PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: acrogimp on March 16, 2016, 08:18:41 PM
-
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/03/16/wake-up-ted-its-time-to-make-phone-call-to-trump.html?intcmp=hphz03
Wayne Allyn Root calls on Cruz to drop out and join Trump to rout the establishment and beat Clinton.
Interesting take and some questions that should provoke some thoughts - especially with respect to Cruz's failure to win a single contest last night.
'Gimp
-
I think that's bullshit. It's too early. Cruz didn't win because Rubio was still in the race on Tuesday. Trump's margins in Illinois and Missouri were very thin.
The fact remains that virtually every poll has Cruz beating Hillary, and Trump losing to Hillary. Fix that dynamic (beyond Trump supporters' undying belief in Trump's every word) and maybe I'll listen.
-
I think that's bullshit. It's too early. Cruz didn't win because Rubio was still in the race on Tuesday. Trump's margins in Illinois and Missouri were very thin.
The fact remains that virtually every poll has Cruz beating Hillary, and Trump losing to Hillary. Fix that dynamic (beyond Trump supporters' undying belief in Trump's every word) and maybe I'll listen.
Hey, it's just an opinion piece, written by a talking head (who happens to be a successful businessman, conservative commentator, former Libertarian VP Candidate and recovering Libertarian/now Republican).
While I don't believe every word Trump says, I do believe far more of what he says than I do Cruz.
Cruz keeps saying he has beaten Trump 'over and over', but he has yet to reach the minimum win threshold to even be eligible for consideration to be nominee - only Trump has done so.
After 32 contests Trump has won 19, Cruz has won 9, Rubio 3, Kasich 1. Trump has more than 2 million more votes than Cruz does to-date.
You still have to combine Cruz with ALL of the other candidates together to beat Trump in pure delegate count (and then only by 50 delegates), and Trump would still have nearly 50% more contests won.
Cruz just said with a straight face that he 'only' has to win 78% of the remaining delegates which is over twice his average performance to-date, where Trump needs only to barely improve on his average to-date. Cruz then went on to say that winning 78% of the delegates didn't mean that he had to win 78% of the remaining votes - and he said it with a disturbing mix of disdain and arrogant glee.
I will go on to say that I do not believe that any of the national head-to-head polls taken today are in any way meaningful, they show Bernie Sanders beating everyone, by double digits, and yet he can't beat Hillary (I am joyfully watching his victimization from superdelegate redistribution and it is awesomely ironic). Same goes for Cruz - he failed to take a single contest yesterday, and Trump has recently hit 50%+ in national support. One is on an upward trajectory, the other is not.
Current national head-to-head polling does not take into account the scorched earth approach that I expect Trump will take against Hillary (or Bernie or Biden if Hillary ends up getting indicted). The one time Trump did hit her directly a month or so back, the polling damage to her was irrefutable and likely extended Bernie's run by months.
I am still not convinced that Trump will be the nominee, even if he goes into Cleveland with a clear plurality. I don't trust Cruz or the Establishment to respect the will of the people (or Kasich, or Romney, or fill-in-the-blank).
What I am convinced of is that Cruz is not trustworthy, that he is not the rockribbed conservative he makes himself out to be, and that he cannot beat Hillary, or Bernie or Biden in a General Election.
I am totally willing to admit that my personal animus towards Cruz may be coloring my judgement, but based on a review of the overall situation I stand behind what I said.
'Gimp
-
Hey, it's just an opinion piece, written by a talking head (who happens to be a successful businessman, conservative commentator, former Libertarian VP Candidate and recovering Libertarian/now Republican).
While I don't believe every word Trump says, I do believe far more of what he says than I do Cruz.
Cruz keeps saying he has beaten Trump 'over and over', but he has yet to reach the minimum win threshold to even be eligible for consideration to be nominee - only Trump has done so.
After 32 contests Trump has won 19, Cruz has won 9, Rubio 3, Kasich 1. Trump has more than 2 million more votes than Cruz does to-date.
You still have to combine Cruz with ALL of the other candidates together to beat Trump in pure delegate count (and then only by 50 delegates), and Trump would still have nearly 50% more contests won.
Cruz just said with a straight face that he 'only' has to win 78% of the remaining delegates which is over twice his average performance to-date, where Trump needs only to barely improve on his average to-date. Cruz then went on to say that winning 78% of the delegates didn't mean that he had to win 78% of the remaining votes - and he said it with a disturbing mix of disdain and arrogant glee.
I will go on to say that I do not believe that any of the national head-to-head polls taken today are in any way meaningful, they show Bernie Sanders beating everyone, by double digits, and yet he can't beat Hillary (I am joyfully watching his victimization from superdelegate redistribution and it is awesomely ironic). Same goes for Cruz - he failed to take a single contest yesterday, and Trump has recently hit 50%+ in national support. One is on an upward trajectory, the other is not.
