The Vastly Underimproved Poll Thread

I know how some people here feel about Romney, but Santorum is completely, totally and utterly unelectable. The GOP is waving the white flag if he is the nominee.

You know, you have said this a few times as well as Hutch and probably some others. Do you have evidence for this or are you just trying to shape the debate? Several have made a case (pretty good one, IMO) that Romney is unelectable and Newt too. If that's the case then no Republican is electable and we should all just throw up our hands and cry for 5 years.

You want to produce some evidence for this assertion?

I posted a link to an earlier poll showing how Newt was 15 points behind Obama in a hypothetical general election. That same poll, and several others, had Rommey neck and neck or even ahead a few points (I know, I know, pollsters are in on the MSM conspiracy). I personally know a lot of moderates and even democrats that would vote for Romney (these people are generally disgusted with Obama).

If you want "evidence" that Santorum is unelectable, sorry I don't have any (he wasn't included in those aforementioned polls). I can tell you he is a hardcore socon who just might get the moderates (those people that don't exist) to crawl over broken glass to keep him out of the WH. The "base" isn't terribly enthusiastic over him. Even the freaks over at TOS don't care for him very much apparently. He just happens to be the anti-Mitt du Jour.

Santorum surges into the lead

Riding a wave of momentum from his trio of victories on Tuesday Rick Santorum has opened up a wide lead in PPP's newest national poll. He's at 38% to 23% for Mitt Romney, 17% for Newt Gingrich, and 13% for Ron Paul.

Part of the reason for Santorum's surge is his own high level of popularity. 64% of voters see him favorably to only 22% with a negative one. But the other, and maybe more important, reason is that Republicans are significantly souring on both Romney and Gingrich. Romney's favorability is barely above water at 44/43, representing a 23 point net decline from our December national poll when he was +24 (55/31). Gingrich has fallen even further. A 44% plurality of GOP voters now hold a negative opinion of him to only 42% with a positive one. That's a 34 point drop from 2 months ago when he was at +32 (60/28).

Santorum is now completely dominating with several key segments of the electorate, especially the most right leaning parts of the party. With those describing themselves as 'very conservative,' he's now winning a majority of voters at 53% to 20% for Gingrich and 15% for Romney. Santorum gets a majority with Tea Party voters as well at 51% to 24% for Gingrich and 12% for Romney. And with Evangelicals he falls just short of a majority with 45% to 21% for Gingrich and 18% for Romney. ...

We are in big trouble.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2vjmgtD1_A

anti-romney vote needs to coalesce and unite. And the earlier the better, as at the convention it might be too late

I know how some people here feel about Romney, but Santorum is completely, totally and utterly unelectable. The GOP is waving the white flag if he is the nominee.

You know, you have said this a few times as well as Hutch and probably some others. Do you have evidence for this or are you just trying to shape the debate? Several have made a case (pretty good one, IMO) that Romney is unelectable and Newt too. If that's the case then no Republican is electable and we should all just throw up our hands and cry for 5 years.

You want to produce some evidence for this assertion?

I posted a link to an earlier poll showing how Newt was 15 points behind Obama in a hypothetical general election. That same poll, and several others, had Rommey neck and neck or even ahead a few points (I know, I know, pollsters are in on the MSM conspiracy). I personally know a lot of moderates and even democrats that would vote for Romney (these people are generally disgusted with Obama).

If you want "evidence" that Santorum is unelectable, sorry I don't have any (he wasn't included in those aforementioned polls). I can tell you he is a hardcore socon who just might get the moderates (those people that don't exist) to crawl over broken glass to keep him out of the WH. The "base" isn't terribly enthusiastic over him. Even the freaks over at TOS don't care for him very much apparently. He just happens to be the anti-Mitt du Jour.

I've posted polls showing Paul neck and neck with with Nero. So, according to you, that means Paul is more electable.

Now, that I'f like to see.

I know how some people here feel about Romney, but Santorum is completely, totally and utterly unelectable. The GOP is waving the white flag if he is the nominee.

