25 votes

This needs to go viral. It's completely non-biased and it uses statistical data!!! 2012: Who are the frontrunners?

Came across this article when searching "2012 frontrunners" on Digg today. This might be the best thing I've seen this year. Someone took the time to calculate what makes up a frontrunner, and then figures who the frontrunners are. Maybe it's for the better, but he doesn't take any sides. The post refuses to cause any bias, but the research involved is great, and you can only guess who comes out a frontrunner!

http://commonsense2012.hubpages.com/hub/Real-Journalism

or on Digg

http://digg.com/news/politics/2012_who_are_the_frontrunners

I don't know about you, but this made me smile. I'd like to send it to every news network! See what they say then!



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Ain't buyin' it.

First you should consider weighing actual percentages obtained in polls and actual dollars raised in FEC reports. Try fitting the shoe on the other foot and see how it feels. If Ron Paul had raised $150 million to Mitt Romney's $20 million but had Mitt had scored a point higher than Paul in several polls, how would you feel about issuing them each a one and a two? Swap it around again: both raise about the same: $25-million for Romney, $24.8-million for Paul but Paul held a 20-point lead over Perry in the three latest polls. A one and a two for each is fine with you?

New Hampshire and Ecuador.

I have to agree with you a

I have to agree with you a bit on this one. I would've preferred that as well. But, the ultimate goal was to prove the frontrunners, not an exact first place or second place. At least, that's what I got from it.

If you had taken into account specific percentages, and not just lumping them into 1's 2's and 3's, trust me I've been working on those numbers since I read this, the frontrunners still end up the same. - Paul, Bachmann, Romney, Perry. So, this definitely could've been more scientific, but the end results would be the same. And I believe that's the point of the whole thing.

The other big unwarranted assumption

is that all would agree on what's "traditional" in Republican Party values. Many would insist your Y would be an N in foreign policy for instance. Also, why should "traditional" outweigh "today's" or "present," "current," etc?

New Hampshire and Ecuador.

You're dead on! It definitely

You're dead on! It definitely shows what they feel traditional republicans believe (though I myself can't find any different). But, you can't really knock the article on that too much either.

They acknowledge exactly what you just said, and they eliminate that category in the final tally since it could show bias - as they say they can't decide for everyone what the republican platform "should be"; so it is tossed in the final category.

It's definitely far from perfect, but maybe it'll spark everyone to question these tallies of frontrunners. Even you and I, myself, found things we didn't like about it, which is actually great. So who is mainstream media to say anything, and what are their calculation methods? At least these are on display for critique. I think the idea behind it is much better than the content.

BTW Texas Numbers

Looking good against J R Perry.

http://www.azimuthpolls.com/

I also

thanked the author for objective analysis and reporting... then shared it on social networks. =)

"Truth is treason in the Empire of lies." - Ron Paul, MD

For what it's worth, I sent

For what it's worth, I sent them a thank you message for putting this together and showing no favoritism in their research. This is the kind of thing we can actually show others who doubt our support-base.

Very nicely done

Check it out.

The gotcha in here for anyone ignoring it would be the "who adheres to the GOP's platform" Of course this is RP, as defined by traditional platform.

But the "new" GOP loves war and massive debt.

I found it interesting how

I found it interesting how they included a separate tally since there is a "new republican platform" that may make the results inaccurate. That's sad that something like that even has to be included.