| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Ben Shapiro: GOP Trailing (in Polls) |
| 2018-07-26 |
| [DailyWire] So why do polls show Dems ahead? If you were a GOPer, would you admit your leanings to a nameless pollster, given the possibility of being doxed or Twerked (being assaulted by a jerk on Twitter)? Let's wait until the election and see just what the spread is. |
| Posted by:Mercutio |
| #20 Don't panic, don't get cocky. |
| Posted by: charger 2018-07-26 18:31 |
| #19 Sorry, das Sauerkraut. Dude, you've misgendered a vegetable. That's sooo racist. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2018-07-26 17:42 |
| #18 She didn't gain any extra votes for her efforts as Trump proved the conventional belief that the one with the most money will win was incorrect. It's correct as long as you don't make any bonehead errors. But Hillary ignored the advice of one of the greatest political talents in the Democratic party - Bill. That is the definition of bonehead error. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2018-07-26 17:28 |
| #17 Sorry, das Sauerkraut. |
| Posted by: Tyranysaurus Phusort7653 2018-07-26 17:06 |
| #16 Und die Unions... ach... die Unions! Die Unions und die SEIU und die Sauerkraut! :-) |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2018-07-26 17:05 |
| #15 Trump's rallies drew people from far and wide, true, but within the watershed of each of those rallies fell how many college campuses? How many housing projects, federal buildings, city halls, senior centers, hospitals, clinics and other entitlement outlets? How many schoolteachers? Und die Unions... ach... die Unions! Die Unions und die SEIU und die Sauerkraut! |
| Posted by: Zenobia Floger6220 2018-07-26 17:04 |
| #14 Hillary worked California to add to her warchest. She didn't gain any extra votes for her efforts as Trump proved the conventional belief that the one with the most money will win was incorrect. #mercutio a lot of independence might be socialists |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2018-07-26 16:34 |
| #13 I watched many Trump rallies. He always had huge turnouts. I also watched Hillary rallies for as much as I could stand. The turnout for her rally was nowhere close to the Trump turnout; her's were kind of pitiful w/regards to crowd size and messaging plus she had a lot of baggage. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2018-07-26 15:03 |
| #12 Local Democratic pols chose poorly |
| Posted by: Bobby 2018-07-26 14:37 |
| #11 As far as I can determine with respect to Michigan, it wasn't a fluke - Trump out-worked her, plain and simple. She did work - but in Georgia and other states she ultimately lost. Local Democratic pols in swing states she lost were puzzled at her indifference (as in WTF is she up to) before the polls came in, and livid at her neglect after she conceded. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2018-07-26 13:17 |
| #10 Show me the internals: the ratios of Dem-Ind-Rep actually sampled and the wording of the questions. Even that's not good enough. I always hang up the phone when people like that call. Either that or I have their calls blocked. And I suspect a lot of other folks do. There is only one poll that matters and that's the one in the voting booth on election day. In the meantime, if they were true to their philosophy and honest about it, they would argue their philosophy to the best of their ability and then let the voters decide instead of trying to figure out what voters want to hear and then saying that even though it's a lie. But then, I know it's too much to expect honesty. |
| Posted by: Abu Uluque 2018-07-26 12:45 |
| #9 If she had spent a little more time and money in the 1% margin states, it's likely she would have won. I don't know about the other four states, but Trump was in Michigan the Monday before the election and did five rallies at various places in the state. As far as I can determine with respect to Michigan, it wasn't a fluke - Trump out-worked her, plain and simple. |
| Posted by: Raj 2018-07-26 12:42 |
| #8 According to the polls, Hillary won the 2016 election. On average, they got the popular vote to within 1% of the actual result. Trump's win was a fluke. He won by less than 1% in each of the 5 states that decided the election because Hillary thought she had the election in the bag and wanted to spike the ball by campaigning in red states she thought she had a chance of winning. If she had spent a little more time and money in the 1% margin states, it's likely she would have won. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2018-07-26 12:17 |
| #7 I thought the cross-section in the "sample & methodology" section was interesting.. more independents than either Dem or GOP: Republican 25% Democrat 31 Independent 38 Other/DK/NA 7 suspect a lot of GOPers went independent. |
| Posted by: mercutio 2018-07-26 11:02 |
| #6 Summarizing Mercutio's link (#3), the Dems like more Dems and the Trunks like more Trunks. Unexpectedly. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2018-07-26 09:51 |
| #5 According to the polls, Hillary won the 2016 election. I think I'll go play the 2016 election night melt-down in the Hillary camp to give myself a boost today. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2018-07-26 09:35 |
| #4 Beltway pundit class has to believe in the validity of polls just as they have to believe they (the pundits) have any influence. |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2018-07-26 07:39 |
| #3 Try this: https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2558 |
| Posted by: mercutio 2018-07-26 05:42 |
| #2 Show me the internals: the ratios of Dem-Ind-Rep actually sampled and the wording of the questions. Until then *Pfui!* |
| Posted by: magpie 2018-07-26 01:25 |
| #1 Why didn't Ben link to the polls? That's the way it is normally done. Then folks can look at the details (how over sampled Democrats are for example). The polls were way off prior to election 2016, I doubt they are suddenly worthy now. |
| Posted by: ruprecht 2018-07-26 00:32 |
