The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
*Among Republican primary voters
-
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.
Clinton's lead over Trump is 8-9 points with just 70% of Sanders Supporters
- Thread starter cartoon_soldier
- Start date
- Status
Stupid is in the eye of the beholder, the crazier and stupider shit Trump says, the more publicity he gets, and the more his cult of personality grows, earning him votes. At this point he's less of a presidential candidate and more of a sports team.
DragonSworne
Banned
It's not that he can't pivot, it's that he planted his pivot foot in shit and all he can do is pivot to more shit.
He is pivoting in one big shit pile.
Again, I don't see dwindling numbers on the GE polling.
She'll get a bump, her favorability will go up. Everyone loves her. It's fine.
Is this like your first election? Bumps are a very real thing. It's why it makes predicting the president months out difficult. Beleive it or not April was a better predictor than today, and any day until august, because bumps mess with the polls.
The debates will not be his friend. He doesn't have a team of clowns to slap box with. Hillary knows her shit. I expect a lot of "Please precede governor" moments
I wish to no avail that a moratorium be placed on these polls until after the conventions. That's the earliest anyone will see of an even playing field between Hillary and Trump.
...love is also a noun. I can see how grammar flies over some people's heads, though!
...love is also a noun. I can see how grammar flies over some people's heads, though!
cpp_is_king
Member
In that case you can see why it's a shitty slogan.
DragonSworne
Banned
The Lamonster
Member
wrong thread
cpp_is_king
Member
If you think ambiguously worded messages only affect the uneducated, you would not do well in the field of marketing.
Polls don't matter unless NeoGAF decides they do.
Individual polls don't matter. Period. Aggregates do.
Except for a few elections the national vote has mirrored the electoral college victory. You are right that as a rule of thumb polls in swing states matter more but a. There aren't many now, and b. Even a 1% lead on election night is almost assured electoral college victory.
IrishNinja
Member
Wonder if Obama is planning on making his second consecutive appearance at the GOP convention
damn, thread got brutal real fast
how was romney polling this time in 2012 again?
signs point to "yes"
As it so happens, I do work in marketing! And do quite well in it...or at least, I think I do...
And I don't think it was an ambiguous message, nor do I see widespread reports of people utterly baffled by the slogan.
The guy you're quoting posted a pretty clear indicator of why these polls don't matter yet. This same time in '08, McCain and Romney were both tied with or leading Obama in polls.
These polls don't matter until after the conventions, when the parties have fully coalesced around their candidates, when party surrogates (e.g. Obama) begin stumping for their respective candidates, etc. It's not a GAF conspiracy. It's just how these polls have historically worked. And people have been saying this for many many months, well beyond just GAF.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Fascists are sooooo bad at analyzing marketing slogans nowadays.
What happened to Fascism that its supporters think that "Love Trumps Hate" is confusing.
What happened to Fascism that its supporters think that "Love Trumps Hate" is confusing.
cpp_is_king
Member
Ask Bill Maher, who is one of the biggest trump haters on the planet, and who agrees it's a mind boggingly stupid slogan.
Love beats Hate would have been better I think.
I don't think Love trumps Hate is bad though.
About that...
brianmcdoogle
Member
It is stemming from some stupid thing dumbass Scott Adams wrote or said on Bill Maher's show, so it is now being parroted as a bad slogan.
The point is to link to Trump by name. I don't think it works as well if you're not specifically calling out Trump.
I do see that. We'll see how it works out. I do think it can succeed, maybe I'm just a bit cynical at the same time.
The 8-9 points doesn't match up woth agregates because it's a hypothetical, not an actual poll of any kind.
Don't fret, the super delegates will decide Clinton is toxic and nominate Bernie at the convention
jack_package_200
Banned
Fuck the will of the voters, right?
Cesare Borgia
Banned
That can work in a primary race, not the general. Trump is going to drive his numbers down with women and every minority group for months. Yes I'm sure he'll successfully rile up many white male voters to come out but simple math dictates he cannot win with them alone.
The great thing about Trump is that he has no disipline. It is very easy to provoke him into over reacting and saying something stupid. The closer we get to November the closer people focus on who they trust to be president, who they're comfortable with representing them in the world, etc. You simply cannot make a compelling argument that Trump will make that case to voters. Especially female voters.
cpp_is_king
Member
The Globe and Mail misquoted the slogan as "Love Trump's Hate" in their publication long before Adams went on the air. Presumably their editors are well educated people, and the political leanings are center anyway.
The slogan is a mess! <airhorn>
Jeffolation
Banned
Oh my.
QuantumZebra
Member
we can only hope society catches up soon
BlastProcessing
Member
Calling a campaign completely incompetent and citing quibblies about one slogan is pretty weak. Clinton's campaign already has massive organizational advantages over Trump. She employs 10 to 30 times more people in swing states. Her fundraising machine is orders of magnitude more organized. The electoral college map is already stacked against Trump and he has shown now organizational ability to forge a path to election.
His caimpaign is amatuer hour and no amount of misdirection is going to change that.
Here is Sam Wang from Princeton Election Consortium's prediction for November.
He also predicts if the election was held today, Clinton would win 336-202.
Sam is one of the best political writers in the business. Back in January when even (usually good) sites like 538 were writing about a contested convention, and Trump loosing, Sam plainly stated that Clinton and Trump had more or less secured the nomination. He predicted the last two elections very well, perfectly in '08 and only missing Florida (which was more or less tied) in '12.
