29 Dec 2011, 12:09 am
We're not having a caucus in our state this year. The state said they didn't have money for it this year. bbauska and I were like 'What the hoohah, the state pays for the Republicans to hold their caucus?'
-
- Truck Series Driver (Pro II)
- Posts: 897
- Joined: 29 Dec 2010, 1:02 pm
-
- Dignitary
- Posts: 3239
- Joined: 29 Jan 2003, 9:54 am
29 Dec 2011, 9:33 am
Guapo wrote:Indeed. But what happened in '08? It wasn't a traditional election by your standards. Why would that change this year? If anything, the youth are more fired up this time than last time.
That is what I am saying. He has to rely on the a youth turn out that is as great as, or greater then, the 2008 cycle. I don't see that happening. Could I be wrong? Absolutely. Could there be a candidate that does fire the youth vote up for 2012? Absolutely. Do I think Ron Paul is that candidate. No.
Hey man, I am all for growing the party. If support of Ron Paul does that. Great. Fan freaking tasitic. I just don't think enough are going to be willing to to make the change to put Ron Paul over the top. Especially now that the newsletters are starting to make serious news again.Guapo wrote:So reach across the aisle. Praise the rise in registered Republicans. But tsk the fact that the Ron Paul has done both?
Guapo wrote:I'd like to see a link to that. You have a penchant for finding the one obscure poll that supports your cause--like the one about Huntsman in New Hampshire.
It was from the Public Policy Polling (PPP) done 12/16-12/17. I think we can agree that PPP is not an obsure poll.
Additionally, here is a link to the PPP poll done 12/26-12/27 that shows similar results. Page 6 shows commitment to candidate with the categories being Strongly Committed to Candidate and Might End Up Supporting Someone Else. Ron Paul's numbers are 28/21.
Further, another poll, Insider Advantage, from 12/28 shows Paul, Romney & Gingrinch in a 3-way tie at 17%. However, if you look at the breakdown, Paul is only getting 10.9% of registered Republicans. Whereas Romney is getting 20%, Gingrinch is getting 18% and Bachman, Perry & Santorum combined are getting 38%. That means that Ron Paul has to take the party switchers at a rate greater then 2-1 just to tie Romney.
-
- Dignitary
- Posts: 3239
- Joined: 29 Jan 2003, 9:54 am
29 Dec 2011, 9:44 am
Just to give the breakdown of the Bachman, Perry & Santorum numbers if you choose not to look at the link.
Santorum - 13.6%
Bachman - 12.8%
Perry - 11.5%
So all three of them are polling higher amongst registered Republicans in Iowa then Ron Paul currently is.
Santorum - 13.6%
Bachman - 12.8%
Perry - 11.5%
So all three of them are polling higher amongst registered Republicans in Iowa then Ron Paul currently is.
-
- Adjutant
- Posts: 180
- Joined: 28 Apr 2011, 9:18 am
29 Dec 2011, 10:04 am
21% might end up supporting someone else and "13% of his supporters say they will probably vote for someone else." are not similar results.
Also, all of the "strongly committed" and "might support someone else" numbers closely track the overall support for each candidate, so I'm curious what those numbers mean.
Base Support/Strongly Committed/Might vote for someone else
Bachman 12/14/7
Gingrich 13/12/17
Huntsman 4/5/3
Paul 26/28/21
Perry 10/9/13
Roemer 2/1/4
Romeny 21/21/22
Santorum 11/10/14
It doesn't make sense to me that out of Huntsman's 4%, only 5% support him strongly, for example.
Anyone have any thoughts as to what else these number mean, or why having more support would mean that a larger proportion of your supporters support you strongly AND might vote for someone else?
Also, all of the "strongly committed" and "might support someone else" numbers closely track the overall support for each candidate, so I'm curious what those numbers mean.
Base Support/Strongly Committed/Might vote for someone else
Bachman 12/14/7
Gingrich 13/12/17
Huntsman 4/5/3
Paul 26/28/21
Perry 10/9/13
Roemer 2/1/4
Romeny 21/21/22
Santorum 11/10/14
It doesn't make sense to me that out of Huntsman's 4%, only 5% support him strongly, for example.
Anyone have any thoughts as to what else these number mean, or why having more support would mean that a larger proportion of your supporters support you strongly AND might vote for someone else?
