DOCSLIB.ORG

The Economist/Yougov Poll List of Tables

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Economist/Yougov Poll List of Tables The Economist/YouGov Poll January 27 - 30, 2016 List of Tables 1. Interest in news and public affairs.....................................................................2 2. Direction of country.............................................................................3 3. Favorability of Democratic Presidential Candidates – Hillary Clinton...................................................4 4. Favorability of Democratic Presidential Candidates – Martin O’Malley..................................................5 5. Favorability of Democratic Presidential Candidates – Bernie Sanders..................................................6 6. Preferred Democratic Nominee for President...............................................................7 7. Enthusiasm - Democratic Candidates...................................................................8 8. Satisfaction - Democratic Field.......................................................................9 9. Iowa Caucus Winner - Democrats..................................................................... 10 10. NH Primary Winner - Democrats..................................................................... 11 11. Most Likely Democratic Nominee for President.............................................................. 12 12. Could Win General - Democrats – Hillary Clinton............................................................ 13 13. Could Win General - Democrats – Martin O’Malley........................................................... 14 14. Could Win General - Democrats – Bernie Sanders............................................................ 15 15. Better Chance............................................................................... 16 16. Favorability of Republican Presidential Candidates – Jeb Bush..................................................... 17 17. Favorability of Republican Presidential Candidates – Ben Carson.................................................... 18 18. Favorability of Republican Presidential Candidates – Chris Christie................................................... 19 19. Favorability of Republican Presidential Candidates – Ted Cruz..................................................... 20 20. Favorability of Republican Presidential Candidates – Carly Fiorina................................................... 21 21. Favorability of Republican Presidential Candidates – Jim Gilmore................................................... 22 22. Favorability of Republican Presidential Candidates – Mike Huckabee.................................................. 23 23. Favorability of Republican Presidential Candidates – John Kasich................................................... 24 24. Favorability of Republican Presidential Candidates – Rand Paul.................................................... 25 25. Favorability of Republican Presidential Candidates – Marco Rubio................................................... 26 26. Favorability of Republican Presidential Candidates – Rick Santorum.................................................. 27 27. Favorability of Republican Presidential Candidates – Donald Trump.................................................. 28 28. Preferred Republican Nominee for President............................................................... 29 29. Second Choice Republican Nominee for President........................................................... 31 30. Cruz - Rubio - Trump............................................................................ 33 31. Enthusiasm - Republican Candidates................................................................... 34 32. Satisfaction - Republican Field...................................................................... 35 33. Iowa Caucus Winner - Republicans.................................................................... 36 34. NH Primary Winner - Republicans.................................................................... 38 35. Most Likely Republican Nominee for President.............................................................. 40 36. Could Win General - Republicans – Jeb Bush.............................................................. 42 1 The Economist/YouGov Poll January 27 - 30, 2016 37. Could Win General - Republicans – Ben Carson............................................................. 43 38. Could Win General - Republicans – Chris Christie............................................................ 44 39. Could Win General - Republicans – Ted Cruz.............................................................. 45 40. Could Win General - Republicans – Carly Fiorina............................................................ 46 41. Could Win General - Republicans – Jim Gilmore............................................................. 47 42. Could Win General - Republicans – Mike Huckabee........................................................... 48 43. Could Win General - Republicans – John Kasich............................................................. 49 44. Could Win General - Republicans – Rand Paul.............................................................. 50 45. Could Win General - Republicans – Marco Rubio............................................................ 51 46. Could Win General - Republicans – Rick Santorum........................................................... 52 47. Could Win General - Republicans – Donald Trump............................................................ 53 48. IA and NH Important............................................................................ 54 49. IA and NH First............................................................................... 55 50. IA and NH Influence............................................................................ 56 51. Know Supporters.............................................................................. 57 52. Mad as Hell................................................................................. 59 53. Endorsement Effect – Your local newspaper............................................................... 60 54. Endorsement Effect – Your Member of Congress............................................................ 61 55. Endorsement Effect – Your Governor................................................................... 62 56. Endorsement Effect – One of your US Senators............................................................. 63 57. Endorsement Effect – The New York Times............................................................... 