2008 Presidential primaries thread

[Aloysius]

[ QUOTE ]
Guys, Gore's favorable/unfav/undecided/don't know numbers are not good: 32/46/19/2.

Compare that to the other candidates:

Clinton: 36/36/25/4
Edwards: 34/21/26/18
Obama: 29/9/20/41
McCain: 49/35/16/x
Guliani: 61/29/10
Romney: 14/12/21/49

[/ QUOTE ]

So Hilary has 2nd highest unfavorables to Gore this early... actually could someone define "unfavorable" as used in these numbers?

-Al

[bisonbison]

Iron,

Humphrey was LBJ's veep so he doesn't count. That was a crazy election - LBJ declining to run, RFK killed, Nixon winning with 43% of the vote (a .7% edge) cause of Wallace.

But yeah, I think 52 comes closest, since Truman's veep (apparently a guy named Barkley) dropped out of the primaries and reran for senate.

But apparently it's been even longer since the veep of a non-running president didn't even try to run.

[bisonbison]

Al,

I pulled the numbers from different polls (and different dates), but generally the question is phrased like this:

"Is your opinion of Al Gore favorable, not favorable, undecided, or haven't you heard enough about Al Gore yet to have an opinion?"

[Aloysius]

[ QUOTE ]
Al,

I pulled the numbers from different polls (and different dates), but generally the question is phrased like this:

"Is your opinion of Al Gore favorable, not favorable, undecided, or haven't you heard enough about Al Gore yet to have an opinion?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Bison - gotcha. Were these RV or LV numbers? I read somewhere that the "truth lies somewhere between RV and LV polling data"? That makes sense to me.

I guess with Hilary, because she is such a known quantity, her unfavorables number is going to be higher than, well, unknown candidates. But I would imagine this is a point of concern for her campaign strategists?

-Al

[bisonbison]

Were these RV or LV numbers?

I honestly don't know what RV and LV mean. Just an enthusiast.

[Aloysius]

Registered Voter vs Likely Voter. (I linked these numbers to my buddy, who used to work as a campaign guy, he was curious and mentioned this can have an impact on the numbers, which makes sense to me.)

-Al

[bisonbison]

The Gore numbers are RVs. The others are probably that as well but I'm too lazy to check.

[Aloysius]

Bison - haha no worries, thanks for the info. According to my buddy (I may have linked this above) but if you don't read this site - he likes Mystery Pollster for polling analysis.

I don't really follow politics too closely, but this is a really interesting race so just reading up on basic info, polling data etc. This thread has been v. helpful.

-Al

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]
Iron,

Humphrey was LBJ's veep so he doesn't count. That was a crazy election - LBJ declining to run, RFK killed, Nixon winning with 43% of the vote (a .7% edge) cause of Wallace.

But yeah, I think 52 comes closest, since Truman's veep (apparently a guy named Barkley) dropped out of the primaries and reran for senate.

But apparently it's been even longer since the veep of a non-running president didn't even try to run.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had no clue, but apparently Truman did try to run in 1952 but dropped out after losing the New Hampshire primary. (According to Wiki.) I had never heard that. Alben Barkley, the VP, then tried to run but couldn't gain any ground.

The last truly non-incumbent election before that, and thus the last time we had this situation, was 1928, when Herbert Hoover, the Commerce Secretary, took on Al Smith, governor of New York.

[iron81]

Something screwy is going on. Why in the world would a sitting VP be running against his sitting President? Keep in mind that the primary system we have today didn't really exist in 1952. The Party's nominees were largely chosen behind closed doors.