Pollsters dumbfounded by Trump

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Gingersnap
    Resident stylistic consultant
    • Tuesday, October 1, 2013
    • 24058

    #1

    Pollsters dumbfounded by Trump

    August 27, 2015, 06:00 am
    Pollsters dumbfounded by Trump
    By Ben Kamisar


    Polling experts agree on one thing when it comes to Donald Trump’s presidential run: They’ve never seen anything like it.

    The billionaire businessman’s dominance of the Republican presidential race is forcing experienced political hands to question whether everything they know about winning the White House is wrong.

    The shocks have come in quick succession, with Trump first rocketing to the top of national polls, and then taking double-digit leads in the early voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.
    In another act of political magic, Trump managed to flip his favorability rating from negative to positive in one poll during the span of a month — a feat that Monmouth University’s Patrick Murray called “astounding.”

    “That defies any rule in presidential politics that I’ve ever seen,” Murray, the director Monmouth’s Polling Institute, told The Hill.

    Trump’s favorability rose from 20 percent to 52 percent among Republican voters between July and August, Monmouth found.

    While a later CNN/ORC Poll did not find a similar shift in Trump’s favorability, the Monmouth data was yet another sign that he is a candidate to be reckoned with.

    “Throw out the rulebook when it comes to Trump, that’s not even in the parameters of what we see as unusual,” Murray insisted.

    Trump’s dominance of the race has flustered the Republican field, with many of the candidates trying their best to bring him back to earth.

    But as the attacks on Trump have intensified, so has his level of support.

    Polls released on Tuesday show Trump lapping the field in New Hampshire, where he leads his nearest Republican rival by 24 percentage points. The story is the same in South Carolina, where the latest poll gave him a 15-point edge.

    While political scientists and other experts continue to insist Trump will not win the Republican nomination, he’s converted at least one high-profile skeptic.

    GOP pollster Frank Luntz had dismissed Trump from the start, and declared after the first presidential debate that his campaign was doomed.

    But after convening a focus group on Monday evening, in which Trump supporters showed an unflappable allegiance, Luntz changed his tune.

    “This is real. I’m having trouble processing,” he said, according to Time.

    “I want to put the Republican leadership behind this mirror and let them see. They need to wake up. They don’t realize how the grassroots have abandoned them,” he added.

    Polling experts, including Marist College’s Lee Miringoff, say Trump is weathering political storms that would doom other candidates because his appeal is more about attitude than ideology.

    While many of Trump’s supporters identify as strong conservatives, some of the policies he’s proposed — including increased spending on the border and higher taxes on the wealthy — have prompted accusations from rivals, like former Fla. Gov. Jeb Bush, that he isn’t a true conservative.

    Miringoff said he doesn’t expect those attacks to stick.

    “This is the next step of the Tea Party — someone who can tap into the sentiment that people have about all the frustration and turn it into, ‘We are going to make America great again,’” he said.

    “This is not a policy paper.”

    But even if Trump is rewriting the political playbook, can he go the distance?

    Experts note that the last presidential nominating season was full of booms and busts, with Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry all flaming out after time at the top of the polls.

    The next round of surveys on the Republican race will go a long way toward showing whether Trump has staying power, pollsters say.

    “It will take another three or four weeks before we realize what happened, whether he can stick around or if his support is eroding,” Murray said.

    “We are at the turning point, the eye of the storm, but we don’t know how much longer the storm is going to continue.”

    Experts see several dangers ahead for Trump.

    For one, he tends to fare better with broader samples than groups of likely primary voters, as pointed out by The New York Times.

    Second, there’s no guarantee that Trump’s summer surge will translate to action at the ballot box.

    “The percentage who go to caucus events and vote in primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire are really quite conservative and ideological. It remains to be seen if he can get impassioned people out to the polls,” said Rutgers political science professor Cliff Zukin.

    “Polls are general, and the electorate that turns out to those events will be different than those who pollsters are contacting now.”

    There’s also the question of how much the size of the Republican field is helping Trump, with voter loyalties now splintered among 17 major candidates. Should some of them drop out, Republican voters could coalesce around an alternative.

    Miringoff said a narrowing of the field could help candidates, such as Bush, Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, rally establishment support.

    That’s mainly because many voters still view Trump as unable to win in the general election. Most polls show Trump trailing in a match-up against Hillary Clinton, which his rivals have seized on to paint him as unelectable.

    For now, Trump is flying high.
    The Hill
    "Alexa, slaughter the fatted calf."
  • Norm dePlume
    Err foil
    • Tuesday, October 22, 2013
    • 14904

    #2
    People are starting to take Trump seriously. Matt Taibbi is taking him seriously. Frank Luntz is taking him seriously. That might be the worst thing that can happen to Trump -- being taken seriously. People might start looking at his policies.

    Nah. Just kidding. If you're counting on sober policy analysis to knock Trump out of the Republican primary, you really are desperate.
    Enjoy.

    Comment

    • Celeste Chalfonte
      apostate
      • Saturday, October 5, 2013
      • 27897

      #3
      Jeb, get ahold [sic]of yourself

      Despite what you may have read or watched or come across in a fortune cookie, Donald Trump isn’t actually running away with the Republican nomination, and the only thing he’s “dominating” right now is media coverage. Here’s some perspective for you: As late as October 2011, a pizza magnate named Herman Cain was leading the Republican field with roughly 30 percent of the vote, or about the same as Trump’s zenith in recent polls.

      The main difference is that Mitt Romney had locked down the establishment vote in 2011 and was running just a few points behind. Trump, on the other hand, looks like the Big Kahuna mainly because the vast majority of the Republican vote remains divided among more than a dozen serious competitors, none of whom has yet managed to pull away from the pack.

      In other words, Trump isn’t really winning the presidential contest so much as all the other candidates are losing it. And no one is losing it faster or with more determination than Jeb Bush.
      Pretty decent analysis, in spite of the execrable title.

      And just for amusement value:

      Nothing quite burnishes the pro-life credentials of Jeb Bush and his Republican rivals for president like promising to cut off federal funding for Planned Parenthood.
      But the issue creates a paradox for the former Florida governor. His late grandfather, U.S. Sen. Prescott Bush — the patriarch of a political dynasty and patron saint of the GOP in Connecticut — was deeply involved in the formation of the women’s health care organization.
      “I just think it’s ironic,” said Susan Bevan, national co-chair of the Republican Majority for Choice, a reproductive rights group. “George (Bush) 41 was pro-choice. Then when he became Reagan’s running mate, as all the Republicans do, they end up thinking they have to appeal to an extremist group of people. As you can imagine, it makes me crazy.”
      Prescott Bush, a longtime U.S. senator from the Nutmeg State, was the agency’s first treasurer. His name even accompanied Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger’s atop the organization’s letterhead in a 1947 fundraising notice.
      Link.
      "Since the historic ruling, the Lovings have become icons for equality. Mildred released a statement on the 40th anniversary of the ruling in 2007: 'I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, Black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.'." - Mildred Loving (Loving v. Virginia)

      Comment

      • Billy Jingo
        I shave with Occam's Razor
        • Wednesday, October 2, 2013
        • 18663

        #4
        Originally posted by Celeste Chalfonte View Post
        Pretty decent analysis, in spite of the execrable title.
        The Bush dynasty is different. George H.W. Bush was, truth be told, a mediocre politician who had to prove he wasn’t the Connecticut moderate his father, Prescott, had been. (This he achieved mostly by eating pork rinds.) He found himself atop the ticket in 1988 almost by default and then became only the second elected president since the Great Depression to be booted from office after a single term.

        ...


        And so it is that the Bushes keep underperforming as presidents, and yet every four or eight years, as predictable as a dry day in California, the party’s governing establishment keeps looking around for another Bush to run. They represent the last stand of the old GOP.


        Awful analysis.

        GHW Bush remains the best president we have had since FDR. Sooner or later, history will catch up to that.
        “One day, when it's safe, when there's no personal downside to calling a thing what it is, when it's too late to hold anyone accountable, everyone will have always been against this.”

