Oh my: Gingrich’s lead increasing in final hours before South Carolina vote? Update: Gingrich by 14

posted at 10:05 pm on January 20, 2012 by Allahpundit

Normally I wouldn’t build a post around a single tweet but this one from PPP is too tantalizing to ignore. Polls open in SC tomorrow bright and early at 7 a.m.:

Newt posted his best numbers of our 3 day field period tonight

On Wednesday, they found Gingrich with a six-point lead. Yesterday they found the same. Today it’s … greater than six, although they haven’t posted the exact numbers yet. Jed Lewison of Daily Kos, which uses PPP as its pollster, guesses it’s now Newt by nine or 10 points, which makes sense if you assume another little boost from last night’s debate plus Perry dropping out and endorsing Gingrich. The exact numbers are less important, though, than the fact that Newt’s apparently putting distance between himself and Romney as time runs out. Hard to see how he doesn’t win now — dirty tricks notwithstanding. (He’s at 82 percent on InTrade, up more than 10 points from this afternoon.)

Via Newsbusters, here’s Scarborough claiming that all of the “conservative movers and shakers” he’s spoken to recently are angling for a brokered convention. You know who that benefits? Right: Ron Paul. Exit quotation from Dan McLaughlin: “Basically, if Romney sees Newt’s shadow tomorrow, it means six more weeks of primaries.”

Update: The numbers are out. Over the course of three days, his lead averaged out to nine points. But tonight? Double digits:

Gingrich’s lead has actually increased in the wake of his ex-wife’s controversial interview with ABC. Although one night poll results should always be interpreted with caution, he led the final night of the field period by a 40-26 margin. One thing that continues to work to his advantage are the debates. 60% of primary voters report having watched the one last night, and Gingrich has a 46-23 lead with those folks.

The other reason his ex-wife’s interview isn’t causing him much trouble is that there’s a lot of skepticism about it. Only 31% of voters say they think her accusations are true while 35% think they are false and 34% are unsure. 51% of voters say that they have ‘no concerns’ about what came out in the interview.

However:

piece today for Huffington Post about ‘expecting the unexpected’ tomorrow is well worth a read. Gingrich will probably win tomorrow- but there’s a higher than normal chance for a surprise given everything that’s gone down in the last 48 hours.


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 14 15 16

Well, I’m signing off this thread.

DFHQ (Dishonored Filth Headquarters) in sunny Tampa, Florida greets you: Whether you are a Mittbot, Newtron, Sanctum Santorum, or (God help us) a Ronulan, we will be seeing you at the USF debate next week and mingling with the crowds at the Convention in August.

And csdeven: Chill.

spiritof61 on January 21, 2012 at 5:27 PM

It’s typical of you dishonored scum…

csdeven on January 21, 2012 at 5:21 PM

By the way, csdeven, you’ve said many a time that you don’t NEED us dishonored scum in order for Romney to win. Good luck!

Well, that’s not quite true. He has the most money, he’s on all the ballots. (As opposed to Gingrich who couldn’t get on the ballot in his home state) and he has always polled in the 30% area as his base. According to national polls he is the best chance the GOP has to beat Obama, which should be the primary goal, IMHO.

So if it looks as if Gingrich has the best chance against Obama in those same polls, you’re going to make the switch? And it’s easy to get on the ballots and cross all the t’s and dot all the i’s when you’ve been running for prez since Moby Dick was a minnow.

What I am counting on is the Democrats, the Unions, the Soros foundations, et al shoveling over a billion dollars into the campaign to slander and destroy any of their opponents. I think that Gingrich has already provided them with anything they need to do the job.

And you think somehow that Romney is immune, even though he’s already starting to slide in the polls with the little bit of scrutiny he’s gotten lately? Come on.

Meanwhile he’s so disliked by the base of his own party

Last time around I was told we had to go through carter to get to Reagan… Still no Reagan. This all or nothing mentality is going to get us nothing every time.

