Posted on 05/02/2016 3:43:25 AM PDT by SJackson
Why current polling tells us nothing about who will win the presidential race in November.
We hear a lot of talk about the November election especially from John Kasich who has lost 45 of 46 primary contests but stays in the race because he’s the only Republican who beats Hillary head on in the polls. “Remember this,” Kasich told Fox, “I’m beating Hillary Clinton in every single poll… I’m the only one with the positive ratings so we ought to be focusing on what happens in the fall not just who wins the nomination.”
But as Kasich knows - and everyone else should - polls are merely snapshots of the way people think when they are taken. Polls taken before the actual campaigns, whose purpose is to influence people’s opinions, are meaningless. They are also meaningless because events like the Iranian hostage crisis in the Reagan-Carter election of 1980 can change everything.
There have already been campaigns in the primaries. On the Republican side this is a good part of the reason why the negatives for Trump and Cruz are so high. Republicans have spent more than 100 million dollars to convince voters to never vote for Trump, and Trump has fought back by flooding the TV airwaves with character attacks on “Lyin’ Ted” that have driven his negatives almost as high. Perhaps in the next election cycle Republicans will have learned to design their primary advertising and debates so that they don’t destroy their potential candidates before the Democrats even get a crack at them. But don’t bet on it.
Fortunately for Republicans, Hillary has raised her own negatives high enough by her own efforts that the two may cancel each other out. No one knows what the effects of such negatives on both sides will be, because no one knows what the electorate’s opinion in November will be.
In any case a simple glance at the facts is enough to show why all polls about the November elections taken in April are virtually meaningless, especially when the spread is 10 or 11 points as most of those polls are now.
In April 1980 Carter led Reagan 40% to 34%. In November, Reagan beat Carter by 50.7% to 41%
. In May 1988 Dukakis led Bush 54% to 38%. In November Bush beat Dukakis by 53.4% to 45.6%
In April 1992, Bush led Clinton 44% to 25%. Clinton won in November 43% to 37.4%.
That’s three important elections. But one need look no further than this year’s Republican primaries to see how campaigns can change the numbers. At first it was said that Trump would be toast in September, then that he couldn’t break a 20% ceiling in winning Republican support. Then the ceiling became 30%, then 40%, then 50%. In the latest primaries, Trump won 60% of the Republican vote. Obviously he has overcome a lot of negatives and a lot of hostile political ads to reach those figures. Could he do the same in a general campaign? At this point nobody knows.
One thing we do know, however, because Republican primary voters have already spoken: The political landscape is changing before our eyes, and the Republican Party will never be the same. This is true whether the GOP falls apart at the convention in August and cedes the election to Hillary Clinton, or whether its standard-bearer is an anti-establishment Republican like Trump or Cruz.
Well... like Trump, anyway.
Actually, I think it is way cool that Trump + Cruz = 85% or more of the vote. That means the GOPe support is hovering around 15% because most people know that the belated move by some of the GOPe to back Ted Cruz is nothing more than a ‘hail, Mary’ pass.
>>> Perhaps in the next election cycle Republicans will have learned to design their primary advertising and debates so that they don’t destroy their potential candidates before the Democrats even get a crack at them. But don’t bet on it. <<<<
Who’s to say if there is another election cycle, secondly, how can the author be so confident there’d be a Republican party afterwards.
I have followed Horowitz’s writings ever since his Heterodoxy days over thirty years ago. I have a great deal of respect for his yeoman’s efforts in the freedom movement through the years. I read and pay attention to whatever articles he publishes and his Frontpage Magazine website. And now, having maintained his sensible objectivity during this primary season and not crapping all over himself with utterly asinine anti-Trump lunacy, like Limbaugh, Beck, Levin, Krauthammer, Will, Kristal, Goldberg and the NRO gang, and so many others, he has shown his judgment to be superior to most every other political writer today, except Buchanan. Horowitz is, truly, one of the greats.
Donald Trump is an establishment Democrat running as an anti-establishment Republican.
The new Rat led congress is going to suck. But Trump looks forward to reaching “across the aisle” so to speak because he says that’s how deals get done.
Tiger milk! winning! yeeeeaarrrgh!
Huh? Do you mean to say that while Trump was busy building a multi-billion dollar empire and creating thousands of jobs while going on show after show talking about his conservative views, he was actually a Democrat politician? Which office was he elected to, and how did he keep that election a secret? How did he even have time for that?
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.