2016 Election
Quote: EvenBob3 polls show Trump with a huge lead,
60%, 52% and 48%. Fiorina is 2nd,
with about 18%. Bush is dead last
in all 3 polls.
What polls? what are you talking about?
Flipping through the other networks, both MSNBC and FOX think Fiorina was the winner. I kind of suspected that might be the view of many, but I found here much too aggressive and bossy.
Quote: ams288Fiorina lost with me the Planned Parenthood nonsense. How could anyone trust a President who could be so easily fooled by heavily edited smear videos?
Better than trusting one who cannot figure out how to have two email addresses though.
I do see some losers though. I think Ben Carson will drop. Seems like a nice man. Surely highly intelligent. But I don't see how he is qualified to be president. At least Trump and Fiorina have top level business experience and that translated somewhat.
I suspect Fiorina will go up some in the polls, picking up what fellow "outsider" Ben Carson loses.
I also think Rand Paul probably drops, if you can drop from where he is.
I also think Jeb has done a little better second half of the debate. Nothing that is going to propel him anywhere, but he has been a little less 'sleepy'. lol
Quote: kewljEvenBob, what polls were you talking about? Some sort of online polls occurring as the debate went along? I am trying to understand what you were talking about?
No accurate, scientific, projectable poll can be done this fast. Tomorrow late at the very earliest.
Quote: kewljEvenBob, what polls were you talking about? Some sort of online polls occurring as the debate went along? I am trying to understand what you were talking about?
Online polls, Trump is winning by a huge amount,
especially on Drudge. 160K votes and Trump
has 100K of them. 46% of voters are independents,
49% are Rep.
Now that it's over, watch the spin rooms on all three networks. I'll bet they all sing the praises of Carly. I just don't see it.
It's hard to imagine Rubio rising to the top, not because he did badly, he just looks like a youngster in this crowd.
It's not hard to imagine Carly in a General's uniform. She looks like she could run the Marines Camp Pendleton. Not sure what that says about her appeal though.
Quote: kewljOk, well 'drudge' is going to be tilted. Just know that going in
LOL, I was waiting for you to weigh in
on Drudge. Last time you went off
on drudge, saying his poll was stupid
and meaningless. You kept wanting
to see a 'legit' poll. Drudge and polls
like this are not meaningless. They
take a pulse, they point. And just like
last time, it's pointing at Trump, which
has held up big time.
Fox is saying Fiorina is the clear winner
because Murdoch hates Trump.
Most disturbing after-debate coverage, I saw was Fox News. How could they possibly put Frank Lunz and his focus groups back on the air. It was more or less proven after the last debate that he stacked the deck, to show the results that Fox News desired from his focus group. He is completely lacking any credibility now and Fox News is likewise, for putting him back on the air.
Also, Karl Rove. After Trump had some really nasty things to say about Rove, this week, is he really an objective observer? At least Bill O'rielly, pointed out that Trump and Rove are now feuding, so Karl Rove was not very objective.
They were all engaged.
Quote: rxwineI don't know if everyone liked that format, but I thought wrapping policy somewhat loosely around statements candidates made about each other kept it interesting.
They were all engaged.
I found the whole format to be very disorganized. I get that CNN, wanted to encourage back and forth between candidates and so they not only phrased their questions with "so-and-so said this, could you respond?" They then allowed another candidate to reply anytime his name was mentioned.
What I didn't get was the process after that. In the first half of the debate, there were multiple times that Carly Fiorina, just jumped in and started talking (loudly) when it wasn't her turn, nor had anyone mentioned her name, nor directed a question to her. She just aggressively took over and no one stopped her, until Chris Christie finally did. After that I didn't see her do it any more.
is a joke, anything to take away from Trump.
He got 18min airtime, the most by far. CNN
wanted Trump to do well, they want him
nominated. They think he can be easily
beaten. So does Fox, that's why they don't
want him.
2nd debate, except Trump. He did 44% in
the 1st, he's at 62% in the 2nd. Carson did
9% in the first. 4% now. If Drudge is any
indication, like it was last time, buh bye
doc..
Quote: kewljI found the whole format to be very disorganized.
That too.
Though still, I find it preferable to asking the droll, same stock question to every candidate. Then you often end up with just a prepared answer.
edit: dull not droll, eh.
