More ths cycle than previous ones is the question though.
Nope. Yellow dog GOP voters.
It’s funny how many Trump and Sanders supporters are grabbing Quinnipiac like it’s the Bible of all polls.
An outlier that says what you want to hear is revealed truth.
According to 538, Quinnipiac is a B+ pollster, with a modest Republican tilt (0.9). Rasmussen, by contrast, gets a C and shows a bias of 2.3 in favor of Republicans.
I find this relativism as to priorities surprising, especially coming from conservatives.
In my view, there’s clear objective bases by which to judge whether a given priority is good or bad. Of course, there’s a vast gray area in which priorities are a matter of preference, empirical judgments, values, etc. etc. But that doesn’t mean that all priorities are created equal. To identify one criterion among many, prioritizing something that is very unlikely to get any government attention at all in the next four years regardless of what the candidate thinks makes less sense that prioritizing the candidate’s views on subjects that are very likely to get government attention.
This seems to me to assume that people choose their priorities. I don’t think they do. People care about what they care about, whether it’s important or not.
I think that’s true. But it doesn’t change the central point: some sets of priorities are objectively better or more rational than others.
Quinny may be inaccurate, but most polls don’t show a massive lead for Hillary. Averages put Trump within 6-10 points in most cases, which is hardly landslide territory here. What might be novel this year is that Trump may not get such a great convention bounce, which he’d desperately need. But there’s the possibility that Hillary herself might also have a post-convention problem. At least there’s time for her to consider her options and she has a wider range of options than the polarizing Trump, who has convinced many republicans that he’s stealing their party from them, regardless what voters say. And on that note, there are still murmurings that the republicans may launch a third party bid, knowing it’s likely doomed to failure but giving them a chance to block Trump.
I’d agree that a 6 point lead at this point is far from massive. It could become massive and be a blow out, or it could become a fairly narrow Trump win with the GOP in control of both the House and the Senate.
You may as well call it Soviet America if that ever comes to pass.
If you accept that folks care about what they care about than I don’t think you can say one set of priorities is objectively more rational or better than another. The relative weighting influences prioritization and even unlikely events can tip the scales if the weighting is there. Think of it like the decision to purchase types of insurance. Risk of loss is low, but we buy it to mitigate the impact of low probability events as the reduced marginal utility of the low premiums is less than the peace of mind acquired even for ultra low probability events.
So evaluating candidates based on the efficacy of their economic or foreign policies is no more rational than just wanting a candidate who can play Yankee Doodle Dandy with his farts?
Given that a President’s primary job is to carry out the law, character can actually be more important than any other issue in some voters’ minds. The other issue, even if you want a President to take a more active role in setting policy, is competence and character and how they interact with the ability to do what you want. If you don’t know what you’re doing, having the “right” views on policy won’t help. Say you want to have universal health care, but the government’s IT policies are too outdated. A smart, competent President will want to address boring stuff like that before getting into the exciting stuff like health care. Or perhaps you’d like to do something about immigration but the bureaucracy doesn’t want to cooperate with you and employment protections make them impossible to fire as long as they are complying with the law. Then you have to do the boring bureaucratic reform agenda before you can do immigration.
Of course, I’ve just made an aweseome argument for Hillary Clinton, since Clinton is into the boring policy stuff. But some Presidents hate that, want to delegate it, and then act surprised when their policies don’t happen the way they want them to.
The point is that plans are probably the LEAST important thing to consider when voting for a President. If all Presidential candidates were brilliant people of high character and vast experience, then yeah, we could look at their plans and judge them by that. Since most Presidential candidates are of questionable character, probably couldn’t even name 5 of the 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights, and don’t even know what their own plans are half the time(staff comes up with the details for most candidates, with Sanders especially being exposed on that count), we have to take personal qualities into account as well.
Atlanta Journal Constitution poll shows a tight race between Trump and Clinton in GA: Georgia poll shows tight presidential race - POLITICO
Anybody surprised?
Six months out, polls can be strange and mysterious things.
right, they DID, in the past, poll well, but this cycle, they’re dead last.
Indeed, and one has to note also how Trump appears tied or behind Clinton in Arizona and Utah, we need more polls to see if it keeps that way.
From my position as an Australian looking at it all, it’s like the Clinton people and the Media will not allow Trump to be the Leader regardless if he won or not or they will riot.
Our Australian media make out Clinton is a done deal and go about making stupid sound bites of Trump and go to great lengths cover up what he truly is trying to get across.
We here in Australia have a left wing bloke that stepped into the top job and kicked out our so called right wing leader mid term and went about getting rid of all the conservatives hook of by crook and happy as a pig in mire to see them go, he has just destroyed the very foundations of the party, without changing the name.
Everyone has to be Politically Correct now, just as it was in Nazi Germany, intolerant pricks telling everyone how to think and pushing stupid laws and it will only take a few years to change there current trend around 180 degrees just as Hitler did to make others an enemy of the State.
Clinton should win, but her supporters won’t riot. That’s the province of Trump’s brownshirts. You may see our emigration stats increase, though, if he somehow does manage to win. It all comes down to how much (or little, hopefully) the general populace will buy into his (and the GOP’s) line of bull.
Anyway, there is a chance for a President Trump. How much of one, I don’t know, but my feeling is that it’s pretty low.
Sounds like if you are getting a lot of your talking points from Christopher Monckton, complete with the Nazi accusations directed to his opponents. In reality the previous Prime minister was just getting very bad advice and was relying on anti-science, on top of that (or related to that) he did cut education funding. His party had plenty of reasons to remove him from office.