New SC poll puts Romney up 11 over Gingrich

posted at 9:31 am on January 16, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

If the new Insider Advantage poll of 720 likely South Carolina voters taken yesterday holds up, Mitt Romney appears to have picked up momentum even before the news broke of Jon Huntsman’s withdrawal from the race.  Romney now has a double-digit lead over Newt Gingrich, 31.9% to 20.8%, with Ron Paul and Rick Santorum within a point of each other for third place, at 14.2% and 13.2% respectively.    That’s the widest gap found yet in January polling for the Palmetto state, and moves the RCP average to give Romney nearly an eight-point lead in the race, as well as his first over-30% finish for the state.

Interestingly, Paul and Santorum tie for first among 18-29 year olds in the state (27.2%) each, with Huntsman third at 20.7% and Romney fourth at 16.9%.  Gingrich gets no votes among this demographic.  Otherwise, Romney sweeps the other age demos, wins both men and women, and both Republicans (by 10 points over Gingrich) and independents (by 8.5 points over Paul).  Paul wins 58.6% of the Democrats in the poll, which comprise about 5% of the sample.

For those hoping for a Rick Perry renaissance, there is little evidence to be found for one.  He actually trails Huntsman (6.2%) in this for last place at 4.6%.  Perry only scored significantly among black voters, winning 36% of the 22 included in the poll.  Otherwise, his most significant share of any demographic in this poll is his 7.1% among seniors, which puts him a very distant fourth behind Romney’s 42.1% control of this group.

Even so, Perry is still promising to campaign in Florida:

Texas Gov. Rick Perry brushed off the choice of over 150 Evangelical leaders and conservative activists to endorse Rick Santorum on Saturday after meeting in the governor’s backyard and proclaimed that he intends to continue his campaign on to Florida, even if he places last in South Carolina.

“You’re not going to get everybody to love you,” he said on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday.

Though the group said they agreed with Perry on the issues, they didn’t think he was electable. Perry countered on Sunday, citing Ronald Reagan’s win in South Carolina in 1980 as evidence that he remains competitive in the race, despite having finished fifth and sixth in Iowa and New Hampshire, respectively.

Perry added that no matter what happens in South Carolina, he intends to compete in Florida in February.

Perry may still have the money to compete after South Carolina, but it would be hard to see the point in doing so.  His continued presence splits the conservative vote further, although at these levels of support, not by a whole lot. Rick Santorum would love to get those voters in order to vault past Ron Paul and start challenging Newt Gingrich, but that won’t happen if Perry digs in his heels.  However, this is almost certainly an example of final-week bravado.  A last-place finish here will provoke the same impulse as Perry’s fifth-place finish in Iowa did — and this time, Perry will have to follow through on it.


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

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

Who might those be?

Clearly tea party… Err. LIBYAN tea party.

Gatsu on May 7, 2013 at 10:50 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

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

“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

“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

And just who are these “militias,” anyway? Bloomberg doesn’t say, but it suffices to point out that even the Muslim Brotherhood party in the legislature supported the Isolation Law. That means the militias in play here are more radical than the Muslim Brotherhood.

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

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.

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

JohnGalt23 on May 7, 2013 at 10:57 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

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

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

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