To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Statewide opinion polling for the Republican Party presidential primaries, March 2012

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Republican presidential primaries, 2012

← 2008 Early – Mid 2012 2016 →


Leading Republican 2012 primary candidate by state map.svg
Leading Republican 2012 primary candidate by state (parentheses indicate a shared lead, italics indicates polling data, non-italics indicates a primary win). Stars indicate a completed primary. States in gray have no polling data or no relevant data due to a leading candidate having withdrawn or declined to enter the race.
37+5
11
2

Republican nominee before election

John McCain
Republican

Presumptive Republican nominee

Mitt Romney
Republican

This article contains opinion polling by U.S. state for the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries.

As of May 2012, both Ron Paul and Mitt Romney have led polls in multiple states. They have both also reached at least 20 percent in polls in multiple states. Before announcing that they would not run, Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin were also leading polls in multiple states with numbers above 20 percent. Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum were also able to lead polls in multiple states earlier in the race, but Cain suspended his campaign on December 3 after multiple allegations of sexual impropriety,[1] Bachmann dropped out on January 4, one day after her poor showing in the Iowa caucuses, in which she came in sixth place and received just 5 percent of the vote,[2] Perry dropped out on January 19 after finishing fifth in Iowa with just over 10 percent of the vote, finishing sixth in New Hampshire with less than 1 percent of the vote and with "lagging" poll numbers ahead of the South Carolina primary,[3] and Santorum suspended his campaign on April 10.[4] Newt Gingrich announced he would drop out of the race after a poor showing in the northeast on April 24.[5]

Haley Barbour of Mississippi, Jeb Bush of Florida, Chris Christie of New Jersey, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and John Thune of South Dakota all succeeded in leading polls in their home states at some point in 2011, although only Pawlenty actually launched a campaign. Pawlenty exited the race on August 14, one day after finishing third in Iowa's Ames Straw Poll, citing a lack of campaign funds.[6][7]

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/4
    Views:
    489
    1 487
    386
    387
  • 10th Annual McGowan Forum on Women in Leadership: Political Campaigns
  • Hedrick Smith May 6 2016
  • United States presidential election, 1960
  • FiveThirtyEight

