Gallup survey shows GOP field treading water in presidential race

posted at 9:22 am on May 18, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Who benefited from the exits of Mike Huckabee and Donald Trump from the Republican presidential nomination race?  Gallup’s latest poll suggests that no one has, at least at the moment.  The poll only asked about name recognition and approval, not nomination selection; Gallup used its April poll to reallocate nomination support based on second choices from Huckabee and Trump voters.  However, the “positive intensity score” for both are lower than Huckabee’s was before he pulled out, and the race still has no breakout candidate:

With Mike Huckabee out of the race for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination, three well-known politicians, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, and Newt Gingrich, emerge as leaders in Republicans’ preferences. Republicans, however, have less intensely positive feelings about these three than they did about Huckabee. Two less well-known potential candidates, Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain, generate high levels of enthusiasm among Republicans who recognize them.

The accompanying table displays potential Republican candidates’ nomination support from March and April, based on reallocating choices of those who initially supported Huckabee or Donald Trump, and Positive Intensity Scores and name recognition for the two weeks ending May 15.

Republicans’ nomination preferences at this point largely appear to reflect name identification. Palin, Gingrich, and Romney are the three best-known candidates, and they top the list of Republicans’ preferences. Romney and Palin are essentially tied; Gingrich does slightly less well even though he and Romney have nearly identical name identification.

Bear in mind that the survey took place over a two-week period that ended on Sunday.  That would have entirely missed the controversy that broke out over Newt Gingrich’s remarks about Paul Ryan’s plan to reform Medicare.  The next iteration of this poll will likely show damage to Newt’s standing, both for candidate preference and positive intensity scoring.

At the moment, though, Gingrich has a competitive positive-intensity score, which Gallup calculates as the difference between strongly favorable and strongly unfavorable opinions from respondents who recognize their names, which is similar to Ramussen’s “presidential index” for Barack Obama.  Gingrich gets a +13, while Palin a +16 and Romney a +14.  The scores for Romney and Palin are the same as last time, which means that they didn’t get a bump in enthusiasm among those who may be voting in Republican primaries.

All of them get surpassed by Michele Bachmann, whose positive intensity score is 21%, and Herman Cain, who gets a +24.  Neither of them are challenging for the lead in candidate support at the moment, though, with 5% and less than 1% support as the nominee, respectively.  Bachmann only gained a point in nomination support from last week in the reallocation based on second choices; otherwise, the numbers for both are the same as two weeks ago.

The departures of Huckabee and Trump didn’t change the state of the campaign as much as it reshuffled the deck.  Gallup will have to poll on the nomination question specifically to get a better reading on frontrunners, but the most remarkable aspect of today’s survey results is that the Huckabee departure had almost no impact on candidate evaluation, and Huckabee at 25% had the best positive intensity score of the field in the last survey.  That may indicate that voters are keeping an open mind, and may be looking for someone they haven’t yet seen.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

OT: Do you think we will get a headline about the WSJ article about the WH using the IRS to chill political donations?

txmomof6 on May 18, 2011 at 1:43 PM

the cases are different. One the police followed the drug dealer and smell pot.

The one in IN the police was talking to the owner you refused them entry and they simply had a suspicion of a crime. No evidence.

unseen on May 18, 2011 at 1:41 PM

Not only that, but in extensive case law and jurisprudence, smelling pot constitues “probable cause” in the admission of a search warrant. If a cop smells pot, but I don’t let him search my home, he will almost certainly come back with a warrant to search my home for pot. If in the process of searching for that pot that he smelled, he ends up finding a bale of cocaine, he would have to go back to the judge and start the whole search warrant process over. This is what the fourth amendment has been held to mean — until now.

gryphon202 on May 18, 2011 at 1:44 PM

txmomof6 on May 18, 2011 at 1:43 PM

gotta link?

darwin on May 18, 2011 at 1:45 PM

To run and not get the nomination really hurts the speaking fees and book sales. Or worse to get the nomination and lose the general badly puts her in the 50 cent bargain bin at Books A million pretty quickly.

Bradky on May 18, 2011 at 1:37 PM

Yuo mean like Mitt did in 2008, Reagan did in 1976 Dole did in 1988?

Or like Al gore lost the race in 2000. how many billions does Gore now have? Kerry and McCain are still respected Senators. Dole made millions on ads for vigra after his defeat. Bush the 1st remained a elder stateman. carter is still around. and the list goes on.

Sorry but your post is totally false and the evidenc eproves it.

