The Pure Republican Vote

Hugh Hewitt keeps a running total of votes cast in the Republican primary broken down by candidate on his front page. Those numbers include Independents and Democrats. Given that we are moving into Florida, a closed primary, I decided to take the analysis a little bit deeper.

Excluding Wyoming, which Romney won, I went back to the raw vote totals and the entrance, or exit polls to take a look at the pure Republican vote by both raw vote and percentages for the top four contenders. I took the Republican vote out of the total vote, then used the percentages of registered Republicans that went for each candidate from the entrance/exit polls to get a raw number. From there, calculating the percentages was easy. Results below.

Each state is a unique election during the primaries, so I'm not arguing this is predictive. But I thought it might be interesting to see how the pure Republican vote across five states stacks up thus far.

Total Republican votes cast thus far: 987298

Romney 30.1%  297407

McCain 27.3% 269677

Huck 23.3% 229819

Rudy 4.6% 45120

Iowa

Total Cast: 118691 Republican 102074 (86%)

Rudy 4% 4,083 Huck 36% 36746 McCain 12% 12249 Romney 26%  26539

New Hampshire

Total Cast: 233381 Republican 142362 (61%)

Rudy 10% 14236 Huck 13% 18507 McCain 34% 48403 Romney 35% 49827

Michigan

Total Cast: 529424 Republican 360008 (68%)

Rudy 5% 18000 Huck 17% 61201 McCain 27% 97202 Romney 41% 147603

Nevada

Total Cast: 44324 Republican 38119 (86%)

Rudy 5% 1906 Huck 8% 3050 McCain 13% 4955 Romney 57% 21728

South Carolina

Total Cast: 430919 Republican 344735 (80%)

Rudy 2% 6895 Huck 32% 110315 McCain 31% 106868 Romney 15% 51710

Comments

[Allen Wood]

what about Wyoming?

[SDN]

Nice to see you continuing the MSM tradition of carefully not mentioning Fred Thompson.

[Dan Riehl]

Wyoming

I didn't have raw vote data. But given the small numbers, it likely wouldn't change anything.

[Dan Riehl]

"not mentioning Fred"

Get some help, dude. You freaking Fredheads gave McCain the win over Huckabee, who is easier to beat from here on out. You're man never showed up - time to deal with it.

[Kaitian]

Dan,

Don't worry about Wyoming. It was a convention rather than a primary or caucus. Hawaii will be the same thing.

[JustADude]

Dan

I am not a FredHead, just objectively looking at the numbers. You have it backwards Huck has been sucking in a lot of rep votes because he was drawing in mostly evangelicals since he is perceived as their best and only chance of have had one of their own as a viable candidate in a long time and likely to be the last one or at least the last one for a long time to come.

He has been sucking the republican air out of this race with his false flag run and re read the exit polls for SC and you will see that he only got about a third of that demographic when they were over 60% of the voter base.

Mitt kicked his butt in NV in the religious vote and only a 1/4 of the vote there was Mormon and in all the others they were not even enough to register in the exit polls on breakdowns.

Simply put Huck is on his last likely state for the evangelicals to boost him and still he lost. Their campaign has skewed this whole election setup along the way and you really need to look at the massive percentages of moderate/liberal voters who have carried Mc along the way.

This is probably been the primary season which has had the most ever influence by crossover libs picking our candidates for us. They see it, they know it and they are taking full advantage of it.

Mc is now headed into FL , the first state with a closed primary. Now as usual here people are playing the time honored primary shuffle because of that and libs are temporarily registering as rep to keep the we own Mc thing going.

Huck is about at the end of his string for states that will be strong for his one trick pony ride.
Don't discount Mitt and Fred as also rans, you would be making a big mistake. Look at what it would be like if he wasn't there and those votes were split among the rest.

Most conservative blogs will tell you their two least acceptable candidates are out front leading and two most acceptable running last and an ok if necessary guy in between.

The numbers and the exit polls clearly show that Huck and the cross over libs are fully responsible for that.

[JustADude]

Oh and remember Fl is the other penalty box state for the Dems for moving the primary date like Mi did.

All the same game the system ground rules come into play. Only difference is which Dems are on the ballot and uncommitted is not as much a favorite here.

BTW since the primaries in SC are on two different dates, does anyone have a clue if the libs who voted in the Rep primary can do it again in the Dem primary? Or did they have to pick between one or the other?

[Dan Riehl]

"Don't discount Mitt and Fred as also rans"

Now I'm confused. How did I discount Mitt? As for Fred, he just doesn't campaign well enough to be anything but a spoiler. I like him well enough. But only die hard conservatives do. That won't cut it. Sorry, but you have to sell yourself to win. And as for Huckabee, I don't disagree with you at all. So you kind of lost me with your response?

[Verlin Martin]

"You freaking Fredheads gave McCain the win over Huckabee,"

You mean the Fredheads actually voted for the guy they support... gasp

[JustADude]

Another thing you need to look at is this election has been a total rejection of the nutroots by the main stream dems. They have kicked them to the curb. Edwards and Dennis K have been their boys and John is play odd man out and in NV Dennis K accumulated a massive 5 votes statewide.

The Nutroots know they have been swept into the gutter and had the well known Dem for Mitt thing working in Mi and they have also been carrying water for Mc just to keep things stirred up. Add to that their support by many who have been traced back to the Nutroots blogs who are pushing crazy Uncle Paul from the attic and they are simply playing where they can , because they know where they can't.

That and the Huck one trick pony have lead to a perfect storm of screwing the pooch.

[Dan Riehl]

"You mean the Fredheads actually voted for the guy they support"

Hey, I like Fred well enough. But it's been clear for sometime he doesn't really like to do what it takes to win today. That's a shame, but it's still a wasted vote in picking a viable nominee.

[Additional Blond Agent]

Re: Fred Thompson... "That's a shame, but it's still a wasted vote in picking a viable nominee."

How are we to gauge that if you don't post all the numbers?

[Verlin]

It's not a wasted vote if you don't think any of the others are actually viable conservatives is it?

It's painfully obvious that Huck and probably Mitt can't beat the Dems' in the General, but I don't hear anyone telling their people to vote for the 'viable' candidate.

[Dan Riehl]

"Huck and probably Mitt"

I think you're buying the MSM spin if you think Romney can't win, especially with the economy becoming important. And you haven't been reading here long if you think I haven't tried to discourage anyone and everyone from voting for Huck. I left Fred alone hoping he would catch on. He hasn't. Now it's time to move on.

[Verlin]

I've been coming here for a very long time Dan, I never said YOU were pulling for Huck :)

I was talking about the fact that people (pundits, news anchors, etc) keep telling everyone that Fred hasn't got a chance, don't vote for him, vote for X and help Y out.

Huck has NO shot, not one tv personality, nor pundit (present company excluded) has told all the Hucksters to go vote for someone else.

If you notice that probably before Mitt's name, I use that word because I really don't know if he could beat Hill or Obama. In the polls (heh) he loses, but things can change. But is that enough to make him 'viable' when no one else seems to be?

[Verlin]

"I left Fred alone hoping he would catch on. He hasn't. Now it's time to move on."

And I get to vote on 2/5, my vote will be for Fred if he's still in. The beautiful thing about my vote is that it is in fact my vote.

(but I know what you're saying, I just think it's silly for candidates to spend all this time running to drop out after 1/10th of the race)

[JustADude]

Dan

It wasn't so much you were down on Mitt, but so many seem to think this is a one way McCain train and I am not buying it.

You left off the Fred numbers and they do mean something , I lump Mitt and Fred into a bin of candidates some are trying their best to ignore and are going on MSM sound bites rather than looking at the exit polls.

Hey why don't you take a whack at explaining why Paul did what he did in NV.

[John Ryan]

It is silly to try and totally ignore Paul. He has received well over 100,000 votes so far. Be a man and say it.

[Math_Mage]

Dan, it's just ridiculous to leave off the Fred numbers. At worst we get to see how much of an impact he actually had on the elections, and how much of an impact his voters switching to various candidates (i.e. Romney, Rudy, McCain) will have on the election. I would say the same for Ron Paul, except his supporters aren't going to vote for anyone else when he doesn't get the nomination.

John, unless more than 94% of Paul's votes came from Republicans he hasn't gotten 100,000 votes from pure Republicans, which is the stat Dan's measuring.