|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 13 2016 09:43 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2016 09:30 oBlade wrote:On March 13 2016 09:02 Plansix wrote:On March 13 2016 08:52 oBlade wrote:On March 13 2016 08:44 Plansix wrote:On March 13 2016 08:36 wei2coolman wrote:On March 13 2016 08:34 Plansix wrote:On March 13 2016 08:22 oBlade wrote:On March 13 2016 08:07 Sermokala wrote:On March 13 2016 08:02 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
The tea party drawing the them away from the center during primaries. I'm pretty sure hes referring to the iraq civl war. The tea party was only in response to the democratic super majority. No... Plansix is saying the population hasn't changed between 2012 and 2016, implying something like Republican candidates will never have a chance, and I'm saying that the country also didn't go through any major demographic change between 2004 and 2008. I never said a Republican couldn't win. But if Romney wasn't able to sway the general electorate 4 years ago, Trump isn't "more electable". Or liked. The general public isn't going to suddenly become super pumped that Trump told his supporters to rough up protesters and other behavior. Wait, are you saying Trumps increase in general public voting for primaries, isn't an indication that he can't grab general electorate? I ain't saying he'll win, but he definitely crosses party lines in terms of general electorate, much so any other republican candidate in the past years. Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. He isn't even dominating the primary process. He picks up 35-40% of Republicans that vote in the primaries. He rarely breaks 50% if ever. He is dominating in a field of losers. He is the biggest loser in a field of unappealing options for Republicans and is doing so through populist rants about China, deportation and that all Muslims are a threat. His ability to win shows the state of the Republican party, not some shift in the nations views. There's 4 candidates still in the running... do you have any kind of historical precedent or something to show there's something wrong with his performance as frontrunner? Like the 2012 election or something? There is this. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-is-really-unpopular-with-general-election-voters/People do not like him. Like at all. It is one of the threats in the primary system and why the parties used to focus on "electability". It used to be a huge factor, could the candidate sway independent voters. That is not a popular subject now, but the parties are not really what they used to be either. Especially the Republicans. Please focus. You were talking about the Republican primary and then responded with the general election, which is a separate question. Here's a PPP poll from early Feb 2016 (most recent I found) showing Trump leading slightly in a GOP field of four. He is farther ahead now - this is just about the lowest poll performance he's had in the past two months (FYI), and he was still ahead on it. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_20416.pdfTrump’s favorability has dropped a net 17 points, from a previous +24
standing at 58/34 to now just +7 at 48/41.Trump is particularly starting to struggle on the
right- he’s dropped to 3rd place with ‘very conservative’ voters at 19% with Cruz at 34%
and Rubio at 22% outpacing him with that group. He does still lead with moderates and
‘somewhat conservative’ voters to give him the overall advantage. Now here's a PPP poll from mid-March 2012 showing Romney (he went on to secure the nomination) leading slightly in a field of four. For reference, in the mid-March primaries Romney was getting about 35% of actual voters. This was the poll's results: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_US_032112.pdfRomney’s favorability spread is up 18 points from almost even at 44% favorable and
43% unfavorable to 54-35 in the last month, while Santorum’s is down 13 points from
64-22 to 59-30. Corresponding with that, Romney now leads the national primary
preference with 34% to Santorum’s 31%, Newt Gingrich’s 20%, and Ron Paul’s 9%. If you don't know how to interpret this data, I can help. Trump is polling in the same range as Romney was under similar circumstances at a similar time in the primaries. He's really not the black sheep you want to paint him as. Actually, here is much more relevant data and analysis of said data courtesy of Nate Silver over fivethirtyeight.com: Show nested quote +The exit polls have asked Republican voters in seven states — here’s Tennessee, for example — whether they’d be satisfied if each of Cruz, Rubio and Trump won the nomination. Remember, these are actual voters — voters who gave Trump a win in six of the seven states where the exit poll asked this question — and not some hypothetical universe of “likely voters.” On average, just 49 percent of these actual Republican voters said they’d be satisfied with Trump. The numbers for the other two candidates were better, but not by much: 53 percent of voters said they’d be satisfied with Rubio, and 51 percent with Cruz.
You might wonder whether this sort of thing always happens during a nomination campaign. The short answer is that it doesn’t. By comparison, 79 percent of Democrats this year have said they’d be satisfied with Hillary Clinton as their nominee, while 62 percent have said so of Bernie Sanders.
