Posted on 11/29/2015 2:58:43 AM PST by GonzoII
Time Frame: Nov 23, 2015 - Nov 27, 2015 (5 Day Rolling)
Businessman Donald Trump 35.0%
Fla. Sen. Marco Rubio 14.0%
Tex. Sen. Ted Cruz 13.0%
Former Fla. Gov. Jeb Bush 11.0%
Surgeon and author Ben Carson 10.0%
Ohio Gov. John Kasich 5.8%
Former Ark. Gov. Mike Huckabee 4.0%
Former Sen. candidate and business executive Carly Fiorina 3.6%
NJ Gov. Chris Christie 1.6%
Ken. Sen. Rand Paul 1.1%
(Excerpt) Read more at polling.reuters.com ...
By: Greg Richter
Donald Trump has a commanding 22-point lead in the latest Economist/YouGov Republican presidential poll, while Ben Carson has slipped to fourth place amid the recent focus on terrorism.
Here are the results of people identifying themselves as likely Republican primary voters:
Donald Trump: 36 percent
Marco Rubio: 14 percent
Ted Cruz: 12 percent
Ben Carson: 10 percent
Jeb Bush: 6 percent
Carly Fiorina, Rand Paul, John Kasich: 4 percent
Chris Christie: 3 percent
Mike Huckabee: 2 percent
Lindsey Graham: 1 percent
I hope someone can post that graphic from Reuters??
This national count isn’t that valuable.
From the first four primary states...is there a poll to establish who is currently in the lead and likely to be the winner?
I wonder if it has something to do with people really, really not wanting a deluge of Mexicans and Muslims?
Cruz has a chance in Iowa. Trump will win New Hampshire. Does Cruz have a chance in South Carolina? If Trump wins conservative Iowa and South Carolina, it’s over. I like Cruz, Trump, and really most of the GOP candidates. I don’t think Hillary can get to 50%.
Based on a sample of, get this, 152 people.
That's interesting...I was thinking the last few days that a poll of Iowa, NH, SC and Florida would be interesting. Maybe weight them in order of what comes first, second, etc. After every primary or caucus, the battlefield shifts.
For example, let's assume Trump is leading nationally by 20 points clear and it's accurate. Let's assume the Iowa poll showing him leading Cruz by 2 is accurate. If Cruz were to come within a point or two of Trump in Iowa, then who knows how the voters in New Hampshire react. And then to SC. And so on.
However, the national polls matter in that they reflect who is tapping into the national mood the best, and we know who that is. But they aren't as predictive as people think necessarily because of how this thing plays out.
With Reuters when the sample goes up so do Trumps numbers.
The History channel is doing Trump on a Breaking History special. Don’t know if I’ll bother to watch. They’ll probably trash him.
The national polls really are worthless in nature, or so I’ve always believed.
As each primary concludes....based on watching elections of the past thirty years...you tend to see people who suddenly get cash from donors and rebuild a few ads to appeal to the next state, or you fall from grace and find no more donors supporting you.
You have to ask yourself....if Jeb doesn’t get higher than 4th in none of the first four states...how he can continue to fake donors out and expect cash flow.
Cruz is the only guy who might shock the media with a fair showing in the four start-up primaries, and gain more support. But the Fairfax Republican crowd won’t be happy with that and try to hinder him as he moves into other primaries.
"Notice how Trump's numbers significantly decreased once they began to lower the sample size?
While the national polling results are sketchy and not much of an indicator this far out, they should nonetheless be looked at because being able to ultimately beat the liberals is the big enchilada. Winning the Republican primary means absolutely nothing, as was the case with Romney, if the Republican nominee does not have enough broad voter appeal to win the general election. At this early stage, Trump is the only Republican candidate I have seen with any polls placing him ahead of Hillary.
As each primary concludes....based on watching elections of the past thirty years...you tend to see people who suddenly get cash from donors and rebuild a few ads to appeal to the next state, or you fall from grace and find no more donors supporting you.
Allow me to strongly agree with most of that, and disagree a little around the edges. First, you are right that as each primary concludes, things on the ground change based on what the results were. No doubt.
Let me add this is not a straight line. For example from 2012, Santorum won Iowa, but bombed in NH and then bombed in SC. Mitt won NH, but was routed in SC by Newt. Newt won SC, but then was beaten in Florida by Mitt. Newt totally routed Santorum in SC and Florida, but after Florida, it was somehow seen that Newt was done but Santorum was viable. So yes, things change, but it's hard to make sense of it sometimes.
So you're right...and yet, it's hard to predict. Now where I quibble with you is on the national polls being meaningless. They don't mean as much as many around here (and elsewhere) think they do, but a long dominant period by a candidate, like Trump, means a lot, even if it does not predict necessarily the over all outcome.
FYI - There should be an updated 5 day rolling Reuters poll coming out soon. This poll is from 2 days ago.
While the national polling results are sketchy and not much of an indicator this far out, they should nonetheless be looked at because being able to ultimately beat the liberals is the big enchilada. Winning the Republican primary means absolutely nothing, as was the case with Romney, if the Republican nominee does not have enough broad voter appeal to win the general election. At this early stage, Trump is the only Republican candidate I have seen with any polls placing him ahead of Hillary.
__________________________
This time Republican voters want an outsider & it looks like Trump will get the nomination & he is the only one that can beat Hillary...he’ll get the crossover dems as well as the moderate and conservative Republicans (not to mention having high name recognition). It could be a landslide.
So you’re right...and yet, it’s hard to predict. Now where I quibble with you is on the national polls being meaningless. They don’t mean as much as many around here (and elsewhere) think they do, but a long dominant period by a candidate, like Trump, means a lot, even if it does not predict necessarily the over all outcome.
_______________________
Interesting synopsis. If Trump stays around 35-40% nationally...wouldn’t that be nearly impossible to beat?
Realclearpolitics.com has polling averages from the first three; Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Trump is leading all of them. Nevada is the fourth primary and a poll hasn't been done out there since early October. Trump's leading that one as well.
2016 Republican Presidential Nomination
You can click on the various hyperlinks to see more specific polling data.
SOMETING TO WATCH: The media has started to revive Carson (with 100% positive reporting), he is being used to bleed off votes from Trump in Iowa.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.