• 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.

CNN poll : Trump gains 8 points since August. Now at 32% support among Republicans.

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Romney was also a good debater, was beloved by corporate types, and looked/sounded like a president. Bush looks goofy, sounds indecisive, and doesn't really have a record to run on. Nor does anyone love him outside of Bush loyalists.

I won't say he's finished. It's amazing/perplexing that he's holding at 3rd or 4th place in most polls. Name ID perhaps. Still I don't see the electorate moving from handing Trump 30%+ to backing Bush in double digit numbers once Trump implodes.

Walker still has this. It's a marathon not a sprint
 
M

Manmademan

Member
PhoenixDark said:
Romney was also a good debater, was beloved by corporate types, and looked/sounded like a president. Bush looks goofy, sounds indecisive, and doesn't really have a record to run on. Nor does anyone love him outside of Bush loyalists.

I won't say he's finished. It's amazing/perplexing that he's holding at 3rd or 4th place in most polls. Name ID perhaps. Still I don't see the electorate moving from handing Trump 30%+ to backing Bush in double digit numbers once Trump implodes.

Walker still has this. It's a marathon not a sprint
Click to expand...

That's exactly what it is.

Outside of Bush and Trump, no one else has any significant name ID to anyone but political junkies and evangelicals. If his name was "bill smith" he'd be in the cellar with Jindal.
 
S

Sho_Nuff82

Member
Anecdotally, none of my republican friends want Bush. Almost all are Carson or Trump supporters.

He's the anti-Hilary, his name isn't popping in the streets despite all of the money. He's the reason that the popular opinion last year was that the Republicans had no shot in 2016.
 
K

Kusagari

Member
PhoenixDark said:
Romney was also a good debater, was beloved by corporate types, and looked/sounded like a president. Bush looks goofy, sounds indecisive, and doesn't really have a record to run on. Nor does anyone love him outside of Bush loyalists.

I won't say he's finished. It's amazing/perplexing that he's holding at 3rd or 4th place in most polls. Name ID perhaps. Still I don't see the electorate moving from handing Trump 30%+ to backing Bush in double digit numbers once Trump implodes.

Walker still has this. It's a marathon not a sprint
Click to expand...

Literally the second Walker got in front of a national audience he dropped like a rock in polls and he didn't even really make any errors.

That shows almost a systematic rejection of the guy once people actually saw and heard him speak that I don't know how he can fix.
 
K

kirblar

Member
Kusagari said:
Literally the second Walker got in front of a national audience he dropped like a rock in polls and he didn't even really make any errors.

That shows almost a systematic rejection of the guy once people actually saw and heard him speak that I don't know how he can fix.
Click to expand...
You have to fix an election to fix the problems he has. Guy's a charisma vacuum.
 
S

Sir Abacus

Member
Sho_Nuff82 said:
Anecdotally, none of my republican friends want Bush. Almost all are Carson or Trump supporters.
Click to expand...

Carson. I find myself stumped that this lunatic is not relegated to being a fringe candidate. Then I remember that 27% of voters in Illinois voted for Alan Keyes, the one person on the planet more batshit insane than Ben Carson, for a senate seat and I understand and I just feel sorry for the state of politics in this country.
 
W

Wolfgunblood Garopa

Member
Sir Abacus said:
Carson. I find myself stumped that this lunatic is not relegated to being a fringe candidate. Then I remember that 27% of voters in Illinois voted for Alan Keyes, the one person on the planet more batshit insane than Ben Carson, for a senate seat and I understand and I just feel sorry for the state of politics in this country.
Click to expand...

Trump just kind of does his character and says shit. Carson's lunacy is real and unforgiving. Much more interesting as a lens into the true insanity of Republican voters.
 
B

Box of Kittens

Banned
Kusagari said:
Literally the second Walker got in front of a national audience he dropped like a rock in polls and he didn't even really make any errors.

That shows almost a systematic rejection of the guy once people actually saw and heard him speak that I don't know how he can fix.
Click to expand...

To fix it he would need to be able to do something appealing when unscripted. You don't have to be a policy expert, but you at least need to be calculating enough that you're always projecting the image you want, whether it be "someone you can relate to" or "strong leader" or whatever. Walker just seems to say whatever's on the top of his head, which doesn't work because what he's thinking is typically just nonsense.

Certainly candidates who have appeared dead at this point have gone on to win the nomination, but honestly I don't see him fixing this. It's literally a skill he's never needed to win elections in the past.
 
