Tuesday, September 13, 2011

How Much Does the Gardisil Question Matter To the Average Voter?

It's just too far out for me to get over-wrought over polls but I find them fascinating nonetheless.  Like a moth to the flame.

PPP has a poll out today that appears to sink Perry's rapidly rising star:

Obama tops Romney, 49-45, up from a 45-all tie in PPP’s August national poll.  He leads Rick Perry, 52-41 (49-43 in August); Newt Gingrich, 53-41; and Michele Bachmann, 53-39 (50-42).  Were voters given the choice to reconsider the 2008 election, they would still elect Obama, but by only five points (51-46), when he actually won by seven, indicating some voters have changed their minds, but that not just any GOP nominee will do. 

 Seriously?  There are still 50% of the voters in America that would re-elect Barack Obama?

I find this simply amazing.

Unemployment is over 9% and likely to stay that way.  How can one get re-elected with numbers like that?  Oh!  But wait!  Obama has given those folks nearly unlimited unemployment checks. 

The poverty rate is now 1 in 6 Americans: the highest in two decades.  But it's okay because your health insurance will be FREE!

Polls drive me crazy.

Rasmussen's poll makes my head spin:

Romney earns 43% support to the president’s 40% in the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters. Nine percent (9%) prefer some other candidate, and eight percent (8%) are undecided.

Lordy.  Just put McCain back up there, then.

More from Rasmussen:

Obama has the support of 79% of Democrats, while 73% of Republicans back Romney. Among voters not affiliated with either of the major parties, the Republican leads by 13 points – 42% to 29%. Eighty-two percent (82%) of Tea Party members favor Romney. Non-members prefer the president 50% to 34%. 

Americans still want the "generic candidate."  He/She carries 49% to Obama's 41%.

Even Gallup has Romney encroaching on Perry's initial lead:

Mitt Romney is the only announced candidate whose Positive Intensity Score has improved significantly in recent weeks. His current 16 is up from 11 in late August and is his highest rating since mid-July, thus narrowing the gap with Perry. Rudy Giuliani, who has yet to decide if he will run, still edges out Romney with an 18.

Is it too soon to say Perry is fading?  Was his wide lead just "new kid on the block" idolatry?  

I'm curious.

How much does the Gardisil issue matter to you?  How closely will the average voter watch that debate?  I guarantee you, most people that aren't political junkies like we are (you're here, aren't you?), don't know a damn thing about that (unless you're from Texas, and even then, maybe not.)

If that debate has hurt anyone,  I think it has been Michele Bachmann.

And how much does the "Ponzi scheme" meme scare the average voter?

I'm willing to bet that the average voter is more scared of the Social Security issue because most of them think Perry wants to just lop it off the entitlement grid.  They haven't taken the time, yet, to figure out that that's not what he said.

Perry is coming around in his attempt to clarify that issue, but it hasn't resonated yet.  So far, most people hear him just threatening their monthly check.  And he isn't the first one to have raised the issue:

Jonathan Last has already identified a 1967 Newsweek column by liberal economist and Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson as perhaps the earliest use of the Social Security/Ponzi-scheme comparison in public argument. Samuelson was actually drawing on the Ponzi analogy to defend Social Security. His claim was that the perpetual succession of human generations establishes the conditions for a sustainable Ponzi scheme.
But the issue seems to be pulling Perry down.  Or at least down to earth.

The next debate is September 22 and is sponsored by Fox and Google.  You can submit questions here.  

I think Perry has to get better at this debate business.  He starts out on fire but fizzles out.  He should have been ready for some of the questions that seemed to flummox him last night.  He runs the risk of being all bluster while Romney, having been to this rodeo before, is polished and smooth (even if he does have major policy problems).

So.  Again, how much do you think the Gardisil issue matters?  Or the Social Security Ponzi scheme meme?


Grandpa Dwight said...

I can feel your trauma but suspect you are paying far too much attention to slanted polls which present far too firm a viewpoint of their pre-ordained results.

Pollsters want those of us in flyover country who count for naught to believe they are accurate, objective and unbiased. 99.44% fail at all three. Think of them as telling you what dhimmocrats want us to believe and you will be much better served.

Tina said...

There are a lot of controversies about vaccines, but, as near as I can tell, the only genuine vaccine issue that has conservatives exercised is that of people NOT vaccinating their kids against the old plagues. I mean, look how often Glenn Reynolds mentions new cases of whooping cough!

As a woman to whom men's health issues are extremely important, my personal "gardisil issue" is not with Mr Perry, who listened to respected cancer research experts at the time.

My issue is the complete abandonment of boys' health by the manufacturer, the industry, the CDC, the lobbies and cancer groups. HPV is a venereal disease that also causes cancer in men.

Soy products are still used in infant foods and included in foods served in high school school cafeterias. Lavender oil products are still unlabeled as dangerous for use by boys. And 5 years after the vaccine's approval for females, the CDC has still not added gardisil to the schedule for boys.