The survey by Washington-based Mercury Analytics is a combination online questionnaire and "dial-test" of Trump's first big campaign ad among 916 self-proclaimed "likely voters" (this video shows the ad and the dial test results). It took place primarily Wednesday and Thursday and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent.
Nearly 20 percent of likely Democratic voters say they'd cross sides and vote for Trump, while a small number, or 14 percent, of Republicans claim they'd vote for Clinton. When those groups were further broken down, a far higher percentage of the crossover Democrats contend they are "100 percent sure" of switching than the Republicans.
When the firmed showed respondents the Trump ad, and assessed their responses to each moment of it, it found "the primary messages of Trump's ad resonated more than Democratic elites would hope."
About 25 percent of Democrats "agree completely" that it raises some good point, with an additional 19 percent agreeing at least "somewhat."This link was up on Drudge for a long time yesterday and I was going to post it last night before I got sidetracked by El Chorro del Chapo and his compadre El Rolling Stone Penn.
Frankly, polls are boring man (woman) made news. Worse, made up news. Yes, Trump appeals to democrats. Everybody knows that. The question is, are they ready to throw Hillary under the bus a second time in November, when it counts? Assuming Trump will be the GOP nominee. And that, right there, is the biggest assumption of all.
44 comments:
I said a long time ago that I knew union men who have never voted for anyone other than a Democrat, who liked what they heard from Trump and would vote for him.
Bernie! Bernie! Bernie!
Meade, Bernie doesn't get the terrorism thing. At. All. Otherwise, I agree, he has social resonance.
Agree on the polls, which even the Lefties are conceding are a joke.
What we're talking here is the Reagan Democrats, plus a larger than normal number of disgruntled blacks (10 -25%) plus disgruntled Hispanics (30 - 40%). All it would take would be 10% of the black vote and they are certainly not happy campers in the Obamanation.
That would destroy the Democrats.
Which is what more and more people think may happen.
A bigger issue than are they ready to throw Hillary under the bus a second time in November is who will be the nominee and how close to Election Day will we know, because it's starting to look the the Ozark Mafia is about to meet the dustbin of history.
The pull of The Donald is too great. Just as Lola was irresistible, so with The Donald.
Whatever Donald wants, Donald gets,
Recline yourself, resign yourself, you're through...
He's irresistible you fool, give in...
Even bags! Even bags' grip on sanity has been loosened by the riptide for The Donald mwa ha ha ha ha....
Trump is the surgery you finally opt for after all the failed holistic cures, vitamins, and healthy living gets you nowhere. It might kill ya, but avoiding it was killing you slowly at great expense, so what ya gonna do?
I doubt very seriously if blacks and Hispanics would pull the lever for Bernie. Not going to happen. He might look great if you're from the elitist privileged crowd.
I think the Dems will dump Hillary when it becomes obvious she can't win in November and they will run Bloomberg as their candidate.
People, including me, want change so bad that we will take it no matter what package it comes in. It's really stupid decision making, but so is making the same mistake over and over again.
I would still prefer someone who is actually a conservative, but I don't trust any of the packaging anymore. The country is so backwards at this point, it would be hard to make it worse unless you kept doing more of the same, so lets not do that. I wish we had a proven serious conservative, but I don't see that on the menu anyway. Things need taken apart and scrapped. I don't think that's likely, but at least with Trump it's a possibility. Thanks to the colossal unmitigated foulness of Hillary, and the Democrats' ability to swallow it anyway, anything is possible this time.
The worry or hope seems to be that this election might destroy a political party, but which one? Ideal would be if they both went down.
I suppose to many on the left, Trump is as horrible as Hillary is to me, but Trump has only used words they find scary - at least as they interpret it. He hasn't actually done terrible things like our former Secretary of State. Look at the worst accusations about both, and the bigests accomplishments. I don't really see great accomplishments from either, other than them both getting incredibly rich, but look how they did it. Trump did it in business, but Hillary did it in government. That should bother us all.
I don't really see great accomplishments from either, other than them both getting incredibly rich, but look how they did it. Trump did it in business, but Hillary did it in government. That should bother us all.