Transcription

>> Good evening I'm David Ferriero, Archivist of the United States its a pleasure to welcome you here to the William G. McGowan Theater here at the National Archives. A special welcome to those of you joining us on our YouTube channel. Journalist, author and political commentator Cokie Roberts will be leading the discussion with a distinguished panel of political communicators and strategists. They will share their experiences working on political campaigns on both local and national levels after examine changes, opportunities and challenges and offer advice for young women looking to become more involved in politics. But before we begin I would like to tell you about two programs coming up tomorrow and Thursday. Tomorrow at noon we will show the rarely seen 1971 C B S news documentary "Selling the Pentagon" an expose on the use of public funds to promote the Vietnam war. The controversy following the initial broadcast led to landmark a first amendment case pertaining to television news. The program is presented in connection with Amending America Exhibit which is on display upstairs in the Lawrence F. O' Brien gallery and Thursday at 7:00 p.m. we commemorate the 225th anniversary of the Bill of Rights by joining with the Constitutional Sources Project to present a panel discussion on the Bill of Rights in the 21st century. Journalist Jeff Bravin from the Wall Street Journal will moderate the discussion with a panel of distinguished judges. To learn more about these and all of our public programs and exhibits consult our monthly calendar of events at archives.gov. There's copies in the lobby as well as a sign up sheet where you can receive it by regular mail or e-mail. Another way to get involve in the National Archives is to become a member of the National Archives Foundation. The foundation supports all of our education and outreach activities and their applications for membership are in the lobby. The little known secret which I keep telling everyone no one has ever been turned down for membership in the foundation. (laughter). Tonight's program is presented with the generous support of the National Archives Foundation and William G. McGowan Fund and we thank them both for their continued support of our programs here. We are happy that the chair of the foundation A'lelia Bundles is with us tonight. A'Lelia is an accomplished author and journalist who is working on her fourth book 'The Joy Goddess of Harlem" A'Lelia Walker and the Harlem Renaissance a of biography of her great grandmother. "On her Own Ground" The Life and Times of Madame C J Walker. You do that all the time? -- (laughter). Her biography of her great grandmother was name add New York Times notable book. A'lelia was a news executive and producer for 30 years at NBC news and ABC news where she was Washington DC deputy bureau chief. In addition to chairing the National Archives Foundation she's a Columbia University trustee and is on the advisory board of the Schlesinger library at Harvard as President of the Madam Walker , A'lelia Walker Family Archives she shares the history of her famous ancestors through speeches, publications, documents and photographs and several public initiatives. She serves as the consultant and Walker historian for the new Madame C J Walker Beauty Culture product line that was launched by Sun Dial Brands in March of 2016. Please welcome Alelia Bundles. Now you can clap. >> That was a longer introduction than you usually give me. And David is absolutely right the National Archive Foundation offers membership to go to archivesfoundation.org. We do not turn down anybody who wants to apply and we have many levels of membership that we welcome you if you are interested. On behalf of the board of the directors of the National Archives Foundation I welcome all of you to the tenth annual McGowan Forum on Women in Leadership. As the National Archives nonprofit partner the foundation generates financial and creative support for National Archives exhibitions and public programs and educational initiatives. This theater itself and the program you are about to see to night would not be possible without the tremendous support of one of our long time partners the William G. McGowan Charitable Fund. In addition to the support of the National Archives Foundation. The Chicago based McGowan Charitable Fund's vision is to impact lives today and create sustainable change and empower future generations to achieve their greatest potential. We are proud to celebrate ten years of honoring women in leadership. We have a special program for you tonight where we will bring to this stage an impressive panel of women who are pioneers and who are in leadership roles and who have in many ways help to change the world including our own Cokie Roberts who is the vice president of the National Archives Foundation. Please help us and welcome to the stage our impressive panel. I have to introduce Cokie Roberts for that one person that doesn't know who she is. She's a political commentator with ABC News providing analysis for all news rogramming from 1996 to 2002, with Sam Donaldson, she co-anchored the weekly ABC interview program This Week. She also serves as a commentator for NPR and national public radio and in her more than 40 year in broadcasting she's won I can't believe 40 years. >> Wow. >> Okay. She's won countless awards including three Emmys, she's been inducted in the Broadcasting and Cable Hall of Fame and is cited by the American Women in Radio and Television as one of the 50 greatest women in the history of broadcasting. She's written several best-selling books including Founding Mothers, Ladies of Liberty, Capitol Dames and the number one New York Times best-seller We are Our Mothers Daughters. She holds more than 20 honorary degrees and serves on the board of several nonprofit institutions and was appointed by George W Bush to his commission on service and civic participation. In 2008 The Library of Congress named her a living legend one of the few American's to to obtain that honor. Her most important credential is a member of our board the national foundation. Please welcome Cokie. >> Applause. >> >> Thank you so much for being here it's a wonderful occasion we've just figured out the tenth anniversary of the women in leadership program from the McGowan fund but I think we should take just a minute to talk about Sue Gin -- McGowan because she was a woman leader of remarkable abilities and who was so instrumental in making this happen as a child of Chinese immigrants she started working in the family restaurant when she was ten and by the time she was 17 she was investing in real estate. This was in Aurora Illinois And she then this is in a she went to Chicago and became a playboy bunny and said that it turned out to be great that there was a bunny sorority and I love that because you can totally understand that. It is a group of women who came together and gave each other tips and not tips like that. (laughter) they made it so it was like they could all negotiate their way in Chicago. She became a restaurateur and got on Midway airlines one day and they gave her disgusting piece of food and said I can do better than this and created flying food group that caters to airlines. There are still some airline that is cater and particularly international trips and they do basically -- it was a wildly successful enterprise and but she always, always, always we lost her way too young a couple of years ago at 73 but she always kept in mind where she came from and who she was and so her life and in addition to her tremendous successes was dedicated to making life better for immigrants and so she really cared deeply about this women in leadership forum. So it is a treat to be able to be here and talk about women leaders in the field of politics and we have had all kinds of forums over the ten years in technology, civil rights and political office holders but now we are talking about the women who make politics happen and run the campaigns and get the information and so we are very lucky on my far right we have Margie Omero she's a democrat you need to know we're balanced. She's now the executive vice president of the SBP research. And now I know. Margie has been named by Politico as one of the 50 politicos to watch and Margie and Kristen who is on this end who has done throughout the campaign season a wonderful pod cast for those of you who don't know what that is we will explain later. Called the Pollsters and Kristen is a Republican and they do really a wonderfully entertaining and informative program they have also come out together on mainstream radio and television and Kristen as long as I'm with her is also a Republican the author of the Selfie Vote where Millennials are Leading America and how do Republicans can keep up. She started something called Echelon Insights which is a research analytics and digital intelligence she writes for the Washington Examiner. Sarah Fagen is there. We know her best politically from the Bush campaign both campaigns and political director in the Bush White House. Sarah is partner at DDC Public Affairs that stands for democracy, data and communication group. She has really been very active both in Republican politics and also in gathering information and getting data and understanding data in a way that is wonderful for people like me who need that information and Sarah too is a commentator on CNBC and been all of our programs right - Karen Dunn is now a partner for Boisse, Shiller and Flexnerr and again we knew Karen from campaigns that started with the Obama campaign and then with, well starting with Hilary Clinton in the senate and then the Obama campaign and most recently the Clinton campaign where she was very much involved in the debates preparation and how to handle the debates, so I said to these women just now in the back because they were all so much younger than I am. They are all younger than than my children -- so I said to them well you know often at these events we kind of have war stories about being women in these fields but I suppose you are young enough that nothing really terrible has happened to you and of course that was wrong. So I am going to let them tell their story. I think I will start with you Sarah. What's so interesting starting in the Bush White House and coming out. >> So my formative years in politics and in my professional life and anyone worked on a rough and tumble campaign out in the field can tell war stories in my formative years were in the Bush White House. I spent eight years working for President Bush in both campaigns and both of his White Houses and was his political director when I was 30. I remember kind of thinking I never felt during that time like I had my opinion wasn't valued that when I was invited to something it was because there was a real purpose for me to be there and I worked for more men but they were all incredibly respectful that treated women very well. I had this notion when I left that sexism was clearly a problem in times past, the world we have moved beyond that and I have since set up several businesses and have worked across lots of sector ins corporate America with clientele and the public affair space and you know it took me about two months to think wow that was a really special and unique experience because -- >> Remember how Bush used to say don't drive away my mom that was one of his because he felt that if the moms in the White House had been driven out because it was too hard a place to work and raise children which is often the case in any White House that he would lose the voice that was terribly important. He was very committed to that and he set the tone inside the White House for everyone to follow and he had many women in senior leadership position so that was a unique experience as a young woman to feel like sexism was a thing of the past and then to graduate from White House service at the age of you know 33 and think wait a second the stories I have heard from older women unfortunate they do still happen sometimes. >> When young women think it's a thing of the past just you wait my pretty. (laughter). It's mean but true. Kristen, you were telling me just recently something happened that sort of blew your socks off >> I think what I am thinking of the examples of thing that is people have said that sort of set me back and I thought should I tell them that what they just said is not okay and I chicken out a lot so in my most recent example I was in the a meeting with someone who I was discussing my business with and nice guy but have a great conversation no red flags and anything like that and all of a sudden he says when are you going to start popping out kids? I am like the levels on which that is and appropriate first of all messaging, but we need to work on your phrasing, second (laughter) not and appropriate question to ask in a business setting of me because if my answer is I don't want to have kids that opens a discussion and I do want to have a kids and I have been trying and it isn't working out that's a whole other level. He didn't ask any questions about my male business partner so it was just one of those things do I make this meeting more uncomfortable by telling this person you shouldn't ask that question. Maybe if it winds up being a client if you like to get elected don't do that any more. You know it's one of those moments I thought I would tell him straight and say not to do this but I chickened out. We are a panel of all women right now. I am sure many of us sat on stage where is it's not all women and frequently folks who organize conferences and panels will come up after wards we are so glad we got on the panel. We needed a women on the panel. It's another one of those things I don't know what to make of it because on the one hand I have seen enough all male panels tells you really couldn't find a women. On the other hand my brain goes like great I am glad I could check that box for you would you not have wanted me on the panel otherwise? >> Tell me about it. (laughter) >> It's another one of those things I don't know what to say back to it creates and uncomfortable moment that leaves me feeling icky. >> I will come to you at the end Karen you were just setting up meetings and things like that? >> I think some of these challenges and pain points can really move and they track where you are in your age and your career and your life cycle so when you are early in your career it's assumed that you are a coffee and pastry getter and note taker and coffee maker. Even if you had the same job title as other folks in the meeting, is like, nobody's like who's going to get the coffee it's like gal where's the coffee? So for me pushing back on some of that was really important even if it was uncomfortable and maybe impertinent to say I'm not doing that. It was something that seemed important making sure you are sitting at the table not immediately going to the outer ring of the table if it's not a big group if there's enough chairs for the elected members of Congress and making sure that you are not removing yourself from the decision making, visually and never, then that's just a already puts you on the back foot. As I got older my career there were different kinds of pain points and there's the folks that would ask when I would pitch business the same type of questions are you going to take time off and are you going to come back to work after kids what's your child care situation and what did you major in college. Decades after I graduated from college when no man in the same set of pitches that day the exactly same age or business configuration was asked any of these questions. I know a lot of that is even though further on people ask me where you working part time? No I was never working part time. I have never worked part time so there was a lots of assumptions that people make it's not because they, you know there's they are finding faults it's not they are looking to find criticism that's just the default that is people have. And finding a way to you know set the record straight without seeming like you are attacking folks is maybe not every situation requires such a clear push back. It really depends and there's art more than science. I think to Sarah's point to make sure women have the right, make sure women have the right voice at the table that's immensely important in politics. It's hugely important and when I have done polling for hundreds and hundreds of legislative campaigns and for candidates for office and you know dozens of congressional campaigns and I would put in there questions that thing that is you know for decades or for ten to 20 years questions about child care tax break, elder care tax breaks I take care of my elderly father. I always ask a question about elder care tax breaks it's saying in a lot of polls one of the top tier thing that is I would test and it's the tax break so testing because why should we test this. These are thing that is clearly people are struggling with let's test them and they work and if you don't have other women at the table then you are not necessarily thinking about all the different ways that you know that elected officials and that political bodies can be helpful to families. A lot of that means having a more diverse group of people at the table and being involved in drafting your campaign plan, testing messaging, and working on your media and advising candidates and doing your field and having a more diverse group is important to make sure that you are reflecting everybody you are trying to represent. >> One of the things all of you basically in client business right? You are all looking for clients. And serving clients so you can't easily say to the client you are full of it. Why I tend not to do that. So when I'm not preparing political candidates for debates I am a litigator and tried cases. I have had good experiences and had bad experiences and for example to Sarah's point about working the Bush White House. I was you know five or six months pregnant with my third kid in trial when the general counsel the company said in the middle of trial hey we would like you to do our next trial but it's in April of next year but it's awkward do you think you can do it. I thought that was tremendous the general counsel who happened to be a woman. I see that you are pregnant. I know do the math that you 'll have a four month-old at the time of the next trial and we want you to do it anyway. By the same token I have had other experiences where you are on a conference call with six people all the rest of the people on the call are men and they all talk and you say something and they don't even respond and they say okay well, you know thanks every one for getting on the call everyone and every one hangs up.and then everyone hangs up. (laughter) >> Perfect. >> So I think we have all had those things happen. I think it's interesting to me I feel like our generation of women which is actually a generation that is a older than we look like is a little bit of a catch 22 because on the one hand you want to push forward the idea of putting women in the meeting and saying you know you really shouldn't just have a meeting with five guys at the table and you really you know we need to promote women so we have women partners and people are going out in senior positions but on the other hand when you do that you are in a way recognizing that this is and issue and this is a problem and people need to put forward because they are women. I think you know we all and you know a number of my female colleagues are here today and I think we all bear a tremendous responsibility to demonstrate to everybody but most especially younger men and women that it's important to push forward women to be in meetings but the threshold issue of getting into that meeting and senior position is being qualified. We push people forward because it's important diversity and all forms are important but you wouldn't get there unless you were fully qualified to do the job. I think that's something I think about a lot. I don't know if you all do? >> So what you are really qualified to do is talk politics which is what people really want to hear. We can include our stories as we go along but I think there are serious question that come up after this election particularly the pollsters the pod casts and the pollsters, so what went wrong? >> Oh gosh. The complicated answer, I will make it very simple and I don't intend to answer this to sound like a cop out but not all the polls were wrong. The forecasts were really wrong. I put myself as one of the people that forecast Hilary Clinton getting over 300 electoral votes. The polls in enough states didn't show that Michigan was in play. Very little polling done in Wisconsin didn't show it was in play. In some cases it was a failure of the poll, again Michigan, Wisconsin we just no public polling suggested they would really go the way they did. Then the state of Pennsylvania was a little bit of different. It was Clinton by two point which is close enough that you shouldn't be taking it completely off the board but I think I had been burned enough times of people saying Pennsylvania that's Lucy holding the football for the Republicans. I had taken that off the table in my mind. The way the forecasts work they assume what the probability is in each state that will go Clinton or Trump if this state is 50 % Clinton and 50% Trump and this state is 50% Clinton 50% Trump then one out of four elections Clinton wins both one out of four elections Trump wins both and the other half they win one, one. They run these simulations over and over and that's how your 538s your Huffington Posts get this win probability that is Clinton is going to win 70 or 80% we need to be careful in the future are we making sure they are getting good survey data and input in the state that is could be in play that's what really really went wrong this time. >> I think there's some there's a lot of different theories and lots of expert who is are spending lot of time trying to figure this out. There's and association of public opinion researchers we have all the best people on it. We hired Hughes methodologist who's on that group she's going to be and we had someone in house so we are going to be setting that. There isn't a right answer yet. There was something in the Post today that if folks are interested they should take a look suggesting there was a study done by the Monkey Cage blog folks about how there maybe some, you know shy Trump not necessarily the hidden Tump. You may have heard about shy Tories in the UK or the Bradly effect. There's all these theories. >> This is people who don't tell the pollsters anything. >> I'm a Trump voter and the pollster calls me and I either don't want to answer or I am going to lie to them because I am angry with the polls or I am embarrassed I am voting for Trump and I don't want to tell someone I am voting for Trump. That characterization is too over blown and cartoonish of what maybe happening I think from looking at some of the different studies it could be that folk who is are undecided there had were a lot more undecided and a lot more late deciders those tended to move toward Trump the study I saw today they pushed people undecided with a couple of additional questions, then they did that they were more likely to put they showed the election narrowing in those rust belt states in the way the statewide polls didn't show. I think the bigger picture doesn't take away from the fact that the polls think something else is going to happen. The bigger picture is we all wanted to know the number was. What's the score on the game? Can someone tell me what's going to happen before election day? I can't wait any longer I need to know who's going to win. What's the percentage of the chance they are going to win. We wanted this score so we didn't look at the other stuff even though there was plenty of other stuff and data to look at that told us perfectly well on how they were angry and they hated the election and they wanted it to be over and they were unfavorable toward both candidates that is' more messy to discuss. It's easier to say what about the forecasters say? >> So you know you have been described as a data wiz and I love data obviously I can't do my