December 29, 2011

Poll Watch: Gallup 2012 Republican Nomination Daily Tracking Survey

  2:15 pm

Gallup 2012 GOP Nomination Daily Tracking Poll

  • Mitt Romney 27% [25%] (24%) {23%} [22%] (21%) {23%} [23%] (24%) {24%} [24%] (24%) {23%} [22%] (23%) {23%} [23%] (23%) {25%} [23%] (22%)
  • Newt Gingrich 23% [25%] (25%) {26%} [26%] (27%) {25%} [25%] (26%) {28%} [28%] (29%) {31%} [31%] (33%) {33%} [35%] (37%{34%} [36%] (37%)
  • Ron Paul 11% [11%] (11%) {12%} [13%] (12%) {12%} [12%] (11%) {10%} [10%] (10%) {9%} [8%] (8%) {9%} [9%] (9%) {10%} [9%] (8%)
  • Rick Perry 8% [8%] (8%) {8%} [8%] (7%) {8%} [8%] (7%) {6%} [6%] (5%) {6%} [7%] (6%) {6%} [6%] (6%) {5%} [6%] (7%)
  • Michele Bachmann 5% [5%] (6%) {6%} [6%] (6%) {7%} [6%] (7%) {7%} [8%] (7%) {6%} [6%] (6%) {5%} [6%] (6%) {7%} [6%] (6%)
  • Rick Santorum 4% [4%] (3%) {3%} [3%] (4%) {4%} [4%] (4%) {4%} [4%] (4%) {4%} [4%] (3%) {2%} [3%] (2%) {2%} [3%] (3%)
  • Jon Huntsman 2% [1%] (2%) {1%} [1%] (1%) {2%} [2%] (2%) {2%} [2%] (2%) {2%} [2%] (2%) {2%} [2%] (1%) {1%} [1%] (1%)

Survey of at least 1,000 registered Republicans and Republican-leaning independents was conducted December 22-28, 2011. The margin of error is ± 3 percentage points.  Results from the poll conductedDecember 21-27, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 20-26, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted December 19-23, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 18-22, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 17-21, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted December 15-20, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 14-19, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 13-18, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted December 12-17, 2011are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 11-16, 2011 are in Results from the poll conducted December 10-14, 2011 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted December 9-13, 2011are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted December 8-12, 2011 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted December 7-11, 2011 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted December 6-10, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conductedDecember 5-9, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 4-8, 2011 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted December 3-7, 2011 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted December 2-6, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 1-5, 2011 are in parentheses.

Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal



by Oldest
by Best by Newest by Oldest

And there is your dagger. It is over, folks.

Reginald from texas

What sound does dynamite make?



Boom er.


Nice, MassCon.......very nice!!


25% ceiling?

Suck it Eric Bolling! Ha, just had to say it.


How do those words taste, Mr. Gingrich?


Mitt in the 30s by next week.


I hope this continues. I am interested to see what is going on in SC and FL, not that they won't be heavily affected by the next two weeks.


Not to mention that Romney bests Obama by six today. Sure that will go up and down, but............ Romney has been the only Pub to best or tie Obama all along.

The naysayers who crabbed that Mitt should have been in the very first debate, Mitt should have gone to the stupid IA pastors gut-spilling forum, Mitt should have campaigned hard in IA from the beginning, that Mitt should mess up his hair, that Mitt shouldn't mess up his hair, that Mitt should have gone to the Trump debate, that Mitt should have attacked more, that Mitt should attack less, Mitt shouldn't talke about illegal immigration, that Mitt shouldn't be so laid back, that Mitt should show temper, that Mitt shouldn't show temper, ad nauseum........

....have been proved wrong yet again. The experienced campaigner Mitt planned his work and will relentlessly work his plan if elected POTUS. Of that, we need have no doubt.


Just returned from a Newt Gingrich event here in my little Iowa town. Kinda cool seeing Carl Cameron from Fox News, and Newt was introduced by Art Laffer, who spoke briefly on why Newt had the best economic plan and record of implementing the changes needed.

They had a very good turn out. Lot's of press and multiple TV camera's. Only one satellite truck outside though.

Newt took a question about "lobbying' for Freddie mac and knocked it out of the park. He's just great to listen to. The negative smears may have worked in Iowa, as the campaign goes along they are going to backfire on the mudslingers, as they are so bereft of truth.


#11, thanks for that.


#11 Please share his terrific answer about Freddie Mac



Newt Gingrich, a 2012 Republican candidate for president, was named the sixth Most Admired Man in 2011 today in USA Today/Gallup’s annual survey of Americans.

Gingrich is the only GOP presidential candidate to make the top ten in the Most Admired Man, 2011 list


#11: No, Telly, the IA stuff will follow Newt wherever he goes. Some may have been untrue or exaggerated; I dunno. Haven't heard it. But there are so many real reasons that Newt should not be POTUS, that even his friends have come out of the woodwork to un-endorse him. Sure Newt is "fun to listen to." That's why he surged. But in the end it's all about stability and character. Newt has neither--and there's no way to explain it away no matter how many questions he "knocks out of the park." Sorry.


Expect a surge for Santorum with the Beck endorsement and the current movement in the polls in Iowa (where he will now be at least finish in third place). The only other person I can see potentially surging is Perry due to the bank account he still has.

Personally, I am leaning towards Romney, but I know so many everyday Republicans who just don't think he is conservative or genuine enough. Further, Paul is just too reckless given his stance towards Iran and Israel.

Net, people have seen Romney and Paul, but are still grasping at straws to find another alternative. Hello Santorum....

Hudson Valley Rep

Let's take this with a grain of salt. Until Romney reaches 29% and higher it isn't time to celebrate. But, it's looking better and better for Romney each day 😉


Yeah, that's what I'm talkin' bout! There are many things Mitt Romney has and doesn't have. One thing he definitely has is patience and discipline. He is a long-term, strategic thinker. He undoubtedly already has his work for the first 100 days planned out.. . . not because he's jumping the gun or being prematurely presumptuous, but because he is just the kind of guy who prepares, plans, and also has most likely a plan B and even plan C contingency in place, just in case. I've been a Romney stalwart from the beginning....donated to his campaign last time round and have done so again this time round. He has never let me down. I'll probably donate some more money today!

Anybody & Kitchen sink but Romney

Need to mention he was only mentioned by a tad over 1%.


I like this poll. This poll pleases me.


#17 The IA Pastors, frantic for someone to annoint, have now settled on Santorum as heir to Huck's Army. They are gassing up church buses in West Iowa as we speak. Look for Santorum to do great in IA, maybe win. Might do well in SC--and will then fizzle. Mitt picked the best lane in which to run nationally: center right. Hard right (ie Santorum) will not beat Obama. Mitt definitely could: up 6 on Obama today.



He got just 1% of mentions, tie with Donald Trump...



If Santorum wins Iowa, it'll just be a major shrug for the rest of the country. No one knows who he is. And those that do, basically know him as the guy who takes up half his debate time complaining about his lack of debate time.



I think a lot of people would take a second look at the guy, and they'd be half-impressed.

What the major impact would be, is a Santorum win would be used by Romney detractors and the media to prove that Romney cannot win the base and is unacceptable to too many people.


HVR (18): "Let’s take this with a grain of salt. Until Romney reaches 29% and higher..."

I don't know about 29% (or any specific number) -- the meaningful thing is sustaining a surge like this. Romney has hit 30 or thereabouts a few times before, but has not stayed there. With his current momentum and if he gets another push with the caucus results, then he might keep it going this time. We'll see.


14. Just that the reported 1.6 million dollars was paid to his consulting firm over a three year time frame. A firm with three offices and multiple employees. His 'cut' was roughly $35,000. They were paid consultants and did NO lobbying for Freddie Mac. He is on the record and it was reported in the New York times in 2008 he went before a congressional oversight committee and told them NOT to bail them out - give them NO money. This was very controversial at the time, and his testimony led to most republicans voting against their bailout.

He has always been for breaking Fannie and Freddie up into five or six smaller, private entities, and that was the recommendations he made for them. He called for greater oversight and stronger regulations, as he recognized they were getting out of control.

The reason he took on work from them is he believed a conservative plan for greater home ownership could be implemented. He has worked for years with Habitat for Humanity, a program that allows poor people to put in sweat equity to get home ownership and he is strongly supportive of finding a way to give people a stake in and teach them the responsibility of ownership and not just hand them money like the Barney Frank plan.

I've left a lot out but it was a great explanation. He did no lobbying, he didn't get 1.6 million dollars. Period. It's a lie spread by dishonest dirty politicians, like Mitt Romney.

As he said, the Romney campaign certainly understands the difference between net and gross earnings, they're smart guys, so they know they are being dishonest. At some point the lies will backfire.



Do you really see a Santorum surge nationally? I can't. All the other candidates had something. Bachmann was the Tea Party girl and mini-Palin. Perry the guy with the Texas bonefides who was swooping in late. Cain had the charm and the slogan. Newt's an old guard guy who has been in power once.

Santorum is just a fairly typical conservative ex-Senator. Unless people start projecting their desires on him, I don't see it. And I certainly don't see him winning Florida.

Hudson Valley Rep

#26 I meant that Romney's "ceiling" of 25% and that if you add/subtract 3% points either way it is still with in the "ceiling". I think 29% is good enough to start to see a Romboom rather then we will only see a Romboom if he hits over 30% and it is timing perfectly to be the perfect boom.


Just got a negative robo-call about Ron Paul! Unbelievable.

That's our Mitt. The most negative and dishonest candidate to ever step foot in Iowa.


Whether or not the IA Pastors help Santorum with a win, enthusiasm is building for Mitt in IA. So far he has played his cards very well. Lay low; do well in debates; take out Newt in an IA air war; swoop in for a very positive ground presence and hope to do well in the caucuses. Other than that, we'll just have to see.



I can see a Santorum surge nationally, but I can't see him winning the nomination.

Like I said, the negative impact of Santorum winning Iowa would be to somehow prove that Romney is so bad, that people voted for Santorum just to beat him.


As this poll is a 5 day running average, Romney did benefit from having that really low poll removed from the average that lowered his average from 23 to 21. So that helped in the jump up as well. But he is still climbing steady. I just hope the political pastors don't put their hate wigs on against Romney in this Sunday's masses.



Do you know what a Super PAC is, or do you just not care?

Romney has no control over the Super PAC.



Remember that Santorum is Catholic, and some Evangelicals won't even vote for a Catholic.


#33: Andy: NEVER underestimate the West IA Pastors and their church buses. We've seen this movie before.


#36: That may be. But a Catholic over a Mormon? No contest.


Mitt is peaking too early!

There. I said it.


#39 Agreed. A whole stupid week to go. Time for 15 more ABRs to rise and fall.



Your tears of anguish nourish me.

I love it when people who cheered when their candidate of choice attacked Romney but now whine when they get it back in spades.



Right, but maybe they go for Perry or Bachmann.



Who says Romney has peaked? He's surging and there are no signs of it slowing down.



Yeah, that's true. I still worry that they are going to try and persuade people that would have voted for Romney to switch candidates or not even bother voting. They can either try to correlate around one candidate or try and take Romney down, and both of those really trouble me.


39. Mitt hasn't peaked yet. :)


#39. "Peakng too early"?? Jisst 4 and a half days before voting starts?


#42: Naw, the IA Pastors have annointed Santorum as the heir to Huck's Army. Perry and Bachmann had their chance. It's still Any But Romney (or Huntsman or Paul) with them.

One of the things I just heard on radio is that few people in IA have land lines; mostly cell phones. So that skews the polls. But how? They didn't say. Who has land lines these days? I say older more rural people, who IMO are Iowans who would least likely support Mitt. It will be interesting.



I saw a video of Gingrich bashing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in September 2008, but it was couple days before the official federal take over of them, but everybody knew that they were in trouble way before that, so that didn't prove anything, Gingrich might have just like a rat leaving a sinking ship, apparently last "protection money" payment from Freddie Mac was from September.



Santorum will not be pushed in the pew on Sunday. They will push against Romney, not for anyone in particular.

As for phones, I think people who use only cell phones tend to be wealthier and younger. I'd say if the polls don't include cell phones, we'll see Romney and Paul with higher voting totals.


Just saw a report of Romney drawing another big crowd, estimated at 500, in Mason City. He seems to be peaking at the exact right time.


48. You've got nothing to prove that.

Newt has all the evidence, Mitt is a liar, and here's the thing...if he will lie for political gain...what else will he lie about?



Provide evidence Mitt lied. You cannot.


#47 KG, #49 MassCon: The Gallup Poll does include cell phone users. See for details. In the survey methods section, it says:

"Each sample includes a minimum quota of 400 cell phone respondents and 600 landline respondents per 1,000 national adults, with additional minimum quotas among landline respondents by region."


teledude Says:

December 29th, 2011 at 3:32 pm

48. You’ve got nothing to prove that.

Newt has all the evidence, Mitt is a liar, and here’s the thing…if he will lie for political gain…what else will he lie about?

it must be his personal life.


As I wrote about 10 days ago.....



Seeing all these polls released today breaking Romney's way must be murder on Craig.

It's like the end of a vampire movie when they drive a stake throught heart of Dracula.


52. Maybe he didn't lie.

Maybe the 'greatest business mind in history' doesn't understand the difference between gross and net income.

that's certainly possible. It's one or the other.

So you're saying, he's not a liar, he's just not really that smart about business?




Yes, Craig is quite the blood-sucker!


10. NICE, KG. Very well put.



Expect a surge for Santorum with the Beck endorsement

Glen Beck endorsed Santorum???




You're putting words in my mouth.

I still have not been told what Mitt said. Is it incorrect to say Newt was given $1.6 million by Freddie Mac?


51, Newt has firmly established that he is a dishonest person by his immoral activities. There is NO question about that whatsoever. Rick Perry was right about one thing, if a man cheats on his wife, he's willing to cheat on everyone else.


56. Tele, saying it's a lie because Newt's COMPANY received the money rather than Newt, personally, is an awfully big stretch.

Dude! It was Newt's company. That doesn't make it any less of a problem. It just means Newt used MORE RESOURCES in helping FM/FM.



I haven't seen a single evidence that would show that he and his firm had anything else to offer than influence peddling or influence peddling advice. Two thirds of de-facto lobbyists are non-registered lobbyist. Newt is abusing the technicality that he calls only registering requiring lobbying (registered lobbyist can actually participate in writing legal text) as lobbying, but there is lots of influence peddling that doesn't require you to register as lobbyist, like I said, two thirds of lobbyists/influence peddlers are non-registered lobbyist.



I'm curious. Do you know how Neuter came up with his $35K number? Did he simply divide the total take and divide by the number of employees?? If so, who is being dishonest in their telling of the story?


Teledude repeat after me:

Give em hell Mitt!

P.S. How was the food at Newt's event today?



The problem for me is not that Gingrich took money from Freddie Mac. The problem is that despite all that's happened to the housing market and the economy over the past five years, Newt continues to support government help to make more people homeowners despite inability to afford a home on their own. He is a big-government conservative who hasn't learned the most important lesson of the last five years: when government helps people afford what they can't afford on their own, economic bubbles form and end very, very badly for virtually everyone.


Tele you are just an angry ranter.

Lets see newt you had affairs is the honest one and romney is dishonest because he cslls neet out for taking fees from a failing gov entity.

you really are missing palin arent you


51 - "Newt has all the evidence, Mitt is a liar, and here’s the thing…if he will lie for political gain…what else will he lie about?"

I guess you're right. I wonder though how Newt's former wives feel about the Speaker's honesty? But, you're right . . . Newt is surely more honest than Romney. Do you eat sour grapes much?? That might explain your discomfort.


62- Yep, Newt never denied receiving the money. He just said Mitt should return all of his ill-gotten gains as well.


Teledude is trying to frame the Freddie Mac issue as if Newt's company vs. Newt receiving the money was always the issue. It's not.

-$1.6 million went from tax-payer funded GSEs. That's money tax payers no longer have. Doesn't matter whether it went to Newt or to his company. Same amount gone.

-What did Freddie Mac get in return? Whether it was from Newt or from his company, doesn't matter--we trying to understand whether $1.6 million in benefit was returned.

-So it was over a three year period--doesn't matter. It was still $1.6 million.

-Did he or did he not engage in activities resemble the activities lobbyists typically do?


Good grief, Newtie. YOUR company got $1.6 million from MY (poor little sub-chapter S-corp) company! What did MY company get for our money??????? What did our hard-earned tax dollars get in return?