The only way running is a negativ eis if you run and get your butt kicked in the primaries and still people like Hunter and Brownback are still in politics.

unseen on May 18, 2011 at 1:45 PM

gryphon202 on May 18, 2011 at 1:44 PM

True the power of the state is becoming too much. the penduleum has to swing if we want to retain any freedom.

unseen on May 18, 2011 at 1:47 PM

darwin on May 18, 2011 at 1:45 PM

here you go,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703730804576321090737945116.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

txmomof6 on May 18, 2011 at 1:48 PM

cs, the specific answer to your question is YES. No one gets excited about a candidate until they start getting competitive or until they’ve garnered enough positive/negative attention by the MSM.

In the case of Palin supporters, we’re already enthused. That 16% doesn’t represent me. I never took part in the survey. Did you? Are you part of the 84% or did you not take part in the survey either?

Surveys represent only the universe of the people who respond to them. The statisticians then try to weight answers to represent what they call norms of people who are economically or geographically in a similar situation.

Problem is, they draw inferences from their answers to indicate probabilities, not knowing the difference between cause and effect and coincidence and result.

Let’s take this hypothetical situation. In a Harlem hospital, 10,000 babies are born in a year. 8,500 of them are African American, 1,000 are Hispanic and 500 are Caucasian.

They then will come up with a summary statement that if a child is born in this hospital, there’s an 85% chance that the baby will be African American.

But the universe of people having babies is not contained within their present, it is contained within their past. And each Hispanic couple that gives birth will have a 100% chance of having a Hispanic baby and not an 85% chance of an African American baby.

So your argument is just arguendo at this point. No one knows until the field is ripe and ready to be harvested who will garner the most support and what it will hinge on. You think one thing, I think another.

Sarah Palin has been framing the debate for a long time with her FB and Twitter comments. Where’s Mitt been?

Tennman on May 18, 2011 at 1:49 PM

gryphon202 on May 18, 2011 at 1:44 PM

Wait a cotton-picking second here. You just finished telling me that you don’t accept or believe in “extensive case law and jurisprudence.” Not even such foundational decisions as Marbury v Madison!

MJBrutus on May 18, 2011 at 1:49 PM

txmomof6 on May 18, 2011 at 1:48 PM

thanx

darwin on May 18, 2011 at 1:49 PM

Petunia leaves, Bradky appears. Coincidence? Hmmmmm.

txmomof6 on May 18, 2011 at 1:39 PM

I was thinking the same thing. Hey cs89, can you find Bradky’s button and push it too?

ornery_independent on May 18, 2011 at 1:52 PM

Electorate holding its breath?

Great tag

They are not holding their breath. They are withholding judgement until the race gets real

Because the Club is going to bring out blackjacks the moment any of the dark horses declares themselves, these minnows are all wisely holding back

This is going to be one ugly primary, and I hope they get to hold at least one true vote on the convention floor, but it won’t happen if the RINOs have their way

These guys who are afraid to whisper against Obama, will jump more viciously than Rove jumping on a GOP Senatorial primary dark horse the second we get a declaration from anyone but a Club member

The Club Chant:
Amnesty, DOMA and GUNs, Oh My
Economy only is our battle cry
A Mosque ar G-Zero we fight to defend
Better than Holy Rollers in the End
Take a decade, our spending to slow
debt limits come and debt limits grow
The riff are coming we’ll meet them halfway
As long as they don’t run and dont plan to stay
Its hard to be upper and crustie and true
But alma-mater counts when blood must be blue

entagor on May 18, 2011 at 1:53 PM

Wait a cotton-picking second here. You just finished telling me that you don’t accept or believe in “extensive case law and jurisprudence.” Not even such foundational decisions as Marbury v Madison!

MJBrutus on May 18, 2011 at 1:49 PM

And you told me you do. Sounds like we’re both in a pickle here, eh?

gryphon202 on May 18, 2011 at 1:54 PM

Besides that, MJ, Indiana has specific protections in its state constitution that mirror the 4th amendment in the federal constitution. Do you think state courts should be able to unilaterally override provisions of their respective state constitutions? Now THAT is some dangerous ground to be treading.

gryphon202 on May 18, 2011 at 1:57 PM

Tennman on May 18, 2011 at 1:49 PM

“arguendo”?

First I laughed, then I looked it up. It really IS a word…who knew?!

ornery_independent on May 18, 2011 at 1:57 PM

I think you guys spend too much time and energy on the trolls. If you look up Concern Troll in the online dictionary there is a picture of ‘Petunia’ and a link to the Romney campaign.

trigon on May 18, 2011 at 2:01 PM

gryphon202 on May 18, 2011 at 1:54 PM

I’m not in the least. WTF are you talking about?

