[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny" "Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is" Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner. Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally "It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive' (Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl "Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race" He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom! "Kamala’s Inane Talking Points" "The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics" Easy Drywall Patch Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind" Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’ Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer? hurricanes and heat waves are Worse 'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA. Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence. Tenn. AG reveals ICE released thousands of ‘murderers and rapists’ from detention centers into US streets Kamala Harris Touts Mass Amnesty Offering Fast-Tracked Citizenship to Nearly Every Illegal Alien in U.S. Migration Crisis Fueled Rise in Tuberculosis Cases Study Finds "They’re Going to Try to Kill Trump Again" "Dems' Attempts at Power Grab Losing Their Grip" "Restoring a ‘Great Moderation’ in Fiscal Policy" "As attacks intensify, Trump becomes more popular" Posting Articles Now Working Here Another Test Testing Kamala Harris, reparations, and guaranteed income Did Mudboy Slim finally kill this place? "Why Young Americans Are Not Taught about Evil" Status: Not Logged In; Sign In 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: 15409 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%. Trump is at 17 percent, Walker at 12 percent, Rubio at 10 percent, Carson at 9 percent, Ted Cruz at 7 percent, Fiorina at 7 percent, Bush at 5 percent, Kasich at 3 percent, Huckabee at 2 percent, Paul at 2 percent, and Christie at 2 percent. 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 # 98. #10. To: All (#0) A bit more on about these online polls. NeoNeocon, 8/11/15: Let’s talk about polling One thing I’ve noticed is that all of the post-debate polls I’ve located so far (except two that only deal with Iowa; see this and this) are online polls.[* see below] Now, they’re not the sort of online polls that have no science whatsoever to them, where anyone can vote over and over and they’re easy to game (usually by Paul-supporters, although I don’t see them having the same enthusiasm for Rand as they did for Ron). These recent post-debate online post-debate polls are better than that; for example, they try to weight their subjects as regards party affiliation, etc. But as unreliable as ordinary polls can be, these tend to be even more unreliable. So I doubt that we know all that well who has really gotten a bump from the debate, who has fallen, and who has remained the same, although we know what people on blogs are saying and what the pundits are writing. We also know whose coffers are getting an infusion of money (Fiorina) and who is going broke (Perry, who I predict will drop out fairly soon if that report is correct). Putting that aside, here’s a question I’d like to see answered in future polls: who did you vote for in the last presidential election? I have a completely untested theory that quite a few of those who say their favorite candidate is Trump and that they will vote for him in the primary are people who previously had been so turned off by politics and the GOP that they quit voting a while ago. I would predict that perhaps a third of them hadn’t voted in 2012 (or wrote in a candidate), and hadn’t planned to vote in 2016 except for Trump’s candidacy. Another question that interests me regarding polling is one that was broached by commenter “beth”: There is an interesting thing about these polls and even Steven Crowder has picked up on it, can you find anyone who says they are voting for Bush? I can’t. Do any of you know anyone? How in the heck is he in 2nd and 3rd place? Beth is voicing what I’d call the Pauline Kael fallacy (actually, the pseudo fallacy, because Kael was somewhat misquoted). Just because you or I don’t know a single person who is supporting Bush doesn’t mean such people don’t exist. Actually, I hardly know anyone who votes Republican to begin with, but the few I know are not Bush-supporters. However, Bush has a lot of money, so somebody out there likes him. There are still quite a few moderate Republicans around, and in fact I know one of them quite well, although I haven’t talked to her recently and I certainly haven’t talked to her about the election. But she is what used to be known as a “country-club Republican.” She was raised a Republican in a very country-clubby family and still lives that sort of life, for the most part. She’s also what you might call a Republican LIV; doesn’t pay all that much attention to politics but almost always votes and votes Republican. As I said, I don’t talk to her often and haven’t talked to her this election cycle. But if I had to guess, she’s a Bush supporter. She’s not alone in her political viewpoints and background, either. That’s where his support comes from, I believe—that and the Chamber of Commerce-ers (a certain amount of overlap there, I’d guess). I believe the polls are accurately reflecting those groups, although they’re not groups whose representatives you find on blogs all that often. They’ve got better things to do, especially in the summer: golf, sailing, drinks on the patio, you know the drill. I’ll have to remember to ask her next time I see her, because now I’ve gotten curious. So, do you know any Bush-supporters? [ADDENDUM: Nate Silver has an interesting take on the Trump polling figures and what they mean.] [* Commenter “jack” has offered a link to a post-debate Rasmussen poll.] Tooconservative  posted on  2015-08-12   10:45:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #14. To: All (#10) And more from Nate Silver: Donald Trump Is Winning The Polls — And Losing The Nomination Twelve years ago, in