Gingrich still rising

Last night we went into the field in Florida and Montana- we'll have the results of those polls out tomorrow after another night of calls but the early indications are that Newt Gingrich will have a double digit lead in both states- he has not peaked yet and is still on an upward curve.

If Herman Cain really ends up dropping out of the race Gingrich's surge should continue in the next few weeks, unless/until something starts happening to erode his popularity. Why? Because Cain's supporters absolutely love Gingrich. And they absolutely hate Mitt Romney.

Our last national survey found that Gingrich's favorability with Cain voters was 73/21. Meanwhile Romney's was 33/55.  That's the same basic trend we've seen in every Republican primary poll we've done in the month of November. On average in 7 polls we've done this month Gingrich's favorability with Cain voters is 69/22. Romney's average is  31/57. In other words Gingrich's net favorability is 73 points better with Cain supporters than Romney's. Here's how they stack up:

Location	Gingrich fav	Romney fav	Difference
National	73/21 (+52)	33/55 (-22)	74
Ohio	69/18 (+51)	32/50 (-18)	69
Mississippi	63/25 (+38)	25/62 (-37)	75
Iowa SD-18	74/19 (+55)	42/48 (-6)	61
California	60/30 (+30)	30/56 (-26)	56
Arizona	71/15 (+56)	25/62 (-37)	93
Pennsylvania	70/26 (+44)	27/69 (-42)	86

Given how much more Cain supporters like Gingrich than Romney, it's not surprising that most of them say Gingrich is their second voting choice behind Cain.  On average across six polls we've asked a second choice question on this month 37% of Cain voters pick Gingrich to only 13% for Romney.  In fact Romney isn't any more likely to be the second choice of Cain supporters than Michele Bachmann (14%) or Rick Perry (12%). Here's all the data on that:

Location	Gingrich	Romney	Bachmann	Perry
Ohio	38%	19%	10%	12%
Mississippi	28%	17%	12%	19%
Iowa SD-18	24%	10%	22%	16%
California	42%	12%	14%	8%
Arizona	39%	10%	15%	11%
Pennsylvania	49%	10%	9%	7%
Average	37%	13%	14%	12%

If Herman Cain's support fades to zero in the next few weeks, whether because he drops out or because people abandon him because of all his issues, Newt Gingrich is going to keep on climbing.  He's going to get stronger before he gets weaker. Gingrich's fall may come and if history is any guide in this race it will probably come before Iowa. But in the short term Cain's issues should mean Gingrich just keeps on gaining.

Comments

[Craig Startt]

Tom
I read your conclusion, right above your Arizona numbers. Why does Romney continue to be the strongest GOP candidate against Obama .....when , according to you, nobody in the GOP really likes him? Is he getting that much Democratic support ????

[RRA]

CS - If recent polling are any indication, "Romney the strongest candidate" is like the Loch Ness Monster and Tattoos exploding by MRI scans: A Myth.

I mean Rasmussen, a generally GOP friendly poll, has not just Romney losing to Obama by 6, but Newt in that same poll was only losing by 7. And in polls, one point is negligible.

In fact the only thing Mittens has in his corner currently are all those endorsements and that he raised alot of money. On paper a formidable campaign, except one thing: the candidate. But ultimately we'll learn again what the last Romney national campaign revealed: You can only polish a turd so much.

(Of course your party has problems if in an economy of over 9% unemployment, you're not beating the incumbent like a drum as you should be. And you don't need polling to know that.)

[Steven A Smith]

Excellent job on marginalizing Rep. Ron Paul. It is amazing that some how this article neglects to mention him. I would say due to that the article is bogus and should be ignored.

[Michael]

Craig, I don't think it's the Democratic support. I am positive that if it comes to either Obama or Romney, the GOP voters are going to go out of their way to vote for the GOP candidate, whether they hate Romney or not. They want anyone but Obama.

Where Romney gains on Obama is the moderate and independent voters -- which are the same voters that Gingrich doesn't really appeal to as much.

[BUE]

Nice job ignoring Ron Paul, the only one who is a legitimate Republican, the only honest man running, and has the best shot against Obama.

[Securedge]

Why isn't Ron Paul shown? Seems that a decent percentage from Cain would select him based on his values and consistency. He is ahead of both Perry and Bachmann, but Paul wasn't even mentioned.

[Ron Paul 2012]

Seriously, they didn't include Ron Paul in their "poll" when he is clearly as valid a candidate as Perry or Bachman? This is a joke and it skews the very facts of who people would actually consider as an alternative.

[Dave]

Paul?

[Tom Jensen]

Paulbots:

Ron Paul was included in all of these polls. Less than 10% of Cain supporters said he was their second choice so including his numbers was not relevant in this analysis just as it wasn't relevant to include Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman, or Gary Johnson, even though they were included in all the polls too.

[Dustin Ingalls]

What Tom said. Paul is hardly anyone's second choice. As evidenced by the astroturfing on our comments section, he has a loyal, devoted core that reaches into the double digits in IA and NH and sometimes elsewhere, but his support doesn't really grow, and he doesn't get the leftovers from other candidates' collapse. We've seen that time and again when Trump, Bachmann, Perry, and now Cain falter.