job without it. I had the sense of this campaign particularly on Clinton campaign that people were in love with this and they weren't paying enough attention to old fashion once you got the data then there's the next step which is talking to voters. >> I think that's right and you know the polling has become a currency and the news media I think in a way that's really unhealthy, I don't think that's going to go again in many regards. One of the changes that might come out of this election cycle is that it will be more investment in state polling and less investment in all of this national polling. You know to the conversation that we are just having on the polling and in talking to voters is your question Cokie I think we are going to find when we dig in here there's a piece of the electorate that won't talk and you can call them the shy Trump voters it's a piece of the Republican base and we have seen it now in state elections and seen it in Virginia and this is and increasingly among the Democratic party is that it is easier to get a representation of what's happening among Democratic leaning voters than Republicans. Looking at models differently particularly when you are trying >> Why is that? >> It's cultural and I think there's a group of people that are just uncomfortable talking about, talking to anybody it is -- >> Talking to anybody or talking to the media? >> Talking to anybody they believe you know a part of and institution that has failed you know there's the media, the political elites who take these polls and trade in these currency and it's about sharing information generally. They don't want their credit card information shared they don't want their polling preference shared they don't want there religious views shared want to be you know last you know. -- >> To have confidence their information isn't being shared and so that it gets wrapped up to culturally tendencies and comfort level but that's the real problem for I think the polling class as a whole. Yes, I mean we all have these stories you know anyone who has family outside of the District of Columbia where you know people will say to you before the election and even more so after the election everywhere I went everybody was voting for Trump I don't know it's not surprising to me at all that he won I have heard this from many people and I heard it before the election. I think Trump is going to do well? This is also I think the worse case of group think in the history of politics which this failure to call the election and the failure by so many people to you know at least sometimes in a close election which is a relatively close election you get divergent views here you had very very few people saying Donald Trump was going to win the election. The group think is over. Cokie you are saying a lot of people outside of Washington that when you just step back at the 30, 000-foot level. This shouldn't be surprising. We knew it was a change electorate. We had five out of six elections in a row that is were change elections. We had wrong direction that had been upside down for a decade and the confidence in institutions most major institutions across the board from government organizations to the news media to the bank and religious organizations, All- time low and you had the ultimate change candidate in Donald Trump and the ultimate establishment candidate who personified in Hilary Clinton and none of this at a 30, 000-foot level should be shocking that he won. >> Karen you knew all of that in the Clinton campaign and as you are shaping the campaign and shaping the debates where she certainly did well, how do you deal with all of that? Well, so first of all I don't have the authority to speak for the entire campaign because my job was to manage the debates. I can certainly speak to that. >> But all the messages? >> Certainly we worked on with the strategists on the messaging for the debates. I don't disagree with anything Sarah said this would have to cause a entire reevaluation of how people gauged the electorate and that includes and exploration of what are the inputs because I think all the social media and how people are getting their information and whether the information is true or not is something that is very much not looked at by people who are studying this election during it but now is nearly impossible to ignore. The other thing that I think is that you know we are talking about the end of the day a margin of 80, 000 votes so a really smart friend of mine said something to me exactly right which is we are talking about 80, 000 votes out of all the you know many millions of votes cast that it's not one thing it's everything. Right? So you know I think maybe if we have tweaked that had debate answer a little bit maybe that would have moved some people or maybe they had many different decisions about traveler or maybe its Comey or whatever, maybe it's so I think it's impossible as we sit now maybe they will do more analysis and to say it's this thing or that thing that actually effected this small number of people. I think it's beyond my expertise and more within expertise of other folks on the stage of what went wrong may not have been what went wrong with the campaigns necessarily who both operated to and almost tie it all went wrong on how we perceived what was going on and the information flow from the electorate into the media and the elites who you know digest that had information obviously incorrectly. >> Let's take a look at some of the groups that are going to various expertise. Margie you have done a lot on women's vote and gender gap we talked about how women are going to be the backstop to Hilary Clinton and that she was going to win white women and that she was going to do you know better among women than we had seen in the past and her gender gap was nothing. It was the same as Obama's. It wasn't really that different it was the same as Obama. Women were 53% of the electorate and 54% for Clinton, 51% for Trump. Whereas in 2012 women were 53% of the electorate and 55 for Obama and 44 for Romeny. There's no statistical difference. I think there's a couple of things that happened to the polls. This was an area where it wasn't the composition of the poll within different subgroups of the poll that folks were led to a different conclusion because if you look at the Washington Post/ABC poll its not just that poll but lots of other polls. Sometimes it was white college educated women and down by a similar amount with white non-college educated men but on election day Trump over performs or did comparable to how the poll showed among white non-college educated men was plus six with white college educated women so that was a group that was seen as that was the group right that was going to really you know bring it home for her. One of the things that Sarah mentioned and not to belabor of what they were polling is one of the theories is that simply reaching down scale voters is harder because taking a poll is and act of political volunteerism and that makes it harder to reach folks with less education. That wouldn't explain why white college educated women didn't turn out in the in the same percentage for Clinton as the polls had shown that's a different set of issues I think that's one of the things that pains a lot of women on the left. You know I don't know if there's and answer or a comfortable answer for that. I do think that there was this and it's very different from her 2008 campaign. There was this sense this time around if you were in a focus group and looked at some of the polling that she was and you know it also reinforces what Trump was saying about her that she was somehow running as a woman which is like a ridiculous phrase as opposed to how else would she run right? (laughter) there was a sense she was focusing on her gender and using her gender as and advantage that by talking to women's issues she spoke about gender that in a way some people activated their worries or concerns or perception that you know well. If women are getting something or what am I getting? Why should I vote for her because she's a women I want to vote with the person I agree on taxes or security or what have you. I think that you know that presented a conflict for some people and if you look at some of the research on race for example which is related in this regard if you had messages that told people look at people are saying on race what he's says on race among white voters who weren't liberal but had a bit of racial resentment he didn't lose them at all it made them not move at all. They felt that biases were you know kind of highlighted in for them and say hey look there's a bias over here. Trump has a bias for women over here and we are going to focus on women over here. I don't mean this at all disparage the Clinton campaign -- I have been on board with Hilary Clinton's message on women's issues since the mid-90's some people heard it differently than what was said and especially when you are talking about Trump as a foil on some of that. That's a theory I don't know the answer to that, but I do think that at least anecdotally and looking at some of the data you have a lot of overwhelming numbers of people think there's going to be a women President in their lifetime increasing number of people say they are open to voting for a woman whether they are just mirroring back what is desirable even though that's acceptable. They think it's better to say they are embarrassed to say I wouldn't vote for a women now they feel like they would have to vote for a woman. That's movement over decades ago because it was not -- >> Hello, It's 2016. (laughter) >> You can't ask people about their bias and you can't ask people like say there's a woman running for President and you know what would you think. You know you are asking about Hilary Clinton. It's difficult to get a clean read on this stuff in a way that we can say the percents of sexism that was you know in effect was 30% of men who voted and 25% of women that voted. >> None of that explains why we were seeing college educated white women voting by 16 points then in the end not. >> The reason that part of her vote collapsed. We forget in the polling these are subgroups and if it's a 600 person poll or 800 person poll and it's really only a hundred person then the margin error becomes 10% not 3% four percent or whatever it might be. I think that if you think if both of these candidates they were unpopular they went into the general election with unfavorable ratings that were unprecedented in political history and Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump both they had very low honest and trust worthy numbers. The electorate did not like these candidates, including many of the women. The people who were supporting Hilary Clinton did not like her. The final analysis of the exit polls you had 18% women and men said they neither liked neither candidate and they did not find either candidate suitable that group broke heavily for Donald Trump. I believe that is the group of voters that said I am going to vote for the lesser of two evils. I believe it's was combination of three things, the Comey letter the ObamaCare premium had gone up in some states as much as 25% and the revelation of the WIKI leak e-mails and so what those at least those two things relative to the letter and particularly the WIKI leak situation is it confirmed an already, you know, bias voters had on Hilary Clinton and her ethics the way the Clinton do business and that was damaging to her in the last two weeks in the campaign. >> I think in the end your initial point this was a change election when you look at the questions that the voters coming out to polls. What do you care most about in terms of traits? The candidate who cares about you, the candidate who has experience the candidate who can bring me the change I've forgotten the fourth one, honest and trustworthy and bring me the change with two to one over everything else and 81% of those people voted for Trump. The analogy that I have been using is that it's like if you been sick for a long time and you are not getting any better and finally you go to your doctor and he says there is this other thing. It's not FDA approved and it's got potential weird side effects but it could cure you and I think that the challenge was for them in the Clinton campaign a lot of their messaging but Trump could cause nausea but Trump could cause blindness or he could cause dizziness -- >> (laughter). >> How can you take this and if you have been sick enough for long enough as I think we are finding that there are a lot of people in distressed community in America that did just say give me the crazy pill and I think that's what Donald Trump was for a lot of America let's try the experimental drug. >> (laughter) >> Let's go to young people. Again, when you were writing your very fine book you were looking at millenials as being so Democratic that it was a real challenge for Republicans after of course Obama won by 60% and Hilary Clinton 55% is you know fixable from the Republican standpoint. It's fixable what I think is bad is that right now is a lot of Republicans are assuming we don't have a problem any more. Donald Trump only lost young voters by a pretty big margin not and extraordinarily big margin. And I mean with all due respect we don't get to run against Hilary Clinton every time. I couldn't have created in a lab a candidate more ill-suited to young voters than Donald Trump -- Hilary Clinton gave him a run for his money. She lost to Bernie Sanders in the primary. For a lot of young voters It didn't feel like either candidate had a story that resonated with them. They no -- get off my lawn. I know. I don't think they liked Donald Trump either and I don't that's why it makes me nervous when I think Republicans are saying Donald Trump did better with young voters. If you put Donald trump against Barack Obama that wouldn't have been the case. We need to compare apples to apples here. The problem now for Republicans is In the year 2 000 when George W Bush ran against Al Gore. The youth vote margin, gap between the two candidates was three points. If you walked into the voting booth and I knew you were 18 years old it gave me zero information. If you know I'm 18 years in 2008 there's a good chance you voted for Obama. The problem is that has now been sustained over three presidential elections. Almost 20 to 30 point margin in three contests back to back. For a lot of young voter the saving grace for the GOP younger voters are saying they don't want to be in either party. I'm independent don't put a label on me but a lot of their policy views are not terribly right of center and we haven't had a compelling national candidate for awhile make the case for conservatism to my generation and I am not confident that Donald Trump is the guy to do it. Is this another four years or eight years without someone making the case the people in my generation I can't make this crowd happy. (laughter). >> On one hand we have more pure Republican control than any point. We have more Republican in office certainly in my lifetime and Kristen makes excellent points -- >> Well than most people's lifetime. >> Most of our lifetimes, Kristen makes excellent points about millennials you know the same challenge remains among minority voters strictly Hispanic voters we are at a point now in this country where you know we are going to be a majority, minority population probably by 2040. We have more if you look at the preschool population in the United States it's majority minority right now and so I think long term the trajectory for the Republican party doesn't change unless the party changes it's message and you know we will see how Donald Trump does in that regard, certainly the campaign did not present a lot of positive you know discussion points for those groups of voters, and someone in the party is going to have to emerge or we are going to be a very short lived period of powerful Republicans. >> I think it's unclear whether the Trump victory is actually a victory for conservatism or Republicans or if it was a purely a victory for Donald Trump at this time or whether that's sustainable. To me that's question. >> Itis a victory for conservatism he never really applied the word conservative to himself. A lot of stuff he's doing is very popular. It does not match up with the freedom caucus definition of conservatism. It's going to make for and interesting four years. >> Clearly he hasn't been ideological purist that is something that came up in the primaries, his core group of primary voters was less concerned about that. Let's say he was bringing new voters to the primary. They weren't new to the Republican party.They were newer primary voters. There's they were typically general election only republicans-- we had one of Trump's pollsters on the show and he said you know look this is he's not and ideological purist. He said the same thing. We asked them about the same kind of questions and I said look you know he's you know he's, he is the basically said he's the character, he's the personality that people wanted at this moment he said the same basic thing. >> So Sarah you have written that his success depends some degree on his tone going forward and if he could maintain when you wrote this we hadn't had quite the number of tweets that is we have had since then. At least on election night if he can maintain it. He hasn't and this whole question of social media earlier tonight several of the educators were taking to me about this and how horrible it is and how nasty and mean and fake news this and all of that and so does that continue through this presidency? >> Well, it certainly appears Donald Trump is going to continue his twitter account >> Don't they take the phone away? >> I heard Obama say he had a toy phone? >> That's not true. >> (laughter). >> I think ultimately you know the jury is out on what a Trump White House is going to be like not only Trump but a Trump White House. He still is the President elect and not yet the President and I am hopeful that the President when he's in office will not engage in twitter fights with one union member and things in my mind that are not becoming of a President regardless of party. The news today was all about the Kanye West meeting. >> Plus he named the secretary of state and energy. More coverage of that meeting perhaps than any other meeting occurring in Trump tower. This is a two sided problem. Yes, you have a candidate who understands the power and potential of social media and many times very effectively uses it. At times I would argue uses it in way that is are very distracting to the what he would want to accomplish. We I mean I would say all of us work in media and directly as commentators and contributors we contribute to it because we are covering this and the fact that Kanye West gets this much news and absurdity of American pop culture today. Of course the news of the public part of this that's the information they want. >> They heard of him. >> Karen you have to pull back the curtain for us a little bit and tell us about something that we know you can't tell us a lot but what you can tell us about the debate prep. I read at one point that when Bob Barnett was playing Bernie Sanders that secretary Clinton said let me be Bernie is that true? >> She might have done that. (laughter) you know I would say the debate in general and debate prep were very positive. A good group of people and secretary Clinton took it very seriously and she worked really hard and I think she performed really well. I was saying earlier to one of the folks here I remember that on the day of the first debate turning on the TV and I heard somebody on one of the cable shows say well, all Donald Trump needs to do tonight is show up with his shoes tied and his pants zipped. I was like what? >> I said something earlier. -- (laughter) >>We knew that to win, we had to win decisively. Because expectations for him on the eve of first debate if you went back and looked at that coverage. I had colleagues that said there's no way we are winning this debate it is impossible because the you know the expectations were him were so low and expectations for her were so high you know I think that for me the question is going forward do debates matter at all because you would think you know -- >> How do we do reports where you have three debate cycle of any candidate of all times and you know obviously we couldn't win the election for her so you know it's a good question. I think you know I think next time I will argue for later debates because maybe if you know I actually was commenting on the plane to the third debate that it was earlier than the third debate in 2012 which I also worked on and I think for those of us who do debates and debates only we would have loved to have a later debate. It was too much time between the end and election day. >> There was a combination of that and Comey. >> I also agree about the ObamaCare premiums and the WIKI leeks going on concurrently and that was not helpful. From my point of view it's hard to tell really, you know what happened here whether if we had debate much later. The debate dates so far in advanced so far the candidates are known and the candidates tend to not try to renegotiate that but there's only so much we can do about it. You know from my point of view that would have been you know if I had to do it all over again. >> I think she was declared a winner in all three debates. You did Obama debate ins to 2012. The first debate was not a winner. >> The one thing I would say about Obama 2012 debates and anyone who remembers our Denver debacle. For Obama we could have easily had three perfectly passable debates because he's so dramatically lost the first debate in front of 70 million people. He was very motivated to win the second and third debate. If anyone who has met the President this is a competitive individual. He was not going to lose the second debate and he was not going to lose the third debate and I think it really ensured ultimately a better performance from him than the first debate. You know it was I think it was important but ultimately I think probably so much of his advantage and enables me to go to other debates and say don't do this because this is what Barack Obama did before the Denver debate. Do they immediately say to you you had to bunch him in the face. >> Yes, it was very funny that was where there were not a ton of women in that room and it was me and one other that was basically it. I am not a big person and I was pregnant then also and I only have three. (laughter) they would say to me you know it's so funny a pregnant lady saying punch him in the face. Pregnant ladies are the first people that want to punch you in the face. But it worked...Obama thought it was really funny and he executed >> (laughter) We were in good shape. It's also the last time I will listen to someone on the night before the debate. He's a game day player. And so really. So we are going to turn to your question ins just a minute and ask you to go to the microphone because it is live streaming also would be archived because we are at the National Archives. So we have you speak into the microphone as you go to the microphone Sarah you were in the Bush White House for a long time there are some pretty funny behind the scene stories? >> Yes, it certainly you know so many memories come to mind my own personal favorite story it does not involve the president but does another world leader that Dalai Lama and I you were a staffer in these incredibly historic places and incredible people and I lived through 9-11 in the White House and but you can sometimes forget where you are because you have a busy job that starts early and goes late and there eating terrible food and not eating you know hair falling out because you are under stress. I remember coming through the west wing lobby and I was coming in the west wing is a very narrow passage way and I was rushing for something that I was late for. I ran around the corner and I literally almost knocked the Dalai Lama over who was standing in the hallway looking at a White House photo on the wall. >> It wouldn't have been good spiritually. >> (laughter) >> There were moments that I had to stop and the