2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

InTheTrees

Amazingfun wrote: »

Also, who says he is "hemorrhaging female support"? The same "news channels" you watched today? If anything, I am noticing more women than ever speaking out in support of Trump on social media.

Yup. The news channels. Its dominating the entire day.

Polls are saying 70% negative rating among women.

But maybe you're right, all his female supporters are on "social media" now.

Amazingfun

Black Swan wrote: »

CNN Politics Reports: Overall, 73% of female voters in a mid-March CNN/ORC poll said they had a negative view of Trump, just 26% view him positively. That unfavorable number is up 14 points in the last few months: from 59% in December and 67% in late February.

He has been winning loads of states despite high "unfavorables" all along.

These numbers don't seem to translate into less votes, quite a mystery!

Suppose the coming primarys will tell the tale as to whether these numbers hurt him or not, for as I said, although just my own experience, I am seeing more female support for him than ever before.

Amazingfun

InTheTrees wrote: »

Yup. The news channels. Its dominating the entire day.

Polls are saying 70% negative rating among women.

But maybe you're right, all his female supporters are on "social media" now.

Seems hardly worth clarifying this, but I didn't say "all his female supporters are on social media now".

I said I am seeing much more female support for him on social media, now.

Black Swan

InTheTrees wrote: »

Polls are saying 70% negative rating among women.

But maybe you're right, all his female supporters are on "social media" now.

Yes, I would expect that the Trump campaign will now post testimonials by women supporters in an attempt to counter the trend of unfavourability that's occurring in the polls. Testimonials are individual and anecdotal, and of no value from a research standpoint, but will some women go for it?

Speaking anecdotally too (just like the Trump women supporters), most women I know would never vote for Trump given several of Trump's insensitive and MCP comments about women since last Summer, and I currently live in one of the few Republican counties historically dominated in California by GOP: Orange County. These same women don't like Cruz either.

eire4

Black Swan wrote: »

4 out of 5 recent polls by different organisations show Cruz defeating Trump in Wisconsin's 5 April 2016 primary. The state has 42 delegates. Caution should be exercised when viewing these polls, as some of the percentages fall within the margin of error, and because they have been conducted by 5 different organisations it is problematic to average them.

Also it should be noted that for the Republicans it is a winner takes all state. So 51% for any candidate and he gets all 42 delegates.

InTheTrees

Black Swan wrote: »

Yes, I would expect that the Trump campaign will now post testimonials by women supporters in an attempt to counter the trend of unfavourability that's occurring in the polls.

Funny. A pro Trump PAC has actually come out with a new ad today that features a perky blonde housewife commenting on how great The Donald is and what a slug Cruz is, while she feeds her two cute but playfully unruly kids in her spotlessly clean kitchen.

eire4

Akrasia wrote: »

I would be very worried if Sanders didn't beat Clinton in Wisconsin.

I think he needs to do well in both Wisconsin and Wyoming so that he has the wave of positive media attention heading into NY

The latest poll just released this week has Sanders ahead by 4 points in Wisconsin amongst 'likely democratic voters'
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/03/30/wisconsin-poll-shows-ted-cruz-ahead-of-donald-trump/

Wisconsin is a closed primary, so I think it is very important that Sanders wins on Tuesday so that he can begin to silence critics who claim he only does well in open primaries or caucuses. (That said, i still expect the narrative to continue that the states sanders wins are not 'real' victories because of reason x y or z)

I totally agree. Wisconsin is huge as Sanders would say for him. A win in Wisconsin would be a massive boost to his campaign and harder for the MSM to dismiss as insignificant as his current run of 6 wins in the last 7 contests has been largely portrayed.
As for polls yes 3 new polls actually show Sanders ahead with leads of between 4 and 6 points. Another one from this week shows Clinton ahead by 6. So its hard to say how it looks in Wisconsin for sure but the trends do seem to be moving in Sanders direction.

Amazingfun

eire4 wrote: »

Also it should be noted that for the Republicans it is a winner takes all state. So 51% for any candidate and he gets all 42 delegates.

