Note: Click graphic to enlarge.

Edit: The Insider Advantage Poll just released has a minimal impact on the numbers. Romney 22.3%, Paul 21.9%, Santorum 17.2%, Gingrich 15.1%

A new Public Policy poll has Ron Paul at 20 percent, Mitt Romney at 19 percent, and Rick Santorum at 18 percent.

Santorum continues to make waves in Iowa, perhaps peaking as the latest ABR at what is seen by some conservatives as a critical time.

Here is a portion of PPP’s analysis:

The momentum in the race is completely on Santorum’s side. He’s moved up 8 points since a PPP poll earlier in the week, while no one else has seen more than a one point gain in their support. Among voters who say they decided who to vote for in the last seven days he leads Romney 29-17 with Paul and Gingrich both at 13. Santorum’s net favorability of 60/30 makes him easily the most popular candidate in the field. No one else’s favorability exceeds 52%. He may also have more room to grow in the final 48 hours of the campaign than the other front runners: 14% of voters say he’s their second choice to 11% for Romney and only 8% for Paul.

Other than Santorum’s rise the other big story of this week is Paul’s fall. He was at 24% earlier in the week but has dropped to 20%. That decline in support coincides with a precipitous drop in his favorability numbers. On our last poll he was at +13 (53/40), but that’s gone down 21 points on the margin to -8 (43/51). For all that Paul still has a very decent chance at winning on Tuesday- it just depends on whether his unusual coalition of young voters and non-Republicans really comes out to caucus. Mitt Romney leads with the more traditional caucus demographics of senior citizens and registered Republicans.

Comments

  • https://twitter.com/#!/PD_Scott Scott A. Robinson, Editor

    It looks like we were a bit low on Santorum and Romney after all!

  • https://twitter.com/#!/PD_Scott Scott A. Robinson

    It looks like we were a bit low on Santorum and Romney after all!

  • Brian H

    I am amazed that people are still convinced that a vote for Mitt Romney is some kind of begrudgingly act. The guy is the best campaigner, organizer, smart, clean, and competent of the bunch, and, holds all the positions for which self described conservatives avowal. He has executive experience, can articulate responses on every issue and yet, we ask for more? WOW!
    .
    We should ALL feel blessed Mitt Romney has chosen to run again in 2012. Just look at our options if Mitt was not there to pick up the pieces from the fumbling scrubs who chose to run in 2012. What a complete mess we would be in. The guy is heads and tails a superior candidate than any of the wannabes that are now on the track, and yet, we hold our noses in the air at thought of having to cast a vote for for such a man who is beneath our conservative principles and worthy of our “conservative” contempt….Pleeeaasse.
    .
    When I get on my knees tonight to thank the good Lord for my blessings, I will be sure to throw out a bone of thanks for Mitt Romney’s candidacy. For if not for Mitt, we most assuredly would be facing a complete landslide defeat in ten months and four more years of this Obamanation. Just the look on my liberal friend’s faces now that they realize Mitt will likely be up against Obama is worth a vote for Mitt, alone. They know and can see he is the superior candidate, but we cannot. They realize that Obama is looking at an electoral uphill climb with Mitt, yet, we cannot.
    .
    People act like politics should be the last 5 minutes of “Pretty Woman” when Richard Gere showed up in his limo and climbed the ladder to rescue his downtrodden girlfriend from the pits of hell. Silly. Elections are about choices and choosing a good candidate should be based on reason, logic, viability, and principle. But, to thank that we should hold our candidates to some kind of fantasy standard for which we have created is laughable.
    .
    There is only one “perfect” candidate in this race who can do no wrong by his supporters and we all know who that is.

    • Alaina

      As side from his moderate record, Romney said he considers himself a progressive just a few years ago. You expect me to jump up and down in excitement for that?
      .
      I’m not looking for a perfect candidate. I am looking for someone who is generally in line with my beliefs, but isn’t an extreme on the issues where we differ. There is no one in this race that comes close to that, but I can list a dozen who are not that do. However, it is what it is and I’m now left with Romney and the only reason I would vote for him is because he’s the only one that I think can beat Obama… And I’m not 100% convinced at that.

