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.
Was looking at the latest Quinnipiac Polling results for Iowa. Specifically, I was curious about the "haven't heard enough about him" responses for each candidate by the likely caucus-goers to the question:
Is your opinion of (fill in the blank with candidate's name) favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him?
It seems to me like Lindsey Graham (using him just an example) has been in the public spotlight for a bazillion years. How could 47% of caucus goers say they "haven't heard enough about him" when he's on TV so much? Do you think the problem is the media? For example, they only put Lindsey Graham on TV when they want to talk about foreign policy? Or, they only talk to Ben Carson when they want to talk about Obamacare? The governors don't seem to be as pigeon-holed as the non-governors. When was the last time anyone on TV had Marco Rubio on their show to specifically ask him a question out of his committee area of expertise? When is the last time anyone had Rand Paul on their show to discuss an energy issue, for example?
When is the last time ANY senator candidate was asked to address a law and order issue or a job creation issue or is that when they call up the governors? How do we know if Rand Paul or Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio or Rick Santorum is capable of handling a natural disaster or a budget crisis? Nobody asks them those questions.
I get the media's position. They want an expert on the topic. Their job isn't to ensure candidates are well-rounded and known to the public.
Here's how the "haven't heard enough about him" responses came out when likely Iowa caucus goers were asked the favorability question. Are you surprised?
Bush: 15%
Carson: 38%
Graham: 47%
Christie: 11%
Cruz: 21%
Fiorina: 66%
Huckabee: 7% (doesn't hurt to have had his own show to express opinions on every topic*)
Jindal: 44%
Kasich: 72%
Paul: 16%
Perry: 18%
Rubio: 21%
Santorum: 16%
Walker: 29%
My take would be that asking whether one has heard enough is a very subjective question. Some might answer the question no almost by definition since there is more than a half-year until the caucus. Also if you're thinking of voting for candidate x but not sure, then you answer "haven't heard enough about x" But if you've already decided against candidate y, then you answer "have heard enough." IOW 'enough' info might not have to be very much. For example, someone might decide not to vote for Carson because he has zero prior elected experience. They might know very little about him, but they know 'enough.'
Anyway, that is a great poll and I find it fascinating reading, so thanks for the link, Laura.
It looks like Walker is the man right now but note that Cruz more than doubled, and Rubio more than tripled his support since Feb. Notice that Paul does well across the board, drawing support from both Tea Partiers and moderates.
Since there are so many, an interesting question becomes--where do supporters of the lesser candidates migrate if their guy drops out. Carson is relatively strong at 7%, and I'm betting his supporters would go to Cruz if he dropped out. Huckabee is in double digits (not unexpected) and I wonder where his supporters would go if he dropped out.
I've been saying for a long time that Jeb Bush would not get traction, and from this poll it looks like that is the case. He tops the list of candidates on the 'no go' list @25%.
My take would be that asking whether one has heard enough is a very subjective question. Some might answer the question no almost by definition since there is more than a half-year until the caucus. Also if you're thinking of voting for candidate x but not sure, then you answer "haven't heard enough about x" But if you've already decided against candidate y, then you answer "have heard enough." IOW 'enough' info might not have to be very much. For example, someone might decide not to vote for Carson because he has zero prior elected experience. They might know very little about him, but they know 'enough.'
Anyway, that is a great poll and I find it fascinating reading, so thanks for the link, Laura.
It looks like Walker is the man right now but note that Cruz more than doubled, and Rubio more than tripled his support since Feb. Notice that Paul does well across the board, drawing support from both Tea Partiers and moderates.
Since there are so many, an interesting question becomes--where do supporters of the lesser candidates migrate if their guy drops out. Carson is relatively strong at 7%, and I'm betting his supporters would go to Cruz if he dropped out. Huckabee is in double digits (not unexpected) and I wonder where his supporters would go if he dropped out.
I've been saying for a long time that Jeb Bush would not get traction, and from this poll it looks like that is the case. He tops the list of candidates on the 'no go' list @25%.
I think if they don't make the 10 man cutoff for the August debate, they will drop out, especially if they are "don't know much about him" candidates. The debates are free publicity. I think Bush has already conceded Iowa and is concentrating on NH. I'd like to see the same poll with the national results.
An aside, and unrelated, I think I heard the order for the primaries is a little different in 2016. Florida, for example, is after my state. Last time it went before my state.
Had to edit. Accurate pollster was Marquette not Quinnipiac for Walker recall.
Last edited by LauraC; 05-22-2015 at 04:09 PM..
Reason: mistake
another interesting thing from these poll results is that Cruz and Rubio have the edge when comes to the female vote, whereas Paul and Walker are both dependent more on male voters. If I'm a GOP strategist in 2016, this is a factor not to be dismissed. A 2016 GOP nominee who has problems appealing to female voters will almost certainly lose.
another interesting thing from these poll results is that Cruz and Rubio have the edge when comes to the female vote, whereas Paul and Walker are both dependent more on male voters. If I'm a GOP strategist in 2016, this is a factor not to be dismissed. A 2016 GOP nominee who has problems appealing to female voters will almost certainly lose.
I don't and never have understood appeal polling by sex of the voter. Why wouldn't you say candidates who have a problem appealing to men will lose?
Was looking at the latest Quinnipiac Polling results for Iowa. Specifically, I was curious about the "haven't heard enough about him" responses for each candidate by the likely caucus-goers to the question:
My take would be that while some of these respondents may be genuinely clueless, most are probably saying something like - in order to decide which of these candidates I prefer, I need more details on their stances.
This task is made more difficult by the sheer number of possibilities. Weighing the variables between 20+ people is a good deal more difficult than for 6. Also, they may want to see how well the possibles do on the campaign trail. I think most people don't make their decision based on just policy stances but also on how well a candidate performs under pressure.
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.
