General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 423

Trump is not a weak candidate, he is not a normal candidate. To dismiss him as such is why hardly anyone has understood how he got this far, and underestimated his entire candidacy. I firmly believe if anyone walks out of this election thinking it was anomaly that this man was elected because Clinton was a bad candidate, those lessons set the stage for a repeat of this exact thing.

 

The candidate with the highest unfavorables ever isn't weak. Sure.

 

One polling point isn't representative of a candidate and their chances at election. One polling point has never been indicative of a candidate's chances at election. And, it ignores that Trump's turned his unfavorable number into an asset because of who it has motivated.

 

New Quinnipiac is also not that great.

In a largely negative presidential campaign, where most Americans are voting against, rather than for, a candidate, Democrat Hillary Clinton leads Republican Donald Trump 48 - 43 percent among likely voters nationwide, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today.

This compares to a 51 - 41 percent Clinton lead in an August 25 survey of likely voters nationwide, by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University.

With third party candidates in the race, results are too close to call, with Clinton at 41 percent, Trump at 39 percent, Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson at 13 percent and Green Party candidate Jill Stein at 4 percent.

 

A candidates chances at winning a single election =/= how strong the candidate is generally. Unfavorables seem to be by far the best measure of a candidate's strength in a historical context, if you have a better measure that makes Trump look strong I'd like to see it. Also even Trump's chances of winning the election are still absurdly small for a major party nominee. Less than a 1/3rd chance of winning, Upshot has it at 1/5, is bad for a major party nominee.

 

This is not remotely true.

And a 1 in 3 shot at an election, with numbers in the margins nationally, is not "absurdly small." And it's shrinking.

 

Also agree with Harry. If GOP comes home to Trump, she'll lose.

 

Some days how I feel.

 

I see this as entirely possible. But those WI polls are going to be interesting. I don't like ME in this map, and I'll be watching OH, FL, IN, NV, and NC on election day.

 

Q poll. Trump +10 with whites.

I'm allowed to blame white people if Clinton loses, right?

(Clinton +47 non white.)

 

If it is "not remotely true" then surely you have a better measure yes?

Upshot has it at 1 in 5, that's small.

 

Stein's numbers from the Q poll are will I still don't think the 4 way polling LV numbers are right.

 

Holy shit. Scott Walker is scum, as if we didn't already know that, but also just the sheer corruption is somewhat astonishing in that even the state supreme court was included:

"The John Doe files reveal that Walker's own advisers reached the conclusion that the large sums flowing into WCfG's coffers from corporate donors was critical to the survival of the Republican senators in their recall elections. In a memo sent to Walker shortly after the elections in August 2011, his former top campaign consultant RJ Johnson looked back on the contest and ruminated that “Our efforts were run by Wisconsin Club for Growth ... who coordinated spending through 12 different groups. Most spending by other groups was directly funded by grants from the Club.”

He went on to note that WCfG “raised 12 million dollars and ran a soup to nuts campaign ... Polling, focus groups and message development was a collaborative effort.” A mass of micro-targeted mail-outs and TV advertising that was bought with the donations had the impact that they “moved independent swing voters to the GOP candidate”."


Scott Walker, the John Doe files and how corporate cash influences American politics

 

Yes. You can build a far better model than "unfavorables" for looking at a candidate's strength or weakness. Dismissing an unliked candidate as a "weak" candidate in a two party system, is, foolish. It ignores why they are where they are, how they got there, and why they may win.

Upshot's methodology has it trail by a few days to new information. And cherry picking one aggregator's model to say with certainty Trump's chances of winning is small, is well, not good science at best. (RCP average is down to 1.8.)

 

Q poll (change from last):

Hillary 41 (-4)
Trump 39 (+1)
Johnson 13 (+3)

So, like I was saying earlier ... Johnson takes most of Hillary's decline here as well.

 

Also, with Johnson at 13, he only needs to hit 15 to enter the debates. Even if that happens temporarily. I think debates use Fox, WaPo/ABC, NYT/CBS, CNN though. So it'll be interesting to see those next batch of numbers.

God I hate this election.

 

Fuck this.

 

I don't understand why Johnson being in the debates is a bad thing. If he's a good candidate then he deserves to be there, if he's a bad candidate then won't that expose people to how bad he is?

 

In that specific case I care about one thing only: not electing Donald Trump.

 

Again, point me to one. If you can't point me to an actual, existing measure better than unfavorables when looking at the strength of candidates in a historical context, well then by definition that would make unfavorables the best measure, even if isn't hypothetically the best possible.

I'm not 'dismissing,' I'm labeling. Trump could win, that doesn't mean he isn't a weak candidate. Two weak candidates could face off against each other, just because one has to win doesn't mean the one that wins is all the sudden a strong candidate.

 

Johnson has to be at 15 in at least 5 polls right? He hasn't been at that level in any poll yet, and his polling still ranges anywhere from just 5% to 13%. No way he gets in the debates.

 

I understand that, but what I'm saying is that if you feel like Johnson is taking votes away from Hillary, wouldn't a nationally televised debate give her the best chance to get those votes back?