2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Black Swan

walshyn93 wrote: »

The unfavourables are obviously exaggerated. Everyone who's interested in polling knows that.

Since you know show much about presidential polling methods, would you please explain why "The unfavourables are obviously exaggerated" by women in the recent 7 national polls taken by Gallup 70%, CBS 69%, Fox News 67%, Quinnipiac University 67%, NBC/WSJ 70%, CNN/ORC 73%, and ABC/Washington Post 74%? (all Trump unfavourable by women %s)

Does anyone find it ironic that Trump frequently claims leadership in national polls against Republican primary competitors, yet when polls (often conducted by the same polling organisations) show that he is seen as extraordinarily unfavourable by women, such polls are to be ignored? Furthermore, if the Trump unfavourability with women polls are "exaggerated," would the polls also be "exaggerated" regarding his lead mostly in the 40 percentiles today?

Christy42

walshyn93 wrote: »

In other words, he hurts their feelings.

You're hilarious. Trump insults women and you expect them to think he would be a good president. If a candidate is insulting you why on earth would you think the candidate would look after issues that affect you?

Seems women are a lot more clued up than you give them credit for.

As for your repeated statements that better educated women vote Trump, his supporter base as a whole is based on less educated people. Your statement seems unlikely unless there is a ridiculous skew the other way for men.

Clinton has held her own in negotiations around the world. She is well regarded in political circles and has won some tough to get positions. She isn't dumb by any stretch of the imagination.

BTW some of the most politically clued up people I know are women. May I humbly suggest that your opinions of women may not be representative?

K-9

walshyn93 wrote: »

I know some very intelligent women. One of them recently didn't know which party Joan Burton was in or whether she was in even government or not.

I just think most women especially unmarried women don't care as much about politics and so they only see the information that is presented to them rather than look for it for themselves. I think they're more likely to take the media at face value.

This is why sites like Buzzfeed are influential with women, because they mix politically charged content with puppies, food porn and ****-lists.

You think comments like women who get abortions should be prosecuted might have pissed off a few women?

I've got to hand it to Trump on that one, he managed to unite pro choice and pro life people like never before. Historic achievement by Trump, he really brings people together.

BoJack Horseman

K-9 wrote: »

You think comments like women who get abortions should be prosecuted might have pissed off a few women?.

Wasn't it in the hypothetical context of if abortion was illegal?

It did outrage a lot of people.... but from what I gather from my family there, prosecuting someone for breaking a (hypothetical) law wasn't the brew-ha-ha it was in the media.

K-9

walshyn93 wrote: »

In other words, he hurts their feelings.

That's condescending sexism tbh, but no doubt you think it is telling it as it is.

Where do people read this stuff, Trump's reddit fan pages?

K-9

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Wasn't it in the hypothetical context of if abortion was illegal?

It did outrage a lot of people.... but from what I gather from my family there, prosecuting someone for breaking a (hypothetical) law wasn't the brew-ha-ha it was in the media.

Well he did back track, which is significant for Trump. Hypothetical or not, he boxed himself into a corner with his views.

BoJack Horseman

K-9 wrote: »

Well he did back track, which is significant for Trump. Hypothetical or not, he boxed himself into a corner with his views.

Indeed.... a big slice of the 'under the line' reaction was why was he put/put himself into that kind of no-win spot.

A canny politician would have danced away from the bait.... Donny couldn't help himself.

Suryavarman

If we were to judge him on his rhetoric then Trump is clearly a sexist and probably a racist too. And judging by the devotion he elicits from many of his supporters it would seem that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

PopePalpatine

K-9 wrote: »

That's condescending sexism tbh, but no doubt you think it is telling it as it is.

Where do people read this stuff, Trump's reddit fan pages?

What do you expect, his supporters' safe space was formerly run by a guy who can't be certain that he isn't a rapist.

walshyn93

Black Swan wrote: »

Since you know show much about presidential polling methods, would you please explain why "The unfavourables are obviously exaggerated" by women in the recent 7 national polls taken by Gallup 70%, CBS 69%, Fox News 67%, Quinnipiac University 67%, NBC/WSJ 70%, CNN/ORC 73%, and ABC/Washington Post 74%? (all Trump unfavourable by women %s)

Does anyone find it ironic that Trump frequently claims leadership in national polls against Republican primary competitors, yet when polls (often conducted by the same polling organisations) show that he is seen as extraordinarily unfavourable by women, such polls are to be ignored? Furthermore, if the Trump unfavourability with women polls are "exaggerated," would the polls also be "exaggerated" regarding his lead mostly in the 40 percentiles today?

It's not that hard to understand, mate.

If you'd stop having a **** fit for a second you'd realise that the flaws of public opinion polling are well documented and have probably been discussed on this thread numerous times.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-09-29/flaws-in-polling-data-exposed-as-u-s-campaign-season-heats-up

walshyn93

Christy42 wrote: »

You're hilarious. Trump insults women and you expect them to think he would be a good president. If a candidate is insulting you why on earth would you think the candidate would look after issues that affect you?

Seems women are a lot more clued up than you give them credit for.

As for your repeated statements that better educated women vote Trump, his supporter base as a whole is based on less educated people. Your statement seems unlikely unless there is a ridiculous skew the other way for men.

Clinton has held her own in negotiations around the world. She is well regarded in political circles and has won some tough to get positions. She isn't dumb by any stretch of the imagination.

BTW some of the most politically clued up people I know are women. May I humbly suggest that your opinions of women may not be representative?

Trump has never insulted all women. I actually don't think women as a whole take offence to an individual woman being insulted. The media would like you to think they do, except when the person being insulted is Sarah Palin or Carly Fiorina (case in point, her treatment by the View).

Every successful politician draws most of their support from the "less educated" because as it turns out the majority of Americans don't have degrees. Huffpo and other lefty outlets went crazy and made a big deal out of something that was true for every successful presidential candidate ever. In doing so exposing their true motives.

She is well regarded because she sells favours for donations for her foundation. What foreign leader wouldn't want a puppet of their own in the White House?

No, I think they're pretty representative. I just don't think they care as much.

ebbsy

Judging by those Indiana polls he might get over the line.

walshyn93

Christy, here's why Clinton is so "well regarded" by foreign leaders.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/everything-we-know-about-the-hillary-clinton-russia-uranium-scandal-2015-4?r=US&IR=T

walshyn93

PopePalpatine wrote: »

What do you expect, his supporters' safe space was formerly run by a guy who can't be certain that he isn't a rapist.

If we're going to judge a person based on who their supporters are we should ask why Clinton ally and Democratic governor of Virginia is passing a bill to allow 200,000 convicted felons to vote.

We can argue over whether they should or shouldn't be allowed to vote another time, but Republicans in a swing state would never do that because it would help the opposition.

ebbsy

The mud so far ain't sticking on Trump. He is certainly getting a leg up with Cruz and Kasich being so weak.

walshyn93

K-9 wrote: »

That's condescending sexism tbh, but no doubt you think it is telling it as it is.

Where do people read this stuff, Trump's reddit fan pages?

I think it's condescending sexism to pretend that women get personally insulted when another woman is insulted.

Men don't get insulted if a woman insults another man. I judge men and women by the same standard.

Christy42

walshyn93 wrote: »

I think it's condescending sexism to pretend that women get personally insulted when another woman is insulted.

Men don't get insulted if a woman insults another man. I judge men and women by the same standard.

Insulting a man is not insulting to all men.

Insulting a man (or implying he can't ask good questions) because he is a man is insulting to all men.

As for the comment that all politicians rely on voters without college degrees. True but Trump does better with them than with voters without college degrees and his opponents do better. This is a matter of fact and statistics so your repeated statement that educated women like Trump is still wrong.

B_Wayne

walshyn93 wrote: »

I think it's condescending sexism to pretend that women get personally insulted when another woman is insulted.

Men don't get insulted if a woman insults another man. I judge men and women by the same standard.

I imagine him just referring to the debate host's period is in itself is pretty offensive to many women. That is condescending sexism and was never gonna be a great reflection of a candidate... He's repeatedly made jabs about women being ugly.... It's not professional and in any role, that would not be considered okay. I imagine it will put off many women voting for him and that is reflected in polling.

It also tends to have been a long history of it. Just to select one from his past that wouldn't tend to indicate that he can represent women as President... I can only see his polling numbers with women dropping further.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/331907383771148288?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

walshyn93

Christy42 wrote: »

Insulting a man is not insulting to all men.

Insulting a man (or implying he can't ask good questions) because he is a man is insulting to all men.

As for the comment that all politicians rely on voters without college degrees. True but Trump does better with them than with voters without college degrees and his opponents do better. This is a matter of fact and statistics so your repeated statement that educated women like Trump is still wrong.

If you're referring to Meghan Kelly I think women know their periods make them moody. It's not even controversial. People make it controversial because they have a vested interest in elevating women to be above reproach so they can be used as political tools and browbeat male politicians to be subservient to whatever the feminist's agenda is this week.

I never said educated women like Trump. I said that married women (who tend to be older and therefore wiser) are more likely to vote for him than single women based on the fact that married women tend to vote more conservative. Please stop lying about my position.

walshyn93

B_Wayne wrote: »

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/331907383771148288?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

He's not wrong. Women shouldn't be sexually assaulted, but they also shouldn't be in the military. Utter utter lunacy.

walshyn93

Christy42 wrote: »

As for the comment that all politicians rely on voters without college degrees. True but Trump does better with them than with voters without college degrees and his opponents do better. This is a matter of fact and statistics so your repeated statement that educated women like Trump is still wrong.

It shouldn't come as a surprise that well-off graduates with cheap nannys and maids would prefer to elect someone who wants to dissolve the borders. Besides, most US College Freshmen Read at 7th Grade Level. College is no longer a marker of intelligence. In fact many are coming out dumber than when they went in. They're also obviously going to be on average more left leaning than non-college graduates due to the endemic left wing bias on college campuses.

But I'm going to demand that you back up your "facts and statistics" with recent evidence from the actual primaries. Don't give me any stats from 2015 because they're irrelevant now.

johnnyskeleton

walshyn93 wrote: »

If you're referring to Meghan Kelly I think women know their periods make them moody. It's not even controversial. People make it controversial because they have a vested interest in elevating women to be above reproach so they can be used as political tools and browbeat male politicians to be subservient to whatever the feminist's agenda is this week.

Mod note:

Permabanned for trolling.

TheDoctor

Interesting primary today. Saw one poll with Cruz ahead and another with Trump well ahead.

Also tight in the Dem side.

TheDoctor

TheDoctor wrote: »

Interesting primary today. Saw one poll with Cruz ahead and another with Trump well ahead.

Also tight in the Dem side.

Where was the one with Cruz ahead?

TheDoctor

It was an article cant find it now, read it last week.

BoJack Horseman

Check out fivethirtyeight on Indiana.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/indiana-republican/

They were projecting Cruz... but have changed to Trump.
There is a poll at the bottom of the page showing Cruz in the lead, but it is solitary.

They were also predicting Cruz to win California.... but have also now changed to Trump.

TheDoctor

The Donald has all the momentum.

Think this is a clean "winner take all" tonight. So 57 goes to the winner.

Christy42

TheDoctor wrote: »

The Donald has all the momentum.

Think this is a clean "winner take all" tonight. So 57 goes to the winner.

Winner of the state gets 30.
Winner of each county gets 3. So possible 57.

Manic Moran

Black Swan wrote: »

It should be noted that Orange County is one of the few counties in California that is dominated by the Republican party in general elections, most others in the state are Democratic.

In 2012, the counties were split exactly down the middle. 29 went for Obama, 29 went for Romney. It's the population density of the counties which is making CA democrat, not the number of counties (and certainly not the land area).

As an aside, I have actually seen more Trump bumper stickers here in the San Francisco area than I have seen Clinton bumper stickers. (1 vs 0). GF theorises that Hillary supporters don't want to mar their Mercedes with a bumper sticker. From what I can see, Bernie is going to take quite a haul in CA next month. Hell, even I'm planning on voting for him.

How the heck do I multi-quote with this new interface?

JPNelsforearm

Trump accused/linked Lyin' Ted's father with the JFK assassin Lee Harvey Oswald, and gets Cruz to respond, LOL, this is brilliant, insane that its actually happening, but brilliant entertainment all the same.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvDlsvuv9W0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLhMb72rZ8w