Posted on 04/25/2016 8:58:42 AM PDT by LS
The 2016 presidential election is on the top of most Americans’ minds, according to the latest George Washington University Battleground Poll. Despite, or perhaps because of, the high level of engagement, voters have negative views of almost all major candidates, and report the tone of the race is wearing on them.
The bipartisan GW Battleground Poll, conducted in partnership with The Tarrance Group and Lake Research Partners, asked likely voters how closely they’ve followed the presidential campaign over the last year. Eighty-nine percent reported they’ve followed the race either “very” or “somewhat” closely. More than half (52 percent) of respondents reported receiving updates on the campaigns via social media.
The GW poll found that of the five candidates still in the race for the highest office, only two—Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and Ohio governor John Kasich—have an unfavorable rating below 50 percent, at 44 and 29, respectively. The other three—former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (56 percent), Texas Senator Ted Cruz (55 percent) and businessman Donald Trump (65 percent)—are all mostly disliked.
All the candidates with unfavorable ratings above 50 percent also have a majority of voters saying that they would not consider voting for them for president. When asked about increasingly visible former President Bill Clinton, respondents showed more positive views toward the non-candidate, with 54 percent favorable and 41 percent unfavorable toward him.
In a head-to-head matchup of each party’s frontrunner, Mrs. Clinton leads Mr. Trump by only 3 percentage points nationally (46 to 43; 11 percent undecided). Comparatively, Mr. Sanders fares slightly better against Mr. Trump (51/40/10).
“Trump is appealing to the rest of those Democrats”
Any GOP candidate needs them to win FL, NC, and VA
It was indeed Romey. Followed up with the “con man” talking points. Trump had 55,000 attack ads against him.... but he’s the bad guy. Got it
We’re gonna win this one LS...
Trump is no Reagan. Not even close.
“...New York City...”
We have two twenty something daughters that live and work in NYC. The report on the ground from them, based on talking with peers and co-workers and general talk picked up on the train/street, is that there is a lot of support for Trump in unexpected demographics and situations. This corroborates your experiences with NYC based people.
This may be anecdotal and based on unscientific observation, but it is real.
One NYC daughter and her husband (both lawyers), will be voting Trump and my other NYC daughter and her boyfriend will also be voting Trump!
I believe that the sequence is as you describe. Once freed from having to endure the idiotic attacks from other Republicans in the Primaries; Trump can show a more positive image. I continue to urge this approach, as a major tactic, believing he has the aptitude and personality to be extremely effective in the type of speech proposed:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3422096/posts
Nailed it in one. When Trump starts in on her, she's going to feel like a 19-year-old intern cornered in the pantry by Bubba Clinton the rapist.
Looking better. So sad St. Ted and the Mailman can’t fight the enemy.
What you fail to grasp is that most voters are not really ideological. Most people who vote Democratic are not nearly so far Left as those manipulating their past voting patterns. Trump will also draw many people who like to vote for a celebrity. That may sound irrational, but it is as rational as “W” claiming a woman with a dyed finger somehow represented American values.
Your #30 nails it most succinctly.
Favorability ratings are absolutely useless.
I had hunch that Trump would do better than expected after it seemed like the best that the left can do to attack him is name call him “Drumf” or whatever it is. If that’s the best they can throw at him, Crooked Hillary doesn’t stand a chance.
Yes, especially for people in show busienss because respondents conflate the persona with the person. For example, J. R. Ewing, or “The Undertaker” in WWF. They weren’t “unpopular” or have “unfavorable ratings,” because people were responding to the ROLE they played.
“...leftists bad sign...”
That would be 180 degree flip on logic.
Did you read the whole post? The leftist’s reasoning was that he can’t stand Hillary and we need an outsider. The leftist’s reasoning was not that Trump is now liberal.
This is an excellent sign!
Trump is still going to build the wall, stop the bad trade deals and support the right to bear arms.
The lefty is showing a willingess to consider conservatism if done by an outsider; Trump isn’t suddenly showing amnesty-gun-control liberalism crap.
With all due respect as someone who voted for Reagan both times, I think Mr. Trump will be so much greater. No one is likely to slam him with professing “Voodoo Economics.” And I can practically guarantee we won’t have an attack on our military in the vein of what happened to the Marines in Beirut. Ronald Reagan, I feel, was not that strong on the economy, didn’t know much about balanced budgets and was weak on immigration. “The Gipper” provided desperately needed spirit early on but faded as his terms dragged on.
Mr. Trump’s father said “everything his son touches turns to gold,” I believe with all of my heart that he will always put us first and he does not strike me as apt to make major blunders like Reagan did.
BTW, Reagan never made me feel like changing parties. Trump has that distinction!!!
...and Trump “hasn’t yet begun to fight”. Cankles and Crazy Bernie are in trouble. Just have to get over this GOP/Cruz/delegate nonsense and then it’s off to defeating the Cankles and the Crazies.
BTW, what is “MOE”?
Margin of error.
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.