RNC disqualifying first time voters in VA?!

a reply to: DelMarvel

I was referring to the Bradley Effect. The higher polling was something I heard on the news. It was referring to groups of people as compared to what the polling in showing in states like Iowa.

It was said woman hate him.
It was said Hispanics hate him.
It was said that Blacks hate him.

Truth is he is polling better with all three of those demographics than the GOP had in 2008 or 2012.

As far as the 60-70 polling it was from a Rasmussen report that shows he is backed by 63% of Republicans. He is the same as he was in October.

www.rasmussenreports.com...

Even at the HuffPost who hates him he is polling at 37.5% and with the information that is easily found about his poll numbers being lower he is closer to 45-50%.

This thread however is about VA trying to control their primaries which seems like a bit to much control for me...

originally posted by: matafuchs

It was said woman hate him.
It was said Hispanics hate him.
It was said that Blacks hate him.

Truth is he is polling better with all three of those demographics than the GOP had in 2008 or 2012.

You have sources on that?

originally posted by: matafuchs


As far as the 60-70 polling it was from a Rasmussen report that shows he is backed by 63% of Republicans. He is the same as he was in October.

www.rasmussenreports.com...

You're reading that poll wrong. What it says is that in a head to head match up with Clinton, Trump is supported by ONLY 63% of Republicans.

The latest Rasmussen poll has Trump at 29% of likely Republican voters going up against all the other contenders.

www.rasmussenreports.com...

You said earlier that "his true poll numbers are closer to 60-70% in many parts of the country." I haven't seen anything to back up that claim.

originally posted by: matafuchs
This thread however is about VA trying to control their primaries which seems like a bit to much control for me...

"Virginia" isn't trying to do anything.

It's the Virginia Republican party which is asking people who vote in the REPUBLICAN primary to sign a statement saying they are REPUBLICANS.

Which is far less restrictive than, say, Iowa or all the other states that require you to register as a member of a party to vote which Virginia does not.

Where was Trump when the Virginia GOP was debating and implementing this? When they notified all the campaigns? When he could have had reasonable input into the process? The great businessman is really on top of things, eh?

We've got one state letting anybody and his brother vote, and another one refusing to let registered voters vote.

This is scary. Where is this headed? My thoughts are only American Citizens should be allowed to vote, and all American citizens should be allowed to vote. If that makes sense.

originally posted by: angeldoll
We've got one state letting anybody and his brother vote, and another one refusing to let registered voters vote.

Which is the state that is refusing to let registered voters vote?

There are over 30 some states that have some form of closed primary where you are restricted based on your registered party affiliation.

It's been that way for YEARS.

The Virginia Republican party informed Trump's campaign in SEPTEMBER that they were going to do this and he's just now hearing about it?

This guy continually demonstrates that he has no clue about what's going on.

a reply to: DelMarvel

I think you just do not like Trump. Good for you. He knew. He is running a campaign. In Q3 2015 they had put aside 25,000,000 for advertising and did not need...any. He controlled the media and what was discussed in ALL of the debates, Dem or GOP.

This is all about to change. He has made comments to draw out what those who are running against him think. Now, you will see in the coming months a deluge of television advertising. They will all be on key issues. Issues that he outlined in his book and touched on.

You see, you wait to see what your opponent will do. Not throw money at something that will go nowhere like the Bush campaign. 200 million so far and he is polling around 3%.

Still, for a political neophyte running against a former first lady, senator and Cabinet member, those are the kind of deficits that can be made up in a long campaign. A July CNN poll found only 51 percent of Republicans viewing Trump favorably; by this month the figure had risen to 72 percent.

Again, here is you 70% backing Trump. So I guess CNN and Rasmussen cannot do polls correctly, right?

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: DelMarvel

Still, for a political neophyte running against a former first lady, senator and Cabinet member, those are the kind of deficits that can be made up in a long campaign. A July CNN poll found only 51 percent of Republicans viewing Trump favorably; by this month the figure had risen to 72 percent.

Again, here is you 70% backing Trump. So I guess CNN and Rasmussen cannot do polls correctly, right?

