Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04 ... htens.html

Two interesting and (for me) frustrating things about the result though. One is that there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that Trump's support increased since the last poll. For Republican voters the margin of error for the latest poll is 4.5 and the margin of error for the March poll (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interac ... ion-32316/). The correct interpretation is that the latest poll shows that somewhere in the range of 40.5 through 49.5 percent of Republicans would vote for Trump while the March poll shows that range as 36 through 46 percent. So not enough resolution to tell if the support level changed. Also a statistical test fails to show a "significant" difference (p = 0.19).

Instead, what can definitely be stated is that Cruz has less support than last time while Kasich has more. It appears that Cruz lost some of his support to Kasich.

The other frustrating thing is that Republican voters continue to think Trump is the Republican candidate with the best chance to win the general election. That's bad in that it impedes efforts by Cruz and Kasich to convince Republican voters of the truth: Trump is the WORST candidate of the three remaining that the Republicans could field in the general. Here is a statement on that issue from the first linked page:

"When it comes to electability, the disconnect between what Republicans think and what the polling data show is astounding," says Daron Shaw, Republican pollster who conducts the Fox News Poll with Democratic pollster Chris Anderson. "Close to three times as many think Trump has the best chance against the Democrats despite the fact he's down seven points to Clinton while Kasich is up nine."

Also Cruz trailed Clinton by only 1 percentage point, which means it's a "statistical" tie. So you've got the poll estimating that if the election were held today Clinton would clearly beat Trump, Clinton and Cruz are too close to call, and Kasich would clearly beat Clinton. Yet Republican voters are under this delusion with respect to Trump being the strongest Republican candidate in a general election.

It's not just the head to head polls either. It's other details. Like for instance when respondents were asked whether Clinton has the temperament to be President 62% yes. 65% said "NO" in response to that question about Trump. Answers to the question of whether or not the candidates have the knowledge necessary to serve as President are similar. 63% said Clinton DOES while 60% said Trump does NOT. Clinton's biggest vulnerability is probably the perception that she lacks integrity and that shows up as only 48% said she has sufficient integrity to serve as President. But Trump did even worse as only 40% said HE has sufficient integrity. On and on. You can look at all the results yourself at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interac ... l-14-2016/ but they are completely inconsistent with believing that Trump is the strongest general election candidate among the three remaining Republicans. Instead, they are consistent with believing that the Republicans will be in serious trouble if he gets the nomination.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0GFRcFm-aY[/youtube]

JohnStOnge wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04 ... htens.html

Two interesting and (for me) frustrating things about the result though. One is that there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that Trump's support increased since the last poll. For Republican voters the margin of error for the latest poll is 4.5 and the margin of error for the March poll (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interac ... ion-32316/). The correct interpretation is that the latest poll shows that somewhere in the range of 40.5 through 49.5 percent of Republicans would vote for Trump while the March poll shows that range as 36 through 46 percent. So not enough resolution to tell if the support level changed. Also a statistical test fails to show a "significant" difference (p = 0.19).

Instead, what can definitely be stated is that Cruz has less support than last time while Kasich has more. It appears that Cruz lost some of his support to Kasich.

The other frustrating thing is that Republican voters continue to think Trump is the Republican candidate with the best chance to win the general election. That's bad in that it impedes efforts by Cruz and Kasich to convince Republican voters of the truth: Trump is the WORST candidate of the three remaining that the Republicans could field in the general. Here is a statement on that issue from the first linked page:

"When it comes to electability, the disconnect between what Republicans think and what the polling data show is astounding," says Daron Shaw, Republican pollster who conducts the Fox News Poll with Democratic pollster Chris Anderson. "Close to three times as many think Trump has the best chance against the Democrats despite the fact he's down seven points to Clinton while Kasich is up nine."

Also Cruz trailed Clinton by only 1 percentage point, which means it's a "statistical" tie. So you've got the poll estimating that if the election were held today Clinton would clearly beat Trump, Clinton and Cruz are too close to call, and Kasich would clearly beat Clinton. Yet Republican voters are under this delusion with respect to Trump being the strongest Republican candidate in a general election.

It's not just the head to head polls either. It's other details. Like for instance when respondents were asked whether Clinton has the temperament to be President 62% yes. 65% said "NO" in response to that question about Trump. Answers to the question of whether or not the candidates have the knowledge necessary to serve as President are similar. 63% said Clinton DOES while 60% said Trump does NOT. Clinton's biggest vulnerability is probably the perception that she lacks integrity and that shows up as only 48% said she has sufficient integrity to serve as President. But Trump did even worse as only 40% said HE has sufficient integrity. On and on. You can look at all the results yourself at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interac ... l-14-2016/ but they are completely inconsistent with believing that Trump is the strongest general election candidate among the three remaining Republicans. Instead, they are consistent with believing that the Republicans will be in serious trouble if he gets the nomination.

How they do against Sanders is what you should be asking. (pro tip:not well).

Kasich is hanging around for the brokered convention from which he will emerge as the candidate with the "best chance to beat Hillary".

As it was said, so shall it be.

How they do against Sanders is what you should be asking.

I would be if it looked like the Democrat establishment had enough sense to recognize that they should ditch Hillary and latch their wagon to Sanders. I actually told my wife that today while discussing the same poll. But it's not the only one. Sanders clearly runs WAY better against all of the Republican candidates. And they wouldn't have to worry about him having issues with that e mail stuff.

Trump says HE has a movement. It's nothing compared to what Sanders is doing. That Fox poll has Sanders beating Trump by 53% to 39%, Cruz by 51% to 39%, and Kasich by 47% to 43%. So it looks like only Kasich, who isn't going to get the Republican nomination, would have any shot at beating him if the election was held today.

I frankly don't know why the Super Delegates are mostly backing Hilllary. Maybe it's because Sanders isn't a Democrat. I guess that makes some kind of sense.

To add to the previous post. By the current Real Clear Politics averages Sanders is up on Trump by 16.3, up on Cruz by 11.2, and up on Kasich by 3.3.

Still consistent with the idea, though, that many Republican voters are totally out of touch with reality in thinking Trump is their strongest potential general election candidate. And it's been like that throughout. Trump has NEVER been near the top of the Republican field in terms of what polls have said about how each given Republican candidate would do in the general.

And as to the idea that he hasn't really started on the Democrat nominee yet: The Democrats haven't really started on him either. And it's pretty obvious that he's an easy target.

The guy is a total embarrassment. He looks and sounds so ridiculous when he speaks that it makes you cringe. The fact that he's doing as well as he is in the Republican primaries REALLY makes the Republican Party look bad. It's like if Al Sharpton was threatening to win the Democratic Party nomination. It's that bad. Maybe even worse.

JohnStOnge wrote:To add to the previous post. By the current Real Clear Politics averages Sanders is up on Trump by 16.3, up on Cruz by 11.2, and up on Kasich by 3.3.

Still consistent with the idea, though, that many Republican voters are totally out of touch with reality in thinking Trump is their strongest potential general election candidate. And it's been like that throughout. Trump has NEVER been near the top of the Republican field in terms of what polls have said about how each given Republican candidate would do in the general.

And as to the idea that he hasn't really started on the Democrat nominee yet: The Democrats haven't really started on him either. And it's pretty obvious that he's an easy target.

The guy is a total embarrassment. He looks and sounds so ridiculous when he speaks that it makes you cringe. The fact that he's doing as well as he is in the Republican primaries REALLY makes the Republican Party look bad. It's like if Al Sharpton was threatening to win the Democratic Party nomination. It's that bad. Maybe even worse.

Deep breaths man. You'll make it through this. Deeeeeeep breaths.

Deep breaths man. You'll make it through this. Deeeeeeep breaths.

Oh, I'll make it through. But the people who are supporting Trump are doing a really, really stupid thing right now.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Deep breaths man. You'll make it through this. Deeeeeeep breaths.

Oh, I'll make it through. But the people who are supporting Trump are doing a really, really stupid thing right now.

Eh. That's how I feel about anyone dumb enough to support Cruz or Clinton. Especially Cruz.

93henfan wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
Oh, I'll make it through. But the people who are supporting Trump are doing a really, really stupid thing right now.

Eh. That's how I feel about anyone dumb enough to support Cruz or Clinton. Especially Cruz.

So I take it you're concerned about stuff like...oh...I don't know...Cruz stalking a reporter for 20 years sending her childish letters and such because he didn't like what she said about him. Or maybe Cruz dissing POWs by saying that somebody who volunteered for combat duty then flew fighter bombers into enemy fire was deficient because he got shot down. Oh and by the way the guy who got shot down refused release even though he was being tortured because he knew his release would be a propaganda stunt. And meanwhile Cruz had gotten a draft deferment when a vicious war was going on because he bone spurs but now he can't remember which foot he had bone spurs in.

