Matchups between Bush and ______, where ________ is a Democrat running for president. Except that every time, even in the most recent polls, they throw in Hilary. Who has consistently said she has no interest or intention whatsoever in running for president in 2004. How bizarre of them to add her to the mix.
I think a little news network has a weird little problem. Or a crush.
Yeah – but what if she were running, Mr. Smartypants? Fox would be ready to hit the ground running with its polling data! I think they’ve got a department devoted to Sen. Clinton full-time. It’s sort of like a crush, in a weird, creepy way. More like stalking.
I hadn’t seen Fox News in a long time, so I flipped it on the other week to see if they’d changed. It happened to be Ronald Reagan’s 93rd birthday, and the first thing I heard was, “An admiring nation acknowledges President Reagan’s birthday…” I didn’t hang around to see what nation they were talking about. Maybe El Salvador?
Whenever I’m staying at a hotel or motel, if I can access the TV setup menu, I erase Fox News, along with the “all-Jesus-all-the-time” channels. Just doing my part to stamp out ignorance!
Those Fox numbers are almost significantly different from the very similar polls conducted at virtually the same time by Newsweek and CNN. The only difference I can see is that the Fox polls seem to show a much higher percentage of “Other (vol.)/Not Sure” responses. It also has the caveat, “names rotated; respondents pushed for decision.”
Anyone out there ever do any polling? How do you “push” a respondent for an opinion, and how does it affect the poll?
It is indeed telling that Fox’s polls aren’t even in the same ballpark as ANY of the other polls. But I find it even more telling (and exciting) to read this from the American research poll:
“If the election for president were being held today between George W. Bush, the Republican, and the Democratic nominee for president, for whom would you vote: Bush or the Democratic nominee?” Options rotated
George
W. Bush Democrat Unsure .
% % % .
ALL 47 46 7 .
Republicans 88 2 10 .
Democrats 9 85 6 .
Independents 46 49 5 .
A full 10% of Republicans, not known for voting across party lines, indicated they were unsure they would vote for Bush.
It’s because everybody at Fox News gets big giant wood at the thought of Hilary running against Bush; for them, it’s like the ultimate battle of good vs. evil.
It seems to be heading in the direction of people not so much voting for the Dem candidate, as voting against Bush. If I had to, I was willing to vote for Lieberman. God.
My take on Hilary, which is utterly unfounded in any special knowledge or insight, is that she does, indeed, want to be the first woman president. But she won’t risk it, isn’t willing to risk four more years of GeeDubya. Which is cool.
But 'struth, I don’t know squat about Hillary, 'cept she has enormous self-control and she ain’t from Texas. 'Cause Bill’s still breathing.
If the motel owners wanted me restricted to the Clinton News Network, or MSNB-zzzzzzzzzzzz, they’d do it themselves. It’s not your place to decide.
The Jesus-channels are pretty terrible though, they have absolutely awful picture quality pretty much all the time, from my informal survey of “occasionally seeing two seconds of one as I flip through the channels”. But please leave EWTN running, Pirate Nun is not to be trifled with.
And almost 10% of Democrats saying they’d vote for Bush. There is no emoticon to indicate the confusion I feel from that one. I mean, Ed Koch and Zell Miller are only two guys.
Anyways, I expect the Dem will win, but these percentages are pretty meaningless, not least because popular vote does not determine the presidency.
Ah, but many Democrats have no problem crossing party lines for a better candidate. Republicans tend to support party to a greater extent. That’s why I believe that 10% is compelling.
Hmmm. Well if I had to speculate about that 10% “unsure” number, I’d guess it relates to the way Bush has pretty much sold out much of his conservative base voters with a giant new entitlement program and controversial immigration reform. Add to that the fact that many Republicans are upset about PATRIOT Act (Bob Barr is working with the ACLU to oppose it now), and you have a recipe for discontent. In the end, I don’t think those voters will vote for Kerry, in a sense they have “nowhere else to go”, but I’m sure they don’t appreciate being taken for granted either, and will probably stay home on election day in droves.
Of course Kerry might get a few of them as protest votes. I never thought I’d vote for a Dem in my life (I’m a right-libertarian, traditional GOP voter - though Bush ain’t gettin’ my vote this time), but I voted for Jean Carnahan’s senate bid here in MO in '02, basically to protest Jim Talent, who I viewed as a liberty-hating Ashcroft-stooge.
I’ve also heard some speculation that Roy Moore might step in as an independant and pick up most of that conservative protest-vote.
On the other side, I suppose those Dem voters who cross party lines are the rural Democrats, the labor guys whose families have been Democrat since FDR, but who are social conservatives?
I don’t get the problem here. Hillary is a popular Democrat who many people want to see running for President. That she isn’t doesn’t mean that people can be asked if they would vote for her were she running.
It’s not a big deal. It’s like polling for support for Colin Powell.
