Barely a week into his 2012 presidential campaign, Rick Perry has already assumed the mantle of the de facto Republican front-runner, emerging in the latest Gallup national poll with a huge, 12-point margin of support over Mitt Romney.
The poll, conducted Aug. 17-21, found that 29% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents now support the Texas governor, compared with 17% for Mr. Romney, 13% for Texas Rep. Ron Paul and 10% for Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann.
“Perry’s official entry has shaken up the Republican race, making him the new leader for the party’s nomination,” the Gallup poll concludes.
The survey found a dramatic surge in enthusiasm for Mr. Perry in the days immediately after the Aug. 13 kickoff of his campaign. Other recent national polls have shown similar support for Mr. Perry and a similar abrupt ebb in support for Mr. Romney, the former Massachusetts governor and presumptive front-runner pretty much since the 2012 race began. In the Gallup poll, Mr. Romney’s support shrank to 17%, from 23% in July and 27% in June…
Mr. Perry’s numbers were even stronger among key GOP voting blocs. He garnered 30% support among men, and 40% support among those over 65 years old. His support in the south hit 39%.
The poll delivered still more bad news for Mr. Romney, showing that an entry by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin into the race, as looks increasingly likely, would further weaken his position. With Ms. Palin in the race, a quarter of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents said they would still support Mr. Perry, while Mr. Romney’s support would dip to 14%. Ms. Palin would come in tied with Mr. Paul at 11%.
The survey showed a significant jump in support for Mr. Paul, and a commensurate sag in support for Mrs. Bachmann, who barely beat Mr. Paul in the pivotal Ames Straw Poll in Iowa earlier this month. The Gallup poll is yet another indicator that Mrs. Bachmann’s support both nationally and in Iowa may have peaked earlier this summer, while Mr. Paul is fast emerging as the third-place contender.
Still, the race is only getting started. In early September 2007, a Gallup poll put New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani in the lead, and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson in second place. Sen. John McCain, who won the nomination, came in third, with 15%.
(Source: WSJ)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
7 Responses
My vote is with PA Senator Santorum, and with him it shall remain.
If he drops out, then I’ll vote Perry.
#1 It’s not “if” it’s “when” he drops out. Santorum might be a great president but he has no traction in the polls.
deiyezooger:
Polls, schmolls, my eyes are doing rolls 😛
Santorum was not expected to place 4th with 9% in the Iowa Straw Poll. Just sayin’.
I remember when someone who started talking about running for President in December was considered to be “jumping the gun”. So much will happen between now and the election that this “dance” is only interest to wonks, not normal people.
or in other words, who cares who is leading the polls over a year before the election
#4, I guess it’s we “abnormal wonks” who care. (Though I’ve always preferred “political junkie,” myself.)
All these political dwarfs would disappear if a real candidate were to appear. For that to happen, the Republican party must find its lost liberal wing (ie Rockefeller, Scranton etc.).
Remember when Barry Goldwater was too conservative?
#6- you overestimate the “left-wing” ness of the former liberal wing of the Republicans (Rockefeller, Eisenhower, Javits, Theodore Roosevelt, Fiorella LaGuardia)– they would have been horrified at the Democrats fiscal policies (massive expansion of the Federal budget paid for by printing money).
They had no problem with “tax and spend” if it was for something worthwhile that the people supported, but would have joined the “Tea party” over “print and spend” for projects that are usually no more than patronage handouts to campaign contributors (e.g. the bailouts of Goldman Sachs, the UAW, etc.). And while the Republicans were always the party of civil rights (the Democrats didn’t become interested in civil rights until the 1960s), being a Republican, at least since 1865, usually meant favoring evolution rather than revolution, and certainly not using the judiciary to enact “gay marriage” over popular objection (expressed in referenda and in legislative elections).