Or are you concerned about Cruz saying, when asked about who he'd appoint to the Supreme Court, that he'd appoint somebody who would prosecute Clinton for her e mail thing? You know, concerned about the fact that that shows complete ignorance about what a Supreme Court Justice does?

Is that the sort of thing you're concerned about with Cruz?

JohnStOnge wrote:

93henfan wrote:
Eh. That's how I feel about anyone dumb enough to support Cruz or Clinton. Especially Cruz.

So I take it you're concerned about stuff like...oh...I don't know...Cruz stalking a reporter for 20 years sending her childish letters and such because he didn't like what she said about him. Or maybe Cruz dissing POWs by saying that somebody who volunteered for combat duty then flew fighter bombers into enemy fire was deficient because he got shot down. Oh and by the way the guy who got shot down refused release even though he was being tortured because he knew his release would be a propaganda stunt. And meanwhile Cruz had gotten a draft deferment when a vicious war was going on because he bone spurs but now he can't remember which foot he had bone spurs in.

Or are you concerned about Cruz saying, when asked about who he'd appoint to the Supreme Court, that he'd appoint somebody who would prosecute Clinton for her e mail thing? You know, concerned about the fact that that shows complete ignorance about what a Supreme Court Justice does?

Is that the sort of thing you're concerned about with Cruz?

No, none of that.

Just that he's a certifiable religious nutjob.

The fact that he was elected by the voters of Texas and that he's a serious candidate to win the nomination and if it wasn't for Trump would have cakewalked to the convention is a MUCH MUCH larger indictment on the state of the GOP as a whole than what Trump is doing.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

JohnStOnge wrote:

How they do against Sanders is what you should be asking.

I would be if it looked like the Democrat establishment had enough sense to recognize that they should ditch Hillary and latch their wagon to Sanders. I actually told my wife that today while discussing the same poll. But it's not the only one. Sanders clearly runs WAY better against all of the Republican candidates. And they wouldn't have to worry about him having issues with that e mail stuff.

Trump says HE has a movement. It's nothing compared to what Sanders is doing. That Fox poll has Sanders beating Trump by 53% to 39%, Cruz by 51% to 39%, and Kasich by 47% to 43%. So it looks like only Kasich, who isn't going to get the Republican nomination, would have any shot at beating him if the election was held today.

I frankly don't know why the Super Delegates are mostly backing Hilllary. Maybe it's because Sanders isn't a Democrat. I guess that makes some kind of sense.

Cruz has the charisma of a cockroach and is even more unlikeable than Hillary. In a head to head with Hillary that will come out and he'll end up being trounced. Sanders is doing ok as the dark horse candidate and Hillary alternative but in a head to head his warts are going to show and he won't do as well as current poll numbers suggest. Sanders is an arrogant grumpy old man who hasn't accomplished much of anything in Congress and his policy proposals are complete wackadoodle that are either fiscally impossible or fiscal suicide. The national spotlight will cause him to exceed his expiration date and moderate independent voters will sour on him against a reasonable candidate. The problem is that Kasich is the only reasonable candidate even in the mix and he's so far out of it that it's almost laughable.

I also don't think Cruz actually believes what he says. He is all about Teddy and Teddy's ambitions. He'll say and do whatever he thinks will further that objective (he's kind of similar to Trump in that regard).

Has Vegas laid any odds on the Republican Clustervention?

JohnStOnge wrote:

How they do against Sanders is what you should be asking.

I would be if it looked like the Democrat establishment had enough sense to recognize that they should ditch Hillary and latch their wagon to Sanders. I actually told my wife that today while discussing the same poll. But it's not the only one. Sanders clearly runs WAY better against all of the Republican candidates. And they wouldn't have to worry about him having issues with that e mail stuff.

Trump says HE has a movement. It's nothing compared to what Sanders is doing. That Fox poll has Sanders beating Trump by 53% to 39%, Cruz by 51% to 39%, and Kasich by 47% to 43%. So it looks like only Kasich, who isn't going to get the Republican nomination, would have any shot at beating him if the election was held today.

I frankly don't know why the Super Delegates are mostly backing Hilllary. Maybe it's because Sanders isn't a Democrat. I guess that makes some kind of sense.

Actually Kasich is the one they want and his chances get better every day; in a brokered convention he is the obvious choice because Cruz is hated as much, if not more, than Trump by the Republicans that matter. Kasich vs. Clinton is the only hope they have to win the office and the docks are so fixated on keeping Bernie out that they may walk right into the trap.