BTW, I’m mostly through the decision and amazingly I agree with Ginsberg and not the rest of the court! She raises the excellent question:

How “secure” do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and, on hearing sounds indicative of things moving, forcibly enter and search for evidence of unlawful activity?

Basically, she is saying that by pounding on the door and announcing themselves the police created the exigency which they used to enter without a warrant. I say that here is a threat to our 4th Amendment rights!

MJBrutus on May 18, 2011 at 2:01 PM

Basically what you’re asking us to do is predict how her numbers will change after she declares.

gryphon202 on May 18, 2011 at 1:30 PM

well yes. When someone makes a claim, I would like to see the evidence. And in this case evidence is not quantifiable. But what we can do is ask if when the other candidates declare, wont they get a bump in support also? And if we can agree on that, what evidence is there that Palin can make up the difference by getting a higher percentage to support her?

The premise seems untenable anyway. The people I encounter either love her or hate her. I don’t meet anyone saying they love her but are waiting for her to declare before they get excited.

csdeven on May 18, 2011 at 2:03 PM

MJBrutus on May 18, 2011 at 1:49 PM

What’s Daniels position on the Missouri plan. does he think it is a good idea to limit a gov’s choice of judical picks to those a panel of liberals picks for him?

unseen on May 18, 2011 at 2:03 PM

How does SARAH explain quitting in a 15 second ad?

csdeven on May 18, 2011 at 12:41 PM

Easy – “The anklebiter liberal operatives of Obama filed frivolous ethics violations
that cost Alaska upwards of $2 million dollars and threatened to bankrupt my family
personally. Tho I won all of them, Alaska law dictates
that I personally pay to defend myself; at that time my
salary was $_______.

Even you should be to do the math.

Amjean on May 18, 2011 at 2:03 PM

Do you think state courts should be able to unilaterally override provisions of their respective state constitutions? Now THAT is some dangerous ground to be treading.

gryphon202 on May 18, 2011 at 1:57 PM

Of course the state court is required to obey it’s state Constitution, except for where the state Constitution violates the US Constitution. The doctrine of incorporation (d’oh that again) establishes that.

Anyway, the IN court did no such thing so your question is moot (I know you love that word).

MJBrutus on May 18, 2011 at 2:05 PM

Amjean on May 18, 2011 at 2:03 PM

Sorry, but I think that took me more than 15 seconds to read. I’m not voting for Palin in the primaries anymore.//////

gryphon202 on May 18, 2011 at 2:06 PM

How does MITT explain supporting a MANDATE in a 15 second ad?

csdeven on May 18, 2011 at 12:41 PM

fify

unseen on May 18, 2011 at 2:06 PM

Anyway, the IN court did no such thing so your question is moot (I know you love that word).

MJBrutus on May 18, 2011 at 2:05 PM

how does Daniles explain appointing a Soros supported judge to the IN SC?

unseen on May 18, 2011 at 2:07 PM

Belive what you want but polls before the election show the same thing. before Palin McCain was down after Palin McCain increased by about 8% of the vote.

Believe what you want but before Palin there was no VP pick. That poll doesn’t prove that the 8% would not have materialized with a different candidate.

Okay, headed to lunch. later.

csdeven on May 18, 2011 at 2:08 PM

Believe what you want but before Palin there was no VP pick. That poll doesn’t prove that the 8% would not have materialized with a different candidate.

Okay, headed to lunch. later.

csdeven on May 18, 2011 at 2:08 PM

Go find me another VP pick in the last say 70 years that moved the polls by 8%….I’ll be waiting…

unseen on May 18, 2011 at 2:12 PM

There is one other scenario, and it terrifies Washington Republicans. That is the possibility that some very conservative, insurgent candidate will become the Romney alternative: former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum or former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, if she defies conventional wisdom and winds up going for it. …..

…..Running for president is at least a two-year process,” said a veteran of the previous three GOP presidential campaigns.

Gingrich’s campaign, however, seemed in danger this week after he referred to Ryan’s Medicare proposal as “radical change,” drawing sharp criticism from a number of top Republicans. He apologized in a telephone call to Ryan on Tuesday afternoon.