BS, say what you have to say. Trump
just had to be Trump, which he was
perfectly. His people have come to
realize we love The Donald, just so he
doesn't go too far. It's an alpha male
personality thing. Trump is as alpha
as you can get, women want to be
with him, and men want to be his
friend. And it comes across on TV,
very hard to compete with.
Every time we see Trump, he tells us
how many inches of manhood he
has. And it works. He gets things
done, takes no crap. You want this
guy as a father, a best friend, a
husband, a boss. Would he be a
good president? I really don't know,
but his ego would compel him to
try, and that might be enough.
I don't want to be Donald's friend, I don't care one bit about any kind of celebrity status, nor how many inches he may have. Like his billions of dollars, I expect he would exaggerate that as well.
Of the last 10 presidents, all have been either senators or governors prior to being elected, except 2. Ford wasn't either, but he wasn't elected. George H W Bush, wasn't either, but he was a sitting vice president. A senator may have some experience in budgets and/or foreign policy depending on what sub-committees he is on. A governor has some executive experience, but it is mostly financial type stuff at the state level and little foreign policy. Both need to learn on the job and most importantly surround themselves with good people and delegate responsibility.
I am tired of the career type politician. They ARE beholden to the donors and special interest groups that finance their campaigns. I think it is time for someone other than a career politician. A successful businessman seems as qualified as a governor or senator to me. He isn't going to have much foreign policy experience and that shows with Trump, but he will have executive experience. Experience hiring qualified people and delegating authority.
Trump is a load mouth, egomaniac. But he is a successful businessman. He may take credit for all his hotels and casinos, and golf courses, but he doesn't personally build or run them. He hires qualified people and delegates authority. And isn't that what a good president should do?
I don't know if I am really comfortable with Donald Trump as president. But I do know that I am tired of the same old career politicians, ON BOTH SIDES, beholden to big money donors, and special interest groups and some how manage to line their pockets along the way. It's funny, no one ever talks about that, but these career politician guys on both side of the aisle, show up in Washington or whatever state capital for X amount of years, and some how become worth much more money than their salaries allow for by a factor of hundreds.
Fiorina: Many people, pundits and civilians alike, are going to declare Fiorina the winner. This is the case for two reasons:
1.). Passion- Fiorina was most assuredly the most passionate speaker on the stage at multiple times, which makes for great sound bites. Of course, passion has no place in a proper Debate, but the viewing public either doesn't know or doesn't care about that.
In any event, her passion helped her stand out at certain times and her relating of losing a child to drug addiction will also tug at a few heartstrings. I could certainly understand why she would be passionate on that issue, but not every recreational marijuana user is destined to be an addict. She said that today's marijuana is different than drinking a beer...because, apparently, alcoholism has never ruined any lives.
I agree that she seemed downright authoritative at times, as KewlJ mentioned, but one of the criticisms of both Carson and Bush is that they are too low-key. Meanwhile, the current leader in the polls is by far the most bombastic.
2.) She clearly won two sparring sessions with Trump, though neither were particularly relevant to policy and should not be considered in the context of a proper Debate. But then, Trump routinely makes statements that do not belong in that context.
As we know, Trump is leading in the polls. Just ask him, he'll tell you. If you want to be the leader, you have to beat the leader, and Fiorina managed to accomplish that, even if the wins had nothing to do with the inherent superiority of her positions.
Trump: I don't know if Trump can lose a Debate because it seems that the Rules for Debate, or even remotely acceptable public demeanor, don't apply to him. He all but admitted to lacking specific foriegn policy knowledge, but that won't matter for the time being, and he knows it.
He had no means to explain how his deportation plan is economically feasible, but the Moderator didn't push the issue as he should have. He never meaningfully explained WHY we would necessarily want to deport every person here illegally in the first place...only to bring some of them right back, apparently.
Further, he also loves to play to higher authority, 'legal scholars,' without ever stating who those authorities are.
Basically, he wins by way of being the most bombastic, a terrific entertainer and pandering to the lowest common denominator of the right-wing.
Frankly, his strategy isn't actually that bad in the early stages. At some point, he will have to know more than nothing about Constitutional Law and Foriegn Policy, though. Empty words like we're going to be the greatest, have the most, get more...blah, blah, blah...aren't going to fool even idiots forever.
