Why is it we believe the polls when Santorum is in the lead, but when he’s not, we dismiss them? I heard a lot of theories about the polling in Florida that said that Romney wasn’t leading by as much as they polls were saying, and yet he won pretty handily. I hate to say it, but I think the polls may be accurate. Negative campaigning does work.
Negative campaigning doesn’t always work and sometimes when you overuse it it blows up in our face. It usually works best the first time you use it, which is why ROmney was able to clobber Gingrich with it effectively in Iowa. Then Romney used it again in FLA. He won, but turnout was way down. He has only won one caucus since Florida, Nevada, which is so Mormon rich, it really is no bellweather at all. Meanwhile, he has lost a real bellweather-—Missouri— by 30 points, along with crushing defeats in MN and CO, where late polls showed him winning by double digits.
Mitt always overpolls. Mitt does more poorly in open primary states where the GOP-E has less control. Michigan is an open primary state. Mitt is going to lose it. Mark my words.
The latest ARG poll, which came out Thursday, has Romney behind in Michigan 38-34.
http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2012/primary/rep/mi/
Why is it we believe the polls when Santorum is in the lead, but when he’s not, we dismiss them?
Human nature!! Why would you like someone more when he agrees with your positions? I try not to do this but that self-bias creeps in a lot...