The "did it in government" bothers me much much more than the "did it in business." I suspect I'm not alone.
AJ Lynch said...
I think the Dems will dump Hillary when it becomes obvious she can't win in November and they will run Bloomberg as their candidate
Bloomberg has zero resonance outside of the tri-State region. He's even worse than Sanders.
Hillary or Bernie could get a bump if they connected to Jim Webb in a serious way because both lack that element. But the DNC party elders are gonna favor "The Wire" guy.
bagoh20: I don't want to see the DNC or the GOP die. I just think they need new behind the scenes leadership. Maybe the monied interests behind both parties will get angry enough to demand a few political heads.
"The "did it in government" bothers me much much more than the "did it in business." I suspect I'm not alone."
That's what I meant. In fact, I think business is the most acceptable way to get rich.
OR, winning the Powerball. Up to $1.3 billion with a "B" this Wednesday! It's getting so big that it will soon be worth it to buy every single possible number combination to guarantee a win. Odds 1/300 million. It's just that someone else might get it too, and of course you could never logistically buy every number, because I was gonna do that.
I don't think you can fix the political parties by changing a few players. The parties are not built now to represent the people's interests, and are actively selling out taxpayers for personal gain in tandem. If the Dodgers and the Lakers can change who they represent and keep the names, so can the parties. If they consistently lose they will change, but we keep propping up the corrupt ones with reelection percentages running in the high 90s. We can't demand change and then vote again for a 30-year career representative.
"“Jumping from failure to failure with undiminished enthusiasm is the big secret to success.”
No, I think that's just called failure, until you do something else.
Change can be good.
Which is what Will Ferrell agreed with (during a W. impersonation advertising his "Farewell" show You're Welcome America):
Without change, we'd wear the same underwear every day, and the only movie would be Tango and Cash.
America and the world have many people who need someone to tell them to shut up! and sit down! and Donald Trump is that man.
He's the more Teutonic version of Chris Christie.
At the risk of Godwining yet another thread, is there a generic way of describing the führerprinzip in American politics? Because Trump's style really does seem to be like that. Sure he says some logical things every third Wednesday or so. But when he does, he does it with such supreme self-confidence that you worry he might kill you if you disagree or even take a second to question or investigate the claim. I suppose it's effective for cutting through the noise that does have a way of polluting our politics, but what will the consequence be? He really does brilliantly skirt the line between shutting people down and simply projecting authority by swatting away bullshit - which wouldn't be disappointing if he wasn't guilty of throwing around so much of his own bullshit out there himself.
Feline Groovy.
Mark Steyn captures the mood.
"In recent cycles, the American electoral system has diminished and degraded itself by retreating into turnout-model reductionism... "
&
"My older boy ran into high-school pals who were variously there to attend the rally and there to protest it. The media like to play up the anti-Trump demonstrations, but even this works to his benefit, since they come almost exclusively from the leaden clichés of college-debt social justice. For a six-year bachelor's degree in orientation studies, you'd think these fellows could work up something other than chants that were stale back when Pete Seeger was wondering where all the flowers went. A couple of straggle-bearded hipster dweebs wandered around waving "NO BORDER" signs, which would be a tougher sell in, say, downtown Cologne. A bossy girl of vaguely sapphic mien led us all in a "Black Lives Matter! Black Lives Matter!" chant, which is pretty funny on a street that's 99.99999999999 per cent white. If black lives matter that much, you'd think they could have bussed one in.
As enthusiasm faltered, she segued deftly into "Don't give in to racist fear! Immigrants are welcome here!" I must say, as an immigrant myself, I've never found Vermont that welcoming, but perhaps I'm insufficiently exotic for their tastes."
We are becoming almost exactly like ancient Rome.
In Rome, you couldn't rise to the top without impeccable credentials of either military service, pedigree (or marriage alliances) and/or wealth. In our own system we're doing away with the meaning of military cred, but wealth is the over-riding factor for political authority. You're either a puppet to it or you will have to have enough of your own to buy and browbeat your way to the top. We may soon have business tycoons battling, berating and belittling each other for the top spots in government - which should at least be more interesting than the boredom they infect us with through the chambers of commerce or whatever.
