NBC News/Marist Michigan Primary Survey
- Romney – 37%
- Santorum – 35%
- Paul – 13%
- Gingrich – 8%
- Undecided – 4%
Among those who already voted:
- Romney – 49%
- Santorum – 26%
- Gingrich – 12%
- Paul – 9%
Survey of 715 likely primary voters was conducted Feb 19-20 and has a margin of error of +/-3.7%.
February 22nd, 2012 at 8:52 am
Do we know what % of voters have already voted?
Things are slowly starting to look good for Romney in MI…Finally!
February 22nd, 2012 at 8:53 am
BOOM BABY!!!
February 22nd, 2012 at 8:55 am
The sound of Rick Santorum’s Support here in my state
Drip..Drip..Drip
February 22nd, 2012 at 8:57 am
The considerable early-voting differential between Romney and Santorum bodes well for an eventual win for Mitt.
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:01 am
Who would have thought two months ago that Rombots would be thrilled by a 2 point lead over Rick Santorum in Michigan? It’s been a strange cycle.
And I’ve got to think that the MoE for the already voted subsample has to be substantial.
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:01 am
Any idea of how many early voters have cast?
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:02 am
Its laughable to think some of you guys think Romney is going to lose this state, his organization is second to nothing I’ve ever seen before, he has the backing of the entire state big wigs and our popular Governor. Mitt Romney knows this state like the back of his hand and has been working absentee and early voters here for a while, that’s why his lead is so big among this group. Romney will surprise many when he wins this state by double digits!
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:02 am
Virtual tie (before you figure in early voting which give Mitt a big advantage). Tides turning and Mitt still to give his economic speech on Saturday. AZ has Mitt up by about 15% (again, this doesn’t count early voting already cast). I think next Tuesday night is going to be a big night for the Romney campaign…..Question: Where does he hold his victory(s) speech, MI or AZ? any guesses? Hint, just follow campaign Carl..LOL
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:03 am
Matt “MWS”
Keep drinking whatever your drinking buddy, Romney’s got this state in the bag, take it from someone who actually lives here and sees what is going on
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:04 am
I guess the question here is if election day stumping for Santorum by Fox news can deliver another narrow victory for Santorum.
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:05 am
The other new poll out is an AP GE poll. I have not seen it, but it was mentioned on
GMA in the Christie interview.
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:07 am
#9 Steven in MI
I remember when everyone was worried if Scott Brown was going to beat Coakley here in MA and I kept telling everyone to stop worrying, living and working here, you could feel what was happening on the ground, polls showed it tight for a while but being here you never sensed that Brown was in any trouble, also there were at least 100 Scott Brown yard signs to each Coakley sign, it was crazy….I’m thinking that is what is happening with Mitt in MI?
I believe you
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:09 am
Romney looking good, big lead among already voted, but who knows what percentage that is, and he is slowly starting to pull away, not to mention still plenty of time before people actually go to vote.
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:09 am
Romney’s coming around for the armbar haha.
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:11 am
I’ve bought a few hundreds more Romney.Michigan yesterday.
Tonight’s the debate!
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:11 am
Yes everywhere you look there are Romney signs and even Billboards across this state, his father is still a beloved figure here and when it comes time to vote, people will be voting for Romney in overwhelming numbers I can assure you. In my opinion a 10 point win is a given, but it could even be more than that, he has a very big presence in this state
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:11 am
First, Romney is not leading in Arizona by 16% if he was Santorum’s Super Pac would not of bought $200,000 in ads buys yesterday in Arizona. The NBC Marist have a long history of being very far off in their outlier polls and the reason is simple. They have a large sample which is good, though they include likely voters with the OVERALL sample which mixes unlikely voters with likely voters corrupting the data.
If they released numbers on JUST THE LIKELY voters in the subsample I wonder what it would show. We will never know. Though with polls from PPP and Rasmussen who only poll likely voters is shows Santorum up by 4% in both polls. So I wil pick those polls to believe in, plus watching the ad purchases and crowds to each of the 2 main candidates in shows me alot of what the campaigns INTERAL POLLING NUMBERS are really telling the campaigns of Santorm and Romney.
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:12 am
Question:
Do these new polls change Romney’s tax plan announcement? Some details, a 20%
across the board cut, were already leaked.
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:12 am
15
Smart move, and I can tell you since I’m actually witnessing it here on the ground, you can keep on buying and tell your friends, because Romney is winning here I guarantee you!
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:13 am
9– hehehey.
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:14 am
Malinda,
Now I know why you are a Santorum supporter, you both WHINE like little babies when things don’t go your way!
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:14 am
Mittmentum!!