No. It's 72% viewing him favorably. The majority of Republicans still favor someone else as the nominee. You don't understand how to read polls apparently. I've already pointed out how you misread that Rasmussen poll. If you are implying that Rasmussen CAN do polls correctly then Trump only has 29% of Republicans favoring him as the nominee.

As for your quote, the standard on this site would be that you provide a link to the source. As it appears to come from this Fox News article I can see why you might have been reluctant to do that as here are some more quotes from it:

Trump has a 68 percent unfavorable rating among women, according to last week’s Quinnipiac poll...

In a Q poll out in early December, Trump had an 87 percent unfavorable rating among blacks, and 84 percent of Hispanics had an unfavorable view of him.

he and Ted Cruz have been trading the lead in Iowa, where a win could give the Texas senator momentum and let some air out of the Trump invincibility balloon. A Gravis poll just before Christmas had Trump and Cruz tied in Iowa at 31 percent

Trump has a daunting 59 percent unfavorable rating in the most recent Q poll,

www.foxnews.com...

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: UKTruth
I think the last hope for the establishment candidates will be the delegate allocation rules that have been changed to favour Bush. For that reason I think Bush is still in the race.

And how specifically do you see the delegate allocation rules favoring Bush and hurting Trump moving forward from this point?

Considering that (for just one example) the GOP is now trying to discourage independents and Democrats from crossing over to vote in the Virginia primary which by traditional metrics would favor a moderate candidate.

The rule changes in 2014 did some important things.

1) The proportionality of the delegate count based on voting was changed. District delegates now also have to split proportionally, not just at-large delegates. This will be in effect from March 1st to 14th primaries, after which the primaries switch to winner takes all.

This means, with so many candidates running that it is unlikely any candidate will pass the new 50% threshold to take all delegates in the early states

2) The primary schedule has been shifted - most notably Florida, which has been moved out to one of the very first winner takes all votes (March 15th). Florida is the most obvious one but there have been other schedule changes which can effect things based on the mix from proportional voting to winer takes all.

If you look at the map of the early states and the later states - i.e proportional vs winner takes all, you can see that the delegate split is going to happen in states where Bush is weaker and the winner takes all in states where he is stronger (generally)

3) The minumum number of state wins to be included in the convention vote for a leader has been increaed to 8.

With all the early states unlikely to yield a winner (winner is based on getting more than 50%) you can pretty much rule out a single state counting towards the 8. The threshold is going to be passed by picking up winner takes all states where the vote recieved for the winner can be much less than 50%.

Shifting and playing with all these variables provides a failry easy way to reduce the liklihood of one candidate winning and increase the liklihood of another winning. The changes just happen to benefit Bush (perhaps by coincidence, perhaps not).

What is certain is that Bush can pick up delegates in the early states with only ~10-15% of the vote and may not even be that far behind the guy who was perhaps polling 30% average (note that even if Bush does not meet a threshold to pick up some delegates in a state, the winners delegates will be diluted by other candidates)... Bush has the finances to stay in the race for the long haul, so as long as he picks up a few delegates here and there in the proportional states he is in with a great chance of winning the nomination from picking up all the delegates in enough winner takes all states (e.g Florida), perhaps only with 10-15% of the overall national vote counts (but higher in the winner takes all states), beating out those with higher percentages nationally.

I dont think the GOP anticipated Trump though - these plans may not be enough to get Bush the nomination.

These links explain in more detail..

theconservativetreehouse.com...

frontloading.blogspot.co.uk...

a reply to: DelMarvel

So here is your hard information on the Minorities.

Because a new poll, which still has Trump leading the race, shows 40 percent of blacks are lining up behind Trump, as are 45 percent of Hispanics, and even nearly 19 percent of Asians.

Blacks and Hispanics, in fact, even support Trump at a higher level than whites.

Among whites, Trump was far and away the leader, with 37.7 percent of the respondents. Cruz was second at 25.1 percent.

The rankings put Trump in the No. 1 slot, Cruz second at 23.3 percent, Rubio third at 10.1, Carson fourth at 9.4 percent, and Jeb Bush fifth at six percent

The survey shows Trump collecting nearly 40 percent of the GOP support, but also 31 percent of the independents and even 26-plus percent of the Democrats.

This is based on a Clout Research poll. cloutpolitical.com...
Link