Nate Silver: Trump, Carson Have About 5% Chance Of Winning Gop Nomination

Breitbart ^ | 9/15/15 | IAN HANCHETT

[jimbo123]

Fivethirtyeight.com founder Nate Silver said that GOP presidential candidates Donald Trump and Dr. Ben Carson have a “maybe about 5%” chance of winning the nomination on Monday’s broadcast of CNN’s “AC360.”

Silver put Trump’s and Carson’s chances of winning the nomination at “maybe about 5% each, somewhere around there.” Silver explained, “there are a of couple things to think about. One is that if you look back at history, you’ve never seen candidates like Donald Trump certainly, or Ben Carson win a party nomination, and secondly, if you look at the polling a lot of times, a candidate leading the polls now, mid-September didn’t win the nomination, didn’t even come close. So, if you look four years ago, Rick Perry was in the midst of a surge right now, and eight years ago on the Democratic side, you had Howard Dean — or 12 years ago, rather, Howard Dean was surging, Hillary Clinton was still way ahead of Barack Obama in 2008. Rudy Giuliani was leading the polls in 2008. I think people — there’s so much interest in this election, in this campaign, people forget that polls five months before Iowa, historically, have told you very, very little.”

-snip-

Silver added that an establishment candidate was “probably” going to be the nominee.

[entropy12]

Nope, it was bimbo eruptions which aggravated his wife.

[wagglebee]

I agree completely, it's all just very entertaining at this point.

[entropy12]

I do not recall Rudy leading by double digit margins in every state. His entire strategy was based on winning Florida. That turned out to be too little too late.

[Ohioan]

Perot's biggest problem was that he was dependent upon reading his speeches off a teleprompter. This gave him a spaced out look. Trump does not need a teleprompter--hence he can use program length TV infinitely more effectively than Perot.

I am experienced in using the medium extemporaneously, and can vouch for how effective it can be.

[trisham]

I’m trying to have fun with it. :)

[wagglebee]

I do not recall Rudy leading by double digit margins in every state.

He pretty good margins in a lot of them and he held pretty steady numbers through the late fall of 2007.

You obviously don't know what it was like on FR in 2007.

His entire strategy was based on winning Florida.

That strategy came in late 2007 when his campaign was falling apart, up to then he assumed that he would be handed the nomination.

[papertyger]

The fact is that’s it’s too early to predict a winner. Anything can happen between today and election day.

That goes without saying, but it is utterly fatuous to deny the unique nature of Trump's candidacy.

[entropy12]

You all want to know the “real” difference between Trump and Giuliani?

Rudy could not finance his own campaign. Trump has 10 times more name recognition among the low info voters. And Trump can make a large audience eat out of his hand. Anyone see last night’s event in Dallas? Those 20,000 people were in love with Trump. Rudy or Perot or any of the current candidates can not pull off such a feat.

[trisham]

Are you directing that toward me?

[trisham]

It’s certainly an advantage, no doubt about it.

[papertyger]

Really? Dean and Giuliani couldn't have made credible claims that they were the front runner?

They were running conventional campaigns, and faded in the conventional manner. Trump is not, and has not.

How? Be precise...

Good God, where do you want to start: self-funding a partisan campaign, 100% name recognition, high profile business success, non-typical support trend lines, etc. Frankly, as I said earlier, questioning the unique nature of Trump's candidacy is the very definition of fatuousness.

[wagglebee]

Rudy could not finance his own campaign.

There's some truth to that, but Trump could have liquidity issues.

Trump has 10 times more name recognition among the low info voters.

But not among Iowa and NH caucus/primary voters.

And Trump can make a large audience eat out of his hand. Anyone see last night’s event in Dallas? Those 20,000 people were in love with Trump. Rudy or Perot or any of the current candidates can not pull off such a feat.

Yes, he's an entertainer and very good at it, but the act will get old.

[entropy12]

Yes, he's an entertainer and very good at it, but the act will get old.

Please do not hold your breath. It could be fatal.

[papertyger]

Are you directing that toward me?

The post was to you, but that's not to imply you are being fatuous.

[GunRunner]

And Trump can make a large audience eat out of his hand. Anyone see last night’s event in Dallas? Those 20,000 people were in love with Trump.

What were they in love with? Were there specific ideas they were in love with, or a personality?

[trisham]

questioning the unique nature of Trump's candidacy is the very definition of fatuousness.

**************************

Is that your word of the day?

[trisham]

It’s not?

[papertyger]

There's some truth to that, but Trump could have liquidity issues.

FReeper please....

[papertyger]

Not unless you are in denial about Trump’s position.

[Rodney Dangerfield]

Ross Perot was leading in the polls, then dropped out and came back.

I don’t see Trump going anywhere. It’s his race to lose.