I guess people are finally seeing Santorum for the lunatic that he is…
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:16 am
Santorum leads in the Michigan Evangelical Mormons aren’t or may not be Christians vote…followed by Romney.
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:17 am
Steven – I love the confidence. Let’s make sure when the foot is on the throats of our opponents, lets keep it there into Wednesday morning. We need to obliterate the competition! This a battle among many that will get us closer to victory in the war.
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:17 am
Matt MWS – you always have a very high bar for Romney and I agree with the sentiment you have too many homegames.
You have fallen into the media trap that every week Romney has to achieve a win in a “must win state” win “every debate” deliver “do or die speech” and when he does…..nothing.
The guy has to face the 12 Labors of Hercules, while all it seems the other contenders have to do is:
surge,
grouse,
whine,
bitch,
moan,
get tounge tied,
wear stupid sweater vests,
have their staff quit,
be accused of sexual infidelity and abuse,
chicken out,
not be given permission to run by their wives,
complain their religious positons are being distorted,
and get free biased free coverage.
Give the guy some credit for Pete’s sake.
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:18 am
Check the internals of this poll and it pretty much matches the last few MI polls. Very close race…nail biter.
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:19 am
I don’t think Santorum has an internal pollster. At least that is what I read a few days ago. He probably doesn’t really know how far Mitt is leading in AZ.
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:21 am
Re Yesterday’s Michigan Rasmussen poll
Romney’s leading among those who’ll definitely vote.
Was down 4% last week.
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:22 am
We’ve had 3 other polls in the last couple of days that show Michigan either tied, or Mitt with a 2 point win…..so this is hardly surprising. What’s great is Mitt’s 23 point lead among those who have already voted.
This shows intensity, and organization….both of which figured to be very much on Mitt’s side.
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:23 am
25 – Here here! Romney is a true American conservative. The standards that Romney is required to live by should be the standard that ALL American’s should live by. This country would be a lot better place if that were the case. We wouldn’t be led around by hypocrites and big talkers who do little otherwise.
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:23 am
Santorum, the National Frontrunner With 3 Delegates
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/291665/santorum-national-frontrunner-3-delegates
Some perspective
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:24 am
Steven,
“Its laughable to think some of you guys think Romney is going to lose this state, his organization is second to nothing I’ve ever seen before”
Really? How did he get beat 3-1 in a state in won in ’08?
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:25 am
No early voting in Michigan. Only absentee ballots.
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:26 am
MWS. “There you go again” as Reagan would say haha…bring it.
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:26 am
Marquette University Wisconsin Poll:
Santorum: 34%
Romney: 18%
Paul: 17%
Gingrich: 12%
https://law.marquette.edu/poll/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/MLSPFebToplines.pdf
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:27 am
Of course Romney takes Michigan. Those folks aren’t religious, and the religious schtick is all Santorum has going for him.
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:27 am
#22 Don’t know that Sant’s a lunatic, but the more we learn of him, the more we realize he’s definitely not presidential timber.
From Pete Wehner’s great article pointing out where Santorum’s gone wrong fighting for social issues:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/02/21/santorum-and-social-issues/#.T0QnrZazoUg.twitter
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:28 am
33 Katechon,
Correct about Michigan. There is no early voting. Only absentee. I’m voting absentee since I’ll be out of town next week. I would guess that most absentee voters are older and wealthy, therefore they lean towards Romney. They’re probably a small fraction of the electorate.
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:29 am
33
Even more reason to think Romney has a huge advantage, b/c in Florida he dominated among absenttee ballot voters
The question though is what % of people are voting by absentee ballots, that’s the big question
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:29 am
Are you kidding me Santorum was PRO-CHOICE until he ran for congress? What? http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frenchrevolution/2012/02/22/rick-santorum’s-pro-choice-past/
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:30 am
William, Whining and pointing out data flaws in the way a poll is conducted is not crying. I am fully confident Santorum will win by as little a 1% to as much as 10% Next Tuesday. IN Rasmussen’s poll in Michigan yesterday, 8% were undecided. If Romney knocked it out of the part in the debate I was assume Romney will get 6% of the 8% who are undecided, and Santorum will get the Remaining 2% of the undecided making it a dead tie of 40% to 40% Then you must factor in the Gingrich’s supports I assume Santorum will get at least 1% of
Gingrich’s supports this would give Santorum 41% to Romney’s 40%
Though I must say, I really think the debate will produce a tie. In this assumption of mine I would argue in this case Santorum would get 5% of the Remaining 8% in Rasmussen’s undecided voters, and Romney would get the remaining 3%. In this case Santorum would get 43% to Romney’s 37% adding from his poll support then adding in the way undecideds break.