W

wildfire

Banned
Wag said:
Carson is fucking looney tunes. I loved it during the last debate when he said he wanted to go to a "tithe system" for the tax code. WTF? We living in the Middle Ages or something? ��
Click to expand...

The Sheriff of Nottingham or Tywin Lannister will be his VP running mate.
 
F

Future

Member
I almost have as hard of a time imagining trump as president as I did Palin as Vice President. I mean we know people like that he's saying it like it is, people like him as a republican with enough celebrity that even democrats may flip, etc. Hell some may vote cuz they think politics is a mockery, know no other candidate, loved the apprentice, etc.

But who really wants this guy for his views and what he will accomplish as president. I mean, fuck. Yeezus 2020 it is then
 
O

OrangeGrayBlue

Member
OuterLimits said:
Cruz is playing it smart right now. He is one of the few not attacking Trump, and they seem to have an alliance going on.

Cruz is hoping Trump implodes(very likely) and much of the support will fall his way. So instead of Cruz sitting between 5 and 10 percent, he could jump to 20% or more very quickly making him competitive.

Carson is getting the evangelical vote in large part right now. If Ben tanks quickly, perhaps they would back Huckabee or who else? Maybe Cruz or Rubio? I don't see them going to Jeb or Trump.
Click to expand...

I'm more fearful of Cruz as a candidate than Trump. He is engineering things in a way to absorb Trump's supporters without having to say any of the racist things Trump said to get them. While his policies are deplorable, he's a brilliant politician. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump and Cruz have some sort of deal with each other.
 
M

MikeDown

Banned
Big Baybee said:
It's hard to believe this is happening. Have the gaf conservatives given their thoughts on Trump?
Click to expand...
I lean conservative, and with that said I'm not really sure about Trump. I agree with him about Iran and have mixed feelings about his "immigration plan", but beyond that I really have no idea who he is.

Ultimately I think the reason why he is doing so well is that he is channeling the unreasonable anger and frustration of millions of people. Feel like he is going to be another Arnold Swazernagger if elected.
 
T

teh_pwn

"Saturated fat causes heart disease as much as Brawndo is what plants crave."
There's no way he's going to be viable in the general election. So much of the GOP base are people 40-80+ that cannot stomach Trump's character.

Sometimes I watch Fox News at the gym while doing cardio. They're losing their shit over this.
 
BennyBlanco

BennyBlanco

aka IMurRIVAL69
Big Baybee said:
It's hard to believe this is happening. Have the gaf conservatives given their thoughts on Trump?
Click to expand...

He's setting the GOP back with his buffoonery back but I think he is more moderate than he would appear. That said I think he has too many skeletons in his closet to make it through primaries anyway. I really have a strong distaste for Hillary and would vote for Trump over her if it came down to it. If it shakes out to be Bernie V Trump I will take a long, hard look at both their platforms.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
PhoenixDark said:
Romney was also a good debater, was beloved by corporate types, and looked/sounded like a president. Bush looks goofy, sounds indecisive, and doesn't really have a record to run on. Nor does anyone love him outside of Bush loyalists.

I won't say he's finished. It's amazing/perplexing that he's holding at 3rd or 4th place in most polls. Name ID perhaps. Still I don't see the electorate moving from handing Trump 30%+ to backing Bush in double digit numbers once Trump implodes.

Walker still has this. It's a marathon not a sprint
Click to expand...

You know full well Walker is an empty suit, even the GOP primary voters can see it and they're blind to a lot of shit.
 
M

marrec

Banned
Early polls, blah blah, not relevant to the actual nominee, blah blah.

Trump's reality show will be canceled when people have to actually vote seriously.
 
U

Unknown Soldier

Member
Sendero said:
As someone that lives in a country where people have consistently voted for the worst candidate possible -that just happened to present well to his audiencie-, I think that Democrats should be considering that this will be a difficult candidate to defeat if he wins the nomination.

Cult of Personality is a very real thing, and Trump has it in spades, against Hillary or Sanders.
I will be highly surprised if he does not get most of the indecisive voters, and specially those that don't normally participate.

Some will vote for him because he is famous -and male-, other for the entertaining value, and the youngsters because he is not "part of the establishment".

Plus, his PR team seems to be the most clever of the whole bunch. That will count.. hard.
Click to expand...

When I watch Trump now all I can see is Arnold Schwarzenegger. No one took the Terminator seriously either. But he was facing weak Democratic opposition which took their control of California for granted and didn't show him any respect. In the end the Governator served two terms and the state had an uneventful 6 years.