Current national head-to-head polling does not take into account the scorched earth approach that I expect Trump will take against Hillary (or Bernie or Biden if Hillary ends up getting indicted). The one time Trump did hit her directly a month or so back, the polling damage to her was irrefutable and likely extended Bernie's run by months.
I am still not convinced that Trump will be the nominee, even if he goes into Cleveland with a clear plurality. I don't trust Cruz or the Establishment to respect the will of the people (or Kasich, or Romney, or fill-in-the-blank).
What I am convinced of is that Cruz is not trustworthy, that he is not the rockribbed conservative he makes himself out to be, and that he cannot beat Hillary, or Bernie or Biden in a General Election.
I am totally willing to admit that my personal animus towards Cruz may be coloring my judgement, but based on a review of the overall situation I stand behind what I said.
'Gimp
Now Gimp, let's be fair. I saw the same interview. He said that to get 78% of the remaining delegates doesn't mean he needs to win 78% of the vote. He calculates that if he gets 55%/45% in a two way race, he could get those 78% of delegates. It seems plausible, as odd as these states can be.
See my other post entitled "Beware the Ides of March." Tell me how Trump overcomes the electoral college.
-
Now Gimp, let's be fair. I saw the same interview. He said that to get 78% of the remaining delegates doesn't mean he needs to win 78% of the vote. He calculates that if he gets 55%/45% in a two way race, he could get those 78% of delegates. It seems plausible, as odd as these states can be.
See my other post entitled "Beware the Ides of March." Tell me how Trump overcomes the electoral college.
I saw your post, the electoral college math is the same as my position explained above on current national head-to-head polling since it is based on the current RCP polls that we have been going on about.
When the polls no longer show Bernie Sanders with a double-digit lead over ANYBODY, let alone EVERYBODY, when the polls reflect the actual impact of a merciless onslaught of attack ads from the two actual candidates and their supporting PAC's, then I might agree - even if it is contained in a hit-piece from a guy who has written 6 of his last 9 blog posts against one specific candidate (edited to clarify, the blogger you quoted, not you).
'Gimp
-
I find it hilarious that he blames Newt Gingrich for Romney losing in 2012. However, I do agree with him that polls this far out are virtually meaningless. I don't think he makes a strong case for Cruz dropping out, either. Cruz will win more states and he probably thinks he can get to the convention without either him or Trump having the necessary amount of delegates, which would give him a better shot at the nomination. That's certainly more plausible than Kasich trying to go into the convention with hardly any delegates thinking he can get the nomination.
-
I think that's bullshit. It's too early. Cruz didn't win because Rubio was still in the race on Tuesday. Trump's margins in Illinois and Missouri were very thin.
The fact remains that virtually every poll has Cruz beating Hillary, and Trump losing to Hillary. Fix that dynamic (beyond Trump supporters' undying belief in Trump's every word) and maybe I'll listen.
The polls having Cruz winning have two problems. One they show Cruz's margin much smaller than the sampling error. Number 2 is that we do not elect by popular vote. We have that electoral college thing. Hillary has more states that she can count on than does Cruz. Cruz can't even count on sweeping the south. He has no hope on the west coast and little hope in the Northeast. That means he nearly has to sweep the south, Midwest, and the rural western states. I would bet that doesn't happen. I would bet good money that Hillary would beat Cruz unless she is indicted before the election, which I doubt will happen.
The commentator has a point.
-
The polls having Cruz winning have two problems. One they show Cruz's margin much smaller than the sampling error. Number 2 is that we do not elect by popular vote. We have that electoral college thing. Hillary has more states that she can count on than does Cruz. Cruz can't even count on sweeping the south. He has no hope on the west coast and little hope in the Northeast. That means he nearly has to sweep the south, Midwest, and the rural western states. I would bet that doesn't happen. I would bet good money that Hillary would beat Cruz unless she is indicted before the election, which I doubt will happen.
The commentator has a point.
Just from personal experience, I think Trump has a much better chance against Hillary than Cruz. Cruz can't even draw as many Republican votes as Trump, and every D that I know HATES Cruz. I can't imagine that he would get any D votes and very few undecided votes. Trump would get some (many?) of those votes.
-
I think that's bullshit. It's too early. Cruz didn't win because Rubio was still in the race on Tuesday. Trump's margins in Illinois and Missouri were very thin.
The fact remains that virtually every poll has Cruz beating Hillary, and Trump losing to Hillary. Fix that dynamic (beyond Trump supporters' undying belief in Trump's every word) and maybe I'll listen.
Two fallacies here.
1. That all of Rubio's supporters will vote for Cruz.
2. That national polls really mean something when people vote state by state.
-
The polls having Cruz winning have two problems. One they show Cruz's margin much smaller than the sampling error. Number 2 is that we do not elect by popular vote. We have that electoral college thing. Hillary has more states that she can count on than does Cruz. Cruz can't even count on sweeping the south. He has no hope on the west coast and little hope in the Northeast. That means he nearly has to sweep the south, Midwest, and the rural western states. I would bet that doesn't happen. I would bet good money that Hillary would beat Cruz unless she is indicted before the election, which I doubt will happen.
The commentator has a point.
Anyone that believes Hillary has a real chance at the presidency simply isn't paying attention. The anti-establishment sentiment is rampant in both parties. Hillary personifies everything that very vocal, and very angry segment abhors, and they will vote in significant numbers. When Bernie gets thrown to the curb as a result of the super delegate nonsense, the backlash within the democrat party will be serious. Those voters will find another "outsider" to support.
-
The polls having Cruz winning have two problems. One they show Cruz's margin much smaller than the sampling error. Number 2 is that we do not elect by popular vote. We have that electoral college thing. Hillary has more states that she can count on than does Cruz. Cruz can't even count on sweeping the south. He has no hope on the west coast and little hope in the Northeast. That means he nearly has to sweep the south, Midwest, and the rural western states. I would bet that doesn't happen. I would bet good money that Hillary would beat Cruz unless she is indicted before the election, which I doubt will happen.
The commentator has a point.
Spot on. Cruz does not have the support needed to win in a general. He has the far right conservatives and only PARTIAL support from evangelicals,which by the way are his core support base. Moderate republicans and moderate democrats won't support him. Even the GOP and RNC don't support this guy. The Clinton machine will rip him a new one before it's over.
-
(http://media2.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2016_10/1450256/nbc_news-wall_street_journal_general_election_matchup_chartbuilder_4852865a5a01979c560f361ee0ae7855.nbcnews-ux-2880-1000.png)
-
Jeff those numbers are meaningless since National polling shows Bernie Sanders beating everybody by double digits which is pure fantasy nonsense, and does not reflect the potential impact from what will be a monster level of attack ads of varying efficacy from both sides.
I don't expect anyone but Trump to be able to seriously and effectively go after the eventual Democrat candidate given the past performance of the Republican Establishment.
'Gimp
-
Anyone that believes Hillary has a real chance at the presidency simply isn't paying attention. The anti-establishment sentiment is rampant in both parties. Hillary personifies everything that very vocal, and very angry segment abhors, and they will vote in significant numbers. When Bernie gets thrown to the curb as a result of the super delegate nonsense, the backlash within the democrat party will be serious. Those voters will find another "outsider" to support.
If you actually knew some Bernie supporters, you would know how ridiculous the idea of them moving to support Trump is. To a Bernie supporter, Trump is the destroyer of worlds. Nearly all of them know that Bernie will fall short and they will have to suck it up and back Hillary. They hate that reality, but that is what they know.
I happen to live and work in a hot bed of Bernie supporters and nowhere do I hear, "I think I'll switch to Trump when Bernie goes down." It's far more of the "We must stop Trump no matter what, even if that means we have to vote for Hillary."
-
Spot on. Cruz does not have the support needed to win in a general. He has the far right conservatives and only PARTIAL support from evangelicals,which by the way are his core support base. Moderate republicans and moderate democrats won't support him. Even the GOP and RNC don't support this guy. The Clinton machine will rip him a new one before it's over.
Says the guy who can show no general election or electoral college support for Trump. None.
-
If you actually knew some Bernie supporters, you would know how ridiculous the idea of them moving to support Trump is. To a Bernie supporter, Trump is the destroyer of worlds. Nearly all of them know that Bernie will fall short and they will have to suck it up and back Hillary. They hate that reality, but that is what they know.
I happen to live and work in a hot bed of Bernie supporters and nowhere do I hear, "I think I'll switch to Trump when Bernie goes down." It's far more of the "We must stop Trump no matter what, even if that means we have to vote for Hillary."
That's what I hear as well. One of my college roommates is feeling the Bern (fairly embarrassing for a 55-year old) but would go to Hillary if necessary.
Think about it. They will go to the most flawed, damaged, evil, caustic, bitch of a woman than vote for Trump.
-
Says the guy who can show no general election or electoral college support for Trump. None.
So show us where the moderate republicans and moderate democrats, and about half of the evangelicals support Cruz?
The RNC has said over and over that they cannot win an election without crossing over and attracting Independents and moderate democrats (Reagan Democrats)
Do you honestly believe Cruz could win a General election with only far right conservative and about half of the evangelical vote? And without being supported by the RNC?
Cruz's big plan for victory was to get far right conservatives and bring out evangelical voters who refused to vote in the previous elections. However, primary after primary the evangelicals are not coming out in the numbers he had hoped for. As a turn of events, Trump has been enjoying evangelical support.
So what is Cruz's game plan?
-
That's funny...saying Trump can win, Cruz can't and demanding a "plan" from Cruz.
Here's the matchup:
(http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=549.0;attach=121;image)
The simple fact is, Trump gets his ass kicked by Clinton. Cruz beats Clinton.
-
So show us where the moderate republicans and moderate democrats, and about half of the evangelicals support Cruz?
The RNC has said over and over that they cannot win an election without crossing over and attracting Independents and moderate democrats (Reagan Democrats)
Do you honestly believe Cruz could win a General election with only far right conservative and about half of the evangelical vote? And without being supported by the RNC?
Cruz's big plan for victory was to get far right conservatives and bring out evangelical voters who refused to vote in the previous elections. However, primary after primary the evangelicals are not coming out in the numbers he had hoped for. As a turn of events, Trump has been enjoying evangelical support.
So what is Cruz's game plan?
So, basically, you've got nothin', other than the Donald's promise that his victory over Hillary will be Yuuuge, let me tell you something.
-
So, basically, you've got nothin', other than the Donald's promise that his victory over Hillary will be Yuuuge, let me tell you something.
But, but...polls say Donnie is going to win the nomination, and that's all that matters.
Polls say that he'll get his ass kicked in the general, but those are unreliable, because, reasons...
-
So, basically, you've got nothin', other than the Donald's promise that his victory over Hillary will be Yuuuge, let me tell you something.
Actual you have nothing as you can't answer my question.
Keep spinning buddy.
-
That's funny...saying Trump can win, Cruz can't and demanding a "plan" from Cruz.
Here's the matchup:
(http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=549.0;attach=121;image)
The simple fact is, Trump gets his ass kicked by Clinton. Cruz beats Clinton.
LIAR!! LIES, ALL LIES!
Prepare to be served by Donald Trump so he can sue your ass all the way back to Canada. There is no free political speech in Orange Julius Ceasar's Empire.
-
Actual you have nothing as you can't answer my question.
Keep spinning buddy.
Yeah, he's got nothing, except of course data...other than actual data, he's got nothing.
-
Yeah, he's got nothing, except of course data...other than actual data, he's got nothing.
Since you were about 7 years old in 1980 and your world centered around the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles while you downed box after box of HoHo's, let's present you with a little data.
December 1979/January 1980
Reagan- 33% Carter-62%
February/March 1980
Reagan- 33% Carter-58%
April/May 1980
Reagan- 32% Carter-40%
June/July 1980
Reagan- 37% Carter-32%
August/September 1980
Reagan- 45% Carter-39%
October/November 1980
Reagan- 47% Carter-44%
ACTUAL RESULTS Reagan- 51% Carter-41%
Move ahead to 1988:
In the early months George HW Bush was trailing Michael Dukakis in April through August by as much as 5 to 16 points behind. It was only in September that GHW Bush took the polling lead to eventually win.
1992:
Clinton was trailing Bush by 19 points in March, 15 points in April and 6 to 10 points in May. In June he was still behind Bush by as much as 10 points. It wasn't until July that Clinton took the lead and eventually won.
2000:
George W Bush and Al Gore actually traded spots back and forth with various polls showing GWB ahead and Al Gore ahead. In the October and November polls GWB enjoyed a lead of 6 to 10 points over Gore in the majority of polls. The polls just before the election showed GWB at 14 points over Al Gore, and the Actual Election result was a 48%/48% split.
So go ahead and hang your hat on the polls right now, March 2016. Historical data has proven that poll wrong time and time again at this time frame.
Spin away.
-
To be fair, the Ninja Turtles were great.
-
To be fair, the Ninja Turtles were great.
;D
-
Also, remember this?:
"He's a Nazi! and we will be seeing Brownshirts if he's elected!"
"He's a celebrity and he can't be a President!"
"He will destroy the Republican Party!"
"No way he can win against the democrats!"
"He was once a Democrat and supported Democrats!"
"He can"t win in November!"
"He's too divisive!"
"He's been divorced before! No family values!"
and on, and on, and on.........
Oh, by the way, that was about Reagan in 1980.............
-
Just from personal experience, I think Trump has a much better chance against Hillary than Cruz. Cruz can't even draw as many Republican votes as Trump, and every D that I know HATES Cruz. I can't imagine that he would get any D votes and very few undecided votes. Trump would get some (many?) of those votes.
I agree! The nation hasn't focused on Cruz's negatives which Hillary would hammer home. While Hillary has high negatives, either Cruz or Trump will scare Bernie's supporters enough to get them to the polls for Hillary. At the same time, Trump's middle-of-the-road-yet-pissed-off supporters are not going to be excited about Cruz. Hillary's appeal to blacks and Hispanics will mean that Cruz isn't likely to sweep the south. He will largely be dead meat in the NE and on the West Coast which already puts Hillary way ahead in the electoral count. Cruz is inexperienced, he doesn't play well with others, and he is not a great campaigner. He comes off rather smarmy. I think that the Dems will tear him up once they set their sites on him.
-
Anyone that believes Hillary has a real chance at the presidency simply isn't paying attention. The anti-establishment sentiment is rampant in both parties. Hillary personifies everything that very vocal, and very angry segment abhors, and they will vote in significant numbers. When Bernie gets thrown to the curb as a result of the super delegate nonsense, the backlash within the democrat party will be serious. Those voters will find another "outsider" to support.
You would be correct except for the fact that neither Cruz nor Trump are palatable to Bernie's supporters. In fact, they are so scary to the left that rather than sit home and pout, as they might if a middle-of-the-road Republican was nominated, they will be motivated to cast their vote to Hillary. Think about it. Bernie's supporters may be pissed, but they are pissed for different reasons. His supporters are college kids and educated whites who feel guilty that some don't have it as good as they do, i.e. they are liberal. Cruz or Trump is anathema to them.
-
Spot on. Cruz does not have the support needed to win in a general. He has the far right conservatives and only PARTIAL support from evangelicals,which by the way are his core support base. Moderate republicans and moderate democrats won't support him. Even the GOP and RNC don't support this guy. The Clinton machine will rip him a new one before it's over.
Even if he gets all the evangelicals it will not be enough to counter Hillary's supporters.
-
That's funny...saying Trump can win, Cruz can't and demanding a "plan" from Cruz.
The simple fact is, Trump gets his ass kicked by Clinton. Cruz beats Clinton.
The simple fact is that Cruz's margin is much smaller than the error rate of the polls and he has yet to have the Dems turn on him. Cruz has said enough stupid things that when the attack ads start, they will hit home. I will get skunked on the west coast and the northeast. He won't get the non-christian vote, or the minority vote, so he can't count on sweeping the south. He would have to run the table everywhere else, and that is just not likely.
-
The simple fact is that Cruz's margin is much smaller than the error rate of the polls and he has yet to have the Dems turn on him. Cruz has said enough stupid things that when the attack ads start, they will hit home. I will get skunked on the west coast and the northeast. He won't get the non-christian vote, or the minority vote, so he can't count on sweeping the south. He would have to run the table everywhere else, and that is just not likely.
True, he's within the MoE on the polls, but at least he's on the + side of things.
Trump, however, is well outside the MoE losing to Clinton.
-
True, he's within the MoE on the polls, but at least he's on the + side of things.
Trump, however, is well outside the MoE losing to Clinton.
So how does this compare to other elections in the past 40 years, historically speaking? Look at the March poll numbers historically and tell us how the polls this year are absolute and reflect what will happen this November.
-
So how does this compare to other elections in the past 40 years, historically speaking? Look at the March poll numbers historically and tell us how the polls this year are absolute and reflect what will happen this November.
"But then again, it’s only March 15th and no pollster could be a soothsayer this far away from the general election, right?
"Well, on March 15th, 2012, President Obama led Mitt Romney by 4% in the RealClearPolitics average of national polls. He ended up winning the popular vote...by 4%.
"On March 15th, Obama led Romney in Pennsylvania by 5%. In November, he won by 5%.
"On March 15th, he led by 4% in Ohio and ended up winning there by 3%.
"On March 15th, the race was within a percentage point in Florida. In November, it was within a percentage point in Florida.
"On March 15th, Obama led by 4% in Virginia. In November, he won by 4% in Virginia."
http://m.newstalk1130.com/onair/common-sense-central-37717/donald-beware-the-ides-of-march-14497112/
-
"But then again, it’s only March 15th and no pollster could be a soothsayer this far away from the general election, right?
"Well, on March 15th, 2012, President Obama led Mitt Romney by 4% in the RealClearPolitics average of national polls. He ended up winning the popular vote...by 4%.
"On March 15th, Obama led Romney in Pennsylvania by 5%. In November, he won by 5%.
"On March 15th, he led by 4% in Ohio and ended up winning there by 3%.
"On March 15th, the race was within a percentage point in Florida. In November, it was within a percentage point in Florida.
"On March 15th, Obama led by 4% in Virginia. In November, he won by 4% in Virginia."
http://m.newstalk1130.com/onair/common-sense-central-37717/donald-beware-the-ides-of-march-14497112/
How about answering the question instead of just a small piece (the only piece that agrees with you, BTW)
December 1979/January 1980
Reagan- 33% Carter-62%
February/March 1980
Reagan- 33% Carter-58%
April/May 1980
Reagan- 32% Carter-40%
June/July 1980
Reagan- 37% Carter-32%
August/September 1980
Reagan- 45% Carter-39%
October/November 1980
Reagan- 47% Carter-44%
ACTUAL RESULTS Reagan- 51% Carter-41%
Move ahead to 1988:
In the early months George HW Bush was trailing Michael Dukakis in April through August by as much as 5 to 16 points behind. It was only in September that GHW Bush took the polling lead to eventually win.
1992:
Clinton was trailing Bush by 19 points in March, 15 points in April and 6 to 10 points in May. In June he was still behind Bush by as much as 10 points. It wasn't until July that Clinton took the lead and eventually won.
2000:
George W Bush and Al Gore actually traded spots back and forth with various polls showing GWB ahead and Al Gore ahead. In the October and November polls GWB enjoyed a lead of 6 to 10 points over Gore in the majority of polls. The polls just before the election showed GWB at 14 points over Al Gore, and the Actual Election result was a 48%/48% split.
So go ahead and hang your hat on the polls right now, March 2016. Historical data has proven that poll wrong time and time again at this time frame.
Spin away.
-
How about answering the question instead of just a small piece (the only piece that agrees with you, BTW)
December 1979/January 1980
Reagan- 33% Carter-62%
February/March 1980
Reagan- 33% Carter-58%
April/May 1980
Reagan- 32% Carter-40%
June/July 1980
Reagan- 37% Carter-32%
August/September 1980
Reagan- 45% Carter-39%
October/November 1980
Reagan- 47% Carter-44%
ACTUAL RESULTS Reagan- 51% Carter-41%
Move ahead to 1988:
In the early months George HW Bush was trailing Michael Dukakis in April through August by as much as 5 to 16 points behind. It was only in September that GHW Bush took the polling lead to eventually win.
1992:
Clinton was trailing Bush by 19 points in March, 15 points in April and 6 to 10 points in May. In June he was still behind Bush by as much as 10 points. It wasn't until July that Clinton took the lead and eventually won.
2000:
George W Bush and Al Gore actually traded spots back and forth with various polls showing GWB ahead and Al Gore ahead. In the October and November polls GWB enjoyed a lead of 6 to 10 points over Gore in the majority of polls. The polls just before the election showed GWB at 14 points over Al Gore, and the Actual Election result was a 48%/48% split.
So go ahead and hang your hat on the polls right now, March 2016. Historical data has proven that poll wrong time and time again at this time frame.
Spin away.
Well, except for 2012, when they were SPOT on.
-
Well, except for 2012, when they were SPOT on.
So you agree over the past 40 years, except for 2012 and another election (08, 96) that the polling could be way off this early in (March)?
-
So you agree over the past 40 years, except for 2012 and another election (08, 96) that the polling could be way off this early in (March)?
Do you agree that the most recent record (2012) has been spot on?
What evidence do you have that Donald is in a winning position? The fact that he's behind in the polling, and the gap is widening?
-
So you agree over the past 40 years, except for 2012 and another election (08, 96) that the polling could be way off this early in (March)?
Of course they could be off. But Trump fans appear to be counting on it. I have no such faith in Trump's mass appeal sufficient to win the electoral college.
-
Of course they could be off. But Trump fans appear to be counting on it. I have no such faith in Trump's mass appeal sufficient to win the electoral college.
I remember when Mitt's people were all "Oh, the polling is way off, we're going to win." The Romney Administration has been the result of that magical thinking.
-
When I went to vote in the NC primary on March 15, the girl in front of me wanted to vote for Trump. She was upset because she was a registered democrat and received the democrat ballot, not the republican one. To make things even more interesting, she was a young, pregnant Hispanic woman.
Can someone check and see if hell froze over? I thought it was impossible!
-
When I went to vote in the NC primary on March 15, the girl in front of me wanted to vote for Trump. She was upset because she was a registered democrat and received the democrat ballot, not the republican one. To make things even more interesting, she was a young, pregnant Hispanic woman.
Can someone check and see if hell froze over? I thought it was impossible!
I think Democrats are prostrating themselves in prayer to the God they don't believe in, hoping to run against Trump.
-
More actual data...Trump is getting his head handed to him in "swing" counties.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432918/donald-trump-swing-county-weakness (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432918/donald-trump-swing-county-weakness)
But I'm sure there is some magical thinking that will make this all irrelevant.
-
That's what I hear as well. One of my college roommates is feeling the Bern (fairly embarrassing for a 55-year old) but would go to Hillary if necessary.
Think about it. They will go to the most flawed, damaged, evil, caustic, bitch of a woman than vote for Trump.
Most of the Ds I know are going to vote for Bernie in the primary, only because we have a closed primary and they won't vote for Hillary. Come the election, most of them say they will vote for Kasich or Trump. But they scoff when I mention Cruz. They can't stand the guy.
-
I can see a lot of upset Sanders supporters not voting at all because they don't like Hilary. Sanders could make an independent run since he is, after all, a registered independent. I don't think he's going to do that but he could and he would certainly take away a lot of votes from Hilary. I'm not sure he'd be the Democrat's Ross Perot, but he could definitely take votes from Hilary.
-
Of course they could be off. But Trump fans appear to be counting on it. I have no such faith in Trump's mass appeal sufficient to win the electoral college.
Your opinion. But my point in this your boy Cartman keeps harping about a recent poll as if it's an absolute. He even chided me to produce data proving my point, which I did (40 years worth). And of course he tucks tail and runs.
Bottom line: Anyone foolish enough to believe a fall general election poll at this point with so many variables that haven't even taken place yet is indeed a fool.
