Cain Starting To Sink In Iowa?
There are some signs that Herman Cain’s support in Iowa may be slipping in the wake of the ongoing sexual harassment controversy:
Even so, there are signs that the accusations that he sexually harassed women when he led a Washington trade group more than a decade ago could be causing Cain’s luster to dim. Uneasiness is growing among Republicans less than two months before voting begins in Iowa.
Private polling shared with The Associated Press shows Cain’s support in Iowa has declined since last month. Internal polls of likely Republican caucus-goers showed Cain’s support consistent with The Des Moines Register’s poll in late October, which showed him narrowly leading in the state with 23 percent. The private polls showed Cain still in double digits in Iowa, but markedly lower.
The most recent published poll out of Iowa, taken on November 3rd, is from Insider Advantage [PDF] and shows Cain ahead by 15 points. That lead itself seemed rather improbably when the poll came out considering that, just a week earlier, The Des-Moines Register had Cain up by only one point. We’ll have to wait for new public polls, which I suspect will come out early next week at the latest, to see if Cain is indeed in trouble in Iowa. However, it’s worth noting that the RealClearPolitics polling average seems to show that Cain may have peaked in Iowa a few weeks ago:
And. it’s worth keeping in mind where the Iowa race was at this point in the 2008 cycle:
The Yellow line is Mitt Romney. The person who actually won the Caucuses two months later, Mike Huckabee, is the black line. There’s still plenty of time for this race to change, and plenty of time for someone to knock Herman Cain off the top of the field.
http://ilovehermancain.com/lie-detection-softwares-verdict-cain-is-saying-the-truth-and-bialek-is-lying/
@G.A.Phillips:
You’re joking, right? That is the most absurd pseudo-scientific nonsense I’ve seen in quite some time.
@G.A.Phillips: A website called I LOVE HERMAN CAIN says Cain is telling the truth… Wow.
G.A.’s avatar is a helpful guide here, folks.
It is very strong against innuendo and presuppositions, along with statements from the accuser chicks acquaintances.
Lie detectors are fallible but this is adding up.
@G.A.Phillips: Umm, GA? You do know how actual lie detectors work, don’t you? That they hook up sensors to the subject’s body and monitor his physical responses? And before they start the actual questioning they ask a series of test questions to ascertain a baseline response? They don’t hook up a tape recorder to their TV set and then run that tape through a magic voice stress detection machine. This is moron material.
WR,
Yes there is some science to support the reliability of lie detectors. It’s worth noting, though, that they are never admissible in court and it’s fairly well established that they can be beaten.
GA’s proof of Cain’s honesty is kind of like Bill Frist’s medical diagnosis via video of Terri Schiavo.
So anti science….
@G.A.Phillips:
So just to be clear:
You don’t believe that human beings are causing the Earth to warm.
You don’t believe in evolution.
You DO believe that a piece of software can tell if a person is lying by analyzing a recording.
No, it is idiotic to believe in man made global warming.
I used to but no longer do.
If you read my comment that question was addressed.
Cain has a lot of other problems as well as the sexual harassment claims. He just is not qualified.
I think that a lot of Republicans are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in regards to these claims because they just don’t trust the media..however, Cain has handled the situation badly and that has hurt him I think. It might take awhile for all of that to really settle in, but people are getting a little tired of the whole thing.
I’ve done a wetware analysis of G.A.’s comments and have determined that he’ll never win a date with Cain with that avatar.
And they say Republicans don’t want people to have health care…
@Doug Mataconis: “never admissible in court”
I don’t think that’s true. In U.S. v. Scheffer (1998) the Supremes left it to lower courts whether polygraphs could be admitted as evidence.
For more on the fake lie detector:
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3554