      • Brian H

        Point taken. Quick thought. Where is Mitt Romney not generally in line with your beliefs and where are the differences extreme?
        Just curious.
        .
        For me, Mitt fits the very logical and and worthy standard for which you have set.

        • Alaina

          The extreme comment was a pre-emotive comment for the Paul folks.
          .
          Romney has taken the Conservative list of stances and has checked off each one in his speeches over the last 5 years. However, I don’t believe him. You can’t call yourself a progressive because you’re the Governor of a liberal state and then call yourself a Conservative a couple years later when you’re running for the Republican Presidential Nomination. It doesn’t give me much faith that he won’t immediately to the middle once he secures the nomination.
          .
          It’s solely a trust issue with him. If I could convince myself that he means what he says, I’d have no issue supporting him in the primaries… Unfortunately, that’s just not the case.

          • Promise Kept

            “Extreme” is what you make of it, Alaina. You are free to make your threshold of, “extreme”, wherever you wish; but can you persuade enough folks to follow you, based on your own uncertainties?

            “It’s solely a trust issue with (Romney). If I could convince myself that he means what he says, I’d have no issue supporting him…”. EXACTLY, eh?

            • Brian H

              The problem with Paul is that I wish he didn’t mean the crazy things he says. I wish I believed he was playing to the crowd. Unfortunately, thats just not the case.

            • Alaina Segovia

              75 – 80% of the populations believes that Paul is extreme… just look at the polls.
              .
              His foreign policy views are dangerous. It’s just that simple.

    • Alaina

      Gross

    • je

      Here you go brian. The analogy has its flaws…but there is something to consider before you start measuring the white house curtains for your boy. I assume you werent a kerry supporter…but i could be wrong. :)
      http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/1/curl-is-romney-the-next-kerry/?page=1

      • Brian H

        That is just absurd, but fun reading nevertheless. Did it mention that they both have two arms and legs as well?
        .
        I have said, as recently as the last few days, that I still consider the incumbent president to be the morning line favorite. I don’t ever recall declaring Mitt the winner. I do believe he is the strongest candidate, however. As was Kerry in 2004. Would the Dems have done better with Howard dean?
        .
        Did you ever read the one about the similarities of JFK and Lincoln? That was a food one also.

  • Alaina

    I give up… I guess I’m begrudgingly supporting Romney… What a depressing New Year this has started out to be… :-(

    • Rusty Shackleford

      Preach it sister…….

    • Promise Kept

      It must be especially tough for you, Alaina, having tested as highly for Paul as you did in the recent Q&A profile test, posted here a couple weeks ago.

      I’m still saying this will quickly become a two man race between the man that you now say you are begrudgingly supporting, and the one your conscience knows is right.

      • Alaina

        I would absolutely vote for Paul if it weren’t for 2 things…
        1. His foreign policy views
        2. I thought he had a shot of beating Obama

        • Rob

          Can you explain why you think the majority of Americans would vote for pro-war candidates when 65%+ of Americans want us out of Iraq and Afghanistan? Pretty much every single poll shows Paul leading with independents. Why are pro-war candidates going to beat Obama when Americans are even more sick of that type of rhetoric then they were when McCain as the candidate in 2008?

          • Red State Eddie

            Better question: why would a pro-peace candidate who’s been against all war like Obama suddenly become “pro-war” (in your terminology) after getting into office?
            .
            Maybe it’s because he realized the way of the world is not water-colored ponies like he hoped when he was a candidate.

            • Rob

              It’s pretty obvious why that happened, considering the people who he surrounded himself with. Much like Bush was ‘guided’ in a completely different direction once he was elected.

              • Brian H

                Pretty obvious, indeed, Rob. We can always count on you to point the obvious to us knuckle-dragg’n neocons..

              • Rob

                Yep, and I can always count on emotional responses without a bit of logic from each of you.