I have noticed a pattern in the Undecideds breaking for the perceived winner when no gaffes are made and the frontrunner (this being Santorum in Michigan and Romney in Arizona), does not hurt or help themselves 24 hours before the vote, that 60%-80% of the undecideds break for the winner. This is how I assume the break down of the remaining undecideds from Rasmussen’s latest Michigan poll.
I would not call confidence whining but you can if that makes you feel happy. I am not here to upset or rub anything in your face.
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:31 am
Is MI lost in the general, though? 63% think auto bailout was good idea.
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:32 am
Does anyone know anything about this? Is it a lyin’ bit piece a la Bain Capital or is there some truth to it?
http://youtu.be/8q7l70tmxWgkk
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:33 am
Doug,
I consider “home games” for Mitt states he won in ’08.
I consider “home states” for Mitt to be MA, MI, and UT.
I consider “neutral turf” to be states where he was very competitive in ’08, like MO.
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:33 am
Matt “MWS”
Gingrich is to Santorum in MI, as Bachman was to Santorum in Iowa.
Santorum needed Bachmann to hit the floor to squeak out Iowa……Santorum needs Gingrich to do the same in MI..and it looks like Newt is sliding down little by little.
All of these polls are showing this race to be a nail biter….unless something happens big in the debate tonight I don’t see the race changing from being a nail biter on election night,
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:33 am
38– Makes sense, Eric.
Re Arizona. There’s early voting there.
Looks like the race is already over …
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:34 am
#43: Make that “hit” piece.
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:35 am
41:
PPP Arizona poll had the flaws, it had 42% “very conservative” sample when in 2008 AZ R primary was 30% “very conservative”. Also there was not enough information of religious distribution. Also Rasmussen has also too “very coonservative” sample, 42%, but their religious cross tabs showed that they got most likely about 11-13% LDS, like it should be. Once you calculate with 30% very conservative, the 8 point lead in Rasmussen turns into 10 point lead. So now we have PPP (small sample, too “very conservative” sample, religious cross tabs too vague) and CNN (small sample, political and religious cross tabs too vague) with small Romney leads, large sample We Ask America with 10 point Romney lead, Rasmussen with 10 point lead once you fix too “very conservative” factor, and this by 16 point lead
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:39 am
GHWB won Iowa in 1980, but in 1988 he was 3rd behind Dole, and Pat Robertson, who got 25% of vote, same as Rick Santorum.
In 2008 it wasn’t pro-Romney that brought him the victory in Colorado or Minnesota, but rather cranky anti-establishment vote, that this year gave to caucuses to Santorum. So considering them home game doesn’t make that much sense.
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:41 am
In the Arizona Poll, it was possible to be more definitive, but it’s reasonably clear that Mitt will also win Michigan…..in the MIRS poll yesterday, that also showed mitt winning by 2, their previous 9 polls had shown Mitt losing to Santorum.
All 4 polls in the last couple of days that have shown the race tied or Mitt winning were preceded by a raft of polls showing Santorum winning. This tells virtually any sentient being that the trend is Mitt’s friend.
The state is moving in Mitt’s direction, and the difference in resources and organization will tell. Mitt will win by more than 2….the only question being how much more.
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:48 am
Dave,
There was a Rasmussen MI poll yesterday that had Santorum up 4 in MI…before it was 3.
Yes, there are vaild points to your conclusion….but if you look closely enough you will see enough valid points that Santorum could still edge Mitt out.
Rasmussen & PPP are ranked much higher that the polls you are sighting………but yes, you do make a valid argument.
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:48 am
Teemu,
“In 2008 it wasn’t pro-Romney that brought him the victory in Colorado or Minnesota, but rather cranky anti-establishment vote, that this year gave to caucuses to Santorum. So considering them home game doesn’t make that much sense.”
In other words, Mitt’s accomplishments were much less impressive in ’08 than it seemed. When you strip him of the caucus victories, which you say he only won because of being “anti-establishment”, all he won were UT, MI, and MA.
Not that impressive.
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:51 am
51– Mitt’s leading amongst those who’ll definitely vote, in that Rasmussen poll.
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:52 am
K.G.,
I was familiar with the 4 guys featured and what happened to them. I was aware of the K Street project, and that Santorum was voted one of the 3 most corrupt members of the Senate in 2006.
It was the Saipan stuff that was new to me, and it’s horrible….but it’s also something of a stretch. One $5,000 contribution doesn’t imply a super-close connection. But, if there WAS one, this is really mind blowing.
If anyone DOESN’T know about the Gang of Four, they don’t follow politics closely.
