Results from a new Nielson Brothers poll show a whole bunch of contrarians among South Dakota voters. In a survey conducted December 6 through December 9, NBP finds that, among registered Republicans, the Gingrich surge has already given way to the Paul push. Here are the percentages of Republicans backing each GOP presidential candidate:
- Ron Paul: 22%
- Newt Gingrich: 19%
- Michele Bachmann: 18%
- Rick Perry: 15%
- Mitt Romney: 10%
- undecided: 16%
NBP says that their random selection of registered voters drew 298 Republican responses with a margin of error of 5.68%. That's at least more valid than the SDGOP straw poll that picked Herman Cain by a big margin in early November. I'm willing to entertain the notion that NBP slipped and drew a non-random clump of gold-hoarding voters at a 9/12 meeting with my cousin Aaron.
But let's entertain the numbers until someone finds the 2 that the Nielsons forgot to carry. What could they mean? I might guess that, just like the SDGOP straw poll, these numbers show that South Dakota is Anti-Romney Central. South Dakota Republicans are refusing to read the memo from Senator John Thune that Mitt Romney is the party's only chance to oust President Obama. They are so contrarian they will reject the reasonable if bland Romney in favor of the self-destructed oaf Rick Perry and the crazy, lying Michele Bachmann.
Or maybe South Dakota Republicans are just made that Jon Huntsman is being left out of the polls.
NBP does find that South Dakotans can distinguish their radical preferences from the reality of who will win:
Nielson Brothers Polling (NBP) also asked South Dakota registered voters to name the candidate they expect to win the Republican presidential nomination. Overall, Gingrich leads with 24 percent. Romney is second with 18 percent, followed by Paul and Bachmann (9 percent each) and Perry with 6 percent. 23 percent of respondents are undecided, and 11 percent say none of these candidates will be the nominee.
Views about the eventual Republican nominee differ depending on party affiliation. Republicans see Gingrich as the most likely nominee (30 percent), with Romney second (17 percent), and Paul third (9 percent). Democrats, on the other hand, see Romney as the most likely nominee (21 percent) with Gingrich second (16 percent), and Bachmann third (12 percent) [NBP press release, 2011.12.15].
Democrats are more likely than Republicans to think the Republicans might actually nominate Bachmann. You Republicans do worry us!
South Dakotans: ip will eat a plateful of crow if you hang on to vote to make Ron Paul the GOP nominee.
Gingrich will be out in a couple of weeks, I think, Cory.
1. He doesn't have any ground game and
2. as soon as the young "R"s hear from the old "R"s who Newt really is, the Gingrich campaign will fold like a lawn chair.
Those numbers look about right to me. SD has three types of R's as we know from watching their blogs.
The Decorum Forum folks who will likely want Ron Paul,
The Religious Extreme Right (Ellis, Sibby, Howie) who will like Perry and Bachman (and eventually Santorum once Rick and Michelle cave)
and the Establishment SDWC who are trying to warm up to Newt because they don't really trust Romney (...right... as if...)
I think it's going to come down to Romney, Huntsman and Paul. And I think Paul will run Indy if he doesn't become the GOP nominee.
And no, Stace, and Troy, I don't want to bet on it. ;^)
It's a train wreck that you can't not watch. But Romney in a distant 5th place really has me surprised. The SD Republicans are strange critters that just when I think I understand them, like some exotic animal, they do something strange.
I can't help to wonder if John Thune regrets his decision to stay out of the race. But had he stayed in he would likely be taking some major hits for his career as a lobbyist.
Nick, Thune would also be putting his reputation as a giant killer on the line. Better to just keep milking the mythology.
Besides, it's not his turn. Dems fall in love, Repubs fall in line as the saying goes.
The question right now it seems is is: who's been in line the longest, Newt or Mitt?
"The Religious Extreme Right (Ellis, Sibby, Howie) who will like Perry and Bachman (and eventually Santorum once Rick and Michelle cave)"
Bill, you just proved you are wrong. Have you not been reading what I have been posting on this web site?
I can't make heads or tails about what you write, Sibby because you are incoherent, random, and hyperbolic.
Here is my challenge to you, Steve:
In your own words, 120 words or less (approximately 10 lines of type on this blog) lay out for us in broad strokes what your political position is, what you want your reader to know about our nations problems (that we don't already), and what your proposed solution is.
Do this without any cut and paste or links to other sites, in your own words, just as clear as you can make it.
Can you please do that for us?
Thanks.
Bill, stop being a troll and correct your error.
"I can’t make heads or tails about what you write"
Bill, then how do you know that I am supportive of Perry, Bachman, Santorum?
As I suspected.
Of course you won't do it, because you have ADHD.
