SC-PPP: Perry in charge

[Tender Branson]

Without Palin:

Rick Perry ....................................................... 36%
Mitt Romney.................................................... 16%
Michele Bachmann ......................................... 13%
Herman Cain................................................... 9%
Newt Gingrich ................................................. 8%
Ron Paul......................................................... 5%
Rick Santorum ................................................ 4%
Jon Huntsman................................................. 2%
Someone else/Not sure .................................. 7%

With Palin:

Rick Perry ....................................................... 36%
Mitt Romney.................................................... 13%
Sarah Palin ..................................................... 10%
Herman Cain................................................... 9%
Michele Bachmann ......................................... 7%
Newt Gingrich ................................................. 7%
Ron Paul......................................................... 5%
Rick Santorum ................................................ 4%
Jon Huntsman................................................. 2%
Someone else/Not sure .................................. 7%

PPP surveyed 750 usual South Carolina Republican primary voters from August 25th to 28th. The margin of error for the survey is +/-3.6%. This poll was not paid for or authorized by any campaign or political organization. PPP surveys are conducted through automated telephone interviews.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_SC_08301023.pdf

[redcommander]

So Palin takes support away from Romney?

[King]

Hence why Perry doesn't really need to do more than a 2nd place finish in IA or NH.  Bachmann and Romney have no true Southern support.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

again, unless Perry is taped drowning a litter of bloodhound puppies, the GOP nomination is OVER!

[Mr. Morden]

again, unless Perry is taped drowning a litter of bloodhound puppies, the GOP nomination is OVER!

That's a fun tape to watch!  I have that one and the Michelle Obama "whitey" tape.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

That's a fun tape to watch!  I have that one and the Michelle Obama "whitey" tape.

actually, a "whitey" tape may actually help Obama at this point from a point of interest standpoint...he's been pretty pathetic lately.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Perry will be the GOP nominee, especially if he wins IA. New Hampshire will probably become irrelevant if he places second or third.

[redcommander]

He's not going to win because the Republican leadership doesn't want a repeat of the disastrous campaigns certain Tea Partiers ran last year. If he gains momentum after the MSNBC debate, expect to see many Republican big-wigs getting behind Romney and pledging financial support.

[Likely Voter]

He's not going to win because the Republican leadership doesn't want a repeat of the disastrous campaigns certain Tea Partiers ran last year. If he gains momentum after the MSNBC debate, expect to see many Republican big-wigs getting behind Romney and pledging financial support.

Perry has deep pocket backers of his own. If he is a clear front runner by the fall, will ALL the establishment money players turn on him, risking alienating a potential President Perry? Any look at Texas shows that he is all about pay to play, so he will sure be keeping a list of those who didn't pay, especially in the primary.

On the contrary, I think if Perry holds his lead past the upcoming debates, then the establishment types will jump on board and try to reshape Perry for the general election.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

He's not going to win because the Republican leadership doesn't want a repeat of the disastrous campaigns certain Tea Partiers ran last year.

how many election cycles do I have to say this:  the GOP leadership is NOT in control of the GOP nomination, rather the jmfcst's are.

[Bull Moose Base]

He's not going to win because the Republican leadership doesn't want a repeat of the disastrous campaigns certain Tea Partiers ran last year.

how many election cycles do I have to say this:  the GOP leadership is NOT in control of the GOP nomination, rather the jmfcst's are.

And is there even an example of the GOP establishment successfully stopping someone? I can't think of any.  And I agree with the earlier comment: if Perry is winning states, he's not going to have a hard time raising money.

[Phony Moderate]

And is there even an example of the GOP establishment successfully stopping someone? I can't think of any. 

1968, 1972, 1976, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2008. 

[redcommander]

And is there even an example of the GOP establishment successfully stopping someone? I can't think of any. 

1968, 1972, 1976, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2008. 

All of those sound correct, but who challenged Nixon in 72 that the establishment somehow defeated?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I hope Romney pulls it out, but unless Perry flakes out like Bachmann, he's got this in the bag.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

And is there even an example of the GOP establishment successfully stopping someone? I can't think of any. 

1968, 1972, 1976, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2008. 

you're not listening

[Phony Moderate]

And is there even an example of the GOP establishment successfully stopping someone? I can't think of any. 

1968, 1972, 1976, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2008. 

you're not listening

I'm sure your grammar teacher said the same of you.

[Bull Moose Base]

And is there even an example of the GOP establishment successfully stopping someone? I can't think of any.

1968, 1972, 1976, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2008.  

All of those sound correct, but who challenged Nixon in 72 that the establishment somehow defeated?

who was stopped in any of those years who had close to Perry's resume or support?  Reagan 76 is the only one and Romney's not an incumbent president.  and what did the establishment do to stop anyone that wouldn't have lost anyway?

[tmthforu94]

I don't know how anyone can say this race is over 6 months before the first primary even occurs. Didn't Giuliani have a pretty good lead this time four years ago?

[Mr. Morden]

Among South Carolina GOP primary voters:

Do you believe in global warming or not?
yes 25%
no 61%
not sure 14%

Do you believe in evolution or not?
yes 32%
no 57%
not sure 11%

Was Obama born in the USA?
yes 35%
no 44%
not sure 21%

Romney (and Huntsman) does markedly better among those who believe global warming, believe in evolution, and think Obama was born in the USA.  Example:

among those who say global warming is real:

Perry 24%
Romney 22%
Bachmann 10%
Gingrich 8%
Huntsman 7%
Paul 7%
Cain 6%
Santorum 6%

among those who say global warming is fake:

Perry 42%
Bachmann 14%
Cain 12%
Romney 11%
Gingrich 8%
Paul 4%
Santorum 3%
Huntsman 1%

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Among South Carolina GOP primary voters:

Do you believe in global warming or not?

Do you believe in evolution or not?

Was Obama born in the USA?

but you have to understand that by simply asking those questions, those being polled know the polling company is left wing and is simply trying to mock them, so they're going to be tempted to troll in their answers.

[Tender Branson]

Among South Carolina GOP primary voters:

Do you believe in global warming or not?

Do you believe in evolution or not?

Was Obama born in the USA?

but you have to understand that by simply asking those questions, those being polled know the polling company is left wing and is simply trying to mock them, so they're going to be tempted to troll in their answers.

These questions were all asked AFTER the primary questions.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Among South Carolina GOP primary voters:

Do you believe in global warming or not?

Do you believe in evolution or not?

Was Obama born in the USA?

but you have to understand that by simply asking those questions, those being polled know the polling company is left wing and is simply trying to mock them, so they're going to be tempted to troll in their answers.

These questions were all asked AFTER the primary questions.

I'm talking about the answers to the questions I quoted, not for whom they were planning to vote

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I don't know how anyone can say this race is over 6 months before the first primary even occurs. Didn't Giuliani have a pretty good lead this time four years ago?

I think so, but I would equate Rudy to Romney in this cycle simply because a lot of Mitt's support is/was soft. Much of his support has jumped to Perry like much of Rudy's support jumped to McCain when it seemed like he was viable again.

Problem is, Perry will win Iowa, and everyone already expects Romney to win NH (and probably Michigan), so if Perry wins SC by a near landslide, he definitely has the advantage going into Florida.

Could Perry flake out? Sure, but he's saying the right things and has the reputation for being a relentless campaigner, unlike Rudy and even Mitt. Perry is capitalizing on the far-right wing of the GOP that now makes up the overwhelming majority of the primary voters and I feel they will stick with him for the long haul unless another big name jumps in. The only candidate on the horizon that may run is Rudy, but he will only serve to hurt Romney further.

I think Mitt is finished unless Perry royally screws up.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

And is there even an example of the GOP establishment successfully stopping someone? I can't think of any. 

1968, 1972, 1976, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2008. 

All of those sound correct, but who challenged Nixon in 72 that the establishment somehow defeated?

Ashbrook from the right, McCloskey from the left.