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:52 am
Dave, I would advise you to call the contact number in that Romney Super Pac poll. I called it and found out that Romney owns stock in the company that conducted the poll and expect the data is not reliable. I think the fact that MRG has no real record in publishing polls for general elections is telling.
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:54 am
Matt “MWS”
I was just going to point that out to Teemu….you beat me to it. After 40 million dollars of his own money he could only win UT-MI & MA if you count out the “cranky anti-establishment vote” in 2008?
Good grief…Mitt is even weaker than I thought.
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:55 am
Has anybody seen the the TV Series *K Street*? …directed by the great Soderberg?
Is it good?
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:57 am
He got lot’s of second places though all around the country.
Huckabee won Iowa, which is always won by Christian Right candidate that is somewhat legitimate (GWB, Huckabee, Santorum), even people who really have no business to become presidential nominee, like Pat Robertson, have gotten 25% there like Santorum got this year, then he won other evangelical caucus at Kansas, and his home state Arkansas, and won few other southern states by 1-4 points, so Romney’s achievements in 2008 were most impressive of those people who didn’t win the nomination.
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:59 am
56- Romney will smack Santorum tonight, and next Tuesday, I fear!
And talks of inevitability will resume, and we’re all gonna erase Sean’s delegate calculator from our bookmarks.
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:59 am
Also Dve I forgot to mention that if you look though my earlier posts dating back a few weeks, when this same firm showed santorum way up, I said it was foolish to trust this polling company. I liked the numbers but highly doubted them.
Smack1968, is on to something, when he or she posted that PPP and Rasmussen is more respected among the political class. My words on the political class not Smack1968
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:59 am
Smack,
I’ve stated my beliefs about PPP in other threads….briefly, I think they have an agenda, that before was subtle, but now seems exposed. Concerning Rasmussen, I have doubts, which is a big caveat. Their Arizona poll massively oversampled Evangelicals, showing a significant distortion of the race, while hiding the fact that most of those certain to vote will vote for Romney in the internals. This is one example, but there aren’t enough for conclusions.
I’m looking at Rasmussen polls, and partially because of their close relationship with FOX, which has been trying to control the nomination. Murdoch’s an ABR.
February 22nd, 2012 at 10:02 am
61 —
February 22nd, 2012 at 10:03 am
Well, usually those who don’t win the nomination don’t have that great list of states won, more second places, etc.
I guess 1976 would be the closest when the list of states won by candidate who didn’t become nominee, was impressive.
February 22nd, 2012 at 10:04 am
Malinda:“Dave, I would advise you to call the contact number in that Romney Super Pac poll. I called it and found out that Romney owns stock in the company that conducted the poll and expect the data is not reliable.”
You really don’t know Mitt very well, do you? Mitt demands accurate data. That is how he likes to make his decisions. He cannot stand yes-men. He’s been that way his entire career. First in business. Then at the Olympics. Then as Massachusetts Governor. Now as Presidential candidate. He demands accurate and reliable data. So the quickest way that a polling firm to lose his confidence and support would be to “shade” the numbers to make Mitt look good. He would drop them like a stone.
No, I would say that the fact that Mitt has stock in a polling firm is a sign that you can trust their numbers better than the average polling outfit.
February 22nd, 2012 at 10:06 am
Malinda,
You’re undoubtedly aware that Mitt’s money is in a blind trust, and has been for 10 years. If he had any clue where it was invested, it would be illegal. Similarly, with that MUCH money, he probably owns stocks in hundreds, if not thousands, of companies….particularly if a fair amount is invested in Mutual Funds.
We will find out more about the polls next Tuesday.
February 22nd, 2012 at 10:07 am
Katechon,
I’m not sure what your point is on comment 53#.
Definate vote?…
The Likely voter model in Rasmussen has Santorum up 4%. The MIR poll actually has Santorum & Romney tied among LV…but they used “not sure voters” to have Romney up 2%…….most pollsters do not use this in their polls…quite odd indeed.
If you just stick with the LV model you will see this race is a nail biter and none of these polls can be discounted…nor can they be seen as a trend..all with in MOE. PPP & Rasmussen have the better track records than the other polls, and they both have Santorum up….but on the other hand, we have polls that have been done a little later that show Romney up…although RAS was done on the 20th.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that there is plenty here for both parties to like in these numbers. The Marist poll does not have the same record as PPP or RAS, but they may be correct.
Will see.
