It is very uncontroversial to say that Donald Trump is – well – controversial.
The Republican nominee for president has burned bridges with a number of communities: he mocked a reporter with a disability; he attacked the Muslim Gold Star parents of a fallen solider, alienating veterans and veterans’ families as well as Muslim-Americans; his attacks on women are too many to enumerate here, but a couple of highlights include the “grope” video describing how he sexually assaults women as well as his insinuation that moderator Megyn Kelly was perhaps menstruating during a Republican primary debate last year; he has also continuously suggested that black Americans live in some sort of post-apocalyptic hellscape.
Much to the chagrin of the majority of the United States electorate, none of these incidents seemed to dent Trump’s popularity among his support base, which helped reenforce the narrative of a viable Trump campaign by turning out in droves to his speaking events.
But as we edge closer to the end of this historically bizarre (and exceedingly long) election cycle, it appears a near-certainty that Trump will fall to Clinton on November 8. While Republican senate candidates are faring a little better than their toxic presidential nominee, the fact remains that the “Trump effect” has impacted their poll numbers. The result? Democrats are now the cautious favorite to retake the senate, dividing congress and sapping Republicans of the ability to completely stonewall a Clinton administration.
A quick look at the polling map lends some interesting insight into just how divisive Trump has been. Even if they still fall in Trump’s electoral basket come election day, Arizona, Texas, and Georgia have drifted very close to the toss-up column. This is a huge alarm for Republicans, who – following defeat to Barack Obama – drafted a plan to appeal to demographics pushed away by the Republican party’s rhetoric and policy, including millennials and Latin Americans.
Even before Trump’s scorched earth campaign, Republicans were worrying about demographic changes that indicate that traditionally safe conservative states – such as those mentioned above – could become more competitive as soon as the year 2020. This cycle did the party no favors; the political transition underway in conservative states may accelerate as Trump’s strategy of catering to white nationalist voters has alienated large swaths of the population Republicans were eager to mollify.
Republicans’ task of broadening their appeal will only be further complicated by a post-election Trump, who – analysts are suggesting – could use his formidable base and powerful media allies to target GOP leadership for failing to adequately support the pugnacious nominee. This “Republican civil war” could end in a number of ways. Perhaps it will end with a more 21st century party in-tune with contemporary social norms, women’s rights, and climate change. Or, the party could dissolve entirely.
We’ll have to wait and see.
#32: ConservingFreedom To: Gatlin (#31)
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-10-28 11:58:31 Reply Private Reply
#33: A K A Stone To: ConservingFreedom (#30)
thehill.com/blogs/ballot-...s/301834-poll-trump-up-1- on-clinton-nationally
hotair.com/archives/2016/...nal-poll-trump-ahead-one- point-4140/
www.westernjournalism.com...trump-moves-past-clinton- to-claim-the-lead/
There are a few there are more.
A K A Stone posted on 2016-10-28 15:16:37 Reply Private Reply
#34: ConservingFreedom To: A K A Stone (#33)
Those are two stories on the same poll. But your larger point is correct: looking at RCP's more-than-2-candidate polls, and sorting 538 by date as I originally failed to do :-[ , there have been a handful of pollsters who at some point have shown Trump with a narrow lead.
I continue to not buy that with those few exceptions, every one of dozens of organizations is knowingly diminishing its brand value with bad forecasts.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-10-28 15:43:27 Reply Private Reply
#35: Roscoe To: ConservingFreedom (#34)
When has push-polling and misrepresenting poll results ever hurt their brand?
Roscoe posted on 2016-10-28 16:27:13 Reply Private Reply
#36: Roscoe To: Gatlin (#31)
But Gallop would never hurt their "brand."
Roscoe posted on 2016-10-28 16:29:47 Reply Private Reply
#37: ConservingFreedom To: Roscoe (#36)
One or a few pollsters might - but dozens?
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-10-28 16:34:17 Reply Private Reply
#38: ConservingFreedom To: Roscoe (#35)
When have pollsters ever released the results of push-polls as real results ... or, indeed, released them at all?
Misrepresenting accurate results wouldn't affect their reps as providers of accurate results.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-10-28 16:37:27 Reply Private Reply
#39: Roscoe To: ConservingFreedom (#37)
Your "brand' argument is self-serving nonsense.
Roscoe posted on 2016-10-28 16:37:57 Reply Private Reply
#40: Roscoe To: ConservingFreedom (#37)
"Pollsters vastly underestimated a Republican wave in the 2014 midterms, and last month had an epic fail in the Michigan Democratic primary, with the poll average predicting Hillary Clinton would crush Bernie Sanders by 21 points. When Sanders upset Clinton by 1.5 percent, polling aggregator Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com — who had given the Vermont senator just a 1 percent chance of winning — deemed it 'among the greatest polling errors in primary history.'" --The problem with polls
Put some ice on it.