Eight years ago, the battle between Clinton and Barack Obama was much tenser. With a few notable exceptions in Appalachia, however, both Clinton and Obama were widely acceptable to Democrats in 2008. On average in the 35 states where the exit polls asked the question, 69 percent of Democrats said they’d be satisfied with Obama as their nominee, while 71 percent said so of Clinton.
How about the Republican race in 2012? The exit polls posed the satisfaction question in only four states, and Romney’s numbers weren’t great. But they were still much better than Trump’s. On average, 63 percent of Republicans said they’d be happy with Romney as their nominee.
I also looked up these numbers for the 2004 Democratic and the 2008 Republican races, elections that bear some similarity to this year’s Republican race because there was no clear front-runner early on. Although it took a while for John Kerry and John McCain to catch on with voters, they eventually became very popular. In 2004, an average of 79 percent of Democrats said they’d be satisfied with Kerry as their nominee, while 77 percent of Republicans said so of McCain in 2008.
Not only is Trump’s 49 percent satisfaction rating lower than any recent party nominee’s, it’s also lower than almost all the losers’. Rick Santorum in 2012 was more widely acceptable than Trump, for example. The only exception was Ron Paul in 2012, although the exit polls asked about him in only two states. The conclusion, based on the data? "No recent precedent for a front-runner as divisive as Trump". You're welcome. Source
That the Republican process is more contentious than the Democratic one shouldn't be a shock.
|
On March 13 2016 09:49 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2016 09:43 kwizach wrote:On March 13 2016 09:30 oBlade wrote:On March 13 2016 09:02 Plansix wrote:On March 13 2016 08:52 oBlade wrote:On March 13 2016 08:44 Plansix wrote:On March 13 2016 08:36 wei2coolman wrote:On March 13 2016 08:34 Plansix wrote:On March 13 2016 08:22 oBlade wrote:On March 13 2016 08:07 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
I'm pretty sure hes referring to the iraq civl war. The tea party was only in response to the democratic super majority. No... Plansix is saying the population hasn't changed between 2012 and 2016, implying something like Republican candidates will never have a chance, and I'm saying that the country also didn't go through any major demographic change between 2004 and 2008. I never said a Republican couldn't win. But if Romney wasn't able to sway the general electorate 4 years ago, Trump isn't "more electable". Or liked. The general public isn't going to suddenly become super pumped that Trump told his supporters to rough up protesters and other behavior. Wait, are you saying Trumps increase in general public voting for primaries, isn't an indication that he can't grab general electorate? I ain't saying he'll win, but he definitely crosses party lines in terms of general electorate, much so any other republican candidate in the past years. Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. He isn't even dominating the primary process. He picks up 35-40% of Republicans that vote in the primaries. He rarely breaks 50% if ever. He is dominating in a field of losers. He is the biggest loser in a field of unappealing options for Republicans and is doing so through populist rants about China, deportation and that all Muslims are a threat. His ability to win shows the state of the Republican party, not some shift in the nations views. There's 4 candidates still in the running... do you have any kind of historical precedent or something to show there's something wrong with his performance as frontrunner? Like the 2012 election or something? There is this. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-is-really-unpopular-with-general-election-voters/People do not like him. Like at all. It is one of the threats in the primary system and why the parties used to focus on "electability". It used to be a huge factor, could the candidate sway independent voters. That is not a popular subject now, but the parties are not really what they used to be either. Especially the Republicans. Please focus. You were talking about the Republican primary and then responded with the general election, which is a separate question. Here's a PPP poll from early Feb 2016 (most recent I found) showing Trump leading slightly in a GOP field of four. He is farther ahead now - this is just about the lowest poll performance he's had in the past two months (FYI), and he was still ahead on it. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_20416.pdfTrump’s favorability has dropped a net 17 points, from a previous +24
standing at 58/34 to now just +7 at 48/41.Trump is particularly starting to struggle on the
right- he’s dropped to 3rd place with ‘very conservative’ voters at 19% with Cruz at 34%
and Rubio at 22% outpacing him with that group. He does still lead with moderates and
‘somewhat conservative’ voters to give him the overall advantage. Now here's a PPP poll from mid-March 2012 showing Romney (he went on to secure the nomination) leading slightly in a field of four. For reference, in the mid-March primaries Romney was getting about 35% of actual voters. This was the poll's results: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_US_032112.pdfRomney’s favorability spread is up 18 points from almost even at 44% favorable and
43% unfavorable to 54-35 in the last month, while Santorum’s is down 13 points from
64-22 to 59-30. Corresponding with that, Romney now leads the national primary
preference with 34% to Santorum’s 31%, Newt Gingrich’s 20%, and Ron Paul’s 9%. If you don't know how to interpret this data, I can help. Trump is polling in the same range as Romney was under similar circumstances at a similar time in the primaries. He's really not the black sheep you want to paint him as. Actually, here is much more relevant data and analysis of said data courtesy of Nate Silver over fivethirtyeight.com: The exit polls have asked Republican voters in seven states — here’s Tennessee, for example — whether they’d be satisfied if each of Cruz, Rubio and Trump won the nomination. Remember, these are actual voters — voters who gave Trump a win in six of the seven states where the exit poll asked this question — and not some hypothetical universe of “likely voters.” On average, just 49 percent of these actual Republican voters said they’d be satisfied with Trump. The numbers for the other two candidates were better, but not by much: 53 percent of voters said they’d be satisfied with Rubio, and 51 percent with Cruz.