February 22nd, 2012 at 10:07 am
#54
I’ll bet not one GOP voter in a million has heard of or remembers the Gang of Four. But even voters who believe they follow politics are pretty cluless. One hard-core conservative I talked to the other day had never heard the term RINO. And two GOP voters Mr. K.G. talked to yesterday had NO idea re: the influence evangelicals play in GOP politics. They are completely flumoxed as to why Mitt’s struggly so hard to beat the “losers.”
February 22nd, 2012 at 10:10 am
64 & 65 comments 100% contradict each other…and yet they both make Romney look good.
I love reading my Romney supporter friends comments.
I will be very sad when this election season is over.
Where will I get my entertainment?
February 22nd, 2012 at 10:12 am
Dave, I agree but we will never know for sure what he REALL KNOWS. I just dont trust MRG as they showed Santorum up more tahn Rasmussen did during the same time period and have delted all their polls after they get way off the mark I have tried to find these polls but with no luck. So this MRG is not worth getting upset or giddy over.
February 22nd, 2012 at 10:14 am
66:
Certain of who they vote was 41-40 for Romney.
Rasmussen was 40% “very conservative” way too much for Michigan, MIR was 36% “very conservative”, 2008 MI Republican primary was 24% very conservative.. That oversampling compensates easily for any “not sure” factor in MIR poll.
February 22nd, 2012 at 10:15 am
66– my point was Mitt gained over 4% amongst those whose vote is definite. Mitt’s now leading amongst definite voters. He was down amongst ‘em last week, in Rasmussen too.
February 22nd, 2012 at 10:16 am
http://biggovernment.com/rebelpundit/2012/02/22/busted-on-video-romney-camp-takes-down-hundreds-of-santorum-signs-cops-watch/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BigGovernment+%28Big+Government%29
In Michigan, Santorum supporters planted hundreds of campaign signs in Shelby Township prior to Mitt Romney’s appearance today. Some of these signs were planted alongside sidewalks and roadways across from and surrounding the Romney campaign stop. Approximately two hours before the scheduled event, Romney campaign staffers, including Dennis Lennox of Topinabee, MI, began planting Romney signs in front of the location. Around the same time, several other people, who refused to identify themselves, began uprooting hundreds of Santorum signs along the roadway leading to the event. Signs placed at a commercial intersection were also removed.
When asked to explain his actions, Santorum supporters were confronted with obscenities from one person removing signs. He claimed to be unaffiliated with the Romney campaign.
One officer on the scene, Lou Francis, refused to assist in retrieving stolen campaign signs valued at over $1500.
——————————————-
Note to Romney supporters…..you better hope this does not go viral.
February 22nd, 2012 at 10:18 am
Teemu, 2008 exit polls are 4 years old. Dont you think you reading too much into this and oversampling will know how wrong or right you are or if your wrong were, in 6 days.
February 22nd, 2012 at 10:20 am
68 Smack,
I too come to this site just for the entertainment. Go back sometime and read comments for weeks or months ago. Most people have been blindsided again and again not seeing it coming.
Arizona seems to be going Romney’s way now. Looks like Romney takes Arizona. Michigan will be very close. The reality is that both of these states are states that Romney should win. Let’s see how he does in less friendly terrain like Oklahoma, Tennessee, North Dakota, Georgia, Kansas, etc.
February 22nd, 2012 at 10:20 am
Here is my earlier post about why these “very conservative” vote up 16 points and evangelicals up 10 points from 2008 are silly, analysis of the previous primaries, and in those that had somewhat significant shift, what was the factor behind those:
I think that they got it wrong last week not really sensing, of the three 2012 primaries only primary where evangelicals where significantly up was South Carolina,65% compared to 60%, so 65/60=1.083333, 8.3 percent increase, which for Michigan would be equivalent of the evangelical turnout increasing from 39% to 42%. Also I think there was specific reason for the evangelical boost for Newt, many Christians confuse forgiveness and trust. After the CNN debate question and ABC ex-wife interview, the initial gut reaction and subconscious thinking went for them something like this:
“Oh, that was so mean, I’ll forgive him, I’m such a good and forgiving person for voting that Newt Gingrich”
Psychologically, voting for Newt was same for many of them as voting for Barack Obama because he was the first African American presidential nominee was for many people. Will there be event giving Santorum similar boost as Newt got in South Carolina, or has the socon issue discussion already brought that, or has Santorum gone to far in socon issues for Michigan primary voters, hard to say.
In 2008 Michigan Republican primary was more moderate than 2008 Florida Republican primary. Florida had the largest conservative increase in the primary exit polls, South Carolina staid same, though 2 percent more “very conservative”, 2 percent less “somewhat conservative”, New Hampshire was slightly more moderate this year.
Let’s say Michigan’s conservative turnout proportionally was up by as much as Florida, that would mean “somewhat conservative” 34% (32% in 2008), “very conservative” 29% (from 24% in 2008).
