Presidential Candidate Polling

[Stunt]

Republicans
Democrats

Above are some collected polling numbers from various sources and they have averaged the top candidates in each respective party. They have only posted the top 4 or 5 in each party i assume for simplicity sake. Note that adding these percentages does not equal 100%; which makes sense considering there are some undecided voters and there are other candidates that do not hit the top of the list. The percentages on the democratic side are weighted heavily to the top 3 candidates where the top republicans are more evenly distributed. Top two democrats have 66% where top two republicans have only 50%. The lowest listed democrat has 3% and the lowest listed republican is 5%. The total percentage for the top republicans is 79% and 83% for the democrats. Also there are 5 of 8 republicans listed and 4 of 8 democrats listed.

Therefore the 21% of the republican percentage points are unaccounted for and 17% of the democrats. Keep in mind that there's only 3 other republicans to share the larger 21% rather than 4 democrats to share 17%.

What I'm getting at is where are these missing points allocated? Undecided voters? People who were not given the option they wanted when candidates were listed? Could they be leaving out candidates because they are polling higher than people think? Personally I think Paul's funding increases have been impressive, yet we haven't had much reliable polling to indicate any trends for his camp. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but the numbers seem to favor a large amount of unaccouted points for the candidates.

 

[Sinsear]

Any minute now the Ron Paul people will be out to wonder why he wasn't included in this polling.

 

[Moonbeam]

Did they poll the Supreme Coup?

 

[Fern]

Remember that this is the earliest begun Pres campaign on record. I doubt many people are engaged at this point (other than us political nutjobs ).

Plus many candidates have been really vague on their positions. E.g., for a great example just look at the Dems at the last debate and their inability to promise to bring the troops home by 2012. Jeebus, that's their BIG issue and they're hedging left-and -right.

I suspect as we get closer to the primaries they will make an effort to distinguish themselves, and the picture will get *sharper*.

If there are 4 or 5 big issues, and a dozen candidates, it spreads the polling pretty thin. When some drop out and debates are more focused it may make it easier to pick a candidate. Too many undecideds right now.

Fern

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Fern
Remember that this is the earliest begun Pres campaign on record. I doubt many people are engaged at this point (other than us political nutjobs ).

Plus many candidates have been really vague on their positions. E.g., for a great example just look at the Dems at the last debate and their inability to promise to bring the troops home by 2012. Jeebus, that's their BIG issue and they're hedging left-and -right.

I suspect as we get closer to the primaries they will make an effort to distinguish themselves, and the picture will get *sharper*.

If there are 4 or 5 big issues, and a dozen candidates, it spreads the polling pretty thin. When some drop out and debates are more focused it may make it easier to pick a candidate. Too many undecideds right now.

Fern

Now now, Fern, I seem to have gotten the impression that of the Democratic candidates that couldn't promise to bring the troops home by 2013 the issue was that they did not want to promise something in the future when one can never tell what new contingencies the future may bring. For example, suppose Iran attacked Iraq and the Iraqi government asked us to defend them. They clearly stated a desire to bring the troops out of a terrible mess but that the mess and its ramifications prevented blanked promises. The inability to promise is not a flaw but a function of common sense. It's called not being rash or painting yourself in a corner because of some stupid pledge. They made it perfectly clear their direction will be completely different than good money after bad Bush who has promised himself he will be the worst President in history.

 

[Fern]

^No matter the reason it's vague. And IIRC the Big Three Dems are used the same answer. How can that help voters differentiate the candidtaes?

That was my point, not criticizing the respone.

Being vague makes people wary, too wary to commit at this point, IMO.

Fern

 

[Pabster]

It's just too early. No one's been forced to cement their position on anything.

 

[Rainsford]

Why in the hell does Giuliani keep polling at the top of the Republican field? He was got to be among the worst candidates ever. He has all the lefty views that conservatives hate, but he's so much of a war hawk that no self respecting liberal would vote for him. On top of that, his one and only claim to fame is that he happened to be Mayor of New York on 9/11, and he's milking it so much I imagine even Dubya has to be rolling his eyes. Not to mention that he's the least experienced candidate on either side of the field, and no mayor has ever been President (that I know of, at any rate).

Given the way the polls look, I'd say people are voting based on who they can pick out of a crowd. That might explain why Thompson is 2nd among Republicans despite having no discernible views on anything.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Pabster
It's just too early. No one's been forced to cement their position on anything.

Exactly, it's all "first date" kind of bullshit right now. Giuliani will tank once Republicans start figuring out that he's more liberal than most liberals on a lot of issues.

Edit: And the Democrats should better start early of they'll be inflicted with Kerry-itis.

