• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

NBC poll: Trump continues to lead the GOP field after 1st debate

Status
Not open for further replies.
They're out there. And I love that there's no really reliable method to tell who's messing with pollsters/the Republican Party and who's serious about their support. We won't actually know anything until actual votes start being tallied. Imagine the damage he could do if he hangs around for the rest of the year and into 2016, hovering among that top tier of candidates..

Trust me, the people tricky pollsters are few. It just doesn't make sense for masses of people to outright lie.
 

NeonBlack

Member
CL-WDeQWEAATfTS.jpg


Ted Cruz in second place. Do we ask for his birth certificate now or..
 
Trump is a misogynist and a racist, to say nothing of his non-existent policy plan. I mean, feel free to vote for him if your disdain for the "system" is greater than your respect for basic human dignity.

My thoughts exactly.

People are trying to project their own anti-establishment fantasies into Trump just because he gets on live TV and vomits whatever shit he has on his mind. The man still has no platform to speak of.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
I'm honestly surprised the kiddy table debate was able to boost anyone, let alone to double digits. It goes to show how easily any candidate's standing can plummet or skyrocket this early in the race.

It's more due to the size of the field, even pulling 2% more support can catapult someone over 2 or 3 other candidates.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
So he's actually leading in legit polls too?

They've created a monster that they can't destroy... If this continues, there is no scenario in which Republicans win the presidency.

Online polls can be "scientific" polls. It'll probably show a similar result.
 

dabig2

Member
Embarrassing for republicans, maybe. I'm not embarrassed at all.

The fact that their party still holds considerable power federally, is most powerful already when it comes to states, and will still garner close to half the votes cast means it's still an embarrasment for the country and all involved.
 

jmood88

Member
The fact that their party still holds considerable power federally, is most powerful already when it comes to states, and will still garner close to half the votes cast means it's still an embarrasment for the country and all involved.
Nah, stupid people will always exist. I certainly don't feel embarrassed that stupid people continue to vote against their own interests. It's annoying and angering but there's nothing I can do about it.
 
UK Gaf checking in, I find the whole Trump thing fascinating he's like Nigel Farage on steroids.

If he somehow gets the nomination it could be the greatest thing ever

In a nutshell. How like Farage will fall at the final hurdle... Hopefully... If not then I guess the rest of the world will watch wih awe.

Also funny how Americans wouldn't even know who Farage is yet we follow American politics closely...
 

JDSN

Banned
Hahah fuck Rand, I wanna hear his salt about his worthless self being in future kiddie tables, thats free market at work dipshit!
 
The U.S. has nearly 4000 troops in Iraq and we carry out daily airstrikes. Just because Obama claims he ended the war doesn't make it so, only an idiot or a sycophant would claim otherwise. To answer your questions yes we are at war in Syria. Pakistan has always been part of the Afghan war handled mostly through CIA led drone strikes, the number of strikes and level of cooperation with the Pakistan government changes over time but we continue to conduct strikes, so yes the U.S. is still at war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This stuff isn't hard to understand, Obama tries to obfuscate the issue because it clashes with the image of peacemaker he'd like to have but he can't actually standup to the nation security establishment. And by the way Guantanmo is still open too. But at least he got a Nobel peace prize from his campaign stump speeches.

ISIS is not a new fight at all. ISIS is the direct continuation of Al Qaeda in Iraq that we wer fighting since 2004. So we fought them from 2004 to 2011 and it was a war and now it's not? The U.S. has conducted over 5000 airstrikes since last year in Iraq and Syria, claims to have killed at least 8500 militants and we don't consider it a war? Words don't even seem to have meaning anymore when they aren't useful to the agenda your trying to convey.

162,000 troops on the ground in August 2007 to directly overthrow the lawful Iraqi government versus 4000 on the ground for training, support, and defense of the current lawful Iraqi government.

Yes, words have meaning, and I think you need very different words to describe these two situations with a 40-fold difference.

We have not declared war on Pakistan, we are still fighting the war in Afghanistan as it spills into their borders. We are not at war with Syria, we are bombing the terrorist organization attempting to take over Assad's government. As contributors in a multinational effort supported by Jordan, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the UAE.

And we just proposed a nuclear deal to prevent war that several current candidates have openly advocated against Iran.

So please, stretching the definition of clearly defined terms in order to support a "both sides are the same" narrative doesn't do any of us any favors.
 
Hahah fuck Rand, I wanna hear his salt about his worthless self being in future kiddie tables, thats free market at work dipshit!
But it is kinda sad. He's the only guy trying to get the GOP to modernize, at least on some issues, and the party totally rejected it.