You might wonder whether this sort of thing always happens during a nomination campaign. The short answer is that it doesn’t. By comparison, 79 percent of Democrats this year have said they’d be satisfied with Hillary Clinton as their nominee, while 62 percent have said so of Bernie Sanders.
Eight years ago, the battle between Clinton and Barack Obama was much tenser. With a few notable exceptions in Appalachia, however, both Clinton and Obama were widely acceptable to Democrats in 2008. On average in the 35 states where the exit polls asked the question, 69 percent of Democrats said they’d be satisfied with Obama as their nominee, while 71 percent said so of Clinton.
How about the Republican race in 2012? The exit polls posed the satisfaction question in only four states, and Romney’s numbers weren’t great. But they were still much better than Trump’s. On average, 63 percent of Republicans said they’d be happy with Romney as their nominee.
I also looked up these numbers for the 2004 Democratic and the 2008 Republican races, elections that bear some similarity to this year’s Republican race because there was no clear front-runner early on. Although it took a while for John Kerry and John McCain to catch on with voters, they eventually became very popular. In 2004, an average of 79 percent of Democrats said they’d be satisfied with Kerry as their nominee, while 77 percent of Republicans said so of McCain in 2008.
Not only is Trump’s 49 percent satisfaction rating lower than any recent party nominee’s, it’s also lower than almost all the losers’. Rick Santorum in 2012 was more widely acceptable than Trump, for example. The only exception was Ron Paul in 2012, although the exit polls asked about him in only two states. The conclusion, based on the data? "No recent precedent for a front-runner as divisive as Trump". You're welcome. Source That the Republican process is more contentious than the Democratic one shouldn't be a shock.
The "Republican process" was also there in 2012, 2008 and 2004. You asked "do you have any kind of historical precedent or something to show there's something wrong with his performance as frontrunner? Like the 2012 election or something?". The data shows that yes, he is currently less acceptable to the Republican electorate than all previous frontrunners.
|
On March 13 2016 09:56 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2016 09:49 oBlade wrote:On March 13 2016 09:43 kwizach wrote:On March 13 2016 09:30 oBlade wrote:On March 13 2016 09:02 Plansix wrote:On March 13 2016 08:52 oBlade wrote:On March 13 2016 08:44 Plansix wrote:On March 13 2016 08:36 wei2coolman wrote:On March 13 2016 08:34 Plansix wrote:On March 13 2016 08:22 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
No... Plansix is saying the population hasn't changed between 2012 and 2016, implying something like Republican candidates will never have a chance, and I'm saying that the country also didn't go through any major demographic change between 2004 and 2008. I never said a Republican couldn't win. But if Romney wasn't able to sway the general electorate 4 years ago, Trump isn't "more electable". Or liked. The general public isn't going to suddenly become super pumped that Trump told his supporters to rough up protesters and other behavior. Wait, are you saying Trumps increase in general public voting for primaries, isn't an indication that he can't grab general electorate? I ain't saying he'll win, but he definitely crosses party lines in terms of general electorate, much so any other republican candidate in the past years. Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. He isn't even dominating the primary process. He picks up 35-40% of Republicans that vote in the primaries. He rarely breaks 50% if ever. He is dominating in a field of losers. He is the biggest loser in a field of unappealing options for Republicans and is doing so through populist rants about China, deportation and that all Muslims are a threat. His ability to win shows the state of the Republican party, not some shift in the nations views. There's 4 candidates still in the running... do you have any kind of historical precedent or something to show there's something wrong with his performance as frontrunner? Like the 2012 election or something? There is this. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-is-really-unpopular-with-general-election-voters/People do not like him. Like at all. It is one of the threats in the primary system and why the parties used to focus on "electability". It used to be a huge factor, could the candidate sway independent voters. That is not a popular subject now, but the parties are not really what they used to be either. Especially the Republicans. Please focus. You were talking about the Republican primary and then responded with the general election, which is a separate question. Here's a PPP poll from early Feb 2016 (most recent I found) showing Trump leading slightly in a GOP field of four. He is farther ahead now - this is just about the lowest poll performance he's had in the past two months (FYI), and he was still ahead on it. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_20416.pdfTrump’s favorability has dropped a net 17 points, from a previous +24