 

[Lemon law]

With the GWB record to run on, I fail to see how the Republicans can run on that or keep promising pie in the sky if we just stay the course. Running to the right for the nomination and then then trying to move more to the center for the General election seems to be the strategy of the bulk of the Republican field with the exception of Giuliani and Paul. Some things are worth saying. (1) No one in the more right than thou Republican camp has emerged and as such they are now splitting a large part of the GOP base into many small pieces. (2) I don't think Ron Paul stands a chance. Despite having a small and fanatical following America is not ready for a Libertarian in MHO. (3) The Giuliani lead is simply due to having no GOP competition from anyone to the left of far right. But that lead shows that there is an untapped GOP desire to run a real moderate and as such I cannot believe some more genuine GOP moderates are too chicken to enter the race because its very likely that is where the GOP must run from in future. And if the GOP runs one of the more right than thou crowd for Pres in 08 with a similar set of congressional candidates, and then the GOP gets a unprecedented drubbing in the 11/08 election, the GOP will only have itself to blame. And then the remaining standing GOP moderates will have to pick up the pieces and rebuild the GOP. (4) Two somewhat unknowable future event types will dominate the races in 11/08 (a) The success of the Iraqi occupation that is likely to still stink unless GWB radically changes course. (b) The
GOP moderates in congress are still likely to desert GWB as the primaries near which will break the present gridlock. Making it the dems election to lose with stupid action that might backfire on them. Or the dems election to win by helping to build a national bi-partisan coalition. (5) The events that dominate the election of 11/08 are now impossible to predict. Right now, I would have to say the dems are far better poised to take advantage of events than the present republican field. (6) When and if the GOP moderates desert GWB, those moderates will have tremendous bargaining power in drafting the legislation that ends gridlock and gets the country moving again. Therefore such a GOP moderate
from that group could enter the Presidential race even at that late date thereby knocking out Giuliani and winning the GOP nomination.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Fern
^No matter the reason it's vague. And IIRC the Big Three Dems are used the same answer. How can that help voters differentiate the candidtaes?

That was my point, not criticizing the respone.

Being vague makes people wary, too wary to commit at this point, IMO.

Fern

Dang, everything I told you I got from them. I don't get how they were vague. I think what you may mean by vague is bad hearing.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Republicans
Democrats

Above are some collected polling numbers from various sources and they have averaged the top candidates in each respective party. They have only posted the top 4 or 5 in each party i assume for simplicity sake. Note that adding these percentages does not equal 100%; which makes sense considering there are some undecided voters and there are other candidates that do not hit the top of the list. The percentages on the democratic side are weighted heavily to the top 3 candidates where the top republicans are more evenly distributed. Top two democrats have 66% where top two republicans have only 50%. The lowest listed democrat has 3% and the lowest listed republican is 5%. The total percentage for the top republicans is 79% and 83% for the democrats. Also there are 5 of 8 republicans listed and 4 of 8 democrats listed.

Therefore the 21% of the republican percentage points are unaccounted for and 17% of the democrats. Keep in mind that there's only 3 other republicans to share the larger 21% rather than 4 democrats to share 17%.

What I'm getting at is where are these missing points allocated? Undecided voters? People who were not given the option they wanted when candidates were listed? Could they be leaving out candidates because they are polling higher than people think? Personally I think Paul's funding increases have been impressive, yet we haven't had much reliable polling to indicate any trends for his camp. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but the numbers seem to favor a large amount of unaccouted points for the candidates.

Topic Title: Presidential Candidate Polling
Topic Summary: My inductive reasoning...thoughts?

Wow, what a long discertation on hot air.

Didn't you learn anything from U.S. Politics at least the last 8 years that Polls mean absolutely nothing?

 

[bamacre]

If Giuliani wins the Republican nomination, the Democrats better do something, and it better not be Clinton. If we vote in '08 between Giuliani and Clinton, we are in bigger trouble than we thought.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: bamacre
If Giuliani wins the Republican nomination, the Democrats better do something, and it better not be Clinton. If we vote in '08 between Giuliani and Clinton, we are in bigger trouble than we thought.

I'm all for starting the impeachment trials for both of them now.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: bamacre
If Giuliani wins the Republican nomination, the Democrats better do something, and it better not be Clinton. If we vote in '08 between Giuliani and Clinton, we are in bigger trouble than we thought.

I'm all for starting the impeachment trials for both of them now.

:laugh:

I agree, why wait?

 

[BigRig04]

so if the dem's are so hesitant to put a label on when to bring the troops home when it comes to getting elected, why are they so adamant about getting a pull out date from Bush? (sory to roll offtopic, but I'm just curious)

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: BigRig04
so if the dem's are so hesitant to put a label on when to bring the troops home when it comes to getting elected, why are they so adamant about getting a pull out date from Bush? (sory to roll offtopic, but I'm just curious)

My guess is that what they are asking for is a date at which the troop withdrawal begins not when the last troop is out.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Fern
^No matter the reason it's vague. And IIRC the Big Three Dems are used the same answer. How can that help voters differentiate the candidtaes?

That was my point, not criticizing the respone.

Being vague makes people wary, too wary to commit at this point, IMO.