64 58. Endorsement Effect – Sarah Palin..................................................................... 65 59. Endorsement Effect – Glenn Beck.................................................................... 66 60. Endorsement Effect – Rush Limbaugh.................................................................. 67 61. Endorsement Effect – The Teachers’ Union............................................................... 68 62. Endorsement Effect – Several Veterans’ groups............................................................. 69 63. Endorsement Effect – The Police Union................................................................. 70 64. Endorsement Effect – Noam Chomsky.................................................................. 71 65. Part of the Establishment – The New York Times............................................................ 72 66. Part of the Establishment – Fox News.................................................................. 73 67. Part of the Establishment – CNN..................................................................... 74 68. Part of the Establishment – Labor Unions................................................................ 75 69. Part of the Establishment – Newspapers................................................................. 76 70. Part of the Establishment – Sarah Palin.................................................................. 77 71. Part of the Establishment – Glenn Beck................................................................. 78 72. Part of the Establishment – Your Governor................................................................ 79 73. Part of the Establishment – Planned Parenthood............................................................. 80 74. Part of the Establishment – Your Member of Congress......................................................... 81 2 The Economist/YouGov Poll January 27 - 30, 2016 75. Election Interest.............................................................................. 82 76. Generic Presidential Vote Intention.................................................................... 83 77. Favorability of Michael Bloomberg..................................................................... 84 78. Candidate Qualities - Immigration – Michael Bloomberg......................................................... 85 79. Candidate Qualities - Immigration – Jeb Bush.............................................................. 86 80. Candidate Qualities - Immigration – Hillary Clinton............................................................ 87 81. Candidate Qualities - Immigration – Chris Christie............................................................ 88 82. Candidate Qualities - Immigration – Ted Cruz.............................................................. 89 83. Candidate Qualities - Immigration – Marco Rubio............................................................ 90 84. Candidate Qualities - Immigration – Bernie Sanders..........................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Misrepresented Road to Madame President: Media Coverage of Female Candidates for National Office
    THE MISREPRESENTED ROAD TO MADAME PRESIDENT: MEDIA COVERAGE OF FEMALE CANDIDATES FOR NATIONAL OFFICE by Jessica Pinckney A thesis submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Government Baltimore, Maryland May, 2015 © 2015 Jessica Pinckney All Rights Reserved Abstract While women represent over fifty percent of the U.S. population, it is blatantly clear that they are not as equally represented in leadership positions in the government and in private institutions. Despite their representation throughout the nation, women only make up twenty percent of the House and Senate. That is far from a representative number and something that really hurts our society as a whole. While these inequalities exist, they are perpetuated by the world in which we live, where the media plays a heavy role in molding peoples’ opinions, both consciously and subconsciously. The way in which the media presents news about women is not always representative of the women themselves and influences public opinion a great deal, which can also affect women’s ability to rise to the top, thereby breaking the ultimate glass ceilings. This research looks at a number of cases in which female politicians ran for and/or were elected to political positions at the national level (President, Vice President, and Congress) and seeks to look at the progress, or lack thereof, in media’s portrayal of female candidates running for office. The overarching goal of the research is to simply show examples of biased and unbiased coverage and address the negative or positive ways in which that coverage influences the candidate.
    [Show full text]
  • Highly Partisan Reception Greets Palin As V.P. Pick
    ABC NEWS POLL: THE PALIN PICK EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE AFTER 7 a.m. Friday, Sept. 5, 2008 Highly Partisan Reception Greets Palin as V.P. Pick Sarah Palin is receiving a highly partisan reception on the national political stage, with significant public doubts about her readiness to serve as president, yet majority approval of both her selection by John McCain and her willingness to join the Republican ticket. Given the sharp political divisions she inspires, Palin’s initial impact on vote preferences and on views of McCain looks like a wash, and, contrary to some prognostication, she does not draw disproportionate support from women. But she could potentially assist McCain by energizing the GOP base, in which her reviews are overwhelmingly positive. Half of Americans have a favorable first impression of Palin, 37 percent unfavorable, with the rest undecided. Her positive ratings soar to 85 percent among Republicans, 81 percent among her fellow evangelical white Protestants and 74 percent of conservatives. Just a quarter of Democrats agree, with independents in the middle. Favorable Ratings ABC News poll 100% Democrats Independents Republicans 85% 77% 75% 53% 52% 50% 27% 24% 25% 0% Palin Biden Joe Biden, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, is similarly rated, with slightly fewer unfavorable views and partisanship running in the opposite direction. Palin: Biden: Favorable Unfavorable Favorable Unfavorable All 50% 37 54% 30 Democrats 24 63 77 9 Independents 53 34 52 31 Republicans 85 7 27 60 Men 54 37 55 35 Women 47 36 54 27 IMPACT – The public by a narrow 6-point margin, 25 percent to 19 percent, says Palin’s selection makes them more likely to support McCain, less than the 12-point positive impact of Biden on the Democratic ticket (22 percent more likely to support Barack Obama, 10 percent less so).
