUPER TUESDAY…”

Anonymous said...

"It seems pretty clear to me to whom most of Huckabee’s vote is going once he finally stops playing games and announces that he’s staying on Fox News." -

I am no Huck defender, but how is he "playing games" by holding off on deciding, but Palin isn't playing games by hesitating in making her announcement, if she makes one at all?

It's this kind of carping and petty double standards, which keep me from feeling good towards the Palin camp. Every iota of information is parsed, cross-sectioned, demonized, down-played, discounted, you-name it, when Palin isn't winner.

It's pretty clear the country would get absolutely nothing accomplished in a Palin Administration, with the entire team disputing press accounts 24/7.

Grow the %$#@ UP!


Right Wingnut said...

Grow the %$#@ UP!


A few of the regulars have objected to that type of language. :)

Anonymous said...

I was being considerate of them. I didn't want to spell out the word they used to ask Harry Truman what to do..."Give 'em...., Harry"


Bill589 said...

Don't forget civility.
What if CNN saw this site?

marK said...


You should know better than to take anything you read in an echo-chamber -- no matter which candidate they are supporting -- at face value. And for someone to take a site with the dismal reputation of C4P as gospel truth just boggles the mind.

Tell me. Have you, yourself actually ran the numbers C4P purports to have proving shenanigans at Rasmussen? Well I have. If the percentage of evangelicals was increased from 30% to 40%, the most Romney's numbers would drop would be four points and the most Palin and Huckabee's would rise is one -- count them -- one point each. So the most you, a Palin supporter could hope for in this poll by switching from 30 to 40% for evangelicals would be a tie at 20% with Mitt Romney.

Besides, the premise is faulty to begin with. Your C4P poster is making a big deal referring from 2008 GOP primary figures. In 2012, there are going to be a lot more Independents voting in the GOP primary who had voted in the Democratic primary in 2008. That only makes since because the Democratic primary will be meaningless. So whatever the Evangelical vote was in 2008, it is likely going to be even less in 2012.

Assuming a 40% 2008 Evangelical turnout, all it would take to drive that down to 30% in 2012 is for one in every four GOP 2012 primary voter to have been a 2008 Democratic primary voter. Since the country is pretty evenly divided between Democrats, Republicans, and Independents; that sounds just about right. You do the math if you don't believe me.

Granted, what you see here are rough back-of-the-envelop calculations, but they should do just fine for a poll taken more than a year out from the first primaries. They do show, however, that your C4P friend didn't bother to do even that before posting. He just grabbed at the first thing that caught his eye and ran with it without bothering to do any real analysis to see if it holds up.

That is precisely why taking echo-chamber stuff at face value is so dangerous. Nobody is going to challenge their assertions as long as they fit the dialogue. People who do don't last long.

Right Wingnut said...


You're forgeting the liklihood of a more enthused GOP base in 2012. The tea party didn't exist in 2008, and we weren't in the process of trying to rid ourselves of a socialist. Furthermore, the base was less than enthused about their choices in 08. You don't need to look any further than this past November to see what's coming.

Attacking the messenger isn't an effective way to get your point across.

OhioJOE said...

"I didn't want to spell out the word" Hmmmm, IG and Martha did not buy that when I said that.

Anonymous said...

Mitt's having a GREAT WEEK!

Romney & DeMint in 2012!


BOSMAN said...


Not to sure why you're breaking down the data by religious affiliation.

The bottom line is, THEY ALL vote. ALL their votes are counted, and Romney is always on or near the top.