Editor and Publisher


GALLUP: Voters Happy With Choice of Candidates -- No 3rd Party Run Likely

By E&P Staff

Published: January 22, 2008 12:25 PM ET

NEW YORK As usually happens at about this time in a race for president, some pundits are suggesting that large numbers of the electorate are not satisfied with the selection of candidates this year, or feel they are not fully addressing the key issues, or are dreaming of someone else to jump into the race as a late candidate (Al Gore?) or a third-party savior (Mike Bloomberg? Ron Paul?).

Didn't Ross Perot get 19% of the vote in 1992 as an independent candidate, the last time the economy seemed to be falling apart? Reuters revealed today: "Consumer advocate Ralph Nader said on Monday he will decide soon on whether to make a another bid for the White House in 2008, eight years after playing a key role as a third party presidential candidate."

There's one big problem with these scenarios, Frank Newport, head of the Gallup organization, reports today: Voters are actually pretty darn happy with the choices they already have.

After reviewing a January 10-13 Gallup poll, he concludes: "The data reviewed above suggest that the environment would not be nearly as propitious this year as it was for Perot that year. It is true that Americans are broadly dissatisfied this year with both the state of the nation and the economy, as they were in 1992. But Americans at this juncture seem much more willing to say that the current crop of candidates running in the major parties have discussed good solutions to the nation's problems and, as a result, there is a high level of satisfaction with those currently running. Thus, were Bloomberg to jump into the race, his first job would be to convince voters that he would bring to the table something that the major party candidates have not."

The poll found that 84% answered yes when asked if there was already someone running who would make a "good president." This compares with 71% in March 2000, 57% in May 1996 and 47% in April 1992.

Almost 3 in 4 agree that the candidates as a group are "talking about issues you really care about." Again, this compares favorably with past races.

And by a 58% to 36% margin, they say that one or more presidential candidates "have come up with good ideas for solving the country's problems."

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/ne...003699779&imw=Y

Tennessee's poll has given undecided 28%. We will not have a clear winner in the state. I feel that we will not have a clear winner by convention time. The voters are not happy with the choices, and they are letting it be known.

It's amazing. I just went over to the Draft Gore website and people are STILL signing the petition. They are not dated, but if you click 2-3 pages back, one person dated theirs on 1/21/07, so people still want Al to run!! So much for the poll that people are happy with their choices. Well, some might be, but I think there are a lot who are not. I guess the brokered convention is our last, slim hope... :unsure:

If they tell us not to believe polls, then why is this MSM poll believable?

And people if they thought the 3rd party could win, would vote 3rd party

It's only because they are told it can't work they don't YET take it seriously

A few weeks worth of tv ads would change that in a minute

I agree ReElect. I think polls have the influence on people to perceive the election in a certain way. And the media. It is amazing how much the media influences what people believe about each candidate. It's like fighting a losing battle sometimes.

Even being a Democrat, I want to be able to say I support what the democratic nominee stands for. I don't want to vote for someone JUST because they have a D out beside their name (like you've mentioned before). I want to be able to say that they represent me, at least for the most part. And there's been way too much bickering back and forth. I wish they'd stick to the issues.

And like you, I believe a 3rd party could win, if the right person ran and if the party wasn't looked down on so much. I don't think a 3rd party vote is a vote for or against the two main parties. To me, it represents people being tired of politics as usual and wanting something else. Now Ralph Nader was a different story. I don't think he was a serious 3rd party candidate and I do look at him as a spoiler, probably paid by the Repugs to run just so he could take away votes from Al. :angry:

Gallup Poll: Obama up by 13 points in New Hampshire

:read: :coolwink:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/...a-up-by-13.html

Polls, polls, polls. "Lies, damned lies, and statistics." If a tool doesn't measure what's it's supposed to, then the results are flawed and biased.

I've responded to lots of polls in the past few years and the questions never seem to gather information that accurately reflect the way I feel about a particular topic. For instance, I've responded to quite a few polls for Polling Point which appear to be attempting to get a pulse on whether or not I would vote for Hillary. Questions like, would I vote for a woman for POTUS. Well, yes I would. Just not Hillary. Not at this time. Er, only in the primarys to rig a brokered convention. :laugh:

And to the ann coulter pouty-face above this thread: If the money you're spending on this ad keeps this forum open (have no idea what I'm talking about) then I've now found 1 reason to like you. :coolwink: