Poll: Thompson catches Giuliani in GOP race

[SUBMAN1]

Told you this was going to happen. I'm surprised though that it didn't take very long. I'm confident now that he will win the GOP nomination easily now.

-S

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/11/gop.poll/

[Camaero]

Thompson vs. Hilary? Should get interesting.

[Enigma]

Someone really needs to explain to me what Thompson brings to the table. Except a red truck, a southern drawl, and an acting background. :-?

[Camaero]

Someone really needs to explain to me what Thompson brings to the table. Except a red truck, a southern drawl, and an acting background. :-?

In every interview I have seen with him, he doesn't answer questions like a politician. He answers them in a very direct manner. Whoever was interviewing him asked him a yes or no question. Instead of giving the usual political run around, he just flat out answered. That is bringing a huge amount in my eyes. I like what he has had to say about Iraq as well. I like the guy myself.

[The Avon Lady]

Someone really needs to explain to me what Thompson brings to the table. Except a red truck, a southern drawl, and an acting background. :-?

In every interview I have seen with him, he doesn't answer questions like a politician. He answers them in a very direct manner. Whoever was interviewing him asked him a yes or no question. Instead of giving the usual political run around, he just flat out answered. That is bringing a huge amount in my eyes. I like what he has had to say about Iraq as well. I like the guy myself.
My concern is that while he's not answering questions like a politician, he might be answering them like an actor. Not that actors can't make good politicians. The question is whether he could actually play the big role in real life circumstances.

I remain totally undecided. :hmm:

[Camaero]

Someone really needs to explain to me what Thompson brings to the table. Except a red truck, a southern drawl, and an acting background. :-?
In every interview I have seen with him, he doesn't answer questions like a politician. He answers them in a very direct manner. Whoever was interviewing him asked him a yes or no question. Instead of giving the usual political run around, he just flat out answered. That is bringing a huge amount in my eyes. I like what he has had to say about Iraq as well. I like the guy myself. My concern is that while he's not answering questions like a politician, he might be answering them like an actor. Not that actors can't make good politicians. The question is whether he could actually play the big role in real life circumstances.

I remain totally undecided. :hmm:

It is a valid concern and I am not totally sure myself.

[August]

Someone really needs to explain to me what Thompson brings to the table. Except a red truck, a southern drawl, and an acting background. :-?

More senate experience than Hillary for one thing.

[The Avon Lady]

Someone really needs to explain to me what Thompson brings to the table. Except a red truck, a southern drawl, and an acting background. :-?
Barring the red truck, sounds just like Hillary (http://michellemalkin.com/2007/04/21/hillarys-southern-accent-comes-back/). :p

[Tchocky]

Someone really needs to explain to me what Thompson brings to the table. Except a red truck, a southern drawl, and an acting background. :-? For standard Republican "base" voters, he seems to be the lesser of a few evils. None of the above, I think. Also, the base seem to be crying out for the return of Reagan. Strike him down, and he wil become even more powerful, Obi Ron Kenobi. Thompson fits this mould the closest. Slow-spoken, no dramatic voting record to speak of, the air of a Washington outsider. As Camareo pointed out, he's going for the straight-talking no-nonsense image. (Check out his statements on climate change, he's full of nonsense.)
Nevermind that the pickup and plaid shirt only surfaced (https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20070521&s=scheiber052107)when he ran for office in Tennessee :)
So far he has managed to avoid debates and questions, so his campaign is a beautiful blank slate for Mitt/McCain/Giuliani-weary Republicans.

Unfotunately, carrying the base won't get as many votes as other years, there seem to be fewer people characterising themselves as Republicans (22% in a recent poll, compared to 35% for Dems). That said, if Thompson gets the nomination, and so does Hillary, the Republican vote will swell, if not for Thompson but against Hillary.

[bradclark1]

More senate experience than Hillary for one thing.
But Hillary has more white house time plus her spouse is an ex two term president. That brings experience.