No, it is not a winner take all state, it's proportional.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2016/0328/The-next-big-battle-for-Republican-votes-Wisconsin

EDIT:

Actually, we are both right/wrong---it's a "hybrid" (unknown to me til right now!)

Hybrid

Others use a hybrid system, going by a complex set of rules that are neither winner-take-all nor proportional. They are: California, Wisconsin, Indiana, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Connecticut.

Out of the “hybrids,” California is the most significant, bringing with it a massive haul of 172 delegates.

California's system is essentially winner-take-all, but with a twist. The delegates are split between congressional delegates and state-wide delegates, with three delegates assigned to Republican National Committee officials. The top candidate state-wide picks up 10 delegates, while the top candidates in each district pick up three votes per district. Indiana and Wisconsin follow a similar method of distributing their delegates.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/17/delegate-chess-how-delegates-are-won-in-remaining-gop-contests.html

Black Swan

Amazingfun wrote: »

I said I am seeing much more female support for him on social media, now.

Not according to Trump: "I mean, the numbers aren't good, the numbers were good, the numbers aren't as good with women as they were."

According to two recent polls, the majority of the female registered voters have unfavorable views of Trump. In a March 23 Quinnipiac poll, 67 percent of females registered voters had unfavorable views of Trump, and in a CNN poll the next day, the outlet reported that 74 percent of females registered voters had unfavorable views of him.

In summary, Trump's unfavourability rating with women in polls last Summer was smaller than it is today, and if Trump continues to slide towards increased unfavourability with women, it should be noted that there are more women registered voters than men in the USA, which may have significant impact on the 8 November 2016 presidential election (if Trump is GOP nominated).

Amazingfun

Black Swan wrote: »

Not according to Trump: "I mean, the numbers aren't good, the numbers were good, the numbers aren't as good with women as they were."
.

Trump says otherwise? Nowhere there does Trump dispute my observation that I am seeing more female support for him than ever on social media

Also, the poll cited in your link, the New Marquette University Law School poll, has issues :

Politics do not begin or end inside the borders of Milwaukee, or Madison, for that matter; in Wisconsin. We were surprised to find such a high concentration of respondents from Milwaukee and surrounding counties in what was supposed to be a statewide poll of Badger State voters.

A leak of sensitive polling information before it has been reviewed for release has only one motive; to affect personal opinions of voters just one week before one of the most important elections to take place in Wisconsin in many years. By accepting the leaked information, Real Clear Politics became an unwitting co-conspirator in the early release of the results, and not the polling data itself.

One has to dig very deep in this poll to be able to tell just how small the sample of Republican voters is. With so many liberals in Milwaukee and the surrounding localities being chosen for this survey, the end results are slanted towards a candidate in a way that might not happen, say, if the sample size was larger.

http://www.examiner.com/article/new-marquette-university-law-school-poll-leaves-more-questions-than-answers

KingBrian2

I'm glad were getting away from the notion that only men are opposed to abortion. The Women who support Trump equally oppose abortion otherwise it would not be on the agenda. I never like the way the abortion debate has been framed within the context of a male dominated attempt to subvert the rights of women. The debate should be about the ethical and safety of the women without devolving into insults.

Black Swan

Amazingfun wrote: »

Also, the poll cited in your link, the New Marquette University Law School poll, has issues :

All polls have "issues" methodologically, and I have noted such "cautions" numerous times since this thread had been opened by me, the most recent caution occurred a few posts before this. But Marquette is not the only poll showing this trend of increased unfavourability by women in regards to Trump, and the Trump quote acknowledged his recent concern about the slide towards greater unfavourability: "I mean, the numbers aren't good, the numbers were good, the numbers aren't as good with women as they were."

Of course, you can attempt to reinterpret Trump (after Trump states something that is damaging to himself in terms of the women's vote).

Overheal

Amazingfun wrote: »

I said I am seeing much more female support for him on social media, now.

If social media was an accurate indicator of society I would be sitting here telling you religion was seriously in decline.

Social media is notorious about providing you information in your feed you actively want to hear. You can casually unfollow friends that you don't want to hear from anymore (or they turn their personal FB page into a Sephora store and post about it 27 times per day...) all it tells us is you've made friends with a few other women who are Trump supporters, it would be inaccurate and bad practice to extrapolate that out to the entire voter base.

Nowhere there does Trump dispute my observation that I am seeing more female support for him than ever on social media

He also has "the best security cameras" the best this the best friends so many muslim friends - basically any straw man he needs, Trump has the best straw man for the job. Hides them in his hair.

Billy86

Amazingfun wrote: »

Trump says otherwise? Nowhere there does Trump dispute my observation that I am seeing more female support for him than ever on social media

Also, the poll cited in your link, the New Marquette University Law School poll, has issues :

http://www.examiner.com/article/new-marquette-university-law-school-poll-leaves-more-questions-than-answers

31% of the people questioned were from Milwaukee and the surrounding areas.

35% of people in Wisconsin live in Milwaukee of the surrounding areas.

Amazingfun

Black Swan wrote: »

All polls have "issues" methodologically, and I have noted such "cautions" numerous times since this thread had been opened by me, the most recent caution occurred a few posts before this. But Marquette is not the only poll showing this trend of increased unfavourability by women in regards to Trump, and the Trump quote acknowledge his concern about the slide towards greater unfavourability: "I mean, the numbers aren't good, the numbers were good, the numbers aren't as good with women as they were."

Of course, you can attempt to reinterpret Trump (after Trump states something that is damaging to himself in terms of the women's vote).

I am not speaking to "all polls", I am specifically addressing the one cited in your link as its issues are worse than most, based on deceptive polling.

Also, Trump's words are not "damaging to himself", he merely acknowledged poll numbers presented to him. Unless he begins to lose a lot of the upcoming States, that there has been any "damage" at all remains an open question.

Black Swan

Amazingfun wrote: »

I am not speaking to "all polls", I am specifically addressing the one cited in your link as its issues are worse than most, based on deceptive polling.

If you reread a few posts above in this thread you will encounter yet another poll (CNN/ORC) besides Marquette, which exhibits even a greater slide in women's unfavourability towards Trump during past months:

Black Swan wrote: »

CNN Politics Reports: Overall, 73% of female voters in a mid-March CNN/ORC poll said they had a negative view of Trump, just 26% view him positively. That unfavorable number is up 14 points in the last few months: from 59% in December and 67% in late February.

Of course, "caution" should be used with any poll taken for methodological reasons (additionally, polls are descriptive and not inferential), but I am sure I can find other polls that show this recent and increasing unfavourability trend for Trump with women. Trump has showed his concern about these polls (see above recent Trump quote).

EDIT
NBC/WSJ poll - This month 47 percent of Republican female primary voters said they could not imagine themselves voting for Trump.
Gallup: More Republican women view Trump more negatively than positively, according to Gallup.
Reuters/PSOS: Half of U.S. women say they have a "very unfavorable" view of the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination.
Washinton Post/ABC: In a hypothetical matchup with Clinton, a Washington Post/ABC News poll found this month that Trump loses the women’s vote by 21 points.

Akrasia

Black Swan wrote: »

Not according to Trump: "I mean, the numbers aren't good, the numbers were good, the numbers aren't as good with women as they were."



In summary, Trump's unfavourability rating with women in polls last Summer was smaller than it is today, and if Trump continues to slide towards increased unfavourability with women, it should be noted that there are more women registered voters than men in the USA, which may have significant impact on the 8 November 2016 presidential election (if Trump is GOP nominated).

If Trump wins the nomination, he won't focus on improving his own favourability ratings, he'll focus on dragging his opponent down to his level with character attacks. Clinton is already disliked by a lot of voters, a few months of constantly being reminded of all her flaws could possibly turn enough voters against her to give trump the edge.

It's still unlikely that any candidate will lose to Trump though. An inanimate carbon rod would attract more votes than Trump, just to keep him out of the whitehouse.

Brian?

Akrasia wrote: »

If Trump wins the nomination, he won't focus on improving his own favourability ratings, he'll focus on dragging his opponent down to his level with character attacks. Clinton is already disliked by a lot of voters, a few months of constantly being reminded of all her flaws could possibly turn enough voters against her to give trump the edge.

It's still unlikely that any candidate will lose to Trump though. An inanimate carbon rod would attract more votes than Trump, just to keep him out of the whitehouse.

In Rod we trust!

The worrying thing is that if it's a head to head between the Donald and any other candidate in the genetal, there is always a chance Trump wins. It'll be an anxious wait until November of he takes the nomination, Hilary had far too many skeletons in her closet.

JPNelsforearm

Black Swan wrote: »

If you reread a few posts above in this thread you will encounter yet another poll (CNN/ORC) besides Marquette, which exhibits even a greater slide in women's unfavourability towards Trump during past months:



Of course, "caution" should be used with any poll taken for methodological reasons (additionally, polls are descriptive and not inferential), but I am sure I can find other polls that show this recent and increasing unfavourability trend for Trump with women. Trump has showed his concern about these polls (see above recent Trump quote).

EDIT
NBC/WSJ poll - This month 47 percent of Republican female primary voters said they could not imagine themselves voting for Trump.
Gallup: More Republican women view Trump more negatively than positively, according to Gallup.
Reuters/PSOS: Half of U.S. women say they have a "very unfavorable" view of the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination.
Washinton Post/ABC: In a hypothetical matchup with Clinton, a Washington Post/ABC News poll found this month that Trump loses the women’s vote by 21 points.

Not surprising, it is the same in Europe, weak leftists always attract female voters, look at any nationalist party or politicians, their support is overwhelmingly male.
Trump justs needs to do what he has done to Jeb! on Hillary, and moderate his positions, which I have no doubt he will do. Once Lyin' Ted is dealt with abortion and planned parenthood become non issues

oscarBravo

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Trump justs needs to do what he has done to Jeb! on Hillary, and moderate his positions, which I have no doubt he will do. Once Lyin' Ted is dealt with abortion and planned parenthood become non issues

There's something in equal measure hilarious and disturbing about watching a Trump supporter describe how his favoured candidate's likely strategy to deal with his "lyin'" opponent will be... dishonesty.

Black Swan

Brian? wrote: »

The worrying thing is that if it's a head to head between the Donald and any other candidate in the genetal, there is always a chance Trump wins. It'll be an anxious wait until November of he takes the nomination, Hilary had far too many skeletons in her closet.

If you have glanced through his 1987 book, which delineated his deal making, does anyone believe that Trump is without many skeletons? If I were the campaign strategist for the opposing party, and I had any Trump skeletons to reveal, I would wait until he wins the GOP nomination before rolling out Halloween.

On a more personal note... CBS evening national news frequently ends their show with a personal piece about someone. Yesterday they telecast interviews with persons on the Isle of Lewis in Scotland where Trump's mother Mary Anne MacLeod immigrated from 7 decades ago. Local author Ian Stephen summed up the islanders' attitude toward Trump's run for president. "There is this irrational sense of guilt. What have we spawned?"

Amazingfun

Black Swan wrote: »

On a more personal note... CBS evening national news frequently ends their show with a personal piece about someone. Yesterday they telecast interviews with persons on the Isle of Lewis in Scotland where Trump's mother Mary Anne MacLeod immigrated from 7 decades ago. Local author Ian Stephen summed up the islanders' attitude toward Trump's run for president. "There is this irrational sense of guilt. What have we spawned?"

Like they wouldn't say that about most Americans?

And what have "they", in fact, "spawned"?

A man who has employed thousands upon thousands over the years, allowing them in turn to feed and raise their families. A man who once paid off a man's another mortgage after he stopped to help Trump's broken-down car. A man with many beautiful and successful children/grandchildren of his own.
A man who has never drank, smoked or done drugs. A man who saved a farm that was about to be repossessed by the Bank, a farm that was in the family for generations and still is today. I could go on.....

I am sure they have "spawned" far worse.

Brian?

Black Swan wrote: »

If you have glanced through his 1987 book, which delineated his deal making, does anyone believe that Trump is without many skeletons? If I were the campaign strategist for the opposing party, and I had any Trump skeletons to reveal, I would wait until he wins the GOP nomination before rolling out Halloween.

On a more personal note... CBS evening national news frequently ends their show with a personal piece about someone. Yesterday they telecast interviews with persons on the Isle of Lewis in Scotland where Trump's mother Mary Anne MacLeod immigrated from 7 decades ago. Local author Ian Stephen summed up the islanders' attitude toward Trump's run for president. "There is this irrational sense of guilt. What have we spawned?"

I actually don't think Trump has any skeletons, he's an open book. His supporters just don't care that he's a lying bigot.

Amazingfun

Brian? wrote: »

I actually don't think Trump has any skeletons, he's an open book. His supporters just don't care that he's a lying bigot.

How is Trump a "bigot", exactly, much less a "lying bigot"?

Please explain.

JPNelsforearm

oscarBravo wrote: »

There's something in equal measure hilarious and disturbing about watching a Trump supporter describe how his favoured candidate's likely strategy to deal with his "lyin'" opponent will be... dishonesty.

Well, in reality, you play the hands you are dealt, which in the Republican primary means dealing with the evangelical vote, he has to garner enough of that vote.
If you look at the whole abortion "controversy" he has said just enough to generate the *SHOCK HEADLINE* which gets the usual's frothing at the mouth and appeals to the religious voter.
However, when you actually look at what he said he can easily return to his pro choice-ish position when fighting Hillary, seeing as how has has actually never left it, he has said he is personally opposed to abortion, and "something must be done" etc, its just a sop.
Trump is being disingenuous on certain issue to win votes, Lyin' Ted, well, between being owned by vested interests/the Republican party and cheating on his wife(whilst thumping the bible), is as his moniker suggests.
"Bible high, puts it down and then he lies"

oscarBravo

Amazingfun wrote: »

How is Trump a "bigot", exactly...

If pledging to ban all Muslims from entering America (apart, apparently, from his rich Muslim friends) doesn't suggest bigotry to you, then I'd respectfully suggest that there's pretty much nothing that could.

Brian?

Amazingfun wrote: »

How is Trump a "bigot", exactly, much less a "lying bigot"?

Please explain.

He's a bigot because he's a racist, misogynist and xenophobic.

He's a liar because he doesn't tell the truth.

Amazingfun

oscarBravo wrote: »

If pledging to ban all Muslims from entering America (apart, apparently, from his rich Muslim friends) doesn't suggest bigotry to you, then I'd respectfully suggest that there's pretty much nothing that could.

Why are you mischaracterizing what he said?

On the back of recent terrorist acts carried out by radical Islamists in the USA, Trump has proposed a temporary stoppage of any further immigration from the group they emerge from, Muslims, until they can "figure out what is going on". This is called sanity, something I know many of us in Europe are wishing we'd hear from our own.

Amazingfun

Brian? wrote: »

He's a bigot because he's a racist, misogynist and xenophobic.

No he isn't. Is this now the standard of posting here btw? I was under the impression more substance than name calling was required.

Black Swan

Amazingfun wrote: »

How is Trump... a "lying bigot"?

Please explain.

Answered already by JPNelsforearm:

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

1. Well, in reality, you play the hands you are dealt, which in the Republican primary means dealing with the evangelical vote, he has to garner enough of that vote.
   
2. If you look at the whole abortion "controversy" he has said just enough to generate the *SHOCK HEADLINE* which gets the usual's frothing at the mouth and appeals to the religious voter.
4. However, when you actually look at what he said he can easily return to his pro choice-ish position when fighting Hillary, seeing as how has has actually never left it, he has said he is personally opposed to abortion, and "something must be done" etc, its just a sop.
   
5. Trump is being disingenuous...

"Disingenuous" Trump is synonymous with insincere, dishonest, untruthful, false, deceitful, duplicitous, lying, mendacious hypocritical.