Roscoe posted on 2016-10-28 16:52:31 Reply Private Reply
#41: ConservingFreedom To: Roscoe (#39)
Those who purchase, or heed, their results - by ceasing to do so.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-10-28 17:29:19 Reply Private Reply
#42: ConservingFreedom To: Roscoe (#40)
Leads with a general underestimation of a Rat victory, and does not say the errors were committed knowingly as is the topic of discussion.
Put some ice on it.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-10-28 17:37:11 Reply Private Reply
#43: Roscoe To: ConservingFreedom (#41)
You mean like they did after Michigan?
Epic fail.
Roscoe posted on 2016-10-28 19:00:06 Reply Private Reply
#44: Roscoe To: ConservingFreedom (#42)
"Pollsters vastly underestimated a Republican wave in the 2014 midterms, and last month had an epic fail in the Michigan Democratic primary, with the poll average predicting Hillary Clinton would crush Bernie Sanders by 21 points. When Sanders upset Clinton by 1.5 percent, polling aggregator Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com — who had given the Vermont senator just a 1 percent chance of winning — deemed it 'among the greatest polling errors in primary history.'"
Liar. You were spewing "brand" nonsense.
Roscoe posted on 2016-10-28 19:02:19 Reply Private Reply
#45: ConservingFreedom To: Roscoe (#43)
Straws. Camels.
Apparently you're the pussy Trump wants to grab.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-10-28 22:38:13 Reply Private Reply
#46: ConservingFreedom To: Roscoe (#44)
Me, post #15: "Every single one of dozens of organizations is knowingly diminishing its brand value with bad forecasts? No sale."
The liar is, as always, you.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-10-28 22:39:27 Reply Private Reply
#47: Roscoe To: ConservingFreedom (#46)
You argued that bad forecasts would damage their brand, therefore they wouldn't deliberately produce such results. I can understand why would want to flee your premise, to the point of pretending is wasn't your actual argument.
I've already demolished your brand premise, showing massive large scale bad polling results. Your premise demolished, you crawled back then to your invalid conclusion. The logic abilities of a tpaine.
Let's review: "Pollsters vastly underestimated a Republican wave in the 2014 midterms, and last month had an epic fail in the Michigan Democratic primary, with the poll average predicting Hillary Clinton would crush Bernie Sanders by 21 points."
You haven't shown that those massive bad results damaged any of those pollsters brands. When you take a break from sniffing Hillary's cunt, would you like to at least try to address your "brand" premise that crashed and burned so spectacularly?
Roscoe posted on 2016-10-29 05:38:16 Reply Private Reply
#48: CZ82 To: Willie Green (#0)
CZ82 posted on 2016-10-29 08:47:58 Reply Private Reply
#49: Willie Green To: CZ82 (#48)
Willie Green posted on 2016-10-29 10:53:09 Reply Private Reply
#50: Roscoe To: CZ82 (#48)
After losing the race for the Presidency, Hillary Clinton retired and spent her final sad days puttering around in her garden. She jealously noticed that her even more elderly neighbor, Bernie Sanders, had a garden full of big healthy red tomatoes, but that her tomatoes were all sickly and green. She finally asked Bernie for his gardening secret, and he told her, "Every morning I expose myself in my garden and the tomatoes turn red from embarrassment." For the next few weeks Hillary followed Bernie's example in her own garden, but without the results she hoped for. Not only did her tomatoes stay sickly and green, all of her cucumbers shrank.
Roscoe posted on 2016-10-29 10:59:49 Reply Private Reply
#51: ConservingFreedom To: Roscoe (#47)
One primary is not "large scale." You want to believe that pollsters saw in their surviving their blown 2014 a blank check to forecast any damn thing they please, you go ahead and believe that.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-10-29 16:04:17 Reply Private Reply
#52: Roscoe To: ConservingFreedom (#51)
"...the poll average predicting Hillary Clinton would crush Bernie Sanders by 21 points."
You pathetic cunt sniffing liar.
Roscoe posted on 2016-10-29 17:50:48 Reply Private Reply
#53: misterwhite To: ConservingFreedom (#38)
If they oversampled Democrats by 50%, wouldn't their results still be accurate? Certainly not representative, but still accurate given the sample.
Weasel.
misterwhite posted on 2016-10-29 18:27:37 Reply Private Reply
#54: misterwhite To: Roscoe (#52)
I object to your description!