Bush: Bush scored a direct point against Trump, but many will fault him for not being aggressive enough. Personally, I thought he showed a little frustration in the constant barrage of attacks on our previous two Republican Presidents, so that really disappointed me. Couple reasons I think Bush doesn't need to be too aggressive:
1.) He legitimately thinks he will win the nomination, so it is not in his best interests to go too far right (He's legitimately a Moderate, anyway) and say something he'll later regret when he needs to pander to Independents and Moderate Democrats.
2.) It simply doesn't fit his personality. He's a strong speaker who is very academic in his approach. Obviously, many if not all of the candidates are intelligent, but I think Bush is the least likely to dumb down his answers.
Ultimately, Bush can't be said to have won the Debate, but that's because it wasn't winnable, at this point. I think he'd have done well not to have raised his voice in defending W., and just let his calm, quiet, thoughtful and academic approach as well as understanding of the issues do his talking.
Christie: Good finish, didn't matter much otherwise.
Carson: Quintessential Carson. Showed a few holes in Taxation and Foriegn Policy.
Rubio: Showed solid knowledge on Foriegn Policy.
Everyone Else: They don't currently matter, of the rest of the pack, Cruz and (swallows vomit) Kasich have an outside chance of becoming relevant.
exactly what Trump is doing now. He was
unqualified, unspecific, won on personality
alone. But Trump isn't Barry Obummer, not
even close. Obummer had never run anything
even close to a lemonade stand, and Trump
has cred slightly above that. Why are you
so threatened by him.
Some good observations, a couple I disagree with, which I won't debate with you. But I am wonder what the second sparring session Carly had and won with Trump was? She clearly got in the zinger that women heard what he had said and knew what he meant. That certainly was a prepared comment and frankly Trump had that coming. It was a stupid thing he said.
Was the second sparring session about his business experience, because I don't think she wins that one. Sure he has had some failures (bankrupcies), but he has had many more successes. I guess she had some success climbing the corporate ladder at several different companies as well, but her time at the helm at HP, seems to have been a disaster. 5 years. Stock fell 50% (and that was PRIOR to the big stock market collapse). 30,000 employees laid off. She was paid $42 million to leave. :/ I just don't see how she can paint that as a successful leadership reign, nor do I see how that qualifies her to question someone else's business success or failures.
Quote: EvenBobMission: We elected a guy in 2008 who did
exactly what Trump is doing now. He was
unqualified, unspecific, won on personality
alone. But Trump isn't Barry Obummer, not
even close. Obummer had never run anything
even close to a lemonade stand, and Trump
has cred slightly above that. Why are you
so threatened by him.
I understood your post until the last sentence, which should have a question mark. In any event, I'll answer to the best of my ability:
I disagree that Obama won on personality alone, but I don't vehemently disagree. I think he won 75% on personality, but I do think he had a better working knowledge of the issues than Trump. To wit, Obama was a Constitutional Law Professor.
I agree that Obama never ran any major business enterprises. Did Reagan prior to being elected Governor? I don't think business experience in the private sector is a prerequisite. Whether or not it should be is debatable, but I do think a good Presidential staff would contain a few people with significant private business experience.
I'm also not threatened by Trump and have no idea what you mean by that statement. If he becomes President, then he becomes President. I don't believe I will vote for him in the General Election, though I am open-minded, but my point is Trump being elected President is very unlikely to have even a remote impact on my life.
He also lied a bit:
"When Bush said that Trump "wanted casino gambling in Florida," Trump shot back, "I promise, if I wanted it, I would have gotten it."
"Meanwhile, he hired former Florida statehouse speaker Mallory Horne to lobby on gambling issues for him. As the St. Petersburg Times reported in 2008, Trump teamed up with the Seminole Tribe of Florida to ramp up gambling in the state from bingo to full-scale casinos."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/republican-debate-2015-fact-check-donald-trump-sought-casino-gambling-in-florida/
This isn't a guy who does a lot of things he doesn't want to do...
Quote: kewljGood for you, Mission, getting all political. :)
Some good observations, a couple I disagree with, which I won't debate with you. But I am wonder what the second sparring session she had and won with Trump was? She clearly got in the zinger that women heard what he had said and knew what he meant. That certainly was a prepared comment and frankly Trump had that coming. It was a stupid thing he said.
