PPP has released their latest polling for Colorado and Minnesota. It doesn’t look good for Newt Gingrich. First Colorado’s top line:
(Colorado) (2/5) (12/6) (8/15) Romney 40 18 20 Santorum 26 4 Gingrich 18 37 6 Paul 12 6 8
Santorum is firmly in second place fourteen points behind Romney and eight points ahead of Gingrich. But let’s look at the following crosstab, Tea Party Support:
(Tea Party) (2/5) (12/6) (8/15) Santorum 35 8 Romney 34 9 15 Gingrich 18 42 6 Paul 11 6 7
Santorum just barely edges out Romney for Tea Party support. Gingrich has fallen from 42% to a mere 18%. Santorum and Romney each have nearly double the Tea Party support Newt has in the state of Colorado.
—
In Minnesota it’s the same thing. First the toplines:
(Minnesota) (2/5) (1/24) Santorum 29 17 Romney 27 18 Gingrich 22 36 Paul 19 13
Santorum leads Minnesota but just barely. Romney is close behind. Santorum and Romney both gained a little more than ten points in the past two weeks. Gingrich lost 12. Newt went from leading the state to being in third. And look at the Tea Party Crosstab:
(Tea Party) (2/5) (1/24) Santorum 38 17 Gingrich 29 36 Romney 16 18 Paul 15 13
In just two weeks Gingrich went from being top Tea Party dog to a distant second behind Santorum.
—
The most interesting thing about these two PPP polls is that the crosstabs show there is a definite movement replacing Gingrich with Santorum for the de facto anti-Romney.
Once Gingrich loses the ABR vote, what does he have left?
February 5th, 2012 at 9:33 am
Good to see. Hopefully Romney will sweep CO, MN and MO on Tuesday. These three states also seem to be where Santorum is making his stand. If the Pennsylvanian loses all three, I would be very surprised to see him stay in until Super Tuesday.
February 5th, 2012 at 9:35 am
MITT-mentum……………………………….baby!!!!!!
February 5th, 2012 at 9:36 am
Santorum has spent some quality time in Colorado the past week, more than any other candidate. Gingrich has only sent out a negative mailer and annoying robo-calls.
February 5th, 2012 at 9:38 am
I don’t know where you got those Minnesota numbers from…PPP has what you list as the “tea-party” numbers as the actual numbers. But yeah, still no good news for Newt.
February 5th, 2012 at 9:38 am
The topline numbers for Minnesota are 29-27-22-12 not sure where you got the 39-24-13-10 from.
February 5th, 2012 at 9:42 am
19* not 12 for Paul.
February 5th, 2012 at 9:44 am
Santorum leads 29 to 27 over Romney. Need to make a correction.
February 5th, 2012 at 9:48 am
Mark, those topline numbers for Minnesota are incorrect. The ones you have listed for Tea Party are the topline numbers.
February 5th, 2012 at 9:48 am
Finally…..after Newt’s angry, crazy rant last night, commentators are beginning the Newt is “unhinged” narrative. It’s about time. They have been in denial way too long.
February 5th, 2012 at 9:50 am
C’mon, Mark…..please correct your post!
February 5th, 2012 at 9:51 am
Romney might have more trouble on his hands if he loses Missouri and Minnesota. Talk radio and Evangelicals will rush to him and call him the “Savior” of Conservative movement.
February 5th, 2012 at 9:51 am
Minnesota looks like a toss up with any of the four candidates having some shot at
winning. Santorum holds a small edge there with 29% to 27% for Romney, 22% for
Gingrich, and 19% for Paul.
February 5th, 2012 at 9:52 am
Okay, I’ll Correct it. Give my some time.
February 5th, 2012 at 9:53 am
Meet The Press is unwatchable when Rachel Maddow is on spouting off Democrat lies.
February 5th, 2012 at 9:55 am
Romney and Paul tend to overperform in caucuses, relative to their poll numbers. So I wouldn’t be surprised if Newt finishes last and Mitt finishes first. But certainly Santorum has a chance of winning there.
February 5th, 2012 at 9:56 am
Missouri is irrelevant. If the press try to make more out of Missouri than Nevada I will be pissed.
I am tired of this nonsense where winning big is just brushed off as unimportant, while an underdog coming in and winning narrowly in a state Romney isn’t favored in is a huge story.
February 5th, 2012 at 9:57 am
15 – Paul did surprisingly poorly in Nevada though. His total vote count looks like it will be lower than in 2008.
Maybe the Paul caucus advantage is a myth.
February 5th, 2012 at 10:04 am
17
Young people are still fickle voters. Especially if they have to get up at 9am on a Saturday to caucus.
February 5th, 2012 at 10:04 am
Romney will move up in light of Nevada, and Colorado and Minnesota are both Caucus states. Romney and Paul should both move up in actual voting. Caucuses are a measure of 2 things….organization and intensity. Gingrich should finish last in Colorado.
Romney is favored by organization, and Paul by intensity.
February 5th, 2012 at 10:05 am
BTW,
The media sucks.
February 5th, 2012 at 10:06 am
Poor Nooot is exposed. The snow ball effect is just starting. It won’t take long before Adelson jumps the sinking ship and then the flailing will be over. The sooner the better. I can’t stand that whining crybaby.
February 5th, 2012 at 10:06 am
The post has been corrected. That’s what I get for trying to do two analysis at once so early on a Sunday Morning.
Thanks for catching the errors.
February 5th, 2012 at 10:08 am
jaxemer11,
Romney’s total vote count will be worse than in ’08 as well. Turnout was hugely down across the board. And in elections, only relative numbers matter. Once again, Paul outperformed his polls. 538 projected him at 15.0%. Projecting out his numbers, I get him at about 18.776%. That’s even better when we consider than Newt seriously underperformed. It looks to me he’ll finish at about 20.66, down from the 25.6% 538 projected. So Romney and Paul both overperformed relative to Newt but Paul overperformed relative to Romney.
February 5th, 2012 at 10:17 am
If Santorum does manage to replace Gingrich as the #2 guy, I will be quite pleased. That way, if Romney falters and doesn’t make it, I can easily support Santorum. I would still think that Mitt would have been better, but Rick is quite acceptable.
February 5th, 2012 at 10:19 am
16 — Still half of Clark County’s precincts have not been reported. Paul was doing very well in Clark County over the Grinch and I still think he can beat him.
What the HELL is taking Clark County so long????
February 5th, 2012 at 10:21 am
In response to #25…
“What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.”
February 5th, 2012 at 10:22 am
23 – But Paul’s stated goal is not to win states, but to gather delegates. It makes sense that turnout overall would be down, given that the results were a foregone conclusion. It doesn’t make sense that Paul’s turnout was down though, especially give it has been up in other states he campaigned in.
I do wonder, as someone mentioned above, if demographics have something to do with it. Nevada was hit hard by the housing bust and the economy. Maybe the population is just a lot smaller than it was in 2008.
February 5th, 2012 at 10:22 am
For all of you Noot lovers, enjoy…
http://harndenblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/02/newt-gingrichs-bizarree-new-campaign-strategy.html
February 5th, 2012 at 10:23 am
Santorum is an acceptable alternative to Mitt, but he is still not a good candidate. If he were running in 2008, he would be below Mitt, Huckabee, McCain, Thompson and Guiliani on my list.
February 5th, 2012 at 10:29 am
Finally the tea party is waking up that newt is a hoax and they should be rallying around Santorum. I cant understand what the people in SC FL and NV were thinking.
February 5th, 2012 at 10:30 am
Matt,
Mitt is down on total vote because last time Nevada came up before the race had already been determined. It was on the same day as SC, and people showed up to make a statement to the wider electorate.
Everyone knew Mitt would win this big.
February 5th, 2012 at 10:30 am
I like Santorum as a person and like a good portion of his positions politically but I don’t see any way he can put together an orginization to take on and beat Obama. It has to be Mitt or we lose!
February 5th, 2012 at 10:45 am
I am to the point that ABG will be fine with me for the GOP nominee. I prefer Romney but Santorum is OK and I would even vote for Paul over the Grinch.
If Newt by some miracle became our nominee I really don’t know if I would bother to address that portion of the ballot.
I know I would have to hold my nose to mark the Grinch’s name over the present occupant. To me they are both cut from the same cloth of “worship me NOW” fabric.
February 5th, 2012 at 10:48 am
I think Santorum is a pompous windbag with an anger problem and a lust for power, but he’s a lot better than Noot.
February 5th, 2012 at 10:54 am
Let me see if I got this straight. Newt’s strategy is to make it to Super Tuesday, try to win a few states there and then try to win Texas in April which is a winner take all state and has over 150 delegates. The flaw there is that Ron Paul is from Texas and he’s vastly popular there. Also, Newt thinks Rick Perry will win the sate for him, but, Romney has the Bush family on his side which is more popular in Texas than Perry. If Romney can win Texas, Newt and the other candidates are done. No way Newt can beat Mitt in dlegate rich, winner take all states like New York or California. Texas and Pennsylvania are the only winner take all states Mitt will have a true challenge with. If Mitt can either or both, he’d sweep the nomination and the other candidates wouldn’t be able to mathematically catch up ever.
February 5th, 2012 at 10:57 am
PPP has been under estimating romney in every state
February 5th, 2012 at 11:00 am
So what does everyone think the results will look like once we get 100% in?
Im thinking..
Romney 52%
Gingrich 19%
Paul 19%
Santy 10%
February 5th, 2012 at 11:00 am
#34
Yup. Santorum doesn’t show me much either as POTUS or our candidate–although he’s not insane like Newt. He does grate on my nerves, going around saying Mitt cannot win, but he can.
If something were to happen to Mitt (heaven forbid), we would have to go back to the drawing board and find a Hail Mary candidate in a hurry.
February 5th, 2012 at 11:04 am
38
If something did happen to Mitt, I’d have given up on 2012 since we would automatically lose decisively.
February 5th, 2012 at 11:06 am
The big narrative out of NV is becoming Newt’s nutty speech. Commentators are finally waking up to the fact that Newt is Capt. Ahab to Mitt’s Moby Dick and that Newt is crazy.
It will be interesting to see what happens by the AZ debate on the 22; will Newt be discredited and a evil madman by then? Even Fox commentators last night were beginning to state the obvious. Could be the beginning of the end for Newty.
February 5th, 2012 at 11:12 am
#9 Thank goodness. It is frightening to think that some voters would want to put this unhinged guy in the WH.
February 5th, 2012 at 11:20 am
#41: The the unhinged voters for Newt are Sarah Palin, Hannity, Rush, Michael Reagan, the SC pastors, Chuck Norris, Fred Thompson, Greta Can’t-Spell-Your-Last-Name Mark Levin and JC Watts.
Did you see the interview with Ann Coulter and Michael Reagan last night? Michael Reagan had an Oh-crap look on his face. Palin is the biggest loser with her “vote for Newt to continue the vetting” plot.
How’s that working out for you, Sarah?
February 5th, 2012 at 11:25 am
Former GOP House Majority Leader Dick Armey haad a great line about Newt- “Newt is turning a second rate campaign into a first rate vendetta against Romney.”
February 5th, 2012 at 11:26 am
My comment from a previous thread about turnout
Newt and some liberals keeps saying that Mitt’s trying to suppress turnout in order to win. When we look at the field compared to 2008, however, I don’t think it’s any surprise that turnout is lower. Last time around there was much more diversity, and much more famous personalities in the field. You had a Pro-Choice candidate with strong personal appeal/popularity in Rudy Giuliani, War Hero John McCain, popular actor Fred Thompson, and folksy former pastor Mike Huckabee in addition to Mitt and Paul all in the race this far into the process. Substituting character-challenged Gingrich and personality/experience-challenged Rick Santorum in place of Giuliani, McCain, Thompson, and Huckabee is beyond even comparing apples and oranges. They all had more money and organization that either Newt or Rick too and that is how turnout is driven. Like all of Newt’s complaints/excuses, this one rings hollow as well.
February 5th, 2012 at 11:29 am
41 & 42,
Maybe we’re going about this the wrong way. Maybe we should elect Newt as President. Imagine it. For once in the US’ history, our President would be able to out-psycho and out-craze other crazed World leaders like those in Iran, China, Syria,North Korea,& Russia.
February 5th, 2012 at 11:31 am
42 KG,
Maybe he is, but, I wouldn’t call Chuck Norris unhinged to his face. I don’t want to get roundhouse kicked.
February 5th, 2012 at 11:33 am
At this point Newt needs to be blocked from getting anywhere near the convention. Last night Eric Erickson said, “Newt is Mitt’s worst nightmare.” No, Newt is the GOP’s worst nightmare–and America’s worst nightmare.
Newt needs to be stopped. This has all the makings of a great Shakespearian tragedy, like Julius Caesar. Or the plot to take out Hitler. Not that Newt needs to actually die; just stop him dead in his tracks politically and publicly by completely discrediting him.
But he won’t go quiet into the dark night and the media will loooooooooooove having him on. It’s a problem.
February 5th, 2012 at 11:34 am
Here’s a letter I just emailed to the Romney campaign:
February 5th, 2012 at 11:35 am
“just stop him dead in his tracks politically and publicly by completely discrediting him.”
Newt is doing that himself already.
February 5th, 2012 at 11:36 am
#45 Oz:
There ya’ go. You might be on to something.
February 5th, 2012 at 11:37 am
Re-watch the video of the “Dean Scream” sometime and watch the guy standing right behind Dean. That was the well respected Senator Harkin who had committed to supporting Dean. The look on his face was priceless. It said, “Uh oh! I’m committed to this?!? I’ve got to pretend to support this?!? What do I do now? How do I gracefully get out of here?”
I wonder what Newt’s more respectable supporters must be thinking this morning.
February 5th, 2012 at 11:40 am
#49: You would think that Newt’s behavior would stop him dead in his tracks–and it looks like some of the media are catching on. BUT…he still has some money (maybe), he still has a big fat mouth and a big fat megahorn w/the media, he still has a bunch of people voting for him. And he still wants to cause big trouble at the convention.
He needs to get NO delegates so he can be completely barred at the convention.
February 5th, 2012 at 11:42 am
Rumors around that the Sheldon Adleson people are talking to the Mitt people. I could be a good sign.
February 5th, 2012 at 11:48 am
#53 Everyone who cares about the GOP and the country should be writing to Adleson to cut off the money to Newt’s campaign. Can you imagine the paranoid rant we will hear when he loses Colorado?
February 5th, 2012 at 11:57 am
#54 They need to starve the beast of money and media. Maybe the former will happen; not sure we’ll have much luck with the latter. Train wrecks are their bread and butter.
February 5th, 2012 at 12:01 pm
35 – I don’t think Texas is winner take all.
February 5th, 2012 at 12:08 pm
But will it matter with the Crazy Conservatives”?
This is why the so-called Establishment is so horrified by certain elements of the Tea Party. Not that the TP is for fiscal responsibility or adherence to the Constitution, but because many are crazy and support crazy candidates who cannot win–and it wouldn’t be good if they did win.
IMO it’s the Crazy Conservatives that have MDS (Mitt Derangement Syndrome) and are causing all kinds of trouble in this election as well as elections past. Now is the time for all good men to come to their senses.
February 5th, 2012 at 12:13 pm
Jaxemer,
Texas is in April. All states starting in April and beyond are winner take all.
February 5th, 2012 at 12:23 pm
58 – I don’t think that is true. They CAN be winner take all, but they don’t have to be. The Green Papers says that Texas is proportional, as well as California.
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/TX-R
February 5th, 2012 at 12:24 pm
Jax (56), starting in April, all states are winner take all. Texas definitely is a winner-take-all.
February 5th, 2012 at 12:26 pm
58, 60
The ABILITY to be winner-take-all STARTS in April.
The only states that are winner-take-all after April are MD, RI, DE, CT, and that’s about it.
February 5th, 2012 at 12:38 pm
60 – Nope
February 5th, 2012 at 12:41 pm
Is MN winner take all???
I was glad to see Fox starting to move away from Gingrich. At least their hard core news team is. I think Newt’s decline in the national polls and much of his support going to Santorum is a very bad sign for Newt. He could be done. Santorum keeps repeating that Romney is for cap and trade and the bail outs. He is either not doing his research or lying. He loves to attack Romney on Health Care, but he hasn’t come up with anything specific. Romney needs to slay the what could be the last remaining ABR challenger…Santorum.
February 5th, 2012 at 12:43 pm
NY, CT, MD, NJ, and CA are all winner-take-all, as long as the winner receives a majority.
That’s like 350 delegates in the bag.
February 5th, 2012 at 12:44 pm
Santorum winning Missouri might be a healthy thing for this race. It would completely take the focus off of Newt, and even with a Missouri win, Santorum is not going to be able to put the resources together to wage a national campaign to beat Romney.
I have zero doubt that Romney is the nominee, it’s just a matter now of how messy it will be.