Pay attention when I'm talking to ya, son, I won't always be here to help ya through life.

JohnStOnge wrote:To add to the previous post. By the current Real Clear Politics averages Sanders is up on Trump by 16.3, up on Cruz by 11.2, and up on Kasich by 3.3.

Still consistent with the idea, though, that many Republican voters are totally out of touch with reality in thinking Trump is their strongest potential general election candidate. And it's been like that throughout. Trump has NEVER been near the top of the Republican field in terms of what polls have said about how each given Republican candidate would do in the general.

And as to the idea that he hasn't really started on the Democrat nominee yet: The Democrats haven't really started on him either. And it's pretty obvious that he's an easy target.

The guy is a total embarrassment. He looks and sounds so ridiculous when he speaks that it makes you cringe. The fact that he's doing as well as he is in the Republican primaries REALLY makes the Republican Party look bad. It's like if Al Sharpton was threatening to win the Democratic Party nomination. It's that bad. Maybe even worse.

He can't be any worse than Cheney/Bush, John. The republic survived that miserable failure so I'm not too worried. If the conks would stop displaying their hate for America by putting up twelve political midgets to run for President as a joke, they might get somewhere.

houndawg wrote:...Clinton is the only hope they have to win the office and the docks are so fixated on keeping Bernie out that they may walk right into the trap....

You know, Clinton is winning both the popular vote and the pledged votes, so even with the super-delegate "fix," she still has the vote of the Democratic base. Sanders is only winning low-turnout states; she's up something like 2.5 million votes on him.

UNI88 wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
I would be if it looked like the Democrat establishment had enough sense to recognize that they should ditch Hillary and latch their wagon to Sanders. I actually told my wife that today while discussing the same poll. But it's not the only one. Sanders clearly runs WAY better against all of the Republican candidates. And they wouldn't have to worry about him having issues with that e mail stuff.

Trump says HE has a movement. It's nothing compared to what Sanders is doing. That Fox poll has Sanders beating Trump by 53% to 39%, Cruz by 51% to 39%, and Kasich by 47% to 43%. So it looks like only Kasich, who isn't going to get the Republican nomination, would have any shot at beating him if the election was held today.

I frankly don't know why the Super Delegates are mostly backing Hilllary. Maybe it's because Sanders isn't a Democrat. I guess that makes some kind of sense.

Cruz has the charisma of a cockroach and is even more unlikeable than Hillary. In a head to head with Hillary that will come out and he'll end up being trounced. Sanders is doing ok as the dark horse candidate and Hillary alternative but in a head to head his warts are going to show and he won't do as well as current poll numbers suggest. Sanders is an arrogant grumpy old man who hasn't accomplished much of anything in Congress and his policy proposals are complete wackadoodle that are either fiscally impossible or fiscal suicide. The national spotlight will cause him to exceed his expiration date and moderate independent voters will sour on him against a reasonable candidate. The problem is that Kasich is the only reasonable candidate even in the mix and he's so far out of it that it's almost laughable.

I also don't think Cruz actually believes what he says. He is all about Teddy and Teddy's ambitions. He'll say and do whatever he thinks will further that objective (he's kind of similar to Trump in that regard).

His name is Rafael and I ain't voting for no Canadian that eats boogers on TV.

UNI88 wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
I would be if it looked like the Democrat establishment had enough sense to recognize that they should ditch Hillary and latch their wagon to Sanders. I actually told my wife that today while discussing the same poll. But it's not the only one. Sanders clearly runs WAY better against all of the Republican candidates. And they wouldn't have to worry about him having issues with that e mail stuff.

Trump says HE has a movement. It's nothing compared to what Sanders is doing. That Fox poll has Sanders beating Trump by 53% to 39%, Cruz by 51% to 39%, and Kasich by 47% to 43%. So it looks like only Kasich, who isn't going to get the Republican nomination, would have any shot at beating him if the election was held today.

I frankly don't know why the Super Delegates are mostly backing Hilllary. Maybe it's because Sanders isn't a Democrat. I guess that makes some kind of sense.

Cruz has the charisma of a cockroach and is even more unlikeable than Hillary. In a head to head with Hillary that will come out and he'll end up being trounced. Sanders is doing ok as the dark horse candidate and Hillary alternative but in a head to head his warts are going to show and he won't do as well as current poll numbers suggest. Sanders is an arrogant grumpy old man who hasn't accomplished much of anything in Congress and his policy proposals are complete wackadoodle that are either fiscally impossible or fiscal suicide. The national spotlight will cause him to exceed his expiration date and moderate independent voters will sour on him against a reasonable candidate. The problem is that Kasich is the only reasonable candidate even in the mix and he's so far out of it that it's almost laughable.