              • Brian H

                Red and I have determined that you have brought enough logic to satisfy the PD community, so, we brought our emotional responses as side dishes. Think of it as an ideological potluck dinner.
                .
                By the way, THANKS for the kool-aid, it tastes fabulous.

              • Rob

                I’m sure it does, since you’re still parroting the same failed policies you always have. Those of us with the ability to think don’t need kool aid.

              • Red State Eddie

                Hey Brian, remember that guy named “(something) Boras Judah” or something like that? Remember his tin foil hat theories?
                .
                Rob sounds a lot like him, don’t you think?

              • Brian H

                Yes he does, Red, but not a conspiracy does that make.
                You see, they ALL sound the same. The Paulective have been reeducated in the world of the internet. You can go to any political website or youtube video and find endless drones who all sound like Rob, or Boru, etc. etc. etc.
                .
                At least with Promise Kept I know he/she is an original as I can’t understand half of what is attempting to be said. Perhaps Promise is Borg Queen, since clearly they are the smartest of the lot.

              • Red State Eddie

                No, PK is passionate but rational. And I like Troy because he’s an O’s & Ravens fan.
                .
                I also have other friends not on PD who are excited about RP, but not burning incense on their home shrine in obeisance to him.
                .
                And then there’s Rob…

              • Promise Kept

                “Passionate but rational”, eh? I hope that is what we might all be aspiring to be; because passion, without ration, is just trashing, right?

                BTW, We share the same first surname;, contrary to Brian’s forgetful speculations. I cleared the gender question up years ago, but sometimes folks mistake clear articulation as a feminine trait.

                Mark Twain would beg to differ.

              • Brian H

                Brian is just not very smart and rarely remembers such details. No intent on my p[art to question your masculinity or femininity.
                .
                ps….I am still not 100% sure about, Rob.

              • Red State Eddie

                I like that rhyme, PK. Yes, no offense intended on my part either. Maybe I should have said passionate AND eloquent. :-)

  • Whodat

    The trend seems to be consistent across several polls. However, as always, I put the PPP in the same league as the NPR, CBS, NBC as being past biased into hidden agenda.
    .
    I believe the trends also validate that Romneycare and and Kookieman have ceilings in the mid-20%s and, while they might shift around in that range, they neither go higher – leaving room for an alternative (this week it is Santorum) to score some points.

    • Rob

      PPP has 300 pages of crosstabs for the poll… they’re very reputable and very open with their methods…

      • QPC

        They also openly work for the Democrats.

    • JE

      Come on whodat, dont give up hope! Perhaps chris christie was just pretending to campaign for romney and he is actually going to win the nomination by double secret probation ballot.
      Santorum is peaking at the right time in iowa but a little light on his voting record will keep fiscal conservatives from supporting him. Being prolife does not make you a conservative.

      • Gary Russell

        Rick Santorum may not be the MOST fiscally conservative candidate to ever run for president, but you can’t pretend that he is not conservative.
        .
        Must we devour EVERY candidate who is not 100% pure (or who isn’t named Paul)?
        .
        Check out the link below…Santorum’s record was definitely conservative – especially for a guy who was walking a tightrope in a purple state.
        .
        http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=2369391

        • Rob

          Most corrupt member of the senate in 2006
          .
          Lobbyists best friend
          .
          Campaigned for terrible politicians like Arlen Specter
          .
          Questionable charitys and PACs (charity spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in unexplained travel fees, etc and never released records, PAC has $5+ million on hand but only disbursed $1 mil or so)
          .
          big government in just about every way (socially and militarily)
          .
          yeah…

          • Gary Russell

            “Most corrupt member of the senate in 2006″
            .
            Yes, Rob, I see where the Huffington Post did have him towards the top of their list in 2006.
            Nice to know where you get your news :)
            .
            I would think that you, a “real” conservative, would at least maybe rank Bob Menendez as being at least slightly more corrupt in 2006???
            http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/219097/culture-corruption/stephen-spruiell
            .
            Or maybe Chris Dodd?
            Or perhaps Dirty Harry Reid?
            .
            “Most corrupt member of the senate in 2006″?????
            If you’re gonna use hyperbole in your posts, Rob, at least keep it within some margin of believability.

            • Rob

              Uh what? He was named most corrupt by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
              .
              http://www.citizensforethics.org/index.php/press/entry/crew-releases-second-annual-most-corrupt-members-of-congress-report/
              .
              Once again you make a fool out of yourself. You don’t have to agree with their politics, read the report yourself.

              • Rob

                You don’t have to agree with their politics, read the report yourself.

            • Rob

              BTW, glad to see you didn’t attempt to deny any of the other points (all of which also show what a corrupt hypocrite he is)

              • Gary Russell

                Thought I’d start with your #1 complaint, and work my way down if necessary.
                .
                Doesn’t seem to be necessary…

              • Rob

                Yep, as usual you are unable to dispute anything.

              • Red State Eddie

                Seriously, Rob. Using a liberal activist site probably funded by George Soros personally as a way to make your point? Why not just appeal to the devil himself as your source of authority.
                .
                There are 21 R’s and 4 D’s (and surprise, surprise, no word about Nancy Pelosi or Charlie Wrangel). Can you at least attempt to provide ‘objective’ information, or are you so desperate for your messiah that you’ll sacrifice even any perceptions of credibility to get your buddy elected?
                .
                I read the entire section on Santorum. If any if it was correct and corroborated, the gov’t would have had no reason to withhold prosecutions against the man. This was 5 years ago. Remember, your darling Nancy was in charge for the next 4 years, and was commited to “drain the swamp”. So why was nothing done against Santorum? The simple truth, one that conspiracy idiots like yourself cannot handle, is that there was nothing to prosecute. This website insinuates merely for prurient interest and sensationalist effect, so idiots (yes, I am using the plain definition of that word) like yourself can get all lathered up and incite a mob before all the facts are recorded and settled.
                .
                Santorum is not the most corrupt member of the Senate. You are wrong, and your desperation for your messiah is both telling and disturbing.
                .
                Seriously, Rob. Your shrill is reaching epic decibels.

              • Rob

                Speaking of shrill….
                .
                LOL
                .
                So rather than refute anything in there you’ll just attack me personally.
                .
                You anti-Paul people get more desperate and pathetic every day. Logic and truth must be breaking down your feeble minds.

              • Red State Eddie

                Rob, I just refuted you. Read above again slowly so it will comprehend this time.
                .
                Refute, refute, refute.
                .
                Use a dictionary before spelling big words like that.
                .
                Notice how you have no counter to my statement about Santorum other than trite garbage. You should be thankful you’re not being sued for slander, the way you sling half-truths and utter nonsense about candidates around here.
                .
                Rational people – 1, Rob – 0.
                .
                How sad. And I thought Paulites were people who went to college. Sigh…

              • Rob

                RSE, explain to me how I refute somebody who just arbitrarily decides that an entire document is false? It’s like if I gave you a copy of the Constitution, said it was the Constitution and you told me, nope, it’s just some random document written by liberals who hate freedom.
                .
                Try disputing any of my other points in my original post. Please.

              • Red State Eddie

                Rob – How about the entire corpus of US judicial record for the last 5 years?
                .
                Please show me where Rick Santorum was convicted of any of the allegations made by a scarcely “legitimate” website? Even when the Dem’s controlled the “ethics” committee?
                .
                Example 1: when Charlie Wrangel was guilty of his crimes, all Nancy Pelosi gave was a minimal slap on the wrist of censure. Surely, if Santorum was GUILTY of those allegations, he too would have received AT LEAST a slap on the wrist, if not worse.
                .
                Rob, until you can provide objective (by the US governmental law enforcement kind) that Santorum was duly convicted and sentenced to ANY of those allegations made on that website, then he is INNOCENT.
                .
                I won.

              • Brian H

                Rob said “Logic and truth must be breaking down feeble minds.”
                .
                I can think of one clear example. No doubt.

