Support NeoGAF

[B-Dubs]

I so want to believe that Bill Clinton is behind this Trump run.

It's just too good if he was. I mean, if he was, it means one phone call literally destabilized the entire republican party.

 

[User1608]

Slick Willy indeed.

 

[RustyNails]

Gravis Marketing is semi legit. 538 gives it a C rating. That one does smell like an outlier though.

I remember Gravis being alright in 2012. They are a marketing research company. Worst pollsters are quinnipac and gallup, with ppp being the best.

 

[speculawyer]

Trump would recruit Rubio before Cruz.

Well Trump crapped on Rubio in the latest speech while crapping on Bush at the same time. A two-fer.

Trump will pick a non politician. A politician would probably be better for him but he will have insulted all of them by then.

 

[sc0la]

Trump already said his dream VP is Oprah. It will bring in those entitled millenials blacks democrats looking for their handouts.

"You get a car and you get a car and you get a car!"

Well Trump crapped on Rubio in the latest speech while crapping on Bush at the same time.

If we are predicting this based on people he has not crapped on its going to be a short list.

I think he could go for someone inside the box since he is sooooo outside. A "wonk" to balance his brave leader shtick.

 

[thepotatoman]

Well Trump crapped on Rubio in the latest speech while crapping on Bush at the same time. A two-fer.

Trump will pick a non politician. A politician would probably be better for him but he will have insulted all of them by then.

Trump/Carson would sure be a hell of a ticket.

Who are the republican vice president potentials are outside of the current 17 running for president? Tom Cotton is the only one that comes to mind for me.

 

[Polari]

Crapping on people doesn't mean much at this point. Plenty of time to mend fences later.

 

[Plinko]

Trump/Carson would sure be a hell of a ticket.

Who are the republican vice president potentials are outside of the current 17 running for president? Tom Cotton is the only one that comes to mind for me.

I find it interesting that Trump hasn't attacked Carson yet.

 

[PantherLotus]

It's just too good if he was. I mean, if he was, it means one phone call literally destabilized the entire republican party.

True. But it also means it was likely to happen anyway. I think we're really seeing the long-term effects of the Bush years (9/11, Iraq, Katrina, Cheney, housing collapse/market crash) coming home to roost.

Combine that with Fox News hysteria, the tea party, the fetishization of Sarah Palin types, the gospel of wealth over morals, changing attitudes toward drugs and LGBT groups, not to mention just how literally awful the establishment GOP is and how much worse the governing style of the wing nut house has been ... this was all bound to happen.

Trump wasn't the catalyst. He's not the tumor. He's the metastasized growth of everything they stand for. Pure, selfish idiocy.

 

[Cheebo]

I remember Gravis being alright in 2012. They are a marketing research company. Worst pollsters are quinnipac and gallup, with ppp being the best.

This is not accurate. Quinnipac has one of the more solid track records. Just because we don't like their most recent polls does not negate the fact they are one of the more accurate pollsters in the business.

Using polling very early in a presidential cycle as a basis to judge pollsters like that doesn't really work. Starting to dismiss pollsters because we don't like their results even when they historically are an accurate poll is not the best course of action to take, gets too close to comfort to the unskewing craziness that conservatives did in 2012.

Overall PPP is decent but not best. Quinnipac has a better track record than PPP abit overall.

538 rates PPP's track record as a B-, Quinnipac as B+. Gravis is weaker than both with a C.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/pollster-ratings/

In the end attacking/dismissing pollsters credibility based on general election polls this far in advance of the election is beyond silly. There is a LONG time to go and calling Quinnipac the worst pollster based on far off general election polling for one cycle when they have a long history of solid polling is jumping the gun.

Could they become a Gallup and fall off the map in terms of accuracy? Sure, but it WAAAY too early to even begin considering making a call like that, their history gives them the benefit of the doubt, especially this early in a cycle where the pool of likely voters is near impossible to gauge yet.

Ranking pollsters based on who agrees with us the most right now doesn't work well in the end.

In the end the best way to judge polls is not cherry picking certain pollsters, but to look at the overall trend and average.

 

[Diablos]

Trump has this in the bag. Just gotta keep Kasich from coming through at the 11th hour. It's entirely possible; Bush is toast, Walker has no game and Rubio is shaping up to be VP material at best.

