Posted on 06/19/2016 2:28:42 PM PDT by Berlin_Freeper
Supporters of Donald Trump got an unexpected plea on Saturday: a request to send the billionaire money.
It was an "emergency" request, the Hill reported, representing an urgent need for an infusion of $100,000 to put ads on the air in battleground states. Why Trump couldn't simply write a check to cover the costs apparently wasn't explained, but the missive was useful regardless: It demonstrates clearly the difficult position of the Trump campaign with only 142 days to go.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
What’s this article saying?
>> how do you do that without costing money...? <<
Magic pixie dust. Works every time.
bkmrk
Come on people; this is the Washington COMpost.
Their stated mission is to destroy Mr. Trump.
Why should anybody believe their crap?
More BS; pure Liberal BS.
I know, I know: This time Trump is TRULY finished. Right?
If Trump has a fraction of the brains I give him credit for, you will be right.
That is true for any Republican presidential candidate. Trump is unique because he is not a politician, not a professional conservative or Republican. He is an honest American, more conservative than most of the Republicans in office, hence we are talking about building a wall and enforcing our borders as well as temporarily halt immigration from terrorist prone countries. That would be unthinkable with every other GOP candidate.
This from WP. Probably based on phoney info.
WaPo continuing the lies as revenge on Trump. The only requests Iv’e gotten for “emergency funding” were from Cruz’s campaign before I switched to trump and from the GOP/RNC using Trump’s name - nothing from his campaign and I’m signed up to receive such.
And how motivated am I to go plug into an RNC "Victory" center and make & deliver signs or man the phones after the way the Levin's, Romney, Ryan and all the other miscrant Lilliputians that are trying to chain him down are behaving? To know the RINO types that sometimes infest these places and are on the insides of campaigns? Been their done that and threw out the T-Shirt.
Maybe running on his brand only while a risk is the way to go. I have zero faith in anything RNC...
He will not bend over and take it when it comes to the Moderator or the panel IMHO and will probably tick of the RNC and Preibus in the process and their maybe no debate at all because of it. This will be his 1st tough negotiation IMHO on the national stage.
In terms of the VP, yes a game changer and IMHO he needs to bring out his entire cabinet at the convention that we know will be filled with serious players as he only employes the best, that to me is equally important as to the message it will send to the business community. If they are going to have a game changing business climate ( a positive one ) who is going to make it happen within the bowels of Fedzilla, they need to see it, they are nervous enough of Trump ( talk to business folks on the down-low that is what I am hearing ).
My pick for VP? Go here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3432294/posts?page=88#88
+1
Actually, "favorable / unfavorable" ratio is a better predictor of the elections outcome — Romney had 47% vs Obama's 42% in the beginning, but he was stuck at 47% while Obama's steadily rose to 51% by the end of October, so while polls were all over the place and Romney & Co. (as well as most Drudgereport readers) were sure of his victory, the outcome was very clear for a couple of months before election.
Also, most comparisons to 1980 Reagan-Carter polls are invalid for many reasons, including but not limited to very different sophistication and frequency of the polls and number of polling organizations / methodologies, entirely different political dynamic ("Iran hostage crisis"), vast changes in the numbers and nature of the available media and information channels, states delegates / electoral college count and realignment vs national two-factor / multi-factor percentage polls, and of course, the individuals involved and their [un]favorability...
BTW, Obama's favorability rose within the last year from the low 40s (where it stayed for most of his presidency) to the 51% (which explains why he is now more active in campaigning for his de facto "third term" — that Hillary would represent — which has not been accomplished since Ronald Reagan).
This recent article demonstrates very well why comparisons of current polls to the polls during Reagan election in 1980 don't hold water and represent more of a wishful thinking than a reliable historical precedent (again, pay closer attention to favorability numbers than any other):
This Is Not 1980, And Donald Trump Is Not Ronald Reagan - Redstate, by Dan McLaughlin, 2016 March 15
I am feeling that way more and more.
She won't step in the arena of ideas. For soooo many reasons. Her health can't take it, if he gets under her skin, imagine if she collapses from the stress, she is done as a candidate if she does. On substance, Trump would pound her on: Bengazi, The Clinton Foundation, Her Email Server, Russian Uranium, and Corruption up the Ying Yang just to name a few....
She can't have that...
Very interesting post, thanks.
Here’s the most recent favorability rating that I could find for Obama:
Bloomberg Politics Poll conducted by Selzer & Company. March 19-22, 2016. N=1,000 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.1. LV = likely voters
“... For each, please tell me if your feelings are very favorable, mostly favorable, mostly unfavorable, or very unfavorable. If you don’t know enough to answer, just say so. Barack Obama, president of the United States.”
Very favorable: 30%
Mostly favorable: 26%
Mostly unfavorable: 15%
Very unfavorable: 26%
Unsure: 2%
It’s not that.
The media, the Dems, and the GOPe are going to ignore Trump.
Actually, the Reagan polls were NOT abnormal. My analysis of every election June vs. November going back to 1952 shows the June leader more likely to lose in November; that errors when it came to Dems June/Nov were off by 13 points, but when it involved Republicans, they were off by an average of 22 points; that even “blowouts” like Goldwater saw stunning shifts. Goldie lost by 20, but was down in June by over 50. the Dukakis race was another massive swing of over 34 points.
Here is what I posted a few days ago:
In May 2008, John McCain led Obama by 6, yet within a few weeks Obama led McCain by 9-—a 15 point swing.
In June 2012, Obama led Romney by 5 but Romney surged into a lead in October, then two ties.
In June 1992, Bush led Clinton by 6 in a three-way, but when Perot dropped out in July he led by 8. Then, suddenly, Clinton shot up to a 20 point lead in July. The final was a Clinton 6-pont advantage.
In June 1996, Clinton was beating Dole by 16, but the final was only 8.
In June 1976, Carter led Ford by 18, but the final was 2 and I think had the race gone on one more month Carter would have lost.
In June of 1988, Dukakis led Bush by 17 in two different polls-—and ended up losing by 17 (that’s a 34 point flip, folks).
In June of 1984, Reagan led Mon-Dull by 9 . . . but ended up winning by 18-—double the polling estimate.
In June 1980, Jimmy Carter led Reagan by 7, but lost by 10 (a 17 point swing).
Nixon led McGovern by 16 in June of 1972-—but won by 23.
Humphrey led Nixon by 5 in June, but lost in a tie (Nixon gained 5 points).
Everyone remembers the Goldwater blowout, right? 23? Except in June LBJ was beating him by 56.
Although JFK won in 1960, it was a popular vote tie, and he had led Nixon by 4 in June.
Likewise Ike won reelection by 17 . . . but had led in June by 27. It was worse in 1950: Ike led by 28 in June, but won by only 11, a rather massive error.
Now, regardless of what McLaughlin says, it is very, very obvious what is happening: June-September polls, EVEN WHEN THEY SAY “REGISTERED” VOTERS, do not check or follow up. Many of them (OAN yesterday, for example) say “registered” but you find out it is more than 10% “adults.” They NEVER use “likely” voters until much, much later in the year.
The “registered/adult” polls overstate Dem strength substantially (as I show, by an average of 9 points).
For a known political quantity like Cankles, who has been running for president for 16 years, still to be in essentially a tie with Trump-—especially in the battleground polls? This is 2008 all over again, but with Trump as Obama in terms of the electoral college. Maybe bigger.
From your lips to G-d's ears, I am bookmarking your excellent post LS....
Yes, Trump is behind nationally by about 5 percent (and it can be worse). Yes, Trump has very high unfavorables, especially among liberals, women and some religious.
Yes, he can still turn around and win, but only with God’s mercy. Are you praying for him ?
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.