Rasmussen: Gingrich 38%, Romney 17% [all others single digits]

Rasmussen Reports ^ | 12/1/2011 | staff

[samtheman]

He is showing more and more brilliance with every passing day.

There was an article posted a week or so ago comparing Newt to Churchill.

I agree with that comparison.

Churchill also had a lot of flaws. A lot of flaws.

But he rose to the occasion and became one of the Great Men of History.

I see Newt doing that. Now, and into the course of his Presidency.

[garjog]

“they won’t be able to paint our candidate as stupid this time. It has been 40 years since we’ve had a nominee that isn’t “stupid”.”

Yes, not being able to call our candidate stupid will be a nice switch.

But, after “stupid” the default attack is “evil”.

So, I bet “Gingrich is evil” will be the message we hear.

Can’t really claim that he is immoral, since that will remind everyone of the liberal hero Bill Clinton.

[Hugin]

I think there’s a fundamental difference between falling in love with someone else after over a decade of marriage, getting divocred and remarrying, and being a serial womanizer and abuser like Clinton. And his “mistreess” has been his wife now for what, 13 years? Time to give him a break.

[Future Useless Eater]

.

With Rasmussen added

Much like what the government does with unemployment statistics, the following chart represents a 4-poll "rolling average" for the latest 20+ polls listed at RealClearPolitics.com (plus other recent national polls).

I also weighted the polls by their size. For example, a poll with a survey size of 1000 was weighted proportionately heavier than an 324 survey size.

Weighted 4-Poll Rolling Averages of the latest 20+ Polls
listed at RCP   [as of Dec 1st]
plus
YouGov 11/22, 11/15, 11/8, 11/1, 10/25, 10/18 and 10/11 polls, and
Poll Position 11/27 11/22 11/8, and 11/1 polls inserted chronologically
I also broke the 11/9 - 11/14 Pew poll into two, (3-day) polls

(Example methodology for this chart will be on my profile page)






As usual, Real Clear Politics (of Chicago) may be showing its bias again towards Romney. Their former policy was they would scrub national poll data OUT of their averages after all of that data was more than 14 days old.

BUT, when it has favored Romney's averages, they would keep old data which was entirely older than 24 days. Also, one week ago, they scrubbed out old data that was just barely older than 12 days, (instead of 14) and by doing that it boosted Romney's average a bit more.

Here is what they show right now as their averages...

Poll			Date		Gingrh.	Romney	Cain	Perry	Paul	Bachmn.	Santor.	Huntsm.	Spread
RCP Average		11/13 - 11/30	26.6	20.4	14	7.2	8	4.6	2.6	2.4	Gingrich +6.2



...If they used their normal standard, and scrubbed all data that was entirely older than 14 days,
 they would have to report these averages today...

Poll			Date		Gingrh.	Romney	Cain	Perry	Paul	Bachmn.	Santor.	Huntsm.	Spread
RCP w/14day Average	11/16 - 11/30	27.5	20.0	13.8	7.3	8.0	4.3	2.8	2.3	Gingrich +7.5



...IF they used the same journalistic 'standard' as one week ago (when scrubbing all data that was older than 12 days),
 they would have to report these averages today...

Poll			Date		Gingrh.	Romney	Cain	Perry	Paul	Bachmn.	Santor.	Huntsm.	Spread
RCP w/12day Average	11/18 - 11/30	29.3	19.7	13.0	7.0	7.7	4.3	3.3	2.7	Gingrich +9.7

...I suspect they often TRY to show ROMNEY's averages more favorably with little 'tricks'.


      

.

[Mr. Fabtastic]

Right, Calista is not an adulteress, she's a fornicator and marriage wrecker. But I hear she was a good singer in her church choir. A real prize. Newt can pick’em. HOWEVER, I'd take them both in a minute over the current White house occupiers.

[fabian]

Are you kidding? His insights into what is destroying America..namely socialism..will obliterate Obama’a purely intellcetual arguements.

[Mr. Fabtastic]

Good defense. Like I said I was venting. Thanks for the reply.

[Future Useless Eater]

FYI, I just posted an updated 4-poll weighted rolling averages chart with the new Rasmussen data
here   http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2814753/posts?page=164#164

[GLDNGUN]

So you're the guy writing Newt's speeches?

Ah yeah, that's the ticket. LOL

[xp38]

Time to update this bumper sticker

to Screwed Again '12

[chris37]

Ty for the data, but not the numbers I want to see -_-;

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Gingrich answered that question well himself. When Hannity asked him how he will deal with Obama spending a billion dollars smearing him. Gingrich replied; “I think you underestimate the intelligence of the American People. A Billion Dollars worth of Lies, is still a Billion Dollars worth of lies.”

This man was brilliant through the whole hour of the show. And none of it was rehearsed or pre written. These things just came out of his head in real time.

He also said that he would go for a 3 hour debate with Obama and would spot him a Teleprompter for the first hour.

[trisham]

Thanks for the update!

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

It would be more appropriate for you to print the sticker to say;

SURRENDER MONKEYS R US!

[freespirited]

Thanks so much!!

BTW Mitt and Newt are now only 6 points apart at Intrade.

[Colofornian]

At this point, a pro-Gingrich vote is more of an anti-Romney sentiment vote.

Gingrich is perceived as being a better choice on economic issues than Romney; is perceived as someone who can handle himself professionally (his debates)...

The question marks are his affairs.

Voters are looking at the excess baggage of Gingrich (affairs) vs. the excess baggage of Romney (a guy who portends to be a god).

Gingrich has had too many lovers; Romney has had too many gods.

[muddler]

He may make a good VP pick for a real conservative, maybe.

[Colofornian]

I think there’s a fundamental difference between falling in love with someone else after over a decade of marriage, getting divocred and remarrying, and being a serial womanizer and abuser like Clinton. And his “mistreess” has been his wife now for what, 13 years? Time to give him a break.

Well if it comes down to Gingrich vs. Romney, what do we want: A candidate with too many past lovers? Or a candidate with too many present gods?

[Note: In Mormonism, their god was once a man who a "council of gods" appointed...that god has a wife-goddess...Jesus is another god...the Holy Spirit is another god...and temple Mormons are "gods in embryo" who grow up to be full-grown gods...including Mitt...now if we don't think the MSM won't highlight this in 2012...what planet do you live on?]

[chilepup]

The only one who has been viciously attacked...Herman Cain. If he couldn’t, these allegations would never have been made. Romney might possibly win with his connections in MI, etc...Newt, no. There is a reason, whether you like it or not, that the media has given him as pass.