The "did it in government" bothers me much much more than the "did it in business." I suspect I'm not alone.
Not alone.
Hillary, more than any politician in history, used her power and influence and her husband's former glory to stuff international bribes in her granny panties.
Vagina. Just say no.
But does Trump follow the rules, with the rules being The Constitution, because I know Hillary considers it a 55 MPH speed limit on the way to Vegas, and she won't be pulling over for any cops.
I despise Will Farrel.
unfunny creep.
Trump did it in business, but Hillary did it in government. That should bother us all.
The business of making a brand out of Himself and His Daddy's money.
You really are changing your tune. I get that he's more of a corporate douchebag than the others, and that this translates into "effectiveness" (at least you can say he's independent). But I suppose now the quadruple bankruptcies are a thing of the past.
You'd better damn well hope that he's as good at the job as he is at making up whatever lies and truths he feels he needs to say to win the job. Because at some point the lies told to win nominations and elections will fuck up the country if you persist in believing in and acting on them while in office.
Bernie says SOCIALISM and blacks think cotton fields.
Hillary, more than any politician in history, used her power and influence and her husband's former glory to stuff international bribes in her granny panties.
Lol.
Vagina. Just say no.
I'm still thinking about the meaning of this. Especially coming from a woman.
But it sounds sage.
They have these funny t-shirts with a 17th-century swashbuckler on it saying, "Disregard females. Acquire currency!"
If that's the way you prioritize things, one should follow the other. Unless you're Bill Gates, I guess.
Some billionaires it appears actually can be too dorky to get their dork on right.
Trumps bankruptcies were failures, not corruption. They were legal, and the money lost was by investors who voluntarily risked it. While nothing to brag about, they are in a different sphere than building a brand on the backs of taxpayers, and corruption as the Clinton have, often at the expense of peoples lives or their honor before or after their deaths.
Rhythm and Balls said...
He's the more Teutonic version of Chris Christie.
Christie is all wind. The Donald is substance. And substance moves goal posts.
And Ritmo hates that.
The business of making a brand out of Himself and His Daddy's money.
Ritmo sounds jealous.
Anytime a Lefty starts talking about somebody's "Daddy", as if he's some Good Ol' Boy idling around the cracker barrel in the Gen'l Store, dispensing sage observations, you're hearing somebody who's out of ammo and trying to get the rubes to listen to him.
Trump may have started with some family seed money, but what he built was on his own ability.
And Ritmo really hates that
What's the worst you can say about Trump that isn't complete conjecture with no basis in the facts of his past?
Ask the same about Hillary. That alone should decide the election if they are the ones in the ring.
The worst attacks you can make on Hillary are just reminding people of what she has done with any power she's been given in the past, and it's simply more disqualifying than any candidate in history, including another run by Nixon.
Trumps bankruptcies were failures, not corruption.
Either of which can imperil a presidency and a nation's well-being.
It's naive to think that moral purity is the most important thing in a president. Look at Jimmy Carter. A lot of "integrity". And a lot of national failure.
Pick the most honest person we can get, no doubt. But don't be naive enough to overlook that most people want an upstanding person as a symbol and a reflection of what they should aspire to. Not because it necessarily does the country that much more good.
I realize I'm being more machiavellian here than usual. But these are unusual times.
And Ritmo hates that.
You know ed, I don't speak for your employment advisor. Do me a favor and don't speak for me.
You're not inside my head and I'm so very thankfully not inside whatever it is where your own head might be.
Bag just talked about the importance of integrity. And he's a Trump supporter. So do yourself a favor and stop besmirching the honor of your fancy little right-wing revolution by bearing false witness against your neighbor.
I just got into an argument with an autistic person today, so I've already had enough of dealing with people who only talk to themselves and lack the capacity to hear what other people have to say.
Ritmo can't just rebut an argument. Largely because the facts are against him,
He has to duck it and does so by going ad hominem - and false.
And, thankfully, I don't have to go inside his head. all I have to do is read what he writes.
And remember the old Chinese proverb - you can tell who's losing the argument; it's the first to raise his voice.