        ~ Omar El Akkad
        ​

        Comment

        • phillygirl
          Not superior, just kind
          • Wednesday, October 2, 2013
          • 19840

          #5
          Originally posted by Celeste Chalfonte View Post
          Snopes
          Not where I breathe, but where I love, I live...
          Robert Southwell, S.J.

          Comment

          • Celeste Chalfonte
            apostate
            • Saturday, October 5, 2013
            • 27897

            #6
            Originally posted by phillygirl View Post
            And??? The part about him having been involved with PP in 1947 is confirmed accurate. The "spin" the piece put on it is labeled "uncertain." Either way, 1) the so-called "patriarch" of the Bushes was not anti-abortion and 2) by labeling it "for amusement," I would have thought you would get that I didn't think it had any particular bearing on the politics of the current Bush.
            "Since the historic ruling, the Lovings have become icons for equality. Mildred released a statement on the 40th anniversary of the ruling in 2007: 'I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, Black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.'." - Mildred Loving (Loving v. Virginia)

            Comment

            • Gingersnap
              Resident stylistic consultant
              • Tuesday, October 1, 2013
              • 24058

              #7
              Originally posted by Celeste Chalfonte View Post
              And??? The part about him having been involved with PP in 1947 is confirmed accurate. The "spin" the piece put on it is labeled "uncertain." Either way, 1) the so-called "patriarch" of the Bushes was not anti-abortion and 2) by labeling it "for amusement," I would have thought you would get that I didn't think it had any particular bearing on the politics of the current Bush.
              So now we go back to Margaret Sanger - black/Italian genocidalist and KKK darling.

              Honestly, although the nation is becoming increasingly pro-life and larger numbers of the under 30 crowd are adopting the position (no doubt due to seeing their own sonogram videos), this issue is probably not a deal-breaker for any politician in any party.

              The media keeps telling us that climate change and abortion and gayness are the big issues for average Americans but the reality is that the economy, illegal immigration, and government red tape are the big issues for most employed voters.
              "Alexa, slaughter the fatted calf."

              Comment

              • Billy Jingo
                I shave with Occam's Razor
                • Wednesday, October 2, 2013
                • 18663

                #8
                Originally posted by Gingersnap View Post
                So now we go back to Margaret Sanger - black/Italian genocidalist and KKK darling.

                Honestly, although the nation is becoming increasingly pro-life and larger numbers of the under 30 crowd are adopting the position (no doubt due to seeing their own sonogram videos), this issue is probably not a deal-breaker for any politician in any party.

                The media keeps telling us that climate change and abortion and gayness are the big issues for average Americans but the reality is that the economy, illegal immigration, and government red tape are the big issues for most employed voters.
                Really? Government red tape? Like getting a permit to build a garden shed?
                “One day, when it's safe, when there's no personal downside to calling a thing what it is, when it's too late to hold anyone accountable, everyone will have always been against this.”

                ~ Omar El Akkad
                ​

                Comment

                • Norm dePlume
                  Err foil
                  • Tuesday, October 22, 2013
                  • 14904

                  #9
                  Originally posted by Gingersnap View Post
                  So now we go back to Margaret Sanger - black/Italian genocidalist and KKK darling.

                  Honestly, although the nation is becoming increasingly pro-life and larger numbers of the under 30 crowd are adopting the position (no doubt due to seeing their own sonogram videos), this issue is probably not a deal-breaker for any politician in any party.

                  The media keeps telling us that climate change and abortion and gayness are the big issues for average Americans but the reality is that the economy, illegal immigration, and government red tape are the big issues for most employed voters.
                  According to who?
                  Enjoy.

                  Comment

                  • Norm dePlume
                    Err foil
                    • Tuesday, October 22, 2013
                    • 14904

                    #10
                    Originally posted by Billy Jingo View Post
                    Awful analysis.

                    GHW Bush remains the best president we have had since FDR. Sooner or later, history will catch up to that.
                    I think GW was a pretty decent president, as in competent and realistic, but what did he do that was great? Rinse away the Vietnam failure stink?
                    Enjoy.

