Who Will You Vote For in the 2012 Election - Obama, Gingrich, Romney, Paul?- A Poll (12-26-11) - Ron Paul Won [73*]

(This hub has been superceded by Who To Vote For in 2012 Election- Obama, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum?- A Poll (1-21-12) - Obama Ahead [110*])

INITIALLY, I was just going to take my respons to a Question that was out there, "Will you vote for Obama in the next election?" from Madurai about 21 months ago, and make it a hub. Back then, the answers were split about 50/50, yes and no, with supporting comments in both high and low praise of Obama. @Abecedarian's comments, which covered a lot of Obama's accomplishments and were obviously in high praise, were about 13 months ago; the rest were contemporary with the question itself.

Then, as I was thinking about what to say, when I saw a CNN HLN report on the latest poll numbers for the Conservative candidates, and non-candidate, (Perry - 30%, Romney - 18%, Palin - 15%, Paul - 12%, Cain - 5%, Gingrich - 5%, Bachmann - 4%, Huntsmann - 2%, and Santorum - 2%) that got me considering adding a poll asking the almost the same question, "If the 2012 Presidential Election were held today, who would you vote for?" to see if I could bust my 17 vote poll record. So, I will.

But first, here is my response to the original question. It derives from the responses I read, one in particulary that refered to an old Abraham Lincoln quote.

"Go @Abecedarian, that about sums it up, doesn't it. Reading down the list, I see things like "you can fool me once ...", isn't that what the Conservatives have been doing since 1994 when they took over?

They fooled us into a war in Iraq, fooled us so bad, many Americans still think that war, which we are still trying to pay for, is a good idea.

They fooled us by starting, properly so, the war in Afghanistan ... and then IGNORING it so they could fight an unnecessary war; leaving it for Obama to finish ... and get criticized for because Bush didn't know how to finish the job. (also increasing the price for which Obama is also getting blamed for, I might add)

They fooled us right into the worst recession since the 1929 Depression, the the Great 2008 Bush Recession, and then have the gall to blame Obama's alleged "poor" performance on trying to fix their mess.

They fooled us now the last time, in 2010, leading to the downgrade of America's debt rating for the first time in history because of 1) creating a fight over the debt ceiling where none actually existed and 2) being intransigent beyond belief or intellectual necessity.?"

I hope @Abecedarian doesn't mind, but I include those comments here also; I particularly like the very last one!

96

Abecedarian says

"Yes. I will vote for him again. It's easy for people to down the President, because that's all we've heard from day 1 of his presidency, yet "most" of those downing him, are just spouting what they hear, without real knowledge of what he's doing.

In 18 mos. he's passed, health care reform, financial reform, a jobs bill, the largest Veteran's benefits programs, among 120 other campaign promises that he GOT ELECTED to do.

Everything he's done, he said he'd do it on the campaign trail and now everyone is upset because he did them. You don't make any sense.

The only thing that makes sense is that all the fear mongering has taken hold and it's easier for folks to believe the lies, than look for the truth.

My advice to voters: FACT CHECK."

October 1, 2011 - 19 votes are in and we finally have a distribution that is starting to shape up and have a little, not much yet though, meaning. Initially, when this poll was first released, Obama led at 100% with the first 5 votes, including my own. Then some of my Conservative readers was the article and a few of them began voting as well. To my surprise, the first two went to Herman Cain and another went to Other.

As the votes came "pouring" in, the next couple went to Herman Cain as well. Ron Paul was the next Conservative to a vote. Early last week sometime, some Gengrich supporters read my hub and voted as well. Finally, a few Rick Perry and a Mitt Romney supporter chimed in late last week; Obama hasn't received a single vote since the initial five.

So, today you have Obama - 26% (5 votes), Gingrich - 26% (5 votes), Cain - 21% (4 votes), Perry - 11% (2 votes), and Paul, Romney, Other - 5% (1 vote each).

First. let me say this poll is not scientific by any means, and the participation rate is pretty high, as my polls go, at 30%. I would think that the population of my readers lean mostly to the left given I tend to beat up on Conservatives a lot in my hubs because I disagree with their positions so often. Looking at the initial voting pattern, however, e could say one of two things, either I have a lot more right-leaning readers, or Obama is in big trouble because the left-leaning readers aren't likely to vote in the real election since they aren't here.