Thanks...on getting political, I haven't yet lifted my foot to see and smell what I may have stepped in. I usually don't discuss contentious matters unless they are gambling-related. I will happily discuss any observations with which you disagree, I don't get offended by anything.
She won on defending her firing from HP, at least, I think that she did. I felt she defended her business record well.
Quote:Was the second sparring session about his business experience, because I don't think she wins that one. Sure he has had some failures (bankrupcies), but he has had many more successes. I guess she had some success climbing the corporate ladder at several different companies as well, but her time at the helm at HP, seems to have been a disaster. 5 years. Stock fell 50% (and that was PRIOR to the big stock market collapse). 30,000 employees laid off. She was paid $42 million to leave. :/ I just don't see how she can paint that as a successful leadership reign, nor do I see how that qualifies her to question someone else's business success or failures.
I don't think pointing out his bankruptcies was the winning point, simply her defense of her own business history. I don't even think it should matter as it is not relevant to the issues at hand. The fall of HP stock was one of the things that signaled the tech bubble burst, the overvaluing of tech companies, of course, being none of her doing. Also, the Compaq merger was ultimately reasonably successful, as well as other implementations, she just wasn't there long enough to see through what she started to the end. She also inherited a board that was already highly dysfunctional, her tenure can really be summarized as a semi-successful attempt at bringing order to chaos. That the floor was coming up to meet HP before she took the helm was a (possibly relatively unknown) certainty, but there was little to nothing she alone could do about it.
Quote: beachbumbabsThis is inaccurate about how union support works. It's illegal for unions to donate dues money to candidates. Unions can form PACs or have fundraisers, but participation in anything like that is voluntary, and can't be solicited at the workplace or be any requirement for membership, representation, or receiving other services the union contractually provides. The union can be decertified (blown out of existence; it's not a trivial thing) for any illegal activities of this type.
If a union sends a member to a political campaign for pay, either the campaign itself pays for that person, or the union's PAC pays for that person to be there. Expenses are either borne by the person themselves, or by the same funding streams, again not by dues. Union members working for or supporting a campaign do so voluntarily, most as volunteers.
None of this is left to self-policing, either. Unions have quarterly filings and annual audits to ensure strict compliance with these political activity rules.
Unions discuss the issues they care about with the candidates before supporting or endorsing them. Ours had a lot of internal debates about who and what we would support with money and workers; during the time I was active in that area, we supported about 60% Dem and 40% Repub (along with a couple of "I"s) over 10 years, and donated $1M+ to several hundred candidates each year. Did every PAC donor agree with every donation? Not a chance. But the donations were chosen based on candidate positions on issues our PAC developed as our priorities, and those who funded it did so with that in mind, and voluntarily. Which is the point of doing it; our particular issues were backed up with group funding, even though each individual was limited by law in how much they could donate.
That's how it works, or did work before Citizen's United (I'm honestly not sure what, if anything, changed for our group; when we retire, we're no longer eligible to participate, and I left before CU, BUT I don't think hardly any of CU helped Unions escape compliance.) So, that's a group of people with common interests voting with their pocketbooks as well as with their support, and getting more attention for their money as a group. Criticize that methodology if you like, but it's not like workers are forced to pay dues, only to have that money used in political campaigns. It's illegal and widely misunderstood due to distortions and half-truths by union-haters.
I'm not against unions or a union-hater; I do think they sometimes go too far in some areas. It all seems very clean the way you describe it but I don't think that is "all" of the story:
It appears that you have to opt out to keep your money from being spent on political contributions:
"In Communications Workers of America v. Beck (1988) the Supreme Court ruled that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) restricted unions from collecting dues for political activities if a union member chooses to opt out."
https://www.unionfacts.com/article/political-money/understanding-beck-rights/
Opting out means you have to do something to be excluded; shouldn't you have to opt in? Unions can be very pushy trying to get what they want--I am betting that exercising the right to "opt out" is met with resistance (subtle or otherwise) in some unions.
"What does the Citizens United decision mean for labor unions?
Prior to Citizens United, the funds that unions collected from union dues could not go to political spending that expressly advocated for the election or defeat of a candidate. That funding could, however, still go to other “political activities.” These include informational and educational materials that are distributed to members.
