Insider Advantage Poll: Romney 32, Gingrich 21, Paul 14 (South Carolina)

humanevents ^ | Monday January 16, 2012 | John Hayward

[Bigtigermike]

The latest Insider Advantage / Newsmax poll of likely South Carolina voters, taken on Sunday, shows Mitt Romney opening up a commanding 11-point lead… and that was before Jon Huntsman dropped out of the race and endorsed Romney. Hell, Huntsman’s still a point ahead of Rick Perry in this poll.

Mitt Romney - 32

Newt Gingrich - 21

Ron Paul - 14

Rick Santorum – 13

Jon Huntsman – 6

Rick Perry – 5

Strangely, according to the poll breakdown, Newt Gingrich scored exactly zero among the youngest cohort of voters, ages 18-29. Ron Paul and Rick Santorum were tied among that group, with 27 percent each.

This poll has a fairly small sample of 720 respondents, but they’re “likely voters,” generally the most reliable group. If the results are accurate, it looks as if that “tightening race” in South Carolina has loosened back up, and undecided voters are starting to break for Romney. If Huntsman’s endorsement sends some of his supporters Romney’s way, and he holds the enormous 22-point lead Rasmussen found for him in Florida last week, Romney could end up taking both states in a walk.

[RKBA Democrat]

Thanks for the links.

If what I think is going to happen within the GOP does happen, then I don’t think you’re going to be happy with it. Here is a link to the Constitution Party website. You might want to check them out.

http://www.constitutionparty.com/

[RKBA Democrat]

“I think most FReepers will go down with the ship rather than get on a lifeboat that has “libertarian” “Stark Raving Bats**t Crazy” stenciled on it. “

That was cute. Thanks for the laugh.

[for-q-clinton]

I completely disagree on your Palin ideas. It took Carter to give us Reagan...this was our opportunity to put up someone that was controversial and win big with that person. Then with a real conservative agenda our country would boom. And how much more could the press throw at Sarah? She weathered the storm and didn’t back down—until it came to running for President.

However, this shouldn’t be about Sarah, it’s about the 3 conservatives we have running and mittens. Either the conservatives get their act together and two of them drop out or we get stuck with Mittens. And if he does win in the general election we will be a left leaning republican party—unless we can use congress to keep him pushed to the right.

[for-q-clinton]

I would get on a lifeboat with Libertarian stenciled on it, but not one with Ron Paul. His son has a better chance than he does and he should have stepped aside and let his son run.

Ron Paul has the charisma of pee wee herman. I just can’t see him fairing much better than obama on the world stage. Obama puts down America overseas...but with Ron Paul the rest of the world would laugh in his face as opposed to behind his back. 1/2 his message is very good, but the other half is awful. Plus the messenger stinks.

[MikefromOhio]

I completely disagree on your Palin ideas. It took Carter to give us Reagan...this was our opportunity to put up someone that was controversial and win big with that person. Then with a real conservative agenda our country would boom. And how much more could the press throw at Sarah? She weathered the storm and didn’t back down—until it came to running for President.

Nope. She Quit. She had too and the reasons why were entirely valid IMO. She probably wouldn't win the GOP nomination - I just have a feeling and I know for a fact she wouldn't win the general. Reagan had cross-domain appeal. Palin doesn't. In fact pretty much no politician of any type, party or ideology does. Reagan was the last great politician. Everyone else since has been a wannabe and yes that includes Palin.

However, this shouldn’t be about Sarah, it’s about the 3 conservatives we have running and mittens. Either the conservatives get their act together and two of them drop out or we get stuck with Mittens. And if he does win in the general election we will be a left leaning republican party—unless we can use congress to keep him pushed to the right.

I agree. This isn't about Palin's little tease over the summer and into the fall. This is about how the GOP has found itself without any stars in the making because their "leadership" ignored the farm system, to borrow a baseball analogy, from 1999 on.

[RKBA Democrat]

“I can stomach Paul except on Israel. That is a deal breaker for me as a Christian, what with Israel beiong the linchpin of the end times and all. Romney is a non-starter.”

You’ve hit on the biggest problem I have with Ron Paul: foreign policy. And here is how I deal with it. I stand back and recognize that regardless of how dire the situation is in the middle east or how compelling the situation for us to get involved with, we simply don’t have the economic or political resources to engage at this point.

The economic problem is simple: we’re broke. Who is going to finance another engagement in the middle east? Saudi arabia? China? Who is to say that their interests are in line with ours? I just see it as being economically untenable right now. We have to get our financial house in order first.

The political problem I think is more easily dealt with, but still a problem. There is no stomach whatsoever outside of traditional conservative circles for another military engagement in the middle east. Zero. Absent an attack on US territory, I don’t see that changing soon. It’ll change with time I think, but not within the next four years.

[RKBA Democrat]

George: I didn’t get the FR mail. Please resend.

Your post is a good one and I want to respond in detail. Will try to do so later.

[RKBA Democrat]

“His son has a better chance than he does and he should have stepped aside and let his son run.”

Hold that thought. Ron won’t step aside. But Rand will be here soon enough. It’s been suggested by many, including myself, that one reason why Ron Paul doesn’t go after mitt romney with more vigor is that Rand Paul might be mitt’s VP candidate. I think the reason is bigger than that, but it might be part of the underlying rationale.

[SkyPilot]

On to Victory....again!

[Theodore R.]

Excellent cartoon; Romney knows it’s his turn, and so do the voters.

[xzins]

I checked the insider advantage poll from 2008 right before the South Carolina republican primary.

In it, they sampled

2008
76.4% Republican
4.9% Democrat
18.7% independent

There is no indication they weighted the poll by party.

In this 2012 poll, they sampled

2012
66.9% republican
5.1% democrat
27.9% independent

They specifically left party affiliation out of those categories that they weighted

In this poll, Romney had a large advantage in independent voters; therefore, the more independents included in the poll, the higher Romney’s numbers.

The question, of course, is whether there actually are 10% more independents this year. If it were factual, one would think that category would have been weighted.

By comparison

In the 2008 democratic primary in S Carolina, they DID WEIGHT that sample for party:

0.7% republican
83.2% democrat
16.2% independent

2008 republican http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/docs/InsiderAdvantage_MajorityOpininoSCGOPJAN18IVRpoll.htm

2012 republican
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2012/InsiderAdvantage_SC_0115.pdf

2008 democrat
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/docs/InsiderAdvantage_Majority_Opinion_SC_DEM_Jan_16_Poll.html

[RKBA Democrat]

OK. Now I’m getting it. Sorry about the FR mail thing; you were quoting something written to someone else.

I think you’re missing a little bit of what the Paul faction is looking to do. In my opinion, their (our??)objective is not so much winning the nomination or the election, although I’m sure they’d be happy to win one or both.

If I’m right, the strategy is not the means to achieving an objective, it IS the objective.

Keep in mind that the Paul camp is generally motivated by ideology. A “libertarian” ideology that is actually more widespread within the populace than the poor electoral results generated by the Libertarian Party would lead you to conclude.

[VictoryGal]

Despite my reservations about Newt, I’m ditching Santorum and pulling for Newt.

[mrreaganaut]

*sigh*

Too true - how about a poll of REPUBLICAN voters, not just likely voters?

[Future Useless Eater]

.

SC voters: If you liked a 3rd, 4th, 5th place candidate, THINK ABOUT THIS before voting....

Each congressional district will have 2 delegates given to the winner-take-all within the district (that's 14 delegates total)

And Statewide, there will be 11 delegates given to the winner-take-all at the state level

So let's assume Romney is in 1st place in the polls just before the vote.
Let's assume there is ONE close NON-Romney, but he's in 2nd place.

Maybe YOU would prefer a 3rd or 4th or 5th place non-ROMNEY....

BUT IF YOU Vote for that 3rd or 4th or 5th place non-ROMNEY, you have just voted FOR ROMNEY because it is WINNER TAKE ALL!!!!

The ONLY way to NOT give your delegates to ROMNEY is to consolidate all votes behind the LEADING NON-ROMNEY

[tallyhoe]

Yea Newt!

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Bump!!

[kindred]

On the other hand, Anyone saying “let the process play out” is simply naive. The “process” is do or die in South Carolina. Santorum must win SC and Florida. But all these people wanting to “vote for their guy” are going to give us Romney and Obama. It's that simple. To believe otherwise is naive at best, ignorant (despite the number of times it has been discussed on FR — so it's willful ignorance), and it is so selfish I can't believe it. Throwing our Country under the bus again just so you can be stubborn and “vote for your guy” — you're going to deserve everything that comes down the pike in the next 5 years. Vote for the one not-Romney who can WIN. That is NOT Gingrich and it's NOT Perry. It's Santorum.
Ha,ha.

[George Varnum]

I haven’t sent any FR mail in quite some time, so you are probably referring to a recent e mail sent out to our informal “Intel loop”. A couple of my recent postings are edited transcripts of said e mails.

Any one in particular you’re interested in?

[sqanto]

yeah but conservative presidents also gave us conservative judges but you can’t say that any liberal president has given us a conservative judge..doesn’t happen..don’t forget for as much as some despise GW, he gave us Roberts and Alito and thus an upholding of our 2nd ammendment rights..the SC nominations alone are worth not seeing Obama get another term