remember the gravity of where I was. You know then of course you know in a much more sanguine situation working in the White House on 9-11 and spending a day with all the family members from flight 93 and we spent time with each other and the president we had some really touching people that we met who sacrificed loved ones and that was very difficult and emotional and a great way to honor the American patriots. >> Okay over here. >> Thank you I wonder if you could discuss the selection of a cabinet as a political act obviously I have some biases about this one but I think the way one does it says as lot about a President in how he or she might lead. If you can be a little bit you know tell us a little bit about the inner stuff about perhaps why we might have the certain people that we do. I don't mind if you look at it very rationally and political out look. Thank you. >> Some of these choices are would have been completely at home in a President Marco Rubio administration in some senses, for every choice with all due respect Dr. Ben Carson for secretary of HUD we are scratching our heads that's and interesting one, you wind up with you know a General Mattis-- at defense. >> I don't think for every choice you get that. >> There's sort of two -- conventional versus unconventional in predictable and versus unpredictable. There's some choices that are unconventional. I think somewhat predictable given the role that the vice president Pence is play anything all of this. There's certain choices at least these are going to be explosive conformation hearings over ideology the fact that this person holds positions that people on the left don't like and that's going to create friction. I am really interested to see the way the confirmation hearings will go for folks because there's so many folk that is don't have a traditional political background at all have not been through the same type of vetting and this is going to come very very quickly. I think that I am going to be fascinated to watch even if they were predictable because we know what Donald Trump as president he's going to pick outside the box folks. It is the outside of the box unconventional folks I am eager to see how it goes? >> I have seen this process play out on the other side on the personnel side of the White House it's usually very orderly and there's much input by many advisers I think Trump has probably gotten as much input but probably from a much less structured way and you know I was not a Trump supporter in the primaries and supported personally much more comfortable with Jeb Bush or John Kasich or some more mainstream governor. I would say this about Trump I have been I think some of the cabinet picks I think are off the market I think many of them are really strong and for conservatives like myself I am excited about some of these picks and I would say this about the political mainstream governors they wouldn't have had much guts as Betsy DeVos at Department of education, Betsy I think will be a terrific secretary. That's going to wrankle the Democrats too much. We can't do that or the same true of Tom Price of HHS, he might be too conservative on this issue we need someone who is more balanced and more bipartisan. Trump is shaking it up for better or worse this will allow him to make dramatic changes all the people should be confirmed by the way -- they have enough votes in the senate to confirm everyone of these people unless there's something that comes forward that's unknown today, some major ethical or moral lapse that is unknown today or some policy position that gets both sides against them. >> I think he deserves credit for being bold and not caring it's part of his whole way he came into office which he said to the public I am not going to do the politically correct thing. I am not going to list to the Washington insiders in many ways his cabinet picks reflect how he won the campaign. Last night when the news broke that Rick Perry was likely to be chosen for secretary of Energy. A lot of friends say he's picking the dancing with the star guys for the Department of Energy. >> I forgot about that. >> First of all do we think America cares about putting reality stars in important roles. >> Rick Perry was a governor of the 14th largest economy in the world. In Texas he has a lot of energy policy. I think in some cases some of these picks because there's the glow of the Trump administration weirdness and unconventionality going on some of these picks that are actually classic Republican picks I think are getting people and unusual because it's coming from Trump. This is really the difference in perspective. This is so interesting I look at it from the opposite way which is we have almost normalized things like well in order to pick my cabinet I will need to interview very publicly in front of the media every day a whole range of people who may or may not get these jobs, poor Mitt Romney any just poor Mitt Romney. I feel a lot of young people here this is not really normal. It's also not really normal to pick like all the people for the cabinets and likely without thoroughly vetting them. So your point about things that could come out. The Goldman Sacs guy you know who knows we just don't know and probably they don't either yet these people are now going to be nominated to these jobs. >> This is a disservice to them without vetting them. >> I agree. It's like I agree okay that's you know I would give someone credit for doing thing that is are bold within their principles that some people may be bothered but this is what I believe or this is what people voted for. You know I am not sure that's necessarily what's happening. So much as these decisions are being made moe impulsively than they would ordinarily be. maybe problems in these folks. >> That's a consequence of having like you know twitter based campaign and also polls that seemed to lead Trump to the same conclusion that everybody else had where they seemed to think that Clinton was going to win. You didn't have this extensive transition team in place that you clearly did for the Clinton campaign. We don't know I don't have any inside knowledge of the Trump transition team was thinking about in advanced of the election I am assuming they didn't have all of this stuff lined up otherwise they wouldn't have the spectacle. >> Under Christie it was very well organized and the people who were dealing with them were very impressed with them than the Democratic team by the way. That all changed when he won because then it was real.>> John, good to see you. Young women early in their political careers that state and local level what lessons can they learn from what happened in elections this year not just the presidential level but the lower levels this is so they sort of two take away that is are contradictory to each other from this election one is women are being marginalized and are very depressed and one is that women are energized and are beginning to run for office and are talking about running. >> I want to talk about this. I think both things are true. I think lots of people are depressed. There's mobilization that no one has ever seen before especially with young people there's a guy that went to law school with me who's reaction to the election was immediately convene a summit where he posted on Facebook that he was going to do this to attract people who wanted to run for office he put this up on November 9 or 10 and got a response every five minutes for people that want to come. Last weekend I think last week end he held his summit where 350 people came more than half of them are young women most of them wanting to run for office and the one who is didn't want to support the people that did. Everybody there was required to make a commitment within a certain number of years either run for some office at the state level or pledge their commitment to somebody who was. I was really impressed with this and it is I think this is you know it's a nice way to think of it. I think it's and example of what is going on in a lot of places where people who are disappointed by the results of the election day wish they would have done more understand that >> like voted... >> Can't just sit there and watch this all go by. Was this is thing in Tennessee. I had a dear friend that I know from the high school debate and he and I don't agree on every issue. I am going to Tennessee and I was thinking about he had gone to law school and he said that's how I am going to make my change in the world. I seen a lot of data about the millennial generation and the way they want to make changes not all the through the political process. I will start a nonprofit, etc and we will do social entrepreneurship, and we will save the world and it will be great. This is election was a wake up call politics matter. Government matters. Elections have consequences. Which is why I go back to Republicans a sleeping giant has been awoken with this election. You got to get it together because I don't think my party is ready to contend with people like my friend Josh who is amazing and going to change the world. It doesn't agree with me on many things people like him getting in the process I don't think my party is ready for what that's going to be. >> I think the other take away that in a world where there's so much news coming at people from so many different sources and so much frustration from the system that authenticity really trump so to speak. The standard political fare and talking points. The one thing about Donald Trump is giving him credit for he never pretended to be anything that he wasn't. He puts it out there and you know this whole notion you know which I agree with Karen on is that it's odd the way he has you know opposed with all of these job interviewees it's unusual and it's unorthodox but the public feel it's also transparent and so there's and authentic nature about the way Donald Trump does thing where you like him or dislike him. He's far more authentic than Hilary Clinton and authenticity matters for corporate brand and matter fors people running for political life and it's something that people care about being successful in the political process should note. >> We have a couple of questions from on-line viewers one of them we just answered about women running for office but playing off what you said it appears the perception of women leadership hinges so much on gut reactions to their persona no matter their qualifications or experience or affiliations more so than leadership for men do you think that's true? >> So to a degree I think it's true. I think that you know that many of you just I think Hilary Clinton and many respects I know you know Donald Trump is Donald Trump and he's strong and he gets credit for it. Hilary Clinton there's too much conversation about what she's wearing or what she looks like that remains as problem even for running for office for the highest office of the land. I think in many regards you know that we have come a long way but we haven't come where we need to be. >> You know some of my you know Democrats we were talking about stuff during the primary and sexism plays and it was you know ask Al Gore or John Kerry if they think that likability is something that is only a problem for women candidates. You know which is you know a reasonable point like you know is it something that only Hilary Clinton has faced that no other male candidates face? The answer is no does she have additional challenges by additional coefficients I think that's demonstrably true you see that in the research and you hear it in some of the very vocal visceral reactions at the same time it doesn't quite match up with what the content they objected about or the policy position may be objection that they maybe and that you didn't see in the same way or with Democratic candidates, and so but I think we just don't know it's hard to know exactly what that amount is. It's hard to ask people what their biases are. They are not willing to be, to self-report on that. They don't know exactly how much of a bias they have. I think we don't quite it's not quite pinpoint it. Again, with one being Hilary Clinton it's not something only that Hilary Clinton has had to pay. >> I think that Donald Trump has said problematic things about women throughout election. I am worried that this will turn in to a resurgence of more obvious and aggressive in sexism in politics and in the workplace do you think that's possibility. >> That's a question I was raising about marginalization. What do you think? >> I think he's a unique I mean sexism still exist in corporate America and you run into people sometimes that just don't share the values you would hope they share in 2016. I think in some ways you know Trump would say you know you have taken that out of context If he heard your question he would probably not agree with it. >> I think the bigger question is which is the question of you know there was all this talk going into the election this is the women's year women are going to make the difference. A sense of empowerment. This is a especially after he said nasty women and people start buying tee-shirts --this was like a public broadcasting pledge drive. -- there was this kind of sense, and then the air went out of that and I think that there is you do pick up a tremendous sense of gosh are we back and are we in another Sysiphian situation where we are falling back down the hill? >> I don't know if we are falling back down the Hill so much is that progress is slow and maybe we want to it think that had gone faster than it had. >> It's 2016. >> I am not trying to excuse things but what I am saying there's a big thing that folk on the right the folks have pushed back on. The idea that there's a certain point of view that are considered out of bounds, you can't talk about them in the poll did people think this but they supported Trump but were out of bounds and couldn't say it. And example I have given in our pod cast around the time that many of the republican governors said we are not going allow any refugees into our state a temporary pause of the aftermath of what happened in Paris there were a lot of voters that thought that seems to make sense. These governors are being racist and intolerant. I think there's a lot of folks that don't think of themselves as sexist and racist and hold views that they don't think are bad views, but they have been told that's a bad view. >> If you don't want refugees it doesn't make you racists. There's other policy reasons you may not want them. As a result of this election there's a lot of folk that is hold view that is maybe on the edge of what's considered acceptable in certain elite circles who have now been told you are not a bad person you are okay, so things that somebody might have believed that thought I don't know if I can say that am I going to offend someone. I do think we are going to see people a little less worried about offending people. >> I think you are asking two separate questions. I think one question that Cokie has tried to ask twice so far I think is whether the fact that Hilary didn't win means that is really women are set back in you know our desire for equality and including equality in the oval office. My own view on that is which I have explained in much more remedial terms to my daughter the answer is no and that Hilary Clinton was a strong candidate and such a plausible occupant of the oval office that people came out of the wood work including from Russia to defeat her. (laughter) and so I actually think that I think that in my hope is that to the answer of your question is no. We have moved forward here I wish she were President but I think because of her we are more likely to see a woman President and that will be hopefully very very soon like four years from now. And I think the second question is because of some of the language we heard during the campaign is more likely that things are being said and normalized. The my own answer is yes. It cannot be okay to say things about women that were said and publicized during this campaign. >> Not just about women. And I wouldn't limit it at all. This was a topic that was well covered during the debate and I certainly associate my views with Hilary had to say on this topic. You know I think we all have really a responsibility to ensure that does not become our new normal as women and people as members of society I think that's not okay. I think it's a different question than your question are we set back for people who want to see a woman in the White House. I do think it's something that I do think one possible silver lining that you have a lot of corporations and organizations trying to figure out how do they respond in this climate. We are going to try to have and intense time where any kind of response seems like you are taking a side however milquetoast or mealy-mouthed it is people can read politics into it. Company's in order to recruit the best people and not upset their customers have to demonstrate some tolerances I feel like there's a little bit of movement to make sure that people want to make sure their customers and their employees feel protected. That's a bit of a reaction to and cities and states you have you know different places where people feel like they need to leaders need to make sure that the people in their environment and under their protection feel safe so if there's, if there's a way to guard against what I agree completely with Karen worries that there's and increase in racial tensions in kids in schools and Montgomery county with you know hate-filled messages and people screaming on planes there's just a lot of toxicity out there. >> Not to mention social media. >> Right. Like real ugly stuff that has been unleashed and some of those people who maybe felt they couldn't say that, now feel like they can't. I don't think that's I think for a lot of people I don't think that's a good thing. I think some of those things have been upsetting to and created unsafe spaces for a lot of people. >> I don't know if we are going to know the answer to these questions for another election cycle I think they are unique candidates at a unique time and you know to agree with Karen you look at the exit polling and Hilary Clinton was considered by a wide swath of the electorate including a plurality of men to be more experienced you know, more prepared than Donald Trump, and yet a percentage of people desired a change so badly they still voted for him. They went and said she's more experienced, she's more qualified, I voted him -- I don't believe it was because she was a woman. The other side I don't think you are going to see candidates and other candidates running for governor behave like Donald Trump. One of my favorite lines was the news media and the Washington elites took everything Donald Trump said literally and didn't take him seriously, and the voters took Donald Trump very seriously and didn't take what he said literally. I think it's true I don't think many voters took what he said literally, and I don't think by virtue of voting for him you endorse everything he said. >> Voters wants change and voters going for the anti- establishment candidates when you look at local elections and 90% of congressman were elected and over 80% of senators reelected. When you are polling people what kind of insights do you get, they want change but they keep reelecting the same people to Congress? >> Well, people feel that's why government's dysfunction is tied to and sometimes beating the economy is what people see the biggest problem facing the country. People feel the government is the problem. That has now been true for a few years where it's seen as such as and overwhelming burden and you know people don't trust anything in Washington to get anything done for members for Congress and you only had a few races at the top tier a lot of that are institutional organizational factors that is re-enforce that, how much money it will cost to run for office and the fact that it's much easier to raise money if you are and incumbent. The fact that there's a few targeted seats every year that where there's really any chance for someone from the other party to be competitive. How difficult it is for members of Congress in particular to breakthrough in a lot of media market where is they live where some districts have multiple media markets are very expensive, how do you get through in a way where people can hear your message. There's lots of other things after you have all of these different ways that obstacles for people to figure out what's going on in the race. Then they end up voting for the person who are vaguely familiar. It's less of I really want change but I guess I am going to vote for this person. It used to be the case. It used to be years ago people would say I hate Congress but I like my members of Congress that's not even true. The majority in a lot of polls say if they can put every single member of Congress out at the same time they would. That is you know that buffer well I like my person because I feed them at the barbecue. >> Once we go to vote that question if I throw every member of Congress out is just a gimmick. You know there is a Margie is saying there's so many institutional reasons for this. Drawing the district lines being a huge part of it and this year for the senate change would have meant electing Democrats and you were, you are defeating the Democratic top of the ticket so you move down.... It was the organization of the year that we were in. I think we have time for one more and then we will adjourn this very interesting panel. >> Hi. Can you speak to the pervasiveness of big news impact on this election and why Hilary Clinton seemed more vulnerable to it than Donald Trump? >> It is a teenager in Macedonia writes a fake news story that says the sky is green. Nobody is going to believe it. You can go outside and say the sky is not green. When they write fake news stories that play to people's preexisting belief. I think people had a lot of preexisting belief about Hilary Clinton and were willing to believe the worst about her which enabled that to spread. I think it also has to do with the fact that on the right you know conservative pop radio hosts are beating up you don't lose by a attacking the media on the right. Newt Gingrich did it with great success. That was his poll numbers went up when he attacked the media. Donald Trump for him Democrats were almost secondary, so like the media is the enemy, so when you ask people in surveys Do you trust your institutions to do the right thing the media for younger voter it is media was below wall street. Only 9% think the media does the right thing. You have a combination of I can't trust the media, I don't like Hilary Clinton and if you haven't been to a super market and look at the tabloids Hilary Clinton adopted alien baby that's not sweeping the nation. If all of a sudden a fake news story says vaguely can speak to some preexisting belief you might have and it's coming from a friend which is like a weird good housekeeping seal of approval. That's why social media has taken the stuff and put it on steroid which is troubling. What makes me concerned is I thus for what I hear from most folks in the media is voters need to be smarter: They need to eat their broccoli I worry that's not a great strategy. That is not going to solve the problem and so I don't know what the answer is but I am concerned that this doesn't go away after this election. -- Christen is going to be signing her book outside. For those of you who want to feel better about women and history I will be signing my new children's book Ladies of Liberty. Thank you all for this very very engaging time. I just feel so proud to have been able to sit here and listen to this great conversation and this reasonable thoughtful conversation and I thank all of you for doing that with great to have Cokie here in this chair and just before we go I would like to give a thank you to another one of our board members Diana Spencer who is the executive director of McGowan Charitable Fund who's been here for all the ten years or almost the ten years so we are now up to 20 events thank you Diana and we look forward to another decade of this. Thank you all for coming. Thank you. Buy some books.

