US 2012 Presidential Election Polls

Black Swan · 25-02-2012 8:57am #1

This thread is to focus primarily upon the changing election polls between now and Tuesday 6 November 2012 that attempt to predict:

Republican Nomination for President
Obama vs Republican Nominee for President

***

Republican presidential nomination polling data (consolidated poll averages) for 8 February through 23 February 2012 by Real Clear Politics:

Santorum = 33.4%
Romney = 28.4%
Gingrich = 14.6%
Paul = 12.4%

Although still a bit early in the GOP primaries, it would appear from the above consolidated and averaged polling data that Santorum is posing a serious challenge to Romney for the GOP nomination.

Some have suggested that Santorum is more conservative than Romney, and if Santorum were to win the nomination, there would be a marked difference between he and Obama in political platforms.

Sources:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html
http://www.news-journalonline.com/opinion/editorials/other-voices/2012/02/20/santorums-surge-hobbles-romney.html
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/rick-santorum-previews-fresh-attack-on-mitt-romney-hes-resolutely-liberal/

Silvio.Dante · 25-02-2012 9:05am

The Cnoservative base seems to have united behind Santorum. unless there's a big scandal revealed in the near future I can't see Romney winning...

Suryavarman · 25-02-2012 2:36pm

While nationwide polling data is can be useful for the general election it can be pretty useless for the primaries. Considering how fast things have been changing in this race and with three primaries/caucuses in the next week Santorum could give up a lot of ground.

Recent polls show Romney taking the lead in Michigan and with a lot of momentum and also strengthening his lead in Arizona. Week old polling data from PPP shows Santorum with an 11 point leading Washington but after a bad debate during the week and the momentum Romney could have out of the other two contests that lead could easily vanish. If Romney manages to win all three of those contests he could put together a very strong performance on Super Tuesday using that momentum.

As for a general election, if Santorum gets the nod I'd imagine the electoral map might look a lot like it did in 1964. If Romney gets the nomination I think he could beat Obama narrowly.

Denerick · 25-02-2012 2:37pm

I still think Romney will win but only after a long bitter campaign reminiscent of the democratic primaries in 2008.

After that Obama should win by a comfortable margin in the general election. Providing nobody picks Rubio for VP then Florida will probably go blue as well. This is very much the Democrats election to lose.

matthew8 · 25-02-2012 5:40pm

I think this one goes to the convention, if Romney and Paul have enough votes combined to win Romney has it, if not a compromise candidate comes in like Jeb Bush or Mitch Daniels who will lose to Obama but allow the republicans to keep the house and get themselves frontrunner status in 2016.

southsiderosie · 25-02-2012 10:51pm

I think the GOP delegate count will be key to keep an eye on in the next few weeks:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/republican_delegate_count.html

As of right now

Romney- 99
Santorum - 47
Gingrich - 32
Paul - 20

The magic number is 1,144, so we have a ways to go, folks!

Memnoch · 26-02-2012 12:45am

I think Romney takes Michigan and Az. Then clears up on Super Tuesday at which point he has all the momentum and the others will fade away as he will become the nominee in waiting. The republican party will rally around him and the full scale assault on Obama for November will begin.

Was priceless today, watching Fox news friends talk about how Romney's rise and Santorum's recent fall has all to do with the debate and nothing at all to do with all the negative adds that Romney and his super pac are throwing out there.

Black Swan · 27-02-2012 9:49pm

Month of February comparative Democrat vs Republican presidential consolidated polling averages up through 25 February 2012 by Real Clear Politics:

Obama 49.1 vs. Romney 43.9
Obama 49.8 vs. Santorum 43.7
Obama 49.3 vs. Paul 41.0

Obama 53.0 vs. Gingrich 39.3

At this very early stage in polling, it appears that Obama is in the lead against all Republican candidates for president, but with a very narrow margin.

What's rather interesting is how close Romney (43.9), Santorum (43.7), and Paul (41.0) are in the race during February. If we were to compute confidence intervals for the consolidated polls, and then run tests of significant differences, there is a good chance that the results would be insignificant; i.e., Romney, Santorum, and Paul are running a very tight race at this moment in time for the GOP nomination.

