Posted on 12/21/2007 6:51:18 AM PST by Brices Crossroads
1. If the 2008 Republican presidential caucus were held today between Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, John McCain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo, and Fred Thompson, for whom would you vote? (Republicans Only; Names Rotated) Mike Huckabee 31% Mitt Romney 25% Fred Thompson 16% John McCain 8%
(Excerpt) Read more at strategicvision.biz ...
Would that be the part of his record where he tolerated sanctuary cities, or the part where he has illegals taking care of his lawn?
4. Do you favor a withdrawal of all United States military from Iraq within the next six months? (Republicans Only)
Yes 49%
No 39%
Undecided 12%
RIGHT! This gives a glimps of what or who’s behind these polls. Lib/dims all.
Polls mean ZERO at this point, other than wishful thinking. If I were in Iowa or NH and was getting polled every other day, I’d be giving them pure BS answers just to throw them off.
I hope the homeschoolers in Iowa catch on quickly that the NEA (i.e. the teachers’ union, their enemy) has endorsed the Huck in NH...
>>
Below are the results of a three-day poll in the state of Iowa. Results are based on telephone interviews with 600 likely Republican cacus goers and 600 likely Democratic cacus goers, aged 18+, and conducted December 16-18, 2007. The margin of sampling error is ±4.5 percentage points for each party.
>>
This suggests yesterday’s ARG poll, taken the same days with the same sample size, but quoting a bizarre 8.7% “highly likely” GOP voters with grossly different results was an outlier.
We are starting to see the same questions about polling as existed in 2004. How do two polls of the same days and the same criteria yield such divergent results?
We had partial answers in 2004. Different pollsters use the different criteria about partisan mixture. Some allow it to vary with a random sample. Some aim at a fixed mixture.
I am coming to believe that the fluid nature of American relocation patterns means that making 600 random calls and allowing the Democrat/GOP/Ind mixture to be whatever it turns out to be is wrong. It is too dependent on zip code and calling area prefixes yielding the same nature of neighborhoods as existed 4 years prior.
A better approach is Rasmussen’s, where he has a targetted mix derived from the last national election and he keeps making phone calls until he has the target mix.
For primaries, even the variable mix pollsters are going some distance towards “targetted mix” in that they know what calling areas have GOP voters and they call only those. The problem for primary polling is the “highly likely” criteria.
The vast majority of pollsters are sampling that via self selection. “Did you vote in the last primary?” “Did you participate in the last caucuses?” And because those questions would exclude newly of age voters, or newly moved into that region, sometimes the question is just “On a scale of 1-10 with 10 being utterly certain, how likely are you to appear at the caucus?”
Rasmussen isn’t always right, but he’s pretty accurate, and uses a pretty conservative and consistant process to do his polling. So his numbers tend to be more “comparable” to one another.
That’s true. When the caucus is over, it won’t matter where anybody was or wasn’t a week before Christmas.
” am sorry I cannot have any part in this terrible plot to attempt to destroy the one man who is pretty enough to beat Hillary...”
That’s just a MYTH!
“Fred has Steve King’s endorsement. He is a hero to Iowa conservatives”
Steve King sounds like our Tom McClintock here in California (he also endorsed Fred).
That would be a surge....
“I think Romneys maturing process has brought him to the point of being a rock solid conservative on the social issues “
The 60s couldn’t accomplish that with him, Roe vs Wade and the 70s had no effect on him, the 80s Reagan Revolution and the intense abortion wars had no effect on this anti Reagan man that had re-registered as an independent.
The conservative wars and the Gingrich revolution of 1994? Romney was on the other side and was against the Contract with America, the Clinton years, the 2000 election war? the 2004 election war, nothing made Romney waiver from his liberalism until this latest election cycle, when he had to change everything to win the republican nomination.
Watch all of the various videos of Romney sincerely and convincingly, and with great passion fighting for the opposite of all of your dearly held positions, then watch him now on video taking his recent positions, he sounds sincere, convincing, and passionate doesn’t he?
yup...
Bingo...
Thank you for the suggestion. I will continue to look at each of the candidates, especially Mitt. As I look at each, I like to look at how they have governed, not what they have said or are saying. I think what disappoints me the most about a lot of the very sincere people here, is the tendency to be closed minded and nasty about another candidate. I think we can still get our points across without that kind of attitude. I appreciate your very thoughtful response. I know I have evolved my position on some issues and it didn\’t come from some major conservative movement but it came from self reflection and life experiences. Thanks again!
I think Mitt Romney is the candidate most likely to win the Republican nomination, and I think he would have a decent shot in the general election. I don't particularly trust him, though, much as I'd like to.
Mike Huckabee, if nominated, would IMHO have a much harder time winning the general election than either Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson. As a former liberal, I recognize that he would be unlikely to get very many crossover votes, and his status as a preacher would inspire liberals to fight especially hard against him.
After the 2000 primary, I judged John McCain to lack the mental stability necessary for a President. Nothing against him personally, but if the country doesn't have someone who is unusually strong under pressure that will become a weakness that enemies will exploit.
Rudy Giuliani would do well on the Democrat ticket, but does not belong on the Republican one. He'd likely have negative "coat tails", since he'd draw to the polls Democrats who couldn't stand Hillary (but who'd vote Democrat in the other races).
I don't consider myself closed-minded about the other candidates. I wish I could trust Mitt, since he seems most likely to win. As it is, I don't really trust him, and so I back the candidate without major negatives: Fred Thompson.
http://www.betterimmigration.com/candidates/2006/prez08_gop1.html
Thompson has better promises than Romney, but Romney is rated “good” for past actions; Thompson is rated “fair.”
And, please, enough with the leftist smears. They tried to slime Tancredo with the same bogus “he had illegals working for him” B.S.
Intrade results show McCain surging, eating directly into Romney’s contracts. Thompson is also down 3 points.
Winner of 2008 Republican Iowa Caucus
REP.IOWA.HUCKABEE
Mike Huckabee to Win M 65.5 74.6 66.6 1125 +0.1
REP.IOWA.ROMNEY
Mitt Romney to Win M 13.2 17.9 12.0 1046 -12.1
REP.IOWA.THOMPSON(F)
Fred Thompson to Win M 2.5 4.9 2.5 416 -3.0
REP.IOWA.MCCAIN
John McCain to Win M 2.1 10.0 10.0 463 +8.9
REP.IOWA.GIULIANI
Rudy Giuliani to Win M 0.6 0.9 0.6 512 -0.2
REP.IOWA.GINGRICH
Newt Gingrich to Win M - 0.1 0.1 0 0
REP.IOWA.HAGEL
Chuck Hagel to Win M - 0.1 0.1 0 0
REP.IOWA.FIELD
Field (any other individual) to Win M 5.3 6.8 5.3 637 +0.0
.
.
.
According to Intrade, the winner of the December 12th GOP debate was... Duncan Hunter.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1938773/posts
I can follow your line of reasoning. I appreciate the tone in which you reasoned it out. Sometimes I think we are hearing from some DU hacks trying to cause trouble. Fred is the guy I hope can start getting some traction and I agree with your analysis about Huckabee. He would be red meat for the Democrats during the General Election. If Fred gets the nomination, it would be interesting to see who he picks for his running mate.
McCain is probably my number 2 right now, but I think that a lot of the front runners will endorse him if they also are forced out.
OK FredHeads what will you do if your guy endorses McCain (hypothetically of course).
Most of the principled politicians have endorsed Thompson. The party hacks have not.
That's gold Jerry! I'm sending this to all my Romney friends. Hope you don't mind. I'll credit you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.