The other thing I can say at the moment is that those right-leaning voters who took the time to vote, and I sincerely thank you for that, do not appear to be the typical ones that the real pollsters are polling given the results from the 14 who voted here don't look anything like what we see in the national polls. I will make a prediction that this will continue to hold true for this simple reason; despite the rhetoric of some of the comments I read, one thing that separtes those who vote in my hub poll and those contacted by the national polling agencies is that you are here reading my hub and responding to it. You are also reading many other hubs as well as writing your own. It seems reasonable to me that you would gravitate to candidates who exhibit reasoning intelligence, as opposed to spouting pure dogma, The two Conservatives who have garnered the most votes so far exhibit that characteristic, even I agree to that. There are several others that do as well, such as Romney and Huntsman (my favorite among the Conservatives which means he is sure to lose); but Cain and Gingrich share one other attribute in common, they have stayed away from throwing knives at fellow Conservatives (so has Huntsman but he is too unknown - but worth looking at).

October 25, 2011: When I have more than 30 votes, I have 24 now, I can say something that starts having some statistical significance as it is after that point, the distribution of votes begins to approach a representation of the population reading this hub. At this point, all I can say is, isn't it interesting that, at least for those who are choosing to vote, the currently popular Conservative candidates aren't so popular and it would seem that Democrats either aren't reading this hub or are choosing not to vote. The last poll (10/25/11) I posted in my hub, "Time to Talk About Tea Parties, Sarah Palin, and Presidents Again", Gringrich is at 10%, Paul at 8%, Cain at 21%, and Undecided at 24%.

A LOT OF "FACTS" were thrown about in last nights, Las Vegas 2012 Republican Presidential debate. I thought I might present a few that sort of missed the mark.

• Rick Santorum to Mitt Romney: "You've blown a hole in the budget up there [MA]" - A LIE; the net cost to the MA budget was less than 1% and studies have shown that the cost of health care coverage is about the same before and after Romney Care.
• Michelle Bachmann to Herman Cain: "Because at every level of production you have a profit, and that profit gets taxed. Because you produce one portion at one level, and then you take it to the next supplier or vendor at the next level, and you have an exchange. That is a taxable event. And ultimately, that becomes a value-added tax. It's a hidden tax." - The CNN Truth Squad rated this as Incomplete. I rate it closer to a LIE. 1) in NO case is taxing profit from a transaction EVER considered an ad valorum tax. 2) in MOST instances, when a product works its way up the supply chain from raw material, to manufacture, to wholesaler, to retailer, it is not often a sales tax is imposed. Almost all jurisdictions allow exemptions for resale. When I was in retail and manufacture, I didn't pay sales tax on my raw materials or items I bought for retail.
• Michelle Bachmann to the audience: "Obama-care is so flat-out unpopular that even the Obama administration chose to reject part of Obamacare last Friday when they tried to throw out the CLASS Act, which is the long-term care function. The Secretary Sebelius, who is the head of Health and Human services, reported that the government can't even afford that part and has to throw it out. And now the administration is arguing with itself. When even the Obama administration wants to repeal this bill, I think we're going to win this thing. - The CNN Truth Squad rated this as Misleading; I rate it a LIE; 1) the CLASS Act was written to be a self-pay benefit; it was to cost the taxpayer nothing (a fact Bachmann left out), 2) a provision was written into the Act that HHS was to study the program and certify that yes, indeed, the program would NOT cost the taxpayer anything before it was implemented, 3) if it was found that CLASS could not be certified, then the Act required that it be abandoned! All facts that Michell "forgot" to bring up. She should have praised Obama for following the law instead of falsifying the facts in order to criticize him.
• Herman Cain response to Rick Santorum: "that simply is not true ..." that his plan [9-9-9 tax plan] “does not raise taxes on those that are making the least.”: BIG LIE! Independent studies are finding the 9-9-9 plan gives tax breaks to the wealthy and tax increases to everybody else.
• Mentioned in the debate: the Republican New Jobs Bill will create jobs. Unlikely, so says the one independent analyst who has looked at the plan so far, Obama, says he said it may cost jobs; that is not quite true either, while it may cost jobs, the analyst said the measures were so broad, one couldn't determine, at this point in time, if jobs would be created, lost, or would have no affect.

