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 other two polls have a different result. If anything once again it says polls are unreliable but it is dishonest to ignore the ones you don't agree with and hight light the one closest to your negative view of a candidate and present it as definitive evidence of anything important. We can get that from any media company.
Why are they so far apart in one poll and two others much different and closer together is the real question. There has to be some reason there is a 10 point or more difference.
and it is unrealistic to trust any poll that show a candidate up by 2 plus to 1 and even more in some cases. Too many people have not been around, voting enough years to fully understand polls. This goes for those who pay attention to internet polling particularly. BTW, it is not dishonest to ignore anything, it might be stupid, but not dishonest. If you are going to say that, why would you post only the poll or polls you want to believe? As we have seen already, polling in today's world is very different than even a decade ago. We say that in 2014.
This is going to be an interesting election year to say the least. My prediction is that Rubio becomes the nominee. Cruz cannot beat Clinton. Trump is....well...Trump.
Why are they so far apart in one poll and two others much different and closer together is the real question. There has to be some reason there is a 10 point or more difference.
The PPP poll used Likely Voters and a phone poll.
The Morning Consult poll used Registered Voters and someone said it was internet poll(most polls go with Likely Voters instead because many registered voters don't vote)
The Opsos/Reuters poll was 50% complete PRIOR to the Iowa results so isn't a true comparison against polls that were 100% completed after Iowa results. Also internet poll per other poster.
These are not apples-apples comparisons
Also check the pollster ratings - some are better than others.
Polls are more accurate in primaries than caucuses especially in Iowa. Trump and Sanders should win easily in N.H.
If Trump wins South Carolina another primary, he will be the favorite.
Polls are not likely to be accurate at all this time around. It has been mentioned by many, between so many people not having land lines anymore and those who do having caller ID, polling is almost a waste of time. It has nothing to do with primaries versus caucuses. I think you would have realized that after the 2014 election. As for Trump and Sanders, of course they should both win NH. t is a given, but by how much, that remains to be seen.
I know. I like and admire Bernie but I can't watch him for more than 30 seconds.
I just watched a Town Meeting on CNN on Wed evening. I'm starting to like Bernie a little more, although I'm still a Hillary supporter. He answered the questions well and also showed his sense of humor. Still, I agree with one of the women who talked about gender bias. Even in 2008 Hillary was questioned about her "likablity." I never heard any male candidate asked that question. I'm not comparing myself with a Wellesley graduate with a law degree from Yale, but I worked for a company for over 21 years where there were many educated, qualified women working as assistants to unqualified men in high paying jobs. Back then it was just something we learned to accept. By now I was hoping things had changed.
I like Trump, but nobody was really paying attention to politics until the past 2 weeks. I have to admit, Trump probably won't even win a state. For some reason, everyone is going to flock to Rubio. I would take anyone over Rubio. But those are the breaks. Trump was a false favorite. Losing Iowa is sending his campaign into a Howard Dean type total free fall. Thumbs down
Santorum who was interviewed on Morning Joe this morning couldn't name anything that Rubio has accomplished in the Senate. That was an embarrassing interview. Rubio is probably sorry for the endorsement today. It's going to make a really good ad soundbite.
So for all you Kasich supporters out there...here's the truth.
Kasich's not going to win New Hampshire....He's just not
He's not well known.
However he will have a chance to put himself on the radar. Everyone who
didn't give him much media attention will think this is a HUGE story. However, due to the
fact that not many people know him....this is going to be the result of New Hampshire:
1. Trump
2. Rubio/Kasich
3 Rubio/Kasich
4. Ted Cruz
5. Ben Carson (Even though he's not campaigning; people like him!)
comeback Tuesday when he wins N.H.........Trump came 2nd in Iowa for being a NON-religious candidate and not a gay basher, I say Trump did well in Iowa, this was Trump's first election ever......I remember Guiliani a New York Republican skipping Iowa because he is from New York and has a divorce and knew he had no chance in Iowa against the other choices who were more preacher like. Even Ronald Reagan another candidate who had a divorce came 2nd in Iowa.....those evangelicals in Iowa don't like candidates from liberal states (outsiders) that have divorces in their lives.
remember Santorum won in 2012 and Huckabee in 2008......so don't put too much in Iowa, We still got 49 states.
you got Trump wrong.....Trump wins N.H. and the media will forget about Iowa, that's the way they are.......now expect the media to bash Cruz when he loses N.H. and comes in 3rd or 4th to hyped up South Carolina like WWE wrestling.....that's the media.
and by the way, Dean lost Iowa in 2004 by 20% and then lost N.H. by 12%........the media is full of cr@p comparing Dean to Trump. Just shows how many in the media hate Trump.
Actually Dean came 3rd in Iowa in 2004 behind 20% to Kerry and behind Edwards by 14% when Dean spent the most time and money in Iowa than any other candidate, he was the favorite to win Iowa............that is nothing to Trump in comparison.
Reagan skipped Iowa, this had nothing to do with his divorce. For heavens sake, he got his start in radio start in Iowa. As for Guiliani he skipped everything til Florida and that is one thing that really hurt him. You do not have to be a gay basher to do well in the Midwest. Either you know nothing about how the primaries work or you are going out on a limb to try and make Monday look better for Trump than it was. Will he end up being the nominee, at this stage who knows, but he absolutely did not do well on Feb 1st.
Santorum who was interviewed on Morning Joe this morning couldn't name anything that Rubio has accomplished in the Senate. That was an embarrassing interview. Rubio is probably sorry for the endorsement today. It's going to make a really good ad soundbite.
let's be honest endorsements mean absolutely little if anything one way or the other Santorum's supporters may switch to Rubio, but there isn't any guarantee of that and he only had a few to begin with.
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.
