Gingrich holds clear lead in new South Carolina poll

By: Stephanie Condon
Topics: Campaign 2012

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich may have pulled too far ahead in South Carolina for Mitt Romney to catch up, according to a poll of likely Republican voters in the Palmetto state released Friday.

The former speaker has the lead with 32 percent in a new Clemson University poll, conducted January 18-19. Romney comes in second with 26 percent, while Rep. Ron Paul places third at 11 percent and former Sen. Rick Santorum places fourth with 9 percent. Twenty percent of voters remain undecided. The poll has a 4.73 percent margin of error.

In a separate poll released Thursday by American Research Group (ARG), Gingrich and Romney were essentially tied, 33 percent to 32 percent for the former Massachusetts governor.

The six-point difference between Gingrich and Romney in the Clemson poll may be too large for the former Massachusetts governor to make up before Saturday's primary -- even following the charge from Gingrich's former wife Marianne that Gingrich had asked her for an "open marriage." Gingrich has denied that charge.

"We expect a reaction by the electorate to the personal revelations about Gingrich to be registered on Saturday, however, we do not think it will be substantial enough to erase the lead Gingrich has over Romney," Clemson University political scientist Dave Woodard said in a statement.

After naming their preferred candidates, voters were asked what they liked most about that candidate. The two most popular answers were "he has honesty and integrity" and "his overall political ideology" -- suggesting that electability may not be voters' highest priority.

After Romney virtually tied for first in the Iowa caucuses and won the New Hampshire primaries, he appeared to be on his way to securing the nomination. Now, however, Gingrich is closing in both in South Carolina and nationally.

Stephanie Condon
Stephanie Condon is a political reporter for CBSNews.com.
Follow on Twitter »

164 Comments +

Add a Comment

See all 164 Comments

by cntrygirl3 January 21, 2012 10:42 AM EST

Are the republicans really going to walk into a voting booth and vote for this pond scum Gingrich because of their extreme prejudice against Mormons. Do they really think the general electorate will vote for pond scum come November. Very few people like or respect Gingrich even most of his own party can't stand the man. All in the name of unfounded prejudice - Amazing!!!

Reply to this comment


by davidd5063 January 21, 2012 8:42 PM EST: You must understand the condition that is Fox News addiction. Do not jump the gun though - I'm still not convinced Murdoch has picked Newt. I believe this more to be a matter of ratings at this point. It will come down to the wire, and I would anticipate perhaps a Romney/Paul ticket - it's Murdoch's best bet and he's not a stupid man - evil yes, but not stupid.

by Renegade.Rivers January 21, 2012 9:56 AM EST

Why is it when I get up and read the headies on CBS.com that I believe them less and less. The writers at CBS must live in a world all their own, because without a doubt its not the real world. Newt Grinch has zero chance of winning, yet they position him at the front of the bus, when the bus has already left town? CBS has shown their colors, and they are red, red as in propaganda rag reporting. Of course, all of the mainstream liberal press refuses to cover the debates and the primaries in a true and honest fashion. I have watched several of the debates, and what I have seen, and what gets reported are worlds apart.

Here was my take on the last debate, "I have to say that it was a very disappointing debate that CNN let get out of control early, and stood by as Ron Paul was left out from the discussions, like a lion at a gazelle convention. Whether this was intentional or not I suppose is debatable, but looking at CNN's track record of ignoring Ron Paul, its pretty easy to see that they did little to right any wrongs. In fact, it took the crowd to get Ron Paul involved in one question, or he would have been completely passed over.

This is just another example of how the mass media has done everything they can to discredit Ron Paul, and prove to the American people he isn't electable. At the debate three crooks argued over which one was the least guilty, and who was the most guilty, all while Ron Paul stood over in the corner like a sheep dog watching the gate, politely listen, and smiling to the crowd, ignoring the rhetoric of the three stooges.

