American Presidential candidates GoP/Dems

[Halb]

mikal83 said:

My ? is, how come Trump has/had such a lead in the polls, why oh why did he "lose" the Iowa deal.

Look at the link I posted.
It is possible that not partaking in the last debate cost him the 3%.

[mikal83]

Zod said:

Remember last May in the UK?

Ah!

[rscott]

mikal83 said:

My ? is, how come Trump has/had such a lead in the polls, why oh why did he "lose" the Iowa deal.

This - http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/lara-brown/201... - might explain some of the difference between opinion polls and actual voting.

And this too - http://grist.org/article/dont-freak-out-about-pres... - pollsters can't auto-dial mobile phones, but can landlines. Hence more landline users get polled. As a reasonable % of younger Americans simply don't have home phones, they're not polled, skewing the results toward an older demographic, who in turn tend to be more supportive of Trump.

[mikal83]

rscott said:

mikal83 said:

My ? is, how come Trump has/had such a lead in the polls, why oh why did he "lose" the Iowa deal.

This - http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/lara-brown/201... - might explain some of the difference between opinion polls and actual voting.

And this too - http://grist.org/article/dont-freak-out-about-pres... - pollsters can't auto-dial mobile phones, but can landlines. Hence more landline users get polled. As a reasonable % of younger Americans simply don't have home phones, they're not polled, skewing the results toward an older demographic, who in turn tend to be more supportive of Trump.

Perhaps wavy head should have looked at the SNP and tried to get the voting age to 14 or something....lol.

[Scuffers]

Zod said:

I have done so, scuffers, and I'm still surprised that you like him.

OK,

are we allowed to ask why you don't like/rate him?

[JagLover]

mikal83 said:

My ? is, how come Trump has/had such a lead in the polls, why oh why did he "lose" the Iowa deal.

Most of the polls are national ones and Iowa has some unique features, like the higher proportion of Evangelical Christians in the Republican primary.

Edited to add

Telegraph said:

62 per cent of Republican voters identified as “white evangelical or white born-again Christians

Might be as well there were errors in the polling.

New Hampshire and South Carolina will tell us I guess.

Edited by JagLover on Tuesday 2nd February 12:54

[unrepentant]

JagLover said:

mikal83 said:

My ? is, how come Trump has/had such a lead in the polls, why oh why did he "lose" the Iowa deal.

Most of the polls are national ones and Iowa has some unique features, like the higher proportion of Evangelical Christians in the Republican primary.

Might be as well there were errors in the polling.

New Hampshire and South Carolina will tell us I guess.

Spunktrumpet was ahead in the Iowa polls and predicting a YUGE victory so last night was very bad for him. Having said that there are a lot of old white God botherers in Iowa and the evangelical vote is disproportionately important there. To put the Cruz victory in context Santorum won it in 2012 and Huckabee in 2008. Neither went on to be the nominee. The real news out of Iowa is Rubio's surge, he's the one that sensible republicans (an oxymoron) should coalesce around.

It will be truly shocking if Spunktrumpet fails to win NH.

[Scuffers]

I think way too much is being read into Iowa's results, we are talking about the difference between 7 and 8 delegates, in the greater scheme of their process, this is meaningless.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-insta...

[Halb]

said:

Cruz’s Narrow Path to the Nomination

For Mr. Cruz, the victory gives him a chance to forge a narrow but real path to the nomination. His strengths include strong support from self-described “very conservative” voters; perhaps the best organization in the race; and a strong fund-raising apparatus. He could fare relatively well in South Carolina in a few weeks, and across the South on Super Tuesday.

But his path to the nomination is still not an easy one. He will face full-throated opposition from many prominent Republicans, as was the case here in Iowa. And Mr. Cruz’s narrow victory was not especially impressive. It depended almost exclusively on strength among “very conservative” voters, who are vastly overrepresented in the Iowa caucuses. There was no primary state where “very conservative” voters represented a larger share of the electorate in 2012 than they did in Iowa.

He won just 19 percent among “somewhat conservative” voters and a mere 9 percent of the “moderate” vote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/upshot/how-to-understand-donald-trumps-defeat-in-iowa.html

[Zod]

Scuffers said:

Zod said:

I have done so, scuffers, and I'm still surprised that you like him.

OK,

are we allowed to ask why you don't like/rate him?

Where did I say I didn't?

[unrepentant]

Halb said:

said:

Cruz’s Narrow Path to the Nomination

For Mr. Cruz, the victory gives him a chance to forge a narrow but real path to the nomination. His strengths include strong support from self-described “very conservative” voters; perhaps the best organization in the race; and a strong fund-raising apparatus. He could fare relatively well in South Carolina in a few weeks, and across the South on Super Tuesday.

