No Spammers in This Poll -- Thompson Leads with 23%
Cross posted from HUMAN EVENTS today
By Michelle Oddis Posted in 2008 — Comments (81) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
HUMAN EVENTS’ presidential preference poll of American conservatives found that former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson leads the competition for conservative support with 23% of the participants selecting him over the other candidates. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee tied for second with 19%, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney came in third at 13% and Arizona Sen. John McCain -- in what is probably a direct result of his stance on amnesty for illegal aliens -- came in dead last at 2.1%.
The poll, conducted by e-mail between October 24-29, was sent to approximately 32,000 HUMAN EVENTS subscribers and other people on our e-mail lists. Those requests garnered 2,013 responses. Respondents were spread across the nation: 21% on the East Coast, the same number in the Midwest, 16% on the West Coast, 15% in the Southeast, 12% in the Southwest and the remainder distributed in other parts of the country.
Among likely Conservative primary voters nationwide, 1,984 answered the question “If a Republican presidential primary were held in your state today, which of the candidates would you vote for?”
Read more ...
 |
HUMAN EVENTS also asked participants to “Rank the following issues (value, healthcare, education, media bias, illegal immigration, taxes, right to life, War in Iraq, size of government, competence in government, and homeland security) with 1 being the most important and 10 least important.”
Of the 977 responses to that question, Illegal Immigration came in as the most important issue for conservatives (as it did in a similar HE poll in May) with 284 votes -- indicating where conservatives’ principal problem with Sen. McCain apparently lies.
Competence in government came in as the second most important issue with 170 votes and then Homeland Security with 163. The War in Iraq came in as the fourth most important issue with 147 votes.
HUMAN EVENTS survey participants said that the least important issue among conservatives is healthcare with more than half of the responses (478) ranking it at number 10.
The University of Iowa poll released Monday gives McCain only 6% in the 2008 GOP presidential field placing him in fifth place among his contenders and a New Hampshire Rasmussen poll released Friday places McCain in third with 16%. That same Iowa poll placed Huckabee in third and the New Hampshire poll placed him in fourth, six percentage points behind McCain. Judging by these polling results it would seem that Huckabee – among conservatives -- has replaced McCain as a top tier candidate.
Romney holds a comfortable lead among all GOP candidates in both Iowa and New Hampshire polls.
HUMAN EVENTS’ presidential poll is, we believe, the first of its kind: isolating and measuring conservatives’ views of the presidential candidates.
The high numbers achieved by Sen. Fred Thompson may not hold up in states such as Iowa and New Hampshire where both Romney and Giuliani poll well. However, because of its sampling only among conservatives, the HUMAN EVENTS poll may measure potential in the Thompson candidacy more than its current strength. Perhaps Thompson should take this as a sign that his campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire should have kicked off earlier and be much more vigorous. (Thompson’s first and only public appearance in Iowa was a speech just this past Saturday. Thompson told AP reporters "I do things my own way, at my own pace.")
Conservatives are the most hopeful and skeptical people among the electorate. HUMAN EVENTS will poll them again, closer to the first primary election, to see how the candidates have progressed.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Drafting Ted Olson (R-VA) — Comments (19) »
No Spammers in This Poll -- Thompson Leads with 23% 81 Comments (0 topical, 81 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
.....or more if Mike Huckabee is the nominee. Tucker eviscerates him here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNfOiseKnoA
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
not really very scientific to take a sample of people who all subscribe to the same magazine. Seems like you are trying to make a positive story out of nothing. I don't see the relevance of posting unscientific polls on the front page, other then to promote Thompson and Huckabee and bash McCain/Giuliani. Human Events does not have monopoly on Conservatives.
...reread the original post, then maybe come up with a criticism that actually matches the facts? I'm asking because I don't care one way or the other about the poll results myself, but I do care about people making inaccurate criticisms about our Contributors.
So don't, 'kay?
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
My criticism does match the facts. Why put an unscientific poll on the front page? It doesn't tell us anything.
Why don't you poll subscribers of Prison Planet and post the results on the front page? It would tell us the same thing, that an unscientific grouping of people's opinions does not might be a little bit biased.
It is actually more than just unscientific, it is a biased sampling.
