Polling shows trends well, regardless of the quality of the actual levels of support per candidate.
There’s unreliable polling, and there’s unreliable internet polling. I heard from this online youtube spammer that Ron Paul won the GOP debate by like 52%, my point? A lot of these outrageously unbalanced polls come from the internet. You know Paul’s online support, it’s like 2 for Paul, and 1 for some other guy (okay, an exageration, but still). Yet if you go to the real world, you see that it’s way more balanced than that in the GOP campaighn.
You’re totally right, gonzomax, I don’t trust these polls. I’m not going to predict because it’s virtually impossible to predict the American outcome (especially Iowa lol) in the next year! In the next day, something might happen that seems unimportant and boom!!! One other guy just significantly gains (or loses) support.
I can tell you one thing, Duncan won’t win (he better not). He’s not even known by half the people, and I don’t understand why even repubs would like him.
Depends on the kind of polling, and how long you rely on that poll for.
I didn’t make myself clear – I wasn’t including internet polling.
It’s not just internet polling. The right kind of polling is very accurate, don’t get me wrong, but polling is only accurate for a certain period of time because a lot of Americans can’t keep an opinion for five minutes (I don’t literally mean “five minutes” but you get where I’m poking at), for example, the people’s outlook on the war in Iraq has changed dramatically from a few years ago. And look where Howard Dean ended up in the Hawkeye state after the polls looked favorably on him. We still got almost a year still untill primaries, so I’m not going to look up to the polls to predict the election outcome until perhaps a few days until the primaries are up.
Also look at Huckabee. In only about a month, he started getting some real uplift in the campaign, looked at the polls perhaps a few weeks ago, wouldn’t have seen that coming.
Polls are a very accurate way of showing the recent support for each candidates, but not for the future, things change too fast. Especially don’t even try to see what the support is in the Hawkeye state, they’ll tell you one thing, and do another.
The first primaries are in two weeks. A year from now we’ll have a new president-elect.
FWIW, a new poll shows Huckabee with a 22-point lead over Giuliani among Georgia Republicans.
(On the other side, Obama polls at 33% to Hillary’s 31% (a virtual tie) among Georgia Democrats, with Edwards at 16%. I suspect those numbers could shift considerably depending on what happens in Iowa.)
But that’s a lead that could be fading fast. **The Wall Street Journal** doesn’t like Huckabee. Rush Limbaugh doesn’t seem to like him. National Review doesn’t like him. And, amazingly, Ann Coulter doesn’t like him either. (I thought the author of Godless would love him.) If enough pundits keep bashing him surely his polls will slip.
[spam]
Vote Ron Paul!
[/spam]
Maybe Huck’s lead ‘could be’ fading fast, but in looking over the recent polls, I see zero evidence that it is. (I keep on expecting his support to experience some modest drop, but so far, it’s not showing up in the polls.)
And I don’t know that the pundits are all that important to that crowd. I suspect they’re starting to figure out they’ve been played by the conservative establishment - that they were welcomed with open arms for their votes, then bought off as cheaply as possible. That establishment’s antipathy to Huckabee, who’s clearly much more of a theocon than a moneycon, simply highlights that reality, and likely reaffirms their commitment to having one of their own in power at last.
We’ll start finding out for sure in 12 days.
BTW, it looks like Romney’s dad did in fact march with MLK. I’m kinda stunned, given that it’s apparently true, that the Romney campaign had to resort to such lame defenses. This was Romney’s highest-profile campaign speech so far, by design. You’d think they’d have vetted it better ahead of time.
Anyway, that should keep Romney alive in NH.
Prediction time for the early primaries:
- Iowa: the Huckster wins.
- NH: McCain wins.
- Michigan: Huck wins.
- SC: Huck wins.
- FL: Huck wins.
I agree with all but 5. I can’t see Huck beating Giulaini in Florida (or California). Not every Republican everywhere is hyper-Jesus.
No, but Florida is FULL of retired New Yorkers who KNOW Giuliani. He’s incredibly unpopular in NYC and I think that’s going to influence Florida because of the retirees.
People forget that, despite the retirees from New York and the Midwest, despite Miami being a long-distance suburb of Havana, much of Florida still is a Southern state. In that population stratum, Huckabee will do every bit as well as he’ll do in Georgia.
Florida Republicans have been polled by four different outfits in the last 10 days (and none of them are ARG or Zogby, thank goodness). The average of the four has Rudy with 25.3%, Huck with 23.3%, Romney at 19%, McCain at 11%, etc.
People can reach their own conclusions as to the effect of earlier primaries on that poll situation.
At any rate, my thought is that perhaps it’s time for an IMHO-style poll: who do you think is going to win which primary? My list is up, and newcomer Dostoyevsky is putting his two cents on Rudy in FL, but otherwise the same. Anyone else care to venture some predictions?
This story’s flipflopped as much as Romney himself has. The latest is that newspaper accounts from the time place MLK speaking at a meeting in NJ on the day Romney Sr. participated in a civil rights march in Grosse Point, MI, in 1963.
If they met in the convention to choose a nominee like the good old days, they would reject this whole crop of losers. Somebody else would emerge as a compromise candidate.
The front-loaded primaries are going to bite the Republicans in the ass. Huckabee is a terrible candidate. He’s only gotten real scrutiny in the past couple of weeks, and there are already a whole bunch of question marks rising to the surface. If the primaries/caucuses were more spread out, there would be time after a candidate wins the first one to really scrutinize him and shake out any dirt or suspect decisions before the next one. But with all the early votes so squished together, it’s possible for a candidate like Huckabee, to come out of the woodwork and ride a wave of momentum at just the right time that he could wind up with the nomination before anyone really notices how weak a candidate he is.
That could happen with Huckabee. No one’s paying attention during the Christmas season, and after the New Year holiday there are only a couple of days left to win over voters. And if Huckabee wins Iowa, he’s going to be a media darling for a few days and walk into the next voting day with huge momentum.
If he wins, I predict the Republicans will have serious buyer’s remorse. That will lead to a fractured convention and maybe a third party candidate from the right, which will split Republican votes and ensure a Democratic landslide.
Um, okay, how could there be a third-party candidate to the right of Huckabee? :dubious:
Actually, though, I think the nation would benefit in the long run from having the Republicans nominate a reactionary theocrat like him, followed by his crushing defeat by a mainstream social liberal / financial conservative, from the populace’s mainstream, just like all credible Democrats. Just as Goldwater’s nomination and destruction ended the broad credibility and control of the true laissez-faire and isolationist wing of one of our major parties, so might Huckabee’s end that of the evangelicals.
I, too, would like a setup where the primaries and caucuses were more spread out.
But as far as Huck’s concerned, the reaction of the GOP establishment to him reminds me of its reaction to another insurgent GOP candidate from long ago. It’s a different party establishment now than in Goldwater’s time - the revolutionaries of that era have become the new establishment so long ago that their kids are running things these days. And they seem as aghast at Huckabee’s ascendancy as the GOP establishment of 1964 was at Goldwater. Even though they’ve actively sowed this wind for a generation.
Fred’s run out of money.