But his path to the nomination is still not an easy one. He will face full-throated opposition from many prominent Republicans, as was the case here in Iowa. And Mr. Cruz’s narrow victory was not especially impressive. It depended almost exclusively on strength among “very conservative” voters, who are vastly overrepresented in the Iowa caucuses. There was no primary state where “very conservative” voters represented a larger share of the electorate in 2012 than they did in Iowa.

He won just 19 percent among “somewhat conservative” voters and a mere 9 percent of the “moderate” vote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/upshot/how-to-understand-donald-trumps-defeat-in-iowa.html

Cruz won't be the nominee because his appeal is exclusively amongst the ultra conservative. I still think it was a good victory in Iowa though because Trump was expected to win given the polls. Trump was noticeably subdued last night, I watched his speech live and it was barely 2 minutes and no bluster. He expected to win. He's still favorite to win NH but I think if he fails to do so you will see his support start to ebb away. Rubio is still the GOP's one chance and I think you'll see establishment money flowing his way now. If he does well in NH and Bush, Christie and Kasich don't I think they will all come under extreme pressure to move aside for him.

[Halb]

I've been checking the odd Trump story, but not looked at the other lot, I thought Hils was a done deal, but Iowa was within margin error. Are Iowa dems as conservative as Iowa reps or other?

"With more than 99% of the precinct results in, Clinton led 49.9% to 49.6% over Sanders after seeing an apparently comfortable lead slip. The Associated Press and multiple outlets said the race was simply too close to call, though the Clinton camp claimed a narrow victory."
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/02/hil...

edit.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/02/ber...

Is Sanders gonna be sewn up like a KIpper? Just like Henry Wallace was, back in the early 40's?

Edited by Halb on Tuesday 2nd February 15:56

[unrepentant]

It was nip and tuck in the Iowa dem race right up to the wire. Sanders will win NH so it would have been bad for Hillary to lose Iowa. As it is she'll be pretty happy with the result. Once they get into the southern states Sanders will find the going a bit tougher.

[durbster]

hornetrider said:

Everything he's ever done.

Would you advocate Alan Sugar as PM?

I don't think that's a natural comparison (aside from being on telly). Sugar did at least make his own wealth.

Trump was born into wealth and privilege so evidently has little concept of what life is like outside his bubble.

You just wouldn't get that sort of person succeeding in British politics... ahem.

[Vaud]

durbster said:

I don't think that's a natural comparison (aside from being on telly). Sugar did at least make his own wealth.

Trump was born into wealth and privilege so evidently has little concept of what life is like outside his bubble.

You just wouldn't get that sort of person succeeding in British politics... ahem.

Would be interesting to see how many of the UK front bench politicians were born into wealth and/or attended private school.

[Scuffers]

Vaud said:

Would be interesting to see how many of the UK front bench politicians were born into wealth and/or attended private school.

why?

Stupid, lazy, thick people come from all walks of life...

[Countdown]

unrepentant said:

It was nip and tuck in the Iowa dem race right up to the wire. Sanders will win NH so it would have been bad for Hillary to lose Iowa. As it is she'll be pretty happy with the result. Once they get into the southern states Sanders will find the going a bit tougher.

Hypothetical question - if Sanders gets the Democratic nomination and Cruz (or Trump) got the Rep nomination who do you think would win?

[durbster]

Vaud said:

Would be interesting to see how many of the UK front bench politicians were born into wealth and/or attended private school.

I think the most disturbing thing is how many attended the same school.

But then, there's a Bush and a Clinton running for president over that side of the pond despite a completely different democratic system, so maybe those in positions of power in western nations have simply figured out how to keep it in the family, as it were.

[unrepentant]

Countdown said:

unrepentant said:

It was nip and tuck in the Iowa dem race right up to the wire. Sanders will win NH so it would have been bad for Hillary to lose Iowa. As it is she'll be pretty happy with the result. Once they get into the southern states Sanders will find the going a bit tougher.

Hypothetical question - if Sanders gets the Democratic nomination and Cruz (or Trump) got the Rep nomination who do you think would win?

I don't really want to think about it! I think Sanders would beat either of the other two crazies. I think if it was Sanders v Rubio then Rubio would win. That's actually the only scenario where I could see a GOP victory, unless it was crazy v crazy and Bloomberg came is as a spoiler.

[unrepentant]

durbster said:

I think the most disturbing thing is how many attended the same school.

That's nothing. McMillan had 35 members of his own extended family in his government including 7 cabinet members!