I was amazed to watch those GOPers pushing for banning all abortion with NO EXCEPTIONS for rape, incest, or even LIFE OF THE MOTHER.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
But it is kinda sad. He's the only guy trying to get the GOP to modernize, at least on some issues, and the party totally rejected it.

I was amazed to watch those GOPers pushing for banning all abortion with NO EXCEPTIONS for rape, incest, or even LIFE OF THE MOTHER.

He's not trying to get them to modernize, he's just an opportunist.
 

creatchee

Member
If Trump wins we won't even survive 4 years of his big mouth. We'll probably get to the two year point if we're lucky and he'll say something about one of the Middle Eastern powers, China and Russia and we'll wake up to this:
nuclear-blast-o.gif

No. Trump is a global businessman and a master of "the deal". People confuse his exaggerated public persona with how he actually operates when money and power are on the line. He would do what is best for business when it comes to foreign relations.

On another note, has anyone considered that the opposition of Fox News and other conservative news sources has to do with the fact that he probably does have the best chance of winning as the GOP nom? Why would that matter, you ask? Simple.

They want the democrats to win.

Fox's ratings and support are directly tied to a range of annoyed to angry conservatives who don't like the fact/are pissed off about liberals/a black guy being in charge. Without a president to complain about on daily basis, their viewership will not have the same fervent compliance as it had under Obama. Also, look at the gold and silver markets. Fox HEAVILY advertises gold and silver distribution companies with friendly washed-up celebrities telling you about the security of precious metal. The advertisers would be upset with a downturn. Same with the life insurance companies and health plans. There is a very specific structure of advertising to support their programming's message and vice versa - more so than more general television channels.

And it's all predicated on fighting the "good fight" while the bad guys are in power. Therefore, the good guys have to lose to keep the people angry, the advertisers filling commercial time, and, most importantly, the status quo that makes Fox News the most money.
 

Scoops

Banned
New PPP Iowa Poll

Trump - 19
Walker - 12
Carson - 12
Bush - 11
Fiorina - 10
Cruz - 9
Huckabee - 6
Rubio - 6
Kasich - 3
Paul - 3

Jindal - 2
Perry - 2
Santorum - 2
Christie - 1
Gilmore - <1
Graham - <1
Pataki - 0
 
Iowa- Trump 19, Carson/Walker 12, Bush 11, Fiorina 10, Cruz 9, Huckabee/Rubio 6, Kasich/Paul 3:

Walker def' has staying power, i see him going far, if he knocks out bush that'll be quite a resume, kills the unions beats a recall and 2 gov elections in a blue state, and a bush in the primary. damn
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
No. Trump is a global businessman and a master of "the deal". People confuse his exaggerated public persona with how he actually operates when money and power are on the line. He would do what is best for business when it comes to foreign relations.

On another note, has anyone considered that the opposition of Fox News and other conservative news sources has to do with the fact that he probably does have the best chance of winning as the GOP nom? Why would that matter, you ask? Simple.

They want the democrats to win.

Fox's ratings and support are directly tied to a range of annoyed to angry conservatives who don't like the fact/are pissed off about liberals/a black guy being in charge. Without a president to complain about on daily basis, their viewership will not have the same fervent compliance as it had under Obama. Also, look at the gold and silver markets. Fox HEAVILY advertises gold and silver distribution companies with friendly washed-up celebrities telling you about the security of precious metal. The advertisers would be upset with a downturn. Same with the life insurance companies and health plans. There is a very specific structure of advertising to support their programming's message and vice versa - more so than more general television channels.

And it's all predicated on fighting the "good fight" while the bad guys are in power. Therefore, the good guys have to lose to keep the people angry, the advertisers filling commercial time, and, most importantly, the status quo that makes Fox News the most money.

raw
 

Quixzlizx

Member
In a nutshell. How like Farage will fall at the final hurdle... Hopefully... If not then I guess the rest of the world will watch wih awe.

Also funny how Americans wouldn't even know who Farage is yet we follow American politics closely...

1. I know who he is.

2. We're more important than you are.

3. USA! USA! USA!
 
But it is kinda sad. He's the only guy trying to get the GOP to modernize, at least on some issues, and the party totally rejected it.

He's basically carrying on the family legacy. Even as a progressive, I can really get behind about half of his stated positions. The issue is that the other half is filled with unfathomably batshit crazy views and ideas.
 

samn

Member
But it is kinda sad. He's the only guy trying to get the GOP to modernize, at least on some issues, and the party totally rejected it.

I was amazed to watch those GOPers pushing for banning all abortion with NO EXCEPTIONS for rape, incest, or even LIFE OF THE MOTHER.

Well honestly, how many times does the 'life of the mother' reasoning actually come up, where both the child and the mother cannot be saved with modern medical science? I only ever hear it heard as a point of rhetoric.
 

Euron

Member
New PPP Iowa Poll

Trump - 19
Walker - 12
Carson - 12
Bush - 11
Fiorina - 10
Cruz - 9
Huckabee - 6
Rubio - 6
Kasich - 3
Paul - 3

Jindal - 2
Perry - 2
Santorum - 2
Christie - 1
Gilmore - <1
Graham - <1
Pataki - 0
I thought Paul would rank worse but he's still in the top ten. Lol @ Christie. And Carson's surprising but I doubt he will last.

The question is, who is going to pick up the percentages of the dropouts? Jeb and Walker will stay in the whole way. Trump's ego will keep him in for the long haul. Everyone else is a toss up. Trump getting Cruz's support is a given if he drops out, given how the two seem to be almost working together. Carson's support would probably also go to Trump. If Rubio were to drop out, his would easily go to Jeb. I can see Walker picking up most of Huckabee's but some of his might go to Jeb. That's all if he even decides to drop out in the first place. Fiorina's newfound growth makes me wonder how long she'll stay now. Graham and Gilmore will be out before October and their percentages won't matter. At this rate, same with Pataki.
 
They want the democrats to win.

.

Fox News' audience of angry/annoyed conservatives will remain intact, regardless of who wins the election. I don't think Fox News wants another president who considers them to be an illegitamite news media and won't give them the time of day. Every year they are shunned by the president is another year they lose relevance. It may entrench the die-hard followers to some effect, but their viewership has to suffer overall.
 

Konka

Banned
PublicPolicyPolling &#8207;@ppppolls 11m11 minutes ago
Mike Huckabee trailing Donald Trump 18 to 9 with Evangelicals in Iowa...really should have run in 2012:
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
I thought Paul would rank worse but he's still in the top ten. Lol @ Christie. And Carson's surprising but I doubt he will last.

The question is, who is going to pick up the percentages of the dropouts? Jeb and Walker will stay in the whole way. Trump's ego will keep him in for the long haul. Everyone else is a toss up. Trump getting Cruz's support is a given if he drops out, given how the two seem to be almost working together. Carson's support would probably also go to Trump. If Rubio were to drop out, his would easily go to Jeb. I can see Walker picking up most of Huckabee's but some of his might go to Jeb. That's all if he even decides to drop out in the first place. Fiorina's newfound growth makes me wonder how long she'll stay now. Graham and Gilmore will be out before October and their percentages won't matter. At this rate, same with Pataki.

Trump is going to devour Fiorina's soul and her support.
 
162,000 troops on the ground in August 2007 to directly overthrow the lawful Iraqi government versus 4000 on the ground for training, support, and defense of the current lawful Iraqi government.

Yes, words have meaning, and I think you need very different words to describe these two situations with a 40-fold difference.

We have not declared war on Pakistan, we are still fighting the war in Afghanistan as it spills into their borders. We are not at war with Syria, we are bombing the terrorist organization attempting to take over Assad's government. As contributors in a multinational effort supported by Jordan, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the UAE.

And we just proposed a nuclear deal to prevent war that several current candidates have openly advocated against Iran.

So please, stretching the definition of clearly defined terms in order to support a "both sides are the same" narrative doesn't do any of us any favors.
Haven't declared war on Pakistan you say? The U.S. hasnt declared war since December 8th 1941. In that time we have fought major wars in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq twice, not to mention smaller wars from Panama to Somalia, Bosnia and Libya. There are bigger and smaller wars to be sure but one thing is certain Obama did not end the war in Iraq. All that bullshit about coalitions and legitimate versus illegitimate doesn't mean anything. Obamas crowning achievement, ending the Iraq war never fucking happened, it's not over and that is his choice and you trying to use tortured logic to the contrary doesn't change that fact. Obama is nearly as bad as Bush when it comes to continuing needless overseas military action. The U.S. has been bombing Iraq almost continuously since 1991, look at what it's got us: millions of refugees, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, thousands of dead soldiers, tens of thousands of maimed soldiers, 9-11, Al Qaeda and ISIS and you don't want to call it a war? Sorry to offend your gentle sensibilities.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom