Daily Gallup GOP Tracking Poll Thread

[J. J.]

That needed planning and money, and it needed a local organization to work.

Then I guess Santorum was super organized when he came back from being 20 points down in Iowa and beat Mittens.
Or when Newt did the same thing in South Carolina.

Well, considering that Santorum had been actively campaigning in Iowa for months and Romney hadn't, no.  Santorum was never 20 points behind Romney in Iowa, BTW.

As for Newt, he just needed geography and CNN, though he played the second very well.  And let's not forget the endorsement from Perry.

[Mr. Morden]

That needed planning and money, and it needed a local organization to work.

Then I guess Santorum was super organized when he came back from being 20 points down in Iowa and beat Mittens.
Or when Newt did the same thing in South Carolina.

Well, considering that Santorum had been actively campaigning in Iowa for months and Romney hadn't, no.  Santorum was never 20 points behind Romney in Iowa, BTW.

http://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/PRESIDENT/2012R/polls.php?fips=19

Quite a few polls from October and earlier in which Romney is 20 points ahead of Santorum.

And while Romney didn't campaign as much in Iowa as Santorum did, he did campaign there quite a bit in the month before the caucus, and massively outspent Santorum on TV ads, GOTV, etc.

[J. J.]

That needed planning and money, and it needed a local organization to work.

Then I guess Santorum was super organized when he came back from being 20 points down in Iowa and beat Mittens.
Or when Newt did the same thing in South Carolina.

Well, considering that Santorum had been actively campaigning in Iowa for months and Romney hadn't, no.  Santorum was never 20 points behind Romney in Iowa, BTW.

http://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/PRESIDENT/2012R/polls.php?fips=19

Quite a few polls from October and earlier in which Romney is 20 points ahead of Santorum.

And while Romney didn't campaign as much in Iowa as Santorum did, he did campaign there quite a bit in the month before the caucus, and massively outspent Santorum on TV ads, GOTV, etc.

None with a 20 point lead; much of the time, Romney was below 20 points.  And, in a caucus, it is the organization on the ground.

[Mr. Morden]

That needed planning and money, and it needed a local organization to work.

Then I guess Santorum was super organized when he came back from being 20 points down in Iowa and beat Mittens.
Or when Newt did the same thing in South Carolina.

Well, considering that Santorum had been actively campaigning in Iowa for months and Romney hadn't, no.  Santorum was never 20 points behind Romney in Iowa, BTW.

http://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/PRESIDENT/2012R/polls.php?fips=19

Quite a few polls from October and earlier in which Romney is 20 points ahead of Santorum.

And while Romney didn't campaign as much in Iowa as Santorum did, he did campaign there quite a bit in the month before the caucus, and massively outspent Santorum on TV ads, GOTV, etc.

None with a 20 point lead; much of the time, Romney was below 20 points.  And, in a caucus, it is the organization on the ground.

CNN/Time poll: Oct. 25: Romney 24%, Santorum 2%
University of Iowa poll: Oct. 19: Romney 27% Santorum 3%
Marist College poll: Oct. 5: Romney 26% Santorum 3%

I could go on.  There are plenty to choose from.

[Landslide Lyndon]

That needed planning and money, and it needed a local organization to work.

Then I guess Santorum was super organized when he came back from being 20 points down in Iowa and beat Mittens.
Or when Newt did the same thing in South Carolina.

Well, considering that Santorum had been actively campaigning in Iowa for months and Romney hadn't, no.  Santorum was never 20 points behind Romney in Iowa, BTW.

http://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/PRESIDENT/2012R/polls.php?fips=19

Quite a few polls from October and earlier in which Romney is 20 points ahead of Santorum.

And while Romney didn't campaign as much in Iowa as Santorum did, he did campaign there quite a bit in the month before the caucus, and massively outspent Santorum on TV ads, GOTV, etc.

None with a 20 point lead; much of the time, Romney was below 20 points.  And, in a caucus, it is the organization on the ground.

Dude, haven't you heard about quitting while your ass isn't whipped so bad that you can't sh*t? Seriously, you are now making as much sense as Sarah Palin during the Couric interviews.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

Five of those polls had Romney over +20 on Santorum.  Good lord, J. J.

[I left.]

lol

[J. J.]

Five of those polls had Romney over +20 on Santorum.  Good lord, J. J.

Alcon, that was the question.  How many show a 20 point lead for Romney over Santorum?

[I left.]

Five of those polls had Romney over +20 on Santorum.  Good lord, J. J.

Alcon, that was the question.  How many show a 20 point lead for Romney over Santorum?

You have some reading comprehension problems...

[J. J.]

Five of those polls had Romney over +20 on Santorum.  Good lord, J. J.

Alcon, that was the question.  How many show a 20 point lead for Romney over Santorum?

You have some reading comprehension problems...

That needed planning and money, and it needed a local organization to work.

Then I guess Santorum was super organized when he came back from being 20 points down in Iowa and beat Mittens.
Or when Newt did the same thing in South Carolina.

None.  Unless someone is suggesting Santorum was in negative numbers (and I'd like to see that), you can't get a 20 point lead for most of those polls.  Those polls where Romney was above 20 points, Santorum was also polling above zero. 

