12 Comments

“(Yes, I know Ras is likely voters and ABC general adults, but still… what a spread!)”

But that could make all the difference in the world. Likely voters spend at least a little time to understand the candidates and the issues. The rest of the adult population could care less. Fred Thompson is a TV star—but Rudy Giuliani may still be more famous.

DT and especially Roger,

I’ve wondered if Fred really WAS a TV star? Yes he had a role on a long running show but was he a STAR? To me a STAR is some one that carries a show not an ensemble, character actor, no matter how good.

Seinfeld to me was a star, William Shatner was (emphasis on past tense) a star. Thompson; not so much

I think it just really means that it is way too early to be gathering voter information – especially in the smaller states.

I think that Ras is more likely accurate at this point though.

As a denizen of Iowa (29 years now)let me comment that in addition to the left wing, phoney war hero Tom Harkin, we have been re-electing the staunchly conservative, bone-fide pit bull of fiscal responsibility, Senator Charles Grassley for an even longer period (30 years or thereabouts) than Harkin.

Iowa is a state that is pretty evenly devided between liberal and conservative voters. The presidential elections are almost always very, very close here. Maybe to some we don’t seem terribly representative of more populated areas of the country but we are strong on literacy, common sense and good education. I think the outcome of the caucuses (which Iowa voters take pretty seriously)reflect the thinking of our populace’s heritage of self-reliance, good government and down-to-earth thoughtful prudence.

There are much worse places in the country to start each presidential race. God forbid we should let either coast take our place as first in the nation. I truly shudder at the thought of Californians or New Yorkers casting the first primary/caucuses votes – but that’s just me.

AlanC, I completely agree with you. Fred Thompson is certainly not a STAR. In movie terms, a star is someone who gets you a greenlight. Fred is for hire as an actor. Btw, I think he’s a pretty good one within his range.

jane m, I don’t mean to attack Iowans, I just think our system may need overhaul. As for whether my home state of Calif is qualified, are you insulting the home of Britney Spears and Phil Spector? We have our pride, you know.

Thompson is not a star, he’s a character actor. It’s just that the character he plays is himself. He comes across as Presidential, but is it just an act? And even if it is, does it matter? Images are managed so much now that any glimpse of the reality of a candidate is fleeting at best.

The reason for the smaller states to start the selection process is so they have a say. If we changed it so all the states do it at once, no candidate will go somewhere small, they will go to California, Florida, and other large states for the biggest bang for the buck.

I’m inclined to favor Fred at the moment. My question about his star status had to do with the relative polling between him and Rudy.

As far as perception I think Rudy has more “star” power than Fred due to his high profile since he was da mayor.

I almost don’t care who, among the top tier, gets the GOP nod, so long as he can unite the anti-socialists of the country. Read this by Tony Blankley, for a jolt of common sense.

(snip)

Every faction within the GOP coalition should immediately agree to make no further demands on their party. Just as the liberals did in 1991-92, the conservatives of 2007-08, should simply let their strongest candidate campaign in a way most likely to gain victory. Every conservative principle would thereby be safer than if heavy demands yield a Hillary presidency. Given the grotesque irresponsibility of the national Democrats, keeping them out of the White House should be the first calling of every patriotic conservative.

Good for Blankley. Whatever shortcomings they perceive in the current crop of Republican contenders, to sit out the election and see a Clinton restoration to the White House and Reid and Pelosi ascendant in Congress has got to be seen as disastrous. It is still a long time before election day and between now and then a lot of potential voters need the cold slap of reality.

I agree with Mr. Larsen.

For conservative and libertarian Republicans, Hillary is the most dangerous Democratic Presidential candidate since Bobby Kennedy.

I never worry about ineffective dreamers like Kerry and Edwards. But a smart, pragmatic lefty scares me.

Republicans, unite behind the choice of Republican voters!

Roger:

There are a couple explanations for the polls you mentioned.

First, any poll has a confidence interval. Typically the margins of error are set at 95% (the standard for social science statistics). That means that there’s a 5% probability that the parameter (in other words, the number of people who *actually* support a candidate) is outside the margin of error. It’s not bad polling– it’s just statistics in action. One in twenty polls is wrong.*

The other possibility is the question of how the poll was conducted. Non-sample error could include different handling of “don’t know/no opinion”, or what other questions were asked or the order they were asked in. Also, there are systematic errors like surveying registered voters over the phone– which assumes they have phones and are home to answer them (I heard a GOP state chairman once say that republicans poll worse on Mondays because they are more likely to be out on the weekends when the pollsters are calling). I’m actually curious and am looking at link now… but either way one weird poll isn’t cause for concern. It’s when one polling company starts consistently scoring things differently that you start looking at that other stuff.

* VERY few polls use a 99% confidence interval because takes a much much larger and more expensive sample before you can have the margin of error be so wide that the poll doesn’t tell you anything.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error)

I fully agree with Blankley here.

I have voted in every election since ‘72. And in virtually every one of them I’ve felt like I voted for the lesser of two evils.

I’ll probably do that again in 2008 as the only candidate I feel mostly positive about is Fred and that could change.

I’ve only cast one “protest” vote in my life. I voted Libertarian in 1992 when the “big” 3 were Lips Bush, Slick Willy and the Texas Troll.

Of course I have the luxury of that cause I live in Mass. and voting anything other than Dem is to vote for a loser. So my vote, for president, really doesn’t matter.