Reuters/Ipsos national poll: Bush 10%, Huckabee 9%, Paul 8%, Rubio 6%, Walker 6%

[jct74]

These are findings from an Ipsos poll conducted for Reuters, May 30—June 3, 2015


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...nomination-bush-huckabee-paul/article/2565598
https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documen...euters-tracking-core-political-06-03-2015.pdf

 

[Brett85]

How is Rand at 9% with Republicans and 10% with independents but only at 8% overall?

 

[specsaregood]

How is Rand at 9% with Republicans and 10% with independents but only at 8% overall?

In the pdf it says they interviews 643 democrats (more than gop or independents) I guess they included those in the total even though they didn't show the results in the graph.

 

[timosman]

Wouldn't vote polls very strong.

 

[invisible]

Wouldn't vote polls very strong.

Those must be the voters who aren't aware of Vermin Supreme yet.

 

[luctor-et-emergo]

Wouldn't vote polls very strong.

Not a lot of people vote in the primaries. So these are probably the people that aren't going to show up. Should be anyhow.

 

[IndianaPolitico]

Wow, Rubio didn't last long...

 

[MaxPower]

In the pdf it says they interviews 643 democrats (more than gop or independents) I guess they included those in the total even though they didn't show the results in the graph.

Could Rand really be polling lower among Democrats likely to vote in a Republican primary than other candidates in this poll?

 

[Inkblots]

Wow, Rubio didn't last long...

With so many more candidates in the field, the low-info voters needed to start rotating through flavors of the month a lot earlier this time.

 

[William Tell]

Could Rand really be polling lower among Democrats likely to vote in a Republican primary than other candidates in this poll?

The number of Democrats who plan on voting in the GOP primary is so low, that the sampling here would not tell us anything. They probably got responses from like 30 Dems who planned to vote in the primary.

 

[Matt McGuire]

Huckabee is doing consistently well

 

[specsaregood]

Could Rand really be polling lower among Democrats likely to vote in a Republican primary than other candidates in this poll?

I would hope not; but that is all we can infer from the data. Unfortunately they don't publish that information in the .pdf.
But if you look at the totals: 954total, 574GOP, 221IND that means 159 responses included in the total are neither GOP or IND.

 

[Gage]

Given Jeb Bush has pretty much universal name recognition, and the fact that he is still at 10%, with many others within the margin of error, gives us much greater prospects than the uphill battle with Romney last election.

 

[randomname]

So the patriot act bump got cancelled out by the authoritarians piling on to him?

Well at least he's holding steady

 

[randomname]

Huckabee is doing consistently well

I keep saying, he's a much stronger candidate than before, his time on TV had made him super slick

 

[RichardAlpert]

glad to see walker coming down

 

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

These results are surprising to me. I suspect this poll is an outlier. Huckabee is second nationally? How is that possible, especially after the Duggar and "transgender shower" gaffes? Those should've torpedoed him among Dems and independents. I would also expect Walker and Rubio to be higher than they are.

 

[Brett85]

In the pdf it says they interviews 643 democrats (more than gop or independents) I guess they included those in the total even though they didn't show the results in the graph.

Maybe so. This poll isn't being included in the RCP average so it doesn't seem to be a legitimate poll.

 

[JJ2]

Maybe so. This poll isn't being included in the RCP average so it doesn't seem to be a legitimate poll.

With a question worded like this I would hope not: "Please think ahead now to the next Presidential in four years time, in 2016.
If the 2016 Republican presidential primaries were being held today, for whom of the following would you vote?"

What on earth?