I have little to no confidence in those polls. A lot of it is name recognition and alot of it is the pollsters wanting to shape opinion, not just reflect it. If we can make Mitt the nominee, anyone that pays attention will see quite a contrast between him and Hillary!, who I still think is going to pull this off. He has a brilliant mind. He actually knows stuff. She is a terrible campaigner because she really isn't all that smart.
He is a genuinely decent human being. We all know what she is.
He is vigorous and good looking and so is his entire family. With Hillary we have her, Bill, Chelsea, Hugh and Tony Rodham and Roger Clinton.
I get that all the time from FReepers when the results are not to their liking. But the fact is that the polls have good predictive value. Not perfect, but a hell of a lot better than individual instincts.
A lot of it is name recognition
Sometimes, but the fact remains that Mitt has plenty of name recognition. Look how well he was known in NH, much of which gets Boston TV. Yet he did not do well there.
alot of it is the pollsters wanting to shape opinion, not just reflect it.
If that were the case, the polls would not correspond to each other so well. All the pollsters would not want to shape opinion the same way. Some have R clients, some D clients and personal agendas differ too.
I agree that Mitt is extremely smart and scandal-free, and I really like Ann. But I don't want him as the nominee because I find his sudden conservatism phony and have no confidence that he can win.
If he is nominated, I will support him. I will support the GOP nominee, whoever he is.
Right on, right on! As Rush would say ;o)
"With Hillary we have her, Bill, Chelsea, Hugh and Tony Rodham and Roger Clinton."
Compared to the Romney's, this is good versus evil on a scale previously unheard of.
If I add a Janet Reno, Madeline Albright, Sandy Berger or Joycelin Elders to this mental movie, it becomes a horror story of epic proportions.