Variable Starting Percentages for Parties

[Taft 0]

Well, how shall I put this...it rather amuses me that Dennis Kucinich is polling 42% to Dubya's 45%. I think perhaps a line of code should exist for candidates noting a variability of strength on their poll numbers...say, for a 1984 scenario, you had several options for a candidate for the Dems. Let's say Gary Hart, Walter Mondale, Alan Cranston, and John Glenn. Cranston's farther left, so he'd poll badly. Ditto Mondale. Gary Hart, in addition to not promising to raise taxes (smirks), is probably able to present himself as more moderate, and Glenn's even more moderate, possibly going on conservative, so he's even better off. I somehow don't think that Cranston, who is really into the nuclear freeze, should start in the same place as Glenn does necessarily...just my thoughts...for the 2004 corrolary, Kucinich should probably start down about 5-10% relative to, say, Kerry or Dean's position with Bush.

[JGeorge666 0]

But we have to consider that this is based on the given candidate winning their party's nomination. With that in mind I don't see a problem with the polling data.

[vols21 0]

while there are a lot hard cores that will vote for the party, there are more and more voters who look at the person. The "Reagan-Democrats" for example.

it does make a difference who the party selects to represent them (one to get the base behind them, and two, to get the middle or swing voters in the party to not switch over)