-
More actual data...Trump is getting his head handed to him in "swing" counties.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432918/donald-trump-swing-county-weakness (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432918/donald-trump-swing-county-weakness)
But I'm sure there is some magical thinking that will make this all irrelevant.
It's not magical thinking, it's facts. National Review is the establishment rag and has a huge hardon for Trump, so do you believe they are going to write a balanced article or a hugely slanted one? Do you think Slate would give a glowing review of Ted Cruz?
Another point. Put down the donuts and go educate yourself on polls and the different types. Some polls are balanced (Rasmussen, Quinnipiac, Monmouth, etc) while others are used to sway opinion and the polling questions are very leading to get a desired outcome.
-
Most of the Ds I know are going to vote for Bernie in the primary, only because we have a closed primary and they won't vote for Hillary. Come the election, most of them say they will vote for Kasich or Trump. But they scoff when I mention Cruz. They can't stand the guy.
This is actually matching up with anecdotal stories from my friends, acquaintances and employees - including folks who were hard core Obama fans. They despise Hillary but would consider Trump or Kasich, with in at least one case a surprisingly pro-Trump thought (I literally was unable to talk politics with her because she was violent if anyone opposed Obama).
Admittedly anecdotal and not yet appearing in any polling but everything is anecdotal unless/until it is actually measured.
'Gimp
-
Well, except for 2012, when they were SPOT on.
So, can you with a straight face, given what has already transpired on the Republican and Democrat sides in the primaries, say that you believe the conventional wisdom and methods of the polls from last year or any recent cycle remain applicable without modification and should be blindly trusted?
Serious question.
'Gimp
-
It's not magical thinking, it's facts. National Review is the establishment rag and has a huge hardon for Trump, so do you believe they are going to write a balanced article or a hugely slanted one? Do you think Slate would give a glowing review of Ted Cruz?
Another point. Put down the donuts and go educate yourself on polls and the different types. Some polls are balanced (Rasmussen, Quinnipiac, Monmouth, etc) while others are used to sway opinion and the polling questions are very leading to get a desired outcome.
Facts? I don't think you know the meaning of the word.
-
Facts? I don't think you know the meaning of the word.
Cartman, here is you in a nutshell:
Alinsky's Rules for Radicals
* RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
* RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
* RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
* RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
* RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
* RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
* RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
* RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
* RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
* RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
-
So, can you with a straight face, given what has already transpired on the Republican and Democrat sides in the primaries, say that you believe the conventional wisdom and methods of the polls from last year or any recent cycle remain applicable without modification and should be blindly trusted?
Serious question.
'Gimp
First of all, you can stop with the absolutes of "without modification" and "blindly trusted" if we're going to have a rational discussion about this.
Now, a serious answer.
I think the consistent polling results from 2012, along with better polling methodology and the environment of a strongly polarized electorate that didn't exist as much in 1980, is more relevant than his examples from 1980, 1988, etc.
We will both be wrong, one way or the other. There is no doubt about that.
But all I have to trust is today's polling, and the validation that similar polling from 2012 held true to form.
Your alternative is to ask me to trust YOUR gut feeling, or lucifer's gut feeling. I have no rational reason to do that. I prefer critical data to hope and wishes.
-
Cartman, here is you in a nutshell:
Nice demo of your ignorance of the definition of "facts" by posting a rather long list of opinions.
-
First of all, you can stop with the absolutes of "without modification" and "blindly trusted" if we're going to have a rational discussion about this.
Now, a serious answer.
I think the consistent polling results from 2012, along with better polling methodology and the environment of a strongly polarized electorate that didn't exist as much in 1980, is more relevant than his examples from 1980, 1988, etc.
We will both be wrong, one way or the other. There is no doubt about that.
But all I have to trust is today's polling, and the validation that similar polling from 2012 held true to form.
Your alternative is to ask me to trust YOUR gut feeling, or lucifer's gut feeling. I have no rational reason to do that. I prefer critical data to hope and wishes.
I never have said or implied "Trust my gut feeling." I have presented factual data. So far nothing suggest this race remotely resembles 2012 as there are simply too many variables, many that haven't even played out yet.
As far as 1980 election goes, your memory is fading. There was hostility about the current President (Carter), inflation was high, unemployment was high, interest rates were high and the electorate was fatigued. The electorate was strongly polarized and that's what swept Reagan into the WH.
-
Nice demo of your ignorance of the definition of "facts" by posting a rather long list of opinions.
You fit the Saul Alinsky type to a "T". You use his rules constantly and your only real objective is to stir discontent rather than offer any substance to the conversation.
You should really consider the Democratic party, you would have a bright future with them.
-
This is actually matching up with anecdotal stories from my friends, acquaintances and employees - including folks who were hard core Obama fans. They despise Hillary but would consider Trump or Kasich, with in at least one case a surprisingly pro-Trump thought (I literally was unable to talk politics with her because she was violent if anyone opposed Obama).
