Romney leads Obama narrowly in Montana

President Obama is in worse shape in Montana than he was four years ago against John McCain.  As part of his near landslide nationally, he lost this usually Republican state by only two points.  Now, he trails Mitt Romney by five.  But that is half the deficit Obama faced just five months ago, and by most standards makes Montana a marginal swing state.

Romney leads Obama 48-43, down from a 50-40 advantage when PPP last polled the state in November.  Worse for Romney is that his soon-to-be-vanquished intraparty foe Ron Paul actually leads Obama by eight points (49-41).  Obama is able to keep it relatively close here because he basically ties Romney with the plurality independents, while Paul leads by 22 points.

At this point, Romney is far more popular than Paul with Republicans, and has two-thirds of the vote in the caucus, while Paul only maintains the quarter of the vote he got in the three-way 2008 caucus.  But with independents, Romney has a lot of work to do, and this is true and more problematic for him in swing states where Obama is doing just as well as he did in 2008 because of Romney’s toxicity with independents and Democrats.  That is on top of lingering doubts with some partisan Republicans who were not behind him in the primary battle. 

Paul’s libertarian brother Gary Johnson could also present a problem for Romney, particularly in the western states.  Johnson’s presence on a third-party ballot line would bring Romney’s lead down to two points over Obama, with Johnson pulling 8%.  That is because he lowers Romney’s share of the GOP vote from 92% to 83% while hardly touching Obama’s grasp of his party.

The president probably missed his best shot to win Montana in 2008, but luckily for him, he doesn't even remotely need its three electoral votes to win re-election.

Full results here

Comments

[RonPaul.se]

Once again Dr Paul does better than Romney when compared to Obama...

[Linden Killam]

I wouldn't completely count out Montana for Obama if he's doing a little better than expected.

[Brad]

Actually, Obama appears to be doing as well in Montana this time as last time. In 2008, the Constitution Party of Montana removed Chuck Baldwin from it's ticket and nominated Ron Paul for president; Paul was ultimately listed on the ballot with Obama and McCain. His absence this year explains much of 2012 Romney's advantage over 2008 McCain. Johnson's presence indicates what the situation in Montana might look like if Paul were once again on the ballot.

[Todd Dugdale]

So where is this "rally" of Republicans to Romney after clinching the nomination? It seems to be another "game-changing" myth, like Rosen-gate, the Secret Service scandal, and eating dog meat. In other words, it only 'works' on those who have already made up their minds to support Romney no matter what.

Romney isn't even getting a majority of the white vote, and Obama is within four points of him (or better) for voters under 65. This looks a lot like a swing state.

[Osbournequinn]

The GOP has not nominated anyone yet. Your own figures show that Ron Paul leads Obama by 8, and by a staggering 22 when independents are added in. So why does the headline read, "Romney Leads Obama narrowly in Montana?" Shouldn't it be more like, "Ron Paul Outperforms Romney against Obama in Latest Polls?" or something? Can't you see how the media bias shapes elections? Tell the truth. Please.

[Dustin Ingalls]

Paul leads Obama by 22 points with independents, not with everyone. He does 3 points better than Romney with all voters because of that large lead with independents. He does worse than Romney does with Republicans.

Also, we're not media.

[Matthew Reece]

1. Why does PPP include Gary Johnson in polls in some states but not others?
2. Why have Jill Stein and Virgil Goode not been included in PPP polls?
3. When will we see poll questions that include multiple third party candidates?

[realnrh]

Discussing the race between Obama and Romney is relevant. The Ron Paul numbers are as relevant to the general election as mine are. Ron Paul is a goofy old kook who pretends that anyone outside of his little cult of personality takes him seriously. If he ever were a meaningful figure, it would take about one ad to educate people on his actual positions and he'd be laughed off of the national stage.

[Dustin Ingalls]

We polled Goode in Virginia, but he wasn't a known quantity even there, so there's not much point in polling him elsewhere at this point. Third-party candidates' shares of the vote are always inflated at this point; they inevitably get less than the polls say they will, especially this far out. We may include third-party options in our polls as the election gets closer, especially if it looks like Johnson or others could have a spoiler effect.

[mj]

Not media but claim Ron is Johnsons libertarian brother? Really last time i checked he is a Republican. If your gonna insist on calling Paul a libertarian and trying to hurt him w gop readers, at least cal mitt what he is a Democratic brother of Obama or call Obama a socialist brother of Ralph Nader.

[Dustin Ingalls]

That makes no sense. Paul is a libertarian with a little L, as is Johnson, and they're both Republicans. Paul does stray from some libertarian doctrine, but he's what passes for libertarianism in the GOP these days.

[Missykender]

Paul could arguably be called a Constitutionalist, as whether an item is Constitutional is his litmus test as to whether he passes or fails an item that comes across his desk (and "Dr. No" fails about 98% of legislative items based on that criteria).

It shouldn't be surprising to anyone that Libertarianism and Constitutionalism are very close in ideology, as the Constitution, as it was originally drafted, was big on preserving our liberties as much as possible.