Under Citizens United, unions can take member dues and spend the money on materials in support or in opposition to a candidate for office. This is problematic because union members are not asked for permission before this money is spent, and it is often difficult to ask for a refund."
https://www.unionfacts.com/article/political-money/what-citizens-united-means-for-union-political-spending/
Citizens United made it easier for them to take dues and spend it as they please...
Then there is the "soft money" as it could be described--not spent on a particular candidate directly but spent in other ways:
"Organized labor spends about four times as much on politics and lobbying as generally thought, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis, a finding that shines a light on an aspect of labor's political activity that has often been overlooked."
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304782404577488584031850026
I am not saying that the process can't be as clean as it appears to have been in your case; just that it isn't that clean at all overall.
From what I did watch I thought Trump was the winner. He was being attacked from all sides and got some good one liners in.
Quote: ams288I got bored and tuned out about half way through the debate. Once they stopped bickering and started just spewing all the normal Republican nonsense. 3 hours was waaaaaay too long.
From what I did watch I thought Trump was the winner. He was being attacked from all sides and got some good one liners in.
I disagree. I thought just as many one liners came back at Trump as he handed out.
I still like Ben Carson but he is not good in the debate (or whatever it should be called) format. Every one of the candidates has a position I don't like (on both sides), so I can't look for perfection or I won't vote.
I have previously discussed my best friend who is a Republican and a diehard Trump supporter. Last night we were texting during the debate and he was saying he's getting tired of Trump's shtick and is going to need him to start getting specific about policy soon. He told me he was impressed with Fiorina's very detailed answers to the questions she was asked and said that Trump needs to start getting specific like that.
Quote: RonCI'm not against unions or a union-hater; I do think they sometimes go too far in some areas. It all seems very clean the way you describe it but I don't think that is "all" of the story:
It appears that you have to opt out to keep your money from being spent on political contributions:
"In Communications Workers of America v. Beck (1988) the Supreme Court ruled that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) restricted unions from collecting dues for political activities if a union member chooses to opt out."
https://www.unionfacts.com/article/political-money/understanding-beck-rights/
Opting out means you have to do something to be excluded; shouldn't you have to opt in? Unions can be very pushy trying to get what they want--I am betting that exercising the right to "opt out" is met with resistance (subtle or otherwise) in some unions.
"What does the Citizens United decision mean for labor unions?
Prior to Citizens United, the funds that unions collected from union dues could not go to political spending that expressly advocated for the election or defeat of a candidate. That funding could, however, still go to other “political activities.” These include informational and educational materials that are distributed to members.
Under Citizens United, unions can take member dues and spend the money on materials in support or in opposition to a candidate for office. This is problematic because union members are not asked for permission before this money is spent, and it is often difficult to ask for a refund."
https://www.unionfacts.com/article/political-money/what-citizens-united-means-for-union-political-spending/
Citizens United made it easier for them to take dues and spend it as they please...
Then there is the "soft money" as it could be described--not spent on a particular candidate directly but spent in other ways:
"Organized labor spends about four times as much on politics and lobbying as generally thought, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis, a finding that shines a light on an aspect of labor's political activity that has often been overlooked."
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304782404577488584031850026
I am not saying that the process can't be as clean as it appears to have been in your case; just that it isn't that clean at all overall.
RonC,
Thanks for the response and further info; I appreciate being brought up to date. Ours was not an opt-out situation, strictly opt-in; what you're quoting sure seems to indicate that all unions don't work the same way. Ours was a Federal union, subject to very strict Hatch Act rules for most of my time (they were relaxed somewhat in the mid-2000's) and our Public Sector requirements may well have been more stringent than private sector unions, though we were also members of the AFL-CIO, and they had a lot of oversight and compliance regulation as well.
I do apologize for unintentionally implying you are a union-hater. I was referring to public figures like Scott Walker or Rush Limbaugh, who make blanket, skewed statements about unions and many ad hominem attacks that allow people when hearing the sound bytes to mis-interpret the statements, not to you personally, but I didn't make that clear.
I'm not sure Drudge is a good poll reference, because it's not random sampling, it's people specifically going there and pushing their candidate. I think the polls that come out in the next 3-7 days will more accurately reflect what happened, if anything. I don't really expect a lot of change; I think it will be Trump 27, Carson 22, Fiorina 9, Bush 6, Christie 4, the rest swirling the drain at 5 or less. Nothing really changed for the Trump or Carson core, but I think Fiorina may get a bump mostly at the others' expense.