Hillary should be scared shitless of Trump. She has a voter base which is coming down off the Obama Presidency and is lukewarm towards her at best. She is not taking her campaign seriously at all which is why Sanders is even in this race. No one seems to respect Trump which is the worst mistake an "establishment" politician can make against a strong upstart contender who resonates with voters in a populist manner the way he does.
 
F

FreedomFighter

Member
LegendofJoe said:
She's a woman running to be the first female president of a largely ignorant country. She HAS to appear tough to have a chance at winning an office as powerful as the presidency. As a country we have a love affair with violence and the military, people will not vote for a candidate they view as being weak.

Her husband didn't drag us into any unnecessary wars and she won't either. But let's face facts our military industrial complex is insanely powerful so the US World Police will undoubtedly keep doing their thing regardless of who is elected president. We just need to make sure we don't elect someone who is stupid enough to go along with the lunatics that want war with Iran. Hillary is not a lunatic, she will not risk war with Iran unless we have no other choice.
Click to expand...
You can't be serious. So much disinformation in your post, I wonder if you even follow Hillary. Just go back and look at her stance on everything - she's the biggest warhawk always advocating to drop bombs. I challenge you to do this. Foreign policy won't change just because Hillary is elected it will be the exact opposite. She'll double down on foreign intervention. Can't believe I'm even having this conversation.

Do your due diligence first and then we can have this discussion. Look at her stances on Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Iran. Always war. She's a hawk. It's a fact.

As for Bill Clinton, he had his fair share of foreign interventions, even if there were low key and clandestine most times save for the big one (Kosovo). Stop with the revisionist history.

EDIT: I think the biggest misfortune here is that you really believe in this system and you believe, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that foreign policy direction of the US will change depending on who is elected. It doesn't. No matter who is elected, the priority remains the same - to maintain US hegemony in a unipolar world, maintain the petrodollar, keep the world safe for US corporate exploitation, and prevent the rise of any other power (Russia and China). If you think this directive will change because Hillary is elected... then, I don't know what to tell you dude.
 
S

Sho_Nuff82

Member
FreedomFighter said:
You can't be serious. So much disinformation in your post, I wonder if you even follow Hillary. Just go back and look at her stance on everything - she's the biggest warhawk always advocating to drop bombs. I challenge you to do this. Foreign policy won't change just because Hillary is elected it will be the exact opposite. She'll double down on foreign intervention. Can't believe I'm even having this conversation.

Do your due diligence first and then we can have this discussion. Look at her stances on Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Iran. Always war. She's a hawk. It's a fact.

As for Bill Clinton, he had his fair share of foreign interventions, even if there were low key and clandestine most times save for the big one (Kosovo). Stop with the revisionist history.

EDIT: I think the biggest misfortune here is that you really believe in this system and you believe, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that foreign policy direction of the US will change depending on who is elected. It doesn't. No matter who is elected, the priority remains the same - to maintain US hegemony in a unipolar world, maintain the petrodollar, keep the world safe for US corporate exploitation, and prevent the rise of any other power (Russia and China). If you think this directive will change because Hillary is elected... then, I don't know what to tell you dude.
Click to expand...

Obama and Hilary ran their platforms in 2008 largely on the promise of limiting our intervention in Iraq.

You're extremely naive to think that we could ever adopt a truly isolationist foreign policy, but there are obviously election differences tag will prevent us from going to eat with Iran, North Korea, Proxy wars with Russia, not to mention changing diplomatic ties with the likes of Israel/Palestine and Cuba.
 
F

FreedomFighter

Member
Sho_Nuff82 said:
Obama and Hilary ran their platforms in 2008 largely on the promise of limiting our intervention in Iraq.

You're extremely naive to think that we could ever adopt a truly isolationist foreign policy, but there are obviously election differences tag will prevent us from going to eat with Iran, North Korea, Proxy wars with Russia, not to mention changing diplomatic ties with the likes of Israel/Palestine and Cuba.
Click to expand...
A lot of assuming there, Sho Nuff. I never said anything about having an isolationist foreign policy. Ever. That's not even possible; so I'm not sure why you would attribute that stance to me.

Second, both Obama and Hillary running on a promise of limiting intervention in Iraq bolsters my point, so thank you for that. Foreign policy remains the same regardless of who is in office - doesn't matter what campaign position they take. And look what happened with Iraq under Obama...
 
S

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
FreedomFighter said:
A lot of assuming there, Sho Nuff. I never said anything about having an isolationist foreign policy. Ever. That's not even possible; so I'm not sure why you would attribute that stance to me.

