NH PrimR: ARG: Romney ahead, Paul & Huntsman gaining fast

[Tender Branson]

New Poll: New Hampshire President by ARG on 2011-12-14

Summary:

Romney:	35%
Paul:	21%
Gingrich:	16%
Huntsman:	13%
Other:	7%
Undecided:	8%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details

[Tender Branson]

Mitt Romney continues to lead the New Hampshire Republican Presidential Preference Primary with 35%. Jumping into second place is Ron Paul with 21%. Newt Gingrich is now in third place with 16% and Jon Huntsman is in fourth place with 13%.

In April, support for Romney was at 32%. Romney was at 29% in June, 30% in September, and 33% in November.

Romney leads among registered Republicans with 44% (up from 36% in November), followed by Gingrich at 20% (down from 25% in November) and Paul at 15% (up from 8% in November).

Among undeclared voters (independents), Paul now leads with 30% (up from 19% in November), followed by Huntsman at 25% (up from 14% in November), Romney at 22% (down from 26% in November), and Gingrich at 10% (down from 19% in November).

Romney leads for the first time among Tea Party supporters with 44% (see Tom Thomson's endorsement), followed by Paul at 19% and Gingrich at 17%.

Among those likely voters saying they are not Tea Party supporters or that they are undecided about the Tea Party, Romney leads with 31%, followed by Paul at 22%, Huntsman at 18%, and Gingrich at 16%.

Paul supporters tend to be younger (age 25-44), undeclared (independent) voters who play back this "kooky" Paul television ad (older Paul supporters like the "Ron Paul Family Cookbook"). In this survey, these Paul voters say they are as likely to vote on January 10 as registered Republicans.

[Tender Branson]

As you can see, Suffolk is clearly an outlier - because Rasmussen, Insider and ARG mostly agree.

[Simfan34]

I hope the establishment, and even the Tea Party pundit types- From Romney to Newt, and from Coulter to Frum- can all unite against Paul.

[Eraserhead]

Interesting results but it's, uh, ARG...

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

I hope the establishment, and even the Tea Party pundit types- From Romney to Newt, and from Coulter to Frum- can all unite against Paul.

They'll try, but if he wins New Hampshire its probably over for them.

[tmthforu94]

Newt Gingrich is gradually slipping nationwide, but quickly in the lead-off states. He's just like Giualiani - despite leading big nationally, he has almost no organization in the lead-off states, which is starting to catch up with him. Once he finishes poorly in Iowa and New Hampshire, his momentum will be shot. He has to win one of them to get the nomination.

[Eraserhead]

I hope the establishment, and even the Tea Party pundit types- From Romney to Newt, and from Coulter to Frum- can all unite against Paul.

They'll try, but if he wins New Hampshire its probably over for them.

Why? The states following NH would be much tougher for Paul.

[King]

I can't see Paul winning anything in the South.  However, wins in NH and IA might make him strong enough to win some western states NV, CO, WA, OR. 

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

I hope the establishment, and even the Tea Party pundit types- From Romney to Newt, and from Coulter to Frum- can all unite against Paul.

They'll try, but if he wins New Hampshire its probably over for them.

Why? The states following NH would be much tougher for Paul.

Who would have the claim as the anti-Paul with Paul wins in both states? Not Romney after NH, not Gingrich after Iowa, and the rest of the field (if it hadn't dropped out) would be scrambling for the title of War Supporter to win in pro-war states like Virginia and Alabama.

For sure he'd lose Florida, but South Carolina's inland is full of evangelicals that probably wouldn't have much problem supporting Paul over Newt or Romney, while the coastal military-industrial complex people would be split between everyone else.

If he won South Carolina, it would definitely be over. If he lost it, it would probably be over (unless the winner was a strong enough candidate to get the rest of the non-Pauls to fold before the end of Nevada, so not Romney and probably not Gingrich).

[TheGlobalizer]

I hope the establishment, and even the Tea Party pundit types- From Romney to Newt, and from Coulter to Frum- can all unite against Paul.

They'll try, but if he wins New Hampshire its probably over for them.

Why? The states following NH would be much tougher for Paul.

Who would have the claim as the anti-Paul with Paul wins in both states? Not Romney after NH, not Gingrich after Iowa, and the rest of the field (if it hadn't dropped out) would be scrambling for the title of War Supporter to win in pro-war states like Virginia and Alabama.

For sure he'd lose Florida, but South Carolina's inland is full of evangelicals that probably wouldn't have much problem supporting Paul over Newt or Romney, while the coastal military-industrial complex people would be split between everyone else.

If he won South Carolina, it would definitely be over. If he lost it, it would probably be over (unless the winner was a strong enough candidate to get the rest of the non-Pauls to fold before the end of Nevada, so not Romney and probably not Gingrich).

If you see this result in NH, there's a horserace:

Paul
Huntsman
Romney
Gingrich

It'd be fun watching Rush and Hannity squirm in that sh**tty diaper.