                    Comment

                    • phillygirl
                      Not superior, just kind
                      • Wednesday, October 2, 2013
                      • 19840

                      #11
                      Originally posted by Celeste Chalfonte View Post
                      And??? The part about him having been involved with PP in 1947 is confirmed accurate. The "spin" the piece put on it is labeled "uncertain." Either way, 1) the so-called "patriarch" of the Bushes was not anti-abortion and 2) by labeling it "for amusement," I would have thought you would get that I didn't think it had any particular bearing on the politics of the current Bush.
                      What is "accurate" is that there was on letter found where he was listed as Treasurer for an organization that was in favor of birth control, mostly diaphrams and condoms, for married people. It was not about abortion, nor was it PP. I have no idea where he stood on abortion.

                      I know you put "amusement" so I knew you didn't necessarily give it weight, however I wanted you to know that the amusement part is not necessarily accurate or true.
                      Not where I breathe, but where I love, I live...
                      Robert Southwell, S.J.

                      Comment

                      • Michele
                        Senior Member
                        • Wednesday, October 2, 2013
                        • 13964

                        #12
                        Originally posted by phillygirl View Post
                        What is "accurate" is that there was on letter found where he was listed as Treasurer for an organization that was in favor of birth control, mostly diaphrams and condoms, for married people. It was not about abortion, nor was it PP. I have no idea where he stood on abortion.

                        I know you put "amusement" so I knew you didn't necessarily give it weight, however I wanted you to know that the amusement part is not necessarily accurate or true.
                        ...or selling body parts.

                        I guess if that's amusing then so is Clinton's demonizing republicans while her father was a loyal one. Although there might be something Freudian there, families don't always pass down the same political philosophy throughout generations.
                        May we raise children who love the unloved things - the dandelion, the worm, the spiderlings.
                        Children who sense the rose needs the thorn and run into rainswept days the same way they turn towards the sun...
                        And when they're grown and someone has to speak for those who have no voice,
                        may they draw upon that wilder bond, those days of tending tender things and be the one.

                        Comment

                        • scott
                          Go-to Guru
                          • Tuesday, October 1, 2013
                          • 15799

                          #13
                          Originally posted by Celeste Chalfonte View Post
                          And??? The part about him having been involved with PP in 1947 is confirmed accurate. The "spin" the piece put on it is labeled "uncertain." Either way, 1) the so-called "patriarch" of the Bushes was not anti-abortion and 2) by labeling it "for amusement," I would have thought you would get that I didn't think it had any particular bearing on the politics of the current Bush.
                          Planned Parenthood didn't perform abortions in 1947, so how does that indicate any position had by Prescott Bush?
                          "Faith is nothing but a firm assent of the mind : which, if it be regulated, as is our duty, cannot be afforded to anything but upon good reason, and so cannot be opposite to it."
                          -John Locke

                          "It's all been melded together into one giant, authoritarian, leftist scream."
                          -Newman

                          "Grievance groups are playing King of the Hill."
                          -Newman

                          Comment

                          • Norm dePlume
                            Err foil
                            • Tuesday, October 22, 2013
                            • 14904

                            #14
                            Originally posted by scott View Post
                            Planned Parenthood didn't perform abortions in 1947, so how does that indicate any position had by Prescott Bush?
                            So he has no more to do with the modern Planned Parenthood than, say, Margaret Sanger.
                            Enjoy.

                            Comment

                            • scott
                              Go-to Guru
                              • Tuesday, October 1, 2013
                              • 15799

                              #15
                              Originally posted by Norm dePlume View Post
                              So he has no more to do with the modern Planned Parenthood than, say, Margaret Sanger.
                              No. She favored birth control over abortion at some point, but she agreed with using abortion as birth control.

                              "Faith is nothing but a firm assent of the mind : which, if it be regulated, as is our duty, cannot be afforded to anything but upon good reason, and so cannot be opposite to it."
                              -John Locke

                              "It's all been melded together into one giant, authoritarian, leftist scream."
                              -Newman

                              "Grievance groups are playing King of the Hill."
                              -Newman

                              Comment

                              Working...