You didn't make an argument. And everything you just said then and just now is ad hominem.
There is no "voice raising". This is cyberspace. There is no volume. Nor did I use any exclamation points or capitals.
But there I go once gain - assuming you actually have the capacity to read what I write or hear what I say.
It's not an either/or choice. With Clinton you get it all: incompetence, no accomplishments, AND dishonesty.
Trump had bankruptcies, because that's the tank he swims in. Investment, and risk with real accountability via numbers and people demanding satisfaction. It's like discounting a quarterback for losing some games. He may have played those games poorly, I don't know the details, but it's not politics where a bad player with poor character can just lie about what happened, or blame it on your predecessor or a right wing conspiracy. Clinton has far more failures than Trump, and they affected us all, not just his investors, and she has yet to face the music about any of it. She has no experience taking responsibility, only being handed it when times are good.
Obviously I did, or Ritmo would not be trotting out his tired old ad hominems.
And voice raising can be a metaphor, such as the idea Ritmo can't simply rebut anyone, he has to attempt (and fail) to make himself feel superior by resorting to invective.
I admit I'm playing devil's advocate somewhat. The more of Trump I listen to the more I think he'll not only get the nomination, but a real shot at office and his cut-to-the-chase stuff will be a real asset. And that's the thing. We've not had a straight-shooter ever in this country, or at least for nearly a hundred years or more, depending on how you count it and none of us are alive to tell the tale. But he is something we have never seen in the politics that we are used to. We will probably need it but it makes you question everything. There will be no such thing any more as conventional wisdom - if he goes all the way he will upend that entirely. NYT reports that he will split his party but of course I don't care about that at all. It will be interesting to see how cross-over votes will work both ways: Elite Republicans could vote for a Hillary who "seems" more responsible by virtue of playing the conventional political game and Democrats will cross-over to Trump for someone who's at least willing to take a chance, shake things up and at least act as independently as he can. He's something we've never seen in this lifetime or the last few and maybe even in the history of the country. So be careful watch you wish for. You'd better hope he's good enough to live up to the expectations that come with a challenge to the system that deep. And he WON'T be a conservative - at least not in the conventional sense. But maybe that's what the base want. A different sort of conservative goals than what are called conservative goals.
It's partly because of the times we're in but you can't doubt that the guy is a political genius and it is working. Politically, at least. But you're still getting an unknown after that.
Nixon was corrupt as hell and a stain on the presidency but he still wasn't the worst president! Far from it.
ed, shut up.
Ritmo can't simply rebut anyone,
ed, I don't read anything you say. As Trump would say, "you're a lightweight".
he has to attempt (and fail) to make himself feel superior by resorting to invective.
I don't know what it means to "make myself feel superior". I just know you have nothing to say.
At all.
Ever.
Go away.
It's like watching mice stand up and give high-pitched squeaks.
If Ritmo doesn't read anything I say from where do such lines as, "There is no "voice raising". This is cyberspace. There is no volume. Nor did I use any exclamation points or capitals.", or "I don't know what it means to 'make myself feel superior'", come?
Time for beddy byes. Ritmo is growing aphasic.
Did ed say something?
Oh, he did.
Shut up, ed.
Talk about needing to feel important. If I didn't type comments responding to his he would feel like 1/10th the man that he is. And that would be bad, given that he's already only about 1/3rd of a man.
No, Ritmo got a lesson in shooting off his mouth.
He hates debate, but he can't stand to have his words thrown back at him.
You've never debated anyone.
You've never been to a debate.
You've never convinced anyone of anything.
Everything you say is just to convince yourself of what you wanted beforehand to believe.
"Trump had bankruptcies, because that's the tank he swims in. Investment, and risk with real accountability via numbers and people demanding satisfaction. It's like discounting a quarterback for losing some games. He may have played those games poorly, I don't know the details, but it's not politics where a bad player with poor character can just lie about what happened, or blame it on your predecessor or a right wing conspiracy. Clinton has far more failures than Trump, and they affected us all, not just his investors, and she has yet to face the music about any of it. She has no experience taking responsibility, only being handed it when times are good."
--Bagoh
*worth repeating.
Post a Comment