You know, you have said this a few times as well as Hutch and probably some others. Do you have evidence for this or are you just trying to shape the debate? Several have made a case (pretty good one, IMO) that Romney is unelectable and Newt too. If that's the case then no Republican is electable and we should all just throw up our hands and cry for 5 years.

You want to produce some evidence for this assertion?

I posted a link to an earlier poll showing how Newt was 15 points behind Obama in a hypothetical general election. That same poll, and several others, had Rommey neck and neck or even ahead a few points (I know, I know, pollsters are in on the MSM conspiracy). I personally know a lot of moderates and even democrats that would vote for Romney (these people are generally disgusted with Obama).

If you want "evidence" that Santorum is unelectable, sorry I don't have any (he wasn't included in those aforementioned polls). I can tell you he is a hardcore socon who just might get the moderates (those people that don't exist) to crawl over broken glass to keep him out of the WH. The "base" isn't terribly enthusiastic over him. Even the freaks over at TOS don't care for him very much apparently. He just happens to be the anti-Mitt du Jour.

I've posted polls showing Paul neck and neck with with Nero. So, according to you, that means Paul is more electable.

Now, that I'f like to see.

Paul more electable than Santorum? Quite possibly. In addition to the libertarian conservatives, Paul has a significant support base outside of the traditional GOP electorate. OTOH I can't think of a candidate *less* electable in the general than Santorum. He might make Newt look good. For fucks sake, google "Santorum" and see what you find. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Santorum probably wouldn't even carry his own state. He was an incumbent senator who lost by SIXTEEN points to the dem challenger in 2006.

If Santorum gets the nomination, it will be a repeat of Christine O'Donnell on a national scale.

If Santorum gets the nomination, it will be a repeat of Christine O'Donnell on a national scale.

Once more you post blanket assertions without any shred of evidence.

Try these very recent polls (both Rasmussen):

Nero - 49 Romney - 42
Nero - 46 Santorum - 42

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ (see what support looks like?)

Still think Santorum isn't "electable" and is O'Donnell redux? Right now the polls are swinging wildly and I wouldn't trust them whether you agree with them or not, but you still have no basis for your blanket assertions.

I think a dirty jock strap should be able to beat Nero, so I don't count anyone out just because I don't like him.

Dirty Jock Strap in 2012!!!

That Santorum losing his own state thing needs a bit of clarification.

First off, he was an R during the latter Bush years. Second off, and more importantly, his opponent was the son of one of the state's most popular former governors. Santorum clobbered Casey during the debates, but it didn't matter because Casey had the same name as his dad. There's other reasons with which I'll agree that Santorum is a lousy selection, but his losing his senate seat is pretty damn low on the list.

I think a dirty jock strap should be able to beat Nero, so I don't count anyone out just because I don't like him.

I notice that whenever someone proposes that one candidate or another has a better chance of winning, you seem quick to object. Is it then your thesis that all proposed candidates are equally electable? If so, I can't help but wonder what evidence you have for such a remarkable belief. And if not, why not?

I think a dirty jock strap should be able to beat Nero, so I don't count anyone out just because I don't like him.

I notice that whenever someone proposes that one candidate or another has a better chance of winning, you seem quick to object. Is it then your thesis that all proposed candidates are equally electable? If so, I can't help but wonder what evidence you have for such a remarkable belief. And if not, why not?

Unless I'm mistaken, F4P is not objecting to anybody's assertion that any particular GOP candidate is more or less electable than any other particular GOP candidate, but rather the assertion that any particular GOP candidate is absolutely unelectable.

And I'd agree with him.

At this point, this year, I don't think anybody is unelectable - and that, unfortunately, includes Barack Obama.

If Santorum gets the nomination, it will be a repeat of Christine O'Donnell on a national scale.

Once more you post blanket assertions without any shred of evidence.

Try these very recent polls (both Rasmussen):

Nero - 49 Romney - 42
Nero - 46 Santorum - 42

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ (see what support looks like?)

Still think Santorum isn't "electable" and is O'Donnell redux? Right now the polls are swinging wildly and I wouldn't trust them whether you agree with them or not, but you still have no basis for your blanket assertions.

I think a dirty jock strap should be able to beat Nero, so I don't count anyone out just because I don't like him.

