Not a Soccer Mom wrote:Not a Soccer Mom wrote:nimh wrote:Not a Soccer Mom wrote:These theoretical match-up polls are meaningless. If they weren't, Fred Thompson would be your nominee. Remember Fred Thompson?
What do you mean by that? I've been following these polls quite closely, and I havent got a clue what you're alluding to here, to be honest.
When it came to match-up polls against the Democratic contenders, Thompson did worse than almost any other Republican frontrunner; only Romney did worse. And in the opinion polls for the Republican nomination itself he was also never more than a flash in the pan.
You don't remember how well Fred Thompson polled before he entered the race?
A refresher
Not sure I follow your logic here. So because ol' Fred at some point in time was polling in second place, that means that if polls were truly meaningful, "Fred Thompson would be your nominee"?
Even if one would retroactively assign year-long predictive power to polls from June last year, that still wouldnt make the candidate then polling in second place the nominee now.
Like I said, the polls already unmasked him as a flash in the pan. He surged for a bit, but never became the frontrunner, and practically as soon as he actually started running, he faded away again.
But your logic apparently extends further still. The fact that Thompson last year for a time polled in second place in the Republican primary makes today's match-up polls between the Democratic frontrunners and the Repubiblcan nominee meaningless, is what you said. How's that work? What do the two things have to do with one another?
The only overarching logic I can imagine that would cover such a correlation is if one would conclude that if the election polls at time X about subject Y were proven wrong, it follows that all polls at any time about any subject are meaningless. Doesnt really make sense to me, but I gather that you wont ever be referring to any polling in defense of your arguments, then.
