Pumpkin Eater Posted August 15, 2016 Report Share Posted August 15, 2016 http://constitution.com/trump-leading-67-hillarys-19-national-poll-50000-voters/ Discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted August 15, 2016 Report Share Posted August 15, 2016 Ahahahahahahahahahahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted August 15, 2016 Report Share Posted August 15, 2016 I dug deeper. They said 13 grad students called 50,000 people in a two week span to get the data. I call a big ol' horse shit on that. If the average phone call was 5 minutes. It would take 320 hours to complete those calls. There are only 336 hours in two weeks. Meaning they slept, ate, showered, used the bathroom etc. in one hour everyday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted August 15, 2016 Report Share Posted August 15, 2016 Again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted August 16, 2016 Report Share Posted August 16, 2016 Trump polls are so BAD, Hillary SuperPAC is moving ad spending from battleground states!! The Trumpsplosion continues rolling on, as a Hillary SuperPAC has announced that it is suspending ad buys in battleground states because the polls are so much in their favor. There is no way that Trump can win the presidency without snatching up Pennsylvania, but Hillary backers are so sure she’s going to win there that they’re shifting away spending. This has all the look of a disaster landslide, but Trump (and some of his supporters) are blissfully ignoring it all… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted August 16, 2016 Report Share Posted August 16, 2016 Continued respect, OBF... Is this where I double tap my chest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted August 16, 2016 Author Report Share Posted August 16, 2016 Those the same polls that had her winning Michigan by 20 in the primary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted August 16, 2016 Report Share Posted August 16, 2016 robo calls. Average call far less than 5 minutes. 13 grad students arranged 100 volunteers. whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted August 16, 2016 Report Share Posted August 16, 2016 robo calls. Average call far less than 5 minutes. 13 grad students arranged 100 volunteers. whatever. The post makes no mentions of robo calling (they said they confirmed the calls were to people each time) and said nothing of volunteers. The time total I gave for call count doesn't even take into account people they may have called who just hung up or after a few seconds said "not interested". In the original post about it, people are starting to mention the time issue and how each state was weighted. Idaho might have have had as many respondents as California but in an election, Cali has much more population thus it should reflect a larger percentage in a poll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted August 16, 2016 Report Share Posted August 16, 2016 Again? http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=41333 Yep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StinkHole Posted August 16, 2016 Report Share Posted August 16, 2016 I dug deeper. They said 13 grad students called 50,000 people in a two week span to get the data. I call a big ol' horse shit on that. If the average phone call was 5 minutes. It would take 320 hours to complete those calls. There are only 336 hours in two weeks. Meaning they slept, ate, showered, used the bathroom etc. in one hour everyday. Stuart Five minutes is a long time. Id give it one minute. If you listened to a talk show or a political debate on TV, a lot of info can be passed between two people in one minute. That would be 64 hrs spent per each grad student in two weeks.... less time than a regular full time job, Saturdays and Sundays off. Regardless, what benefit or advantage would be gained by making up a bogus story that few will read? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted August 16, 2016 Report Share Posted August 16, 2016 Stuart Regardless, what benefit or advantage would be gained by making up a bogus story that few will read? The reason why I said five is because when I was in high school I got paid to make those political surveying calls. The bare minimum ends up being 5 minutes with introductions and having to explain to the person each question and possible answers. Older folks end up being the only people who can be bothered to answer and talk to you. It is silly season. You will see all sorts of bogus horse shit between now and election day. Not long ago there was a bogus story about Trump saying that he thought "Republicans were dumb enough to get fooled into voting for anyone..." etc. Totally bogus and he was never quoted saying that. However, someone went out of their way to make an elaborate story to back the fake claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted August 16, 2016 Report Share Posted August 16, 2016 Too many polls showing Trump behind you would be foolish to discount them all. These polls are a snapshot of today meaning Clinton would win today if the election was held....the polls can change between now and November but Trump has to do his part and be careful what he says and start running a better campaign (and do well in the debates and hope Wiki Leaks comes through). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted August 16, 2016 Report Share Posted August 16, 2016 Too many polls showing Trump behind you would be foolish to discount them all. These polls are a snapshot of today meaning Clinton would win today if the election was held....the polls can change between now and November but Trump has to do his part and be careful what he says and start running a better campaign (and do well in the debates and hope Wiki Leaks comes through). He needs to spend money, above all. He has a decent amount on reserve - needs to get on TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted August 16, 2016 Report Share Posted August 16, 2016 He needs to spend money, above all. He has a decent amount on reserve - needs to get on TV. The dems playbook is to campaign early and try to define the opposition before they can define themselves. Trump campaign has silently stood by and watched the dems do this for months now without responding. Now the dems (with the help of the MSM and Trump himself) have gotten the message across to voters they wanted to