It’s Time To Vote Again!
That’s right, it’s the September edition of Patrick Ruffini’s straw poll. Be sure and vote, and do so from this link; that way, we’ll know how the Decision ’08 community is voting. Thank Rudy G. is overrated? Longing to hear one of the second-tier candidates get his due? Are you a one-issue man or woman (that’s right, Patrick has added some bells and whistles this time)?
Make your voice heard!
You know, there’s always a lot of commenters on Patrick’s site who grumble about this or that aspect of his polls, but he really deserves a lot of praise for organizing what has become one of the best temperature tests of the conservative blogosphere. And he keeps adding new bells and whistles each time.
I’m curious if there’s been any professional polls of individual red states. It seems to me that unless something dramatic happens, we’re going to spend the next few years arguing over whether McCain/Giuliani are popular enough among the Republican base to match their broader appeal in nationwide polls. My own guess is that they will be, but I really don’t know. I’d be curious to know how a Rudy vs. Hillary matchup goes in South Carolina, Indiana, Texas, etc.
My biggest nit to pick with Patrick is his annoying and unhelpful distinction between “real” candidates and “fantasy” candidates. The distinction between “fantasy” candidates like Rice and Sanford and “real” candidates like Chuck Hagel and George Pataki seems, to put it mildly, a little arbitrary.
No question, though, in a highly unscientific way it’s an interesting poll. The comments are particularly interesting, since they lend some weight to Ryan Bonneville’s concern that the Republicans may shoot themselves in the foot in 2008 by picking a candidate with even narrower appeal than Hillary. Given the internal dynamics of the two parties, though, the Dems are probably more vulnerable to that temptation.
Still, it’s kind of fun. And I’m eager to see how the candidate picks break down for this blog’s readership.
The fantasy candidates are the ones who have affirmatively said they are not running (Cheney, Jeb, Rice, etc.), so I do think there is a bit of logic to it. However, by structuring the poll the way he does, he encourages participants to select one of the fantasy candidates over the actual ones, thus (I believe) inflating their actual support.
But hey, no big deal. It’s still fun to participate.
I agree on both counts, Sean. Hagel and Pataki may have no realistic shot, but if they’re running and Sanford and Rice aren’t, they’re real candidates in a way the latter two are not.
And I think you make a good point about people feeling encouraged to vote for a fantasy candidate. After all, where’s the fun in clicking only one name?! I mean, I’d probably be happy to vote for Condi, but that doesn’t necessarily mean I’m chomping at the bit to do so.
Of course, I guess that’s a problem with any poll. Whether you vote for Candidate X because he seems the best of a bad lot, or you vote for him because you volunteered for his campaign and consider him the savior of the republic, your vote counts just the same.