Dirty Jock Strap in 2012!!!

Who said I didn't "like" him? You just pull that one out of your ass?

I think a dirty jock strap should be able to beat Nero, so I don't count anyone out just because I don't like him.

I notice that whenever someone proposes that one candidate or another has a better chance of winning, you seem quick to object. Is it then your thesis that all proposed candidates are equally electable? If so, I can't help but wonder what evidence you have for such a remarkable belief. And if not, why not?

This place is getting worse than TOS.

I think a dirty jock strap should be able to beat Nero, so I don't count anyone out just because I don't like him.

I notice that whenever someone proposes that one candidate or another has a better chance of winning, you seem quick to object. Is it then your thesis that all proposed candidates are equally electable? If so, I can't help but wonder what evidence you have for such a remarkable belief. And if not, why not?

This place is getting worse than TOS.

nah.

I think a dirty jock strap should be able to beat Nero, so I don't count anyone out just because I don't like him.

I notice that whenever someone proposes that one candidate or another has a better chance of winning, you seem quick to object. Is it then your thesis that all proposed candidates are equally electable? If so, I can't help but wonder what evidence you have for such a remarkable belief. And if not, why not?

This place is getting worse than TOS.

Ouch

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ (see what support looks like?)

It looks like cherry picking? Why not link to RCP's summary of all polls?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... dates.html

Looking at the average of the various polls, it's pretty clear that one candidate has a smaller gap than the others, contrary to what you're suggesting.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ (see what support looks like?)

It looks like cherry picking? Why not link to RCP's summary of all polls?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... dates.html

Looking at the average of the various polls, it's pretty clear that one candidate has a smaller gap than the others, contrary to what you're suggesting.

Not today. See:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
Rasmussen. Santorum and Romney exactly the same -7 spread with Nero.

Again, you pick the outlier. The Fox News poll shows Romney -5, but Santorum -12. ABC News/Wash Post - Romney -6, Santorum -11.

I gather that you very much want to believe that everyone is as dedicated as you to voting for the dirty jock strap, but your evidence for same is weak at best.

Any election day match-up poll is worth a bucket of warm spit right now - anything can happen in the next 10 months. And, if they need it, they will make it happen.

I don't think it's too hard to argue that some candidates are starting from a deeper hole than others, though. It would be a mistake to assume that Obama is so self-evidently awful that any old schmoe will do to run against him.

Again, you pick the outlier. The Fox News poll shows Romney -5, but Santorum -12. ABC News/Wash Post - Romney -6, Santorum -11.

I gather that you very much want to believe that everyone is as dedicated as you to voting for the dirty jock strap, but your evidence for same is weak at best.

No, I stick with Rasmussen because he has proven to be the best overall. If he shows things changing, then they are changing. If you want to say Rasmussen's numbers are way off, go ahead, but I think you'd be hard pressed to support that. It must be an awful time to be a pollster. I don't think the polls of head-to-head matchups mean much now, though. Other than Newt, it doesn't appear that any of the current Republiweenies are that far off from Nero to make him "unelectable" in the Fall and the generic "republican" (Dirty Jock Strap!) still leads Nero, so who's to say what the numbers will look like when the dust finally settles and there is a candidate and the electorate has to make a decision of Nero or the Weenie.

Again, you pick the outlier. The Fox News poll shows Romney -5, but Santorum -12. ABC News/Wash Post - Romney -6, Santorum -11.

I gather that you very much want to believe that everyone is as dedicated as you to voting for the dirty jock strap, but your evidence for same is weak at best.

No, I stick with Rasmussen because he has proven to be the best overall. If he shows things changing, then they are changing. If you want to say Rasmussen's numbers are way off, go ahead, but I think you'd be hard pressed to support that. It must be an awful time to be a pollster. I don't think the polls of head-to-head matchups mean much now, though. Other than Newt, it doesn't appear that any of the current Republiweenies are that far off from Nero to make him "unelectable" in the Fall and the generic "republican" (Dirty Jock Strap!) still leads Nero, so who's to say what the numbers will look like when the dust finally settles and there is a candidate and the electorate has to make a decision of Nero or the Weenie.

Wait, what? If head-to-head polls are meaningless, why do you keep citing them? How can you say they mean little and then use them to bolster your proposition that everyone's got an equal shot? Make up your mind - are they meaningful or not?

Again, you pick the outlier. The Fox News poll shows Romney -5, but Santorum -12. ABC News/Wash Post - Romney -6, Santorum -11.

I gather that you very much want to believe that everyone is as dedicated as you to voting for the dirty jock strap, but your evidence for same is weak at best.

No, I stick with Rasmussen because he has proven to be the best overall. If he shows things changing, then they are changing. If you want to say Rasmussen's numbers are way off, go ahead, but I think you'd be hard pressed to support that. It must be an awful time to be a pollster. I don't think the polls of head-to-head matchups mean much now, though. Other than Newt, it doesn't appear that any of the current Republiweenies are that far off from Nero to make him "unelectable" in the Fall and the generic "republican" (Dirty Jock Strap!) still leads Nero, so who's to say what the numbers will look like when the dust finally settles and there is a candidate and the electorate has to make a decision of Nero or the Weenie.

Wait, what? If head-to-head polls are meaningless, why do you keep citing them? How can you say they mean little and then use them to bolster your proposition that everyone's got an equal shot? Make up your mind - are they meaningful or not?

Don't be coy, Senator, "meaningless"? - PAH. The polls are only good in that they show three things, none meaningless, but most probably not that important by themselves:

1. Trends - to watch how Nero trends vs his possible challengers. I've been watching. Rasmussen's polls are almost daily. The gap goes down after a big win by someone and during the lulls between, Nero stretches his advantage (if he has one), almost like it is being driven by the news cycles.
2. That Romney, Santorum and even Paul are all in about the same place vs. Nero, and that place isn't too far away. Newt, on the other hand, has major problems, but like his campaign, his numbers fluctuate often wildly. The word "unelectable" can't be attached to any of them based on Rasmussen's numbers.
3. The actual numbers are probably not a very good picture of what things will look like once a candidate is decided. With the primaries still in play, people may be unwilling to say they'd vote for Santorum because they back someone else, for example. I expect the Rep nominee to get a 5-10% bump once there is a decision and the others are no longer viable. That's JMO.

Rasmussen's numbers do not support the idea that someone is "unelectable". In fact they are close enough to support that any may be electable. Of course, Newt, may be in trouble. Any assertion of "unelectable" is not supported by these poll numbers, but instead is, IMO, just a person's preference and/or wishful thinking.

So the results are meaningful. OK, so what evidence do you have that Rasmussen is more accurate, as you contend? Seeing as how you're so concerned with everyone bringing evidence to the table and all.

Supposing I grant for the sake of argument that Rasmussen is more accurate - I don't, but let's pretend. So what do we make of the latest Rasmussen poll that shows Ron Paul at -12? That's what passes for "electable" by your lights?

Well I follow Rasmussen most because of:

1. On election day he has been consistently close to the final outcomes.
2. He does a lot of polling, not just whenever he feels like it - you constantly get fresh numbers, and if the numbers are confusing, you get fresh confusions.
3. I can't keep up with every poll.

Based on this:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -1750.html

Paul is within striking distance (say <10 spread), though the numbers are all over the place. I distrust PPP most - they've been spectactularly wrong a number of times.

Well I follow Rasmussen most because of:

1. On election day he has been consistently close to the final outcomes.

Cite? And, as opposed to whom?

2. He does a lot of polling, not just whenever he feels like it - you constantly get fresh numbers, and if the numbers are confusing, you get fresh confusions.
3. I can't keep up with every poll.

You don't really have to - RCP aggregates the major ones for you. I linked to it before.

Based on this:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -1750.html

Paul is within striking distance (say <10 spread), though the numbers are all over the place.

Ummm, what? That link clearly says exactly what I said it does, that Rasmussen puts Paul at -12. That's "striking distance"? What do you consider a "lost cause", -50?

Polls are difficult to measure for accuracy. There's only one time in the year that they can be compared against reality, and that is the poll taken the day before an election.