 

[ErasureAcer]

Trump has this in the bag. Just gotta keep Kasich from coming through at the 11th hour. It's entirely possible; Bush is toast, Walker has no game and Rubio is shaping up to be VP material at best.

120 million dollars can sure by someone with a brain. Throw up some ads. Rig the vote. Do whatever it takes to become President(and then do nothing to solve the issues of the day). It's the Bush creed.

 

[Cheebo]

120 million dollars can sure by someone with a brain. Throw up some ads. Rig the vote. Do whatever it takes to become President(and then do nothing to solve the issues of the day). It's the Bush creed.

You can't "rig the vote". It'd be impossible to get away with that. No one buys into the nonsene of Bush stealing the election anymore or that nonsense about Diebold rigging the electronic ballots. Doesn't matter how rich you are.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

It's sad and hilarious at the same time. Pretty infuriating too; that's why I hope Trump is the nominee so Hillary can give him the classiest landslide loss ever.
*edit* Oh God, just imagining Trump's reaction to such a loss is hilarious along with those of his supporters.

Its frustrating because these artificial rules of journalistic non-emotions disallow minority reporters from being actors unless they acquiesce to the generally white status quo of politics.

People should be heckling trump. He's literally calling for a round up of 11 million people!

Edit: with all this "trump is the end game". I don't buy it, I don't think this ends with him. We said that about Palin, about the tea party, about the government shutdown, about anti-obamacare lawsuits, about cruz, etc. They can always go farther. This is a revanchist movement who feels they're losing their country and their standing which is their god given right to rule. I really think we're going to start seeing violence when they start to be locked out of the political process. Trump is actually holding that back IMO

 

[PlayALLtheGames]

Trump already said his dream VP is Oprah. It will bring in those entitled millenials blacks democrats looking for their handouts.

"You get a car and you get a car and you get a car!"
.

So in addition to an Obama phone people'll have an Oprah car?

 

[Coriolanus]

You can't "rig the vote". It'd be impossible to get away with that.

Ah, but that's what they want you to think.

 

[Aaron Strife]

This is not accurate. Quinnipac has one of the more solid track records. Just because we don't like their most recent polls does not negate the fact they are one of the more accurate pollsters in the business.

Using polling very early in a presidential cycle as a basis to judge pollsters like that doesn't really work. Starting to dismiss pollsters because we don't like their results even when they historically are an accurate poll is not the best course of action to take, gets too close to comfort to the unskewing craziness that conservatives did in 2012.

Overall PPP is decent but not best. Quinnipac has a better track record than PPP abit overall.

538 rates PPP's track record as a B-, Quinnipac as B+. Gravis is weaker than both with a C.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/pollster-ratings/

In the end attacking/dismissing pollsters credibility based on general election polls this far in advance of the election is beyond silly. There is a LONG time to go and calling Quinnipac the worst pollster based on far off general election polling for one cycle when they have a long history of solid polling is jumping the gun.

Could they become a Gallup and fall off the map in terms of accuracy? Sure, but it WAAAY too early to even begin considering making a call like that, their history gives them the benefit of the doubt, especially this early in a cycle where the pool of likely voters is near impossible to gauge yet.

Ranking pollsters based on who agrees with us the most right now doesn't work well in the end.

In the end the best way to judge polls is not cherry picking certain pollsters, but to look at the overall trend and average.

Don't take Nate's rating of PPP seriously. He had a rather petty spat with them a couple years ago where he basically called them shit because they kept their polling methods secret, after which Tom Jensen shared their methods with him and he just said it wasn't good enough.

 

[Cheebo]

Don't take Nate's rating of PPP seriously. He had a rather petty spat with them a couple years ago where he basically called them shit because they kept their polling methods secret, after which Tom Jensen shared their methods with him and he just said it wasn't good enough.

Yeah, PPP is pretty decent in terms of track record but has no real history of being so vastly better than Quinnipac to call them the best and Quinnipac the worst.

There is no basis whatesover to call Quinnipac "the worst poll", when they are clearly far from that and consistently one of the more accurate pollsters for multiple election cycles. Using very far off general election polling in a single current cycle is not evidence to throw out their long track record.

 

[User1608]

Its frustrating because these artificial rules of journalistic non-emotions disallow minority reporters from being actors unless they acquiesce to the generally white status quo of politics.

People should be heckling trump. He's literally calling for a round up of 11 million people!

