Media Matters: Why does Gallup pit Obama against a nameless (i.e. flawless?) candidate?

[ohiodemocratic]

Media Matters today makes the exact same point I made yesterday ( see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x178817 ) regarding Gallup's inexplicable new poll, in which they seemed to be too scared to match up Obama against specific Republican candidates. Instead, Gallup found that Obama leads a "generic" candidate by only 2%.

Here's Media Matters today:

Last month we highlighted the pointless nature of one-sided generic polls for elections that don't actually take place for more than 30 months. But this week, Gallup (headline trolling?) put out a new one that generated a lot of Politico/Drudge-fueled buzz. Why? because Obama only leads his "nameless" Republican opponent by a couple points. And that's news.

But is that really so shocking to give voters a choice between a well-known politician whom they may or may not like, and pit him against a nameless (i.e. flawless?) candidate? Wouldn't it be more revealing if polling firms like Gallup inserted the names of actual Republicans and then asked who'd they prefer if running against Obama?

That's what Fox News recently did. It inserted the names of real Republicans (flaws and all) and asked voters who'd they prefer. Look what happened when Fox News put in the names "Mitt Romney," and "Sarah Palin," and "Newt Gingrich" and asked voters to pick between Obama and them.

As I noted last month, according to the Fox News survey, Obama would waltz to re-election against Romney, sail to a second term against Palin, and probably wouldn't even have to campaign against Gingrich.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201002120010

[OHdem10]

1. Gallop honestly and openly admits they skew Republican because

Republicans can be depended on to go to the polls and vote.

It is logical therefore they would pit Obama against and unidentified
republican.

Democrats if they ever wish to change things will start getting
their behinds to the polls every election and vote for the
the party candidates. This business of waiting for charismatic
candidates is destructive unless you simply are satisfied
with Republican Rule.

Not voting is interpreted as being satisfied with the status
quo.

[Clio the Leo]

2. Oh NO!!! Not ZOMBIE Reagan again!!!!!

[RoyGBiv]

3. Why do we keep asking this question?

The era of the perpetual campaign is here, and the only way to sell the story is to provide the conflict necessary to drive the story.

I imagine at some point in the recent past a collection of frustrated fiction writers looking for a method of income generation formed a gang and infiltrated the highest stations of the journalism departments of every university in the nation.

They brought with them the formula of a good novel and dictated that it be established as the foundation of an effective piece of journalism. The plot requires conflict. Engrossing, spectacular conflict can overcome the problem of shallow characters and mediocre style such that a boring story becomes a page turner for those not caring to pay closer attention.

We are all now living in a perpetual dark and stormy night.

[Arkana]

4. Well, if the Republicans run Generic Candidate X they have a chance.

But right now all they have to run against him are a bunch of people he'd crush in a general election.

[karynnj]

5. They always do this when an incumbent is likely to run for re-election

They did this with Clinton and Bush. In late 2003, Bush polled double digits ahead of "generic" Democrat and he was even more ahead of Howard Dean, the then frontrunner and the only one polled then. Two months later, after Iowa, Kerry polled even and then slightly ahead - before hundreds of millions of dollars were spent to lie about him. Part of this was Kerry's history, but part was that once there was a real likely candidate for the nomination - it came down to a real choice between two men.

What is weirder is when they ask it - ususually for Senators as "do you want X re-elected". Here in NJ that is how they polled Lautenberg.