I also don't think Cruz actually believes what he says. He is all about Teddy and Teddy's ambitions. He'll say and do whatever he thinks will further that objective (he's kind of similar to Trump in that regard).

against who?

∞∞∞ wrote:

houndawg wrote:...Clinton is the only hope they have to win the office and the docks are so fixated on keeping Bernie out that they may walk right into the trap....

You know, Clinton is winning both the popular vote and the pledged votes, so even with the super-delegate "fix," she still has the vote of the Democratic base. Sanders is only winning low-turnout states; she's up something like 2.5 million votes on him.

I can't speak to them all but Washington State turnout was only 14,000 shy of the record set in 2008. Michigan also had record combined turnout this year breaking the old mark set in 1972 (can't find the isolated Democratic numbers). The same is true of Wisconsin where the combined turnouts set a record and the Dem turnout was second only to 2008.

Sounds like a Hillary Campaign talking point...

kalm wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote: You know, Clinton is winning both the popular vote and the pledged votes, so even with the super-delegate "fix," she still has the vote of the Democratic base. Sanders is only winning low-turnout states; she's up something like 2.5 million votes on him.

I can't speak to them all but Washington State turnout was only 14,000 shy of the record set in 2008. Michigan also had record combined turnout this year breaking the old mark set in 1972 (can't find the isolated Democratic numbers). The same is true of Wisconsin where the combined turnouts set a record and the Dem turnout was second only to 2008.

Sounds like a Hillary Campaign talking point...

I believe my talking point came from what I read on FiveThirthyEight (I'll try to find the article, it was a few days back, perhaps even before Wisconsin). Still, he's winning states with less voters/delegates and he's getting absolutely demolished by the minority vote. Regardless, it still doesn't change the fact that she has him beat by both raw votes and pledged delegates.

edit: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ber ... delegates/

∞∞∞ wrote:

kalm wrote:
I can't speak to them all but Washington State turnout was only 14,000 shy of the record set in 2008. Michigan also had record combined turnout this year breaking the old mark set in 1972 (can't find the isolated Democratic numbers). The same is true of Wisconsin where the combined turnouts set a record and the Dem turnout was second only to 2008.

Sounds like a Hillary Campaign talking point...

I believe my talking point came from what I read on FiveThirthyEight (I'll try to find the article, it was a few days back, perhaps even before Wisconsin). Still, he's winning states with less voters/delegates and he's getting absolutely demolished by the minority vote. Regardless, it still doesn't change the fact that she has him beat by both raw votes and pledged delegates.

edit: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ber ... delegates/

Sanders’s reliance on extremely low-turnout caucus states has meant the pledged delegate count overstates his share of votes. To date, Sanders has captured 46 percent of Democrats’ pledged delegates but just 42 percent of raw votes. So even if Sanders were to draw even in pledged delegates by June — which is extremely unlikely — Clinton could be able to persuade superdelegates to stick with her by pointing to her popular vote lead.

Sanders already has a nearly impossible task ahead of him in trying to erase Clinton’s pledged delegate lead. He’s down by 212 delegates, meaning he’d need to win 56 percent of those remaining to nose in front. He has dominated caucus states such as Idaho and Washington, but only two caucus states — Wyoming and North Dakota — remain on the calendar. What’s more, the biggest states left — New York and California — favor Clinton demographically.

I'm honestly not a conspiracy theorist and Nate Silver has been very accurate in the past but this is not the first time this primary season where 538 has got something dead wrong and it does make me pause for at least a second. And yes, this article came out after Wisconsin.



Bernie wins the top 3 in turnout, 4 out of the top 10, and is in a statistical tie in 3 of the rest. I'm not saying he's going to win but the constant spinning of this race by the various media types is getting old.

Perhaps it's just a poorly worded way to say states with the smaller voting blocks?

Still, I'm a fan of FiveThirtyEight; their analysis doesn't always get things right but at least they deal with actual numbers and give decent attempts to interpolate the data.

∞∞∞ wrote:Perhaps it's just a poorly worded way to say states with the smaller voting blocks?

Still, I'm a fan of FiveThirtyEight; their analysis doesn't always get things right but at least they deal with actual numbers and give decent attempts to interpolate the data.

FiveThirtyEight?

Don't go back to the Middle East, Trip...they don't like your kind.