You came out swinging by accusing Michelle's organization of using a poll that came solely of Human Events subscribers - when she had clearly indicated otherwise - and then attacked the motivations for doing so. The first was a mistake; the second was arguably an attack. Actually, "was": implicitly comparing her magazine to Prison Planet just removed whatever willingness I had to give you the benefit of the doubt.
So why don't you get started on an apology to Michelle, Brandozilla?
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Where did she clearly indicate otherwise?
"The poll, conducted by e-mail between October 24-29, was sent to approximately 32,000 HUMAN EVENTS subscribers and other people on our e-mail lists." I don't think "other people on our e-mail lists" indicates otherwise.
I'm not attacking the person, I'm questioning the motivation. Why put it up there when it doesn't mean a damn thing?
It contradicts your characterization of the poll:
"not really very scientific to take a sample of people who all subscribe to the same magazine."
This isn't a discussion, by the way. This is now me telling you not to do that anymore.
And as her motivation... because she felt like it, which is all the motivation that she needs. You seem to have gotten quite far here without anyone explaining, so let me clarify something for you: if you cannot accept that a Contributor has written something in good faith, and as accurately as he or she knows how, don't read that Contributor. If you think that one of us is acting mendaciously, contact us privately and we'll handle it. If you can't trust us, read another site.
Are we clear on this?
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Found here.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
We are not clear on this. Characterizing the poll as consisting of subscribers is fair. People on the email list likely were a part of some email dispatch or blog, or a member of the website. You are being ridiculous, and I don't give a damn what you think. This isn't a discussion either, you are being ridiculous. And I don't give a damn if it's a "bad idea to talk back to you". I talk back to people who are being ridiculous.
Now I think he should take it back.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
Look, bubba. If you don't know how to behave properly to those who are in authority, that makes you just immature and foolish, and you deserve the fate which awaits you.
Part of life in the real world is that you have to stop at red lights, pay taxes, and not rob banks. Fair? Eh. But that's life.
So get over yourself and strike a civil tone.
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
Your last comment violated three of our four Posting Rules. As it happens, this site has recently gotten written up in publications as varied as The New York Times and Wired for our aggressive banning policies. Losing you would be no skin off our teeth, and might issue in some good amusement if you take to some other blog to whine about the ban.
So please, if you want to continue posting here, apologize to Moe and desist from the profanity, personal attacks and harassment.
PS -- No one is saying you have to agree with Moe, just that you have to be respectful.
__________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
Well Moe certainly did not show me any respect with his ridiculous comments so I trust he will be banned to? I have no doubt in my mind that "damn" is not profanity and I made no personal attacks, harassment or demonization toward any poster. I've already apologized for misinterpreting the original post, I will not apologize for telling someone they are being ridiculous, when in fact they are being ridiculous.
Nothing personal, but we have enough trouble around here without people thinking that they can backtalk moderators and get away with it.
You should have let it go after I apologized for the tone.
Blam.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Did you get a weaker Blamstick that takes longer to load?
Or did you go all "cuddle the cute widdle black teddy bear!" on us?
This is, I think, the third poster I have seen you use kid gloves on. What gives?
Carlos: "What? Were they [Democrats]?"
Seth: "They look like [Democrats]? Is that what they looked like? They were vampires.
"[Democrats] do not explode when sunlight hits them."
I receive all the HE emails. I have subscribed on more than one occasion, and after a few weeks of NOT receiving HE in my mailbox, I will realize that it has lapsed. The emails continue. SO, after a while, I subscribe again.
========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?
and for the record I wasn't aware that Michelle was a member or Human Events until you said "her organization" and I googled her name. Being a member of the organization and a contributer to this site I can see how it is fair for her to post this on the front page. I still disagree that this means anything but I apologize for having questioned her motivation.
....that we need to get a list up of contribs and mods. Bad idea to talk back to Moe, though....
It's not a scientific poll, that's clear. Does it mean anything? In terms of the Eagle/HE sphere, yes, it does. Electorally? Nah, probably not.
What this is is a poll that is representative of HE readers/subscribers who read Eagle email and care enough to choose to respond. That's extremely self-selected, and as such is only good for assessing that specific demographic's opinions. If you care about that demo, then the poll means something to you. If you don't, then it doesn't. That's all.
Not to mention sarcastic.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
unbanned please. I enjoy this site and I did not break any rules. I didn't realize we are not allowed to disagree with mod's. But if that is the case I will refuse to address Gestapo Moe in the future. I've been a member here since the site starter, though I do rarely post.