A great many Independents are Tea Party and former Republicans; in past decades, the Independents were the middle, but I would estimate it might be as high as 40% who left the party because of moderate (perception, anyway) runs by McCain and Romney. My estimation is based on a year of registering voters in 2012 and their comments, so not scientific, just anecdotal from about 1200 voters I registered that year.
Quote: beachbumbabsI do apologize for unintentionally implying you are a union-hater. I was referring to public figures like Scott Walker or Rush Limbaugh, who make blanket, skewed statements about unions and many ad hominem attacks that allow people when hearing the sound bytes to mis-interpret the statements, not to you personally, but I didn't make that clear.
Thanks for the apology, but I wasn't really saying that you were calling me those things; I just wanted to say that I don't consider myself one of "those"...
Unions have done great things in our country. Without them, the whole country might look totally different now than it does as far as labor law goes. Like any other organization (including our own government), they sometimes grow too big for the britches and push things too far. That is the rub that makes some dislike them.
Somehow the unions having a mob connection (Jimmy Hoffa and others) doesn't seem to have the same mystique as the Las Vegas connection to the mob...and that is another thing that keeps people from fully trusting "unions" as a whole even though most, if not all, of that element is gone.
In my own case, I was almost forced to be represented by a union (not sure if I would have to "join" or "pay dues" but they would represent us) through accretion.
"Accretion, in the employment context, is the addition, without an election, of a group of employees to an existing bargaining unit."
The CWA thought that they had the right to make us part of the union. It ended up that the NLRB said that our jobs were enough different than the jobs the union said were similar enough to use the process to stop the process.
All in all, my own union experience was not too positive.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/accretion/
Quote: ams288Dems always do bad on the midterms when the voter turnout is low. That's why righties work so hard to disenfranchise voters.
The electoral map favors the Dems big time in 2016. They will take the Senate back easily.
Of course. I forgot how your party got crushed in midterms like 2006, 1986, 1982 and 1974 just to name a few.
Keep whistling past the graveyard. Your party's extremist whack-job positions are making it increasingly toxic to anyone not in the "base"-Bankers, Wall Street. the Jewish Lobby, rich marxists, welfare bums and the well fed government work force.
Everybody else is voting more Republican than any time in the last 90 years.
All good questions.
No absurd twitter questions like that one by Megan Kelly or Kelly Megan whatever that non-journalist name is
I channeled surfed and watched Nova on PBS regarding the new fossil bone discovery regarding Homo Naledi.
I was blown away, incredible discovery regarding the origin of Man in South Africa.
What is sad is that just about everybody in the debate ignores science and prefers the make believe world of religion regarding the origin of man.
I cant vote for somebody that is into make believe religion rather then Science
The Democratic debates won't have anywhere near that many viewers. The Dem debates will be boring. We have no insult comedian like Trump on our side.
I'm a Dem and I probably won't even watch. I know who I'm voting for (whoever doesn't have the (R) next to their name).
In early results from a poll of Newsmax TV viewers, the billionaire businessman logged 46 percent support, while former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina came in second, with 20 percent."
Pretty much in line with the Drudge poll.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/newsmax-poll-second-republican/2015/09/17/id/691953/
In the Time Mag poll. Trump 57%, Fiorina 18%.
http://time.com/4037510/poll-second-republican-presidential-debate/
Quote: ams288Fiorina lost with me the Planned Parenthood nonsense. How could anyone trust a President who could be so easily fooled by heavily edited smear videos?
Turns out she was just flat out lying! (Or maybe just imagining things...)
http://www.vox.com/2015/9/16/9342165/carly-fiorina-planned-parenthood
Quote: EvenBob"The GOP presidential debate winner Wednesday night was dominant front-runner Donald Trump, a Newsmax Poll finds.
In early results from a poll of Newsmax TV viewers, the billionaire businessman logged 46 percent support, while former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina came in second, with 20 percent."
Pretty much in line with the Drudge poll.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/newsmax-poll-second-republican/2015/09/17/id/691953/
In the Time Mag poll. Trump 57%, Fiorina 18%.
http://time.com/4037510/poll-second-republican-presidential-debate/
These are not scientific polls; they don't mean too much when even scientific ones are not worth a lot at this point.
Quote: RonCThese are not scientific polls; they don't mean too much when even scientific ones are not worth a lot at this point.
What is WRONG with you people??? Why do we have
to constantly go thru this?
OF COURSE they are not legit or scientific, they are
bot SUPPOSED TO BE! They point in a certain direction,
they take the pulse of the people who watched.
In the first debate Trump beat the CRAP out of everybody
in the Drudge poll. He continued to beat the crap out
of everybody till the next debate. To say these non scientific
poll are meaningless is ridiculous.
GET IT?
Quote: EvenBobWhat is WRONG with you people??? Why do we have
to constantly go thru this?
OF COURSE they are not legit or scientific, they are
bot SUPPOSED TO BE! They point in a certain direction,
they take the pulse of the people who watched.
In the first debate Trump beat the CRAP out of everybody
in the Drudge poll. He continued to beat the crap out
of everybody till the next debate. To say these non scientific
poll are meaningless is ridiculous.
GET IT?
Okay, don't stroke out on us, these polls mean everything.
Why don't you declare the winner of the election now?
Quote: Dicenor33I've heard the rumors that German ladies are allowed to have five husbands. One for sex, another one cooks, third entertains etc.in light of what's going on in Europe, Trump and Christie become primary candidates. Southerners have to please too many people, you need someone who can protect American workforce.
What?
Quote: RonCOkay, don't stroke out on us, these polls mean everything.
Why don't you declare the winner of the election now?
Zombie Romney!
Mitt returns, eats brains, and wins!
Quote: RonCOkay, don't stroke out on us, these polls mean everything.
They don't mean everything but they do mean
something. I'm just tired of being told they
are meaningless because they aren't a regular
poll. The candidates surely think they are
important, Trump mentions them all the time.
Trump won't have 54% in the next 'real' poll,
he for dang sure will still be ahead because all
these irregular pools point that way.
I'm more curious about Carson. He got half the
votes in these outlier polls than he got in the
ones 6 weeks ago. People didn't really like him
this time. I bet he's nervous about what the real
polls will say.
Quote: EvenBobThey don't mean everything but they do mean
something. I'm just tired of being told they
are meaningless because they aren't a regular
poll. The candidates surely think they are
important, Trump mentions them all the time.
Trump won't have 54% in the next 'real' poll,
he for dang sure will still be ahead because all
these irregular pools point that way.
I'm more curious about Carson. He got half the
votes in these outlier polls than he got in the
ones 6 weeks ago. People didn't really like him
this time. I bet he's nervous about what the real
polls will say.
Trump mentions them because he is doing well in them. He makes sure everyone knows that he is #1 right now.
For me, he looks like more of a jackass now that ever. He is FURTHER from my Republican vote than when he first got involved. His making faces is crap that second graders do... His attacks don't do anything, and now they use his words right back at him. Even quiet Ben Carson.
I am not disputing these polls as representing what people who voted cast their votes for; I had no interest in winners and losers last night, I just wanted to hear what they all has to say and then let it soak in for a bit. Do you honestly think Trump changed many minds last night? There is about as much a chance of that as there is of something any of us says here changing someone here's mind!!
All he needs to do is stay where he is, and that
was his strategy last night. The thing is his to
lose now. He wasn't 'making faces', that's him,
that's who he is. Not a stone faced politician
who keeps his emotions in check. It's why people
like and trust him.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/09/17/post-debate-poll-fiorina-surges-to-1st-place-tied-with-trump/
Gravis polling isn't the most reliable pollster. They have a bias factor of +2.7 republican, which is fairly high. Only Rasmussen and American Research group have higher republican bias among the 30 some major polling firms. So if this was a general elction poll (repubs vs dems) I would be skeptical.
Even as is, I am a little skeptical. That's why I like to look at averages of multiple polls, but since this is the first one out....whatever.
Carly getting a bump and tied with Trump would be 100% expected after a strong performance and favorable reviews the last 24 hours. What you got to look at is if that 'bump' holds. Sometimes a 'bump' is a very temporary things, and numbers begin to retreat toward where they were as people research and look into things a little more.
