I’ll bet you $1,000 that I can prove this false. Want to take my bet?
No, but I’d like to see the numbers.
Do you have numbers on the intensity of likability. If not, you can’t.
Well bowl me over with a feather. You won’t take the bet unless you get to define “likable” in a way that nobody else does.
I am shocked. Gobsmacked. How did I never see that coming?
ETA: do you believe that Benny Hinn qualifies as a likable person?
“intensity of likability”
Dafuq? So if nobody has numbers on a made up statistic, then you get to win the point? Likability is something that is polled and that there is data to support. Gee I wonder why that metric isn’t good enough for you …
For readability purposes, I’m just going to post the deltas (positives are favorable, negatives unfavorable). For good measure, I’m throwing in HRC’s numbers for comparative purposes. Ah, hell, I’ll throw in Geoerge W. Bush’s, too, as best as I can.
July 2015: Trump -26, HRC -3, Bush -1
April 2011: Trump -17, HRC N/A, Bush N/A
March 2011: Trump -4, HRC +35, Bush N/A
Jan 2007: Trump -7, HRC +18, Bush -8
June 2005: Trump +12 (atta boy!), HRC +16 (sorry Donald), Bush -2
October 1999: Trump -25 (the pattern returns), HRC +16, Bush +45
September 1999: Trump -6, HRC +15, Bush +49
The lesson here, of course, is that George W. Bush is better liked than Trump, and Clinton is more liked than Bush.
A plurality? That isn’t very good for a nominee. Who do you suppose the people who don’t like him will vote for?
He will lose far more Republicans and Independents than he will pick up from Democrats.
Just keep telling yourself that.
Wanna bet? 
I find myself wondering if the volatility and confusion over polling numbers might be best explained by the “Who gives a fuck? Its all more than a year away” factor. Perhaps the only people actually answering questions are those in the minority of citizens who give a fuck. How does anyone track the opinions of people who cannot be bothered to have one?
This would amplify the importance of Bernie as it would amplify the importance of The Donald. Problem being obvious, that the machinery produces a candidate who survives, but arouses an almost universal reaction of “Who? Him? You gotta be kidding, who’s dumb-ass idea was that!”.
That’s very charitable of you. I think the poll results are best explained by the growing popularity of heroin and methamphetamine.
Agree completely, and very nicely said, thank you.
People are equally drawn to Kim Kardashian
I don’t understand why Carson would be considered competent or likeable.
He is very competent in his personal and professional life. A very talented surgeon and all. But his opinions on gay marriage, or his view that the ACA is the worst thing since slavery, or his comparisons of the US to Nazi germany make him seem pretty clueless and histrionic.
I don’t know about the other candidates, but maybe Walker or Rubio would be considered competent, likeable and honorable.
Cruz is a weasel and I think a lot of people see that, so he is out. Christie isn’t liked by the GOP base or NJ. Not sure about the others.
I keep forgetting he’s running. OK. I know nothing about him, but that’s probably a hopeful sign. It means he hasn’t been stinking up SRIOTD.
So, who thinks George Pataki will win the nomination?
In fact, it’s probably almost exactly the same low-information reality-show-addled demographic!
If you clearly state the conditions of the wager, I will consider it.
QFT.
I’ve been told I need to add smiley-faces when I’m being sarcastic. Did you forget a smiley ehre?
I remember Pataki from when he was governor. He’s an intelligent and competent man. No major scandals were connected to him.
But he has major liabilities. First is he has a very bland personality. Second is he’s been out of politics for nine years and has no base. And third is that he’s a moderate in a party that’s been taken over by conservatives.