That said, if I am not wanted here I won't come back. No need to ban this account, I'll only post again if my original is unbanned.
There is an established procedure for appealing. It involves the contact form.
Disagreeing with moderators is not frowned on. But applying terms like 'gestapo' to one of them - or indeed another poster here - is likely to irritate. Your original point wasn't bad. You and Moe have both backed down a bit, so there might still be a way through. This is not likely to be it. But I'm just guessing, here, I have no authority.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Brandon, your account was unbanned, but I suggest you avoid this thread and avoid calling Moe the Gestapo. He's got a firm grip around here and insists on civility.
as Paulite spam polls on websites.
This is not a random sample of any identifiable group. "Polls" like this make it harder to convince people of the science of real polling.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
I've voted for Ron Paul in a few polls. I've never voted in polls before. I was inspired by Ron Paul to vote and give him some support. Is that what the definition of spamming a poll is? I've found it hilarious that those that have dug their heels into polar opposite camp of the Clinton's i.e. the Bush Camp are angry that polls aren’t turning out in their favor. Somehow a candidate garnering a following has become wrong because your camp doesn’t win those polls.
Because younger people text and use the internet more often than older generations therefore a fresh candidate like Ron Paul wins those polls and all of the wayward neo-cons are mad that their generation who still believe in this current version of the Republican Party aren't winning those polls so they discredit them. It's very transparent, pathetic and sad. Sean Hannity has looked ridiculous on tv talking about these polls. I'm a fan of him and it just shows that the Libertarian wing of the Republican party is unhappy and the neo-cons who are still true believers can't understand why and are mad.
Well too bad because we too are a part of this Party. So is Ron Paul, stop trying to push us out because we believe in the same ideals that this party once stood for. Bring the party back or fall victim to the 3rd party candidacy of Ron Paul. That's a fact
Take our numbers seriously, for realz y'all. Paul really won 45% of the vote in that piz-oll. Yes, even though you can't tell by representatives in any serious forum, we make up nearly half the party, yo. We are ubar serious and for realz, so don't be hatin.
absentee
"Bring the party back or fall victim to the 3rd party candidacy of Ron Paul."
I'm so proud to be a member of of party that receives threats from its loyal members.
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
Well too bad because we too are a part of this Party. So is Ron Paul, stop trying to push us out because we believe in the same ideals that this party once stood for. Bring the party back or fall victim to the 3rd party candidacy of Ron Paul. That's a fact
Actually you aren't. Paul and his supporters have said they will not support a Republican nominee unless he signs on to Paul's rather exotic menu of policy prescriptions. That means they aren't a part of the party but a parasite.
Given the choice between what Ron Paul says he believes and a 3d party run, I'll take my chances with the 3d party threat.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
But just to play Devil's Advocate - if Ron Paul were the Republican nominee, would you vote for him?
of course not, the man is nutter. In the general election? If he won the primary and was the candidate, of course. If you won't make that basic commitment you should have enough integrity to not participate in the process.
And I wasn't going to ask, you're generally too lucid to be a Ron Paul supporter.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
I have a basic commitment to the Republican Party, but I had no control of the candidates who chose to run under that banner, including TDSWSNBN.
I part company with most here in feeling no obligation to vote for him in the extremely unlikely event that he wins the party nomination.
Let me put it this way: TDSWSNBN is about a 2 or a 3 out of 100 for me. HRC is about a 5; all of the real Republicans are at least a 60. HRC to me is less bad than TDSWSNBN, mainly on the issue of international security.
Remember, I voted for the crook over the klansman (LA-GOV '91). To me HRC vs TDSWSNBN presents a similar choice, and its's wrong to challenge the integrity of people who feel as I do.
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
I'd leave the country until whichever wins is gone...
Carlos: "What? Were they [Democrats]?"
Seth: "They look like [Democrats]? Is that what they looked like? They were vampires.
"[Democrats] do not explode when sunlight hits them."q
It would be the weakest government in history, with the congress having to actually work together in a bipartisan manner just to get anything at all done over his veto.
It would actually promote healing in this country. And a government that gets nothing much done, is alright by me.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
well it is not that he is right, it is the Constitution that is right. Where Paul goes into personal philosophy, he shows that he is incapable of leading a country.