Last edited by theodorelogan on 29 Dec 2011, 10:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Ambassador
- Posts: 4991
- Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am
29 Dec 2011, 10:16 am
As goes Iowa, so goes ... Iowa.
-
- Dignitary
- Posts: 3239
- Joined: 29 Jan 2003, 9:54 am
29 Dec 2011, 2:20 pm
theodorelogan wrote:It doesn't make sense to me that out of Huntsman's 4%, only 5% support him strongly, for example.
Anyone have any thoughts as to what else these number mean, or why having more support would mean that a [b]larger proportion of your supporters support you strongly AND might vote for someone else?
What it means is that 26% of the people polled support Ron Paul. Of the 26% that support Paul, 28% support him strongly. The poll was of 565 people. 26%, or 147 people, said they support Paul. Of those 147, 28%, or 41 people, said they are strongly comitted. I thought it was pretty self-evident.
As for why one might have a larger number of strongly support and might vote for someone else, it just indicates that you have a lot of committed voters but also a lot that aren't sure about you yet.
-
- Ambassador
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
29 Dec 2011, 2:56 pm
Btw, looks likely I'll get out of having to vote for Huntsman. Gingrich is dropping like a rock. I don't know that he can survive unless he somehow pulls out a win in South Carolina. Huntsman seems to think he will do well in SC.
All I know is that January is going to be very interesting.
All I know is that January is going to be very interesting.
-
- Adjutant
- Posts: 180
- Joined: 28 Apr 2011, 9:18 am
29 Dec 2011, 5:16 pm
As for why one might have a larger number of strongly support and might vote for someone else, it just indicates that you have a lot of committed voters but also a lot that aren't sure about you yet.
That wasn't really my question. My question was why is there (or does there seem to be) a correlation between overall level of support and the proportion of people who both strongly support and might change their minds. In other words, why don't any lower tier candidates have higher proportions of people who are strongly committed/might change or why don't any upper tier candidates have smaller propertions of strongly committed/can't change.
Another way to put it...if Roemer has 2% support (11 people) of those, only 1% (a tenth of a person?) support him strongly? These numbers don't make sense.
-
- Dignitary
- Posts: 3239
- Joined: 29 Jan 2003, 9:54 am
29 Dec 2011, 8:38 pm
Ah ok. Not sure. I could hazard that it is because with higher levels of support you have more commitment and more serious doubts while at the lower levels supporters are more likely to fall in between those two extremes.
-
- Truck Series Driver (Pro II)
- Posts: 897
- Joined: 29 Dec 2010, 1:02 pm
30 Dec 2011, 12:11 am
"The most exciting development of the past few weeks is what has been happening up in Massachusetts. The health bill that Governor Romney signed into law this month has tremendous potential to effect major change in the American health system. We agree entirely with Governor Romney and Massachusetts legislators that our goal should be 100% insurance coverage for all Americans." -- Newt Gringrich, 2006
-
- Statesman
- Posts: 11324
- Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am
30 Dec 2011, 8:42 am
Prediction: Romney will win the republican nomination. Paul will compete in all the primaries and with Santorum as the third wheel it will take until at least Super Tuesday for the inevitable to become apparent to all and sundry.
Here's whats interesting about Romney, besides being battered during the early primaries... he'll need to address what he'd do versus Obama, whilst the direction of the conomy is going in the right direction. Albeit slowly. And for that he has these guys advice:
source: http://mittromney.com/news/press/2011/0 ... olicy-team
."It'll be like Obama running against Bush
Here's an interesting quote from Mitt:
"And the president's policies have failed the American people, have led to 25 million people still being out of work. He didn't cause the recession, but he has made it deeper and has made the recovery more tepid and the pain last longer.
The interesting thing is that even Mitt isn't blaming Obama for the mess...But he hired on the financial advisors Bush had that helped create the mess ...and with their advice he's criticizing the performance of the team trying to reduce the effects of the crisis.....
Its kind of like the drunk who's driven his car into the ditch complaining to the tow truck crew that they aren't doing a very good job of getting the wreck back on the road....
He's going to have a tough time if Obama's people keep pushing his Bush team connections to the forefront...