[Kylee Darwin]

@mj, I assume you are aware that Ron Paul joined the libertarian party in 1987 and ran for president on the libertarian ticket in 1988. His consistent libertarian ideals are exactly why people like him. Ron Paul is a lifetime member of the libertarian party (per their website) unless he requests to have his membership revoked, which I don't see happening. He is a Republican; although likely only to be taken more seriously and given opportunities to participate in presidential debates.

[Brad]

That is the most oversimplified, presumptive, condescending and ignorant explanation of Ron Paul's ideology I've seen in a while now. Here's a news flash: everyone thinks their views are constitutional. The Constitution is not an ideological document, by and large - it is a programmatic document laying out general instructions on how to govern a nation. Ron Paul does not judge proposals by whether they are constitutional - he judges them by whether they meet the standards of his own extreme libertarian ideology. It is profoundly insulting to conflate his personal ideological preference with constitutional truth. I would argue that Paul actually understands nothing about what the Constitution actuall does and does not allow, and that Obama, the former constitutional law professor, has a much better grasp of these subjects. Even then, though, I would not be so arrogant as to call Obama a 'constitutionalist'. Educate yourself on some constitutional law and learn how impossible it is to draw such sharp distinctions.

[Rick]

Realnrh,

You stated "Ron Paul is a goofy old kook who pretends that anyone outside of his little cult of personality takes him seriously. If he ever were a meaningful figure, it would take about one ad to educate people on his actual positions and he'd be laughed off of the national stage"

I would ask that you please educate me on his actual position so that I may better understand your point.

[Jude]

Romney leads Obama 48-43, down from a 50-40 advantage when PPP last polled the state in November. Worse for Romney is that his SOON-TO-BE-VANQUISHED intraparty foe RON PAUL actually leads Obama by eight points (49-41). Obama is able to keep it relatively close here because he basically ties Romney with the plurality independents, WHILE PAUL LEADS BY 22 POINTS.

ROFLMAO

[Robert Timsah]

This poll tells us that if Romney wants to win he needs Paul to be his running mate! But for that to happen Romney would need too......

Agree to only go to war with declaration of war from congress.
Agree to support a full yearly audit of the fed.
Never overturn one civil liberty in the name of security.
Never embark on nation building.
Never use covert ops in nations without war declaration.
Never sign a bill which will increase spending or taxes.

THEN ASK RON PAUL TO BE HIS RUNNING-MATE.

Agreeing to the list above will help Romney with his base, and garner MOST of the Ron Paul support. And if Paul agree's to be his running mate then watch out.

As a Paul supporter this is not ideal for us. But if we can nudge people like Romney our way on the key issues (war, welfare and liberty) then we have to take what we can get.

Romney agreeing to this would be a serious game-changer. It would give Paul some room to endorse him. But Paul cannot, and will not, endorse someone who won't say right now - NO WAR WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL. NO NATION BUILDING! NO MORE SPENDING OR INCREASE IN TAXES. If you can't agree to those 3 things then you're not conservative or any better than Obama.

[tbert]

The Ron Paul True Believer: immune to objective fact, and constantly mindful that Ron Paul cannot fail, he can only *be* failed.

[Sonbeams]

Jefferson and Madison the founders of the original Republican Party were libertarians, i.e. followers of the natural law philosophy of John Locke, and opposed to the Hobbesian centralist ideas of the Federalists led by Alexander Hamilton.

The same battle is being fought today with the Ron Paul Revolution in the vanguard of the Jeffersonian Republicans seeking to unseat the centralist Trotskyist neo-cons who infiltrated and took over the Republican Party in the late 1980's with the assistance of the Moral Majority Christians. The latter were deceived by their blind devotion to the State of Israel that the neo-cons used to manipulate them into supporting their imperialist agenda.

This is why Ron Paul opposes the present foreign policy of both parties that is at its core an internationalist communist dream of world domination. He is well aware of the provenance of the warmongers and has described it in detail on the floor of the Congress.

As Dr. Paul has said the ideals of liberty are relatively young and the American Republic was the very first national expression of these ideals. The traditional impulse of rulers of any description has always tended towards tyranny and it is the fruit of the latter tree that we now see coming to maturity in America.

This is the issue at hand and this is why the Ron Paul Revolution are so determined to succeed. They are the few who know that the tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots, whether figuratively or literally

[Chris Czernel]

I am a former Libertarian turned Republican in 2007, only to vote for Ron Paul.

I will ONLY vote for Ron Paul. If he is not the nominee I'll be writing him in anyway.

I am now a registered candidate for precinct delegate, and I look forward to working with fellow Ron Paul Republicans in taking over the GOP. It's already underway, and it can not be stopped.

We need to rid the GOP of the anti-Liberty, anti-Freedom, anti-Constitution philosophy known as neocon-ism.

[Chris Boudreau]

@ Brad, Ron Paul is on the Montana Ballot. Not sure what hypothetical you're talking about.

[jrm43231]

"soon-to-be-vanquished"? lol - you people don't give up.