Second, both Obama and Hillary running on a promise of limiting intervention in Iraq bolsters my point, so thank you for that. Foreign policy remains the same regardless of who is in office - doesn't matter what campaign position they take. And look what happened with Iraq under Obama...
Click to expand...

Have you been paying attention to Foreign Policy AT ALL this last year?

Iran and Cuba for instance?
 
S

Siegcram

Member
FreedomFighter said:
A lot of assuming there, Sho Nuff. I never said anything about having an isolationist foreign policy. Ever. That's not even possible; so I'm not sure why you would attribute that stance to me.

Second, both Obama and Hillary running on a promise of limiting intervention in Iraq bolsters my point, so thank you for that. Foreign policy remains the same regardless of who is in office - doesn't matter what campaign position they take. And look what happened with Iraq under Obama...
Click to expand...
Not sure you should be criticizing people for making assumptions.
 
S

Slacker

Member
water_wendi said:
https://twitter.com/BobbyJindal/stat...98606283993088

im kind of surprised at Jindal here.
Click to expand...

He's talking a play from the Rand Paul.Rick Perry/Lindsey Graham playbook, trying to pick a fight with Trump to get his name mentioned in the national media. If that's the best zinger they could come up with, you have to wonder what didn't make the cut.

And the attack Trump strategy hasn't worked for anyone yet. Rick Perry challenged him to do pull-ups, but came off looking like an aging jock who thinks he could throw the football over them mountains. Paul looked like a petulant child attacking Trump during the debate, and his words sounded very rehearsed, suggesting he had planned that attack beforehand. And Lindsey Graham destroying his cell phone just looked like an idiot. Maybe that's better than his usual look- a guy who needs a hug - but it didn't help his poll numbers.
 
S

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
wildfire said:
So why did he give him money?

:p
Click to expand...

Hedging your bets is a weak but comparatively effective statistical strategy. In that it is marginally safer than going all in but guarantees lower dividends in the event of a win by a long shot.


Which is actually counter to Trump's abysmal business record.
 
S

Slacker

Member
Veritigo_X said:
Did he delete this tweet?

Edit: Nvm, the link wasn't working when I clicked it in the quoted post above, but it's still on his feed. He's trying so hard to attack Trump right now.
Click to expand...

He's desperate for national attention. He could talk about his record and his ideas, but both are utter shit so he's trying this instead. It's a side effect of how the RNC is running the debates this year. The top candidates in national polls get in, so instead of talking to people in NH and Iowa and formulating a message that can reach voters, we get candidates doing stuff like this.
 
F

FreedomFighter

Member
Suikoguy said:
Have you been paying attention to Foreign Policy AT ALL this last year?

Iran and Cuba for instance?
Click to expand...
Oh, please. US foreign policy alone basically proves Bagehot's theory over and over again.

Cuba means absolutely nothing unless the embargo is lifted. In terms of Iran, that's an entire thread in itself. Because then I'd have to talk about if they ever really had a nuclear weapon or were on the precipice (they didn't/weren't... like... at all), why US/Iran relations are what they are now (i.e. BP, Ajax, the Shah, the revolution, etc). There's a much bigger picture here you're missing. If you want to argue that from Bush to Obama, or from any President to another, that there have been changes in foreign policy that weren't cosmetic since WWII, then it really is you who isn't paying attention AT ALL.
Siegcram said:
Not sure you should be criticizing people for making assumptions.
Click to expand...
Nice hit and run but I'd prefer you to be descriptive. But if your basically amplifying Suikoguy's point, I don't think either of you have much of a leg to stand on.
 
D

Downhome

Member
This is amazing. Trump is naming names of people he thinks are horrible, mentioned Karl Rove. Saying he still thinks that Mitt Romney won, haha.

Also, a "total incompetent jerk".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Bobby Kotick, former CEO of Activision, Interested in Buying Tik-Tok
2 3
143
10K
Gameplay Gods Bless replied
  • Locked
Metaphor: ReFantazio Details Story, World, Tribes, Characters, English Screenshots
Hype
2
1K
Fake replied
Support for Donald Trump's impeachment is higher than his approval ratings
2
95
6K
Arkhan replied
Trump Approval Hits New Low Of 32% As Support From His Base Slips — IBD/TIPP Poll
2 3 4
197
32K
skullmuffins replied
AP Poll: Trump at 67% approval with Republicans
2 3 4
197
31K
RoboPlato replied
Top Bottom