    [Show full text]
  • Picking the Vice President
    Picking the Vice President Elaine C. Kamarck Brookings Institution Press Washington, D.C. Contents Introduction 4 1 The Balancing Model 6 The Vice Presidency as an “Arranged Marriage” 2 Breaking the Mold 14 From Arranged Marriages to Love Matches 3 The Partnership Model in Action 20 Al Gore Dick Cheney Joe Biden 4 Conclusion 33 Copyright 36 Introduction Throughout history, the vice president has been a pretty forlorn character, not unlike the fictional vice president Julia Louis-Dreyfus plays in the HBO seriesVEEP . In the first episode, Vice President Selina Meyer keeps asking her secretary whether the president has called. He hasn’t. She then walks into a U.S. senator’s office and asks of her old colleague, “What have I been missing here?” Without looking up from her computer, the senator responds, “Power.” Until recently, vice presidents were not very interesting nor was the relationship between presidents and their vice presidents very consequential—and for good reason. Historically, vice presidents have been understudies, have often been disliked or even despised by the president they served, and have been used by political parties, derided by journalists, and ridiculed by the public. The job of vice president has been so peripheral that VPs themselves have even made fun of the office. That’s because from the beginning of the nineteenth century until the last decade of the twentieth century, most vice presidents were chosen to “balance” the ticket. The balance in question could be geographic—a northern presidential candidate like John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts picked a southerner like Lyndon B.
    [Show full text]
  • Suffolk University Virginia General Election Voters SUPRC Field
    Suffolk University Virginia General Election Voters AREA N= 600 100% DC Area ........................................ 1 ( 1/ 98) 164 27% West ........................................... 2 51 9% Piedmont Valley ................................ 3 134 22% Richmond South ................................. 4 104 17% East ........................................... 5 147 25% START Hello, my name is __________ and I am conducting a survey for Suffolk University and I would like to get your opinions on some political questions. We are calling Virginia households statewide. Would you be willing to spend three minutes answering some brief questions? <ROTATE> or someone in that household). N= 600 100% Continue ....................................... 1 ( 1/105) 600 100% GEND RECORD GENDER N= 600 100% Male ........................................... 1 ( 1/106) 275 46% Female ......................................... 2 325 54% S2 S2. Thank You. How likely are you to vote in the Presidential Election on November 4th? N= 600 100% Very likely .................................... 1 ( 1/107) 583 97% Somewhat likely ................................ 2 17 3% Not very/Not at all likely ..................... 3 0 0% Other/Undecided/Refused ........................ 4 0 0% Q1 Q1. Which political party do you feel closest to - Democrat, Republican, or Independent? N= 600 100% Democrat ....................................... 1 ( 1/110) 269 45% Republican ..................................... 2 188 31% Independent/Unaffiliated/Other ................. 3 141 24% Not registered
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Log of Judicial Appointments 1959-Present Candidates Nominated Appointed 1959 - Supreme Court - 3 New Positions William V
    Historical Log of Judicial Appointments 1959-Present Candidates Nominated Appointed 1959 - Supreme Court - 3 new positions William V. Boggess William V. Boggess John H. Dimond Robert Boochever Robert Boochever Walter Hodge J. Earl Cooper John H. Dimond Buell A. Nesbett** Edward V. Davis Walter Hodge* 1959 by Governor William Egan John H. Dimond M.E. Monagle John S. Hellenthal Buell A. Nesbett* Walter Hodge * nominated for Chief Justice Verne O. Martin M.E. Monagle Buell A. Nesbett Walter Sczudlo Thomas B. Stewart Meeting Date 7/16-17/1959 **appointed Chief Justice 1959 - Ketchikan/Juneau Superior - 2 new positions Floyd O. Davidson E.P. McCarron James von der Heydt Juneau James M. Fitzgerald Thomas B. Stewart Walter E. Walsh Ketchikan Verne O. Martin James von der Heydt 1959 by Governor William Egan E.P. McCarron Walter E. Walsh Thomas B. Stewart James von der Heydt Walter E. Walsh Meeting Date 10/12-13/1959 1959 - Nome Superior - new position James M. Fitzgerald Hubert A. Gilbert Hubert A. Gilbert Hubert A. Gilbert Verne O. Martin 1959 by Governor William Egan Verne O. Martin James von der Heydt Meeting Date 10/12-13/1959 1959 - Anchorage Superior - 3 new positions Harold J. Butcher Harold J. Butcher J. Earl Cooper Henry Camarot J. Earl Cooper Edward V. Davis J. Earl Cooper Ralph Ralph H. Cottis James M. Fitzgerald H. Cottis Roger Edward V. Davis 1959 by Governor William Egan Cremo Edward James M. Fitzgerald V. Davis James Stanley McCutcheon M. Fitzgerald Everett Ralph E. Moody W. Hepp Peter J. Kalamarides Verne O. Martin Stanley McCutcheon Ralph E.