It's more accurate to say, "You condescending cunt sniffing liar".
misterwhite posted on 2016-10-29 18:30:53 Reply Private Reply
#55: Roscoe To: misterwhite (#54)
Roscoe posted on 2016-10-29 18:38:08 Reply Private Reply
#56: misterwhite To: ConservingFreedom (#15)
The Tribune is still in business, pumping out liberal lies.
misterwhite posted on 2016-10-29 18:44:04 Reply Private Reply
#57: misterwhite To: Roscoe (#55)
Yeah ... well.
misterwhite posted on 2016-10-29 18:44:52 Reply Private Reply
#58: Roscoe To: misterwhite (#56)
Roscoe posted on 2016-10-29 18:46:01 Reply Private Reply
#59: ConservingFreedom To: misterwhite (#53)
I don't agree with that definition of "accurate" and don't use it.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-10-29 19:00:22 Reply Private Reply
#60: ConservingFreedom To: misterwhite (#56)
And from this pollsters have concluded they have a blank check to forecast any damn thing they please? You go ahead and believe that if you want.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-10-29 19:03:41 Reply Private Reply
#61: Roscoe To: ConservingFreedom (#60)
Roscoe posted on 2016-10-29 19:04:59 Reply Private Reply
#62: ConservingFreedom To: Roscoe (#61)
Take your horse fantasies elsewhere.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-10-29 19:09:41 Reply Private Reply
#63: misterwhite To: ConservingFreedom (#60)
Pollsters, weather forecasters and union members -- all bulletproof.
misterwhite posted on 2016-10-29 20:44:05 Reply Private Reply
#64: Vinny To: ConservingFreedom (#60)
Vinny posted on 2016-10-29 21:58:24 Reply Private Reply
#65: ConservingFreedom To: Vinny (#64)
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-10-29 22:44:31 Reply Private Reply
#66: ConservingFreedom To: misterwhite (#63)
They make no attempt to be accurate? Those weather system predictions they show are from random generators?
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-10-29 22:48:12 Reply Private Reply
#67: Roscoe To: misterwhite (#63)
You dare question Global Warming/Climate Change?!
Roscoe posted on 2016-10-30 01:30:17 Reply Private Reply
#68: Vinny To: ConservingFreedom (#65)
My words do mean something. The Constitution Party that you keep pushing was registered in 44 states in 2012 and received app. 2700 votes in each of those states. More people attend one Friday night HS football game than vote for the CP. Your party isn't simply a non factor, it's an embarrassment.
Vinny posted on 2016-10-30 09:44:17 Reply Private Reply
#69: misterwhite To: Roscoe (#67)
No, Great and Powerul! Not at all! I ... uh ... was referring to weather. That's it! Weather. Not climate change.
I do believe in climate change. I do believe in climate change. I do! I do! I do!
How about if I come back tomorrow?
misterwhite posted on 2016-10-30 10:40:49 Reply Private Reply
#70: misterwhite To: ConservingFreedom (#66)
My point is, when they are wrong it's never held against them.
misterwhite posted on 2016-10-30 10:45:07 Reply Private Reply
#71: misterwhite To: Vinny (#68)
Yet, but those voters are "sending a message". And that message is, "I'm too stupid to vote".
misterwhite posted on 2016-10-30 10:47:52 Reply Private Reply
#72: misterwhite To: ConservingFreedom (#59)
You use the word and when you do others apply that definition. You need to either explain your word or use another. People may begin to think you're being disingenuous.
misterwhite posted on 2016-10-30 10:53:29 Reply Private Reply
#73: Vinny To: misterwhite (#71)
They might as well write in Pat Paulsen.
Vinny posted on 2016-10-30 12:18:45 Reply Private Reply
#74: misterwhite To: Vinny (#73)
My uncle!
misterwhite posted on 2016-10-30 12:42:46 Reply Private Reply
#75: Pericles To: Willie Green (#0)
Pericles posted on 2016-10-30 13:49:04 Reply Private Reply
#76: Roscoe To: misterwhite (#72)
Roscoe posted on 2016-10-30 15:09:49 Reply Private Reply
#77: misterwhite To: Roscoe (#76)
With Comey's announcement they now have the excuse to show the true polling results.
"Trump was down 20 points but, given this newest FBI revelation, he's now up by 6."
misterwhite posted on 2016-10-30 15:24:39 Reply Private Reply
#78: ConservingFreedom To: Vinny (#68)
Oh, you think I support them with the idea they might win ... how very stupid of you.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-10-30 18:14:11 Reply Private Reply
#79: ConservingFreedom To: misterwhite (#72)
Anyone besides you?
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-10-30 18:15:52 Reply Private Reply
#80: ConservingFreedom To: Roscoe (#76)
"Mrs. Clinton would have actually led in The Upshot’s survey if it, like most others, didn’t weight by party registration."
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-10-30 18:23:31 Reply Private Reply
#81: ConservingFreedom To: misterwhite (#70)
They must fear it might be, else why bother to attempt to be accurate?
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-10-30 18:24:50 Reply Private Reply