Personally, I never thought of Paul as a serious candidate for the GOP nomination. Does this suggest that it's a bit premature to proclaim only a two-horse race between Romney and Santorum; or is it way too early to predict 6 November 2012 outcomes with polling, especially with the GOP nomination uncertain at this point? Comments?

EDIT: Please note that the RCP polling numbers are frequently changing as new polls are consolidated into the average percentages reported.

Denerick · 28-02-2012 9:21pm

People are completely misreading the Ron Paul figures. The American public knows next to nothing about him. They know mostly negative things about the other three (Thanks to their own relentlessly negative campaigning)

If they realised what he actually stood for his numbers would be nowhere near 40%.

timesnap · 28-02-2012 10:11pm

With polls showing todays Michigans primary too close to call,Romney has given a rare press conference cursing his gaffes,but still making them all the same.

And when asked about his inability to excite the Republican base, Romney made it clear he did not intend pandering to the party right any more than he has already.

that is just one quote from an excellent article in the Guardian(don't worry it is not too long but full of interesting points.:))

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/28/mitt-romney-campaign-gaffes?newsfeed=true

matthew8 · 28-02-2012 11:34pm

Denerick wrote: »

People are completely misreading the Ron Paul figures. The American public knows next to nothing about him. They know mostly negative things about the other three (Thanks to their own relentlessly negative campaigning)

If they realised what he actually stood for his numbers would be nowhere near 40%.

It doesn't matter anyway.

timesnap · 29-02-2012 4:35am

CNN projected Romney as the winner of Michigan at 03.15 GMT.
it appeared they were jumping the gun as results had just passed the margin of error reaching a four percent lead.
as it turns out Santorum had already called Romney to concede,still hardly convincing that he will be the candidate considering it is his home state though.
even so he won all three(well ok two but one in progress if you include caucasus) contests tonight,and a win is a win.

EDIT: if he gets the WH i feel sure Romneyisms will become as popular as Bushisms were,he said in his victory speech and i quote:

I will send president Obama back to were he belongs.

_Gawd_ · 02-03-2012 6:40pm

Denerick wrote: »

People are completely misreading the Ron Paul figures. The American public knows next to nothing about him.

If they realised what he actually stood for his numbers would be nowhere near 40%.

What? ....The United States Constitution?

Yeah, who in their right mind would ever vote for that. :rolleyes:

Permabear · 02-03-2012 6:59pm

This post has been deleted.

BOHtox · 02-03-2012 8:17pm

Denerick wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think he means that Paul would be a lot higher than 40%:pac:

Denerick · 02-03-2012 8:23pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Draconian cuts in spending.

—Low taxes

A) Which would result in draconian cuts in spending

Would disproportionately benefit the wealthy.

—Free markets

Absence of regulation inevitably benefits the plutocrat at the expense of the citizen. I know you want us to go back to some industrial age nightmare with child labourers and men forced to clean soot ridden chimneys by hand, but you have to accept that society is appalled by such radicalism.

—Sound currency

Fringe issue, nobody cares. Standard of living is the main concern of voters.

Yes, you're right, nobody would support any of that.

Don't play coy, you know exactly what I'm getting at.

BOHtox · 02-03-2012 8:32pm

Denerick wrote: »

Draconian cuts in spending.

1 trillion in Military. The rest is smaller government really. Abolishing corporate subsidies etc.

Denerick wrote: »

A) Which would result in draconian cuts in spending
Would disproportionately benefit the wealthy.

The bottom 50% of workers pay no tax in the US. Ron Paul has stated he'd do it with very few of the expenses Obama has and will do it on the mean wage of the US.

Denerick wrote: »

Absence of regulation inevitably benefits the plutocrat at the expense of the citizen. I know you want us to go back to some industrial age nightmare with child labourers and men forced to clean soot ridden chimneys by hand, but you have to accept that society is appalled by such radicalism.