That said, if Thompson gets the nomination, and so does Hillary, the Republican vote will swell, if not for Thompson but against Hillary.She is too polarizing and I think that would make for a lame duck presidency right off the bat so she's out in my book. Obama is a non-runner because he has zero experience and Oprah supports him.
Giuliani is out because being mayor of New York is not a enough of a qualifier and I can't trust someone to make the right decision when they've been divorced three times. Thompson I know nothing about besides being a TV star and he strikes me as being false. McCain is out because he's voiced on two things I strongly disagree with. If it wasn't for that I might have voted for him. So for me it's down to (R)Romney and (D)Richardson and what I hear from them.

[SUBMAN1]

...Unfotunately, carrying the base won't get as many votes as other years, there seem to be fewer people characterising themselves as Republicans (22% in a recent poll, compared to 35% for Dems). That said, if Thompson gets the nomination, and so does Hillary, the Republican vote will swell, if not for Thompson but against Hillary.
Considering a poll of GOP voters has shown they don't like taking polls, this is not surprising, probably highly inaccurate, and suspect.

Also, considering children vote like their parents much more often than not, and most Christians are conservative, and you have a 41% higher birthrate among Christians, its a matter of time before the US goes completely and undeniably rebublican, probably forever more.

To add more statistics to that, Conservative Republican voters have a 78% higher birthrate than their liberal democrat rivals, so this will further compound the democrat problems in the future.

This is not surprising though - the same thing happened to Rome. Conservative Christians out breed the liberals. Come the time of Constantine.... Its a simple repeat of history.

-S

PS. DOn't believe CNN - Hillary owns a large stake in it's owning company, so anything your read on CNN should be taken with a grain of salt when it comes to ideas and Democrat vs Rebublican poplitics as described above - it will always be skewed towards Hillary.

[Tchocky]

Considering a poll of GOP voters has shown they don't like taking polls, this is not surprising, probably highly inaccurate, and suspect. That's interesting, link?
My source is this (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18491981/site/newsweek/).

Obama is a non-runner because he has zero experience and Oprah supports him.
Why is he a non-runner because Oprah supports him? Kind of backwards, dontcha think?

[bradclark1]

Why is he a non-runner because Oprah supports him? Kind of backwards, dontcha think?
No political experience is the main reason, Oprah because I just dislike her. :)

[Tchocky]

7 years in the State Senate, 3 in Washington, do not add up to no political experience.
Not as much as others in the race, but not "none".
Anyways, the current shower in control aren't a great advertisement for political experience.

[SUBMAN1]

Considering a poll of GOP voters has shown they don't like taking polls, this is not surprising, probably highly inaccurate, and suspect. That's interesting, link?
My source is this (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18491981/site/newsweek/).


You have your source, but if you ever studied American politics (They probably don't teach much on that over there), you would know that conservatives rarely participate in public polls, and it is actually quite a problem from a media standpopint. Of course, repub sites encourage conservatives to get up and counteract the waves of liberal poll taking - especially online come elections every year, but I don't think many conservatives give a damn what some poll site is saying and never bother anyway. Quite frankly, I think conservatives should stand up and participate more in polls so that they are heard better.

Poll Bias is also an issue. You can say your poll is random and only 5% points + or -, but if you worded your question in such a way as to introduce bias (Habit in all poll takers), then you are still going to get a specific result that can be pre-calculated. Even the site you posted doesn't discount that fact and even make it clear that this may be the case - here is a quote from it:

In addition to sampling error, the practical difficulties of conducting surveys can also introduce error or bias to poll results.
Anyway, polls are well, polls. I take them with a grain of salt.

-S

[geetrue]

My concern is that while he's not answering questions like a politician, he might be answering them like an actor. Not that actors can't make good politicians. The question is whether he could actually play the big role in real life circumstances.

I remain totally undecided. :hmm:

Not like you AL ... you have always been a yea is yea and a nay is nay sort of person.

An actor is an actor and a poker player is a poker player ... the human mind has to adjust to both roles resulting in a two faced person.