V7_Sport on January 21, 2012 at 5:23 PM

“All or nothing” could also be “I want someone that the NYT isn’t going to say nasty things about!!!” That sort of “all or nothing” got us McCain.

ddrintn on January 21, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Look, I’m not sure anybody believes Newt is a great candidate. Frankly, I think the remaining field are B-listers, at best.

But, a thinking conservative can easily come to the conclusion that Newt is a better bet than Mitt, flaws and all. I don’t really trust Gingrich, but I trust Romney less.

TitularHead on January 21, 2012 at 5:31 PM

“All or nothing” could also be “I want someone that the NYT isn’t going to say nasty things about!!!” That sort of “all or nothing” got us McCain.

ddrintn on January 21, 2012 at 5:29 PM

No, that’s a straw man argument. Who do you support in this race? Where is the perfect alternative to Obama?

V7_Sport on January 21, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Look, I’m not sure anybody believes Newt is a great candidate. Frankly, I think the remaining field are B-listers, at best.

TitularHead on January 21, 2012 at 5:31 PM

You’re right. All these people are second-tier at best. The really good candidates didn’t run.

ddrintn on January 21, 2012 at 5:34 PM

No I’m not.

ddrintn on January 21, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Who are you supporting?

csdeven on January 21, 2012 at 5:36 PM

“All or nothing” could also be “I want someone that the NYT isn’t going to say nasty things about!!!” That sort of “all or nothing” got us McCain.

ddrintn on January 21, 2012 at 5:29 PM

No, that’s a straw man argument. Who do you support in this race? Where is the perfect alternative to Obama?

V7_Sport on January 21, 2012 at 5:33 PM

No, that’s the straw man. “You don’t like Romney? Then who’s YOUR perfect candidate then???” I didn’t say any of them were perfect. But a guy like Santorum even would be better than Romney, because at least he wouldn’t alienate most of the base in his exertions to suck up to “independents” (who always seem to be regarded as liberals anyway). Romney is a squish. Squish candidates have a solid history of losing.

ddrintn on January 21, 2012 at 5:37 PM

And meanwhile they vote….

Through storms and pouring rains they vote…

Then the sun comes out.

golfmann on January 21, 2012 at 5:40 PM

No I’m not.

ddrintn on January 21, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Who are you supporting?

csdeven on January 21, 2012 at 5:36 PM

NOW the snipers and poo-flingers who’ve spent 3 years flinging their anti-Palin poo without ever having to voice definite support for anyone — while being Mittbots all the while — are demanding that we show our cards. LOL nice.

ddrintn on January 21, 2012 at 5:41 PM

a guy like Santorum even would be better than Romney….
ddrintn on January 21, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Not in a general election. Again, the goal here is to get rid of Obama, right?

V7_Sport on January 21, 2012 at 5:43 PM

None are great candidates. But honorable thinking conservatives can see that Romney, Santorum, and Paul have not been sanctioned for violating the sacred trust of the American public.

And as long as we have candidates that haven’t violated that trust, they deserve our votes before a proven corrupt politician who already had his chance and violated the public trust. My goodness! I pray we don’t have to vote for a corrupt politician because we desperately need to get rid of Obama.

csdeven on January 21, 2012 at 5:44 PM

a guy like Santorum even would be better than Romney….
ddrintn on January 21, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Not in a general election. Again, the goal here is to get rid of Obama, right?

V7_Sport on January 21, 2012 at 5:43 PM

And you know that how? Because you’ve been force-fed a bunch of polls over the past 3 years assuring you that Romney’s DA MAN!!!!!

ddrintn on January 21, 2012 at 5:46 PM

In the context of honor I can respect any support for Santorum, Paul, or Romney. Reasonable conservatives can disagree on which candidate is more conservative etc. No rational person can support a corrupt politician when we have three honest men to choose from.

csdeven on January 21, 2012 at 5:48 PM

Again, the goal here is to get rid of Obama, right?

V7_Sport on January 21, 2012 at 5:43 PM

Actually, I think the goal of conservatives is to reduce the size of government. There’s a difference.

TitularHead on January 21, 2012 at 5:50 PM

In the context of honor I can respect any support for Santorum, Paul, or Romney. Reasonable conservatives can disagree on which candidate is more conservative etc. No rational person can support a corrupt politician when we have three honest men to choose from.

csdeven on January 21, 2012 at 5:48 PM

Oh, come off it. If Santorum were threatening Romney right now you’d be harping on his wife and the OB-GYN or whatever smear that was.

ddrintn on January 21, 2012 at 5:51 PM

ddrintn on January 21, 2012 at 5:51 PM

I have no idea what you’re referring to. Did his wife have an affair?

csdeven on January 21, 2012 at 6:15 PM

Racist.

Axe on January 20, 2012 at 10:15 PM

LMAO ! :-)

cableguy615 on January 21, 2012 at 6:54 PM

And you know that how? Because you’ve been force-fed a bunch of polls over the past 3 years assuring you that Romney’s DA MAN!!!!!

ddrintn on January 21, 2012 at 5:46 PM

So it’s a bunch of polls against what? Yes Polls. Polls are evidence of something. What evidence do you have that Santorum can win?

V7_Sport on January 21, 2012 at 7:03 PM

Again, the goal here is to get rid of Obama, right?

V7_Sport on January 21, 2012 at 5:43 PM

Actually, I think the goal of conservatives is to reduce the size of government. There’s a difference.

TitularHead on January 21, 2012 at 5:50 PM

Not in this case. The goals are the same.

V7_Sport on January 21, 2012 at 7:04 PM


Not in this case. The goals are the same.

V7_Sport on January 21, 2012 at 7:04 PM

I hope you’re right. I have a good friend trying to convince me the same thing. He swears Mitt is really a conservative. He promises me that he’ll repeal Obamacare and shrink government, if elected.

I want to believe you guys. I really do.

TitularHead on January 21, 2012 at 9:03 PM

In the context of honor I can respect any support for Santorum, Paul, or Romney. Reasonable conservatives can disagree on which candidate is more conservative etc. No rational person can support a corrupt politician when we have three honest men to choose from.

csdeven on January 21, 2012 at 5:48 PM

Oh, come off it. If Santorum were threatening Romney right now you’d be harping on his wife and the OB-GYN or whatever smear that was.

ddrintn on January 21, 2012 at 5:51 PM

LOL. Nailed it.

Malachi45 on January 21, 2012 at 10:29 PM

You are just babbling nonsense now.

Dr. Tesla on January 21, 2012 at 4:25 PM

My apologies: I had tried to post a comment that was illustrative of my belief that we cannot fix all that is wrong with this country in just one election. I failed to take into account that you were off your medication.

None are great candidates. But honorable thinking conservatives can see that Romney, Santorum, and Paul have not been sanctioned for violating the sacred trust of the American public.

And as long as we have candidates that haven’t violated that trust, they deserve our votes before a proven corrupt politician who already had his chance and violated the public trust. My goodness! I pray we don’t have to vote for a corrupt politician because we desperately need to get rid of Obama.

csdeven on January 21, 2012 at 5:44 PM

I assume you are referring to the ethics committee investigation of Newt way back when….the 84 charges (of which 83 were dismissed). The remaining charge stood (pretty much everyone agrees if was Newt’s lawyer who muffed it) and Newt paid the $300k fine. He was censured, but not removed. And this in a GOP controlled congress. I do not know what is dishonorable about a guy who took his medicine and continued to serve.

I mean, it’s not like another guy with $10k in his freezer who wasn’t even slapped on the wrist or anything.

BTW: At some level ALL politicians are ‘corrupt’. Their crimes are there for us all to see, only they are called ‘compromise’ and ‘bipartisan agreement’ in most cases. I believe the voter in SC are aware of Newt’s ‘dishonor’….apparently not much of an issue, eh?

Anti_anti on January 22, 2012 at 12:17 PM

Comment pages: 1 14 15 16