Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It will be interesting to see if Trump's numbers go up or down after the Debate. I'm guessing down but I could be wrong...he certainly has struck a nerve and garnered more support than I thought he could.
I'm going to explain here why I disregard Trump's numbers. Essentially, it's the same reason I disregarded Herman Cain's numbers in 2011, and Rudy Giuliani's numbers in 2007.
Polls are useful, but you have to separate the wheat from the chaff. In the modern primary and caucus era (which began in 1976), as I've noted in various threads before - such as here: http://www.city-data.com/forum/34911888-post9.html - there are only four types of nominees, as follows:
Incumbent Presidents
Sitting of former Vice Presidents
Sitting or former Governors or Senators
[actually, this trend holds true back through the 1956 election - that's no less than 30 nominees - but I consider those before 1976 to be less statistically relevant]
So I never considered Cain a contender for a single primary or caucus win, much less to be the nominee. He was just a businessman. And as for Giuliani, the fact that he was a mayor made him a slightly more plausible nominee than Cain, but the fact that he was pro-choice, pro-gun control, and pro-gay rights made it clear he had zero chance to ever be the nominee.
And so it is with Trump. We're currently in the silly season. The highest polling serious candidates (ie, in the absence if a President of a Vice President among the contenders, we're talking solely about Governors and Senators) should be taken seriously. The others (Trump, Carson) can be dismissed (Fiorina can be ignored not only because she's never held any relevant office but also because she's polling under 1%).
So right off the bat, we have the top tier contenders of Bush and Walker and the second-tier contenders such as Rubio, Paul, Cruz, Huckabee, Perry and Christie worth considering, at least initially (I'd immediately write Cruz, Huckabee and Christie off as hopeless, but for different reasons, and so that's another discussion altogether). I'd also add Kasich to the second-tier - even though he's not there yet numerically, he has just entered the race and the data suggest he is making a move.
That's it. This isn't rocket science. This isn't some special year, where none of the conditions that have applied before. Major parties nominate Presidential candidates under very clear-cut conditions. Those who ignore those conditions, those who ignore history and precedence, those whose arguments are nothing more than "Nuh uh!" and "Well... just... because!" need to go and get a clue. They need to learn to properly analyze data. They need to learn the difference between wheat and chaff.
Most of all, they need to stop, stop, stop, stop substituting their wishes and desires for what the totality of the evidence suggests. What you want is meaningless. All that matters is the now viewed through the cautious lens of precedent.
Well this Monmouth poll had some interesting things in it. This from the actual poll:
Trump’s support spans nearly all demographic groups:
Ideology – Trump leads Walker 27% to 16% among very conservative voters; has 22% support among somewhat conservative voters to 14% for Bush and 12% for Walker; and takes 28% of the moderate to liberal voter compared to 20% for Bush.
Tea Party – Tea Party supporters back Trump (35%) over Walker (15%) and Cruz (11%). Non-Tea Party supporters split their top support between Trump (20%) and Bush (16%).
Age – Trump (26%) has a clear lead over Bush (15%) and Walker (12%) among voters age 50 and older. Those under 50 years old also prefer Trump (26%) over Walker (10%) and Bush (9%).
Gender – Trump leads among both male and female Republicans, with men (32%) giving him a large advantage over Bush (13%) and Walker (11%). Women (20%) give him a narrower lead over Walker (12%) and Bush (11%).
According to the pollster there's no clear sense of who his constituency is. Old, young, very conservative, somewhat conservative, tea party, non-tea party, moderate to liberal, men and women - he's leading in all of those categories.
Plus, his favorability rating is now the same as Jeb Bush: Trump is 52% favorable to 35% unfavorable. This may be more important than his lead. Last time they polled it was 40% favorable, 41% unfavorable.
I usually look at trending with the same pollster. Who went up and who went down from the last time they polled. In the case of Monmouth it was 3 weeks ago that they polled.
The actual poll has a whole section related to the debate but since Fox News will make that announcement today no sense mentioning it.
I'm going to explain here why I disregard Trump's numbers. Essentially, it's the same reason I disregarded Herman Cain's numbers in 2011, and Rudy Giuliani's numbers in 2007.
This explains why your opinion is totally disregarded around here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