Let the one with the best heart for the American people be the victor ... :yep:

[Tchocky]

You have your source, but if you ever studied American politics (They probably don't teach much on that over there), you would know that conservatives rarely participate in public polls, and it is actually quite a problem from a media standpopint. Of course, repub sites encourage conservatives to get up and counteract the waves of liberal poll taking - especially online come elections every year, but I don't think many conservatives give a damn what some poll site is saying and never bother anyway. Quite frankly, I think conservatives should stand up and participate more in polls so that they are heard better. Haven't studied American politcs per se, but I have lived and studied in the US for a few years. I also take a keen interest in what's going on over the pond.
As regards conservatives not responding as well to polling, I can see how this could be. But not why.
Very old study - media polls don’t understate conservative views (http://www.asne.org/kiosk/editor/98.july/kohut1.htm)
(edit - that is regarding representation, not participation. silly me)

Poll Bias is also an issue. You can say your poll is random and only 5% points + or -, but if you worded your question in such a way as to introduce bias (Habit in all poll takers), then you are still going to get a specific result that can be pre-calculated. Aye, leading questions are a curse.
However, the question that produced the reults I mentioned was
Do you consider yourself a Republican, Democrat, or Independent?

[fatty]

In addition to sampling error, the practical difficulties of conducting surveys can also introduce error or bias to poll results.
Anyway, polls are well, polls. I take them with a grain of salt.

-S

That is a silly statement to make considering the nature of this very thread, which you began.

"Poll: Thompson catches Giuliani in GOP race ... I'm confident now that he will win the GOP nomination easily now."

[SUBMAN1]

In addition to sampling error, the practical difficulties of conducting surveys can also introduce error or bias to poll results.
Anyway, polls are well, polls. I take them with a grain of salt.

-S
That is a silly statement to make considering the nature of this very thread, which you began.

"Poll: Thompson catches Giuliani in GOP race ... I'm confident now that he will win the GOP nomination easily now."
And you don't think I took that with a grain of salt? :D I think Thompson is way out ahead of Giuliani! Trust me - it is by no means silly!

-S

PS. Why do you keep making me look at that Big Mac anyway? I hate Mc D's food, except for that very item! Yum!

[SUBMAN1]

You have your source, but if you ever studied American politics (They probably don't teach much on that over there), you would know that conservatives rarely participate in public polls, and it is actually quite a problem from a media standpopint. Of course, repub sites encourage conservatives to get up and counteract the waves of liberal poll taking - especially online come elections every year, but I don't think many conservatives give a damn what some poll site is saying and never bother anyway. Quite frankly, I think conservatives should stand up and participate more in polls so that they are heard better. Haven't studied American politcs per se, but I have lived and studied in the US for a few years. I also take a keen interest in what's going on over the pond.
As regards conservatives not responding as well to polling, I can see how this could be. But not why.
Very old study - media polls don’t understate conservative views (http://www.asne.org/kiosk/editor/98.july/kohut1.htm)
(edit - that is regarding representation, not participation. silly me)

No biggie. Polls are polls. They do offer some incite however. Let me see if I can find a study on polls themselves. bb.

Poll Bias is also an issue. You can say your poll is random and only 5% points + or -, but if you worded your question in such a way as to introduce bias (Habit in all poll takers), then you are still going to get a specific result that can be pre-calculated. Aye, leading questions are a curse.
However, the question that produced the reults I mentioned was
Do you consider yourself a Republican, Democrat, or Independent?

Maybe, but how was the tone set prior to that question? There are many ways to manipulate the final opinion in the poll. I studied this once - you create a mindset, and then you can get a higher likelyhood of a specific answer based on how you get your subject thinking - sometimes you also do this unintentionally.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

This about sums it up:


Political polling: are political polls good science - or science fiction?


The Presidential election is still months away. But with all the campaigning going on, you've probably heard the phrase "The polls show... " enough times to make you scream.


Political polls are certainly popular. But are they scientific? To find out, we talked to some pollsters about their methods. Here's what we learned:


With a new poll coming out practically every day, one thing is clear: Pollsters can't call each and every person in the country every time they want to know if the American public likes Bill Clinton or Bob Dole better. Not only would that be expensive and time-consuming, no one's phone would ever stop ringing. So pollsters talk to a sample - a small portion - of the population instead.


Is that cheating? No, it's mathematics, says G. Donald Ferree Jr., associate director of the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research. Pollsters use complicated formulas to prove that sampling works, but you can do the same with the following thought problem:


Imagine you have 1,000 jelly beans - 500 red and 500 blue - well-mixed in a jar. If you put on a blindfold and picked out 100 jelly beans, chances are you'd get pretty close to 50 red, 50 blue. Even if you ended up with 47 red and 53 blue, that would still be a good representation of what's in the jar.


