Polling

Seen at Rasmussen:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that roughly 15% of voters would currently vote for [either Ron Paul or Michael Bloomberg] in general election match-ups.

When the two candidates are mentioned as independent options in match-ups between Mitt Romney and the two Democratic frontrunners, Paul and Bloomberg attract roughly the same level of support. When John McCain is mentioned as the Republican candidate in a match-up with Barack Obama, Ron Paul earns 11% of the vote while Bloomberg attracts 5%.

At this time, the net impact of such third party efforts appears to benefit the Democrats.

Of course, the question still remains—will Dr. Paul launch a third-party or independent bid, and will Bloomberg get in the race.

I don’t know what the answer to the first question is. Ron Paul’s core supporters definitely want him to…however, I haven’t gotten a strong impression of Dr. Paul being quite as enthusiastic about that prospect.

Personally, while I’d like part of the economic responsibility / individual liberty message to get more media play (thus the reason I’ll be holding my nose and voting for Ron Paul in Connecticut’s primary), I sill really wish that message were carried by a more credible messenger….especially when that messenger will need to poll 15% or better to get into the Presidential debates this fall.

As to the second question—presumably we’ll have a better feel for the odds of Bloomberg entering the race after next week. If McCain can break ahead of Romney on Super Tuesday…I’ve got to believe Bloomberg will stay out, due to the likelihood of fracturing the moderate/centrist vote. If Romney turns it around, or if the picture remains clouded…who knows?

One additional thought—personally I doubt that Paul can do much better than low, maybe mid, double digits in national polls, due to his quirks and certain of his definitely non-mainstream views. However, I wonder how much of Bloomberg’s low-polling is simply the result of being unknown.

A bit of advertising should, presumably, at least buy Bloomberg a podium at the Presidential Debates. After all, look at how many votes Romney’s millions have been able to buy.

Well, my wished-for moratorium on polling data releases isn’t in effect, so in case you’re wondering (as I was) what the polls show for the next states, here’s what I see in Real Clear Politics averages:

GOP Michigan (primary date 15 January, polling data 30 November through 19 December):

• Romney: 19.8%
• Huckabee: 18.8%
• McCain: 13.0%
• Giuliani: 12.5%
• Thompson: 6.5%
• Paul: 4.3%

Dems Michigan (15 January, delegates stripped, candidates boycotting, Obama not even on ballot)

GOP Nevada (19 January, polling data 16 November through 6 December):

• Giuliani: 23.7%
• Romney: 23.7%
• Huckabee: 15.3%
• Thompson: 9.7%
• McCain: 7.3%
• Paul: 5.0%

Dems Nevada (19 January, polling data 16 November through 6 December):

• Clinton: 41.3%
• Obama: 21.3%
• Edwards: 11.7%
• Richardson: 5.7%

GOP South Carolina (19 January, polling data 4 January through 7 January):

• Huckabee: 32.3%
• McCain: 19.7%
• Romney: 16.0%
• Thompson: 9.0%
• Giuliani: 9.0%
• Paul: 5.0%

Dems South Carolina (26 January, polling data 4 January through 7 January):

• Obama: 44.0%
• Clinton: 31.0%
• Edwards: 15.0%

GOP Florida (29 January, polling data 12 December through 7 January):

• Giuliani: 26.5%
• Huckabee: 21.3%
• Romney: 16.5%
• McCain: 14.3%
• Thompson: 8.5%
• Paul: 3.7%

Dems Florida (29 January, polling data 12 December through 7 January; delegates stripped, candidates boycotting):

• Clinton: 46.0%
• Obama: 26.3%
• Edwards 13.3%

Of course, we saw last night just how meaningful polling data can be. 

Seriously, I’m disappointed by how stale some of those numbers are.  If you make some guesses of how Iowa and New Hampshire might influence some of the older results… well, January is shaping up to be potentially mighty interesting.

Seen at the San Francisco Chronicle:

If you have any doubts as to whether this political campaign season has lasted too long and soured voters on the whole political process, look at the favorable/unfavorable poll ratings of the candidates. Premier pollster Scott Rasmussen’s latest polling of likely voters nationally shows that most Democrats and Republicans have higher negative than positive poll numbers. The more we see them, the less we want them as our leader.

This reminds me of some conversation that took place at my mother-in-law’s house while I was visiting for Christmas.

Over Christmas dinner, conversation turned political, a direction I initially dreaded because of my damnyankee politics not generally being well-received in deep south Alabama, but it turned out to be quite interesting listening to seemingly typical folks from that corner of the country—people who don’t generally go online, don’t watch too much non-entertainment TV, and generally hash out their politics at civic clubs and church coffee hours.

Some quotes from the patriarchs and matriarchs of the family (with the drawl mostly edited out):

• “I’m tired of them debates. It seems like they’re just saying the same things over and over.”
   
• “I’d vote for Hucklebee [sic], but he’d just spend all our money. I’d vote for Romney, but he cain’t seem to make up his mind about anything. I’m tempted to vote for McClain [sic], but there’s probably something wrong with him too.”
   
• “I’d vote for a woman, but I can’t vote for Clinton ’cause she’s a real female dog.”
   
• “I’ve got no problem with them folks; but my problem with Barak Mohammed Obama [sic] is that I ain’t sure he’s a Christian.”
   
• “I don’t think I’m going to be able to vote for any of them. I’ll probably just stay at home.”

In fairness to those folks, Alabama isn’t exactly a hotbed of Presidential political activity, and candidates (or their campaign staff, or their advertisements) haven’t been around to dilute some of these impressions and misconceptions.

I’ve previously said that I wish government could run smoothly enough, be sufficiently efficient, and be trustworthy so that folks who want to ignore politics can safely do so. I may have to rethink that, since folks who ignore politics are still empowered to vote.

My reasoning for that statement is left as an exercise for the reader.