IT'S GETTING CLOSE TO THE FIRST PRIMARY vote, we need to put the National numbers in perspective; and it isn't good for Mitt Romney. In the latest (Nov 23) national poll, Gingrich leads with 24%; followed by Romney at 20% (range 15% - 25%); then Cain at 17%, down from 27%, and finally Perry at 14%, down from 16%, but up from 6% after his "memory lapse".

That isn't the real story though. Gingrich is actually in an even much better position than it would appear, for he is probably within the margin of error with Romney, and Romney is not. Here is why:

IOWA - 2 polls, 11/12, 11/13/2011: Cain - 20%, 20%; Gingrich - 17%, 19%; Paul - 19%, 10%; Romney - 18%, 14%. At this point in time, 30 some-odd days away from the Iowa caucus, it looks like Romney will come in third with Gingrich and Paul coming in ahead of him (I am assuming Cainhas dropped out of the race or has lost his support by then because of the sex scandals; if he hasn't then he might beat Romney as well.

South Carolina - 11/21/11: Gingrich - 31%; Cain - 17%; Romney - 16%; Undecided - 15%. Again, if Caindrops out, Gingrich benefits, not Romney. Even if all of the undecided went to Romney, he would only tie Gingrich, so, I think it would be fair to say that at this point in time, South Carolina is going heavily to Gingrich.

Florida - 11/30/11: Gingrich - 47%; Romney - 17%; Cain - 15%. Need I say /more.

Nevada - 1023/2011: Romney - 29%; Cain - 28%; Gingrich - 15%. This is an old poll conducted before Cain's fall and Gingrich's surge. Basically though, what Cain lost, Gingrich got, so if we add Cain and Gingrich together, we know what Romney is facing - 43%. Given that, it is conceivable, Romney may be in trouble in Nevada.

That is four out of the first five primaries or caucuses where Romney may be in deep trouble. That leaves New Hampshire:

New Hampshire - 11/21/2011: Romney - 35%; Gingrich - 18%; Paul - 10%. Gingrich has definitely moved up in the polls in New Hampshire but is not close to threatening Romney

New Hampshire is, in my opinion, a lot more like a lot of the major states and population centers than the very Conservative Iowa, South Carolina, and Florida primaries. Even so, it may do Romney no good because his momentum may be destroyed with major losses in four out of the first five primaries; time will tell.

HERMAN CAIN'S PAST caught up with him and he "suspended his campaign today. Chances are very good that Newt Gingrich will be the beneficiary.

(A couple of weeks later) Newt was, as well as the undecided voters ... it seems like Mitt just can't get votes from anywhere.

I SEE THAT SOMEONE just voted for Rick Perry, but, what I do find even more interesting than the possible resurgence of Rick is the lack of a single vote in hubland for Newt Gingrich since his meteoric rise in those "other" polls. Any thoughts as to why that may be?

Also, it would seem Ron Paul may have a real chance to take Iowa. Any thoughts on what that may do for him in South Dakato and Florida (where I think he is getting most of his votes in this poll) where he currently sits at around 8 to 10% in those state polls?

40 (34,32) ACTUALLY, now I guess I will need to do some statistical analysis because over 30 in a sample, and that is what this is, is on the outer limits of where distributions start having meaning; discerning that meaning is the trick, of course. For the moment, I will leave you with the latest National numbers since that would be the most comparable figures with what the Hubber popula32on is and I can tell you one thing, those that voted are not your normal Conservatives.

The latest National polls have Newt Gingrich ahead with 24% (at the moment), Romney with 20%, Cain with 17%, Perry 11%, and Paul 9%. Now look at our poll, if I take Obama out of the picture, it breaks down like this: Gingrich with 20%, Romney with 4%, Cain with 20%, Perry with 12%, and Paul with a whopping 38%! Now, one difference between my poll and the CNN/ORC poll, where my latest numbers came from, is that the CNN poll was just taken while my poll reflects views over time. What I can tell you is that Romney and Perry's votes came early, as did many of Cains and several of Paul's. However, the two that have been gaining recently is Gingrich and now Paul again.

It is clear to me, without analysis, that the Conservative readers, at least those who vote, of my hubs, are more of the Libertarian bent (Paul, Cain, Perry, my opinion, of course) than the hard or moderate Conservative mold (Santorum, Gingrich, Huntsman, Romney, Bachmann).