After the Iowa debauchery, that should have every Iowa Republican voter up in arms demanding another vote just to set the record straight, and the attempt to ignore Ron Paul's second place finish in New Hampshire, its no wonder Ron Paul stood by patiently, while the three other candidates trashed talked each other, and tried to kick each other in the proverbial gonads. I could almost see the voters laughing as they check Ron Paul's name on the ballot this Saturday. So in truth Ron Paul won big tonight, without having to say a lot, and CNN's attempt to ignore him backfired in their face." (Written on Disqus the night of the debate.)

Yet, the reporting of the debate sounded nothing like that. They continue to ignore Ron Paul like he is an ugly step-child, and act as if he has no relevance, all while building up the three stooges. Newt has a despicable history, that any real voter should despise, Santorum has showed his colors on more than one occasion by selling out the veterans, literally. (See the Mother Jones article.) While Mitt, the Pits is a bigger flopper than a 10 pound bass trying to spit out a lure.

I must say that I do understand the mudstreams tactics, after all Ron Paul is the only candidate that can beat the Golfer, and the liberal press is afraid of him. They know that he can poll not only Republicans, Libertarians, and Independents, but a lot of disenfranchised Democrats too, and that is what scares them the most, because they know if the Liar and Chief loses a part of the Democrat base, he is burnt toast. So they have chosen to ignore him, all while he continues to poll in 1st and second place across the nation.

I would like to point this out, to all of the readers on these liberal mudstream sites, you may be laughing about it now, but what if when the next election comes about that it is your candidate that they ignore, how will you feel then? Anyone who cannot see the significance of this travesty, is blind to reality, and justice, and because of this, you should all be demanding straight up, honest coverage of the campaign, because the next go around it may be your favorite candidate that they ignore, and then how will you feel?

Ron Paul 2012!

Reply to this comment


by Renegade.Rivers January 21, 2012 10:09 AM EST: Hey Ghostfighter, if you don't have that go of reading comprehension, ignore it. I am sure it was directed at you anyway.


by 14FREEK January 21, 2012 11:48 AM EST: GHOST HAS A POINT, i AGRREED WITH YOU AFTER THE FIRST SENTENCE-NEWT IS A DOG WITH A SNOWBALLS CHANCE IN HEII

by P0STING_AWAY January 21, 2012 9:36 AM EST

by bmallen3 January 21, 2012 8:21 AM EST
Newt is winning because he truly understands the hypocrisy of Democrats. Since he has so much more experience than Obama, the contract will be huge if he is the candidate. Personally, I don't care who the candidate is ............................
==============================================================
The last line says it all.
You stupid lowlife Tea-Baggers have been propping up
WORTHLESS candidates for years now.

Keep in mind the last Repug idiot who was elected president.
His most "memorable" gift to his moronic followers ???
TWO STUPID WARS.
One of them is STILL going on TODAY.

Reply to this comment


by Rafterman11 January 21, 2012 9:55 AM EST: Yeah, he has much more cheating on his wife experience than Obama. He also has much more being fined for House ethics violations experience than Obama too.


by 76SpiritOf January 21, 2012 9:55 AM EST: You have to remember the GOP has their priorities.

If it's spending on infrastructure, extending benefits for those of us who have lost their jobs or trying to regulate healthcare costs, it's a waste of tax payer dollars.

However, if its money to go take on Iran for the oil interests, no problem...deficits do not matter! That is all you need to remember when discussiong the GOP position on the deficit!

Remamber their actions and vote accordingly! The campaign commercials we are going to subjected to by the super PACs are total lies!

They have an agenda and if they will they will be rewarded with taxpayer dollars if their candidate wins!

by shurch4truth January 21, 2012 9:19 AM EST

Newt's daughter, Jakie, is saying her father could get things done with president Clinton and Obama can't get things done with the Republicans and is just a complainer. She fails to say that her father was working with a Democrat who was willing to work with her father while her father could not even work things out with his fellow Republicans to the point that Newt's fellow Republicans threw him out.

Nice that she sticks up for her father but who's going to give her any credibility?

Reply to this comment


by 14FREEK January 21, 2012 11:52 AM EST: who wouldn't stick up for thier father, and not coincidentally - employer?


by mick7744 January 21, 2012 9:15 AM EST: hawkman1001-2009 January 20, 2012 11:55 PM EST
You're joking, of course! The good old Republican George W. Bush is miles ahead of anybody else for candidate of the very worst president in history.

