Yes I do. “Democrat bubble”. That’s a new one on me.
“articulating issues”? Cite?
I mean, his inarticulateness is the only thing that makes him slightly better from my perspective, in that I give him some slack that he meant that only some immigrants from Mexico were rapists, and not the entire country like his poor grammar implied. The statement was ridiculous on several other levels of course, but a sweeping overgeneralization it wasn’t.
One can either speak articulately or one can speak in language that Trump supporters understand.
One can not do both.
You’re right, but it shouldn’t surprise you. The same thing happened in 2012.
The media wants a close horse race because it makes for more “news”. They’ll headline every little up and down jigger in the polls.
The Democrats will downplay Hillary’s lead as much as possible, because an overwhelming lead might discourage voters who think they’re vote doesn’t matter.
Trump supporters will cherry pick whatever makes him seem competitive, because they’ll not want to admit it’s a lost cause.
Only the anti-Trump Republicans don’t have reason to read the polls with bias. But they will anyway, from force of habit.
But the significance of these polls is that if Trump does as well as Romney did, then that increases the chances that the Republicans keep the Senate.
The nightmare scenario for the Republicans is not that Trump loses. It’s that a) he gets completely blown out, and b) that the Republican brand as a whole is tainted by association with him, and he drags down the entire party. If he merely loses in a respectable showing, well that’s just another election - happens.
Couple national polls showing a close race: PPP has Clinton +4 and Reuters/Ipsos has Clinton at +1. Of potentially interesting note is that the Reuters poll was an internet poll and there’s suggestions that Trump supporters may be less likely to be honest to live pollsters vs automated polling methods.
For the record, I still think Clinton will win (Obama was +2 right now against McCain) and all the usual caveats about early cycle polling but thought I’d mention it anyway.
Bernie Sanders loves these poll results. His campaign sent out this email this morning:
If people are actually interested in defeating Trump, the answer would be to rally behind the candidate that already has a huge lead in delegate count rather than insisting that THEY should be handed the nomination against the will of the voters.
Of course, the primary reason why Sanders has a larger lead is because Sanders never had an actual negative campaign waged against him. Anyone thinking that he’d keep that lead when all the “Socialist! Wants to forever change America!” ads came out is delusional.
What a completely stupid, ignorant, and arrogant statement.
Trump playing the WM card almost certainly will whip up white voter turnout in places like NC – but it will also whip up black voter turnout (vote-suppression measures permitting).
Bullshit.
Nothing Sanders or his supporters do before the convention is going to weaken Hillary’s chances in November. If they go third-party you’ll have a point, but not otherwise.
Why?
He’s just not very Presidential. One example: He’s stated in public that he’d ban people from entering The Land Of The Free according to their religion. That’s un-American.
OTOH, one thing that Trump does have going for him is that ISTM he’s been more willing to acknowledge changing his mind on things than most politicians. This gives him an edge when he wants to back off his prior extreme statements and ostensible positions.
I don’t see how that’s a positive. Looks more to me like he hasn’t seriously considered the issue he’s talking about and throws out whatever crap comes to him off the top of his head, then he goes back and tries to clean up the collateral damage to his goals that the statement has caused.
It may be advantageous to him to have very few identifiable policies, but it’s not going to gain him any votes from those who actually want to know what his policies will be. Moving the target doesn’t make someone reliable.
I’m under the impression that an ever-shrinking minority of the electorate actually cares about policy positions.
What % of the electorate would you guess is what we would consider “low-information voters”?
Looks that way to me too, but if people don’t really care about his positions to begin with but only his personality which is appealing to them, then that’s not what counts. What counts is if when he’s backing off whatever he said earlier, whether he tries to come up with some unconvincing way of claiming to be consistent or whether he says straight up “I thought so at the time but now I’ve decided that the matter is more complex than I thought …”. To me and you that shows that he’s out of his element, but others may think this shows he’s a straight talker unlike all the rest of the politicians.
My only idea on that is that it’s too large. 