standing at 58/34 to now just +7 at 48/41.Trump is particularly starting to struggle on the
right- he’s dropped to 3rd place with ‘very conservative’ voters at 19% with Cruz at 34%
and Rubio at 22% outpacing him with that group. He does still lead with moderates and
‘somewhat conservative’ voters to give him the overall advantage. Now here's a PPP poll from mid-March 2012 showing Romney (he went on to secure the nomination) leading slightly in a field of four. For reference, in the mid-March primaries Romney was getting about 35% of actual voters. This was the poll's results: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_US_032112.pdfRomney’s favorability spread is up 18 points from almost even at 44% favorable and
43% unfavorable to 54-35 in the last month, while Santorum’s is down 13 points from
64-22 to 59-30. Corresponding with that, Romney now leads the national primary
preference with 34% to Santorum’s 31%, Newt Gingrich’s 20%, and Ron Paul’s 9%. If you don't know how to interpret this data, I can help. Trump is polling in the same range as Romney was under similar circumstances at a similar time in the primaries. He's really not the black sheep you want to paint him as. Actually, here is much more relevant data and analysis of said data courtesy of Nate Silver over fivethirtyeight.com: The exit polls have asked Republican voters in seven states — here’s Tennessee, for example — whether they’d be satisfied if each of Cruz, Rubio and Trump won the nomination. Remember, these are actual voters — voters who gave Trump a win in six of the seven states where the exit poll asked this question — and not some hypothetical universe of “likely voters.” On average, just 49 percent of these actual Republican voters said they’d be satisfied with Trump. The numbers for the other two candidates were better, but not by much: 53 percent of voters said they’d be satisfied with Rubio, and 51 percent with Cruz.
You might wonder whether this sort of thing always happens during a nomination campaign. The short answer is that it doesn’t. By comparison, 79 percent of Democrats this year have said they’d be satisfied with Hillary Clinton as their nominee, while 62 percent have said so of Bernie Sanders.
Eight years ago, the battle between Clinton and Barack Obama was much tenser. With a few notable exceptions in Appalachia, however, both Clinton and Obama were widely acceptable to Democrats in 2008. On average in the 35 states where the exit polls asked the question, 69 percent of Democrats said they’d be satisfied with Obama as their nominee, while 71 percent said so of Clinton.
How about the Republican race in 2012? The exit polls posed the satisfaction question in only four states, and Romney’s numbers weren’t great. But they were still much better than Trump’s. On average, 63 percent of Republicans said they’d be happy with Romney as their nominee.
I also looked up these numbers for the 2004 Democratic and the 2008 Republican races, elections that bear some similarity to this year’s Republican race because there was no clear front-runner early on. Although it took a while for John Kerry and John McCain to catch on with voters, they eventually became very popular. In 2004, an average of 79 percent of Democrats said they’d be satisfied with Kerry as their nominee, while 77 percent of Republicans said so of McCain in 2008.
Not only is Trump’s 49 percent satisfaction rating lower than any recent party nominee’s, it’s also lower than almost all the losers’. Rick Santorum in 2012 was more widely acceptable than Trump, for example. The only exception was Ron Paul in 2012, although the exit polls asked about him in only two states. The conclusion, based on the data? "No recent precedent for a front-runner as divisive as Trump". You're welcome. Source That the Republican process is more contentious than the Democratic one shouldn't be a shock. The "Republican process" was also there in 2012, 2008 and 2004. You asked "do you have any kind of historical precedent or something to show there's something wrong with his performance as frontrunner? Like the 2012 election or something?". The data shows that yes, he is currently less acceptable to the Republican electorate than all previous frontrunners.
There is a reason I used two polls from the same organization (PPP) at the same time of year when the field was the same size: to control variables.
