February 15, 2011

Poll: New Hampshire Primary is Romney’s to Lose

Flickr/<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/wacphiladelphia/4558469973/sizes/m/in/photostream/">World Policy Council of Philadelphia</a>

Get your news from a source that’s not owned and controlled by oligarchs. Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily.


The New Hampshire primary, the first of the presidential race, can make or break a candidate’s run for the White House. According to a new WMUR Granite State Poll, New Hampshire’s 2012 Republican primary is Mitt Romney’s to lose, with 40 percent of prospective voters saying they’d vote for the former Massachusetts governor. The next closest presidential hopeful, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, received just 10 percent support.

Straggling in behind them were former governors Tim Pawlenty and Mike Huckabee with 7 percent each. Then comes former House speaker Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin with 6 percent, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) with 5 percent, Donald Trump with 3 percent, and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and Mississippi governor Haley Barbour with 1 percent.

No doubt Romney’s is partly owed to his tenure governing Massachusetts, a neighboring state. But his overwhelming support in New Hampshire also reflects the political make-up of the state’s voters, who tend to care more about fiscal issues and less about religion and the culture wars. “Romney is doing well in part because his brand of Republicanism fits with most New Hampshire Republicans, who can be characterized as ‘Rockefeller Republicans,'” Andrew Smith, director of the University of New Hampshire’s Survey Center, told WMUR. Not that Romney’s political DNA did much good in 2008, when he lost the state to John McCain.

If Palin does decide to launch a 2012 presidential bid, she’ll have her work cut out for her in must-win early states like New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina. Right now, polls show flagging support for her in these states. Public Policy Polling recently found that Palin’s support in Iowa was a mere 15 percent, badly trailing Mike Huckabee at 30 percent. Another poll by a Republican strategy firm also found Palin trailing Huckabee by double digits. Should Palin run and then lose Iowa and New Hampshire, her presidential aspirations would be all but sunk.

From the desk of Mother Jones CEO, Monika Bauerlein...

Newsrooms can be funded in many ways. One of the most controversial (and volatile) ways is by a for-profit corporation or a billionaire owner. We see it across the headlines on a weekly basis: the claw backs in public media, the gutting of The Washington Post, the bending over backwards to appeal to Trump and his allies.

But not here.

When Mother Jones first started publishing 50 years ago, our founders made a critical decision: to be a reader-supported nonprofit. They knew that no corporate owner would be interested in a muckraking newsroom; they also knew that no muckraking newsroom would be interested in following the agenda of a corporate owner.

And so, we’ve been reader-funded for half a century. We rely on contributions from our readers—readers like you—whether it’s $50, or $15 a month, or whatever fits your budget. People give what they can, and every donation makes a difference for our newsroom, which has grown tremendously—in size and reach and renown—since its inception in 1976.

You may be wondering: What does it take to publish an investigation? And what does my donation actually fund? The answers are one and the same: It takes people, resources, and time. And that’s what your donation funds directly.

Every donation Mother Jones receives from readers fortifies our newsroom, whether we’re covering underreported scandals out of Washington, DC, or the most important news of the day. And right now, each donation will be doubled because of our $50,000 match. So when you make a donation—$5, $50, any amount—it’ll go twice as far.

Your support keeps us going. If you’re able, donate today.

Thanks for reading.

—Monika

From the desk of Mother Jones CEO, Monika Bauerlein...

Newsrooms can be funded in many ways. One of the most controversial (and volatile) ways is by a for-profit corporation or a billionaire owner. We see it across the headlines on a weekly basis: the claw backs in public media, the gutting of The Washington Post, the bending over backwards to appeal to Trump and his allies.

But not here.

When Mother Jones first started publishing 50 years ago, our founders made a critical decision: to be a reader-supported nonprofit. They knew that no corporate owner would be interested in a muckraking newsroom; they also knew that no muckraking newsroom would be interested in following the agenda of a corporate owner.

And so, we’ve been reader-funded for half a century. We rely on contributions from our readers—readers like you—whether it’s $50, or $15 a month, or whatever fits your budget. People give what they can, and every donation makes a difference for our newsroom, which has grown tremendously—in size and reach and renown—since its inception in 1976.

You may be wondering: What does it take to publish an investigation? And what does my donation actually fund? The answers are one and the same: It takes people, resources, and time. And that’s what your donation funds directly.

Every donation Mother Jones receives from readers fortifies our newsroom, whether we’re covering underreported scandals out of Washington, DC, or the most important news of the day. And right now, each donation will be doubled because of our $50,000 match. So when you make a donation—$5, $50, any amount—it’ll go twice as far.

Your support keeps us going. If you’re able, donate today.

Thanks for reading.

—Monika

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

INDEPENDENT. BECAUSE OF YOU.

Mother Jones has no billionaires calling the shots—just readers like you making fearless reporting possible

Donate