There is regulation. Strong regulation. That's the regulation of the market. Obviously there'll be no such extremes that you bring up.
If you go bankrupt, you go out of business. You don't get a bailout.
If you break contract, you go to court. If you break the law, you go to court. One could argue that the market regulation is stronger than Government regulation.

Denerick wrote: »

Fringe issue, nobody cares. Standard of living is the main concern of voters.

:D:D

You're saying the Americans don't care that the dollar is strong or that they even have their own currency?
Go back to gold-standard!

Denerick wrote: »

Don't play coy, you know exactly what I'm getting at.

Oh yea. Some serious issues that needs to be dealt with

Valmont · 02-03-2012 10:20pm

Denerick wrote: »

Fringe issue, nobody cares. Standard of living is the main concern of voters.

Don't play coy, you know exactly what I'm getting at.

Fringe issue?! You don't think that Americans are concerned at having to pay record prices for gasoline? For food? That with the Fed's commitment to a 2.0% inflation rate, they have explicitly committed themselves to debasing the purchasing power of every citizen's dollars? On what planet is the soundness of a currency unrelated to the standard of living?

Permabear · 03-03-2012 12:36am

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan · 03-03-2012 12:38am

Last half February 2012 consolidated average Republican presidential nomination polls reported by Real Clear Politics:

Romney 35.3
Santorum 29.0
Gingrich 15.0
Paul 11.3

This consolidated poll shows a significant spread between candidates with Romney in the lead. If this trend continues, polling would suggest that Romney will more than likely be the Republican nominee. It's still early in the election year for polls, and the percentages will more than likely change once it's a race between Obama and whomever is the Republican nominee.

timesnap · 03-03-2012 1:51am

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Permabear at last i found a post by you that i could thank and stick to my opinions
Ron Paul is not your favourite libertarian i know,even so much of his ideas appeal to me, i cannot figure out for sure if he is ahead of his time or behind the times.
i like opinions from all sides of the political spectrum,i find them educational.
this is a rhetorical question more than anything(mostly because i would be dragging thread off topic)
i really wonder how a democratic society could adapt itself to a sudden libertarian leader.
it would be such a culture shock.

Denerick · 03-03-2012 12:54pm

Valmont wrote: »

Fringe issue?! You don't think that Americans are concerned at having to pay record prices for gasoline? For food? That with the Fed's commitment to a 2.0% inflation rate, they have explicitly committed themselves to debasing the purchasing power of every citizen's dollars? On what planet is the soundness of a currency unrelated to the standard of living?

Nice rhetorical ploy.

Americans don't care if the dollar is strong or weak. They care about their standard of living, which is determined by their salaries and inflation. If real salaries increase at a higher rate than inflation then I'm afraid no American family will care particularly about the soundness of their currency. Ron Paul's rants about the Fed and the money supply are a little kooky truth be told, a little 'out there' and most certainly in the fringe of the national conversation.

Denerick · 03-03-2012 1:00pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The UK coalition government are bringing in stringent budget cuts. A Ron Paul administration would bring in draconian spending cuts - the elimination of various government departments, the effectual winding down of social security, and a string of other discretionary federal spending. This would cause the economy to enter a profound deflationary spiral and make the Great Depression look like a walk in the park.

Don't worry, I'm more than capable of thinking in proportion.

Lower taxes benefit everyone, arguably bar unionized public-sector workers who are riding the state gravy train. But maybe we'd be better off giving an extra few trillion to the U.S. government so that they can obliterate Iran.

Before social security and medicare millions of elderly Americans lived in excessive poverty. Nobody - repeat, nobody - actually wants the Hayekian vision of no welfare state and law of the jungle economics. Bar a few hundred American libertarians, who tend to be rather wealthy anyway.

Is this kind of Dickensian scaremongering really a rational response when anyone mentions free markets? In 2010, according to a Competitive Enterprise Institute study, businesses and consumers spent $1.7 trillion to comply with government regulations. I very much doubt that many of those regulations related to people cleaning chimneys.

An absence of regulation will inevitably benefit business in place of the consumer/worker. Again, your radicalism is unable to differentiate between certain pointless regulations that should be repealed and the many useful regulations that save people's lives.

