Gingrich Leads GOP Field in Positive Intensity

Status
Not open for further replies.
kokonut

kokonut

New Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2006
Messages
16,001
Reaction score
2
Latest Gallup poll on GOP candidates.

sctsh-mm_0iyhcmypxpnrq.gif


Gingrich Now Leads GOP Field in Positive Intensity

Newt and Cain appear to have the upper hand here for the moment.
 
Positive intensity? Sounds like something I might hear at Batteries Plus.
 
I wish Huntsman would get more exposure. He is a lot more sane and reasonable than the rest of the field. Clearly he's in the wrong party.
 
kokonut said:
Latest Gallup poll on GOP candidates.

sctsh-mm_0iyhcmypxpnrq.gif


Gingrich Now Leads GOP Field in Positive Intensity

Newt and Cain appear to have the upper hand here for the moment.
Click to expand...

Not really surprising considering they get the most tv coverage. The second column "Recognition" - who doesn't recognize Newt or Cain these days? Of course they got top scores. People know more about them (well, ok, heard more about them in the media) than they do about the other politicians.

I wonder if stats in 1st column would have been different had all names gotten equal coverage in the media.
 
DeafCaroline said:
Not really surprising considering they get the most tv coverage. The second column "Recognition" - who doesn't recognize Newt or Cain these days? Of course they got top scores. People know more about them (well, ok, heard more about them in the media) than they do about the other politicians.

I wonder if stats in 1st column would have been different had all names gotten equal coverage in the media.
Click to expand...

Of course they would have.

But I find it very disturbing, given what is know about Newt, that anyone would consider him viable.
 
TheWriteAlex said:
I wish Huntsman would get more exposure. He is a lot more sane and reasonable than the rest of the field. Clearly he's in the wrong party.
Click to expand...

I see that I'm not the only one who's thinking that!
 
DeafCaroline said:
Not really surprising considering they get the most tv coverage. The second column "Recognition" - who doesn't recognize Newt or Cain these days? Of course they got top scores. People know more about them (well, ok, heard more about them in the media) than they do about the other politicians.

I wonder if stats in 1st column would have been different had all names gotten equal coverage in the media.
Click to expand...

How do you determine "equal coverage"? Isn't the media the one who come up with a variety of "discoveries" against candidates give them more exposure than others?
 
kokonut said:
How do you determine "equal coverage"? Isn't the media the one who come up with a variety of "discoveries" against candidates give them more exposure than others?
Click to expand...

I guess they realized they bit off more than they could chew regarding a birth certificate. :giggle:
 
kokonut said:
How do you determine "equal coverage"? Isn't the media the one who come up with a variety of "discoveries" against candidates give them more exposure than others?
Click to expand...

Equal coverage means equal coverage...how do I determine equal coverage? Like i said in my original post - equal coverage by the media. why is this hard for you to understand?
 
DeafCaroline said:
Equal coverage means equal coverage...how do I determine equal coverage? Like i said in my original post - equal coverage by the media. why is this hard for you to understand?
Click to expand...

I understand your question which is why I asked how do you reconcile that when you have the media "go after" the candidates increasing their exposures at a much higher percentage increasing his/her name recognition, for example...Cain. You'd hear Cain all the time but not so much Huntsman.
 
DeafCaroline said:
Equal coverage means equal coverage...how do I determine equal coverage? Like i said in my original post - equal coverage by the media. why is this hard for you to understand?
Click to expand...

"Equal" pretty much quantifies itself, doesn't it?:lol:
 
It's naive to think that candidates ought to get equal treatment. They don't. Ho hum.
 
Never said that candidates get equal treatment or equal coverage. I don't think anybody ever said that. But the crux of my question is that if equal coverage is desired then how can it be done when you have the media increasing one candidate's exposure over others because of some "scandal of the week" sort of thing? Especially when you have candidates riding high on the polls.
 
Beowulf said:
It's naive to think that candidates ought to get equal treatment. They don't. Ho hum.
Click to expand...

Of course and they don't. What I wondered was if candidates had gotten equal coverage in the media, would the polls still be the same?
 
Maybe Huntsman should have been a bit more frisky, or at least had a reputation to protect. Worked out for Cain.
 
kokonut said:
According to the media in the attempt to paint that picture.
Click to expand...

We all heard of him, no? We all heard Clinton had issues with his willy. It might have helped his wife get elected. Turning the tides on negative publicity shows moxie.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top