February 5th, 2012 at 12:45 pm
Utah and Puerto Rico are also winner-take-all, no majority required.
That’s 70 delegates in the bag, right there.
February 5th, 2012 at 12:48 pm
And VA is winner-take-all with a majority, which Mitt will get. (49 delegates)
So, add up all the winner-take-all states, and Mitt gets about 470 delegates JUST among those.
And the rest are winner-take-all by CD or totally proportional.
The math doesn’t add up for Nooty boy, or Santorum, for that matter.
February 5th, 2012 at 12:49 pm
Oh, and Montana is winner-take-all, which is about 25 delegates.
That’s 500 delegates for winner-take-all states, all of which are in the bank for Mitt.
February 5th, 2012 at 12:53 pm
Texas is pure proportional by total popular vote, there is not even these requirements like “get over x percent to be eligible for your delegate share”. Since they want to save money by having congressional primaries at the same time, because of redistrict lawsuits, Texas might get pushed to May or June.
On the other hand many Romney friendly states have system where CD delegates all go to the winner of CD. Illinois, one Romney friendly state has the same delegate allocation system last year, known as Loophole system, developed by Dems to get around proportionality rules, which last time enabled the Rep winner to get almost all delegates.
February 5th, 2012 at 12:59 pm
Let’s just say Noot, Paul and Santorum stay in until Texas for this example.
TX has 155 delegates.
Say the result looks like this:
Gingrich – 50%
Romney – 30%
Paul – 15%
Santorum – 5%
In the best-case scenario for Noot, he gets about 78 delegates, and Mitt gets about 50. That’s a 28-delegate pickup.
Noot is done.
February 5th, 2012 at 1:01 pm
Massachusetts Conservative ,
Thanks for this info regarding delegates. Is there a good “go to” source to find all of this out?
February 5th, 2012 at 1:04 pm
CA, NY, MD, CT, MT, UT, PR, NJ, VA are all either strictly winner-take-all or winner-take-all if the winner gets a majority.
That’s 500 delegates in the bag for Mitt, right there.
——————————————————————-
Let’s just say Noot, Paul and Santorum stay in until Texas for this example.
TX has 155 delegates, which are totally proportional.
Say the result looks like this:
Gingrich – 50%
Romney – 30%
Paul – 15%
Santorum – 5%
In the best-case scenario for Noot, he gets about 78 delegates, and Mitt gets about 50. That’s a 28-delegate pickup.
Noot is done.
February 5th, 2012 at 1:05 pm
71
Yeah, go here and click on all the states and it will say below the ballot screen how they are allocated.
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/
February 5th, 2012 at 1:17 pm
By the way, now that Roseanne Barr is running for POTUS as a candidate on the Green Party, I’d love to see a Lincoln-Douglas style debate between her and Gingrich.
February 5th, 2012 at 1:18 pm
Mass Conservative….Good to know…thanks
February 5th, 2012 at 1:36 pm
Ha! Roseanne could be Newt’s VP: They have soooo much in common when you think about it.
February 5th, 2012 at 1:38 pm
#74, Ozzy,
That just may be worth a ‘pay for view’. It would be like watching two skunks arguing about who stinks more. lol
February 5th, 2012 at 1:42 pm
76 KG,
Roseanne says as POTUS, she will legalize pot, illegalize war, give healthcare to everyone, and other extreme liberal positions.
February 5th, 2012 at 1:51 pm
#78: On the other hand, both Roseanne and Newt are fat, ugly, mean, mendacious, narcissistic, erratic, and self-agrandizing. Their policies may differ, but their personalities do not.
February 5th, 2012 at 2:54 pm
71. RCP also has a pretty good table, including running delegate counts.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/republican_delegate_count.html
February 5th, 2012 at 5:54 pm
Yeah, looks like the Anybody But Willard vote may start coalescing around Santorum now. Gingrich’s approval ratings were never high, it’s only been the ABW vote driving him.
So over the past 6 months a multiple of candidates have taken up the ABW slot. We’ve had Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingrich, nobody, Gingrich again… and now it appears to be Santorum.
Now we see whether Willard turns his blowtorch onto Santorum. Similar to his approach with Gingrich, it’d be the worst possible thing he could do to himself, so that’s what I’m expecting him to do.
February 6th, 2012 at 9:51 am
So here we are in February and there’s no clear RomNot.