Posted on 01/30/2016 6:08:09 AM PST by dangus
Polls showing Trump winning Iowa are based on predictions of such a massive surge of first-time caucusers coming down to support Trump, that their likely-voter models show demographics like a general election... but this news story shows that's NOT happening. There is nothing like the surge of voters like Obama brought in 2008. In fact, it's trailing even the number of new voters in 2012. In that year, the Democrats didn't even hold a caucus, and the Republican caucus was won by Rick Santorum, who was polling in the low single digits just a few days before the caucuses.
[Mind you, new-voter registrations are only a proxy for predicting new-voter enthusiasm; Trump or Sanders could theoretically win by simply activating existing voters, or last-minute registrations.]
Not my opinion, it's fact. Nate Silver said as much in the New York Times. So why are the Times, New York Magazine and all those other New York values-makers pretending otherwise? Because they want it to be true.
Perhaps you've also seen all the talk that Trump "won" the debate by not showing up.
That's again very interesting, because his OWN SUPPORTERS thought skipping was a bad idea. They told him 56-44 in his own Twitter poll NOT to skip it.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/donald-trump-gop-debate-fox-news-twitter/2016/01/26/id/711070/
Maybe you've heard about how people were staying away from the Fox debate in droves? Yeah... didn't happen. Yes, they were the second lowest, but that still means that the ratings were better than a debate that Trump did attended. What happened was it reversed a trend of falling debate audiences.
The mainstream media's excuse? The gap in household availability only accounts for a portion of the Fox debate's better ratings.
One excuse is that Fox News is easier to find than Fox Business news. Pretty lame. On my cable dial, they're next to each other. On a lot of other systems I've seen, you have to flip past CNN and MSNBC to find Fox Business.
Then again, apparently a lot of Trump supporters couldn't find CNN or MSNBC. His counter-rally got only 2.75 million viewers, a tiny fraction of the 12.5 million viewers the debate got. Not even a particularly great night for the lefty networks.
His counter-rally got only 2.75 million viewers
Seriously? Could you name a single person that could have done that?
Lol nice try. they want Trump as much as they want a bad case of the clap.
For those who viewed the rally for Veterans, they got to see very impressive appearances by Huck and Santorum. They also get to see how opponents cooperate when they share a goal.
Once in they will flip, they have high hopes that he will be the wolf in sheeps clothing
THIS IS THE 2ND TIME YOU POSTED THIS IN THE PAST TWO HOURS!
You have one thread where push this desperate fantasy. Go back there and participate in it, and stop reporting it hoping for a different result.
——They told him 56-44 in his own Twitter poll NOT to skip it-—
the numbers represent irrational fears that were never realized
the question remains after a debate that actually didn’t matter.....
who will win? Trump or Cruz
oh yes, Roger Ailes suffers from being ignored by Obama. Looks like he will be blackballed by Trump too
If this was true they would SHUT UP and let him win.
Trump has managed to be the quintessential dog-biting man that drives news. The coverage doesn’t mean they love Trump. They hate him. They are hoping their well conditioned audience will hate him too. Trouble is, it isn’t.
*I am the exact opposite of a newbie.
“They also get to see how opponents cooperate when they share a goal.”
************
Like destroying the only viable Conservative in the race.
This is very true. all of the Esatblaohment, DEM or GOP, realizes that Trump s a fool and a blowhard who would either (a) lose the general election or (b) be perfectly willing to “work with” them because he has no knowledge of the political process and his own buffoonish ideas are things that can’t be done in the first place or are hastily adopted positions meant to please his current public - but with no specifics. Hence his avoidance of the debate.
So I think they’re beginning to realize that he’s their guy.
Not to mention I had to first turn off the sound on CNN because of their lefty panelists and then final turn it off when Bob Beckle came on. I just switched to an online stream.
A typical surface analysis.
You and your ilk actually sound kind of jealous that someone who is a rank newbie can take a generality that DOES represent a valid desideratum, and carry it this far, clumsily or not. It’s far from you to suggest better ways to him of doing it; that would be to deny the jealousy.
It's a really nifty debate technique. Acknowledge the part of the argument you can't win and force the opponent to discuss the issues you can.
The Trump event was a disaster- for Trump. He didn’the put a dent in the debate viewership.
The Trumpsters told us 12 million would switch from the debate to Trump, but less than three million showed up.
Trump raised only about $500k from viewers - the rest came from his fat cat buddies. At about 15 cents donated per viewer, the Trumpsters seem to be a very stingy lot when it comes to our vets.
Can't you just acknowledge something positive when it occurs?
Praise by purposely ineffective damnation.
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.