The media narrative is beginning to turn against Cruz

a reply to: BlueAjah

Thanks for repeating my statement that you can't predict the future with opinion polls.

I am on the record here as being utterly opposed to the two-party system in the US.

But ... er ... wow ... then you put on the Karnak Hat yourself and come out with the prophetic pronouncement that

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Gryphon66

So, with this trend, common sense shows that many voters will continue in this direction, and Hillary will lose.

Which is far more related to your personal hopes and dreams than to any objective fact based in the real world.

/shrug

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: BlueAjah

Hillary wins anyway, if every poll taken in the last year has any bearing.

Just a side note.

You're wrong of course about every poll in the last year taken pointing to a Hillary win vs Trump.(Hillary in Blue)

Here is the average of all polls over the last year or so:



There were a few polls that had Trump leading Clinton. Also for a period of 4 months the averages were close. The general election is 7 months away. Even then, the election is based on the Electoral College system not popular vote. It is quite conceivable in 7 months time that Trump could be well placed to win key swing states.

As for unfavorables, Trump is not at 70%, he's at 65% unfavorable (red=unfavorable)



Clinton is at 55% unfavorable and her numbers are trending horribly in the wrong direction as she gets more exposure through the election process. Everything she has been involved with is going to be ruthlessly exposed if she has to go up against Trump. Personally I think she will be pulled out of the race by the DNC if Trump wins the GOP nomination.

(red=unfavorable)



Calling it a done deal for Clinton is naive with so long to go to the election. We don't even know yet if a 3rd party will gain enough support.

a reply to: UKTruth

Source?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Source?

Polling data

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Source?

Polling data

From Huffington Post? LOL. How ironic! Well, at least you offered a source.

I'm almost certain you've disputed HuffPo as a source in the past ... particularly when I use it.

No matter. We can go with it.

I see you wish to take issue with my general comment to another poster based around use of the word "every."

Fair enough, technically speaking there I was generalizing toward addressing a different point.

However, I will gladly amend my statement to replace "every" with "most" and re-emphasize my use of the word "IF" at the beginning of the statement.

While we're being technical though, I didn't say Trump was "at 70%" I stated a range from 60-70% ... which statistically speaking is more truthful if not more accurate than your definitive "65%" ... (actually, of course, you merely gave the median of my range)

But, being overly technical is often the same as picking at nits, eh?

I'll agree with you on this one then: we'll have to wait and see.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Source?

Polling data

From Huffington Post? LOL. How ironic! Well, at least you offered a source.

I'm almost certain you've disputed HuffPo as a source in the past ... particularly when I use it.

No matter. We can go with it.

I see you wish to take issue with my general comment to another poster based around use of the word "every."

Fair enough, technically speaking there I was generalizing toward addressing a different point.

However, I will gladly amend my statement to replace "every" with "most" and re-emphasize my use of the word "IF" at the beginning of the statement.

While we're being technical though, I didn't say Trump was "at 70%" I stated a range from 60-70% ... which statistically speaking is more truthful if not more accurate than your definitive "65%" ... (actually, of course, you merely gave the median of my range)

But, being overly technical is often the same as picking at nits, eh?

I'll agree with you on this one then: we'll have to wait and see.

The source is irrelevant as the actual poll results from all the different polls are used. The same ones used in the RCP averages. Their is no huffpost opinion - it's just data. You know this of course.

I think all we can really say right now is that Hillary would be the big favourite at this stage - if an election between the two were to be called now. Long way 'till November though and the exposure to the wider population of Hilary's past is going to interesting to say the least. How happy are the wider American public going to be when they hear Hillary congratulating herself and laughing about getting a child rapist a reduced sentence (time served only). That alone is going to make some advert - and there is a whole lot more.

originally posted by: UKTruth

The source is irrelevant as the actual poll results from all the different polls are used. The same ones used in the RCP averages. Their is no huffpost opinion - it's just data. You know this of course.

I do know it. I made that point about the HuffPo amalgamation of 128 or so polls in a previous discussion.

No matter though. We'll have to see who wins, as you say.

Let's just celebrate the rare confluence of random chance that let's us approach agreement on a topic, eh? LOL

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

The source is irrelevant as the actual poll results from all the different polls are used. The same ones used in the RCP averages. Their is no huffpost opinion - it's just data. You know this of course.

I do know it. I made that point about the HuffPo amalgamation of 128 or so polls in a previous discussion.

No matter though. We'll have to see who wins, as you say.

Let's just celebrate the rare confluence of random chance that let's us approach agreement on a topic, eh? LOL

One thing is for sure, it will be interesting to watch.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: BlueAjah
...

But ... er ... wow ... then you put on the Karnak Hat yourself and come out with the prophetic pronouncement that
...

