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.
if the majority of Americas agree with you, then how come Trump is still in first place....
ask yourself, what is wrong with this picture, could it be that the media might be lying again? To all of us? Which is another issue Trump bought up, on how corrupt the media is....and it is....
So you think a majority of Americans support Donald Trump? LOL. Not hardly. Not a majority of Americans, and not a majority of Republicans either.
The only polls we have seen so far are these internet snap polls. Since Trump is a TV phenomenon, basically a reality TV character, his supporters will be expecting any changes to happen by the next news cycle. This is not how these things work.
Let's wait and see some better quality polls and give this a couple of weeks. You and the rest of the Trump Troopers are all extrapolating snap online poll results from within 24-48 hours after the debate. Political changes are not usually evident quite that quickly. Give it another 10 days, and then we should have a much clearer picture.
if the majority of Americas agree with you, then how come Trump is still in first place.......
No reason to read past this part.
The poll in question is for a national election between the Dem nominee and the GOP nominee, not the race for the GOP nomination. Bernier Sanders isn't running for the GOP nomination, you realize?
I don't often use this term because it's way too millennial, but....total fail.
The point is that Trump is unelectable, and Roger Ailes/Fox News/The GOP establishment knows that.
According to Reuters post-debate Trump remains at 24%, Bush went down from 17% to 12% and Fiorina went up to 6%. Nobody else is over 8%. But the margin of error is a high +/- 6.7.
It's bad enough that we've suffered through eight years of Obama.
If Trump is elected, he's liable to shoot his mouth off and get us into a war or two. He likes to steal slogans from the Reagan era ("Make America Great Again") but he is no Reagan. He's more like a pompous Mussolini or something.
If Hillary is elected, we're looking at four more years of Obama-like policies, which definitely isn't good IMO. Plus I don't trust her, and I think those who do are either naive, ignoring the facts or trying to sweep those facts under the carpet.
There's still a long way to go before a nominee is crowned by either party, but it's an ugly start to the 2016 campaign so far.
According to Reuters post-debate Trump remains at 24%, Bush went down from 17% to 12% and Fiorina went up to 6%. Nobody else is over 8%. But the margin of error is a high +/- 6.7.
This is another online snap poll, this time with a sample of 278 self identified Republicans. That is a very small sample from an online poll, which is generally regarded as a not very reliable process.
Also, Ipsos does not use a standard Confidence Interval, because that apparently does not work with this sort of online polling. Instead, they use a "Credibility Interval". Anyway, here is an explanation of what they are doing with regards to these sorts of online, snap polls. More at the link (PDF File):
In order to produce an accurate margin of error, one must know the probability of participation for each member of the survey population or everyone in the population must have a known chance of participating in the survey.
Online polling, most often conducted by the use of panels of consumers/citizens, does not meet this condition because of two effects: non-response bias and coverage bias. In order to use classical margins of error for online polling, one would have to assume that non‐responders to online surveys are completely random, or that the effect of leaving out non-users is so minimal that it can be overlooked. We know that both of these are false, as we can make the following claim about online polling and those who complete online surveys:
• Not everyone has internet access;
• Online panels are created through an opt‐in process, rather than through a random fashion like a random-digit dial telephone call;
• Less is known about the profiles of individuals who complete online surveys versus those who do not, or about the likelihood of an online person to complete an online survey or to participate in a survey panel.
Therefore, the probability of being included in any given online survey sample is unknown, very difficult to ascertain, or simply zero (non-internet users). Further, the nature of use of the internet is not uniform within the population, so this limits one’s ability to calculate the likelihood of reaching a person through an online poll. In short, without this knowledge, a margin of error cannot be calculated.
Despite these challenges, online polling conducted in a scientific manner has proven to yield similar results to probability sampling conducted via telephone. Put simply, online polling works! This poses a challenge, however, because it is also very important for us as researchers to provide a measure of confidence along with our data, regardless of the method of data collection. As such, Ipsos considers the methodology valid and is moving towards the use of Bayesian Credibility Intervals to describe the relative robustness and uncertainty of an online survey estimate.
In any case, I am not saying that the poll is wrong, but there are clearly reasons to be skeptical about this sort of approach. But I know some of you have your heels dug in on this. To each his own.
When you add it all up. We have a serious problem in this country with elections. We really do not have the qualified professional people running. This has been going on for some time now. I think it must be why we are now getting, these families that keep running for President. I think there is a lot more to worry about, than if Trump were to become President. He has become popular because he has zoned into, what is wrong with this country. Yet the other candidates really do not.
The Kelly Trump feud has become tiresome. The news needs to move on to actual business, and get out of the tabloid news business.
Haha No. John Kerry never delivered 24.6 million viewers to a program on Fox News. Ratings = Revenue.
You better believe that Ailes called Trump.
IMO, it's Ailes who is begging Trump to forgive them so he will come back and do it again. Those are the kinds of ratings that even prime time broadcast TV during the regular season dreams of.
They both need each other. The Donald is probably not gonna get the same amount of viewers or airtime anywhere else. He is wealthy but presidential campaigns do get expensive. Trump is simply throwing tantrums to force Fox to treat him with kid gloves.
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.