Contents

Polling for completed primaries

Washington (March 3)

Winner
America Symbol.svg
Mitt Romney
Caucus date
March 3, 2012
Delegates
43
Poll source Date 1st 2nd 3rd Other
Caucus results

Turnout: 50,764

March 3, 2012 Mitt Romney 37.65%
America Symbol.svg
Ron Paul
24.81%
Rick Santorum
23.81%
Newt Gingrich 10.28%, Others 3.44%
SurveyUSA

Margin of error: ±4.5%
Sample size: 500

Feb. 29 – Mar. 1, 2012 Mitt Romney
38%
Rick Santorum
24%
Ron Paul
14%
Newt Gingrich 10%, Barack Obama 6%, Other 3%, Undecided 6%
Public Policy Polling

Margin of error: ±4.6%
Sample size: 447

Feb. 29 – Mar. 1, 2012 Mitt Romney
37%
Rick Santorum
32%
Ron Paul
16%
Newt Gingrich 13%, Someone else/Not sure 2%
Public Policy Polling

Margin of error: ±4.9%
Sample size: 400

Feb. 16–19, 2012 Rick Santorum
38%
Mitt Romney
27%
Ron Paul
15%
Newt Gingrich 12%, Someone else/Not sure 8%
Rick Santorum
49%
Mitt Romney
28%
Ron Paul
16%
Not sure 7%
SurveyUSA

Margin of error: ±7.7%
Sample size: 169

Jan. 16, 2012 Mitt Romney
26%
Newt Gingrich
22%
Rick Santorum
19%
Ron Paul 7%, Rick Perry 5%, Jon Huntsman, Jr. 2%, Undecided 18%
Public Policy Polling

Margin of error: ±3.7%
Sample size: 712

Oct. 29–31, 2010 Sarah Palin
19%
Mitt Romney
18%
Mike Huckabee
17%
Newt Gingrich 15%, Tim Pawlenty 4%, Mitch Daniels 2%, Mike Pence 1%, John Thune 0%, someone else/undecided 24%

 Alaska (March 6)

Winner
America Symbol.svg
Mitt Romney
Caucus date
March 6, 2012
Delegates
27
Poll source Date 1st 2nd 3rd Other
Caucus results

Turnout: 13,219

March 6, 2012 Mitt Romney 32.4%
America Symbol.svg
Rick Santorum
29.2%
Ron Paul
24.0%
Newt Gingrich 14.1%, Uncommitted 0.3%
Public Policy Polling
Margin of error: ±3.6%
Sample size: 743
Oct. 30–31, 2010 Mike Huckabee
17%
Newt Gingrich
16%
Mitt Romney
16%
Sarah Palin 15%, Tim Pawlenty 5%, Mitch Daniels 2%, Mike Pence 2%, John Thune 2%, someone else/undecided 25%
Public Policy Polling
Margin of error: ±3.5%
Sample size: 805
Aug. 27–28, 2010 Mitt Romney
20%
Mike Huckabee
17%
Sarah Palin
17%
Newt Gingrich 16%, Ron Paul 10%, someone else 9%, undecided 11%

Georgia (March 6)

Winner
America Symbol.svg
Newt Gingrich
Primary date
March 6, 2012
Delegates
76
Poll source Date 1st 2nd 3rd Other
Primary results

Turnout: 900,434

March 6, 2012 Newt Gingrich 47.2%
America Symbol.svg
Mitt Romney
25.9%
Rick Santorum
19.6%
Ron Paul 6.6%, Jon Huntsman, Jr. 0.2%, Michele Bachmann 0.2%, Rick Perry 0.2%, Buddy Roemer 0.1%, Gary Johnson 0.1%
American Research Group

Margin of error: ±4%
Sample size: 600

Mar. 3–5, 2012 Newt Gingrich
44%
Mitt Romney
24%
Rick Santorum
19%
Ron Paul 9%, Undecided 3%
Public Policy Polling

Margin of error: ±3.6%
Sample size: 728

Mar. 3–4, 2012 Newt Gingrich
47%
Mitt Romney
24%
Rick Santorum
19%
Ron Paul 8%, Someone else/Not sure 2%
Mitt Romney
38%
Rick Santorum
37%
Ron Paul
14%
Not sure 10%
CNN/ORC

Margin of error: ±4%
Sample size: 527

Mar. 1–4, 2012 Newt Gingrich
47%
Mitt Romney
24%
Rick Santorum
15%
Ron Paul 9%, None/No one 1%, No opinion 4%
Mason-Dixon

Margin of error: ±4%
Sample size: 625

Feb. 29-Mar. 1, 2012 Newt Gingrich
38%
Mitt Romney
24%
Rick Santorum
22%
Ron Paul 3%, Undecided 12%
Rosetta Stone

Margin of error: ±3%
Sample size: 950

Mar. 1, 2012 Newt Gingrich
42%
Mitt Romney
22%
Rick Santorum
16%
Ron Paul 5%, Undecided 15%
YouGov

Margin of error: ±6.3%
Sample size: 500

Feb. 25 – Mar. 1, 2012 Newt Gingrich
32%
Mitt Romney
27%
Rick Santorum
17%
Ron Paul 10%, Not sure 14%
Landmark/Rosetta Stone

Margin of error: ±4%
Sample size: 1,300

Feb. 23, 2012 Newt Gingrich
38%
Rick Santorum
25%
Mitt Romney
19%
Ron Paul 5%, Undecided 13%
Rasmussen Reports

Margin of error: ±4%
Sample size: 750

Feb. 22, 2012 Newt Gingrich
33%
Rick Santorum
28%
Mitt Romney
20%
Ron Paul 9%, Someone else 2%, Undecided 8%
InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion Research

Margin of error: ±3.6%
Sample size: 721

Feb. 20, 2012 Newt Gingrich
25.9%
Mitt Romney
23.9%
Rick Santorum
22.8%
Ron Paul 11.7%, Someone else 4.4%, No opinion 11.3%
Rosetta Stone Communications/Landmark Communications

Margin of error: ±2.6%
Sample size: 1,475

Feb. 9, 2012 Newt Gingrich
35%
Rick Santorum
26%
Mitt Romney
16%
Ron Paul 5%, Undecided 18%
Survey USA

Margin of error: ±4.7%
Sample size: 459

Feb. 1–2, 2012 Newt Gingrich
45%
Mitt Romney
32%
Rick Santorum
9%
Ron Paul 8%, Undecided 4%, Other 2%
Mason-Dixon

Margin of error: ±4%
Sample size: 1,025

Dec. 12–14, 2011 Newt Gingrich
43%
Mitt Romney
21%
Rick Perry
7%
Ron Paul 4%, Michele Bachmann 3%, Jon Huntsman 2%, Rick Santorum 1%, Undecided 19%
InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion Research

Margin of error:
Sample size: 516

Dec. 9, 2011 Newt Gingrich
54.1%
Mitt Romney
12.4%
Ron Paul
5.5%
Michele Bachmann 3.8%, Rick Perry 2.9%, Rick Santorum 1.7%, Jon Huntsman 1.5%, Someone else 0.7%, No opinion 17.4%
SurveyUSA

Margin of error: ±4.7%
Sample size: 362

Dec. 6–7, 2011 Newt Gingrich
65%
Mitt Romney
12%
Michele Bachmann
5%
Ron Paul 5%, Rick Perry 4%, Jon Huntsman 1%, Rick Santorum 1%, Undecided 6%
InsiderAdvantage

Margin of error: ±3%
Sample size: 678

Oct. 3, 2011 Herman Cain
41%
Newt Gingrich
17%
Mitt Romney
10%
Rick Perry 9%, Ron Paul 5%, Michele Bachmann 1%, Jon Huntsman 1%, Other 4%, No opinion/Undecided 12%
InsiderAdvantage

Margin of error: ±5%
Sample size: 425

Aug. 18, 2011 Rick Perry
24%
Herman Cain
15%
Newt Gingrich
9%
Michele Bachmann 8%, Sarah Palin 8%, Mitt Romney 6%, Ron Paul 5%, Jon Huntsman 1%, Other 4%, No opinion/Undecided 20%
Insider-Advantage-WSB-TV

Margin of error: ±5%
Sample size: 407

Jun. 3, 2011 Herman Cain
26%
Michele Bachmann
13%
Newt Gingrich
12%
Sarah Palin 11%, Mitt Romney 10%, Ron Paul 1%, Tim Pawlenty 1%, Other 4%, Undecided 22%
Public Policy Polling

Margin of error: ±4.9%
Sample size: 400

Mar. 31 – Apr. 3, 2011 Mike Huckabee
23%
Newt Gingrich
22%
Herman Cain
16%
Sarah Palin 10%, Mitt Romney 8%, Michele Bachmann 4%, Ron Paul 3%, Tim Pawlenty 3%, someone else/undecided 11%
Newt Gingrich
31%
Mike Huckabee
24%
Sarah Palin
10%
Mitt Romney 8%, Michele Bachmann 5%, Ron Paul 4%, Tim Pawlenty 4%, Haley Barbour 3%, someone else/undecided 11%
Magellan Strategies

Margin of error: ±2.8%
Sample size: 1,227

Jul. 8, 2010 Newt Gingrich
29.8%
Mike Huckabee
24.5%
Mitt Romney
14.4%
Sarah Palin 12.0%, Haley Barbour 4.7%, Tim Pawlenty 2.7%, undecided 11.9%
Public Policy Polling

Margin of error: ±4.3%
Sample size: 516

Feb. 26–28, 2010 Mike Huckabee 38% Mitt Romney
28%
Sarah Palin
25%
undecided 9%

 Massachusetts (March 6)

Winner
America Symbol.svg
Mitt Romney
Primary date
March 6, 2012
Delegates
41
Poll source Date 1st 2nd 3rd Other
Primary results

Turnout: 367,438

March 6, 2012 Mitt Romney 72.2%
America Symbol.svg
Rick Santorum
12.0%
Ron Paul
9.5%
Newt Gingrich 4.6%, Jon Huntsman, Jr. 0.6%, No Preference 0.5%, Rick Perry 0.3%, Michele Bachmann 0.2%
YouGov

Margin of error: ±8.7%
Sample size: 400

Feb. 25 – Mar. 1, 2012 Mitt Romney
56%
Rick Santorum
16%
Newt Gingrich
5%
Ron Paul 5%, Not sure 17%
Suffolk University

Margin of error: ±%
Sample size: 172

Feb. 11–15, 2012 Mitt Romney
64%
Rick Santorum
16%
Ron Paul
7%
Newt Gingrich 6%, Undecided 6%, Refused 1%
Public Policy Polling

Margin of error: ±6.1%
Sample size: 255

Sep. 16–18, 2011 Mitt Romney
50%
Rick Perry
14%
Michele Bachmann
7%
Herman Cain 5%, Newt Gingrich 5%, Ron Paul 5%, Jon Huntsman 3%, Gary Johnson 1%, Rick Santorum 1%, someone else/not sure 10%
Mitt Romney
63%
Rick Perry
26%
not sure 10%
Public Policy Polling

Margin of error: ±6.3%
Sample size: 244

Jun. 2 – Jun. 5, 2011 Mitt Romney
49%
Michele Bachmann
10%
Sarah Palin
9%
Herman Cain 8%, Tim Pawlenty 6%, Ron Paul 5%, Newt Gingrich 4%, Jon Huntsman 1%, Someone else/not sure 9%
Public Policy Polling

Margin of error: ±5.7%
Sample size: 300

Nov. 29 – Dec. 1, 2010 Mitt Romney
47%
Sarah Palin
12%
Newt Gingrich
11%
Mike Huckabee 10%, Tim Pawlenty 4%, Ron Paul 3%, John Thune 2%, Mitch Daniels 1%, someone else/undecided 9%

 Ohio (March 6)

Winner
America Symbol.svg
Mitt Romney
Primary date
March 6, 2012
Delegates
66
Poll source Date 1st 2nd 3rd Other
Primary results

Turnout: 1,203,403

March 6, 2012 Mitt Romney 37.9%
America Symbol.svg
Rick Santorum
37.1%
Newt Gingrich
14.6%
Ron Paul 9.2%, Rick Perry 0.6%, Jon Huntsman, Jr. 0.5%
Merriman River Group

Margin of error: ±3.4%
Sample size: 832 LV

Mar. 4, 2012 Mitt Romney
38%
Rick Santorum
33%
Newt Gingrich
18%
Ron Paul 8%, Unsure 1%
Rasmussen Reports

Margin of error: ±4.4%
Sample size: 750

Mar. 4, 2012 Rick Santorum
32%
Mitt Romney
31%
Newt Gingrich
13%
Ron Paul 13%, Undecided 6%
Suffolk University

Margin of error: ±4.4%
Sample size: 500

Mar. 3–4, 2012 Rick Santorum
37%
Mitt Romney
33%
Newt Gingrich
16%
Ron Paul 8%, Undecided 6%
American Research Group

Margin of error: ±4%
Sample size: 600

Mar. 3–4, 2012 Mitt Romney
35%
Rick Santorum
28%
Newt Gingrich
18%
Ron Paul 13%, Other 1%, Undecided 5%
Public Policy Polling

Margin of error: ±3.8%
Sample size: 666

Mar. 3–4, 2012 Mitt Romney
37%
Rick Santorum
36%
Newt Gingrich
15%
Ron Paul 11%, Someone else/Not sure 2%
Rick Santorum
40%
Mitt Romney
39%
Ron Paul
14%
Not sure 8%
Quinnipiac