August 2003, Joe Lieberman led in most polls of the Democratic primary. Eight years ago, in August 2007, Rudy Giuliani maintained a clear lead in polls of Republicans, while Hillary Clinton led in polls of the Democratic nomination contest. Four years ago, in August 2011, Mitt Romney began with the lead in polls of Republican voters, but he would be surpassed by the end of the month by Rick Perry, the first of four Republican rivals who would at some point overtake Romney in national polling averages. Lieberman, Clinton, Giuliani and Perry, as you’ve probably gathered, are not the faces atop Mount Rushmore. Only Clinton came close to winning the nomination. But the problem isn’t just that the national polls at this stage in the race lack empirical power to predict the nomination; it’s also that they describe a fiction. I don’t mean to suggest that Donald Trump’s support in the polls is “fake.” I have no doubt that some people really love him or that he’d be the favorite if you held a national, winner-take-all Republican primary tomorrow. However, the “election” these polls describe is hypothetical in at least five ways: They contemplate a vote today, but we’re currently 174 days from the Iowa caucuses. They contemplate a national primary, but states vote one at a time or in small groups. They contemplate a race with 17 candidates, but several candidates will drop out before Iowa and several more will drop out before the other states vote. They contemplate1 a winner-take-all vote, but most states are not winner-take-all. They contemplate a vote among all Republican-leaning registered voters or adults, but in fact only a small fraction of them will turn out for primaries and caucuses. This is why it’s exasperating that the mainstream media has become obsessed with how Trump is performing in these polls. Media: Trump's doing great! Nerds: No. Those polls don't mean what you think. Media: A new poll shows Trump doing great! Proved you wrong! — Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) August 9, 2015 So you should ignore those national polls entirely? In a literal sense, they do have some correlation with election outcomes: Even this far out, a candidate near the top of the polls is a somewhat better bet to win the nomination than one near the bottom. But that’s like projecting a major league pitcher’s numbers from high school stats: Sure, you’d rather draft a random 17-year-old with a 2.14 ERA than another one with a 3.31 ERA if that’s all the information you have to go by. But that data doesn’t reveal very much, and its predictive power tends to be swamped by other indicators (everything from the pitcher’s strikeout-to-walk ratio to his scouting reports). In the case of presidential primaries, indicators such as endorsements and support from party elites tend to be more reliable indicators of eventual success. To the extent that you’re looking at polls, you should probably adjust for name recognition and the amount of media attention a candidate is receiving. And you should account for favorability numbers and second-choice preferences, since all but a few candidates will eventually drop out of the running. It’s possible — pretty easy, in fact — for a candidate to improve his standing in the polls while he simultaneously lowers his chance to become the nominee. Currently, the average GOP voter has a favorable view of seven Republican candidates; being agreeable won’t help you stand out in the near term, even though the nomination is a consensus-building process in the long term. What about being a jerk? If you can make yourself the center of attention — and no candidate in modern memory has been more skilled at that than Trump — you can potentially turn the polls into a referendum on your candidacy. It’s possible that many GOP voters are thinking about the race in just that way now. First, they ask themselves whether they would vote for Trump; if not, they then choose among the 16 other candidates. The neat thing about this is that you can overwhelmingly lose the majority in the referendum — 75 percent of Republicans are not voting for Trump — and yet still hold the plurality so long as the “no” vote is divided among a sufficient number of alternatives. Another trade-off comes from entrenching your appeal with a narrow segment of the electorate at the expense of broadening your coalition. I’ve seen a lot written about how Trump’s candidacy heralds a new type of populism. If it does, this type of populism isn’t actually very popular. Trump’s overall favorability ratings2 are miserable, about 30 percent favorable and 60 percent unfavorable, and they haven’t improved (whatever gains he’s made among Republicans have been offset by his declines among independents and Democrats). To some extent, the 30 percent may like Trump precisely because they know the 60 percent don’t like him. More power to the 30 percent: I have plenty of my own issues with the political establishment. But running a campaign that caters to (for lack of a better term) contrarians is exactly how you ensure that you’ll never reach a majority.3 At FiveThirtyEight, however, we’re fairly agnostic about what will happen to Trump’s polling in the near term. It’s possible that he’s already peaked — or that he’ll hold his support all the way through Iowa and New Hampshire, possibly even winning one or two early states, as similar candidates like Pat Buchanan and Newt Gingrich have in the past.4 Our emphatic prediction is simply that Trump will not win the nomination. It’s not even clear that he’s trying to do so. Read more: “The Bernie Sanders Surge Appears To Be Over“ Footnotes At least in the way the media usually interprets them. ^ That is, among all Americans, not just Republicans. ^ Nor, in all likelihood, could Trump win with a plurality of votes or delegates because the Republican Party, which controls the nomination process, would unite against him. ^ There are a lot of in-between cases, of course: Trump could hold his support until a few weeks before the voting starts and then see it collapse