Romney started plotting his 2008 race as far back as 2003, according to friends. And Pawlenty has made 12 trips to Iowa and 10 trips to New Hampshire since November 2009.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55172_Page3.html#ixzz1MjHPcwdt

unseen on May 18, 2011 at 2:18 PM

First I laughed, then I looked it up. It really IS a word…who knew?!

ornery_independent on May 18, 2011 at 1:57 PM

ummm, me? :D

Tennman on May 18, 2011 at 2:24 PM

In the all important vocab race we have:

Tennman – 1

ornery_independent – 0

unseen on May 18, 2011 at 2:34 PM

She won’t run. Why? Because if she doesn’t run she will always enjoy the diehard faithful declarations of “If only SP had run… oceans healed, oil rigs on the white house lawn, and truth justice and the American way preserved..blah blah”

Bradky on May 18, 2011 at 1:37 PM

Which will be moot anyway because Daniels or Pawlenty or Romney will roar to victory in 2012, leaving all memories of Palin in the dust. Right, Bradky?

pseudoforce on May 18, 2011 at 2:36 PM

Believe what you want but before Palin there was no VP pick. That poll doesn’t prove that the 8% would not have materialized with a different candidate.

Okay, headed to lunch. later.

csdeven on May 18, 2011 at 2:08 PM

Doesn’t take much imagination to realize that Pawlenty wouldn’t have moved the needle much. Romney either, for that matter.

pseudoforce on May 18, 2011 at 2:38 PM

With Huck out, Palin is in a good position to begin a campaign.

She has a real shot at it.

Brian1972 on May 18, 2011 at 2:41 PM

Palin/West……

t on May 18, 2011 at 3:02 PM

Believe what you want but before Palin there was no VP pick. That poll doesn’t prove that the 8% would not have materialized with a different candidate.

Okay, headed to lunch. later.

csdeven on May 18, 2011 at 2:08 PM

8% said they voted for McCain because of Palin. That sounds to me like she had a significant impact on the race. If I remember correctly, the question asked by the exit pollsters was something along the line of “Did you vote for John McCain because Sarah Palin was his running mate?” Yes/No questions, aside from being hard to load, leave very little room for ambiguity in an answer.

gryphon202 on May 18, 2011 at 3:14 PM

Journalists and democrats do not want to talk about Obama’s many failures. So they try to get us talking about the GOP field. The GOP field is boring because it is too early to talk about it. I’d like the focus to be more on Obama.

steveracer on May 18, 2011 at 4:01 PM

Stay out of it if you can’t stick with the context.

csdeven on May 18, 2011 at 12:28 PM

You and petunia would rather be alone?

katy the mean old lady on May 18, 2011 at 4:08 PM

Drama.

the_nile on May 18, 2011 at 1:35 PM

anninacan hasn’t been around for a while, has she?

katy the mean old lady on May 18, 2011 at 4:24 PM

She was not running HER campaign.

stenwin77 on May 18, 2011 at 11:16 AM

Again. This is not a positive thing. She lost control of her destiny. This is a negative. This is a strike against her!

I am not saying this as an enemy. I’m saying this as a friend.

All this stuff you think, if people know it, they will change their minds. But,everyone already knows it, and it is not good. It makes her look weak and not on top of her own life.

petunia on May 18, 2011 at 11:29 AM

Between this and the ethics complaints issue do you have any idea how anything works??

Seriously. You seem to enjoy hammering on the same thought even though people repeatedly present facts to the contrary to you. Why?

kim roy on May 18, 2011 at 6:40 PM

All this stuff you think, if people know it, they will change their minds. But,everyone already knows it, and it is not good. It makes her look weak and not on top of her own life.
petunia on May 18, 2011 at 11:29 AM

weak?

Has more stones and presence than the rest

Sonosam on May 18, 2011 at 6:50 PM

I heard the lame host for Laura Ingraham today talking about how “we need to get this settled” (talking abou the GOP Candidate/nominee).

I’m thinking uh no doofus…..this is what the PRIMARY SEASON is all about. We don’t have to know who the candidates even are until January. And Iowa Governor Terry Branstead……….STOP YER WHINING…….not getting enough publicity?……please.

The GOP field needs some work……….but we have plenty of time why would we want to have a clear front runner and the likely nominee decided 600 days before an election?

Patience Talk Radio hosts…you need patience.

