By request, we have a somewhat unusual poll: We Ask America asked Iowa Republicans which candidate they don’t want as the Republican Presidential nominee in 2012.
As is usual this time of year, the poll is skewed by the inclusion of non-candidates. This time, overwhelmingly so.
The usual facts: It’s a poll of 649 Republican “Iowa Voters” (which I’m guessing is something in between RV and LV, but it might be just RVs) for the Primary questions, and 2342 Iowa Voters for Presidential approval questions. MoE 3.85 for Republicans and 2.02 overall. Automated poll, so no mobiles were likely included in the sample.
Sometimes the inclusion of non-candidates skews a poll. For the question of what candidate Iowa Republicans don’t want, one non-candidate is defining the poll. Sarah Palin wins a full 25% of the question, well ahead of Newt Gingrich’s 16%, and Jon Huntsman’s 14%. Michele Bachmann tied for fourth at 12%, Mitt Romney finished sixth at 7%, and Rick Perry tied for eighth at 3%.
We Ask America then went for the candidates Iowa Republicans prefer. Interestingly, the top three finished in a different order from their do-not-want finishes. Rick Perry did win convincingly at 29%, but Michele Bachmann jumped to second at 17%, with Mitt Romney third at 15%. Sarah Palin finishes at 7%, behind Ron Paul and Other.
This poll suggests to me that opposition research dumps against Rick Perry have yet to leave a mark on him. It will be interesting to see if he can maintain such a solid lead (I show a 94% chance Perry leads Bachmann if this poll is sound) as both Republicans and Democrats continue to target him.
This poll also suggests Sarah Palin’s paths to victory are limited, should she choose to enter the race. I can’t see her winning Iowa when she loses a quarter of the state party right off the top. If she wanted an early win, she’d have to look elsewhere.
In other results, the poll shows a possible pickup opportunity for Republicans in 2012, as only 39% of Iowa voters favor the President’s re-election, versus 54% who oppose a second term for Barack Obama.
House of Representatives Swingometer
Electoral College Swingometer
I obtained this poll through a link on RedState where minions of Perry supporters abound. This poll was used to suggest Palin should not get in the race because she “finishes at 7%, behind Ron Paul and Other.” Whoever wrote this article is a rather disingenious scammer. In the paragraph where you mention which of the candidates Iowa Republicans don’t want, Ron Paul’s name isn’t even mentioned. That suggests to me that they want him (Question: Since Ron Paul finished the Iowa straw poll barely second to Bachmann, then who did Rick Perry tie with at 3% in this poll?). Next, the poll asks Iowa Republican voters which candidate they do want. Ron Paul’s name is only mentioned to say Palin came in behind him with 7%. So what where is numbers??? Perry supporters would like to advance the idea that because of this wording, Ron Paul must have received less than Romney but more than Palin. Add up all the numbers between the people given numbers, and you still have 32% to go. That’s quite a bit. I’d personally like to know where those percentages came down. We might find out that this poll, or atleast the author of this article, Neil Stevens, is a liar when stating the top three tier. And RedState likes talking about liberal media bias. You people all suck.
Make sure to tell your friends all about how bad I am. I could use the traffic.
I would have preferred you answer my question and let us all know who Perry tied with at 3% in your first question. I appreciate you running a site out of your own pocket, Neil, but allow for some constructive criticism, please. Sorry about being a bit rude yesterday, but media bias pisses me off, and it’s time average citizens out here let pollsters like you know that we can read between the lines. Unfortunately, there are still many registered voters who cannot. If you cannot reread your own post, you should be able to see how people will view Ron Paul as coming in behind Romney, then I don’t know what to say. And despite your reply, I still don’t know where he came in at. Please do tell. Your new story heading on your front page this morning still doesn’t even mention his name. Just because the “mainstream” thinks he’s unelectable, doesn’t mean his numbers should be excluded from poll results or his campaign sabatoged by the media and/or the Republican establishment.