politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: Yes, Trump Lost the Debate
Source:
National Review
URL Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/corne ... 4/trump-lost-debate-rich-lowry
Published: Aug 12, 2015
Author: Rich Lowry
Post Date: 2015-08-12 09:37:23 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 15588
Comments: 132
Per this Suffolk University survey in Iowa that is not an online poll like many of the other post-debate surveys. Trump didn’t suffer a catastrophe (he still leads in the state), but the debate hurt him: The Suffolk survey has warning signs for Trump. By 2-1, 55%-23%, those surveyed say watching Trump in the debate made them feel less comfortable rather than more comfortable with him as a candidate for president. A 54% majority also reject Trump’s complaints that he was treated unfairly by the Fox News anchors who served as moderators; 41% agree with him. And a third of Iowa Republicans say Trump – enmeshed in a post-debate contretemps over his comments about Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly – “doesn’t show appropriate respect for women.” A larger number, 46%, side with the real-estate mogul and reality-TV star, saying criticism of his comments about women “are just examples of political correctness.” Then there’s this: Trump scores a big lead among those who didn’t watch the debate, at 21%, double the standing of retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, who finishes second at 10%. But among those who watched the debate, Trump does less well, tied with Walker at 14%. Meanwhile, Trump still leads in New Hampshire, but is lower than he had been in prior surveys: BREAKING: NEW @FPUniversity /@bostonherald NH POLL @realDonaldTrump 18% @JebBush 13% @JohnKasich 12% @CarlyFiorina 9% pic.twitter.com/lXa1NZ6JAF— Boston Herald Radio (@HeraldRadio) August 11, 2015 And Rasmussen has Trump losing altitude nationally: The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds Trump with 17% support among Likely Republican Primary Voters, down from 26% in late July before the first GOP debate. Senator Marco Rubio and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush are in second place with 10% support each, in a near tie with Fiorina and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker who both earn nine percent (9%) of the likely primary vote. Next with eight percent (8%) come retired neurologist Dr. Ben Carson and Senator Ted Cruz at seven percent (7%). (To see survey question wording, click here.) Poster Comment: Trump's highest Suffolk poll standing in IA is among people who didn't watch the debate. So Trump polls best among Iowa's Know-Nothings. He could have advocated full-blown Soviet communism and still been their pick. You can't deny that NR is still a hotbed of Trump haters ("Witless Ape Rides Escalator") so take it all, like any these goofy August name-recognition polls, with a big grain of salt.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 130.
#69. To: All (#0)
(Edited)
More Trump related polling. Another new online poll here via HotAir. Alternate headline: “Blogger to start gaming out President Trump’s possible VP nominees.” On the one hand, as noted by my pal Karl, this poll was conducted using Google Consumer Surveys. If you’re wary of online polls, especially ones like this that attempt to “infer” important demographic data about respondents based on their browsing history and IP, then discount these results accordingly. On the other hand, Echelon Insights is operated by Kristen Soltis Anderson and Patrick Ruffini, two of the right’s brighter lights in political data crunching. They wouldn’t have published this poll if they didn’t have good statistical reasons to think it’s accurate, I’m sure. Pop the champagne, Trump fans. And make sure it’s only the finest champagne. The classiest. Footnote: Trump actually dropped three points since the debate. Echelon had him at 32 percent in their last poll. Still, good news on balance given his team’s fears that Megyn Kelly and the Fox crew had turned the public against him. And as many other polls have detected, his support isn’t limited to tea partiers or conservative Republicans. He’s at 26 percent or better here among “traditional conservatives,” “centrists,” and even “libertarians”(!). (Among that same group of libertarians, Rand Paul finished … eighth.) Another point in favor of thinking the poll’s broadly accurate is that it’s picking up major movement for Carly Fiorina, the one candidate more than anyone else whom everyone expected to move after her stellar performance last Thursday. She gained six points since last week overall; among people who actually watched the debate, of which there were many thanks to Trump, she leaped nine points to 12 percent. Rubio, another top debate performer, also hit 12 percent among people who watched. Among people who didn’t, he and Fiorina were stuck at four percent each. So where do we stand now that we’re halfway through the week, with a bunch of post-debate polls under our belts? Harry Enten of FiveThirtyEight looked at the gains and losses across the various surveys that have come out since the debate was held and found that the “winner,” by consensus, is pretty much who everyone thought won on Thursday night. Fiorina’s improvement isn’t surprising. Scott Walker’s deterioration is, given that the consensus on social media was that he’d been low-key and a bit dull at the debate but hadn’t said anything that should damage him. Walker may be suffering here from high expectations: He’s one of the few candidates whom even low-information Republicans might have heard of going in, thanks to his war with labor in Wisconsin a few years ago and his big poll surge earlier this year. Some segment of Walker fans may have had him as their default “not Trump and not Bush either” choice and then dumped him when he underwhelmed at the debate. (The main beneficiaries from that, I assume, are Rubio and Cruz.) Trump, meanwhile, suffered a modest average loss of just 2.3 points, but that’s really only thanks to the surprising Morning Consult poll from a few days ago showing him gaining seven points after the debate. Five of the other six post-debate polls had him losing ground, and four of them had him sliding four points or more. That’s a bad sign, but when you’re sitting on a 20-point lead, you can slip a little without worry. I’ll bet he prepares for the CNN debate next month no matter what his staff is telling the media about Mr. Authentic refusing to rehearse.
It'll be Jeb. Which means it'll be Hillary or Biden.
It is not too late to stop Bush. In 2012, if the grassroots had united around a single candidate and stuck with him no matter what, Romney could not have been the nominee. The Tea folk do seem, in my reading, to understand this. I think they are flirting around for now but a lot of people will realize they need to pick one guy to stop Bush. And Scott Walker just happens to be almost everyone's second pick (if he isn't their first pick) and has held that position consistently since polling started on the GOP field. This would not be the first time that everyone's second pick overcame their first picks. It is true of presidents and often of electing popes as well and for the same very human reasons.
Yep. And Trump is your man, at least if you want my help. If not him, then Huckabee. No? Ok, then Carson. Not him either? Well, then, shucks, how about...Santorum? No. Can't win. Who's left then? Paul...eesh...ok. Then the rest of your party revolts. They won't have him. Fiorina? No. Pataki? No. Our list of options grows thin. Rubio? Is he really pro-life? Ok. But he'll lose the general. Walker? Is he really pro-life? Ok. But he'll lose the general. Meh. Too much work. I'll stick for the Donald. Not really interested in the seven dwarves.
One debate in August -- and with a volatile frontrunner like Trump -- and you're ready to award Trump the nomination by acclamation. How do you know if he has any idea (or intention) of assembling a real campaign? Recall the 1936 GOP candidacy of Alf Landon in 1936. Or the equally embarrassing GOP campaign of 1940. What's yer hurry? Don't you want to even see if Trump is going to campaign? BTW, Trump's entire campaign is just a couple of people and no one with experience running a national campaign. AFAIK, they haven't even worked on a national presidential campaign. Like Perot, Trump has thus far been incredibly tight with campaign money and is not spending like a real candidate who is preparing to run a political operation in multiple states and then nationwide. The only guy he had, the disreputable Roger Stone, quit him last weekend. I didn't like Stone but he had political experience going back to the Nixon era. You might at least argue he was semi-professional for a 50+ state campaign. I keep wondering if Trump really is willing to do all the travel and do all the events expected of a presidential candidate. It's a pretty grueling schedule for over a year.