Edit: with all this "trump is the end game". I don't buy it, I don't think this ends with him. We said that about Palin, about the tea party, about the government shutdown, about anti-obamacare lawsuits, about cruz, etc. They can always go farther. This is a revanchist movement who feels they're losing their country and their standing which is their god given right to rule. I really think we're going to start seeing violence when they start to be locked out of the political process. Trump is actually holding that back IMO

I hope it doesn't come to violence, because it will get even uglier. Ugh, I hate bigots so much. At least we'll likely see some good progress when racists are unable to vote against their own interest just to screw the rest of us.

 

[RDreamer]

“We know his goal is to make America great again,” a woman said. “It’s on his hat."

 

[AntoneM]

Its frustrating because these artificial rules of journalistic non-emotions disallow minority reporters from being actors unless they acquiesce to the generally white status quo of politics.

People should be heckling trump. He's literally calling for a round up of 11 million people!

Edit: with all this "trump is the end game". I don't buy it, I don't think this ends with him. We said that about Palin, about the tea party, about the government shutdown, about anti-obamacare lawsuits, about cruz, etc. They can always go farther. This is a revanchist movement who feels they're losing their country and their standing which is their god given right to rule. I really think we're going to start seeing violence when they start to be locked out of the political process. Trump is actually holding that back IMO

As Krugman wrote today:

Conservative religiosity, conservative faith in markets, were never about living a godly life or letting the invisible hand promote entrepreneurship. Instead, it was all as Corey Robin describes it: Conservatism is

a reactionary movement, a defense of power and privilege against democratic challenges from below, particularly in the private spheres of the family and the workplace.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I hope it doesn't come to violence, because it will get even uglier. Ugh, I hate bigots so much. At least we'll likely see some good progress when racists are unable to vote against their own interest just to screw the rest of us.

I mostly mean attacks like today. People lashing out

 

[Aaron Strife]

Yeah, PPP is pretty decent in terms of track record but has no real history of being so vastly better than Quinnipac to call them the best and Quinnipac the worst.

There is no basis whatesover to call Quinnipac "the worst poll", when they are clearly far from that and consistently one of the more accurate pollsters for multiple election cycles. Using very far off general election polling in a single current cycle is not evidence to throw out their long track record.

I wouldn't go as far as to call Quinnipiac shit but thy have a tendency to show wild swings for no reason (their polling of the Colorado governor's race last year was atrociously skewed toward the Republican and had him leading double digits) and some of their recent polls are pretty baffling like having Hillary leading in Ohio and losing in Pennsylvania. The last time that happened was when Dewey defeated Truman.

 

[RustyNails]

This is not accurate. Quinnipac has one of the more solid track records. Just because we don't like their most recent polls does not negate the fact they are one of the more accurate pollsters in the business.

Using polling very early in a presidential cycle as a basis to judge pollsters like that doesn't really work. Starting to dismiss pollsters because we don't like their results even when they historically are an accurate poll is not the best course of action to take, gets too close to comfort to the unskewing craziness that conservatives did in 2012.

Overall PPP is decent but not best. Quinnipac has a better track record than PPP abit overall.

538 rates PPP's track record as a B-, Quinnipac as B+. Gravis is weaker than both with a C.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/pollster-ratings/

In the end attacking/dismissing pollsters credibility based on general election polls this far in advance of the election is beyond silly. There is a LONG time to go and calling Quinnipac the worst pollster based on far off general election polling for one cycle when they have a long history of solid polling is jumping the gun.

Could they become a Gallup and fall off the map in terms of accuracy? Sure, but it WAAAY too early to even begin considering making a call like that, their history gives them the benefit of the doubt, especially this early in a cycle where the pool of likely voters is near impossible to gauge yet.

Ranking pollsters based on who agrees with us the most right now doesn't work well in the end.

In the end the best way to judge polls is not cherry picking certain pollsters, but to look at the overall trend and average.

I was thinking of Rasmussen when I said Quinnipac...my bad. Quinn really wasn't reliable though. This is coming off 2012 polling. PPP iirc called the election in all the swing states, and all of their general polling consistently showed Obama winning by +3 or +4. Ras, Gallup and Quin were for some stupid reason showing a Romney win or an Obama win. Heck Gallup had Romney +6 going into election night. Their screening methodology was questionable. I remember conservatives calling PPP biased and democratic propaganda. I rate PPP the best because they were consistently the most accurate both in swing states and general. Other respectable polling outfits I remember were Reuters/IPSOS, CBS, WashPo and NBC/WSJ.