PappyD61 on May 18, 2011 at 6:56 PM

Go find me another VP pick in the last say 70 years that moved the polls by 8%….I’ll be waiting…

unseen on May 18, 2011 at 2:12 PM

But then they tanked because of indies negative reaction to her. By the time McCain suspended his campaign, the numbers were steadily declining. By mid October every gain since Palin had been lost and barely recovered from there.

csdeven on May 18, 2011 at 7:20 PM

You and petunia would rather be alone?

katy the mean old lady on May 18, 2011 at 4:08 PM

I prefer people to quote me in the context I wrote it in.

csdeven on May 18, 2011 at 7:23 PM

But then they tanked because of indies negative reaction to her him. By the time McCain suspended his campaign, the numbers were steadily declining. By mid October every gain since Palin had been lost and barely recovered from there.

csdeven on May 18, 2011 at 7:20 PM

Steadily declining until he suspended his campaign. Then McCain’s numbers plummeted like the Persian messenger.

THIS IS AMERICA!

gryphon202 on May 18, 2011 at 7:24 PM

What’s the over/under for how many times “abdicate” will be used in this thread?

Kataklysmic on May 18, 2011 at 10:17 AM

One

MJBrutus on May 18, 2011 at 10:18 AM

Uh oh:

Her abdication of her governorship

csdeven on May 18, 2011 at 9:52 AM

Reagan abdicated a governorship after only two years?

csdeven on May 18, 2011 at 12:49 PM

It’s okay though Bruti, we all know you’re not the strongest handicapper based on your support of Daniels.

Less than the over and under for how many times you try to thread jack this topic again.

csdeven on May 18, 2011 at 10:28 AM

So criticizing vocabulary and debating skills now falls under “threadjacking”? Don’t believe everything they tell you in the back of the wahmbulance when they are trying to calm you down…

Anyway, in retrospect, I should have asked for the over/under on how many references to Palin’s resignation this thread would contain. Considering the delusional among us think that is somehow a bigger albatross than having a socialized medicine plan named after you.

Kataklysmic on May 18, 2011 at 7:31 PM

Folks here are the numbers in respect whether Sarah Palin helped McCain or not:

Via the 2008 exit polls:

60% of those surveyed in exit polls claimed that McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin was an “important factor” in their final decision.

Of those folks, McCain won 56% of them and Obama 43%.

Of the other 40% who claimed that Sarah Palin did not impact their vote whatsoever Obama got 64% of the vote to 33% for McCain.

In other words without Palin encouraging the base to come out and support McCain it could have been a blowout.

As it turned out millions of white conservatives did stay home which contributed significantly to McCain’s loss, but they did not stay home because of Palin but because of McCain and his past record as a RINO.

In other words folks it was not Palin’s fault that McCain lost.

Honestly, Ronald Reagan himself might not have beaten Obama in 2008 because of the financial meltdown.

technopeasant on May 18, 2011 at 8:16 PM

In other words without Palin encouraging the base to come out and support McCain it could have been a blowout.

As it turned out millions of white conservatives did stay home which contributed significantly to McCain’s loss, but they did not stay home because of Palin but because of McCain and his past record as a RINO.

In other words folks it was not Palin’s fault that McCain lost.

technopeasant on May 18, 2011 at 8:16 PM

Link to your numbers?

csdeven on May 18, 2011 at 10:30 PM

Sarah Palin has been framing the debate for a long time with her FB and Twitter comments. Where’s Mitt been?

Tennman on May 18, 2011 at 1:49 PM

Ironic, in light of your post.

Mitt has been fundraising for other GOP candidates, writing op eds etc… just because you haven’t looked for them or seen them in your scope of information doesn’t mean anything. FB and Twitter reach a relatively irrelevant group for the time being, (youth do not donate money which is the engine of politics) so one could argue who has been more effective.

Although this whole argument is silly because Mitt and Sarah aren’t trading barbs with one another. They are both helping conservatives.

scotash on May 19, 2011 at 4:38 AM

At this point, preference polls are nearly all about name recognition. We’re political junkies, but we comprise maybe 10% of the electorate (including the lefties and moderates who actually pay attention).

Remember that a substantial portion of the electorate makes up their mind on their Presidential vote within the last 30 days before the election, and an even greater number aren’t really tuning in until the nominees are official. Polls now are just for talking about, of no significance at all.

Nearly all incumbent Presidents win or lose on their economic performance, or at least the public’s perception of it. As long as we don’t nominate someone who becomes the issue instead, and put up a nominee who is generally unobjectionable, the only issue will be the economy. There’s no real hope for strong improvement by this time next year (six months before the election usually sets the perception), so unless there is a sense of momentum towards growth, Obama’s only hope is to demonize the Republican.

Adjoran on May 19, 2011 at 6:14 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5