Trump can stand in one place, get the media, and reach the whole country. He is a celebrity, a star. He doesn't have to go shake hands in diners like nobody high-school class presidents who have worked their way up through the professional political cycle have to. He's not coming in to be a politician, he's a billionaire stepping in to the throne, and he fully intends to bypass all of the usual crap that common people have to do to get elected, by using his star power and money to do it his way. He has the eye and attention of the nation. Whatever he does, anywhere, gets attention. Nobody expects stars to go to diners. And he doesn't have to either, because people form an opinion of him from the broader brush media. They've had him in their living rooms and quoted them more than Obama. And everybody in the country has liked him in some way. They may have come to dislike him for his political positions or bluster, but at some point everybody did like him, and that's never true of a career politician. Career politicians are nobodies whom you have to encounter because they press themselves onto you for a job. Trump is already somebody. He's asking you to hire him for a few years for a specific task, a big task. He doesn't have a politician's equipment - and may not NEED it to get elected. People are sick of professional politicians and party hacks. We all see them as incompetent, corrupt, petty assholes. And we're right. Trump/Oprah is a brilliant ticket because it would certainly win. And no, they would not have to undergo a "grueling campaign". A few stops in a state to sold out crowds, televised everywhere, and they'd be rock stars. People pretend that Clinton was a rock star, or Obama, and as politicians they sort of were. But Trump is a TV star, and Oprah (yes, I'm having fun, but she IS eligible for the office, having at least one American citizen parent) - she's one of the most successful entertainers ever. Trump can do it his own way, and win. I'm going to support him no matter what. I've got no party. I hate both the parties. I look down on professional politicians. I don't think that what political people do with their lives is worthwhile. I do not view it as "serving me" or public service at all. I view it as a combination of c-rate theater and mob pressure on people. Politics diminishes the people who do it. Trump is interesting. He's not a politician, and that's to his benefit in getting people like me to follow him, and vote for him once. If it turns out to be a disaster, so what? LBJ was a disaster. Nixon was a disaster. Carter was a disaster. H.W. Bush was a disaster, and W Bush was a disaster. Trump cannot be worse than them. Unlike all of them, he actually successfully has run something hard, and real, for years. Rising in politics is not an achievement I respect, because I do not think that what politicians and civil servants do is really worthwhile activity. Nor do I think it is particularly hard, when compared with making money. Also, politicians do get rich, but that is entirely through corruption. Trump and real businessmen who have gotten rich actually did it in a way that seems straightforward and legal to me. I know, TL;DR Well, you're missing a lot.
Oprah is a racist c word. He was joking when he said that. Someone asked him about it at some Oprah event and he said sure or something to that effect.
No! Really? I'm crushed! Here I was hoping... Trump/Rubio is a real ticket that would unite the party and win the election, and then afterwards make the country better.
Trump isn't stupid enought to pick Rubio. If he did that I wouldn't vote for him.
If he did that I wouldn't vote for him. Rubio would be able to help deliver Florida plus hispanics, and some swooning ladies. He is the strongest GOPe candidate. As VP he could attend a lot of funerals all around the world. The VP has little function unless the president dies. If Trump falls out, Rubio could be the top of a ticket. It would be an interesting battle between Rubio and Bush as there can be only one. I would pick Rubio to prevail in that fight. Cruz is a good fit with Trump's message, and could deliver hispanics. I doubt the Dems could carry Texas if the GOP ran Alfred E. Neuman, so delivering Texas does not mean much. Cruz has the same negatives problem as Trump. Trump can do well in a crowded field, but unless he improves his favorability/unfavorability, when the field narrows, he may have difficulty attracting a majority or large plurality. 25% may win in a field of 17, but in a field of 4 or less it doesn't. It will also depend on who is on the other side and, more and more, it looks doubtful that will be Hillary. She has lost control of her server and her email nightmare. She has lost her lead in New Hampshire. And who would have thought Bernie Sanders would be filling stadiums with 20- to 30-thousand at a time?
Wonder how long it will be before she realizes this?? Or will she hang around and just try to destroy her opposition with all the dirt she has on them??
Or will she hang around and just try to destroy her opposition with all the dirt she has on them?? "Morpheus" Obama will give her the choice between the blue pill of prosecution and imprisonment for breaches of national security, or the red pill of stepping aside and endorsing Biden, in exchange for a full pardon after the election. She will take the red pill. There will be no drama. Also, the Clintons have been out of power for 15 years. Team Obama has been in power for 8. Team Obama is much more disciplined than the Arkansas Grifters were, and they have the CURRENT FBI and IRS files. Most of the "dirt" the Clinton's have has already passed the statute of limitations, and the powers that currently dominate the Democratic Party - Team Obama, not Team Clinton - will protect the Clintonites who come over to them, but will destroy the ones who fight for the Clintons. The Clintons are the past, and have not had their hands on current documents for a long time. Team Obama beat Team Clinton in a head to head fight in 2008, and has gotten stronger ever since. All they have left on the board now is the black Queen, and Obama is going to take her off the board without so much as a pawn sacrifice. The Clintons re done. Obama mortally wounded them in 2008, and now he will finish them off. Whether they go quietly into retirement, or fight and get dragged off in orange and in chains is up to Hillary. She submitted to the inevitable before, and she will do it again. It will be Biden. The best pick for Veep would be Sotomayor.
