PluggyRug PluggyRug:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
CNN has Trump polling with his highest numbers yet - 41%.
Obviously his "mistake" of wanting to limit Muslims from immigrating to the USA for a few years wasn't much of a mistake in the eyes of a growing number of voters.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/14/politics/ ... index.htmlHasn't he dropped in Iowa?
Iowa doesn't really matter for Trump, and honestly it wasn't going to be there that Trump was going to be the most successful. Nor is it exactly the end of the world if he doesn't get it. Huckabee and Santorum didn't see bumps when they won it, and in a splintered field I doubt Trump was expecting to win them all. His chances in New Hampshire will be more than enough to land him one of the first three. Once you get past the first three, where candidates try to win in the hopes it will give them momentum (I can't name an example where that has ever happened) and hence spend most of their time and money, then it's really only between the major candidates. Much like how a lack of caring killed the Iowa straw poll, large candidacies are aware that those states are not as important as might otherwise be claimed.
Only three times out of 11 presidential elections has the winner of a contested caucus gone on to be president. A win in this crowded field is making it into the top three or four.
That being said, right now polls are split. He's either
super far ahead or
way behind. It depends on who you ask. Frankly, the wild swings in polling should indicate just how valuable any single poll (including the quoted one here) is, especially since many reputable polling companies have been coming to very different conclusions. The turbidity of the Republican electorate is what is being measured here, and most polls aren't exactly extolling the successes of any particular candidate. For the record, the quoted article does use Monmouth, which is highly reputable when it comes to political polls.
As for Trump, his rise still has to be held in context. A lot of his supports, for example, have never voted in a primary before, nor is support now particularly relevant. Most Americans don't spend much time paying attention to the caucuses far ahead of time, and the holiday season hasn't arrived for the typical around-the-dinnertable changing of minds. Nor have his numbers consistently reached the point to indiciate success -- at the moment he is far more in the territory of Giulani, who ended up losing even if he was leading for much of 2007, because eventually people begin tuning into the race and when they do they will far outnumber the dedicated voters who have already decided.
This is all the more true for Trump because,
while his unfavourability rating has been improving, it is still at a level that puts an uncomfortable ceiling on his support. A lot of new people may show up to get him the candidacy only to discover that other Republicans have decided to stay at home or not to push independents in support. As the Monmouth poll indicates, among others, while Republicans are beginning to warm to Trump, his numbers have not been improving among Democrats or Independents. In a season where the Dems are likely to field a very flawed candidate, it seems like the Republicans have found the three or four candidates of their own who don't have much support to siphon votes away from her (Trump, Cruz, and a while ago, Carson). I'm not saying they are killing the chance of Republicans, mind;
this swing meter shows just what has to change demographically to get the Republicans in, after all.
My bet is personally that Trump still won't be the candidate.
What happens when the other 90 percent of Americans (and Republican caucus-goers) begin to turn in? What happens when it's
no longer just the fifth who watch wall-to-wall controversy and crisis? What happens
when we move past name recognition? It brought down Giulani. It's brought down quite a few. The last presidential election season showed just how many candidates GOP voters were willing to throw out before settling on Romney.
Until we're well into the new year, poll numbers should still be treated with the all important caveat of "most Americans still don't give a fuck." Donald Trump's ability to gain support among the 8% of the population who is paying attention and cares and who are Republican and who
might go out and vote in the caucus still doesn't matter when you put it in the context of the mightily impressive sense of American apathy. We're still in the "I'm in it for the book deal" point of this presidential race. We should probably wait until super Tuesday before anyone begins really getting excited.
xerxes xerxes:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
PluggyRug PluggyRug:
Hasn't he dropped in Iowa?
Moreover Ted Cruz rose in Iowa by pandering to the ethanol interests.
And they like the bible thumpers like Cruz more in Iowa.
Actually, it's interesting to see just how much Iowa is
changing. It still sucks at choosing presidential candidates but it's dependency on being the good old white farmboys as part of it's state identity is changing pretty quickly.
That said, that a state could go for Cruz or Trump also demonstrates just how different the end results could be from polls. Sure, conservative states might be swinging for Cruz or Trump. But what about California? Or New York? When the primaries hit there, who will be leading, and how outsized will the delegates from Democrat states be in deciding who the presidential candidate will be? The big question is how will Republicans in blue states vote? If Cruz is struggling to stay ahead in Iowa, then it doesn't bode well for his chances for a lot of the remaining 49.
Forum Addict 
CKA Moderator 
CKA Super Elite 
CKA Elite 
