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.
The first caucus is in 81 days. It makes the rest of what you posted moot. Attribution fallacies.
Really? I know we're talking about Republicans here, but didn't Bill Clinton lose both Iowa and NH? Correct me if I'm wrong.
I also thought there were several Republicans who won the Iowa Caucus but were not chosen to be the nominee of the party and vice versa. IIRC, Huckabee won in 2008 didn't he? Bob Dole won in 1988. I'd have to spend time looking up more names, but I think I made my point.
Posts like this are sad. I have no idea why people get so offended when someone is simply willing to honestly discuss a topic.
Like him or not he is a legitimate candidate. Support him or not, he is a legitimate candidate. Silver was wrong.
Well sort of. Nate Silver was saying that Trump's negatives are so high within the Republican Party that he has no chance of winning the nomination. In that sense he's not "legitimate" because he's destined to lose according to Silver.
So, the fact that he's still around doesn't prove Silver wrong. He will only be proven wrong if and when a Trump wins the nomination. At the very least, his negatives among Republican voters would have to come down sharply to declare Silver wrong.
You are using a different definition of legitimate that Nate Silver was. Which is fine, but it's not proving to point you are trying to make.
Even places like California takes turns between Republican and Democrat Governors. All it takes is a popular Republican Governor in a blue state on the ticket with a a decent electoral vote to swing the other way.
The only way a Republican can win the governorship in California is by being proceeded be an incompetent Democrat governor. The GOP's odds of carrying California are in single digits right now and will remain so for the foreseeable future...
Well sort of. Nate Silver was saying that Trump's negatives are so high within the Republican Party that he has no chance of winning the nomination. In that sense he's not "legitimate" because he's destined to lose according to Silver.
So, the fact that he's still around doesn't prove Silver wrong. He will only be proven wrong if and when a Trump wins the nomination. At the very least, his negatives among Republican voters would have to come down sharply to declare Silver wrong.
You are using a different definition of legitimate that Nate Silver was. Which is fine, but it's not proving to point you are trying to make.
I'm using exactly what the article states. Quit making things up to deflect from the topic. He said he wasn't a real candidate. He most certainly is.
Posts like this are sad. I have no idea why people get so offended when someone is simply willing to honestly discuss a topic.
Like him or not he is a legitimate candidate. Support him or not, he is a legitimate candidate. Silver was wrong.
I agree he's a legitimate candidate, so you have a valid point. However, do you remember the look on Romney's face in 2012 just before his concession speech? His wife was in total shock. This is why polls mean very little to me.
Remember when we kept hearing that Hillary Clinton was the "inevitable winner" in 2007-2008?
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.