1. % of Readers Voting (as of 11/29/11)

Not as simple as you think, especially when you have a recalcitrant computer. The initial number that many headlines might report is 30%, or almost 1 out of 3 readers voting (there are 114 page views as of this writing). There might even be a comparison to historic national presidential elections, 46% (low - 36.4% in 1986, high - 63.1% in 1960, rates flip-flopped between mid-to-high 30s and mid-to-high 50s every other election.) Therefore, you would go away thinking hubbers don't support their writers by voting (which was my belief until doing the work on this section, by the way), not really true. In fact, there have only been 80 unique views, according to Google statistics; the rest were return visits to see what was new. That means the actual percent voting is 43%, right around the national average of those registered voters who bother to vote for President; I will stop whining about hub voting now.

2. Who Voted?

Well, Republicans did, 25 (73%) R to 7 (21%) D to 2 (6%) unknown. I am, of course, making the assuming that Democrats or left-leaning Independents voted for Obama and Republicans and right-leaning Independents voted for the Conservatives. Can I say anything about the fact that so many more Republicans than Democrats voted in this poll? Probably not, even though it is probable that more left-leaning readers read this hub than right-leaning ones (birds-of-a-feather syndrome, you know), because this hub is really about the 2012 Republican Presidential primary, not the Democratic one.

3. Is there a significance difference between the votes?

Just by observation, I can say the following: There is a statistically significant difference between Obama, Gingrich, Cain, and Paul on the one hand and all of the rest on the other. I can also say there is no statistically significant difference between, Gingrich and Cain (duh!). That was the easy part.

For the difference between Gingrich/Cain and Paul, Obama and Paul, or Obama and Gingrich/Cain the mathematics are a bit more complicated, but doable. In the Gingrich or Cain match-up with Paul, the margin of error is 23%, meaning, at this point, Paul is not ahead of either one of the other two outside the margin of error, barely. (Keep in mind, many of the votes for Obama, Paul and Cain were early votes while many votes for Paul and Gingrich were later votes.)

Similarly, the margin of error between Obama and Paul is 25% and between Obama and Gingrich or Cain is 20%. So, to summarize, at this point, there is no statistically significant difference between the votes for any of the top four candidates at the point, although Paul is close to having the lead over Gingrich and Cain. I suspect with a few more Conservative votes, Cain will fall behind, but, only time will tell.

I SEE MICHELE BACHMANN picked up her first vote and it looks like Ron Paul got a vew more

1. % of Readers Voting (as of 12/13/11)

There are now 93 unique page views and 40 votes, so we maintain the 43% voting percentage.

2. Who Voted?

We did have a redistribution of who voted, more Republicans chimed in. We now stand at Republicans, 88%: Democrats, 20%, Unknown 6%.

3. Is there a significance difference between the votes?

By observation, the following hasn't changed:

I can also say there is no statistically significant difference between, Gingrich and Cain (duh!) and that there are statistically significant differences between, Perry, Bachmann, Romney and everybody else.

But, have things changed for Ron Paul? Yes they have; he now has a statistically significant lead. The margin of error between him and Newt Gingrich or Herman Cain is 23%; he is beating their pants off in hubland. As for Paul vs. Obama, things are less clear. While the margin of error turns out to be the same 23%, Obama-Paul are within it, so one cannot say, with a statistical certainty, at a 95% level of confidence, that one is ahead of the other at this point, with only 40 votes in.

4. WIll Ron Paul Win the Nomination Based on only 40 Votes in Hubland?

No, not nationally or in Iowa, New Hampshire, North Carolina, or Nevada anyway; but maybe, just maybe Florida although the "other" polls don't indicate it, Gingrich 44%; Romney 29%; and Paul 8%. Now, why do I pick Florida for my poll? Because, of the 93 unique views, 43 of them are from Florida, which probably means most of the Republican votes came from Florida; the next highest visiting state, btw, was Texas with nine. There are mathematical techniques for estimating the number of votes coming from each state, IF, you have sufficient votes, but I don't, so I won't.

I HAVE PICKED IT UP AGAIN with "WHO TO VOTE FOR IN 2012 ...", giving you a new chance to to vote again now that the field has changed and new information has come out. I also present the latest polls including the final results of this one plus new commentary.