It's easy to look at bad poll numbers, or good poll numbers, and freak out over them. But that gets people nowhere. It's nearly useless to talk about individual polls, or "momentum", or anything else pundits like to bring up. What matters is the statistics based off of the polls, and right now they give a resounding Clinton victory.
This is his post in January, if you don't believe me. (He didn't actually stop posting). http://election.princeton.edu/2016/01/27/hey-may-i-just-sign-off-until-summer/
He also predicts if the election was held today, Clinton would win 336-202.
Sam is one of the best political writers in the business. Back in January when even (usually good) sites like 538 were writing about a contested convention, and Trump loosing, Sam plainly stated that Clinton and Trump had more or less secured the nomination. He predicted the last two elections very well, perfectly in '08 and only missing Florida (which was more or less tied) in '12.
It's easy to look at bad poll numbers, or good poll numbers, and freak out over them. But that gets people nowhere. It's nearly useless to talk about individual polls, or "momentum", or anything else pundits like to bring up. What matters is the statistics based off of the polls, and right now they give a resounding Clinton victory.
This is his post in January, if you don't believe me. (He didn't actually stop posting). http://election.princeton.edu/2016/01/27/hey-may-i-just-sign-off-until-summer/
RPGCrazied
Member
Soon as Sanders drops out, that number will rise, or I hope. Hopefully he is smart enough to endorse her and rally for her to make it an easier win.
EatinOlives
Member
metalslimer
Member
At this point I expect a never trump endorsement without explicitly endorsing Hilary. I'm fine with that
Does Trump even have surrogates outside of his family?
CitizenVectron
Member
It really can't be overstated how strong the national Democratic Party is right now in terms of high-profile statesmen after a successful 8 years in the White House. The convention could have Obama, Biden, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carty, etc all speaking. The GOP convention? People lukewarmly supporting Trump because they have to, even after throwing garbage at him for months.
Imagine if in 2000 Gore had actually allowed Bill Clinton to campaign with him and for him? Gore distanced himself from Clinton because he thought the sex scandal stuff would hurt him...but people loved Clinton, and Clinton could have pushed Gore over the top just by reminding them what they had done together in office. Clinton already has a relatively easy win against Trump based on demographics alone (which get stronger for the Democrats with each election), but with Obama stumping for her? Man, it's not even going to be close.
Imagine if in 2000 Gore had actually allowed Bill Clinton to campaign with him and for him? Gore distanced himself from Clinton because he thought the sex scandal stuff would hurt him...but people loved Clinton, and Clinton could have pushed Gore over the top just by reminding them what they had done together in office. Clinton already has a relatively easy win against Trump based on demographics alone (which get stronger for the Democrats with each election), but with Obama stumping for her? Man, it's not even going to be close.
RPGCrazied
Member
Yes... watch CNN sometime. Its pretty hard to watch to hear them talk.
brianmcdoogle
Member
Already Torn
Banned
This is a valid point. And nothing could change about public perception of Sanders. It's not like he's gonna go around insulting AIDS advocacy groups and encouraging violence.
Yeah there's this obnoxious blonde lady who's on CNN all the time. Watching her try to explain away the shit he says would be hilarious if it weren't so disgusting. I often wonder if she believes that nonsense, or if she's just paid to come up with the best possible reasoning to handwave away objections to Trump's statements.
Don't actually inform people how to follow elections intelligently! They have to come around the hard way like most political observers, doggedly believing in the power of ones own intuition (GUT FEELING), proclaiming that this time will be different than all historical precedent for reasons, and not comprehending the importance of the time a poll is taken, who it is taken by, and how it is taken.
Trump can still win, because of one very serious factor... if something serious happens on Obama's watch before election day, Democrats and therefore Hillary will take the blame and lose. That's still too precipitous for me to smile about this election.
But considering the electoral votes Democrats start with from the jump, how positive the shifting demographics are for Dems, how well Hillary is polling already versus Trump, the difference in status in their primaries and the fact that Republican party is infinitely more fractured and unprepared than the Democrats... this is not a difficult race to call at this juncture. One simply needs to understand how politics actually works, and not how we wish it would work.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Latest Reuters tracking poll shows a 10 point spread.
http://polling.reuters.com/#poll/TM651Y15_13/filters/LIKELY:1
http://polling.reuters.com/#poll/TM651Y15_13/filters/LIKELY:1
I beleive he was a bit of in 2014, we he admitted to and attempted to correct I the future. '04 he was just starting out, and modifying his model so I can't blame him for that one.
Right now she has a 70% chance in November because of the chance of the probability distribution moving. It has to do with the number of standard deviations (or sigma) away the 270 mark is for Trump. If the election were held today she'd have a >99% chance of winning it. The 70% will narrow the closer we get to November.
Funny enough 70% is only a bit hugher than the betting markets have, which tend to be a bit conservative with regards to the odds of the frontrunner winning, but are otherwise shockingly accurate.
Yeah a recession, hostage crisis or some bad dirt that could be dug up on Obama, Biden or Clinton could definetly ruin it for the democrats. I by no means am cocky about this election, just attempting to put to rest the doom and gloom about the Clinton campaign. There was the same sort of predictions in '12, and look how that turned out.
It's amazing really how many all stars the democratic party has on the bench. Meanwhile, it's mostly clowns on the other side who won't do anything to expand Trump's votes...
ArkhamFantasy
Member
Get rekt GOP, you brought this on yourselves.
Byakuya769
Member
This bullshit poll happened before Trump's North Korea endorsement. Clinton is toast.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked