Posted on 07/25/2016 3:17:46 PM PDT by Kaslin
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Trump got a convention bounce and it's a big one, a six-point convention bounce. Now, if you look at Real Clear Politics average of polls, you don't see six points, because those polls -- the average of those polls -- consist of a number of days before the convention added to the days of and after the convention. But if you take out the days leading up to the convention -- just look at the polling data that comes from the convention and after it -- it's a huge, six-point convention bump. Now, you might say, "Well, that's no big deal. That's no big deal, Rush! Every candidate gets a convention bounce." That's the thing: That hasn't been the case in a long time. Let's go to none other than CNN for the details.
"Donald Trump comes out of his convention ahead of Hillary Clinton in the race for the White House, topping her 44% to 39% in a four-way matchup including Gary Johnson (9%) and Jill Stein (3%) and by three points in a two-way head-to-head, 48% to 45%. ...
"There hasn't been a significant post-convention bounce in CNN's polling since 2000. That year Al Gore and George W. Bush both boosted their numbers by an identical 8 points post-convention before ultimately battling all the way to" the Florida recount, the aftermath, and Supreme Court decision. There haven't been convention bounces.
Obama didn't get one in 2008. Bush didn't get one in 2004. Nobody got one in 2004, 2008, or 2012. So this is the first convention bounce in the CNN poll -- Trump got it -- since 2000. That's CNN, and this... Believe me. Don't doubt me on this. Despite the smiling and attempts at everything's okay and all is normal that you're seeing from Democrats this week, they're worried. They are panicked. Because Trump was supposed to be nowhere near Hillary. Trump was not supposed to be close, much less leading.
Because in the conventional world of politics, Trump was supposed to have imploded or have been exposed as a fraud and a know-nothing long ago. I mean, you go back three months, six months. The Democrat Party, the thing they were hoping for was Trump to win the nomination. I mean, they thought that would be a slam dunk, because the guy doesn't know what he's doing. They think he's crazy. They think his support is thin and can be persuaded to abandon him. They don't know what they're dealing with.
But they're getting an idea now that this is not the way it was supposed to be.
Last week, ladies and gentlemen, Nate Silver -- the vaunted Nate Silver, formerly of the New York Times and now of his own website, FiveThirtyEight.com... This is a guy that the Democrats relied on for comfort. He was their guru during the 2012 presidential campaign. Nate Silver then was analyzing polls. That's what he does. He analyzes polls; then makes percentage predictions based on his unique analysis. "Only Nate Silver does what he does!" So goes the reputation.
Only Nate Silver has secret ways of analyzing results and making in-depth predictions based on whoever's likely to win, not by margin although other polling units do. And last week, Nate Silver was telling all of Democrats (summarized), "Don't sweat it! Right now, we got Trump at maybe 10 to 15% chance of winning the White House." Well, Business Insider: "Nate Silver: Donald Trump Would Most Likely Win the Election if it Were Held Today." Remember, Democrats believe this guy. This guy is an oracle.
"If the election were held [today]," and, of course, it isn't, but if it were, "Donald Trump would likely win. That's what renowned statistician Nate Silver projected [today] for his data journalism outlet FiveThirtyEight. In his 'Now-cast' election model for who would win if ballots were cast [today], Silver gave the Republican nominee a 57.5% chance of winning the presidency," up from 10 or 15%. Whatever it was, it was miniscule just a week ago.
"Presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton had a 42.5% chance of securing the nation's highest office if voters were to take to the polls [today]. ... However, in Silver's polls-only forecast and in his polls-plus forecast..." See, this is why this is special. Nobody else has a "polls-only" or "polls-plus," but Nate Silver does! In his "polls-only forecast and in his polls-plus forecast, Clinton was still favored to come out on top.
"In the polls-only model, Clinton had a 53.7% chance of winning, while in the polls-plus model, Silver gave Clinton a 58.2% chance of winning in November. But those numbers are a drastic drop-off from where they recently were -- hovering around 80%." Nate Silver tweeted, "Don't think people are really grasping how plausible it is that Trump could become president. It's a close election right now." He's trying to warn 'em. He's trying to warn the Democrats that things are much worse.
And then there was a USC survey that was released yesterday, an election forecast, and this one is a track of this outfit's "best estimate over time of how Americans plan to vote in November." And the upshot is that... Well, Trump is way ahead in this. Well, not way ahead, but he's got about, say, an eight-point lead with a 95% confidence level in this poll. It's just a graph. It's a graph poll since July 10th, since July 23rd. The point is... It's a relatively new poll.
"The 2016 USC Dornsife / LA Times Presidential Election Poll represents a pioneering approach to tracking changes in Americans' opinions throughout a campaign for the White House. Around 3000 respondents ... are asked questions on a regular basis on what they care about most," and in this race it's Trump. So, again, I'm only mentioning this ladies and gentlemen, because I have been called a "data denier." I've been blamed by others on our side of the aisle for being in denial of data -- in other words, by not believing polls.
This is something that traces back to the Romney-Obama campaign of 2012. "You've gotta believe what the data says! You can't be a data denier. That's living in a fantasyland!" So I'm just telling what the data is. In that CNN poll, by the way, it's always the case, particularly with traditional polls. You go to the internals, it's bad for Hillary. The end result even now has Trump way up. But get this. Hillary Clinton: "Do you consider her honest and trustworthy?" Yes, 30%. No, 68%. That's CNN and just some of the internals, which do not look good for Hillary.
END TRANSCRIPT
IIRC Who’s on first.
“I really think her supporters are zombies, they just do not care about the candidate only if their stinking party wins.”
Where’s that Oakum guy with the straight razor?
“It’s over when he gives his acceptance speech on November 8.”
Don’t you mean victory speech?
YES!!!! Thanks :)
She may be at the point where her only supporters are those who are willing to PRETEND to believe her lies to try to get the bennies she promises. Let’s face it, at this point anyone who has even the slightest ability to recognize BS knows that she is total BS.
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.