Admittedly anecdotal and not yet appearing in any polling but everything is anecdotal unless/until it is actually measured.
'Gimp
My anecdotal experience does not match. The liberals I know think Trump is a freak show. But, to be fair, I don't have a lot of experience with the middle ground. The bulk of my co-workers are Republicans, but my family and acquaintances are pretty far left. So I'm not sure what the middle folks are saying.
-
You fit the Saul Alinsky type to a "T". You use his rules constantly and your only real objective is to stir discontent rather than offer any substance to the conversation.
You should really consider the Democratic party, you would have a bright future with them.
You would be more credible and less of a dick if you utilized legitimate complaints instead of attacking the messenger so much. Use Gimp and Joe as a model.
Jeff can speak for himself, but MY take is that Jeff and I are alarmed that the GOP nomination may go to someone antithetical to what we have been fighting for for decades - a true conservative, and a Constitutionalist. We also want someone who has some evidence of being able to beat the Democrat candidate in the general.
We see none of those traits in Trump, and have made our case. We see an existential threat to the Conservative movement in Donald Trump. This is serious business.
We have also made our case for our candidates, with mine being Ted Cruz.
You may not like any of that, and reject our arguments, but I don't really give a shit. You would rather be a thug than debate the issues. Fine. I've responded in kind.
If you think Jeff is a socialist democrat worthy of Alyinsky tactics as if that's the only alternative to whatever Trump calls himself today, then you really don't understand politics at all.
-
You fit the Saul Alinsky type to a "T". You use his rules constantly and your only real objective is to stir discontent rather than offer any substance to the conversation.
You should really consider the Democratic party, you would have a bright future with them.
You're the Trumpkin, go with him to the Dems.
-
You're the Trumpkin, go with him to the Dems.
Thanks for proving my point.
-
You would be more credible and less of a dick if you utilized legitimate complaints instead of attacking the messenger so much.
Go take a look in a mirror.
Jeff can speak for himself, but MY take is that Jeff and I are alarmed that the GOP nomination may go to someone antithetical to what we have been fighting for for decades - a true conservative, and a Constitutionalist. We also want someone who has some evidence of being able to beat the Democrat candidate in the general.
Fine and dandy. Doesn't look like you will get that choice this time around.
We see none of those traits in Trump, and have made our case. We see an existential threat to the Conservative movement in Donald Trump. This is serious business.
Yep. And this time you have limited choices unless the RNC trots out a Romney or a Ryan for you to vote for.
We have also made our case for our candidates, with mine being Ted Cruz.
Yep, and when asked on how you think this guy can win, you simply respond by blaming something on Trump. You have YET to answer a question on how this guy can win a general election with so many negatives and little support.
You may not like any of that, and reject our arguments, but I don't really give a shit. You would rather be a thug than debate the issues. Fine. I've responded in kind.
Your definition of a thug is anyone who won't agree with you. You probably have one of the worst cases of Trump Derangement on this board.
If you think Jeff is a socialist democrat worthy of Alyinsky tactics as if that's the only alternative to whatever Trump calls himself today, then you really don't understand politics at all.
You always revert back to Trump this or Trump that. This is a big reason why I can't take anything you write here seriously because of your derangement. If you spill your coffee do you blame Trump as well?
And yes, Cartman uses Alinsky tactics constantly. That's all he knows and all he cares about. He's constantly looking for strawmen. I've yet to see him articulate a position or argument without resorting to any of the Alinsky rules. The dems would be proud.
-
First of all, you can stop with the absolutes of "without modification" and "blindly trusted" if we're going to have a rational discussion about this.
Now, a serious answer.
I think the consistent polling results from 2012, along with better polling methodology and the environment of a strongly polarized electorate that didn't exist as much in 1980, is more relevant than his examples from 1980, 1988, etc.
We will both be wrong, one way or the other. There is no doubt about that.
But all I have to trust is today's polling, and the validation that similar polling from 2012 held true to form.
Your alternative is to ask me to trust YOUR gut feeling, or lucifer's gut feeling. I have no rational reason to do that. I prefer critical data to hope and wishes.
While I disagree with your conclusion I appreciate the answer.
'Gimp
-
Thanks for proving my point.
What?
I've been providing actual information, data and facts.
You've been all about "magical thinking". You know, I could do project budgets like that too. "One time, 40 years ago, the cost of this went down. Just because every other time it went up is irrelevant, I'll budget for it to go down." Then wonder why my budget gets blown.
You have zero reason to believe Trump will magically become acceptable to the majority of the electorate. He hasn't gained much in the Republican party as others have dropped out. He has a hard ceiling in the Republican party, let alone the the general.
But the Trumpkins are sure that this time it will be different.
The media's propped Trumpy up because they knew they could destroy him for the general. Good job.
(http://movieboozer.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/lucy-football.jpg)