Numbers Within The Numbers

[bonnie]

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/the_numbers_within_the_numbers.html

November 25, 2009

The Numbers within the Numbers

Gene Schwimmer

Often, "reading between the lines" of a writer's prose will reveal a more interesting message than the one the writer ostensibly intended. Similarly, by parsing the data - the "numbers within the numbers" of a political poll, one can sometimes glean some interesting insights.

Today, Rasmussen publishes a poll intended to show how a Lou Dobbs independent presidential run would affect the 2012 presidential election if the GOP candidates were Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee or Sarah Palin. Here are the numbers:

Mitt Romney ®: 34%

Barack Obama (D) 42%

Lou Dobbs (I): 14%

Not Sure: 11%

Mike Huckabee ®: 36%

Barack Obama (D): 42%

Lou Dobbs (I): 12%

Not Sure: 10%

Sarah Palin ®: 37%

Barack Obama (D): 44%

Lou Dobbs (I): 12%

Not Sure: 7%

The article's purpose and headline is, "Dobbs in 2012 Gets Up to 14% of Vote, Hurts GOP Chances," but a look at these numbers reveals an additional message: The GOP candidate who does best against Obama in this scenario, albeit by a small amount, is... Sarah Palin. She also generates the fewest undecideds.

Furthermore, the same article reports the results if "Lou Dobbs" is replaced with "Some Other Candidate." In that scenario, among Romney, Huckabee and Palin, Romney does best, tying Obama at 44-44. But Palin comes in second-best, trailing Obama by only three points, 46-43 - with a full three years to go before the election.

Elites - in both parties - who dismiss a Palin candidacy may be due for a rude awakening.

[phkrause]

For me personally I would never underestimate SP. I remember back when people were saying that HC had no chance, I told them to watch out. I really thought that the American people were ready for a woman president before an African American president, but I was wrong. Not sure at this point and time they will be ready in 2012. She will have to run against some heavy weights in Romney and Huchabee. If she does get past them, which I have no doubt she should be able to, than she will run against Obama, and depending how things go for him in the next 2 years america than will have to decide are we ready for a woman or not?

pk

[Woody]

Good Points pk

[CyberGuy]

The problem with primaries is a person from that party gets elected. Unfortunately the republican base tends to elect someone is to far right for the rest of the country. A democrat tends to be elected by the far left of te party and is to liberal for the rest of the country. Then it comes down to a lessor of two evils rather than who is best suited to run the country.

Obama got elected because he convinced the country he was middle of the road then he showed his true colors once elected. The republicans need to find a good middle of the road canadate. Someone who will not be viewed as someone who will shove moral values on the rest of the country. That is a death sentence to any republican. I am talking about abortion here.

I doubt Sarah Palin can get elected because she is to conservative for this country. I would vote for her but would enough americans vote for her. That pole speaks for itself for now. We shall see if that changes.

Only the governer of California would stand a chance of winning and he cannot run because he was not born in the USA.

[phkrause]

I don't see a candidate that both sides would agree on. As far as Arnold is concerned, not sure he would ever get elect by his own party. And all the independants that have tried to run have only taken votes from the other party's, even though some would've been a good choice.

pk

[Woody]

Quote:

Obama got elected because he convinced the country he was middle of the road then he showed his true colors once elected.

The country must really be dumb. BO had the most liberal record in the Senate of any senators. Come on America ... wake up.

[CyberGuy]

Obama was the first canadate who used facebook and twitter to communicate with the voters. That fact electrified the younger voters below 35. Only the older voters over 60 was not fooled by Obamas promises of change and hope. Obama has reniged on his promise of openness and posting bills on the internet for all to see before the vote is taken. Now closed doors sessions that are not open to the public are the norm. Many of the younter voters now feel betrayed and lied to. We will see how much that matters in the 2010 elections. If the democrats do badly that will bode ill for Obama in 2012.

[Dr. Shane]

A re-election of a President is always more about the President being re-elected than the challenger. If the country wants to get rid of Obama in 2012 it won't matter too much who the Republican nominee is - he or she will win. If, on the other hand, the country is happy with Obama in 2012 (like it was with Reagan and Clinton) he will be re-elected regardless of who the Republican in. John Kerry is the candidate that really messed things up. George W Bush was beatable in 2004. The election was Kerry's to lose and he did just that. Could Palin be handed victory and choose defeat like Kerry did? I am sure she could - any candidate could. That comes down to how a campaign is managed. Kerry placed his Vietnam experience at the center piece of his campaign as his qualification to be a war-time President. That left him very vulnerable to it. That would have been like Obama making his membership at Reverend Wright's church the center piece of his campaign.