Which is far more related to your personal hopes and dreams than to any objective fact based in the real world.

/shrug

Umm... of course???
I thought we all realized that ANY prediction that ANY OF US make is not a sure thing.
Many of us are hoping for the results that we wish for, in addition to analyzing the current situation.

But anyone has to admit that one thing we have learned in this election is that the situation is volatile, and anything can happen.

So, even though common sense shows that certain outcomes seem likely, it is true that there are so many variables at this point, that we will be in suspense until something drastic happens. Such as: Hillary gets indicted, some other major scandal is proven about Cruz (or others), the RNC screws over their voters, etc. etc.

a reply to: BlueAjah

So, essentially, we can't make predictions, but you feel fine in doing so?

LOL. Okay.

We will just have to wait and see what happens; that is truth.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Of course.
It's interesting to analyze the situation, discuss, and determine what appears to be the likely outcome.
Never said we "can't make predictions" though.
Some are more likely than others.
We will see!

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: UKTruth

This is all going as planned.

The Republicans are desperate to take down Trump AND Cruz.

They don't want either of these guys so they will do whatever they can to destroy these two men and foist some Establishment schmuck like Kasich on their constituents.

The Republicans hated Cruz long before Trump came along.

Or the GOP is in the tank for the DNC again. They were in 2008 & 2012.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: UKTruth

This is all going as planned.

The Republicans are desperate to take down Trump AND Cruz.

They don't want either of these guys so they will do whatever they can to destroy these two men and foist some Establishment schmuck like Kasich on their constituents.

The Republicans hated Cruz long before Trump came along.

Or the GOP is in the tank for the DNC again. They were in 2008 & 2012.

Indeed - certainly would not be surprised if the two party system is in fact an illusion with the same people pulling the strings of both.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: UKTruth

This is all going as planned.

The Republicans are desperate to take down Trump AND Cruz.

They don't want either of these guys so they will do whatever they can to destroy these two men and foist some Establishment schmuck like Kasich on their constituents.

The Republicans hated Cruz long before Trump came along.

Or the GOP is in the tank for the DNC again. They were in 2008 & 2012.

Can you clarify what you mean here, just a bit?

You're saying that the GOP (party leadership?) was "in the tank" for the Democrats in 2008 and 12?

How so?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: UKTruth

This is all going as planned.

The Republicans are desperate to take down Trump AND Cruz.

They don't want either of these guys so they will do whatever they can to destroy these two men and foist some Establishment schmuck like Kasich on their constituents.

The Republicans hated Cruz long before Trump came along.

Or the GOP is in the tank for the DNC again. They were in 2008 & 2012.

Can you clarify what you mean here, just a bit?

You're saying that the GOP (party leadership?) was "in the tank" for the Democrats in 2008 and 12?

How so?

I don't want to derail answering you, but I appreciate the question, so I'll try to give a brief and decent answer.

I *already* think both parties collude against voters/Americans for many obvious reasons. Both major parties support perpetual war, have no respect for basic rights and infringe on our liberty, neither party has respect for the law, they’re bought and controlled by big banks & businesses, both are corrupt and out of control when it comes to spending, and both have loooong records of bloating and expanding government. Also, both parties work hard to keep voters/people bitterly divided.

To me, it’s obvious that both major parties share too many common goals to believe they are actually different teams.

So, when republicans ran Sarah Palin in their VP spot, in 2008, and when Romney softballed and floundered on Benghazi, in 2012 — I refused take it for granted that both McCain’s and Romney’s campaign advising team simply made really, really bad calls and screwed up, THAT bad. But there are other indications from those elections that seem to support my belief: the GOP is willing to throw an election to help the DNC (and, therefore, the inverse is probably true). However, yes, they are indications that someone else could, of course, chalk up to stupid campaigning, outdated politics, BAD policies, etc...

But, to be honest, I have other more personal reasons that led me to start considering that both parties are actually in collusion -- which I won’t go into because I haven’t got the clout nor credibility to convince anyone. But, I did personally uncover a significant truth, a few years ago, that's completely contrary to popular opinion. It was an important clue. And it doesn't matter to me that anyone else knows about it or is convinced of it anymore. I know it and I am convinced of it.

This bit of truth that I uncovered (through open records law) led me to other clues and after a few years of following these clues, I satisfied for myself that the two parties do, in fact, work together against ‘us,’ and not against each other as we are led to believe. I used to simply pay lip service to that idea and in the back of my mind I still believed that democrats were the lesser evil.

Now I get it. There is no lesser nor greater evil -- the two parties are one giant evil.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Thanks for your real, extensive and (I can tell) very honest answer.

You're not wrong.