[Steven A Smith]

Hey Tom Jenson

Less than 10% of Cain supporters said he was their second choice? Serious? He was included serious? Please show the link or poll that supports this claim, until then keep pushing the corporate media party line.

[Steven A Smith]

Tom Jensen,
by the way, the use of Paulbots shows your politcal bias and this article should be ignored.

[Tom Jensen]

You can see all the polls referenced in this post at this link:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011-archive.html

[Steven A Smith]

Tom

Did UNC-Chapel Hill teach you how to skew polling and article writing to push your own agenda. Regardless on how Rep Ron Paul polled your failure to mention him shows your lack of integrity and need to push your biased agenda.

[Steven A Smith]

Hey Tom
You post a link to your most recent national polling policy which in the poll has Michele Bachman at 7% as the second choice not 14%. Again nice try. Your polls and articles are bogus.

[Steven A Smith]

Dustin Ingalls
Nice attempt on spin to justify your bogus polling. Again you are picking polls from two weeks ago and in your most recent poll Michele Bachman polled at 7% for second choice. Nice try.

[Steven A Smith]

Tom Jensen

Your article is bogus. You posted wrong information.
By your own link, Bachman got 7% and 6% respectively in Arizona and Penn. Ohio and Mississippi was 9%, and 12% in Iowa. Nice try.

[Tom Jensen]

This entire post is about who the second choice of Herman Cain voters is, not who the second choice of voters overall is.

[Waterbuffalo]

Regardless of how Dr. Paul placed for those republican voters that supported Cain, the fact that Dr. Ron Paul who is polling third nationally isn't even mentioned shows the bias of the poll and the bloggers.

[Lucas]

To those who are so desperately supporting Paul: Slandering non-supporters of Ron Paul does NOTHING to increase Ron Paul's support. Can't you see that?

I like Ron Paul. A lot.

But he continually sabotages his own potential with the Republican Electorate. It's a damn shame.

Know this for truth: Detractors can use 10% of his arguments to discredit & then ignore the other 90%; mainly, his tendency toward isolationism & the fact that he blames America for the horrific terrorist attacks we've suffered (even if only partially).

It's Ron Paul's OWN FAULT he's not attracting new supporters. He's handing his opponents the weapons to defeat him.

Most Republicans would wholeheartedly support him, if as President, he went about dismantling 5 enormous Federal bureaucracies & actually CUT more than a trillion dollars from the ANNUAL budget. But when, as a Primary Candidate, he claims American foreign policy PROVOKED the 9/11 attacks, & quite inartfully at that, he looses credibility with most conservatives, which then denies him the very chance to become President & enact the 90% of his agenda those same Conservatives would support.

Even if it IS true that America has been a little too willing to engage in costly & ill-advised foreign adventures, a serious candidate for President MUST find a more tactful way of expressing his principled opposition.

So don't blame the media for your Candidate's inability to articulate his beliefs on terrorism in a way that won't offend a majority of Republicans. Paul must learn to re-calibrate his message, & smooth out the jagged edges, or he will forever remain at 10-15% support.

Because you disagree with the conclusions of an article does not invalidate it. It is not bogus, nor should it be 'ignored'.

Get real & stop reacting like Obama-tons. You are smarter than that.

[Gerald]

Why would anyone think that Ron Paul would be a natural or logical 2d choice for a Cain supporter? The 2 candidates are very different across the board. Other than Gingrich, the logical 2d choice for a Cain supporter would be Bachmann or Santorum.

Also, Paulbot is not a pejorative, so don't get all snippy. Personally, I like A-Paul-stles.

[Waterbuffalo]

Gerald,
Paulbot is a pejorative, just because you think it isn't deosn't make it so. Also, according to the polls Ron Paul is a second choice for Cain supporters, he comes in around the 10% level.

[flashinthepan]

How is questioning a poll and a blog on it's post slandering?

[Lucas]

@flashinthepan

"Did UNC-Chapel Hill teach you how to skew polling and article writing to push your own agenda. Regardless on how Rep Ron Paul polled your failure to mention him shows your lack of integrity and need to push your biased agenda." -Stevin A Smith

I call ad-homonym attacks like this not only counterproductive but borderline slanderous.

If I asked you "did your mother drop you on your head as an infant, because that's the only way I can see that would explain your support for Ron Paul", without offering any evidence to support my completely supositional view of your intelligence, you could rightly call that slanderous.

Liberals do this all the time. Libertarians (& I count myself one) should not.

[Peter]

@flashinthepan - it's not literally slandering, but the attacks clearly aren't justified. Tom has given a perfectly reasoned and reasonable explanation as to why Ron Paul is not listed in the tables in the post. Most of the criticisms of Tom and PPP are, simply, flat-out wrong. They aren't valid critiques of the poll or Tom's commentaries: but rather, attempts to accuse Tom of acting in bad faith. We can do without that.

I'm a Ron Paul supporter too. But I find it frustrating that some of my compatriots have adopted the stance that every single person who fails to mention Paul in a news article about the primaries is part of a massive conspiracy to silence him. That kind of conspiracy theorising just doesn't help; it probably hurts, if anything.

[nitin]

The author is drunk or out of his mind while crunching numbers