POLL PROBLEMS


Of course, you might have a problem if your sample is too small. For example, if you only sampled four or six jelly beans, you might not get the 50-50 result.


Pollsters say they can accurately predict what the entire country is thinking about political candidates by talking to as few as a thousand people. Naturally, though, there's a catch: Those one thousand people must be chosen at random (without a pattern).


Why? Well, imagine what might happen if a pollster only asked people in President Clinton's hometown, Little Rock, Arkansas, what they thought of the President. Little Rock residents might be more likely than others to have positive things to say about their "hometown President," so the accuracy of the poll would be blown.


To make sure their samples are random, political pollsters use a computer program to dial numbers. If they're conducting a national poll, every phone number in the country has an equal possibility of coming up each time.


But even with a computer's help, pollsters sometimes allow sampling errors to creep into their polls. Imagine a pollster does a survey during baseball's World Series, Ferree suggests. The sample could be biased against baseball lovers, who might not bother to answer their phones during a big game. If baseball lovers are more likely to favor one candidate, the poll results would be skewed.


Even if political pollsters get a good sample, pollsters might unintentionally influence people by wording their questions a certain way or by putting them in a certain order. To see how, imagine that you're being polled about your favorite sport. Say the first question is, "Which sport do you enjoy most? Walking, in-line skating, or sailing." In-line skating is your clear choice. But what if the above question came after a series of questions about in-line skating injuries. Might your answer change?
The bottom line is that polls, like science, must be done carefully to produce meaningful results.

[geetrue]

That's a good explanation about polls for sure Subman ...

I don't trust polls due to how can they tell which one thousand people to ask?

How can they be truly representive of the facts by asking only a few people?

How many times have you heard about what the polls said after an election?

If you did hear anything for or against polls after an election it was surely very brief.

P.S. Why does your thread title say this is a poll: when there is no pole?

[SUBMAN1]

P.S. Why does your thread title say this is a poll: when there is no pole?

That was a copy of the CNN artcle and how they wrote it. I could see how that could be misleading. Sorry!

-S

[fatty]

PS. Why do you keep making me look at that Big Mac anyway? I hate Mc D's food, except for that very item! Yum!

Exactly. You don't want to submit. But you will, Allah willing.

[Tchocky]

PS. Why do you keep making me look at that Big Mac anyway? I hate Mc D's food, except for that very item! Yum!
Exactly. You don't want to submit. But you will, Allah willing.
Note - This may not apply to all mcDonalds sandwiches.

:p

[Camaero]

And if it is not Allah's will?

[The WosMan]

I am not sure who the Reps will nominate but I sure as heck don't see our next president as being anyone but a Republican. Hillary will win the nomination but there is no way she can win, she is loathed and hated by too many people. Also, look at all this questionable money and chinese skeletons that keep jumping out of her closet. No matter if you are a fan of her or not 99.99999% of people I think believe that she is a dishonest person. I just can't wait to see her go to another bapist church in the south and get the holy spirit in her where she starts to speak in tounges and accents.

[bookworm_020]

Someone really needs to explain to me what Thompson brings to the table. Except a red truck, a southern drawl, and an acting background. :-?
In every interview I have seen with him, he doesn't answer questions like a politician. He answers them in a very direct manner. Whoever was interviewing him asked him a yes or no question. Instead of giving the usual political run around, he just flat out answered. That is bringing a huge amount in my eyes. I like what he has had to say about Iraq as well. I like the guy myself. My concern is that while he's not answering questions like a politician, he might be answering them like an actor. Not that actors can't make good politicians. The question is whether he could actually play the big role in real life circumstances.

I remain totally undecided. :hmm:

If you want an example of style over substance, then Joseph Estrada is your man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Ejercito_Estrada

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1063976.stm

[SUBMAN1]

And if it is not Allah's will?

I personally don't care what his will is - I'll still eat the sandwich!:D

-S

[mookiemookie]

I don't trust polls due to how can they tell which one thousand people to ask?