In addition, Newt is running because he's so dang smart, understands the past and therefore can predict the future; understands DC inside and out. I personally got very, very damaged in the housing debacle: two homes under water and worth half what we paid for them--not to mention a whole darn economy came down and might not EVER come back. So my gripe with Newt is if you're so darn smart and were taking tax payer money to advise Freddie, we didn't you advise the nation, blow the whistle, sound the alarm, one if by sea?? Why weren't you Wee Willie Winkie running through the countryside warning us???? Why weren't YOU, the big fat historian, being the modern-day Paul Revere? Huh? Huh?

Meanwhile, Newt is complaining that Mitt made real money--not tax payer money. Newt is nuts and he is not nice. Go back and see how he fought not to give support to his minor daughters. How he lied about his first divorce. This is a bad man.

What part did Newt play in keeping Bush, McCain and the federal regulators at bay


#59 MassCon: "Is it incorrect to say Newt was given $1.6 million by Freddie Mac?"

It would be more to correct to say we taxpayers "gave" Newt $1.6 million. On the other hand, Mitt served as governor and head of the Olympics gratis. And will serve as POTUS for free.

Newt was/is on the government tah-tah like the rest of the blood-suckers. (Oooh, bad visual. Sorry.)


70... the myth that newt is some sort of super intellect is absurd, but unfortunately many in the GOP buy into his act... Newt is a pro at using arcane, historical factoids in general discussions to give the appearance of intelligence...thats it..his "arugments" are usually just one liners and/or are hugely circular in nature...the fact that GOP voters consider this Bismarkian loon to be the standard bearer of conservativism is truly sad


Newt's dishonesty is well reflected in his lie that his first wife wanted the divorce. Court documents have made it clear she did not want the divorce. Here's the thing, if Newt is so darn freakin smart, why would he tell a lie that was so easily uncovered in public records? The answer of course is that Newt is not so super smart. I think Newt might have a mental disorder where he is able to retain large amounts of facts, but unable to apply those facts in any type of abstract thought. Newt is Rainman.


Mitt swamped by supporters and autograph seekers after Mason City speech. Dozens of cameras, mics and press everywhere. Mitt patiently pressing the flesh and answering personal questions about where'd you go do High School and I just heard one guy say..

"this week I made up my mind Governor"

The surge is upon us.

All that being said, I hope Santorum wins's a death knell for Newt and puts a body blow to Paul.


Where's Herman Cain?


#74-#75 Thanks, MassCon. I got in at the end--just before the World Trade Center flag story. Mitt needs to tell more stories like this (even tho I've heard it before--it's very moving). Very good. He's warm and real w/the crowd.

Big Mojo. You can feel it.


#76: Like ANYBODY cares. (Except maybe his poor wife.)


Fox saying that Mitt is planning to be in IA on Tuesday night. He's going back to NH, but will return to IA for the big night. They are saying his internal polls are showing he will win--or he wouldn't be risking being there. Stay tuned.


74. I caught the last 10 minutes of that speech. Here's my take...

He's brilliant. He's got the right policies. He speaks with passion. But...

He doesn't seem to have a knack for reading and playing the crowd.

Several times he said something potent and kept talking over the applause. A more polished speaker knows where the applause will be and signals the audience it's time to clap by his pause. He also said a few things that were funny but didn't give the audience time to realize it was funny before moving on to the next line.

Still, I'm just so impressed with Mitt.

The crowd didn't say much for Iowans, though, imo.



He isn't good at reading the crowd, agreed, but the crowd was big and loud. Loved it.


KG I'm just wondering where his endorsement is????

Dave for the General Republican Candidate

I just compared the Intrade and University of Iowa's electronic markets. The general election current results are similar, but the Iowas Caucus results are a bit different. The UI results currently show Romney edging out Paul while Intrade has Paul at 47% and Romney at %40 to win.


So...Newt was running a Historians for Hire company? Or did Newt fudge a bit during the debates?


#82 Oh, OK. Well, as far as I'm concerned he's dropped off the planet and as Sarah said about herself: Her endorsement doesn't amoung to a hill of beans. IMO "Herb's" even less.

#84: LOL!!! Do ya' think? Newt is nutz.

Comments are closed.

Recent Posts

Tweets by @Racefour

Search R4'16