 

[Aaron Strife]

PPP did blow it a little in 2014 but almost everyone did. That was one year where the polls actually did have a Dem bias, maybe pollsters were overcorrecting for GOP bias in 2012.

 

[RustyNails]

PPP did blow it a little in 2014 but almost everyone did. That was one year where the polls actually did have a Dem bias, maybe pollsters were overcorrecting for GOP bias in 2012.

Well mid term voting is notoriously difficult to poll, with 2014 being especially difficult. It's near impossible to predict a turnout number.

 

[Retromelon]

Paul krugman is what liberals read to make themselves feel better. He's dem soul food

 

[RastaMentality]

Colorado Republicans cancel presidential vote at 2016 caucus

Colorado will not vote for a Republican candidate for president at its 2016 caucus after party leaders approved a little-noticed shift that may diminish the state's clout in the most open nomination contest in the modern era.

The GOP executive committee has voted to cancel the traditional presidential preference poll after the national party changed its rules to require a state's delegates to support the candidate that wins the caucus vote.

The move makes Colorado the only state so far to forfeit a role in the early nomination process, according to political experts, but other caucus states are still considering how to adapt to the new rule.

"It takes Colorado completely off the map" in the primary season, said Ryan Call, a former state GOP chairman.

Republicans still will hold precinct caucus meetings in early 2016 to begin the process of selecting delegates for the national convention — but the 37 delegates are not pledged to any specific candidate.

...

The Colorado system often favors anti-establishment candidates who draw a dedicated following among activists — as evidenced by Rick Santorum's victory in 2012 caucus. So the party's move may hurt GOP contenders such as Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Rand Paul, who would have received a boost if they won the state.

State Republican Party Chairman Steve House said the party's 24-member executive committee made the unanimous decision Friday — six members were absent — to skip the preference poll.

The move, he said, would give Colorado delegates the freedom to support any candidate eligible at the Cleveland convention in July. Republican National Committee officials confirmed that the change complies with party rules.

...

The caucus is likely to occur in February, but party officials will meet next month to finalize the date.

In 2008 and 2012, die-hard Republican voters gathered at caucus meetings to begin the delegate-selection process of selecting delegates to the national convention and voice support for presidential candidates in a straw poll.

The votes, however, didn't require Colorado delegates to support any particular candidate at the national conventions. This allowed for delegates that supported a losing candidate to vote for the nominee and demonstrate party unity at the convention.

But the freedom also opened the door for political mischief, as Colorado saw in 2012 when Ron Paul supporters managed to win a significant portion of the delegate slots, even though Paul finished far behind other candidates in the Colorado caucuses.

Other caucus states are grappling with the rule change in different ways as they finalize their plans before the deadline at the end of September, Putnam said, but he is not aware of any state that has abandoned the presidential caucus vote.

With the change, the only way Colorado Republican delegates would remain relevant is the remote chance that no candidate emerges as a clear winner in the primary contest. In this case, the state's unbound delegates would receive significant attention and may hold the key to victory in a floor fight.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_28700919/colorado-republicans-cancel-2016-presidential-caucus-vote

What does this mean for the primary exactly?

 

[Aaron Strife]

Sounds like the fix is in.

 

[Retromelon]

Try harder reince
No one will ever care about jeb

 

[speculawyer]

Colorado Republicans cancel presidential vote at 2016 caucus


http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_28700919/colorado-republicans-cancel-2016-presidential-caucus-vote

What does this mean for the primary exactly?

So the new Republican voter-suppression tactic is to suppress the votes of their own Republicans that they don't like. LOL.


But like their general voter suppression tactic, this will backfire on them in the long term. Getting the calendar weighted with so many rural & southern states means they will increasingly pick candidates out of the national mainstream and thus worsen their chances.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Colorado Republicans cancel presidential vote at 2016 caucus


http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_28700919/colorado-republicans-cancel-2016-presidential-caucus-vote

What does this mean for the primary exactly?

Wow...

 

[ivysaur12]

Colorado Republicans cancel presidential vote at 2016 caucus


http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_28700919/colorado-republicans-cancel-2016-presidential-caucus-vote

What does this mean for the primary exactly?

lol what? Why would they do this?