How can they be truly representive of the facts by asking only a few people?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics)

[August]

I don't trust polls due to how can they tell which one thousand people to ask?

How can they be truly representive of the facts by asking only a few people?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_%28statistics))

Pure bunk. Every pollster i've talked to has an agenda.

[SUBMAN1]

I don't trust polls due to how can they tell which one thousand people to ask?

How can they be truly representive of the facts by asking only a few people?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_%28statistics))
Pure bunk. Every pollster i've talked to has an agenda.
Agreed.:up:

But I still am going to get my Big Mac!

[geetrue]

I am not sure who the Reps will nominate but I sure as heck don't see our next president as being anyone but a Republican. Hillary will win the nomination but there is no way she can win, she is loathed and hated by too many people. Also, look at all this questionable money and chinese skeletons that keep jumping out of her closet. No matter if you are a fan of her or not 99.99999% of people I think believe that she is a dishonest person. I just can't wait to see her go to another bapist church in the south and get the holy spirit in her where she starts to speak in tounges and accents.

I like this guy ... he speaks the truth. :yep:

[mookiemookie]

Pure bunk. Every pollster i've talked to has an agenda.
Ahh, but does the fact that polls can be skewed (and regularly are!) mean that the science of statistics and the idea of statistical sampling is wrong? It does not! :up:

I was simply stating that the idea of a "relevant sample" is sound.

[August]

Pure bunk. Every pollster i've talked to has an agenda.
Ahh, but does the fact that polls can be skewed (and regularly are!) mean that the science of statistics and the idea of statistical sampling is wrong? It does not! :up:

I was simply stating that the idea of a "relevant sample" is sound.

It works in theory but not in practice mookie. As long as humans are conducting the poll the result will always be suspect.

[Camaero]

And if it is not Allah's will?
I personally don't care what his will is - I'll still eat the sandwich!:D

-S

Then that must be Allah's will! If you eat the sandwich then it was his will that you eat it. If you don't, then it was his will that you don't. As you can see, nothing you do is not without his will! :arrgh!:

[JALU3]

More senate experience than Hillary for one thing.
But Hillary has more white house time plus her spouse is an ex two term president. That brings experience.

That said, if Thompson gets the nomination, and so does Hillary, the Republican vote will swell, if not for Thompson but against Hillary.She is too polarizing and I think that would make for a lame duck presidency right off the bat so she's out in my book. Obama is a non-runner because he has zero experience and Oprah supports him.
Giuliani is out because being mayor of New York is not a enough of a qualifier and I can't trust someone to make the right decision when they've been divorced three times. Thompson I know nothing about besides being a TV star and he strikes me as being false. McCain is out because he's voiced on two things I strongly disagree with. If it wasn't for that I might have voted for him. So for me it's down to (R)Romney and (D)Richardson and what I hear from them.

You Forgot the other candidates . . . like Duncan (http://www.gohunter08.com/) Hunter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_Hunter) and Huckabee (http://www.mikehuckabee.com/) . . . to name two.

[bradclark1]

You Forgot the other candidates . . . like Duncan (http://www.gohunter08.com/) Hunter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_Hunter) and Huckabee (http://www.mikehuckabee.com/) . . . to name two.
Not really. I just don't think anyone else has a chance and I don't want to just throw my vote away. I'm stretching it with my two choices as it is.

[The WosMan]

You Forgot the other candidates . . . like Duncan (http://www.gohunter08.com/) Hunter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_Hunter) and Huckabee (http://www.mikehuckabee.com/) . . . to name two.
Not really. I just don't think anyone else has a chance and I don't want to just throw my vote away. I'm stretching it with my two choices as it is.

Sad but true, both guys have good ideas but in reality it isn't going to happen. I approach it like this, we never can get all we want and have the perfect candidate. That is what the primary process is for and most people stay at home during the primary where voters could affect real change and put good candidates in. Once the primary is done and over with you have to hold your nose and vote for the lesser of two evils. You can't sit at home in the general election and pout because you don't like the guy that was nominated. People did that in 2006 and we now have House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.:damn:

Right now I am a "anyone but Hillary" person and I know a lot of other people, Dems included that are thinking the exact same thing.