*********************************

by Solarrays247

I agree! Good post!

*********************************

I'm not sure I can agree with your assssment, guys...

Sure, George W. Bush presided over the largest transfer of wealth (theft) in the history of the human race...started an illegal oil deal desguised as a war to enrich his corporate masters...trashed the US Constitution...

But consider Richard M. Nixon, as a private citizen...an office-seeker, sending an emmisary (Anna Chenault) to the White Mice of South Vietnam urging them to stall the Paris peace talks that LBJ had forced on thm to get a better deal from him after he was elected president (he reneged, of course)

Remember the fierce negotiating over the sgape of the conference table? You should...it lasted 18 months!

The war dragged on for another 7 years at a cost of 40,000 more American lives, ending on roughly the same terms that were proposed in 1968.

But the important thing was that Nixon got himself elected...Nixon was such a whacko that he passionately believed that the United States desperately needed his devinley inspired leadership...and as a patriotic American, he was willing to commit any treason to see that they got his leadership...wottaguy!

George W. Bush is merely not very bright...but completely unencumbered by moral principles or ethical concerns.

It's a tough call...; Reply to this comment

by shurch4truth January 21, 2012 9:12 AM EST

Newt's daughter, Jakie, is saying her father could get thing done with president Clinton and Obama can't get things done with the Republicans and is just a complainer. She fails to say that her father was working with a Democrat who was willing to work with her father while her father could not even work things out with his fellow Republicans to the point that Newt's fellow Republicans threw him out.

Nice that she sticks up for her father but who's going to give her any credibility?

Reply to this comment


by Rafterman11 January 21, 2012 9:59 AM EST: Plus, her father didn't have to work with a president whom the opposition party dedicated themselves publicly to the president's failure.


by jimatmadison January 21, 2012 8:29 AM EST: Stephen Colbert's crowds are bigger than any of the 'real' candidates'.; Reply to this comment

by jimatmadison January 21, 2012 8:28 AM EST

At this point it looks like the only way Obama can lose is if they catch him in bed with a live boy AND and dead hooker.

Reply to this comment


by 76SpiritOf January 21, 2012 9:47 AM EST: Lets hope so! This time we need to do our part and vote a bunch of democratic congressional members in to eliminate the fillabuster and send the GOP packing.

Any congressional member who was voting to further the intests of extending the recession to improve GOP hopes of winning the Whitehouse has to be defeated! These people are clearly not representing the majority of us.


by Rafterman11 January 21, 2012 10:01 AM EST: Don't worry, the GOP is working on that. I mean, why not? They have lied about Obama regarding everything else - hiss birth, his religion. I'm sure they will find several million lemmings willing to believe an Obama-child-hooker story.

by mick7744 January 21, 2012 8:27 AM EST

Neut's surge in the South Carolina polls are encouraging...but can democrats reasonably expect Republican suicidal stupidity to continue indefinately?

The sleazbag is completely unelectable....he should be a national pariah, not a front-running candidate...one who can only reenforce the growing perception that the GOP has now lost any integrity and common sense that it might once have posessed...willing to resort to ANYTHING to regain "power" (which of course is what it is really all about for these well-heeled parisites.

I may live to see a 50 state sweep after all.

One way or another...Neut will carve out a place for himself in history...but hopefully in a humorous, non-catostrophic way.

Reply to this comment


by mick7744 January 21, 2012 8:32 AM EST: Oh yeah...

I noticed in an article on Neut's tax return that he listed $19,800 in alimony payments...

Is that for one dumped wife...or two?

This is one truly foul SOB!


by aheadace January 21, 2012 10:39 AM EST: His alimony payments are about the same as his donations if you can believe that

by jimatmadison January 21, 2012 8:22 AM EST

John King's followup question should have been to ask Newt who he's dating these days.

Reply to this comment


by nearl451 January 21, 2012 9:13 AM EST: Actually it should have been: "So,Newt, when are you going to stop cheating on your wives. Mistresses all over for now, or do you just pay for services to satisfy your urges and ego?"