Margin of error: ±3.6%
Sample size: 753

Mar. 2–4, 2012 Mitt Romney
34%
Rick Santorum
31%
Newt Gingrich
15%
Ron Paul 12%, None/No one 2%, No opinion 8%
CNN/ORC

Margin of error: ±4%
Sample size: 546

Mar. 1–4, 2012 Mitt Romney
32%
Rick Santorum
32%
Newt Gingrich
14%
Ron Paul 11%, None/No one 2%, No opinion 8%
Reuters/Ipsos

Margin of error: ±4%
Sample size: 917

Mar. 1–3, 2012 Mitt Romney
32%
Rick Santorum
32%
Newt Gingrich
17%
Ron Paul 6%
NBC News/Marist

Margin of error: ±3.4%
Sample size: 820

Feb. 29 – Mar. 2, 2012 Rick Santorum
34%
Mitt Romney
32%
Newt Gingrich
15%
Ron Paul 13%, Other 1%, Undecided 6%
Rasmussen Reports

Margin of error: ±4%
Sample size: 750

Mar. 1, 2012 Rick Santorum
33%
Mitt Romney
31%
Newt Gingrich
15%
Ron Paul 11%, Other 2%, Undecided 8%
Quinnipiac

Margin of error: ±4.3%
Sample size: 517

Feb. 29 – Mar. 1, 2012 Rick Santorum
35%
Mitt Romney
31%
Newt Gingrich
17%
Ron Paul 12%, Don't know/No answer 6%
YouGov

Margin of error: ±5.3%
Sample size: 650

Feb. 25 – Mar. 1, 2012 Rick Santorum
33%
Mitt Romney
27%
Newt Gingrich
12%
Ron Paul 9%, Not sure 19%
Quinnipiac

Margin of error: ±3.4%
Sample size: 847

Feb. 23–26, 2012 Rick Santorum
36%
Mitt Romney
29%
Newt Gingrich
17%
Ron Paul 11%, Don't know/No answer 6%
Rasmussen Reports

Margin of error: ±4.2%
Sample size: 750

Feb. 15, 2012 Rick Santorum
42%
Mitt Romney
24%
Newt Gingrich
13%
Ron Paul 10%, Other 3%, Undecided 8%
Quinnipiac

Margin of error: ±4.2%
Sample size: 1,421

Feb. 7–12, 2012 Rick Santorum
36%
Mitt Romney
29%
Newt Gingrich
20%
Ron Paul
9%
Public Policy Polling

Margin of error: ±3.9%
Sample size: 626

Jan. 28–29, 2012 Newt Gingrich
26%
Mitt Romney
25%
Rick Santorum
22%
Ron Paul 11%, Someone else/Not sure 16%
Newt Gingrich
42%
Mitt Romney
39%
Not sure 19%
Mitt Romney
61%
Ron Paul
23%
Not sure 16%
Rick Santorum
45%
Mitt Romney
38%
Not sure 18%
Quinnipiac

Margin of error: ±4.2%
Sample size: 542

Jan. 9–16, 2012 Mitt Romney
27%
Rick Santorum
18%
Newt Gingrich
17%
Ron Paul 10%, Rick Perry 4%, Someone Else 1%, Wouldn't Vote 2%, Don't Know/No Answer 20%
Quinnipiac

Margin of error: ±4.4%
Sample size: 500

Nov. 28 – Dec. 5, 2011 Newt Gingrich
36%
Mitt Romney
18%
Herman Cain
7%
Ron Paul 7%, Michele Bachmann 5%, Rick Perry 4%, Rick Santorum 2%, Jon Huntsman 1%, Someone Else 2%, Wouldn't Vote 2%, Don't Know/No Answer 15%
Newt Gingrich
55%
Mitt Romney
28%
Someone Else 3%, Wouldn't Vote 3%, Don't Know/No Answer 13%
Quinnipiac University

Margin of error: ±4.7%
Sample size: 443

Oct. 31 – Nov. 7, 2011 Herman Cain
25%
Mitt Romney
20%
Newt Gingrich
11%
Ron Paul 9%, Michele Bachmann 4%, Rick Perry 4%, Jon Huntsman 2%, Rick Santorum 1%, Unknown 20%
Public Policy Polling

Margin of error: ±4.4%
Sample size: 500

Nov. 4–6, 2011 Herman Cain
34%
Newt Gingrich
20%
Mitt Romney
19%
Ron Paul 5%, Rick Perry 5%, Michele Bachmann 4%, Jon Huntsman 2%, Gary Johnson 1%, Rick Santorum 1%, someone else/not sure 9%
Quinnipiac

Margin of error: ±4.2%
Sample size: 542

Oct. 17–23, 2011 Herman Cain
28%
Mitt Romney
23%
Ron Paul
8%
Newt Gingrich 7%, Michele Bachmann 4%, Rick Perry 4%, Jon Huntsman 2%, Rick Santorum 1%, don't know 18%, someone else 2%, wouldn't vote 2%
Herman Cain
40%
Mitt Romney
33%
Rick Perry
10%
don't know 14%, wouldn't vote 2%, someone else 1%
Public Policy Polling

Margin of error: ±4.4%
Sample size: 500

Oct. 13–16, 2011 Herman Cain
34%
Mitt Romney
19%
Newt Gingrich
14%
Ron Paul 7%, Michele Bachmann 6%, Rick Perry 5%, Jon Huntsman 1%, Rick Santorum 1%, Gary Johnson 0%, someone else/not sure 12%
Mitt Romney
50%
Rick Perry
35%
not sure 15%
Herman Cain
50%
Mitt Romney
36%
not sure 13%
Herman Cain
58%
Rick Perry
24%
not sure 18%
Quinnipiac

Margin of error: ±4.8%
Sample size: 423

Sep. 20–25, 2011 Mitt Romney
24%
Rick Perry
20%
Sarah Palin
9%
Herman Cain 7%, Ron Paul 6%, Newt Gingrich 4%, Rick Santorum 4%, Michele Bachmann 3%, Jon Huntsman 1%, don't know 21%, someone else 1%, wouldn't vote 1%
Mitt Romney
25%
Rick Perry
21%
Herman Cain
7%
Newt Gingrich 6%, Ron Paul 6%, Michele Bachmann 4%, Rick Santorum 4%, Jon Huntsman 2%, don't know 22%, someone else 1%, wouldn't vote 1%
Public Policy Polling

Margin of error: ±4.9%
Sample size: 400

Aug. 11–14, 2011 Rick Perry
21%
Mitt Romney
18%
Sarah Palin
11%
Michele Bachmann 10%, Herman Cain 8%, Newt Gingrich 7%, Ron Paul 7%, Tim Pawlenty 3%, Jon Huntsman 1%, someone else/undecided 15%
Rick Perry
21%
Mitt Romney
20%
Michele Bachmann
14%
Herman Cain 10%, Newt Gingrich 8%, Ron Paul 8%, Tim Pawlenty 3%, Jon Huntsman 1%, someone else/undecided 16%
Quinnipiac

Margin of error: ±4.1%
Sample size: 563

Jul. 12–18, 2011 Mitt Romney
16%
Sarah Palin
15%
Michele Bachmann
11%
Rick Perry 8%, Herman Cain 6%, Ron Paul 5%, Newt Gingrich 4%, Tim Pawlenty 3%, Rick Santorum 2%, Jon Huntsman 1%, Thaddeus McCotter 0%, someone else/not sure 28%
Mitt Romney
19%
Sarah Palin
15%
Michele Bachmann
14%
Herman Cain 7%, Newt Gingrich 5%, Ron Paul 5%, Tim Pawlenty 3%, Rick Santorum 2%, Jon Huntsman 1%, Thaddeus McCotter 0%, someone else/not sure 29%
Mitt Romney
19%
Michele Bachmann
16%
Rick Perry
8%
Herman Cain 7%, Newt Gingrich 6%, Ron Paul 6%, Tim Pawlenty 3%, Rick Santorum 3%, Jon Huntsman 1%, Thaddeus McCotter 0%, someone else/not sure 31%
Public Policy Polling

Margin of error: ±4.9%
Sample size: 400

May 19–22, 2011 Mitt Romney
21%
Sarah Palin
16%
Herman Cain
12%
Newt Gingrich 12%, Michele Bachmann 10%, Ron Paul 9%, Tim Pawlenty 5%, someone else/not sure 15%
Mitt Romney
23%
Newt Gingrich
16%
Herman Cain
13%
Ron Paul 13%, Michele Bachmann 11%, Tim Pawlenty 6%, Jon Huntsman 0%, someone else/not sure 18%
Public Policy Polling

Margin of error: ±4.9%
Sample size: 400

Mar. 10–13, 2011 Mike Huckabee
19%
Mitt Romney
18%
Newt Gingrich
16%
Sarah Palin 15%, Ron Paul 7%, Tim Pawlenty 5%, Mitch Daniels 4%, Haley Barbour 2%, someone else/undecided 13%
Public Policy Polling

Margin of error: ±4.9%
Sample size: 400

Dec. 10–12, 2010 Sarah Palin
21%
Mike Huckabee
19%
Newt Gingrich
18%
Mitt Romney 15%, Ron Paul 6%, Mitch Daniels 5%, Tim Pawlenty 3%, John Thune 2%, someone else/undecided 11%
Public Policy Polling

Margin of error: ±4.4%
Sample size: 500

Oct. 28–30, 2010 Sarah Palin
20%
Newt Gingrich
19%
Mike Huckabee
17%
Mitt Romney 14%, Tim Pawlenty 6%, Mitch Daniels 3%, Mike Pence 2%, John Thune 0%, someone else/undecided 18%
Public Policy Polling

Margin of error: ±4.9%
Sample size: 400

Mar. 20–21, 2010 Mitt Romney
32%
Mike Huckabee
28%
Sarah Palin
26%
undecided 14%

 Oklahoma (March 6)

Winner
America Symbol.svg
Rick Santorum
Primary date
March 6, 2012
Delegates
43
Poll source Date 1st 2nd 3rd Other
Primary results

Turnout: 286,298

March 6, 2012 Rick Santorum 33.8%
America Symbol.svg
Mitt Romney
28.0%
Newt Gingrich
27.5%
Ron Paul 9.6%, Rick Perry 0.5%, Michele Bachmann 0.3%, Jon Huntsman, Jr. 0.3%
American Research Group

Margin of error: ±4%
Sample size: 600

Mar. 1–2, 2012 Rick Santorum
37%
Mitt Romney
26%
Newt Gingrich
22%
Ron Paul 9%, Other 1%, Undecided 5%
YouGov

Margin of error: ±8.8%
Sample size: 250

Feb. 25 – Mar. 1, 2012 Rick Santorum
28%
Mitt Romney
25%
Newt Gingrich
20%
Ron Paul 8%, Not sure 19%
Rasmussen Reports

Margin of error: ±4%
Sample size: 750

Feb. 21, 2012 Rick Santorum
43%
Newt Gingrich
22%
Mitt Romney
18%
Ron Paul 7%, Some other candidate 2%, Undecided 7%
SoonerPoll.com

Margin of error: ±5.66%
Sample size: 278

Feb. 8–16, 2012 Rick Santorum
39%
Mitt Romney
23%
Newt Gingrich
18%
Ron Paul 8%, Don't know/refused 13%
American Research Group

Margin of error: ±4%
Sample size: 600

Feb. 6–7, 2012 Newt Gingrich
34%
Mitt Romney
31%
Rick Santorum
16%
Ron Paul 10%, Other 2%, Undecided 7%
SoonerPoll.com

Margin of error: ±4.9%
Sample size: 400

Nov. 17–Dec. 16, 2011 Newt Gingrich
33.3%
Mitt Romney
14.3%
Herman Cain
9.3%
Rick Perry 9.3%, Ron Paul 4.3%, Michele Bachmann 3.5%, Rick Santorum 1.5%, Jon Huntsman 1.3%
Cole Hargrave Snodgrass & Associates

Margin of error: ±6.7%
Sample size: 215

Aug. 9–11, 2011 Rick Perry
22%
Mitt Romney
17%
Michele Bachmann
8%
Herman Cain 6%, Newt Gingrich 5%, Ron Paul 3%, Jon Huntsman 2%, Tim Pawlenty 2%, Undecided (vol.) 33%

 Tennessee (March 6)

Winner
America Symbol.svg
Rick Santorum
Primary date
March 6, 2012
Delegates
58
Poll source Date 1st 2nd 3rd Other
Primary results

Turnout: 551,792

March 6, 2012 Rick Santorum 37.2%
America Symbol.svg
Mitt Romney
28.1%
Newt Gingrich
23.9%
Ron Paul 9.0%, Uncommitted 0.6%, Rick Perry 0.4%, Michele Bachmann 0.3%, Jon Huntsman, Jr. 0.2%, Buddy Roemer 0.2%, Gary Johnson 0.1%
We Ask America

Margin of error: ±3.06%
Sample size: 1,023 LV

Mar. 4, 2012 Mitt Romney
30%
Newt Gingrich
29%
Rick Santorum
29%
Ron Paul 12%
Public Policy Polling

Margin of error: ±4.3%
Sample size: 525

Mar. 3–4, 2012 Rick Santorum
34%
Mitt Romney
29%
Newt Gingrich
27%
Ron Paul 8%, Someone else/Not sure 2%
Rick Santorum
47%
Mitt Romney
34%
Ron Paul
11%
Not sure 7%
Rasmussen Reports

Margin of error: ±4%
Sample size: 750

Mar. 3, 2012 Rick Santorum
34%
Mitt Romney
30%
Newt Gingrich
18%
Ron Paul 8%, Other 3%, Undecided 7%
American Research Group

Margin of error: ±4%
Sample size: 600

Mar. 1–3, 2012 Rick Santorum
35%
Mitt Romney
31%
Newt Gingrich
20%
Ron Paul 9%, Other 1%, Undecided 4%
YouGov

Margin of error: ±6.6%
Sample size: 500

Feb. 25 – Mar. 1, 2012 Rick Santorum
32%
Mitt Romney
23%
Newt Gingrich
16%
Ron Paul 13%, Not sure 15%
Middle Tennessee State University

Margin of error: ±4%
Sample size: 646

Feb. 13–25, 2012 Rick Santorum
40%
Mitt Romney
19%
Newt Gingrich
13%
Ron Paul 11%
Vanderbilt University

Margin of error: ±2.6%
Sample size: 815

Feb. 16–22, 2012 Rick Santorum
33%
Mitt Romney
17%
Ron Paul
13%
Newt Gingrich 10%, None of the above 10%, Would not vote 0%, Don't know 14%, Refused 3%
American Research Group

Margin of error: ±4%
Sample size: 600

Feb. 8–9, 2012 Rick Santorum
34%
Mitt Romney
27%
Newt Gingrich
16%
Ron Paul 13%, Other 1%, Undecided 9%
Vanderbilt 

Margin of error: ±2.6%
Sample size: 1,423

Oct. 28 – Nov. 5, 2011 Herman Cain
19%
Mitt Romney
11%
Rick Perry
8%
Michele Bachmann 6%, Newt Gingrich 6%, Ron Paul 6%, Rick Santorum 1%, don't know 28%, would rather have another choice 13%, declined to answer 2%
Public Policy Polling

Margin of error: ±4.9%
Sample size: 400

Feb. 9–13, 2011 Mike Huckabee
31%
Sarah Palin
17%
Newt Gingrich
11%
Mitt Romney 11%, Ron Paul 10%, Mitch Daniels 3%, Tim Pawlenty 3%, John Thune 1%, undecided 14%

Vermont (March 6)

Winner
America Symbol.svg
Mitt Romney
Primary date
March 6, 2012
Delegates
17
Poll source Date 1st 2nd 3rd Other
Primary results

Turnout: 60,304

March 6, 2012 Mitt Romney 39.7%
America Symbol.svg
Ron Paul
25.5%
Rick Santorum
23.7%
Newt Gingrich 8.2%, Jon Huntsman, Jr. 2.0%, Rick Perry 0.9%
Castleton Polling Institute

Margin of error:
Sample size: 231

Feb. 11–22, 2012 Mitt Romney
34%
Rick Santorum
27%
Ron Paul
14%
Newt Gingrich 10%, Jon Huntsman 1%, Other 1%, Not sure 4%, Refused 9%
Public Policy Polling

Margin of error: ±5.1%
Sample size: 366

Jul. 28–31, 2011 Mitt Romney
26%
Michele Bachmann
16%
Sarah Palin
16%
Rick Perry 10%, Herman Cain 9%, Ron Paul 7%, Newt Gingrich 6%, Jon Huntsman 3%, Tim Pawlenty 1%, someone else/undecided 5%
Mitt Romney
29%
Michele Bachmann
21%
Rick Perry
11%
Herman Cain 10%, Newt Gingrich 9%, Ron Paul 8%, Tim Pawlenty 2%, Jon Huntsman 1%, someone else/undecided 9%

 Virginia (March 6)

Winner
America Symbol.svg
Mitt Romney
Primary date
March 6, 2012
Delegates
50
Note
Only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul appeared on the ballot. Other candidates failed to submit the necessary 10,000 signatures.[8]
Poll source Date 1st 2nd 3rd Other
Primary results

Turnout: 265,521

March 6, 2012 Mitt Romney 59.5%
America Symbol.svg
Ron Paul
40.5%
NBC News/Marist

Margin of error: ±4.3%
Sample size: 529

Feb. 29 – Mar. 2, 2012 Mitt Romney
69%
Ron Paul
26%
Undecided 6%
Mitt Romney
36%
Rick Santorum
28%
Newt Gingrich 15% Ron Paul 13%, Undecided 8%
Roanoke College

Margin of error: ±5%
Sample size: 377

Feb. 13–28, 2012 Mitt Romney
56%
Ron Paul
21%
Undecided 23%
Mitt Romney
31%
Rick Santorum
27%
Newt Gingrich 13% Ron Paul 12%, Uncertain 17%
Christopher Newport University/Richmond Times-Dispatch

Margin of error: ±3.1%
Sample size: 1,018

Feb. 4–13, 2012 Mitt Romney
53%
Ron Paul
23%
Other/Undecided 12%, Don't know/refused 12%
Quinnipiac University

Margin of error: ±4.2%
Sample size: 546

Feb. 1–6, 2012 Mitt Romney
68%
Ron Paul
19%
Don't know/No answer 13%
Mitt Romney
37%
Newt Gingrich
27%
Rick Santorum 18% Ron Paul 12%, Wouldn't vote 1%, Don't know/No answer 5%
Quinnipiac University

Margin of error: ±4.4%
Sample size: 489

Dec. 13–19, 2011 Newt Gingrich
30%
Mitt Romney
25%
Ron Paul
9%
Rick Perry 6%, Michele Bachmann 6%, Jon Huntsman 4%, Rick Santorum 3%, other 1%, wouldn't vote 1%, don't know 15%
Public Policy Polling

Margin of error: ±5.2%
Sample size: 350

Dec. 11–13, 2011 Newt Gingrich
41%
Mitt Romney
15%
Michele Bachmann
8%
Rick Perry 8%, Ron Paul 6%, Rick Santorum 6%, Jon Huntsman 3%, Gary Johnson 1%, Someone else/Not sure 12%
Quinnipiac

Margin of error: ±5.3%
Sample size: 345

Oct. 5–9, 2011 Herman Cain
21%
Mitt Romney
21%
Rick Perry
11%
Ron Paul 9%, Michele Bachmann 7%, Newt Gingrich 7%, Rick Santorum 2%, Jon Huntsman 1%, Wouldn't vote 1%, Don't know 20%
Christopher Newport University/Richmond Times-Dispatch

Margin of error: ±5.4%
Sample size: 1,027

Oct. 3–8, 2011 Mitt Romney
44%
Herman Cain
12%
Rick Perry
10%
Ron Paul 6%, Newt Gingrich 5%, Michele Bachmann 4%, Rick Santorum 2%, Jon Huntsman 1%, Other 2%, Don't know 14%
Quinnipiac

Margin of error: ±4%
Sample size: 591

Sep. 7–12, 2011 Rick Perry
25%
Mitt Romney
19%
Ron Paul
8%
Sarah Palin 7%, Herman Cain 6%, Michele Bachmann 5%, Newt Gingrich 4%, Rick Santorum 2%, Jon Huntsman 1%, Thaddeus McCotter 0%, someone else/undecided 21%
Public Policy Polling

Margin of error: ±4.9%
Sample size: 400

Jul. 21–24, 2011 Rick Perry
20%
Mitt Romney
16%
Michele Bachmann
15%
Sarah Palin 13%, Herman Cain 10%, Newt Gingrich 6%, Ron Paul 6%, Tim Pawlenty 2%, Jon Huntsman 1%, someone else/not sure 11%
Michele Bachmann
21%
Rick Perry
18%
Mitt Romney
18%
Herman Cain 10%, Newt Gingrich 8%, Ron Paul 7%, Tim Pawlenty 3%, Jon Huntsman 2%, someone else/not sure 13%
Public Policy Polling

Margin of error: ±4.9%
Sample size: 400

Feb. 24–27, 2011 Mike Huckabee
20%
Mitt Romney
16%
Sarah Palin
16%
Newt Gingrich 14%, Ron Paul 8%, Mitch Daniels 7%, Tim Pawlenty 4%, Haley Barbour 2%, someone else/undecided 11%
Public Policy Polling

Margin of error: ±4.9%
Sample size: 400

Nov. 10–13, 2010 Mike Huckabee
21%
Newt Gingrich
20%
Sarah Palin
17%
Mitt Romney 15%, Ron Paul 7%, Tim Pawlenty 5%, Mitch Daniels 3%, John Thune 2%, someone else/undecided 11%

 Alabama (March 13)

Winner
America Symbol.svg
Rick Santorum
Primary date
March 13, 2012
Delegates
50
Poll source Date 1st 2nd 3rd Other
Primary results

Turnout: 621,542

March 13, 2012 Rick Santorum 34.5%
America Symbol.svg
Newt Gingrich
29.3%
Mitt Romney
29.0%
Ron Paul 5.0%, Uncommitted 1.5%, Rick Perry 0.3%, Michele Bachmann 0.3%, Jon Huntsman, Jr. 0.2%
Public Policy Polling 
Margin of error: ±4.0%
Sample size: 600
Mar. 10–11, 2012 Mitt Romney
31%
Newt Gingrich
30%
Rick Santorum
29%
Ron Paul 8%
American Research Group
Margin of error: ±4%
Sample size: 600
Mar. 9–11, 2012 Newt Gingrich
34%
Mitt Romney
31%
Rick Santorum
24%
Ron Paul 6%, Other 1%, Undecided 4%
Alabama State University
Margin of error: ±5%
Sample size: 416
Mar. 5–9, 2012 Newt Gingrich
20.7%
Mitt Romney
20.2%
Rick Santorum
16.7%
Other 15.1%, Undecided 27.4%
Rasmussen Reports
Margin of error: ±4%
Sample size: 750
Mar. 8, 2012 Newt Gingrich
30%
Rick Santorum
29%
Mitt Romney
28%
Ron Paul 7%, Other 1%, Undecided 6%
Capital Survey Research Center
Margin of error: ±4%
Sample size: 554
Mar. 6–8, 2012 Mitt Romney
28.5%
Newt Gingrich
25.5%
Rick Santorum
21.1%
Ron Paul 4.5%, Don't know 20%
Capital Survey Research Center
Margin of error: ±4%
Sample size: 592
Mar. 5–7, 2012 Mitt Romney
29.9%
Newt Gingrich
24.7%
Rick Santorum
20.1%
Ron Paul 5.6%, Don't know/No reply 19.8%
Capital Survey Research Center
Margin of error: ±4.4%
Sample size: 510
Mar. 1, 5–6, 2012 Mitt Romney
31.2%
Rick Santorum
21.6%
Newt Gingrich
21%
Ron Paul 6.5%, Undecided 19.8%
Alabama State University
Sample size: 470
Mar. 1, 2012 Rick Santorum
22.7%
Mitt Romney
18.7%
Newt Gingrich
13.8%
Other 15%, Undecided 29.8%
Capital Research Survey Center
Sample size: 616
Nov. 29 – Dec. 1, 2011 Newt Gingrich
43%
Mitt Romney
14%
Herman Cain
10%
Rick Perry 4%, Ron Paul 3.5%, Michele Bachmann 3%, Jon Huntsman 1%, Rick Santorum 1%, Undecided 20%
Capital Research Survey Center
Sample size: 841
Aug. 2011 Rick Perry
30%
Mitt Romney
24%
Michele Bachmann
11%
Ron Paul 7%, Herman Cain 7%, Newt Gingrich 5%, Jon Huntsman 1%, Rick Santorum 1%, Undecided 14%
Public Policy Polling
Margin of error: ±4.6%
Sample size: 457
Mar. 27–29, 2010 Mike Huckabee
41%
Sarah Palin
27%
Mitt Romney
20%
Undecided 13%
Public Strategy Associates
Margin of error: ±3.1%
Sample size: 1,007
Feb. 3–4, 2010 Mike Huckabee
33%
Sarah Palin
23%
Mitt Romney
12%
Ron Paul 5%, Tim Pawlenty 3%, Undecided 24%

 Hawaii (March 13)

Winner
America Symbol.svg
Mitt Romney
Caucus date
March 13, 2012
Delegates
20
Poll source Date 1st 2nd 3rd Other
Caucus results

Turnout: 10,228

March 13, 2012 Mitt Romney 44.5%
America Symbol.svg
Rick Santorum
25.3%
Ron Paul
19.3%
Newt Gingrich 10.9%
Public Policy Polling

Margin of error: ±5.7%
Sample size: 293

Oct. 13–16, 2011 Herman Cain
36%
Mitt Romney
24%
Newt Gingrich
8%
Rick Perry 8%, Michele Bachmann 6%, Ron Paul 4%, Jon Huntsman 1%, Gary Johnson 1%, Rick Santorum 1%, someone else/not sure 11%
Mitt Romney
49%
Rick Perry
30%
not sure 21%
Herman Cain
49%
Mitt Romney
34%
not sure 17%
Herman Cain
54%
Rick Perry
22%
not sure 24%

 Mississippi (March 13)

Winner
America Symbol.svg
Rick Santorum
Primary date
March 13, 2012
Delegates
40
Poll source Date 1st 2nd 3rd Other
Primary results