rather suddenly, as happened to Howard Dean in 2004. ^ Nate Silver is the founder and editor in chief of FiveThirtyEight. Tooconservative  posted on  2015-08-12   11:00:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #39. To: TooConservative (#14) You know I'm getting the distinct impression that some people are getting upset that you aren't wearing a set of Trump kneepads. CZ82  posted on  2015-08-12   13:30:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #43. To: CZ82, Fred Mertz, tomder55, GarySpFc, buckeroo (#39) You know I'm getting the distinct impression that some people are getting upset that you aren't wearing a set of Trump kneepads. Deep down, they know I'm right. But, like a teenage girl on a fling with some punk their mother disapproves of and their father would like to punch out, you can't talk them out of their summer crush. It's the only logical explanation. Sorry I didn't give you some credit. Fred too, maybe Gary, I guess. And tomder as well. You have to admit, LF has rarely had so many posts. So Trump is good for business at Fox News and at LibertysFlame.     : ) Tooconservative  posted on  2015-08-12   13:50:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #81. To: TooConservative (#43) So Trump is good for business at Fox News and at LibertysFlame. : ) To me Trump keeps stepping on his own dick and before long will only have the support of the "hard cores". He has to learn to "Engage brain before engaging mouth" if he wants to have a chance... CZ82  posted on  2015-08-12   18:51:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #84. To: CZ82 (#81) He has to learn to "Engage brain before engaging mouth" if he wants to have a chance... He really needs to study. Basic stuff about the world, about the actual policy issues. He makes Sarah Palin look like a genius by comparison. He's lived in his little Donald Trump World in NYC for so long, he doesn't pay attention to a lot of issues that the country will expect its next president to know something about. Walker's and Bush's preparedness are questioned but Trump doesn't even qualify. Plus, he flipflops around on issues like funding or defunding PP. Who knows what he thinks about it? No one. Tooconservative  posted on  2015-08-12   19:11:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #92. To: TooConservative (#84) He's lived in his little Donald Trump World in NYC for so long Yea it's a place where everybody says "Yes sir" no matter what crap comes out of his mouth... CZ82  posted on  2015-08-12   19:24:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #95. To: CZ82 (#92) Yea it's a place where everybody says "Yes sir" no matter what crap comes out of his mouth... You really notice how he refuses to appear on TV for interviews despite the fact that Trump Tower is only a few blocks from the major news studios. Instead, he won't leave his penthouse and travel a few blocks to appear like any other candidate engaging with the press in a normal campaign about issues. Raising the non-campaign of Alf Landon was not just an idle remark. Trump really doesn't travel well. Recall his attempt to run in 2012 when he flew his Trumpcopter up to NH for a big announcement. He got about 75 reporters there, kinda hemhawed around, told them he's the greatest, and then flew back to NYC, not to be heard from again. Trump has fizzled when it came to actual campaigning before. Tooconservative  posted on  2015-08-12   19:29:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #96. To: TooConservative (#95) Raising the non-campaign of Alf Landon was not just an idle remark. Damn that was waaaaaayyy before my time... CZ82  posted on  2015-08-12   19:39:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #98. To: CZ82, Vicomte13, Pericles (#96) Damn that was waaaaaayyy before my time... The 1940 election was even worse. The GOP nominee ended up as such an admirer of FDR's that he went to work for him. Wendell Lewis Willkie (February 18, 1892 – October 8, 1944) was a corporate lawyer in the United States and a dark horse who became the Republican Party nominee for president in 1940. A member of the liberal wing of the party, he crusaded against those domestic policies of the New Deal that he thought were inefficient and anti-business. Willkie, an internationalist,[2] needed the votes of the large isolationist element, so he waffled on the bitterly debated issue of America's role in World War II, losing support from both sides. His opponent, incumbent President Franklin D. Roosevelt, won the 1940 election with 55% of the popular vote and 85% of the electoral vote. Afterward, Roosevelt found Willkie to be compatible politically with his plans and brought him aboard as an informal ambassador-at-large. Willkie criss-crossed the globe and brought home a vision of "One World" freed from imperialism and colonialism. Following his journeys, Willkie wrote One World; a bestselling account of his travels and meetings with the Allied heads of state, as well as ordinary citizens and soldiers in regions such as Russia and Iran.[3] His liberalism lost him supporters in the Republican Party and he dropped out of the 1944 race, then several months later died of a heart attack. Wilkie did at least do enough to somewhat revive the GOP after Landon's disastrous non-campaign in '36. And people think the GOPe is horrible and pathetic today but it was totally sucky back in the Thirties. What if Romney had taken an administration job with Obama after he lost the 2012 race? Yeow. Tooconservative  posted on  2015-08-12   19:50:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 98. #105. To: TooConservative (#98) Ummm, hello, 1940. WORLD WAR II! National unity was more important than party. And the Republicans had a lot to atone for too, considering that they blocked every effort to get involved earlier to stop Hitler. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-08-12 20:19:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   End Trace Mode for Comment # 98. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com