She will take the red pill. There will be no drama. I don't think she will take either pill, I think she's gonna ride it out and see where this all goes... Do you seriously think she's gonna end up in jail?? I don't that's not how it works in the political class and she knows it... The key word in all this is "SHE", think about it...
#131. To: CZ82 (#130)
Obama kicked Hillary's ass and publicly humiliated her in 2008, in a direct fight for power. He's a "Muslim Lite" and doesn't really give a shit about the sentiments of women. He is in command, he has her by the ovaries, he doesn't like her or her Team, and he means to maintain control of the Democrat Party. And he will. If Hillary does not take either pill and fights, Obama will prosecute her and the country will cheer, Biden will step in directly and take over the lead, everybody who wants a future in Hillary's camp will shift colors, and she will be defeated in open battle with Obama for the SECOND time. When she lost to him before, her husband had been the last popular Democrat President. But Obama is RIGHT NOW a popular Democrat President, one not impeached, and he controls the IRS and the FBI and uses it just like the Clintons did. Hillary cannot win. And she cannot win the fight within the party. By fighting to the death, that's what she will get: political death, and she will earn herself an actual prosecution and maybe a jail cell. If she takes on Obama face to face, part of his legacy will be to have made the Clintons pay for their crimes. He doesn't intend to, but this is a guy who will drone strike Americans if it suits his interests, and he destroys people who challenge him directly. Obama wins. That's the thing about the guy: he wins. He does that by "Community Organizing". And right now the "Community" he has organized is the intelligence community, the FBI, the CIA, and the Justice Department. Hillary doesn't get to set the terms - Obama is the President, the AG and the FBI works for him. The Clintons have not been near power for fifteen years. Hillary will take the red pill, develop a health problem, retire, and Biden will get her base and walk on to the Dem nomination. And he will win the election unless the Republicans run Trump.
If Trump wins she has a good chance of going to prison. Especially if he makes someone like Ted Cruz attorney general.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestEchelon Insights post-debate poll: Trump 29, Carson 10, Fiorina 9, Rubio 9, Bush 9
#70. To: TooConservative (#69)
Scott Walker’s deterioration is,
#73. To: Vicomte13 (#70)
It'll be Jeb. Which means it'll be Hillary or Biden.
#76. To: TooConservative (#73)
It is not too late to stop Bush.
#77. To: Vicomte13 (#76)
Meh. Too much work. I'll stick for the Donald. Not really interested in the seven dwarves.
Landon proved to be an ineffective campaigner who rarely traveled. Most of the attacks on FDR and Social Security were developed by Republican campaigners rather than Landon himself. In the two months after his nomination he made no campaign appearances. As columnist Westbrook Pegler lampooned, "Considerable mystery surrounds the disappearance of Alfred M. Landon of Topeka, Kansas.... The Missing Persons Bureau has sent out an alarm bulletin bearing Mr. Landon's photograph and other particulars, and anyone having information of his whereabouts is asked to communicate direct with the Republican National Committee."
#85. To: TooConservative (#77)
I keep wondering if Trump really is willing to do all the travel and do all the events expected of a presidential candidate. It's a pretty grueling schedule for over a year.
#91. To: Vicomte13 (#85)
Trump/Oprah is a brilliant ticket because it would certainly win.
#104. To: A K A Stone (#91)
He was joking when he said that.
#110. To: Vicomte13 (#104)
Trump/Rubio is a real ticket that would unite the party and win the election, and then afterwards make the country better.
#113. To: A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#110)
Trump isn't stupid enought to pick Rubio.
#115. To: nolu chan (#113)
It will also depend on who is on the other side and, more and more, it looks doubtful that will be Hillary.
#117. To: CZ82 (#115)
Wonder how long it will be before she realizes this??
#130. To: Vicomte13 (#117)
"Morpheus" Obama will give her the choice between the blue pill of prosecution and imprisonment for breaches of national security, or the red pill of stepping aside and endorsing Biden, in exchange for a full pardon after the election.
Replies to Comment # 130.
#132. To: CZ82 (#130)
End Trace Mode for Comment # 130.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]