[nathanbedford]

The new Marquette poll finds his favorability rating at 22 percent, compared with a 70 percent unfavorability rating. That is … bad? No. It would be an insult to the quiet dignity of the word “bad” to call that spread bad. A 22–70 favorability spread is in the mid- to high “holy shits.” Sure, that number includes all voters, not just Republicans. But if Trump has a 22 percent overall favorability and 30 percent of the Republican vote, that means there aren’t a whole lot of Republican primary voters out there for him to sway. (My post #33 quoting article)

A man who once had principles of intellectual honesty ought to know that Reagan's numbers against Carter in the polls of Spring 1980 were even worse than Trump's are now. (Your post #37)

A man who once had principles of intellectual honesty ought to tell us what those "numbers" meant-were they Reagan's negatives or were they simply a poll of preferences?

Big, big difference (my posts #40)

Either your memory really is bad, or possibly the idea of not remembering how Reagan's negatives as an "extremist" a "warmonger" and a "stupid B grade actor" weren't the reason for his bad polling is a thing you want to avoid on this forum. (Your post #41)

You opened the subject of comparing Reagan's numbers to Trump's. Rather than an attempt to avoid the subject, I said it should be further explored and I asked about the nature of the numbers. (My post #43)

Your point is that in 1980 Ronald Reagan came from far behind and won that election and therefore Donald Trump will do the same in 2016. In order for your argument to be rational much less persuasive you have to contend that the election of 2016 is identical to the context of the election held thirty-six years ago. In other words you must show that you are arguing apples to apples and not apples to oranges.

I have asked you to support your argument and to show us that the negatives of Ronald Reagan in 1980 are the equivalent of the negatives of Trump in 2016.I have asked for data, you reply with animus and condescension. (My post #165)

When you won't recognize the simple truth that Reagan was further behind than Trump was at this point in polling for the 1980 election, you're being petty. (Your post #201)

At no time have I disputed your assertion that the polling numbers for Reagan were worse than they are today for Trump. That is because I am unaware of the data, I simply want to know how the data are defined, polling numbers or approval numbers?.

I have asked you time and again to confirm that the numbers for Reagan in 1980 are the equivalent with the numbers for Trump in 2016, specifically, are we comparing preference numbers to approval numbers? Time and again you have declined to respond.

I have asked you to consider the article I supplied to you specifically addressing your point. No response.

You can call me " petty" or you can acknowledge that we have an honest dispute about the meaning of the data, that I have been asking for data, and you have declined to provide data to support your proposition.

[Lakeshark]

Your point is that in 1980 Ronald Reagan came from far behind and won that election and therefore Donald Trump will do the same in 2016. In order for your argument to be rational much less persuasive you have to contend that the election of 2016 is identical to the context of the election held thirty-six years ago.

Your last post.

May I remind you what I actually said in my original post:

A man who once had principles of intellectual honesty ought to know that Reagan's numbers against Carter in the polls of Spring 1980 were even worse than Trump's are now.

Aren't you glad we didn't listen in 1980 to that line?

I sure am.

Anyone who looks at today's polls concerning a November election and claims they show ANYTHING at all valid knows little about history.

Just ask Carter how his second term went.......

And here you are still trying to pretend I said something else (very petty discussion methodology), and here you are trying to pretend that Reagan's bad polling couldn't have been because of negatives (very intellectually dishonest).

Instead, you might have said, you know, that's a good point. But you didn't and you won't because you seem to prefer being petty and intellectually dishonest. Being obtuse doesn't hide all that.

Very sad. You might want to rethink what it means when a person becomes obtuse, petty, and intellectually dishonest.