              • Gary Russell

                You can’t be as poor a debater as this, Rob.
                Seriously…up your game, man.
                I blew your first point away, and you respond with “Yep, as usual you are unable to dispute anything.”
                Sad …
                .
                UPDATE: I see that you’ve added a feeble attempt at justifying your “Santorum was the most corrupt senator…” fail.
                And, I see that Brian H has already taken a swing at your hanging curve ball and knocked it out of the park. Thanks, Brian!
                .
                Got anything else, Rob?

        • Alaina

          88% from the ACU isn’t very good…

          • Gary Russell

            I agree, but do you think that Romney’s (had he been a senator, rather than a governor) would have been lower or higher than that?
            .
            I’m thinking that Romney’s rating would have been FAR lower – which is why I would support Santorum over Romney.
            .
            But, as always…ABO!

            • Alaina

              No… I don’t think Romney would be anymore Conservative. However, I couldn’t care less about social issues, particularly this year and that’s what makes Santorum so Conservative.
              .
              Santorum really turned me off a couple years ago at CPAC. I was really excited to hear him speak because I really liked him up until that point. he did his “speech” a little different from most. Instead of speaking for the entire time, he spoke for 10 minutes then opened up mics to the audience for questions. Someone about halfway through asked him a question he didn’t like (for the life of me, I can’t remember what it was, but I do remember thinking that it was a reasonable question) and he went off on the guy. I thought it was completely uncalled for and inappropriate on his part. I haven’t liked him since. Plus, the guy lost his re-election in a landslide to a guy with a uni-brow. Call me crazy, but I thought Cain had a shot of beating Obama and I thought Newt did too… That’s why I supported them. I don’t think Santorum has a shot, which is another reason why I can’t support him.

        • Promise Kept

          I think Jack Hunter’s commentary on Santorum’s brand of “compassionate conservatism”, sums his record up best.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iev7TKsXoHo

        • JE

          Gary, I think the ron paul nuts are starting to rub off on everyone on here. A person states a fact and ‘conservatives’ go balistic.
          Santorum supported no child left behind, the medicare drug benefit and the bridge to nowhere. Yes, they all have flaws, but don’t jump everyone else for how bad their candidates are and try that excuse to defend candidates you like.
          There are no good choices. Accept the future! Hope and change part deux.

          • Gary Russell

            I understand your point, JE, though I think you may be mistaking me for someone else… I’m not typically on here attacking other candidates – I’m usually defending them.
            .
            Granted, I’ve taken turns at defending pretty much every “flavor of the week”, but it is usually when they are being attacked by the Paul people.
            .
            But, my philosophy is generally what I stated earlier in this post: “Must we devour EVERY candidate who is not 100% pure (or who isn’t named Paul)?”
            .
            Even with that, I’m not usually attacking Paul.
            I have admitted that I would LOVE to have him as president…except for foreign policy decisions and things like legalizing drugs. But, those are deal-breakers.
            .
            Ballistic? Nah! Not even approaching ballisitic. I do get a kick out of folks like Rob who probably think that they work non-Paul folks up into a foaming lather. In reality, I’m a very laid-back guy. Getting to old to get ballistic!

            • Rob

              It’s quite obvious that you, Brian and RSE are losing it over Paul’s success. You can try and play it off any way you like.

              • je

                Seriously, rob, i like RP and i will probably vote for him. But you have to understand that he will not get the repub nom because he is not a republican. He is a libertarian, possibly an anarcho-capitalist, and 60 years ago he would have been a republican. He is not one today (and that is not a bad thing).
                He may win iowa (which is looking less likely) and possibly top 2 in new hampshire. After that i think he falls off but stays in and may have some say in the convention. If you keep acting like he has a shot, your post dream hangover will be painful.
                Personally i would like to see secretary of the treasury ron paul. Bernanke would not sleep for weeks. (Plus at his age if he gets dementia or dies it is not a constitutional crisis)

              • Gary Russell

                Ron Paul as Sec/Treasury?
                I would absolutely support that!
                .
                Wish we could elect cabinets!
                He’d go great with my wish for John Bolton for Sec/State.