Turnout: 289,935

March 13, 2012 Rick Santorum
32.8%
America Symbol.svg
Newt Gingrich 31.2% Mitt Romney 30.6% Ron Paul 4.4%, Rick Perry 0.5%, Michele Bachmann 0.3%, Jon Huntsman 0.1%, Gary Johnson 0.1%
Public Policy Polling 
Margin of error: ±3.8%
Sample size: 656
Mar. 10–11, 2012 Newt Gingrich
33%
Mitt Romney
31%
Rick Santorum
27%
Ron Paul 7%, Undecided 4%
American Research Group
Margin of error: ±4%
Sample size: 600
Mar. 10–11, 2012 Mitt Romney
34%
Newt Gingrich
32%
Rick Santorum
22%
Ron Paul 8%, Other 1%, Undecided 3%
Rasmussen Reports
Margin of error: ±4%
Sample size: 750
Mar. 8, 2012 Mitt Romney
35%
Newt Gingrich
27%
Rick Santorum
27%
Ron Paul 6%, Other 1%, Undecided 4%
American Research Group

Margin of error: ±4%
Sample size: 600

Mar. 7–8, 2012 Newt Gingrich
35%
Mitt Romney
31%
Rick Santorum
20%
Ron Paul 7%, Undecided 7%
Public Policy Polling

Margin of error: ±4.9%
Sample size: 400

Nov. 4–6, 2011 Newt Gingrich
28%
Herman Cain
25%
Rick Perry
14%
Mitt Romney 12%, Michele Bachmann 5%, Ron Paul 4%, Jon Huntsman 1%, Gary Johnson 1%, Rick Santorum 1%, someone else/not sure 9%
Public Policy Polling

Margin of error: ±4.9%
Sample size: 400

Mar. 24–27, 2011 Haley Barbour
37%
Mike Huckabee
19%
Newt Gingrich
10%
Sarah Palin 10%, Mitt Romney 6%, Michele Bachmann 5%, Tim Pawlenty 3%, Ron Paul 2%, someone else/undecided 9%
Mike Huckabee
35%
Sarah Palin
20%
Newt Gingrich
18%
Mitt Romney 8%, Michele Bachmann 5%, Ron Paul 4%, Tim Pawlenty 3%, someone else/undecided 8%

 Illinois (March 20)

Winner
America Symbol.svg
Mitt Romney
Primary date
March 20, 2012
Delegates
69
Poll source Date 1st 2nd 3rd Other
Primary results

Turnout: 922,146

March 20, 2012 Mitt Romney 46.7%
America Symbol.svg
Rick Santorum
35.0%
Ron Paul
9.3%
Newt Gingrich 8.0%, Rick Perry 0.6%
American Research Group

Margin of error: ±4%
Sample size: 600

Mar. 17–18, 2012 Mitt Romney
44%
Rick Santorum
30%
Newt Gingrich
13%
Ron Paul 8%, Other 1%, Undecided 4%
Public Policy Polling

Margin of error: ±4.4%
Sample size: 506

Mar. 17–18, 2012 Mitt Romney
45%
Rick Santorum
30%
Newt Gingrich
13%
Ron Paul 10%, Someone else/Not sure 2%
Mitt Romney
45%
Rick Santorum
34%
Ron Paul
14%
Not sure 7%
Rasmussen Reports

Margin of error: ±4%
Sample size: 750

Mar. 15, 2012 Mitt Romney
41%
Rick Santorum
32%
Newt Gingrich
14%
Ron Paul 7%, Undecided 6%
Chicago Tribune

Margin of error: ±4%
Sample size: 600

Mar. 7–9, 2012 Mitt Romney
35%
Rick Santorum
31%
Newt Gingrich
12%
Ron Paul 7%, Undecided 16%
The Simon Poll/SIU

Margin of error: ±3.0%
Sample size: 1000

Oct. 11—16, 2011 Herman Cain
23.4%
Mitt Romney
20.6%
Newt Gingrich
7.5%
Rick Perry 7.2%, Ron Paul 6.6%, Michele Bachmann 3.8%, Jon Huntsman 2.5%, Rick Santorum 2.2%
Public Policy Polling

Margin of error: ±6.1%
Sample size: 255

Oct. 30–31, 2010 Mike Huckabee
18%
Newt Gingrich
17%
Sarah Palin
14%
Mitt Romney 12%, Tim Pawlenty 7%, Mitch Daniels 6%, John Thune 2%, Mike Pence 1%, someone else/undecided 23%
Public Policy Polling

Margin of error: ±4.9%
Sample size: 400

Aug. 14–16, 2010 Newt Gingrich
23%
Mike Huckabee
21%
Sarah Palin
18%
Mitt Romney 16%, Ron Paul 7%, undecided 9%, someone else 7%
Public Policy Polling

Margin of error: ±4.9%
Sample size: 400

Jun. 12–13, 2010 Mike Huckabee
25%
Mitt Romney
25%
Newt Gingrich
23%
Sarah Palin 18%, Ron Paul 5%, undecided 4%
Public Policy Polling

Margin of error: ±4.9%
Sample size: 400

Apr. 1–5, 2010 Mitt Romney
34%
Mike Huckabee
28%
Sarah Palin
24%
undecided 14%

 Missouri (March 15–24)

Caucus date
March 17, 2012
Delegates
52
Poll source Date 1st 2nd 3rd Other
Non-binding Primary

Turnout: 251,868

Feb. 7, 2012 Rick Santorum
55.2%
Mitt Romney
25.3%
Ron Paul
12.2%
Uncomitted 3.9%, Rick Perry 1.0%, Herman Cain 0.9%, Michele Bachmann 0.7%, Jon Huntsman, Jr. 0.4%, Gary Johnson 0.2%, Michael Meehan 0.1%, Keith Drummond 0.1%
Public Policy Polling

Margin of error: ±3.2%
Sample size: 958

Feb. 6, 2012 Rick Santorum
45%
Mitt Romney
32%
Ron Paul
19%
Someone else 4%
Public Policy Polling

Margin of error: ±4.1%
Sample size: 574

Jan. 27–29, 2012 Newt Gingrich
30%
Rick Santorum
28%
Mitt Romney
24%
Ron Paul 11%, Someone else/Not sure 7%
Rick Santorum
45%
Mitt Romney
34%
Ron Paul
13%
Someone else/Not sure 8%
Newt Gingrich
43%
Mitt Romney
42%
Not sure 15%
Mitt Romney
60%
Ron Paul
27%
Not sure 13%
Rick Santorum
50%
Mitt Romney
37%
Not sure 13%
Public Policy Polling

Margin of error: ±4.9%
Sample size: 400

Sep. 9–12, 2011 Rick Perry
31%
Mitt Romney
15%
Herman Cain
10%
Newt Gingrich 10%, Michele Bachmann 9%, Ron Paul 8%, Jon Huntsman 2%, Rick Santorum 1%, someone else/not sure 14%
Rick Perry
55%
Mitt Romney 27% not sure 19%
Wilson Perkins Allen Opinion Research

Margin of error: ±5.8%
Sample size: 284

Aug. 10–11, 2011 Mitt Romney
25%
Rick Perry
22%
Michele Bachmann
13%
Newt Gingrich 7%, Herman Cain 6%, Ron Paul 5%, Rick Santorum 2%, Jon Huntsman 1%, Hard Undecided/DK/Refused DNR 20%
Public Policy Polling

Margin of error: ±4.9%
Sample size: 400

Apr. 28 – May 1, 2011 Mike Huckabee
28%
Mitt Romney
13%
Donald Trump
12%
Newt Gingrich 10%, Michele Bachmann 9%, Sarah Palin 8%, Ron Paul 6%, Tim Pawlenty 5%, someone else/undecided 9%
Public Policy Polling

Margin of error: ±4.9%
Sample size: 400

Mar. 3–6, 2011 Mike Huckabee
29%
Newt Gingrich
19%
Sarah Palin
14%
Mitt Romney 13%, Ron Paul 7%, Mitch Daniels 4%, Tim Pawlenty 3%, Haley Barbour 2%, someone else/undecided 10%
Public Policy Polling

Margin of error: ±4.9%
Sample size: 400

Nov. 29 – Dec. 1, 2010 Mike Huckabee
27%
Sarah Palin
25%
Newt Gingrich
15%
Mitt Romney 14%, Ron Paul 5%, Tim Pawlenty 3%, John Thune 2%, Mitch Daniels 1%, undecided 9%
Public Policy Polling

Margin of error: ±4.9%
Sample size: 400

Mar. 27–29, 2010 Mike Huckabee
32%
Sarah Palin
28%
Mitt Romney
22%
undecided 18%

 Louisiana (March 24)

Winner
America Symbol.svg
Rick Santorum
Primary date
March 24, 2012
Delegates
46
Poll source Date 1st 2nd 3rd Other
Primary results

Turnout: 186,377

March 24, 2012 Rick Santorum 49.0%
America Symbol.svg
Mitt Romney
26.7%
Newt Gingrich
15.91%
Ron Paul 6.15%
Public Policy Polling

Margin of error: ±3.8%
Sample size: 650

Mar. 21–22, 2012 Rick Santorum
42%
Mitt Romney
28%
Newt Gingrich
18%
Ron Paul 8%, Buddy Roemer 2%, Someone else/Not sure 2%
Rick Santorum
53%
Mitt Romney
31%
Ron Paul
11%
Not sure 6%
American Research Group

Margin of error: ±4%
Sample size: 600

Mar. 20–22, 2012 Rick Santorum
43%
Mitt Romney
27%
Newt Gingrich
20%
Ron Paul 6%, Other 1%, Undecided 3%
Rasmussen Reports

Margin of error: ±4%
Sample size: 750

Mar. 21, 2012 Rick Santorum
43%
Mitt Romney
31%
Newt Gingrich
16%
Ron Paul 5%, Some other candidate 1%, Undecided 5%
Rick Santorum
57%
Mitt Romney
37%
Magellan Strategies

Margin of error: ±2.18%
Sample size: 2,018

Mar. 19, 2012 Rick Santorum
37%
Mitt Romney
24%
Newt Gingrich
21%
Buddy Roemer 3%, Ron Paul 3%, Rick Perry 3%, Michele Bachmann 2%, Jon Huntsman 1%, Undecided 6%
GCR & Associates/WWL-TV

Margin of error: ±4.4%
Sample size: 515

Mar. 8–10, 2012 Rick Santorum
25.44%
Mitt Romney
20.97%
Newt Gingrich
19.81%
Ron Paul 5.63%, Other 1.94%, Undecided 26.21%
Clarus Research

Margin of error: ±5.6%
Sample size: 300

Nov. 20–22, 2011 Newt Gingrich
31%
Mitt Romney
23%
Herman Cain
12%
Rick Perry 11%, Ron Paul 6%, Michele Bachmann 4%, Buddy Roemer 2%, Jon Huntsman 1%, Undecided 10%
Clarus Research

Margin of error: ±5.6%
Sample size: 304

Oct. 5–7, 2011 Rick Perry
23%
Herman Cain
21%
Mitt Romney
17%
Newt Gingrich 4%, Ron Paul 4%, Michele Bachmann 3%, Buddy Roemer 3%, Jon Huntsman 1%, Rick Santorum 0%
Wilson Perkins Allen Opinion Research

Margin of error: ±7.2%
Sample size: 183

Aug. 14–16, 2011 Rick Perry
30%
Michele Bachmann
16%
Mitt Romney
15%
Newt Gingrich 9%, Ron Paul 6%, Herman Cain 2%, Jon Huntsman 2%, Rick Santorum 1%, Hard Undecided/DK/Refused DNR 19%
Public Policy Polling

Margin of error: ±5.2%
Sample size: 358

Aug. 21–22, 2010 Newt Gingrich
25%
Mike Huckabee
24%
Sarah Palin
20%
Mitt Romney 16%, Ron Paul 7%, someone else 2%, undecided 8%
Public Policy Polling

Margin of error: ±4.9%
Sample size: 400

Jun. 12–13, 2010 Newt Gingrich
24%
Mike Huckabee
24%
Sarah Palin
23%
Mitt Romney 14%, Ron Paul 6%, undecided 8%
Bobby Jindal
44%
Newt Gingrich
15%
Mike Huckabee
14%
Sarah Palin 8%, Mitt Romney 6%, Ron Paul 3%, undecided 9%

See also

References

  1. ^ James Oliphant, "Herman Cain drops out of presidential race" (December 3, 2011). Los Angeles Times.
  2. ^ Sarah Wheaton, "Bachmann Says She Will Not Continue in the Race" (January 4, 2012). New York Times.
  3. ^ Zeleny, Jeff; Shear, Michael D. (January 19, 2012). "Perry to End Bid for Presidency". The Caucus. The New York Times. Retrieved January 19, 2012. 
  4. ^ Blake, Aaron; Henderson, Nia-Malika (April 10, 2012). "Rick Santorum drops out of the presidential race". The Washington Post. Retrieved April 19, 2012. 
  5. ^ "Gingrich Drops Out of the Race". Election Coverage 2012. Retrieved 1 May 2012. 
  6. ^ Kate O'Hare, "Tim Pawlenty quits after third-place straw-poll finish" (August 14, 2011). Los Angeles Times.
  7. ^ Robert J. Vickers, "Pawlenty to headline state GOP meeting" (January 3, 2012). The Patriot-News.
  8. ^ Anita Kumar, "Gingrich, Perry disqualified from Va. primary ballot" (December 24, 2011).
This page was last edited on 18 June 2018, at 21:25
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.