Your source there is talking about exit polls in 4 states in one year versus exit polls in 6 states (for reference, there are 50 states in total) another year, says Rubio, Trump, and Cruz are all at 50% approval in the sample, so therefore the natural conclusion is Trump is an outlier.
Rick Santorum in 2012 was more widely acceptable than Trump, for example.
And Ben Carson (just endorsed Trump) had the highest favorability ratings among the last 5 candidates. This is an interesting fact, but I don't see that it makes any point or argument. Hell, you can see this in the 2012 PPP poll I linked:
Sarah Palin is now once again better liked than any of the actual candidates. 68% see her
favorably and only 20% unfavorably.
|
Well that's a little messed up.
Bernie has a responsibility to tell his supporters that stuff like this is wrong. He can't keep pretending to run a clean campaign when his supporters are pulling stuff like this.
|
Georgia lawmakers have approved state funding of up to $2m for unlicensed crisis pregnancy centers, dubbed “fake abortion clinics” by some advocates.
The bill, which specifies that abortion care should not be mentioned when discussing healthcare options for pregnant women, will now go before Governor Nathan Deal for his signature.
Crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) are non-medical facilities that seek to counsel women out of having abortions. Many of these clinics have confusing names and advertising that suggest they provide abortion services, and others provide misleading medical information to discourage women from having abortions.
Often counselors will tell women that condoms are ineffective, that they will be unable to get pregnant again if they have an abortion, and that abortion and birth control cause cancer. There are more than 4,000 CPCs in the US and at least 12 states fund CPCs directly.
State Senator Renee Unterman, the bill’s sponsor and the chair of the state senate’s Health and Human Services committee, told her colleagues before their vote on Thursday that crisis pregnancy centers “do a fabulous job because they offer alternative services other than abortion” and that “[i]t’s a better thing for people to have better decisions.” Unterman has said that the these centers provide positive alternatives to abortion and that they help reduce the number of abortions performed in the state through the ultrasounds and counseling they provide.
During debates on the bill, only female representatives spoke in opposition to its passage.
Source
|
On March 13 2016 10:08 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2016 09:56 kwizach wrote:On March 13 2016 09:49 oBlade wrote:On March 13 2016 09:43 kwizach wrote:On March 13 2016 09:30 oBlade wrote:On March 13 2016 09:02 Plansix wrote:On March 13 2016 08:52 oBlade wrote:On March 13 2016 08:44 Plansix wrote:On March 13 2016 08:36 wei2coolman wrote:On March 13 2016 08:34 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I never said a Republican couldn't win. But if Romney wasn't able to sway the general electorate 4 years ago, Trump isn't "more electable". Or liked. The general public isn't going to suddenly become super pumped that Trump told his supporters to rough up protesters and other behavior. Wait, are you saying Trumps increase in general public voting for primaries, isn't an indication that he can't grab general electorate? I ain't saying he'll win, but he definitely crosses party lines in terms of general electorate, much so any other republican candidate in the past years. Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. He isn't even dominating the primary process. He picks up 35-40% of Republicans that vote in the primaries. He rarely breaks 50% if ever. He is dominating in a field of losers. He is the biggest loser in a field of unappealing options for Republicans and is doing so through populist rants about China, deportation and that all Muslims are a threat. His ability to win shows the state of the Republican party, not some shift in the nations views. There's 4 candidates still in the running... do you have any kind of historical precedent or something to show there's something wrong with his performance as frontrunner? Like the 2012 election or something? There is this. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-is-really-unpopular-with-general-election-voters/People do not like him. Like at all. It is one of the threats in the primary system and why the parties used to focus on "electability". It used to be a huge factor, could the candidate sway independent voters. That is not a popular subject now, but the parties are not really what they used to be either. Especially the Republicans. Please focus. You were talking about the Republican primary and then responded with the general election, which is a separate question. Here's a PPP poll from early Feb 2016 (most recent I found) showing Trump leading slightly in a GOP field of four. He is farther ahead now - this is just about the lowest poll performance he's had in the past two months (FYI), and he was still ahead on it. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_20416.pdfTrump’s favorability has dropped a net 17 points, from a previous +24
standing at 58/34 to now just +7 at 48/41.Trump is particularly starting to struggle on the
right- he’s dropped to 3rd place with ‘very conservative’ voters at 19% with Cruz at 34%
and Rubio at 22% outpacing him with that group. He does still lead with moderates and
‘somewhat conservative’ voters to give him the overall advantage. Now here's a PPP poll from mid-March 2012 showing Romney (he went on to secure the nomination) leading slightly in a field of four. For reference, in the mid-March primaries Romney was getting about 35% of actual voters. This was the poll's results: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_US_032112.pdfRomney’s favorability spread is up 18 points from almost even at 44% favorable and
43% unfavorable to 54-35 in the last month, while Santorum’s is down 13 points from
64-22 to 59-30. Corresponding with that, Romney now leads the national primary
preference with 34% to Santorum’s 31%, Newt Gingrich’s 20%, and Ron Paul’s 9%. If you don't know how to interpret this data, I can help. Trump is polling in the same range as Romney was under similar circumstances at a similar time in the primaries. He's really not the black sheep you want to paint him as. Actually, here is much more relevant data and analysis of said data courtesy of Nate Silver over fivethirtyeight.com: The exit polls have asked Republican voters in seven states — here’s Tennessee, for example — whether they’d be satisfied if each of Cruz, Rubio and Trump won the nomination. Remember, these are actual voters — voters who gave Trump a win in six of the seven states where the exit poll asked this question — and not some hypothetical universe of “likely voters.” On average, just 49 percent of these actual Republican voters said they’d be satisfied with Trump. The numbers for the other two candidates were better, but not by much: 53 percent of voters said they’d be satisfied with Rubio, and 51 percent with Cruz.
You might wonder whether this sort of thing always happens during a nomination campaign. The short answer is that it doesn’t. By comparison, 79 percent of Democrats this year have said they’d be satisfied with Hillary Clinton as their nominee, while 62 percent have said so of Bernie Sanders.
Eight years ago, the battle between Clinton and Barack Obama was much tenser. With a few notable exceptions in Appalachia, however, both Clinton and Obama were widely acceptable to Democrats in 2008. On average in the 35 states where the exit polls asked the question, 69 percent of Democrats said they’d be satisfied with Obama as their nominee, while 71 percent said so of Clinton.
How about the Republican race in 2012? The exit polls posed the satisfaction question in only four states, and Romney’s numbers weren’t great. But they were still much better than Trump’s. On average, 63 percent of Republicans said they’d be happy with Romney as their nominee.
I also looked up these numbers for the 2004 Democratic and the 2008 Republican races, elections that bear some similarity to this year’s Republican race because there was no clear front-runner early on. Although it took a while for John Kerry and John McCain to catch on with voters, they eventually became very popular. In 2004, an average of 79 percent of Democrats said they’d be satisfied with Kerry as their nominee, while 77 percent of Republicans said so of McCain in 2008.
Not only is Trump’s 49 percent satisfaction rating lower than any recent party nominee’s, it’s also lower than almost all the losers’. Rick Santorum in 2012 was more widely acceptable than Trump, for example. The only exception was Ron Paul in 2012, although the exit polls asked about him in only two states. The conclusion, based on the data? "No recent precedent for a front-runner as divisive as Trump". You're welcome. Source That the Republican process is more contentious than the Democratic one shouldn't be a shock. The "Republican process" was also there in 2012, 2008 and 2004. You asked "do you have any kind of historical precedent or something to show there's something wrong with his performance as frontrunner? Like the 2012 election or something?". The data shows that yes, he is currently less acceptable to the Republican electorate than all previous frontrunners. There is a reason I used two polls from the same organization (PPP) at the same time of year when the field was the same size: to control variables. Your source there is talking about exit polls in 4 states in one year versus exit polls in 6 states (for reference, there are 50 states in total) another year, says Rubio, Trump, and Cruz are all at 50% approval in the sample, so therefore the natural conclusion is Trump is an outlier.
I'm not sure what "in one year versus [...] another year" is supposed to mean -- of course they were taken in another year, since the 2012 and 2016 elections are four years apart. The polls in your post were similarly taken in different years -- the same two years as those I referenced. The states selected are all among the early states voting for both elections, around the same period. The polls referenced in my article are also from the same organization, which conducts exit polls. I never claimed that Trump was a complete outlier among the current field of candidates (although his numbers are lower than the other candidates). Your question was about his performance as frontrunner compared to frontrunners in previous elections. The data shows he is performing worse than previous frontrunners with regards to how satisfied the electorate would be with him as nominee. You have your answer. To quote 538 again: "No recent precedent for a front-runner as divisive as Trump".
On March 13 2016 10:08 oBlade wrote:And Ben Carson (just endorsed Trump) had the highest favorability ratings among the last 5 candidates. This is an interesting fact, but I don't see that it makes any point or argument. Hell, you can see this in the 2012 PPP poll I linked: Show nested quote +Sarah Palin is now once again better liked than any of the actual candidates. 68% see her
favorably and only 20% unfavorably.
Utterly irrelevant to what is being discussed, namely Trump's performance as frontrunner compared to previous frontunners. Sarah Palin was never the frontrunner, in fact she never even ran. Ben Carson's endorsement is just as off-topic.
|
On March 13 2016 10:25 ticklishmusic wrote:https://twitter.com/Ashley_spry09/status/708704620080717825Well that's a little messed up. Bernie has a responsibility to tell his supporters that stuff like this is wrong. He can't keep pretending to run a clean campaign when his supporters are pulling stuff like this.
Sanders hasn't been running a "clean campaign" at all. He's been consistently smearing Hillary from the start.
|
It means four states in 2012 are not the same thing as six states in 2016. Do you understand yet? The stuff you quoted doesn't name the states, and here you are trying to argue that your poll is important and you haven't even looked up what states? The PPP polls are a national survey. What I linked is comparing apples to apples. Your source doesn't even tell us what fruits.
The fact that Cruz and Rubio have identical ratings in your results would tell us Trump isn't special at all, which has been my point.
And why are you linking sources and telling me their content isn't relevant? What's your problem? It's an interesting phenomenon that people who get the least votes perform higher on favorability.
|
|
|
On March 13 2016 10:39 kwizach wrote:Sanders hasn't been running a "clean campaign" at all. He's been consistently smearing Hillary from the start.
lol.
Come on, those would be the nicest buttons available at a Trump rally regarding Hillary. Whining about it doesn't induce confidence in standing up to the much harsher stuff that would come in a general. It would make the 90's look like a pillow fight.
|
On March 13 2016 10:25 ticklishmusic wrote:https://twitter.com/Ashley_spry09/status/708704620080717825Well that's a little messed up. Bernie has a responsibility to tell his supporters that stuff like this is wrong. He can't keep pretending to run a clean campaign when his supporters are pulling stuff like this.
I wonder how many people on TL really work as staff for a campaign, be it Clinton's one or someone else's.
Any other shills out there?
It used to be just Putin and Israel having their sock puppets here on TL.
|
|
|
On March 13 2016 10:43 oBlade wrote:
It means four states in 2012 are not the same thing as six states in 2016. Do you understand yet? The stuff you quoted doesn't name the states, and here you are trying to argue that your poll is important and you haven't even looked up what states? The PPP polls are a national survey. What I linked is comparing apples to apples. Your source doesn't even tell us what fruits.
I'm not sure what article you read, but mine does name the states.Clearly you only read the quote I posted and not the original article in which the numbers for each state are displayed in tables. Perhaps you should bother to clink a simple link before falsely claiming my source doesn't provide that information? "Do you understand yet" how links work? There is one state for which numbers are available across both elections, namely New Hampshire, and unsurprisingly Romney's number are considerably higher than Trump's. Exit polls (= of people who actually voted) are also a much better indicator than national surveys of "usual primary voters". All of the other states are surveyed around the same period, and the range of the numbers of Romney and Trump among them is telling even if they don't appear for both elections.
But sure, let's look at national polls and favorable/unfavorable opinions. RealClearPolitics indicates that Romney's worst "favorable minus unfavorable" numbers were in early March, around -11 in the poll averages. What about Trump's? Oops! His numbers are considerably worse again (link doesn't work for some reason: www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/trump_favorableunfavorable-5493.html). Feel free to compare the numbers from pollster to pollster and around to same dates to control for these variables -- the results are the same.
On March 13 2016 10:43 oBlade wrote:
The fact that Cruz and Rubio have identical ratings in your results would tell us Trump isn't special at all, which has been my point.
No, your point was about Trump's status as frontrunner compared to other frontrunners in previous election years, not compared to other current Republican candidates. Here is your initial question in case you "forgot": "do you have any kind of historical precedent or something to show there's something wrong with his performance as frontrunner? Like the 2012 election or something?"
Compared to previous frontrunners, his performance among Republican voters is poor, as are his general favorability/unfavorability ratings, as the 538 article and the polls on RealClearPolitics clearly indicate.
On March 13 2016 10:43 oBlade wrote:
And why are you linking sources and telling me their content isn't relevant? What's your problem? It's an interesting phenomenon that people who get the least votes perform higher on favorability.
Because the content you quoted was not relevant to the discussion we were having over Trump's performance compared to previous frontrunners, which is what I'm replying to you about. But sure, if you'd like to concede on that front and talk about something else, feel free.
|
On March 13 2016 11:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2016 10:39 kwizach wrote:On March 13 2016 10:25 ticklishmusic wrote:https://twitter.com/Ashley_spry09/status/708704620080717825Well that's a little messed up. Bernie has a responsibility to tell his supporters that stuff like this is wrong. He can't keep pretending to run a clean campaign when his supporters are pulling stuff like this. Sanders hasn't been running a "clean campaign" at all. He's been consistently smearing Hillary from the start. lol. Come on, those would be the nicest buttons available at a Trump rally regarding Hillary. Whining about it doesn't induce confidence in standing up to the much harsher stuff that would come in a general. It would make the 90's look like a pillow fight.
You really are something, you know that? Being able to delude yourself and however many others there are that this is somehow okay.
|
On March 13 2016 11:28 ticklishmusic wrote:
You really are something, you know that? Being able to delude yourself and however many others there are that this is somehow okay.
There's a person on TL that claims a person on Twitter that heard from someone that someone saw someone at a rally of Trump pretend to be a Sanders supporter, handing out a not so funny button.
That post was only made to try to get something silly to go viral.
No spin please.
|
Trump is exactly where you would expect a frontrunner to be at this point in the primary out of a field of four candidates.
|
On March 13 2016 11:04 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:I wonder how many people on TL really work as staff for a campaign, be it Clinton's one or someone else's. Any other shills out there? It used to be just Putin and Israel having their sock puppets here on TL.
Kzw have been shilling for Hillary a lot.
|
On March 13 2016 11:41 oBlade wrote:
Trump is exactly where you would expect a frontrunner to be at this point in the primary out of a field of four candidates.
Except the data shows he's behind previous frontrunners at the same point in the primary, both in terms of favorability/unfavorability in the general electorate and in terms of support within the Republican electorate.
On March 13 2016 11:43 ErectedZenith wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2016 11:04 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:On March 13 2016 10:25 ticklishmusic wrote:https://twitter.com/Ashley_spry09/status/708704620080717825Well that's a little messed up. Bernie has a responsibility to tell his supporters that stuff like this is wrong. He can't keep pretending to run a clean campaign when his supporters are pulling stuff like this. I wonder how many people on TL really work as staff for a campaign, be it Clinton's one or someone else's. Any other shills out there? It used to be just Putin and Israel having their sock puppets here on TL. Kzw have been shilling for Hillary a lot.
A Trump supporter with a flimsy grasp on reality, how surprising :-) Apparently, now, defending a candidate in the face of unfair repeated attacks is "shilling". Yes, I'm clearly getting a Goldman Sachs paycheck at the end of the day for defending her, you're onto something.
|
On March 13 2016 11:47 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2016 11:41 oBlade wrote:
Trump is exactly where you would expect a frontrunner to be at this point in the primary out of a field of four candidates. Except the data shows he's behind previous frontrunners at the same point in the primary, both in terms of favorability/unfavorability in the general electorate and in terms of support within the Republican electorate. Show nested quote +On March 13 2016 11:43 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 13 2016 11:04 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:On March 13 2016 10:25 ticklishmusic wrote:https://twitter.com/Ashley_spry09/status/708704620080717825Well that's a little messed up. Bernie has a responsibility to tell his supporters that stuff like this is wrong. He can't keep pretending to run a clean campaign when his supporters are pulling stuff like this. I wonder how many people on TL really work as staff for a campaign, be it Clinton's one or someone else's. Any other shills out there? It used to be just Putin and Israel having their sock puppets here on TL. Kzw have been shilling for Hillary a lot. A Trump supporter with a flimsy grasp on reality, how surprising :-) Apparently, now, defending a candidate in the face of unfair repeated attacks is "shilling". Yes, I'm clearly getting a Goldman Sachs paycheck at the end of the day for defending her, you're onto something.
Average Trump supporters have more grasp on reality than you.
|
On March 13 2016 11:47 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2016 11:41 oBlade wrote:
Trump is exactly where you would expect a frontrunner to be at this point in the primary out of a field of four candidates. Except the data shows he's behind previous frontrunners at the same point in the primary, both in terms of favorability/unfavorability in the general electorate and in terms of support within the Republican electorate.
35-40% of the popular vote is right where Romney was in March 2012.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
