Rasmussen in NH: Romney 37, Paul 17, Hunstman 15
posted at 11:00 am on January 10, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
Rasmussen took its last survey of the New Hampshire primary race on Sunday, and the results are … not terribly surprising, at least at the top. As has been the case for weeks, Mitt Romney maintained his 2-1 lead over the nearest competitor, which continues to be Ron Paul, 37-17. Jon Huntsman has moved up to third, though, and Rick Santorum barely edges Newt Gingrich for fourth:
Mitt Romney, the former governor of neighboring Massachusetts, remains well ahead of his nearest rival in Rasmussen Reports’ final survey of the New Hampshire Republican Primary race.
Romney earns 37% support, with Texas Congressman Ron Paul a distant second with 17% of the vote in the latest telephone survey of Likely Republican Primary Voters taken Sunday night. Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman is now in third with 15%, up slightly from 12% late last week.
Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, coming off his photo finish with Romney in last week’s Iowa caucuses, picks up 13% of the vote, unchanged from the previous survey. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich also has made a modest gain, moving from eight percent (8%) support among likely primary voters last week to 12% now. Perry, who is counting on the January 21 South Carolina Primary to determine the fate of his candidacy, remains in the cellar here with one percent (1%). Another one percent (1%) prefers some other candidate in the race, and three percent (3%) remain undecided.
Basically, with just five points separating the four candidates behind Romney, it’s a virtual tie for second place in the Rasmussen poll. On Intrade, bets on Huntsman finishing second pushed up to 45% over the last couple of days, but bets on him winning the nomination declined from 6.6% to 5.6% in the same period. So far, none of the also-rans have gained any real separation over the others, except for Perry, who got separation in the wrong direction.
Santorum’s finish here looks surprising. The media meme in the last 24 hours is that Santorum has acknowledged that New Hampshire is not Iowa, which I doubt Santorum would have argued in the first place, and NPR argued that Santorum is “slipping” in the Granite State. An argument could be made that he’s not gaining momentum since last week, but finishing in a virtual tie for second among four candidates in a state that wasn’t supposed to like his social conservatism hardly strikes me as slipping. Gingrich has campaigned non-stop here for the last few days and has gained a little, but it’s surprising to see him still behind Santorum in NH, even if by a single point.
Meanwhile, as I was writing this post, Suffolk University sent me their final tracking poll results for the primary, which mostly matches the Rasmussen results:
Mitt Romney is primed to complete the political perfecta of winning both the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary, according to the final two-day Suffolk University/7News tracking poll of likely voters in New Hampshire.
Romney (37 percent) led Ron Paul (18 percent), Jon Huntsman (16 percent), Rick Santorum (11 percent), and Newt Gingrich (9 percent), while Rick Perry and Buddy Roemer each had 1 percent, with 7 percent undecided.
“Mitt Romney may beat his closest competitor by a two- to-one margin,” said David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center in Boston. “With two solid debate performances, Romney weathered the storm earlier this week, while no opponent made a serious run at him.”
This includes polling taken yesterday as well as Sunday, which takes into account some of the last-minute attacks on Romney’s Bain experience. It seems to have had little effect. The biggest move between Sunday and Monday was that Huntsman outpolled Paul on the final day, but that came from improved draw from independents (26%) rather than Republicans (9%).
I’ll predict that Romney will hit 40%, with Jon Huntsman coming in second at 17%, Paul at 15%, and Santorum at 13%. If Paul falls to third in New Hampshire, there’s not much in the near future of the primaries — save the binding caucuses in Nevada, perhaps — where he can score a significant finish. Huntsman is a dog that won’t hunt in South Carolina, and with Santorum, Gingrich, and Perry splitting the conservative vote there, Romney could be in position to run the early table. Earlier today on Radio Row, Debbie Wasserman Schultz made an appearance on WBZ’s morning show to try to argue that anything short of a majority for Romney in New Hampshire was a failure. That sounds as though the Democrats are already starting to worry about Romney being the nominee.
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air

Terry McAuliffe suddenly all about the offshore drilling in Virginia

House Judiciary Committee to Justice: Explain snooping on AP, please

British troops told not to wear uniforms outside bases after yesterday’s attack in London






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
Unexpectedly!
Washington Nearsider on May 7, 2013 at 10:44 AM
How do you like your dose of Lean Forward, Libyans? Right into the mass grave.
Good job, Preznit Smart Power.
Bishop on May 7, 2013 at 10:45 AM
Whats the difference….h clinton……
crosshugger on May 7, 2013 at 10:47 AM
“This is some rescue. When you came in here, didn’t you have a plan for getting out?” -Average Libya citizen
“He’s the brains, sweetheart!” -Hillary, pointing at Barack
Chris of Rights on May 7, 2013 at 10:49 AM
Well, this is going much better than expected, isn’t it?
hawkeye54 on May 7, 2013 at 10:49 AM
Clearly tea party… Err. LIBYAN tea party.
Gatsu on May 7, 2013 at 10:50 AM
Samantha Powers takes a bow !
Jabberwock on May 7, 2013 at 10:52 AM
One stupid step for Obama…
One giant leap for Jihad.
coldwarrior on May 7, 2013 at 10:54 AM
“Into the garbage chute, no-fly-zone-boy” – (pointing at Barack)
Difficultas_Est_Imperium on May 7, 2013 at 10:54 AM
And once again, we see why a POTUS must have Congress on board when going to war.
Had Congress given its imprimatur, they too would be on the hook for this mess, and would be under pressure to fix it. But, no. Team Liar and President Gutsy Call just had to do it on their own.
And now, the music has stopped, and they are the ones without a chair…
JohnGalt23 on May 7, 2013 at 10:57 AM
I note Ms. Power hasn’t been heard from lately.
R2P = R2FU
PattyJ on May 7, 2013 at 10:58 AM
Because Chaos is Progressive…
Lean Forward!
workingclass artist on May 7, 2013 at 10:59 AM
So this was another war for oil,right?
docflash on May 7, 2013 at 11:04 AM
Are we even sure that that wasn’t the intended consequence?
1) Allow radical muslims to come to power.
2) Be able to blame riots and attacks on a video no one’s seen
3) Get on board the muslim push for a UN treaty that outlaws blasphemy
4) Get rid of the First Amendment, along with the Second etc., which are part of a charter of negative rights anyhow.
rbj on May 7, 2013 at 11:05 AM
Legacy baby
cmsinaz on May 7, 2013 at 11:06 AM
Take heart, Libyans because this situation was brought to you by a dude who won a Nobel Peace Prize, that’s worth something, right?
Bishop on May 7, 2013 at 11:09 AM
Hmmm, looks about right.
hawkeye54 on May 7, 2013 at 11:11 AM
And dear leader went around Congress for this boondoggle didn’t he
cmsinaz on May 7, 2013 at 11:13 AM
I’m sure the Administration will see this as a simple ‘evolution’ in the ‘process of transition’. “Nothing serious, nothing to worry about. Hey! What time do you want to head to the course and do nine holes?”
Liam on May 7, 2013 at 11:13 AM
Which would be true, but this wasn’t a “War” in the traditional sense.
This was probably the worse ‘Covert Action’ ever run by a Administration…
For what?
Was Khadaffi replaced by a more open minded government?
Was any Strategic or National Intelligence gained by this move?
Are we better off now, before this boondoggle was launched?
Talk about a deficit of political capitol.
BlaxPac on May 7, 2013 at 11:13 AM
Libs care not for outcomes, but only for intentions.
Difficultas_Est_Imperium on May 7, 2013 at 11:17 AM
Arab Spring!
myiq2xu on May 7, 2013 at 11:25 AM
Apparently the resignation was withdrawn.
YiZhangZhe on May 7, 2013 at 11:33 AM
A really well done piece:
Difficultas_Est_Imperium on May 7, 2013 at 12:01 PM
What if we hadn’t intervened? Ghaddafi’s tanks would have leveled Benghazi and thousands would have died. There would have followed a period of intense repression and Ghaddafi would have ceased any cooperation with the West. There would be the probability of ongoing conflict and Islamification…another Syria, as rebels fought a diehard regime.
That’s not happening now and there is gratitude in Libya for what we did.
That being said, Obama’s intervention was at the 11th hour, reluctant and short-lived. He let the war go on too long and botched the aftermath. That’s his real legacy.
breffnian on May 7, 2013 at 12:04 PM
I actually disagree with the bolded part above. I actually think Ghaddafi would have done exactly the opposite. He would have attempted to increase his ties with the West as an act of self-preservation.
I think he would have pointed gone to the western nations and said he was fighting their enemies vis-a-vis Ansar al Sharia. He would have asked why we would want to support the rebels, backed by jihadist groups that hate us. He also probably would have said that supporting his regime would provide a bulwark against the Arab Spring spreading further and throwing the entire region into chaos… witness Syria. That once one nation stands up against this regime change, other rebel groups in other nations… Syria, Bahrain, etc… will be less emboldened to begin or continue high profile protests and outright civl war for regime change in their states. I think he probably would have acknowledged privately that he knows we don’t like him, but our choices would be his Libyan state or turning Libya into another Somalia in North Africa.
And it’s certainly looking like we are going to get the latter… Somalia Redux in Libya.
gravityman on May 7, 2013 at 12:47 PM
Al Watan, the MB party, is founded by Bel Hadj, he was the leader of the Libyan Fighting Group, he runs camps for Syrian jihadists in the desert, he brought in Bin Qumu, head of Ansar al Sharia, to train the militants during the war,
narciso on May 7, 2013 at 1:35 PM