15% of Republicans would never vote Trump (From last week, but newly relevant)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2016/01/22/fox-poll-trump-cruz-top-gop-race-few-birther-concerns/ ^

[publius911]

you don’t know how to read statistics

Amazing, isn't it?
The number of the deluded who think that 120% of 30% is greater than the original amount!

Starting with Obungo's Government statisticians.

[Bidimus1]

ah now polls are bad.. but when djt... never mind

;)

I find the poll crazy world a bit odd as they have become less and less reliable as they have become more and more common.

[bolobaby]

I love this argument!

Cruz is a first term senator with not enough experience!

Cruz is a career politician!

Which one is it, Trumpette? Better get back together with your fellow Trumpettes and work out a consistent complaint.

[stylin19a]

pick and choose your stats. This poll also had Trump ahead by 15%, which turned out to be wrong.
If this poll is wrong there, why are they right here ?

[The Iceman Cometh]

(Prepare to lose in the general.)

I'm supposed to believe in a poll? The polls had Trump winning Iowa.

Not much value in them after all, right?

[Georgia Girl 2]

Well in June when he announced I think 40% of republicans said they would never vote for Trump so its way better now.

[dangus]

>> This poll also had Trump ahead by 15%, which turned out to be wrong. <<
It was a national poll, not an Iowa one. As much hope as I have for Cruz, I am under no illusion that he can beat Trump nationally without narrowing down the not-Trump voters.

>> If this poll is wrong there, why are they right here ? <<

If they were wrong, it would be that they polled too many Trump supporters. While it’s possible that they could sample a simply polarized group, the opposite is likely true, if anything. The simplest guess is that their sample was too strongly leaning towards Trump.

[MNJohnnie]

Before lecturing anyone about “Echo chambers” get our of your own bubble world and start seeing the unpleasant facts.

That anti Trump number in June 2015 was 68%, In Nov 2015 it was 18%, now it is down to 15%

[Yaelle]

It is too soon to decide. We must watch how Trump proceeds after this, we must watch Cruz and Rubio. There is so much to think about.

1. Stopping the two party cabal that is running farther from our Constitution year by year (Rubio and Hillary are part of this power)

2. How much damage a Bernie or a Hillary could do in four, or eight years to a country broken and torn

3. Fighting the influence of the media in order to even let the American people choose a candidate (and this goes to #1 as well of course because the media are also bought and paid for by the same)

4. Human nature. Humans are not very flexible. “I WOULD NEVER VOTE FOR” is proof of this. It is too easy for our enemies to pick us off because we would rather “feel good about ourselves” not voting for a “clown” or a “Canadian” or whatever than engage in what is so far a bloodless war to regain a free, representational, Constitutional republic.

[MNJohnnie]

Perhaps instead of living in theri bubble world, Anti Trumpers might want to think about the fact that despite the “greatest ground game in Iowa History” Cruz won by less then 6000 votes and comes out of Iowa with exactly 1 more delegate then Trump.

[hinckley buzzard]

Having listened to most of Cruz's post-caucus 31 minute revival tent sermon/"victory speech", I have a discouraged feeling. Most of the electorate, including Christians, will be repelled by this brand of sanctimony.

[dangus]

>> Guess we’re just sticking with the career politicians again. I’m sure it’ll work THIS time! <<

Is the problem that we’ve chosen too many career politicians, or that we’ve chosen too many people who are too willing to sell out conservatism?

How did choosing a non-politician work for the Republicans in Massachusetts? Remember Romney? How did Schwartzenegger work out for California? How did Ventura work out for Minnesota?

[Goldsborough]

You’re supporting a political drag queen.

[Durbin]

“Also the highest favorable!!”

If he has the highest unfavorable ratings, then how can he have the highest favorable ratings? Must be a product of Common Core Mathematics.

[bolobaby]

Ah, I get it. The polls are the word of law when they support Trump (such as NH). Notsomuch otherwise.

[Goldsborough]

Perhaps instead of living in theri bubble world, Anti Trumpers might want to think about the fact that despite the “greatest ground game in Iowa History” Cruz won by less then 6000 votes and comes out of Iowa with exactly 1 more delegate then Trump

Or it's the case that Trump just squandered more free media than have all the previous presidential candidates on both sides have ever enjoyed during the television era.

[dangus]

>> 2. How much damage a Bernie or a Hillary could do in four, or eight years to a country broken and torn <<

Well, in fairness, Bernie’s life expectancy isn’t that long. ;-)

[stylin19a]

doh ! thank you...I see it. I’ll shut up now

[The Iceman Cometh]

The polls are the word of law when they support Trump (such as NH). Notsomuch otherwise.

Nope. I put no stock in them.

With Iowa, it's kinda funny that Cruz led month after month until a week before the caucuses where a few showed Trump leading. All the while, historically, we knew the polls have been widely wrong.

Iowa simply stuck with voting for who they want as their pastor and not their president.

When given a choice to vote for President, they have picked Obama the last two times and barely voted for Bush over Kerry (49.9% to 49.2%). I would put money down now that if it's Cruz, Trump, or Rubio vs Clinton, Iowa goes for Clinton.

[nascarnation]

Leftys with gold level healthcare tend to live a long time.

(Castro, J. Carter, Soros, etc)