If you really wanted us to understand what you're saying and were capable of doing it, Sibby, you would do this for us in a heartbeat.
If you won't, it's fairly obvious to everyone but you apparently who's doing the trolling here. And it isn't me, brother. I'm trying to give you space, and you refuse to take it.
That's because you prefer to feel persecuted.
It's part of your paranoia and your grandiose delusional/narcissistic personality disorder.
Think about getting some help brother. Seriously.
Bill, if you were not so busy personally attacking me, you would know my political positions. Thanks again for proving my points.
If you are incapable of writing them out upon request on short notice in your own words Sibby, it means you don't really have any coherent political positions.
It means you are intellectually, politically and culturally bankrupt — at best, a drive-by sniper with a pocket full of inflammatory, delusional, paranoid-conspiracy buzzwords — an hysterical, crackpot, doom and gloom apocalypticist.
That's what I get from your writings thus far anyway, and I don't think mine is an unique impression.
That's why I'm offering you this opportunity to clear things up.
So, one more time:
In your own words, 120 words or less (approximately 10 lines of type on this blog) lay out for us in broad strokes what your political position is, what you want your reader to know about our nations problems (that we don’t already), and what your proposed solution is.
Do this without any cut and paste or links to other sites, in your own words, just as clear as you can make it.
Can you please do that for us?
Thanks.
President Obama would love to run against Rep. Paul who might just ask his son, Rand, to be his running mate: a Tea Party dream team.
Ron Paul knows he would re-elect the President is he runs a third-party bid.
PPP has just posted the impact of the more likely run by Gary Johnson as a Libertarian that would take more potential Obama voters than Ron Paul would running as an Independent.
Remember that Jeb Bush could be drafted at the convention: better for Democratic chances to nominate Ron Paul decisively.
Montana and South Dakota vote late in the primary season: it’s not impossible that we could make Ron Paul the GOP nominee.
"It means you are intellectually, politically and culturally bankrupt"
Or it could mean that I am not foolish enough to fall into a troll's trap. If you don't know what my political positions are, then why did you include me in your political analysis?
Larry, yes, I think that's what's going to happen with the GOP.
A brokered convention. I hear they're polling Jeb's favorables in New Hampshire right now as a matter of fact.
Attorney General Holder is the President's trump card: Jeb gets nominated, the Department of Justice announces war crimes charges against his brother's former regime.
Pray for Paul/Paul in 2012!
Indict Bush43 in 2013!
My analysis stands, if you don't like where you fit, Steve, take yourself out. No problem. This is not all about you Sibby. That's just your grandiose delusional narcissist talking. It has very little, if anything to do with you actually.
I'm just trying to give you some space to explain yourself rationally instead of just being an hysterical, self-destructive blog terrorist.
This is about the fourth time in as many years I've tried to talk you down from one of these manic depressive, blog-hogging flame thrower jags.
And each time you do it you are pitching a different brand of trumped-up moose malarky. So don't blame us for losing track, man. We have other things on our minds than the current Sibby craze-du-jour.
Bill, I feel the hate.
I know, Sibby, that's how you roll, man. I understand. You can't help it: http://vitals.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/15/9472468-lingering-shortage-of-adhd-drugs-unravels-lives
Bill, here is a link to a Madville thread on Rick Perry and the Relgious Right:
https://madvilletimes.com/2011/08/perry-parades-pretentious-patriotic-piety/#comment-29272
I wait for your correction and apology.
Why won't you just write out your own thoughts Sibby? We don't want to read what somebody else thinks, we want to know what YOU think (actually IF you think.)
Until you make yourself clear and understandable, you have no apology due. In fact, by refusing to do so, you owe us one.
If you can't be more coherent, perhaps you should just excuse yourself and come back when you have your thoughts in order.
Bill, I thought you were too much of a "narcissist" to come clean and admit that you were wrong.
Bill, do you believe that the Religious Right's positon is that a woman's job is to stay home and take care of the kids?
I don't know what the Religious Right's position is Sibby. Is it the same as YOUR position? Why are you avoiding telling us what your positions are in your own words?
None of this discussion matters in SD: our primary will be long after any nominee is decided upon.
Want to have a voice in presidential politics? Move to Iowa where their votes count for much more than anywhere else in the nation.
Michael, you forget the 2008 Democratic primary. What evidence is there that the GOP will wrap up its nominating process early? Their field now seems as divided as the Clinton-Obama-Edwards pool was at this stage.
History tells us that the early primaries thin the herd quite quickly. An outstanding candidate may not do well in Iowa or NH and be eliminated before we get to vote in SD.
A vote in Iowa should carry no more weight than anywhere else.
The early bird primaries get the worm...although in the case of the GOP candidates, they are all worms.