9 comments

  1. Donkey Kong says:

    If we go by the logic that I read in a previous post, shouldn’t we assign most of the undecided’s against the incumbent? I had never heard that before, though that argument made sense to me. If we assign 60% of the undecideds to Burns, he’d win the majority based on this poll.

  2. defnotrep says:

    Donkey Kong,

    Usually that would be true but I think in the case they are both kind of incumbents in name recognition.

  3. Fogle says:

    “… shouldn’t we assign most of the undecided’s against the incumbent?”

    Absolutely. In most national races, the undecideds tend to break for the challenger.

    “… in the case they are both kind of incumbents in name recognition.”

    Not true. Name recognition has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with incumbency. I know you’re not the brightest bulb in the box, defnotrep, so I’ll cut you some slack. Incumbency is actually determined by, get this, whether or not you currently hold the office for which you are running for re-election.

    And while Barrow is the incumbent, Max has a significantly higher name ID and far greater favorables/unfavorables than Barrow.

  4. RuralDem says:

    Fogle,

    Obviously you want Burns to win and all but how about taking off those rose colored glasses for just a moment?

    How exactly does Burns have a “significantly higher name ID”? I seriously doubt that. Both one termers, neither did anything outstanding.

  5. RuralDem says:

    Fogle,

    Got anything to prove that from a source other than the Burns campaign itself?

    I am in no way saying it is not true, I just prefer to see numbers from independent sources because we know both sides are great at twisting the numbers to their advantage.

  6. RuralDem says:

    Also that poll is from 7/26. I’ve seen Barrow ads nonstop on WMAZ yet no Burns ads except for a few weeks ago. I know it’s not wise to rely on tv ads but for name id I think tv ads play a pivotal role.

Comments are closed.