Now why I don’t think it is going to be up that much:
Florida had in 2008 ballot also vote on making the constitutional limits on property tax increases more strict, this motivated more moderates, Michigan didn’t have anything special.
In 2008 the Florida primary was competitive to the end, in 2012 it was not, Romney winning by double digits was obvious because of early and absentee vote and polls, and the system was winner-take-all, pragmatic moderate voters more likely staid in home in greater numbers on the election day due to this. A moderate voter was more likely to stay home because of this obviousness, and moderate voter was more likely to come to the conclusion from the more moderate media sources that the results were obvious, whereas some “very conservative” news sources were probably more likely to keep up the hope of defeating Romney in Florida primary.
Florida primary, unlike New Hampshire and South Carolina, required you to be registered Republican, having to register as Republican probably prevented any significant moderate trickling from the lack of primary on the Democrat side, in Michigan you don’t need to be registered.
Also the union household turnout is as high in this sample as in 2008. In 2008 Romney lost the union member vote by 16 points, when he won the state by 9 points, this was his worst category, he did much better among people having just union member in the household, but not union member themselves, or non-union member households. PPP doesn’t separate union members and people who have union member in their household, Romney did somewhat worse in their previous poll among union households than Santorum, and gets crushed in this poll among the union member households, he actually wins non-union member households. Michigan moved from open to semi-open primary. Semi-open means that you have to declare your party identity and this goes on to list, on which parties and unions, or whoever wants to access, can see it. This suppresses union member turnout more than anything else, I’ve heard from some Michigan folks, that in many unions, you really don’t want to end up in any list listed as Republican. I don’t think the union member/union household vote will be 27% this year.
Also the listing might suppress the cranky paranoid vote, hard to say whether that hurts Santorum or Paul vote more
February 22nd, 2012 at 10:26 am
Smack,
The signs thing is an example of politics in action. The way you represented it isn’t necessarily what happened. You don’t know the actors, who’s property they were placed on, or what their beliefs are, or local laws regarding the subject.
The one definite truth here is that neither Romney or Santorum were planting or uprooting signs.
February 22nd, 2012 at 10:26 am
In South Carolina, it was possible already to vote both in Democratic and Republican primary in 2008, because they were on separate dates. The only of the three primaries thus far which allowed independent to vote on either of the primary, but you had to choose just one of them, was New Hampshire, which had more moderate turnout this year. So these 36-42% very conservative Michigan samples are silly.
February 22nd, 2012 at 10:27 am
72. oh so scary, because this stuff doesn’t happen EVERY SINGLE DAY IN EVERY SINGLE CAMPAIGN and is hardly newsworthy.
February 22nd, 2012 at 10:28 am
Teemu, did not mean to publish what i asked and told you. Anyways I suspect The polling firms of PPP and Rasmussen and Battleground and IBD are all showing a higher Very conservative for 1 simple reason. In South Carolina when a candidate that really excites Social Conservatives Gingrich was leading going into SC. That was the one and only time a conservative candidate was expected to win before the vote was held. I noticed saw on the news that SC had a 26% increase in the number of people who voted as compared to that same state of SC from the 2008 numbers.
My opinion is that the more professional pollsters and are good at getting their final election poll very near the actual result of the election, adjusted their sample anticipating conservative voters are giddy and plan to turn out in much higher numbers as they have a real choice the cycle as compared to the depressed turnout in 2008. If you look at the 2000 primary with Bush v McCain Bush in exit polls had an electorate that match very closely the number Rasmussen assumes will compose the electorate this cycle of 2012.
Thats just why I am guessing.
February 22nd, 2012 at 10:31 am
my post 79 was in relation to the 2000 primary in only the state of Michigan
February 22nd, 2012 at 10:33 am
And this “huge conservative excitement” caused the very conservative turnout to increase by 2 points, and the “somewhat conservative” turnout to decrease by points compared to 2008 in South Carolina.
SC2008:
34% somewhat conservative
34% very conservative
SC2012:
32% somewhat c
36% very c
February 22nd, 2012 at 10:34 am
Dave,
That was weak.
Try again.
February 22nd, 2012 at 10:39 am
Teemu and just where are you citing your exit polls. Wall street journal Exit polls show it was 15% increase from 2008 each network has different numbers you cite the ones than play into your biased opinion to give you hope Romney will not lose. Fine but on election night when the networks call the race for Santorum and he wins I gues you will have a sily way to explain that too.