You want make the point that Santorum was 20 (actually 25) behind the leader, yes he was, but not Romney.  Romney was 15 points behind the leader as well (a different leader).

[Hashemite]

MENSA admission standards are very low, it seems. I guess even Palin could get in.

[J. J.]

MENSA admission standards are very low, it seems. I guess even Palin could get in.

Definitely above the standards here.

[Landslide Lyndon]

MENSA admission standards are very low, it seems. I guess even Palin could get in.

Definitely above the standards here.

Don'try to flatter yourself.

[J. J.]

MENSA admission standards are very low, it seems. I guess even Palin could get in.

Definitely above the standards here.

Don'try to flatter yourself.

Since you seem to think that there can be negative numbers on a poll, I'm not.  It isn't like debt; you can't have a negative number.

[I left.]

CNN/Time poll: Oct. 25: Romney 24%, Santorum 2%
University of Iowa poll: Oct. 19: Romney 27% Santorum 3%
Marist College poll: Oct. 5: Romney 26% Santorum 3%

Alright, JJ....I'll explain it like I would in third grade so that even you will understand:

Let's take the first poll listed from CNN/Time. Romney is polling at 24%. Santorum is polling at 2%. The difference between 24 and 2 is GREATER than 20. Therefore, Santorum is MORE than 20 points behind Romney.

Repeat the same operation with the other polls, calculating the difference between Romney and Santorum, and you will find that in each of these examples, Santorum is trailing Romney by more than 20%.

Get it?

[Mr. Morden]

You want make the point that Santorum was 20 (actually 25) behind the leader, yes he was, but not Romney.  Romney was 15 points behind the leader as well (a different leader).

What are you talking about?  In the CNN/Time poll from Oct. 25, for example, Romney is leading the poll, at 24%, ahead of all other candidates.  Santorum is at 2%.  Therefore Santorum is more than 20 points behind Romney, who is leading the poll.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

7/7/2011, Mason-Dixon: Romney 29%, Santorum 6% (-23%)
8/4/2011, Rasmussen: Romney 21%, Santorum 0% (-21%)
10/5/2011, Marist: Romney 26%, Santorum 3% (-23%)
10/19/2011, University of Iowa: Romney 27%, Santorum 3% (-24%)
10/25/2011, CNN/Time: Romney 24%, Santorum 2% (-22%)

Romney also led two of these polls.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

Repeat the same operation with the other polls, calculating the difference between Romney and Santorum, and you will find that in each of these examples, Santorum is trailing Romney by more than 20%.

Mind. Blown.

[Keystone Phil]

Back to the numbers. Newt still sinking...

Romney - 37% (nc)
Santorum - 23% (nc)
Gingrich - 12% (-2)
Paul - 11% (nc)


Newt. Leave. Now.

[Lief]

Romney > Santorum + Gingrich

[Keystone Phil]

Romney > Santorum + Gingrich

I imagine that won't be the case after tomorrow's release. Then imagine the numbers after Saturday (Kansas)...

[J. J.]

CNN/Time poll: Oct. 25: Romney 24%, Santorum 2%
University of Iowa poll: Oct. 19: Romney 27% Santorum 3%
Marist College poll: Oct. 5: Romney 26% Santorum 3%

Alright, JJ....I'll explain it like I would in third grade so that even you will understand:

Let's take the first poll listed from CNN/Time. Romney is polling at 24%. Santorum is polling at 2%. The difference between 24 and 2 is GREATER than 20. Therefore, Santorum is MORE than 20 points behind Romney.

Repeat the same operation with the other polls, calculating the difference between Romney and Santorum, and you will find that in each of these examples, Santorum is trailing Romney by more than 20%.

Get it?

Okay, and was Romney leading at either of these points.

Also Alcon, I'm not sure that on some of those early ones, Santorum was campaigning or that Santorum was actually included.  It didn't show up, even as a zero, on some of the charts.

[I left.]

7/7/2011, Mason-Dixon: Romney 29%, Santorum 6% (-23%)
8/4/2011, Rasmussen: Romney 21%, Santorum 0% (-21%)
10/5/2011, Marist: Romney 26%, Santorum 3% (-23%)
10/19/2011, University of Iowa: Romney 27%, Santorum 3% (-24%)
10/25/2011, CNN/Time: Romney 24%, Santorum 2% (-22%)

Romney also led two of these polls.

So much for the reading comprehension...J.J. ....

[J. J.]

7/7/2011, Mason-Dixon: Romney 29%, Santorum 6% (-23%)
8/4/2011, Rasmussen: Romney 21%, Santorum 0% (-21%)
10/5/2011, Marist: Romney 26%, Santorum 3% (-23%)
10/19/2011, University of Iowa: Romney 27%, Santorum 3% (-24%)
10/25/2011, CNN/Time: Romney 24%, Santorum 2% (-22%)

Romney also led two of these polls.

So much for the reading comprehension...J.J. ....

Okay, and another candidate (Bachman) was rising, so Santorum wasn't gaining on Romney.  Santorum increased in the polls, but Romney did not decline at the points Santorum did.  It wasn't Romney, which was my point.

Further, as noted in my original response, Romney didn't actively campaign in Iowa until the end.

[I left.]

I give up. This is comparable to arguing over whether the Pope is Catholic.