Posted on 10/03/2007 12:19:03 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Rasmussen Reports polling has recently shown Fred Thompson leading the race for the Republican Presidential Nomination while most other polls place Rudy Giuliani in the lead and Thompson in second.
The difference is primarily the result of the fact that Rasmussen screens for Likely Primary Voters while others do not. Gallup numbers are very similar to the Rasmussen numbers. Not only does Gallup's sample of informed voters show Thompson ahead of Giuliani, they also match Rasmussen by showing Romney ahead of McCain.
Why does Gallup's sample of informed voters look so much like the Rasmussen sample of Likely Voters? Because those more informed voters are precisely the kind of people who show up and vote in a primary.
The fact that a Likely Voter sample shows more support for Thompson than a sample of all adults also makes intuitive sense because we know that primary voters tend to be somewhat more conservative than Republicans in general. And, as Rasmussen data has shown, Thompson is perceived by voters as the most conservative candidate seeking the GOP nomination.
The implications of this analysis are clear: Fred Thompson is in a much stronger position among the people who will actually decide Republican primaries and caucuses than most observers understand. And Rudy Giuliani's support is sufficiently soft and is made up in part of voters who are attracted to his celebrity and have a much lower likelihood of actually voting.
“I honestly could not tell you at this point, because I am not giving up on Rep. Hunter at all.”
I admire your tenacity.
John Kerry was 4% in the polls 3 weeks before the primaries.
I don’t know why some conservatives give up more easily than liberals.
As a PhD Statistician I am aware how some polls are rigged to oversample in more liberal districts, certain times of the day, certain days of the week, etc.
A voter database can be broken down by county and then by district. To sample proportionately according to percentages of voter turnout in each district is the way to get an unbiased sample. Then questions can be used to qualify the sample further as to likely voter in primary, in general, by absentee.
Any deviation from such a basic plan will induce bias. Oversampling districts with more democrats or republicans, more Christians or secularists will certainly skew results.
In my conversations with some people that actually follow polling orgs, I have heard that Rasmussen is one of the most unbiased.
But Gallup has a good angle to qualify samples as how informed they are, especially when it comes to Thompson. There exists a phenomenon that “Fred Grows on People” meaning the more they learn about him the more support he attracts.
“John Kerry was 4% in the polls 3 weeks before the primaries.”
And you see that all three of the front-runners are going to have a Dean-like implosion thus handing the nomination to Duncan?
I wish, but it is not going happen. Sadly I look for him, Tancredo and some of the lesser polling candidates to pull out shortly after Iowa.
IMHO**They will all look up at the top three and as one throw their support to the most conservative candidate with a shot.**IMHO
I agree with you. I don’t believe that Rudy will settle for #2 though.
What people keep missing is that if the elections were right now, Mitt would win Iowa and NH, even though he's fading some in NH; it would be far tighter in SC between Rudy and Fred than some want to admit; and Rudy has a "firewall" in FL. The trick for Fred is to find an early primary or two that he can win.
No.
I'd like to say 'no', but it depends on who's running third party.
I see here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1906105/posts
that Fred is backing ethanol subsidies in a glutted market.
If more grassroots conservatives will help Hunter out, he can win.
Big biz won’t help him, because they want cheap labor from illegals from Mexico, and slaves in Red China.
Around 95% of Hunter’s campaign $$ came from regular folks.
In Dec., ‘03, Howard Dean was 42% in the polls; John Kerry was only 12% in the polls.
“In Dec., ‘03, Howard Dean was 42% in the polls; John Kerry was only 12% in the polls.”
I forget, were they 1, 2 or was there a top 5 or six and then Kerrys’ poll numbers?
I think that the Republican Women’s Clubs just picked Giuliani at their meeting in Palm Springs, last week.
Actually the situation is even more favorable for Fred than the Rasmussen polling indicates, as the states which gave Bush their electoral votes in 2004 (the Red States) will be over represented at the GOP convention as convention rules give about a 20% advantage to the states which voted Republican in the last election. So, while Bush received 53% of the electoral votes, those states will send 64% of the delegates to the convention, and most of those delegates will be from the Sun Belt south and the Rockies, which is Fred territory. So Rudy and Mitt may poll well in the NE but the Blue states will only be sending 36% of the delegates to the convention.
Absolutely right. I will not vote for a ticket containing the RINO ... that would only give him a foot in the door for the White House afterwards.
Rudy has had more than enough time to become a real republican, if he was sincere about it. Now, he is making minor adjustments, as the wind direction changes, but there have been no changes in his core beliefs, and the wind may change again, tomorrow.
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.