February 22nd, 2012 at 10:41 am
Smack:
Another thing that is highly entertaining in an election season is the absolute binary nature some commentators place on things. For example, comments 64 and 65 can’t be 50% contradictory. They can’t be 15% contradictory. They can’t even be 99.999% contradictory. They’ve got to be 100% contradictory.
February 22nd, 2012 at 10:43 am
There was 15% increase in turnout, the proportion of conservative turnout staid almost the same of the total turnout, proportion of “very conservative” turnout was up only by 2 points.
This is why those polls having proportion of “very conservative” turnout up by 10-18 points are silly.
February 22nd, 2012 at 10:50 am
Teemu, ok its so silly. I dont think you are very good at understanding data. Maybe your our new carl rove and mike barone. hhahaha
February 22nd, 2012 at 10:55 am
You have problems with understanding the data.
Despite of South Carolina turnout being up by 15%, the proportion of conservative turnout of total turnout staid about the same. Despite of this “huge excitement” for Newt Gingrich, the proportion of “very conservative” turnout rose only by 2 points from 2008, from 34% to 36%.
Actually since Michigan semi-open primary forced independent to choose in which primary to vote in 2008, like New Hampshire did in 2008, whereas in South Carolina since the primaries where in different dates in 2008 you could vote in both if you wanted, the Michigan turnout might be even more moderate than in 2008, like NH was. Anyway the proportion of “very conservative” will not be significantly up from 24% in 2008.
February 22nd, 2012 at 11:01 am
72- What happened is the people who put the signs there jumped ship and decided to support Romney.
February 22nd, 2012 at 11:03 am
GOP12 says 16% have vote in MI by absentee ballot so far.
February 22nd, 2012 at 11:06 am
72:
I think excessive sign spam on other on spot where other candidate is about to have an envent is somewhat dirty also, it can make people confused whether they are coming to right place and event.
February 22nd, 2012 at 11:06 am
Smack,
It’s weak to say it’s irrelevant? I even said why.
February 22nd, 2012 at 11:08 am
What about that lack of enthusiasm for the candidates? Romney does not have a deficiency in that area.
February 22nd, 2012 at 11:08 am
james,
16%, with a 23 point lead, is VERY significant in what, at this point, is a close race. Thanks.
February 22nd, 2012 at 11:17 am
Dave if 23% already voted its good for the guy who lead during the start of that early voting to present time.
February 22nd, 2012 at 11:22 am
Among those who already voted absentee in Michigan, Romney leads Santorum, 49% to 26%.
February 22nd, 2012 at 11:29 am
“Romney will surprise many when he wins this state by double digits!”
Will surprise many, but not all
The good news is that a win coming from behind is a game changer that will impact all the other trends going into super Tuesday. This is the best possible outcome.
February 22nd, 2012 at 11:36 am
LOVE the “stumping by Fox for Santorum”………..ISN’T that the TRUTH!!
Tweets from “big dog Murdoch”, slobbering by Hannity and Greta for any ABR candidate. What a FRAUD Fox and some of the hosts are! No different than MSNBC’s motives.
February 22nd, 2012 at 11:54 am
Malinda,
Apparently you didn’t catch the fact that 16% of voters have already voted in Michigan and Mitt has a 23% lead. So that would be good for Mitt….particularly since the polls are close.
In light of that, it really doesn’t matter that Santorum was leading in the polls during that period.
February 22nd, 2012 at 12:31 pm
96… agree but will need a good performance tonight
February 22nd, 2012 at 1:20 pm
16% of the voters contacted have alreay voted
February 22nd, 2012 at 2:33 pm
51 and 66. Smack1968, I’ve spent the last two hours crunching numbers and running scenarios based on the following nine polls: WZZM (taken 2/11-13), Rasmussen (2/13), MRG (2/13-14), ARG (2/15-16), PPP (2/17-19), We Ask America (WAA) (2/19), NBC/Marist (2/19-20), Rasmussen 2/20) and Rosetta (2/20).
And I’ve come to the conclusion that you’re on to something: the reports of Santorum’s death are greatly exaggerated.
First, let’s take a look at the candidates’ CPSRs starting with WZZM and going through the PPP survey (a 2/11-19 period), at which point there was still broad consensus. Here those are, with trends added from the previous polls taken 11/13-1/25 (WXYZ, Strategic National and EPIC):
MICHIGAN Composite 2/11-19 Final
1. Santorum 37.5-38.4 +29.4-34.5
2. Romney 29-34.5
3. Paul 11-11.5
4. Gingrich 7.5-14 -11.75-18.6
5. Undecided 8-10 -2.9-11.1
As you can see, the conclusion appears to be inescapable that at that time Santorum and Romney, between them, enjoyed the support of over half of the primary’s likely voters, and that Santorum is leading Romney by probably around 6 or 7 points.