              • Rob

                je: You can believe what you want. A month ago, everyone was telling me that Gingrich had the nomination locked up, and Perry before that, and a bunch of people were saying Cain could beat Obama, etc etc. Nothing on here is fact because you will it so. I will believe what I like and feel that time will show me to be correct, you will believe what you like and if you are correct I will gladly concede that to you and the others. I feel Paul will win the Iowa caucuses, come in a close second in NH and dominate the majority of caucus states leading to a large rise in the primary states following. That doesn’t change the fact that Brian, RSE, dodgers and a few others are getting frothy on here SPECIFICALLY because Paul IS rising and they said it could never happen just a few short months ago.

              • Brian H

                Rob. I’ll be honest with you. The fact that you believe Paul has any path to the nomination does not spark fear in me, it sparks laughter and sympathy for you. Perhaps I am simply too dumb to fear the stiff competition a Ron Paul candidacy should invoke. But, for you to EVER suggest for a second that my contempt, laughter, cynicism, and entertainment of the Paulective is somehow based on an actual belief that he has any chance of winning the nomination is crazy and in no way can be validated by anything I have stated over the years of my numerous rants on the subject.
                .
                I don’t discount Paul because I fear him, I discount him because I discount him. If you question, challenge, and take offense to my analysis, so be it, make your best case and continue to try to prove my analysis wrong. But, don’t question the motives for my beliefs. I don’t question yours. I understand the that you actually believe what you say. It entertains me endlessly, but , I know it is sincere.

              • Red State Eddie

                I’m not losing it over Paul’s success.
                .
                Your insanity, maybe.
                .
                Your slander of Rick Santorum, yeah.
                .
                But Paul’s success? No.

              • Rob

                The truth about Rick Santorum – you can’t take it or dispute it. (Another lie tonight, saying Paul wants all guns made illegal in the country, despite being one of the most pro-gun politicians in the country).
                .
                The truth about Michele Bachmann being delusional and blatantly parroting the same lies over and over again.
                .
                Yeah, you’re mad. You can’t take seeing your outdated world view smashed before your eyes.

              • Red State Eddie

                Still haven’t adequately addressed my rebuttal in a satisfactory manner in the earlier comment stream. But you keep dreaming your delusions, Rob.

              • Rob

                What is their to address? You gave zero factual items in your response, and dismissed the entire document because you didn’t like it. Do you actually think the majority of corrupt politicians in Congress are discovered and investigated for what they do? LOL.
                .
                Still waiting on you to address the other items in my original reply.

              • Red State Eddie

                OK – here’s your trifle…

                1. You offer allegations – No actions – From a libelous and defematory website. What’s there for me to respond to but say no? There has been no crime committed because there’s no active or completed investigation ever undertaken. Why you can’t accept that as a legitimate refutation of your allegation tells me you flunked debate (or just skipped it altogether while playing video games in your parent’s basement last week).
                2. “lobbyists best friend” – personal opinion, nothing more.
                3. “questionable charities” et al – same garbage from that website. nothing new to add.
                4. “big gov’t in every way” – again, personal opinion, nothing more.
                Done in less than 5 minutes.
                .
                Incidentally, Santorum is probably not the most economically conservative candidate. I’d put him more in the center than the right economically. Now if you want to say you don’t agree with that, and think he’s not the best candidate in light of that, then by all means do so.
                .
                Just don’t slander the man’s character without any corroborrating (that is the big word for you to learn to practice more often in the future) evidence besides scandalous websites intent on libeling people. Any yes, I do think that the majority of politicians are investigated for real crimes comitted, especially when they become the center of attention on issues.
                .
                BTW, If everything other than Ron Paul’s position is a big gov’t clone, well, then most of the Republican party is a big government clone.
                .
                If that is your opinion, then you have definitely fallen off into the deep end of the pool.

              • Brian H

                Santorum is a good man and a good conservative. He has conducted himself well in the debates and is a solid candidate. His downfall is simply his lack of $$$ and organization to run a 50 state campaign. But, in no way should Santorum be attacked with such absurd generalities.