• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Rasmussen: Gingrich 45%, Obama 43%

Yep, that's another of the big reasons why Rasmussen comes in the way it does. I disagree with those who try to claim there's some inherent ATTEMPT for bias, but rather its simply polling a different set of information. And, again, I think Rasmussen's method is actually more viable than some of the others in certain political climates, I just don't think that climate is what we have now and those times are going to be reduced the farther and farther we get into the 21st century.

I love looking at the RCP averages and its what I tend to use. I also think looking at the numbers alone as some kind of static thing isn't all that useful. For example, the RCP average currently has it 48.7 to 43 in favor of Obama. A solid 5+ point lead. Looking at only that, it would seem that based ONLY on polling data that Obama should be able to handle Gingrich.

On the flip side though, polls aren't static and looking at them singularly in a static way is akin of attempting to watch the 30 yard line only during a football game and expect to make the most accurate guess of how it may end.

At the beginning of November RCP had the difference at 13% points in favor of Obama. By Mid November that lead had dropped to 8% points. During that month long span Gingrich began at a average polling score of 36.7% and Obama was at 50.3%. At the end of that span Gingrich has trended upwards consistently the entire month. On the flip side, Obama took a DEEP drop, spiked back up, and then began to solidly steadily decline in the polls.

The Gingrich rise in the RCP average and the Obama slide coincides with Gingrich's emergence as a potential legitimate option for the Republican nomination that has been occurring over the month of November (wherein he hit his peak of 23.8%). What's most interesting though is to look at this compared to the other three flavor of the month front runners...

First was Bachmann's best showing compared to the other candidates was in July, where she had the largest amount of support of this primary season (Peaking at 14%). During this time period she had a definitely increase in terms of her going against Obama (16.8% different to 12.4% by month end), however unlike in the Newt Example, it was mostly from picking up true undecideds than switch over votes, as Obama's average remained pretty smooth, falling only by .5% by the end of the month.

Second is Perry. Perry's month to shine was September, reaching the most support of any candidate all primary season with 31.8% of primary votes going for him at his height. Yet, when polled against Obama, his time in September was a roller coaster. It began with roughly a 6.6% difference between the two. It then quickly took a steep decline for Obama and increase for Perry, with Perry running within 2% of Obama and both of them sort of flat lining. After that quick, hot, and fast start however the rest of his month at the top went backwards with Obama trending up and Perry being the one trending down. By the end of the month Perry was down 7.6%, one percent worse than at the start. Perry managed to get closest of any of the flavor of the month candidates, but he also began to peter out far quicker.

Third, you have Cain. His time in the spotlight came from Mid-October to Mid-November, peaking at 26% of republican support. Cain began that time 8 points down from Obama. By the end, he was 8.7 points away. His graph spiked up slightly, flatlined, spiked up slightly, flatlined again. Meanwhile, Obama’s just steadily rose by a small amount.

Of the three “flavor of the month” candidates, the only one so far whose month period of being the “hot” front-runner in the not-Romney race whose managed to consistently increase his polling against Obama while Obama’s decreased against him throughout that entire time span has been Gingrich. Bachmann, went up while Obama stayed flat. Perry shot up only to shoot right back down. Cain climbed up and down while Obama just slowly increased. Newt trended up and Obama trended down.

Does that mean Newt is absolutely going to win this thing? Of course not. However, what I do hope is it highlights is that there’s a LOT more to what you can discern from polls than simply looking at a snap shot of what the poll number is at this very moment. What it tells me is that, compared to the other three, Newt with some momentum appears to have the best shot of successfully not just propping himself up but actually winning mild Obama supporters over to his side. Bachmann and Cain largely benefited from pure undecideds giving them their support as evidenced by the little movement in Obama’s support during their time at the top of the heap. Perry LOOKED like he could win support away from Obama, but that died extremely quickly. Gingrich has shown a month of sustained gains through Obama losses, which is something going in his favor I think.

Summary for those going tl;dr

Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and Gingrich each have had a roughly month long period during the Primary season where they were the highest polling “Not-Romney” candidate in the field. During that month stretch, when looking at their polls in a theoretical election vs Obama, Gingrich was the only one whose numbers went up as Obama’s went down. Bachmann’s and Cain’s went up during their time, but Obama remained consistent. Perry shot up, then shot right back down with Obama doing the inverse. This seems to suggest that there’s a possibility that Newt has a better ability to win over weak Obama supporters better than the other three candidates and thus could potentially be a bit more dangerous in a general than any of them.
 
Last edited:
If that were true....why isn't Newt wowing everyone in the debates right now? LOL.....

He has been in terms of his target audience during the RPEUBLICAN PRIMARY which is Republicans. Its the strength of his debate performances over the past few months that largely elevated him into the potential top spot.
 
Re: Gingrich 45%....Obama 43%


ron paul has a devastating ad out about gingrich. boy oh boy, is he going to be slaughtered. 2 affairs, lobbying money, climate change, immigration, etc. this should be interesting. gingrich is not just a washington insider, he's right up washington's collective ass.
 
Re: Gingrich 45%....Obama 43%

ron paul has a devastating ad out about gingrich. boy oh boy, is he going to be slaughtered. 2 affairs, lobbying money, climate change, immigration, etc. this should be interesting. gingrich is not just a washington insider, he's right up washington's collective ass.

You mean this one? :mrgreen:

 
Re: Gingrich 45%....Obama 43%

Ohhh...struck a nerve didn't it?
 
Re: Gingrich 45%....Obama 43%

cannibalsim is never very pretty to watch. If Newt does survive and ends up the GOP nominee, I have the perfect VP choice for him - Nikki Haley Governor of South Carolina.
 
Re: Gingrich 45%....Obama 43%

Ohhh...struck a nerve didn't it?
Hell of an ad, but what I'm wondering right here is why the crybabies are bringing in Ron Paul to discussion a comparison of Gingrich and Obama. Let's derail the thread so that no one pays attention to the BIGGEST ****ING LOSER TO STEP INTO THE OVAL OFFICE.
 
Re: Gingrich 45%....Obama 43%

Hell of an ad, but what I'm wondering right here is why the crybabies are bringing in Ron Paul to discussion a comparison of Gingrich and Obama. Let's derail the thread so that no one pays attention to the BIGGEST ****ING LOSER TO STEP INTO THE OVAL OFFICE.

I can't wait for the "Flipflop" chants at the Republican convention. :rofl
 
He has been in terms of his target audience during the RPEUBLICAN PRIMARY which is Republicans. Its the strength of his debate performances over the past few months that largely elevated him into the potential top spot.

No it isn't......its simply that Newt is the next "Not Romney" candidate to be the flavor of the month. If it had anything to do with his debate performance, he would have risen much earlier than now.
 
Time will tell, but my guess is that Newt is at or near his peak. Like the other also-rans, increased scrutiny will detract from his popularity. OTOH, he has the benefit of an already winnowed field. The base really has no where else to go.
 
Look at it in the same terms of the 2008 Dem nomination. Hillary, who voted for the Iraq invasion, was never going to be the nominee in that environment. Same thing for Mitt. The creater of the Son of Obamacare was never going to be the nominee in this environment.

Actually Mitt Romney just implemented it. Most of the ideas in Romney/Obamacare have been around since the 1990s...and the politician most associated with developing those ideas, including the individual mandate, was...Newt Gingrich.
 
You seem to think that Obama is a terrible debator. He did great against McCain, and McCain is someone who has run for president before and has had decades in the senate and politics in general to gain the knowledge needed to do well in a debate, yet Obama did very well.

Obama communicates his ideas well. Unfortunately, that hasn't translated into him being a great President. Rhetorically, though, he's pretty solic

As for you touting this one poll that shows Gingrich in the lead, if the day before the election Rasmussen showed Gingrich ahead by two I would expect Obama to win by 5. That's how they work. In terms of polling they are a joke. Averages are a much more accurate way to determine where everyone stands.

The thing to remember is that according to the poll, the margin of error is 3%. Which means that a 2 point lead could just as well be a 1 point deficit. It's a dead heat, so now is not the time to be overconfident, especially when you haven't even gotten your own party's nomination yet.
 
I tend to take Rasmussen polls with a grain of salt, since Rasmussen tends to use polls in attempts to create a story instead of polling in a scientific manner. In addition, the polls are worded in such a manner as to produce results that favor Republicans, in much the same way that Zogby polls are worded in such a manner as to produce results that favor Democrats. This is why Rasmussen polls, as well as Zogby polls, frequently tend to be outliers. In both the 2008 and 2010 cycles, the most accurate polling organizations turned out to be SUSA and Quinnipac, with PPP right behind them. Rasmussen turned out to be the most inaccurate.

From the Houston Chronicle.

From Nate Silver.

If you want a more accurate view of a Gingrich - Obama matchup, you can find it at Real Clear Politics, which shows that, out of 8 pollsters, only Rasmussen gives Gingrich a lead, and a hefty one at that (5.7 over Obama). Hell, even FOX News gives Obama a +5. Confronted with this information, there is only only one thing that can be concluded about Rasmussen:

There they go again.

NOTE: I still think Gingrich wins the nomination, but the keys to beating Obama are the Independents. That's probably why Republicans are beginning to offer compromises to the Democrats.
 
Last edited:
No it isn't......its simply that Newt is the next "Not Romney" candidate to be the flavor of the month. If it had anything to do with his debate performance, he would have risen much earlier than now.

His debate performances have been getting larger praise in recent weeks as he's began to move away from the bitter, media attacking, snarky attitude of some of the earlier debates (remember the tangent on "gotcha questions") and began to become more "professorial" and issue driven.
 
Time will tell, but my guess is that Newt is at or near his peak. Like the other also-rans, increased scrutiny will detract from his popularity. OTOH, he has the benefit of an already winnowed field. The base really has no where else to go.

Strangely enough, while he has FAR more baggage than most of the other candidates I actually am unsure how much the "increased scrutiny" time period will affect him in comparison to them. Bachmann, Cain, and Perry were all rather unknowns or at least little knowns on a true national stage. Gingrich is not. His baggage is pretty well known, its not exactly something that needs to be "discovered".
 
There they go again.

My one issue with this constant response is that if it was truly significantly and purposefully biased towards Conservatives and not simply a factor of its standard, across the board, used polling methods...why would Newt be the ONLY Republican they have up. There they go again, with that clear bias of just pumping up Conservatives by having the vast majority of them losing....

Oh, by the way...who was one of the most accurate pollsters according to both supposed liberal and conservative biased publications in the 2004 and 2006 election? Could it POSSIBLY be that rather than some purposeful bias or manipulation for a "storyline" there's a different factor?
 
Last edited:
Strangely enough, while he has FAR more baggage than most of the other candidates I actually am unsure how much the "increased scrutiny" time period will affect him in comparison to them. Bachmann, Cain, and Perry were all rather unknowns or at least little knowns on a true national stage. Gingrich is not. His baggage is pretty well known, its not exactly something that needs to be "discovered".

Strangely enough this does, indeed, work for Newt. With all the others, when we heard stuff about them we were put off, but with Newt we are all like, well duh.
 
Re: Gingrich 45%....Obama 43%


Earlier in the year, both Rick Perry and Herman Cain followed a similar path to take a slight lead over the president. However, in both cases, their time as frontrunners quickly came to an end. Neither man led the president more than a single time in a Rasmussen Reports poll. It remains to be seen whether Gingrich follows that path or is able to retain his status as the leading alternative to former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney

Gingrich has in his favor status as a veteran on the national stage. Perry and Cain are/were both naifs to the white hot spotlight and floundered badly in their own ways under the scrutiny. Gingrich isn't going to have a mis-step or terrible debate performance, etc. that will drag him down and out of contention.

He will of course have to live down his past as a creep and present as a filthy rich lobbyist, but I think the power of his personality and confidence in expressing his ideas might well get him the GOP nomination, unless some heretofore unknown bombshell is waiting to explode.

However, there is no way he can appeal to the center and run to the middle to win the general election.
 
Re: Gingrich 45%....Obama 43%

However, there is no way he can appeal to the center and run to the middle to win the general election.

A Study of the RCP polling data suggest this may not be the case. Unlike the other "Not-Romney's" during their month rise and fall from the top, Gingrich has showed a sustained gain throughout while Obama has showed a sustained drop throughout when polling against each other, suggesting weak support for Obama switching to Gingrich rather than simply picking up undecides as was the case with Bachmann and Cain. Perry did similar, but it was sharp and fleeting, not sustained, in terms of the gains and losses.

At this point at least, it seems that out of the 4 that have been front runners as the "not-Romney", Newt may have the most cross over appeal. And this to me isn't surprising. Newt is a bit of a pragmatist and populist and while he has significant baggage, that baggage is old and well known rather than newly revealed and scandelously exciting.
 
Strangely enough this does, indeed, work for Newt. With all the others, when we heard stuff about them we were put off, but with Newt we are all like, well duh.

To give it an NFL reference, I kind of thinking of it like the TO/Ochocino's/Randy Moss's of the worlds and the Marvin Harrisons.

When the first group did something stupid on field / in the locker room / on twitter / etc it got to the point where it was kind of like "Well, yeah, duh" and people didn't really care much about it. You knew what you had with them, and thus you made your decision about them with that in mind already and it’s done and over with. They are who they are.

On the flip side, you saw Marvin Harrison for some time seemingly as the quiet, shy, not braggadocios consummate professional. So when it came out that he was involved in a possible shooting and evading police it was like “WOAH! WTF?” Because it was outside what we expected, it wasn’t part of what he was when we started to embrace him so it came as a shock.

Newt is the Republican Ochocinco.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Threads merged
 
Back
Top Bottom