And then we start bumping into problems.
We’re confronted at that point with four polls that were all taken at roughly the same time, from WAA, NBC/Marist, Rasmussen and Rosetta. NBC/Marist and Rasmussen agree with each other’s candidate PSRs. WAA and Rosetta also agree with each other’s candidate PSRs.
However WAA + Rosetta DO NOT AGREE with NBC/Marist + Rasmussen.
So which combo is correct?
Well, the NBC/Marist + Rasmussen combo gives candidate CPSRs that match the CPSR picture I give above. And WAA + Rosetta DO NOT. So the numbers lead to the conclusion that NBC/Marist + Rasmussen is correct, and WAA + Rosetta is not.
Which leads to the conclusion that there has been no significant changes or alterations in trends at all since the 11th.
If that’s the case, and if one discards WAA + Rosetta, then here is the current CPSR picture, with trend markings again added based on the trifecta of polls from 11/13-1/25:
MICHIGAN Composite 2/11-20 Final
1. Santorum 37.5-38.4 +29.4-34.5
2. Romney 33.3-34.5
3. Paul 11-11.5
4. Gingrich 7.5-11.7 -14.05-18.6
5. Undecided 8-10 -2.9-11.1
Which leads us to the following startling conclusion, one to which Smack1968 already referred to above: Not only is Santorum probably still in the lead in the state; there is also persuasive evidence that he continues to trend UP, not down.
I could actually stop here, but I’m sure there will be some who will disagree with my conclusion above, so let me try to address some of those expected criticisms.
The first objection raised will probably be something along the lines of “hey, NBC/Marist reports a lead for Romney, not Santorum; how can you possibly use that survey as a basis for claiming the opposite?”
That objection is actually answered rather easily. The NBC/Marist survey has a margin of error of +/-3.7 points. That enables us to create PSRs for Santorum and Romney in this survey of 31.3-38.7% and 33.3-40.7% respectively. Since these overlap the CPSRs derived from the other six polls that agree with NBC/Marist, one can therefore NARROW DOWN the candidates’ CPSRs by utilizing this additional information from NBC/Marist. In a nutshell, NBC/Marist’s contribution here is to raise Romney’s CPSR floor to 33.3%. We already have an even lower ceiling on Santorum from WZZM, 38.4%. Which means that my final CPSRs of 37.5-38.4% and 33.3-34.5% for Santorum and Romney do not disagree with NBC/Marist at all; in fact, to the extent that they agree with NBC/Marist, that tends to reinforce the likelihood both that NBC/Marist is correct and that my current CPSR picture for Santorum and Romney is correct.
Another objection I may hear will go something like this: “Hey (an objection always starts with hey, you know), but couldn’t NBC/Marist and Rasmussen be the outliers here instead?”
Sure they could. But that interpretation is based on two far-fetched assumptions:
1) NBC/Marist + Rasmussen is incorrect, in spite of their agreement with WZZM + Rasmussen (2/13) + MRG + ARG + PPP, and
2) WAA + Rosetta is correct, in spite of their DISAGREEMENT with WZZM + Rasmussen (2/13) + MRG + ARG + PPP.
In short, the conclusion that NBC/Marist + Rasmussen is correct demands fewer questionable assumptions than that WAA + Rosetta is correct.
To conclude, just for grins, I show below the CPSR picture that results if one concludes that I’m wrong, Smack1968 is wrong and NBC/Marist + Rasmussen is wrong.
Such a CPSR picture necessarily involves a much shorter time span, 2/19-20, than the one I’ve shown you above, as well as a much smaller number of available polls (only two to be exact: the aforementioned controversial WAA and Rosetta surveys). I present it below, with trend indicators based on the five surveys taken between 2/11-19 (WZZM, Rasmussen (2/13), MRG, ARG and PPP):
MICHIGAN Composite 2/19-20 Final
1. Romney 27.3-32.1
2. Santorum 25.9-32.1 -5.4-12.5
3. Undecided 17.3-23.1 +7.3-15.1
4. Gingrich 6.9-13.1
4. Paul 8.9-11.7
To reiterate, I do not believe this latter CPSR picture is credible. It is based on the conclusion that WAA + Rosetta is right and that NBC/Marist + Rasmussen is wrong. I have demonstrated above that that conclusion is far-fetched and implausible.
The more plausible picture, in my opinion, remains that Santorum continues to trend up in this state, and continues to be narrowly ahead of Romney, as shown in the first CPSR picture I presented in this message.
Yeah, this was a long message. Hope it all hangs together and makes sense.