This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Ace himself just went off the rails, calling for a NeverRyan vote down ticket. These guys in the right blogosphere/twitterverse have been progressively blocking each other and burning bridges online.
Pretty bad history too. Every time a more "mainstream" candidate dropped out (Bush, Rubio, Christie) their supporters moved to Trump in at least equal numbers to any other candidate. Which seems weird, but that's what happened. Trump spent a few months stealing Jeb!'s milk money and Jeb! supporters still moved to Trump in equal numbers to moving to Rubio.FreeBaGeL said:
The only way to know for sure is to take a vote. But until November 8th the best we have is who people say they are voting for, not immediate reactions from an unscientific/un-statistical sampling of an audience set up by a specific network. If the claim is Hillary won the debate and the locker room, the two significant events that happened this week, you'd expect that to show up in the numbers. What other variables, including variance, could possible affect the numbers as much as those two events?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
1- It would be mathematically wrong to assume a variance or an outlier when we know two significant events happened that we would expect to influence the numbers. The accuracy of the polls are the same before, after and in each case.TobiasFunke said:
Well time, for one. It's pretty standard practice for things to regress back towards the mean a little bit as time passes after a standout event. If you polled people on who the worst team in the NFL was 15 minutes after the 49ers lost 42-0 in a nationally televised game on Monday Night Football, you're going to get a much higher percentage of people saying the 49ers than if you ask the same question a 5 days later (even if no games had been played in between).
This is no joke.
I don't get it. If the goal was the beat Hillary so bad, why not support a nominee that had a good chance of beating her from the get go (i.e, almost every other republican in the primary), rather than someone many people knew and said was one of the worst people on earth even before he announced his candidacy?
The Rasmussen is the only one that surveys every day and gives a rolling average each day. The claims from people in here that it's done only over the telephone are false. But I don't care if you think it's biased or not, add on 5-6% if you want, the fact remains that numbers improved post debate.
Yeah, it's over. I read something Monday about how both national committees and most of the super-PACs on both sides were starting to pull $$$ out of the Presidential race to use in the down ballot races. Really the only things TDB are the exact magnitude of the blowout and the effect that Trump has on the down ballot races.
Plenty of people like me registered Democrat to vote for Hillary all in stopping Donald J. Trump. You lightweights couldn't even work up the gumption to primary. Low energy! SAD!
Do semantics really matter at this point?
Yeah, you're right the Atlantic has gotten significantly worst where the others remained the same or slightly improved. Let's see where the Quinnipac falls. I missed the Atlantic that spanned both events of the weekend.
Are we sure those aren't Halloween decorations to make the house look creepy? Are there any inflatable monsters and fake headstones in the yard as well?
I think you are right. But I'm not convinced the numbers say that just yet. In my opinion Donald's numbers weathered the ##### gate storm and especially well if you think Hillary won the debate. There are still 4-weeks and one debate left. He'd need a lot of media/leak help and a knock out third debate for sure.
Even the polls-plus forecast there which gives Trump a slight bump has him below 18% at this moment. Hillary has a 6.5% popular vote advantage in the polls-only forecast and finally cracked 5% in the polls-plus forecast. As history shows, those kinds of advantages translate into a solid electoral victory.
And don't forget the election-deciding rally crowd size. Also the rally crowd chanting 5th grade limericks.
Well, duh.
When you begin believing you're smarter than another group of people because you've chosen one corrupt political party over another.....
Are we counting houses with yard signs or total number of yard signs? Most houses with Trump yard signs have 3 or more of them along with many, many American flags.
Yes. But they're outnumbered pretty badly at this point. Cultural conservatives (anti-immigrant folks) and social conservatives (religious right) make up the vast majority now.
The right sure is trying very hard to equivilate (sic) at every turn. Nearly every single instance.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on this -- because I don't see it. Their base has been forcing the party as a whole further and further right for almost a decade now, and it keeps getting worse. They're totally off of the deep end now, and living in a Fox News and Breitbart / Infowars echo chamber.
Stat, I have been consistently a Trump supporter; however, I believed from the start that this has been Clinton's election to lose. That being said, the Democrats cannot take him getting clobbered as a mandate to think the county is behind their policies and overreach or they will pay dearly in the next round of elections.
Yeah, actually, they can.
Clinton will likely be a centrist as President, in the model of her husband. The right will continue to go nuts, of course, with the Benghazi, etc nonsense, but luckily most people can see through that.