Outside of the country is the last place I would want to be. With him pulling all of our forces back home and renouncing international commitments it won't be pretty for expatriate Americans.
At the least there will be an increase in international disorder. Or am I the only one that noticed the Arleigh Burke was hunting pirates off the coast of Africa this week ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
figure out what TDS stood for -- but then I imagined his face in front of me -- and it all became clear! :>)
========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
I never heard about this prerequisite for supporting the Republican nominee. Could you please provide a source so that I could read more about it?
The point is that a poll requires a random sample. No internet polls (nor the "poll" cited above) is actually a poll. At best they are surveys. But internet surveys that allow multiple voting or for listserves to send supporters there are not actually measuring anything.
Polls are very useful information. But without a random sample from a population, it is not a poll.
And stop being so darn sensitive. Of all the editors here, I'm probably the least likely to "push" you out of the party. If Ron Paul supporters weren't so annoying, I'd be relatively sympathetic to his issues. I really hope he stays in the House and makes waves there the way Sen. Coburn does in the Senate. And if he didn't have a hand-in-the-sand position on the War on Terror, I'd even consider voting for him knowing he wasn't going to win.
If you want to be a constructive part of the party, then make sure your candidate will help the Republicans win no matter who wins the primary. Since Paul has announced he can't vote for any other R, it makes GOP activists feel like he (and his supporters) aren't really Rs but rather Ls who are in R clothing.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
it makes GOP activists feel like he (and his supporters) aren't really Rs but rather Ls who are in R clothing.
Problem is, he's not the only one who's currently in the race.
Past Huckabee, I'm not sure if any of these guys are "Rs", no matter what kind of clothing they're wearing.
I'm not talking about 100% conservatism. McCain, Giuliani, Romney, and Thompson to my knowledge have always been Republicans. Paul was a Libertarian. I wish more big L Libertarians would join the Republican party and compete in primaries like Paul did. He won a seat in Congress, good for him. He's running for President as an R, fine.
Now if he loses and runs third party (i.e. Libertarian) then he's really crossing a line and it looks like he used the party to get his name out.
Ditto if any of the other Rs do the same. But McCain was pushed, prodded, and bribed into doing some kind of party switch in 2004 and declined every time. He is a Republican and always has been. That's how a coalition works. People with different views come together with allies. I'm unsure Paul will see the other Rs as allies after the primary.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
and rarely are. In fact, you should discount most of the polls with random samples. Legitimate polls need balanced samples. It is very hard to find a sample that is both balanced and random.
It is very easy to do a poll where your base is a random sample of people with listed landline numbers willing to answer questions from a pollster. However, this is not a very relevant sample. It includes, for example non-citizens and other non-voters while excluding people who exclusively use cell phones (disproportionately the young) people with unlisted numbers (disproportionately the wealthy) and people who won't answer pollsters questions (disproportionately the busy). This last group is the hardest to adjust for, as no other sampling technique reaches them either.
What you have to do is backtrack. Ask the people in your sample who they voted for in 2004. If your sample includes 51% of those answering saying Bush and 47% saying Kerry, that part of your sample is looking fairly good. However, there is no way to backtrack the youngest voters, who were under 18 in 2004. There is also a notable tendency for people to forget who they voted for. Immediately after an election the winner's support goes up. When the winner subsequently becomes unpopular support goes down - and I mean support at the previous election goes down.
Bottom line, it's complicated. There are many polling techniques, and no simple answer as to which is best.
But don't hang your hat on random. It is not all it's cracked up to be.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
But the weighting you talk about is generally done after a random sample is taken. In no respectable poll is a letter sent to everyone and the 10% who respond considered to be representative even of the group consisting of all letter receivers much less all conservatives or all Republicans. You can't go from a self-selected group to a general population.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
I was not defending this poll. I was merely disputing the word random.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
It's not poll spamming if people who previously didn't vote in polls take part. But red flags go up when Paul's online results differ dramatically from traditional polls. It's not unreasonable to think something fishy is going on.
Disclaimer: I work for Friends of Fred Thompson, Inc.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
I'll pop in here now and then when time permits. It's been a while. I missed the old RS. I'll try not to make my shilling for Fred so obvious. ;-)
I like Fred as much as the next guy, but I have trouble believing that this poll says anything useful, except to the extent that some people will have a positive emotional response to it, and that will be nice.
Everyone polled was either Human Events subscriber or in some other way wandered into the Human Events orbit. That is not a random sample of conservatives, it is a self-selected sample of people who know about Human Events and like it. What's more, fewer than 10% of the people who were sent the email bothered to respond. We do not therefore have a random sample, we have a self-selected sample of a self-selected sample. The only thing we know for sure is that these percentages reflect the opinions of the 2,000 people who responded. Projecting their opinions onto a larger population is fraught with error.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I don't consider this poll Gospel. It tells me a group of self-described conservatives have chosen Fred over the other candidates. I'm taking it as a sign Fred's message is resonating. But it's only one data point.
Disclaimer: I work for Friends of Fred Thompson, Inc.
- It tells me a group of self-described conservatives have chosen Fred over the other candidates.
It's a bit more than just choosing. It means that these particular Fred fans have at least as many flames in the gut as the Mitt fans and the Rudy fans. When they got the email, all those people thought, "I need to vote in this so that my guy looks good." We suspect that McCain's support is a lot higher than is reflected here; one reason it could be so low in this poll is that a fair number of McCain supporters didn't care enough to make their guy look good. That may or may not portend whether they care enough to vote for him in the primary. By contrast, we suspect that Paul fans would crawl over broken glass for the guy. Yet not many Paul supporters made the trip. Hmmm.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
and needs to be evaluated as such.
Still, Rudy does surprisingly well. Fred leads, which is expected, but not by much, which is a little unexpected. Mitt's showing is awful, considering this is one of his key constituencies. Huck continues to surprise on the upside.
The low showing for McCain shows the gulf between this focus group and both the party and the electorate at large.
supporter and a passionate one at that - and a regular reader of this site, I can get a little defensive because while I agree with a large portion of the conservative consensus around here I disagree strongly with the criticisms of McCain which are frequently posted here.
In 2000, while I waas still making up my mind between McCain and W, and I liked them both for various reasons at the time, Senator McCain peed in my cornflakes and told me to enjoy it.
It's hard to look past that. Particularly when he keeps doing things that bother me - (McCain-Feingold, Immigration, the brouhaha about torture that never happened in the first place, etc)
There is a lot to like about McCain, but I just don't see myself ever being enthusiastic about him, although I could vote for him in the general and not feel the need to use disinfectant afterwards. Unfortunately, he suffers the same problem that Huck and Rudy suffer, namely that big chunks of the party will vote for them, but won't drive the energy and enthusiasm for them. To me, that's a formula for disaster.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
That was exactly my reaction when I read it - "how on earth did an Internet poll get missed by the RonBots?"
“I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels” - John Calvin
I got really excited when I read the title of the poll. I'm accepting the fact that Giuliani is probably going to be our guy against Hillary and I'll gladly vote for him over her, but then I see a poll where Fred has jumped ahead and I got really excited; only to read more and find that besides it being a bias population (as most above mentioned), its also less than 2,000 people which means next to nothing in the greater scope of who is leading.
Hopefully before too long we get a real poll with the same results.
It just happens to be a poll of a very specific community. That's not necessarily wrong; one must just be careful about how the information is presented and used. Since it's a poll of Human Events subscribers, it reflects an entirely different demographic than if someone had done it down in front of the local Kroger.
Frankly, I find it rather interesting. I suppose one could contend that Human Events subscribers somehow have a natural linkage to Thompson...I don't know enough about the publication to know one way or the other. Like minded-individuals tend to flock together, so that wouldn't be out of the realm of reason. Heck, even my Kroger example might throw bias into the mix - if you did a poll at, say, Trader Joes or Whole Foods, my guess is you'd get quite a different result than Kroger.
“I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels” - John Calvin
It's not even a "poll of a very specific community." If it were, you would have to randomize within that community. Here, there was a self-selecting group who responded. There is no reason to think the self-selecting group is made up the same as the rest of the group.
This is a survey at best and one with a low response rate.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
For poll and statistics geeks this is useless. However, it measures some things that polls can't measure very well.
Self-selecting does not equal worthless, in fact it has a great deal of worth, but only if you don't try to make it mean something it doesn't.
At this stage of the game, random polls are useless (and for anyone paying attention 99% of random polls are worthless - I mean seriously). This does measure enthusiasm among a set of individuals. The people that are likely to get involved. In this case, the self-selection is one of the criteria.