Here's whats interesting about Romney, besides being battered during the early primaries... he'll need to address what he'd do versus Obama, whilst the direction of the conomy is going in the right direction. Albeit slowly. And for that he has these guys advice:
R. Glenn Hubbard Served As The Chairman Of President Bush’s Council Of Economic Advisers From 2001 To 2003. Hubbard has also served at the Treasury Department and was an economic adviser to Mitt Romney’s 2008 campaign. Currently, Hubbard is Dean and Russell L. Carson Professor of Finance and Economics at Columbia Business School.
N. Gregory Mankiw Served As The Chairman Of President Bush’s Council Of Economic Advisers From 2003 To 2005. Mankiw served as an economic adviser to Mitt Romney’s 2008 campaign. Currently, Mankiw is Robert M. Beren Professor of Economics at Harvard University.
Senator Jim Talent Is A Former U.S. Senator Who Was Elected In 2002 And Served Until 2007. Before being elected to the U.S. Senate, Senator Talent was a member of the U.S. House Of Representatives for eight years. While a member of the U.S. House, Talent chaired the Small Business Committee. Senator Talent has served as a senior adviser to Mitt Romney and is a fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
Congressman Vin Weber Was A Member Of The U.S. House Of Representatives From 1981 To 1993. Weber most recently served as a Co-Chairman of Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty’s presidential campaign. In 2004, Weber served as Plains States Regional Chairman for George Bush’s campaign and in 2008 was a Policy Chairman for Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign. Currently, Weber is a Managing Partner of Clark & Weinstock.
source: http://mittromney.com/news/press/2011/0 ... olicy-team
."It'll be like Obama running against Bush
Here's an interesting quote from Mitt:
"And the president's policies have failed the American people, have led to 25 million people still being out of work. He didn't cause the recession, but he has made it deeper and has made the recovery more tepid and the pain last longer.
The interesting thing is that even Mitt isn't blaming Obama for the mess...But he hired on the financial advisors Bush had that helped create the mess ...and with their advice he's criticizing the performance of the team trying to reduce the effects of the crisis.....
Its kind of like the drunk who's driven his car into the ditch complaining to the tow truck crew that they aren't doing a very good job of getting the wreck back on the road....
He's going to have a tough time if Obama's people keep pushing his Bush team connections to the forefront...
-
- Emissary
- Posts: 3405
- Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am
30 Dec 2011, 9:19 am
Ricky, that kind of thing only matters to political obsessives. You could argue (rightly) that far more attention needs to go to the backroom teams but most people don't give a damn. I'd be amazed if more than 5% of the electorate have even heard of any of those people come polling day.
-
- Statesman
- Posts: 11324
- Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am
30 Dec 2011, 11:07 am
I'd be amazed if more than 5% of the electorate have even heard of any of those people come polling day.
I'll predict that his eonomic team make up actually becomes a part of some television commericial or other. Only because tieing Mitt to Bush would be an obvious winning strategy. And its pretty easy to do with these bios....
(And its not guilt by association. He hired these guys.)
Pretty hard for Mitt to defend too.
-
- Ambassador
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
30 Dec 2011, 11:20 am
rickyp wrote:I'd be amazed if more than 5% of the electorate have even heard of any of those people come polling day.
I'll predict that his eonomic team make up actually becomes a part of some television commericial or other. Only because tieing Mitt to Bush would be an obvious winning strategy. And its pretty easy to do with these bios....
(And its not guilt by association. He hired these guys.)
Pretty hard for Mitt to defend too.
Yeah, Obama will really own Romney on that. I mean he's only had to fire his entire economic team and unemployment, which will be the one economic indicator everyone understands (and maybe the price of gasoline), will still be extraordinarily high.
I pray Obama tries to make a race between he and Romney center on economic policy: record deficits vs. a man who saved the Utah Olympics; no business knowledge vs. a guy who has actually hired and fired people, etc.
Please.
-
- Adjutant
- Posts: 180
- Joined: 28 Apr 2011, 9:18 am
30 Dec 2011, 12:46 pm
I pray Obama tries to make a race between he and Romney center on economic policy: record deficits vs. a man who saved the Utah Olympics; no business knowledge vs. a guy who has actually hired and fired people, etc.
Are those the only differences? Haha.
I was actually wondering today how Romney and Obama's visions of America differ. I couldn't really figure it out. Do you have any reason to believe that Romney would not continue the record deficits? After all, Bush had record deficits until the next guy showed up.
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