Fern

Dang, everything I told you I got from them. I don't get how they were vague. I think what you may mean by vague is bad hearing.

OK, see below. I suspect, like others, my *inner ear* has pretty damn good hearing.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Now now, Fern, I seem to have gotten the impression that of the Democratic candidates that couldn't promise to bring the troops home by 2013 the issue was that they did not want to promise something in the future when one can never tell what new contingencies the future may bring. For example, suppose Iran attacked Iraq and the Iraqi government asked us to defend them. They clearly stated a desire to bring the troops out of a terrible mess but that the mess and its ramifications prevented blanked promises. The inability to promise is not a flaw but a function of common sense. It's called not being rash or painting yourself in a corner because of some stupid pledge. They made it perfectly clear their direction will be completely different than good money after bad Bush who has promised himself he will be the worst President in history.

Now since have we had polititions afraid to make promises to get elected? (hint: correct answer is *never*).

Since when have we had polititions go back promises on made to get elected (hint: correct answer is *since day #1).

Our polititions, even if they were afraid to be seen as going back on promises (hopefully I'll live to see such a day) know how to qualify their statements - "I fully intend" etc.

Nor do I believe for a moment if some senario that you describe occurs anyone would fault them (OK, maybe Cindy Sheehan and Pink Brigade or whatever) responding to an Iranian invasion, and not completely withdrawing.

They can't forcast future economic conditions either, but that doesn't stop them from making pronouncements about their tax policy. Same for health care, Patriot Act revisions etc.

The only place I see such reticence is Iraq and Iran. Why? Could it be that theri real thoughts may not be popular among their base and/or undercut their campaign crtism of GWB?

If they're gonna stay in Irag with some level of troops until safe to pullout, and are willing to strike Iran to keep it from having nukes, how are they really different than GWB in this regard? They aren't. Seriously undercuts their current cristism of GWB & Neocons on these matters.

I think the candidates fear a quick a pullout may lead to some serious escalation of problems. That'll likely guarantee a 4 yr term. Letting Iran obtain nuke weapons will likley do the same. I think in spite of their anti-war rhetoric they fear those, and can't say so for fear of looking like a Neocon and letting the lower tier candidates get an edge on them in the primaries.

No matter how you cut it, when you can't say what you're gonna do nobody can else can know either (what you're gonna do). It's plain uncertainty. A few us might think they're being too clever by a half. Others are just left with a gut level feeling of uncertainty. Hard to commit with that, IMO.

Cliffs: It's a *cop out*.

Fern

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Why in the hell does Giuliani keep polling at the top of the Republican field? He was got to be among the worst candidates ever. He has all the lefty views that conservatives hate, but he's so much of a war hawk that no self respecting liberal would vote for him. On top of that, his one and only claim to fame is that he happened to be Mayor of New York on 9/11, and he's milking it so much I imagine even Dubya has to be rolling his eyes. Not to mention that he's the least experienced candidate on either side of the field, and no mayor has ever been President (that I know of, at any rate).

Given the way the polls look, I'd say people are voting based on who they can pick out of a crowd. That might explain why Thompson is 2nd among Republicans despite having no discernible views on anything.

My first thought was also, "Giuliani in the lead for the Republicans??? WHY?!?"

9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. Repeat 50000 times, that's how many times he'll probably say it while on the campaign trail - by next Monday.

I traditionally vote Democrat, but this year, don't know. Hillary, heck no. Obama, don't know. Ron Paul - seems like an interesting option.

Can we just send in a vote to get fresh candidates instead?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
Can we just send in a vote to get fresh candidates instead?

Does such a vote occur with or without violence?

There is a lot of unrest in this country.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Why in the hell does Giuliani keep polling at the top of the Republican field? He was got to be among the worst candidates ever. He has all the lefty views that conservatives hate, but he's so much of a war hawk that no self respecting liberal would vote for him. On top of that, his one and only claim to fame is that he happened to be Mayor of New York on 9/11, and he's milking it so much I imagine even Dubya has to be rolling his eyes. Not to mention that he's the least experienced candidate on either side of the field, and no mayor has ever been President (that I know of, at any rate).

Given the way the polls look, I'd say people are voting based on who they can pick out of a crowd. That might explain why Thompson is 2nd among Republicans despite having no discernible views on anything.

My first thought was also, "Giuliani in the lead for the Republicans??? WHY?!?"

9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. Repeat 50000 times, that's how many times he'll probably say it while on the campaign trail - by next Monday.

I traditionally vote Democrat, but this year, don't know. Hillary, heck no. Obama, don't know. Ron Paul - seems like an interesting option.

Can we just send in a vote to get fresh candidates instead?

If there was a Democrat who had the balls to talk about foreign policy the way Paul does, he would be wiping the floor with all the other candidates.

I guess one could say Kucinich could be that guy, but he looks so wimpy.

Maybe he needs to parade that hawt wife of his everywhere he goes. American men would drool over their new first lady.