Scientific - no. Meaningful - yes, if taken in the right context
P.S. I can't emphasize enough how meaningless polls are, particularly because they are random samples, then weighted, which essentially is the application of the pollsters bias. The poll is then correct if the pollster guessed right. I am very familiar with statitics - sample size, MoE, Z scores, etc, but when it comes to politics, a random sample cannot possibly be representative of the population. A random sample is not therefore a virtue.
This survey tells us about the motivations of 10% of people who sign up for emails from Human Events. Just like These polls are the closest and best information we have to understanding who is "leading." They are imperfect. But they are a lot more useful than these surveys.
And if you want motivation numbers, you can look to donations, volunteers, and other objective data.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
There are lots of bits of information out there. A candidate wins in a primary based on a lot of factors -
Positives
Negatives
Policy
Likability
Enthusiasm of Support
Depth of support
etc
You show me something that can measure even one of those with any accuracy or reliability...I'd be impressed.
All we get are clues. This is a clue that amongst one group of conservatives, Fred had more enthusiasm in supporters.
"This does measure enthusiasm among a set of individuals."
Yeah, that 94% of them couldn't careless about responding to the poll.
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
A much more accurate description. The group is certainly "self-selected" (ie. they all decided to read Human Events and sign up for email blasts) I think an email survey of that type is more useful than the internet-based polls that the Ronulans are most notorious for. No, it's not random, but I think there's value in the information there - if nothing else, it shows the sentiments of a somewhat-small sample of conservative voters (and I suspect the population that reads Human Events is probably quite likely to vote, so that's also a consideration).
“I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels” - John Calvin
Two thousand respondents is actually quite a lot as these things go. Something more like 1,000, I think, is more or less standard among political polls. As an example, an NBC/WSJ poll conducted this summer polled 1,008 individuals; see http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118177312675434460.html. Of course, the WSJ poll tries to sample randomly to get a representative sample of voters, or likely voters. The Human Events sample is what statisticians might call a convenience sample & is basically representative of Human Events subscribers only.
On another note, Mr. Gordon, I urge you to assist in the Thompson campaign if that is where your heart is. Not one vote has been cast yet for Giuliani & there's no reason to think --in my view-- that Thompson does not have a reasonable chance of up-ending the front-runner.
I'll definitely vote Republican, but Fred Thompson is definitely MY candidate. He's a good solid conservative, especially on the 2nd Amendment, while Guliani and Romney appear to be devout "gun-grabbers". Guliani supported the junk lawsuits against gun manufacturers, and Romney stated he was all for an "assault weapons ban". Is it any coincidence that every time a state passes a concealed-carry law, the violent crime rate drops drastically? Anyway, I truly hope it's a good and valid poll, how about"THOMPSON / TANCREDO, TNT!" "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." Sir Winston Churchill
Fred Thompson is a lost cause, and will never beat any of the top 2 democratic candidates.
The guy is over the hill and will never handle a heavy / tough campaign schedule. Let the GOP nominate ANYBODY but Dead Fred !!
The more people get to know Mike Huckabee the more I think they are going to like him and he'll keep moving up. He's got the flair and drive to make it to the top.
Thompson just doesn't have the passion the others do and just feels like the safe candidate, but I think his Law & Order popularity will wear off.
The other two that I think will move up as their message spreads are Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo. Both want to close our borders and stop illegal immigration and they talk tough on the issue.
does The Ron™ want to close the borders?
Last I checked, he was one of those extremist Libertarians who wants no border crossing restrictions, whatsoever...
Carlos: "What? Were they [Democrats]?"
Seth: "They look like [Democrats]? Is that what they looked like? They were vampires.
"[Democrats] do not explode when sunlight hits them."
He wants to build the fence, enforce immigration laws, do away with birthright citizenship, and then do "real" immigration reform (whatever that means).
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
The Libertarian party has been overrun by left-leaning open borders types, but right-leaning libertarians still exist, you know, heh.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
It's a Huckabee surge! Pretty soon the top tier candidates are going to have to start trashing Huck like they've been trashing Thompson. What are the negatives about Huckabee? The only thing I know of is that he raised taxes in Arkansas (but he claims that was the only option he had and he felt he had to do it to balance the budget... is that correct?).
Click here to join the effort to elect Fred Thompson!