The Libertarian equation: 'X' doesn't work, lets abolish 'X'.

If people care about their standard of living, as Valmont notes, they should very much care about the stability of their currency. I can't actually believe you've lived through the past couple of years, with the euro teetering on the brink, and you think monetary stability is a "fringe issue."

You know exactly what I mean.

kev9100 · 03-03-2012 5:06pm

BOHtox wrote: »

The bottom 50% of workers pay no tax in the US. Ron Paul has stated he'd do it with very few of the expenses Obama has and will do it on the mean wage of the US.

I'm sorry but that's just not correct. Around 50% of Americans don't pay federal income tax but they still pay all the other taxes such as state and sales taxes. Also the inherent nature of the U.S tax code is designed to help the rich with loopholes and not the average worker.

BOHtox · 03-03-2012 6:28pm

kev9100 wrote: »

I'm sorry but that's just not correct. Around 50% of Americans don't pay federal income tax but they still pay all the other taxes such as state and sales taxes. Also the inherent nature of the U.S tax code is designed to help the rich with loopholes and not the average worker.

Yeah sorry that's what I meant.

SupaNova · 05-03-2012 6:42am

Denerick wrote: »

Nice rhetorical ploy.

Americans don't care if the dollar is strong or weak. They care about their standard of living, which is determined by their salaries and inflation. If real salaries increase at a higher rate than inflation then I'm afraid no American family will care particularly about the soundness of their currency. Ron Paul's rants about the Fed and the money supply are a little kooky truth be told, a little 'out there' and most certainly in the fringe of the national conversation.

If only inflation worked out like that, it's a game of winners and losers, and the average Joe usually takes the brunt of it.

InTheTrees · 05-03-2012 5:41pm

Isnt only about 55-60% of the population eligible to work anyway?

This 50% not paying tax is just a red herring, they're using children and old people.

BOHtox · 07-03-2012 12:47am

How the GOP stands so far:

according to CNN

Romney 207
Santorum 86
Paul 46
Gingrich 39

Black Swan · 09-03-2012 8:44pm

RCP consolidated average through 8 March 2012 for GOP primary polling:

Romney = 37.3
Santorum = 27.7
Gingrich = 14.3
Paul = 11.3

What would happen if somehow Romney and Santorum got together as president and VP running mates against Obama and Biden?

Or to add an even more interesting twist, what if Biden dropped out as VP candidate (e.g., health reasons, etc.), and Obama and Hillary Clinton ran for the Dems against the GOP?

timesnap · 09-03-2012 9:18pm

Black Swan wrote: »

What would happen if somehow Romney and Santorum got together as president and VP running mates against Obama and Biden?

Republicans need to do something as radical as that at this stage IMO.

Or to add an even more interesting twist, what if Biden dropped out as VP candidate (e.g., health reasons, etc.), and Obama and Hillary Clinton ran for the Dems against the GOP?

I have been reading that idea from dodgy sources for a while now,i think it is plan B if Obama starts to trail badly.
could get interesting!.

*since Santorum is just not appealing to Females if a Romney/Santorum ticked emerged it would make sense to have an Obama/Clinton ticket.
leaving gender aside Hillary has been the most outspoken and has used plain language of the Obama administration,telling Netenyahu were to go for instance when others were threading too softly.

matthew8 · 09-03-2012 10:48pm

Black Swan wrote: »

RCP consolidated average through 8 March 2012 for GOP primary polling:
Romney = 37.3

Santorum = 27.7

Gingrich = 14.3

Paul = 11.3

What would happen if somehow Romney and Santorum got together as president and VP running mates against Obama and Biden?

Or to add an even more interesting twist, what if Biden dropped out as VP candidate (e.g., health reasons, etc.), and Obama and Hillary Clinton ran for the Dems against the GOP?

If both those tickets happened, then the republicans would lose a fair few states, Arizona and Georgia, Missouri, SC, WV, Kentucky, Tennessee and Texas, maybe the dakotas and Montana too are in play.