 

[RustyNails]

Colorado Republicans cancel presidential vote at 2016 caucus


http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_28700919/colorado-republicans-cancel-2016-presidential-caucus-vote

What does this mean for the primary exactly?

This means it just got even harder for Jeb

 

[PantherLotus]

At some point we might want to think about cheering GOP/Fox news efforts to stop Trump.

 

[Plinko]

At some point we might want to think about cheering GOP/Fox news efforts to stop Trump.

Why? He's considerably less dangerous than the other top candidates.

 

[User1608]

I mostly mean attacks like today. People lashing out

Ah, got ya. Depressing. I wish we could do something more about guns and certain people who shouldn't get their pathetic hands on them.:/

 

[Retromelon]

At some point we might want to think about cheering GOP/Fox news efforts to stop Trump.

This will be seen as remarkably prescient a year and a half from now

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Ah, got ya. Depressing. I wish we could do something more about guns and certain people who shouldn't get their pathetic hands on them.:/

Our country is fine with this though. I don't even believe half the "outrage" in those threads anymore if its not followed a call curtailment of gun "rights". Even background check laws while maybe helping with a few cases are not the solution. Guns are a problem, the solution is to end our society's view that they are a "right". Every hedging on that is acquiescing to more shootings like these.

There is no such thing as responsible gun ownership, guns for hunting? fine. But handguns, assault rifles there's no need. I've never even heard a reason for them besides "safety" (which they are the opposite of as countless studies have shown) or "fun" and random meaningless calls to the 2nd amendment.

I can't even bother to do anything than to say RIP to the victims. I'm not putting up a political fight because its obvious the country isn't willing to change. I don't care how many polls that show how popular gun control is. If the country isn't willing to fight and make it an issue like they have on abortion, gay marriage or healthcare why should I?

 

[PhoenixDark]

https://twitter.com/Clarknt67/status/636598896026890240

 

[HylianTom]

https://twitter.com/Clarknt67/status/636598896026890240

Hot damn.

"Whatever" as a response? Is he a Ricki Lake guest? A 13-year-old girl?

If they want to fight Trump, I think we win either way. He either goes rogue and kneecaps the GOP, or he reps them and loses, good & proper.

 

[speculawyer]

At some point we might want to think about cheering GOP/Fox news efforts to stop Donald "My I.Q. is one of the highest" Trump.

Naw. Donald can't win with his ratings from Latinos. He is unelectable. And the more he is out there succeeding with this harsh rhetoric, the more his forcing the other candidates to adopt positions that will be toxic in the general.


The Dems could not have asked for a better Republican front-runner.

 

[Retromelon]

What you neglect to take into consideration is that he will win the latino vote

 

[Basileus777]

At some point we might want to think about cheering GOP/Fox news efforts to stop Trump.

Why? The more Trump pushes his immigration views to the forefront and forces other Republicans to compete with him on those positions the better it is for the Democrats. Trump has already made Bush and Walker commit serious errors when it comes to this.

 

[Incognito]

those low-energy barbs must have really burned up ol Jeb...

"We need leadership in Washington, D.C. High-energy leadership," @JebBush says.

 

[Frank the Great]

What you neglect to take into consideration is that he will win the latino vote

What a fantastic, classy observation.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

https://twitter.com/Clarknt67/status/636598896026890240

I specifically changed my avatar because this isn't funny anymore, these are racist xenophobes with violent fascists tendencies. The jokes over.

 

[PantherLotus]

Naw. Donald can't win with his ratings from Latinos. He is unelectable. And the more he is out there succeeding with this harsh rhetoric, the more his forcing the other candidates to adopt positions that will be toxic in the general.


The Dems could not have asked for a better Republican front-runner.

Hey spec you know I respect you dogg but you gotta stop editing those dumb quotes about Trump when you're quoting people. I get it and I'm with you but I can't be the only one that doesn't like it or find it funny.

 

[RustyNails]

those low-energy barbs must have really burned up ol Jeb...

Lol he's trying to rove him. Someone tell jeb you cant stump the trump

 

[Coriolanus]

I specifically changed my avatar because this isn't funny anymore, these are racist xenophobes with violent fascists tendencies. The jokes over.

And then you chose Tin Tin?