Scott Rasmussen’s poll of likely GOP Iowa caucus attendees finds former House Speaker Newt Gingrich with a wide lead over the rest of the field:
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Iowa Republican caucus-goers shows Gingrich with 32% followed by former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney at 19%. Georgia businessman Herman Cain, who led in Iowa last month, drops to third with 13% of the vote. Texas Congressman Ron Paul draws 10% of the vote in Iowa, while Texas Governor Rick Perry and Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann each grab six percent (6%).
Newt. Really? Yes. And the certainty is growing:
Thirty-eight percent (38%) of Iowa GOP caucus voters are now certain of their vote and don’t expect to change their minds, up from 32% in mid-October. Of those voters who are certain, 30% pick Gingrich, 21% prefer Romney, 16% like Cain and 13% support Paul.
Okay. But what if their man doesn’t end up winning it all?
If their favorite candidate does not win the nomination, 77% of Iowa caucus-goers say they’d still vote for the GOP candidate. Twelve percent (12%) would vote for Obama. If Romney wins the nomination, 32% would consider voting for a third-party candidate, with 16% who would be Very Likely to do so.
Only 73% of Romney voters say they’d vote for the GOP candidate if their man does not win the nomination. Among supporters of Gingrich, Cain, and Perry, nine-out-of-ten are committed to voting for the party nominee.
Interesting. And how about Iowa tea partiers? What might they do?
Ninety percent (90%) of Tea Party activists will vote for whoever the party nominates. However, just 69% of non-Tea Party members express that much loyalty to the GOP.
Again, very interesting.
But back to Gingrich for a second.
Newt? Really? I understand that some folks are looking for anyone besides Romney. But consider this bit from Gene Healy’s Examiner piece on the man:
The former speaker’s immense self-regard is evident in one of the exhibits to a 1997 House Ethics Committee report on him. In a handwritten 1992 note to himself, he wrote: “Gingrich — primary mission, Advocate of civilization, definer of civilization, Teacher of the rules of civilization, arouser of those who fan civilization, … leader (possibly) of the civilizing forces.”
Go read the rest and, if you happen to be among those who, like a third of Iowa Republicans, gets the tingles over Gingrich, ask yourself whether you want an “arouser” anywhere near the Oval Office.
Then go take a cold shower.
