Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So what you are telling us is that after months of seeing, hearing and reading about all of the candidates, you also couldn't come to a conclusion until the last minute so that goes back to my original question. Does it take you that long to make up your mind on other things unrelated to politics? I'm trying to understand the decision-making process that cause people to tell pollster that they are undecided. I would totally understand that something happening in the last week would make a person change their mind but I would think for at least 2 months before voting, people would have a candidate for whom they were planning to vote.
As for the people who really know for whom they are voting but don't want to tell pollsters, I think either a "I'm keeping it to myself" or a "None of your business" answer is better than lying UNLESS they do say that and the pollster just lumps them in with the "Don't Knows."
Look, this is pretty much a pattern that happens every single time in early primary polling. A lot of the voting populace in the early states just doesn't pay attention to the primary election until a few weeks before its time to vote. They have not spent all summer mulling it over. They have been living their lives and they don't even think about it until they have to. There is nothing novel about this, it happens every time.
Look, this is pretty much a pattern that happens every single time in early primary polling. A lot of the voting populace in the early states just doesn't pay attention to the primary election until a few weeks before its time to vote. They have not spent all summer mulling it over. They have been living their lives and they don't even think about it until they have to. There is nothing novel about this, it happens every time.
I think as political junkies we forget that not everyone is as obsessed with politics as we are. Very few people in my real life are, which is why I come here. Because this is where the junkies congregate. But a vast majority of people only start to pay attention when it gets close to time to vote.
I think as political junkies we forget that not everyone is as obsessed with politics as we are. Very few people in my real life are, which is why I come here. Because this is where the junkies congregate. But a vast majority of people only start to pay attention when it gets close to time to vote.
The media is playing a win for Rubio and completely ignoring Trump. They are now trying to tell us Rubio is an outsider and not establishment. It's extremely disconcerting watching the biased media like this, knowing people are likely swallowing their bull. Rubio won because of lies, deceit, and money. Cruz as well, but they are kind of ignoring him in favor of the apparent media winner, Rubio. How is Trump going to compete against this momentum?
Now RNC is playing up how Rubio is HISPANIC. Lowering themselves to the democrats brand of identity politics based on skin color, really?
What is wrong with that Trump has been getting too much attention. It is a tail leading the dog.
Agreed. As someone who could support either Clinton or Sanders, I am very happy that Sanders made a good showing last night. His presence in the race will keep the Democrats engaged, much like the strong rivalry did in 2008, which resulted in record numbers going to the polls. One candidate unchallenged would have been a disaster for the Democrats because, as you said, it would garner no attention whatsoever.
Sanders has energized the party. And that is good for both candidates.
I disagree. This forces Hillary into a position to spend more money beating Sanders and leaves her with that much less for the general election. Also, with the scandals surrounding her, she would have been in a better position to lay low and wait for November and hopefully the scandals will have time to blow over.
2008 was a completely different race. Everyone felt Bush Fatigue and were ready for a new party. This time the opposite is true and it would have been better for the Dems to show up with a united front. As it is, it will be an uphill climb for the eventual nominee.
There are thousands of precinct delegates. 6 won't move the needle.
It really depends on how the rounding is worked out, there appears to be slightly over 1400 state delegates, and as you mentioned thousands of precinct delegates. Without knowing the total # and the proportion, the rounding, etc its hard to know the impact. A 6 for 6 is virtually impossible, I certainly agree on that, a 1 or 2 delegate swing on the state level is possible (again no real way of knowing). If the precinct level delegates are released might show a clearer picture. Either way this certainly is extremely tight.
There have been several articles discussing this and the gist is, most of the so-called Iowan undecideds just prefer to keep their opinions private. They don't like their state being the political fishbowl it is.
This is absolutely true. Iowans have strong opinions, but they value relationships with their neighbors more than their political opinions. So many choose to keep their opinions to themselves, including when responding to polls. I've lived in my community since 2008, and when looking at the list of temporary chairs for the various caucus sites there were several names I was surprised to see in associated with both parties.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldhag1
I don't know why this is such a hard concept. Really. The average voter is not a rabid supporter of any one candidate. They often figure out who they won't vote for before they decide who they will vote for, especially when they still have a number of options who they feel all have about equal positives and negatives. At this point, Rubio, Kasich, Christie, Bush, and Paul are all viable options for my vote. I could live with Cruz, if I had no other options. So, I fit in that undecided catagory. But, not completely, because I know who I won't vote for, and in order. There is not one other Republican candidate who I wouldn't chose over Trump, Sanders, or Hillary. At this point, in a head-to-head between Trump and Bozo the Clown I'm not sure I wouldn't select Bozo.
Same here. I don't see why it's a bad thing to want to absorb every single piece of information possible about every single candidate before making a decision. To me, the ones who decided who they were going to support last October are the ones with the problem.
If it were up to me, voters would have to answer a few basic questions about every candidate on the ballot in order for their votes to be counted in order to prove that they had actually put some serious thought into their selections..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But a vast majority of people only start to pay attention when it gets close to time to vote.