    [Show full text]
  • Print Journalism's Framing of Female Candidates in The
    Joining the World of Journals Welcome to the nation’s first and, to our knowledge, only undergraduate research journal in communi- cations. We discovered this fact while perusing the Web site of the Council on Undergraduate Research, which lists and links to the 60 or so undergraduate research journals nationwide (http://www.cur.org/ugjournal. html). Some of these journals focus on a discipline (e.g., Journal of Undergraduate Research in Physics), some are university-based and multidisciplinary (e.g., MIT Undergraduate Research Journal), and some are university-based and disciplinary (e.g., Furman University Electronic Journal in Undergraduate Mathematics). The Elon Journal is the first to focus on undergraduate research in journalism, media and communi- cations. The School of Communications at Elon University is the creator and publisher of the online journal. The second issue was published in Fall 2010 under the editorship of Dr. Byung Lee, associate professor in the School of Communications. The three purposes of the journal are: • To publish the best undergraduate research in Elon’s School of Communications each term, • To serve as a repository for quality work to benefit future students seeking models for how to do undergraduate research well, and • To advance the university’s priority to emphasize undergraduate student research. The Elon Journal is published twice a year, with spring and fall issues. Articles and other materials in the journal may be freely downloaded, reproduced and redistributed without permission as long as the author and source are properly cited. Student authors retain copyright own- ership of their works. Celebrating Student Research This journal reflects what we enjoy seeing in our students -- intellectual maturing.
    [Show full text]
  • A History of Maryland's Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016
    A History of Maryland’s Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016 A History of Maryland’s Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016 Published by: Maryland State Board of Elections Linda H. Lamone, Administrator Project Coordinator: Jared DeMarinis, Director Division of Candidacy and Campaign Finance Published: October 2016 Table of Contents Preface 5 The Electoral College – Introduction 7 Meeting of February 4, 1789 19 Meeting of December 5, 1792 22 Meeting of December 7, 1796 24 Meeting of December 3, 1800 27 Meeting of December 5, 1804 30 Meeting of December 7, 1808 31 Meeting of December 2, 1812 33 Meeting of December 4, 1816 35 Meeting of December 6, 1820 36 Meeting of December 1, 1824 39 Meeting of December 3, 1828 41 Meeting of December 5, 1832 43 Meeting of December 7, 1836 46 Meeting of December 2, 1840 49 Meeting of December 4, 1844 52 Meeting of December 6, 1848 53 Meeting of December 1, 1852 55 Meeting of December 3, 1856 57 Meeting of December 5, 1860 60 Meeting of December 7, 1864 62 Meeting of December 2, 1868 65 Meeting of December 4, 1872 66 Meeting of December 6, 1876 68 Meeting of December 1, 1880 70 Meeting of December 3, 1884 71 Page | 2 Meeting of January 14, 1889 74 Meeting of January 9, 1893 75 Meeting of January 11, 1897 77 Meeting of January 14, 1901 79 Meeting of January 9, 1905 80 Meeting of January 11, 1909 83 Meeting of January 13, 1913 85 Meeting of January 8, 1917 87 Meeting of January 10, 1921 88 Meeting of January 12, 1925 90 Meeting of January 2, 1929 91 Meeting of January 4, 1933 93 Meeting of December 14, 1936
    [Show full text]
  • Civil Defense and Homeland Security: a Short History of National Preparedness Efforts
    Civil Defense and Homeland Security: A Short History of National Preparedness Efforts September 2006 Homeland Security National Preparedness Task Force 1 Civil Defense and Homeland Security: A Short History of National Preparedness Efforts September 2006 Homeland Security National Preparedness Task Force 2 ABOUT THIS REPORT This report is the result of a requirement by the Director of the Department of Homeland Security’s National Preparedness Task Force to examine the history of national preparedness efforts in the United States. The report provides a concise and accessible historical overview of U.S. national preparedness efforts since World War I, identifying and analyzing key policy efforts, drivers of change, and lessons learned. While the report provides much critical information, it is not meant to be a substitute for more comprehensive historical and analytical treatments. It is hoped that the report will be an informative and useful resource for policymakers, those individuals interested in the history of what is today known as homeland security, and homeland security stakeholders responsible for the development and implementation of effective national preparedness policies and programs. 3 Introduction the Nation’s diverse communities, be carefully planned, capable of quickly providing From the air raid warning and plane spotting pertinent information to the populace about activities of the Office of Civil Defense in the imminent threats, and able to convey risk 1940s, to the Duck and Cover film strips and without creating unnecessary alarm. backyard shelters of the 1950s, to today’s all- hazards preparedness programs led by the The following narrative identifies some of the Department of Homeland Security, Federal key trends, drivers of change, and lessons strategies to enhance the nation’s learned in the history of U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Alt-Reality Leaves Its Mark on Presidential
    Fall Dispatches > CHARLES J. SYKES Alt-reality leaves its mark on presidential campaign With the arrival of fall, an anxious electorate increas- ingly feels like the kids in the back seat asking their parents, “Are we there … yet?” Some of us are even old enough to remember when round-the-clock television commercials were the most annoying aspect of our endless political campaigns. That now seems a calmer, gentler time. support is not a wise decision of his,” Palin continued. Palin soon was joined by such conservative luminaries as Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin, who parachuted into None of the above Ryan’s district on behalf of his opponent, Paul Nehlen, who The current mood was captured in a late August focus also enjoyed the full-throated group held in Brookfield, Wisconsin. Reported The Washing- support of the alt-reality ton Post: conservative media. Foremost “For a small group of undecided among Nehlen’s media cheer- voters here, the presidential choices leaders was Breibart.com, this year are bleak: Hillary Clinton which headlined his momen- is a ‘liar’ with a lifetime of political tum on a nearly daily basis. skullduggery and a ruthless agenda for “Ann Coulter lights Wis- power, while Donald Trump is your consin on fire for Paul Nehlen ‘drunk uncle’ who can’t be trusted against Paul Ryan: ‘This to listen even to the good advice he’s is it, this is your last chance paying for. to save America,’ ” Breitbart “Describing the election as a headlined. On the day of cesspool, 12 swing voters participat- the Aug.
    [Show full text]
  • **** This Is an EXTERNAL Email. Exercise Caution. DO NOT Open Attachments Or Click Links from Unknown Senders Or Unexpected Email
    Scott.A.Milkey From: Hudson, MK <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 3:23 PM To: Powell, David N;Landis, Larry (llandis@ );candacebacker@ ;Miller, Daniel R;Cozad, Sara;McCaffrey, Steve;Moore, Kevin B;[email protected];Mason, Derrick;Creason, Steve;Light, Matt ([email protected]);Steuerwald, Greg;Trent Glass;Brady, Linda;Murtaugh, David;Seigel, Jane;Lanham, Julie (COA);Lemmon, Bruce;Spitzer, Mark;Cunningham, Chris;McCoy, Cindy;[email protected];Weber, Jennifer;Bauer, Jenny;Goodman, Michelle;Bergacs, Jamie;Hensley, Angie;Long, Chad;Haver, Diane;Thompson, Lisa;Williams, Dave;Chad Lewis;[email protected];Andrew Cullen;David, Steven;Knox, Sandy;Luce, Steve;Karns, Allison;Hill, John (GOV);Mimi Carter;Smith, Connie S;Hensley, Angie;Mains, Diane;Dolan, Kathryn Subject: Indiana EBDM - June 22, 2016 Meeting Agenda Attachments: June 22, 2016 Agenda.docx; Indiana Collaborates to Improve Its Justice System.docx **** This is an EXTERNAL email. Exercise caution. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email. **** Dear Indiana EBDM team members – A reminder that the Indiana EBDM Policy Team is scheduled to meet this Wednesday, June 22 from 9:00 am – 4:00 pm at IJC. At your earliest convenience, please let me know if you plan to attend the meeting. Attached is the meeting agenda. Please note that we have a full agenda as this is the team’s final Phase V meeting. We have much to discuss as we prepare the state’s application for Phase VI. We will serve box lunches at about noon so we can make the most of our time together.
    [Show full text]
  • The Tea Party Movement and Entelechy: an Inductive Study of Tea Party Rhetoric By
    The Tea Party Movement and Entelechy: an Inductive Study of Tea Party Rhetoric By John Leyland Price M.A., Central Michigan University, 2013 B.S.B.A., Central Michigan University, 2010 Submitted to the graduate degree program in Communication Studies and the Graduate Faculty of the University of Kansas in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Chair: Dr. Robert C. Rowland Dr. Beth Innocenti Dr. Brett Bricker Dr. Scott Harris Dr. Wayne Sailor Date Defended: 5 September 2019 ii The dissertation committee for John Leyland Price certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: The Tea Party Movement and Entelechy: an Inductive Study of Tea Party Rhetoric Chair: Dr. Robert C. Rowland Date Approved: 5 September 7 2019 iii Abstract On February 19, 2009, CNBC journalist Rick Santelli’s fiery outburst against the Obama Administration on national television gave the Tea Party Movement (TPM) its namesake. Soon after rallies were organized across the U.S. under the Tea Party banner. From its inception in 2009, the TPM became an essential player in U.S. politics and pivotal in flipping control of the Senate and House to the Republican Party during the 2010 midterm elections. The movement faced controversy on both sides of the political spectrum for its beliefs and fervent stance against compromising with political adversaries. Researchers argued that the TPM was an example of Richard Hofstadter’s Paranoid Style. Others claimed that the movement’s rhetoric, member demographics, and political success demonstrated it was outside the boundaries of the Paranoid Style.
    [Show full text]
  • The Economist/Yougov Poll
    The Economist/YouGov Poll Sample 2000 General Population Respondents Conducted July 31 - August 4, 2015 Margin of Error ±2.9% 1. Some people seem to follow what’s going on in government and public affairs most of the time, whether there’s an election going on or not. Others aren’t that interested. Would you say you follow what’s going on in government and public affairs ... ? Most of the time . 45% Some of the time . 32% Only now and then . .13% Hardly at all . 9% Don’t know . .1% 2. Would you say things in this country today are... Generally headed in the right direction . 30% Off on the wrong track . 56% Not sure . 14% 3. Do you have a favorable or an unfavorable opinion of the following people? Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Don’t favorable favorable unfavorable unfavorable know Joe Biden 14% 27% 15% 26% 17% Lincoln Chafee 2% 10% 12% 14% 62% Hillary Clinton 21% 23% 10% 39% 7% Martin O’Malley 3% 13% 14% 14% 56% Bernie Sanders 15% 15% 14% 21% 36% Jim Webb 3% 13% 14% 11% 58% 1 The Economist/YouGov Poll 4. Do you have a favorable or an unfavorable opinion of the following people? Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Don’t favorable favorable unfavorable unfavorable know Jeb Bush 9% 25% 21% 28% 17% Ben Carson 14% 18% 12% 16% 40% Chris Christie 6% 22% 24% 27% 22% Ted Cruz 11% 20% 14% 26% 29% Carly Fiorina 9% 16% 12% 17% 45% Jim Gilmore 3% 8% 11% 12% 66% Lindsey Graham 4% 16% 19% 22% 39% Mike Huckabee 9% 22% 18% 25% 26% Bobby Jindal 7% 18% 14% 21% 40% John Kasich 6% 14% 13% 13% 53% George Pataki 2% 14% 17% 15% 52% Rand Paul 8% 26% 20% 19% 28% Rick Perry 7% 23% 15% 25% 30% Marco Rubio 11% 23% 15% 21% 30% Rick Santorum 6% 20% 16% 25% 33% Donald Trump 20% 16% 11% 44% 8% Scott Walker 14% 16% 10% 22% 37% 5.
    [Show full text]