accomplish; that Trump is unfit and does not have the temperament to be president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StinkHole Posted August 16, 2016 Report Share Posted August 16, 2016 Too many polls showing Trump behind you would be foolish to discount them all. These polls are a snapshot of today meaning Clinton would win today if the election was held....the polls can change between now and November but Trump has to do his part and be careful what he says and start running a better campaign (and do well in the debates and hope Wiki Leaks comes through). Stuart Agree, and every poll that came out at this time in prior elections turned out to be correct in predicting the next prez. Seems the only hope we have to cling to is an unscientific one...that this is not a "normal" election, Trump not a politician... from the day Trump announced he was running the "experts" from both sides throughout his campaign predicted he wouldn't last. And here he is. Maybe, for the first time the polls are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted August 16, 2016 Report Share Posted August 16, 2016 Stuart Agree, and every poll that came out at this time in prior elections turned out to be correct in predicting the next prez. Seems the only hope we have to cling to is an unscientific one...that this is not a "normal" election, Trump not a politician... from the day Trump announced he was running the "experts" from both sides throughout his campaign predicted he wouldn't last. And here he is. Maybe, for the first time the polls are wrong. I don't think the polls are wrong but we are still in mid August and we have the debates yet. Also I think there is a good chance Wiki Leaks has more to come with Clinton's emails and Clinton's unpopularity even among many democrats should help Trump. The demographics though are terrible for Trump among blacks,Hispanics,women and young people.....really bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted August 16, 2016 Report Share Posted August 16, 2016 I don't think the polls are wrong but we are still in mid August and we have the debates yet. Also I think there is a good chance Wiki Leaks has more to come with Clinton's emails and Clinton's unpopularity even among many democrats should help Trump. The demographics though are terrible for Trump among blacks,Hispanics,women and young people.....really bad The republicans never do well among blacks, hispanics, women, or young people. Trump is going to shred Hillary in the debates, which should help him quite a bit. People think they're going to sit there and talk for 1 hour + on policy and details, that's not how presidential debates work. Trump is going to drive home all of her scandals and describe her incompetence and untrustworthiness to the biggest audience he's ever had a chance to speak to (near-superbowl numbers). He has a really big chance to make a huge difference in the first debate, hopefully he takes advantage. -- Hillary couldn't even win debates against a 74-year old socialist who refused to criticize her at all - apologized for talking about her emails, Hillary's camp said he needed to "change his tone" or they wouldn't debate anymore. And she got absolutely shredded by Obama in 2008. I don't believe the "good debater" argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted August 16, 2016 Report Share Posted August 16, 2016 The republicans never do well among blacks, hispanics, women, or young people. ************************************* Which is why after 2012 loss by Romney the republicans decided they needed to make an aggressive pitch to Hispanics as they are the fasting growing block of voters now and in the immediate future. How much damage Trump has done to that effort? Trump eating a Taco salad and saying he loves Hispanics is not a great outreach. I think with women, young people and HIspanics republicans can increase their numbers but not with blacks...the republicans could have run a black man like Dr. Carson and even he would not do that well with blacks ........they are just lock stock and barrel sold out to the democratic party. Exactly what the republicans don't want to see happen with Hispanic voters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted August 16, 2016 Report Share Posted August 16, 2016 That's also a large audience to see Trump fuck up in some way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted August 16, 2016 Report Share Posted August 16, 2016 WHOA: It’s no wonder Trump is losing with numbers like these! I just don’t get this. Every major 2016 presidential campaign has spent more money on TV ads than Trump! Bradd Jaffy ✔ @BraddJaffy Total ad spending: Clinton campaign: $61,000,000 Jill Stein: $189,000 Gary Johnson: $15,000 Trump campaign: $0http://nbcnews.to/2aWpsjt 8:44 AM - 16 Aug 2016 Exactly two months ago, Hillary Clinton’s campaign went up with its first general election TV ads in battleground states, and in that time it has spent $61 million over the airwaves, while pro-Clinton outside groups have chipped in an additional $43 million. That’s a combined $104 million in total ad spending for Team Clinton. But in that same time frame, Donald Trump’s campaign still hasn’t spent a single cent on a general-election ad, with two pro-Trump outside groups coming to the rescue with $12.4 million over the airwaves. That’s a nearly 9-to-1 advantage in ad spending. Oh, and get this: The Green Party’s Jill Stein ($189,000) and Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson ($15,000) have spent more on ads than the Trump campaign ($0) in this general election. What in the world is Trump doing? He’s way down in the polls and hasn’t spent a dime on TV ads? It’s like he doesn’t want to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted August 16, 2016 Report Share Posted August 16, 2016 https://www.trumpforpresidentbobblehead.com/products/hillary-for-prison-bobblehead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted August 16, 2016 Report Share Posted August 16, 2016 He could be loading up his spending for a massive late push. It could work. He just cant say one more stupid thing between now and nov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted August 16, 2016 Report Share Posted August 16, 2016 BTW, I was at the theatre last week and saw a Gary Johnson shirt. Like, for real. Probably was him, can't imagine there are too many supporters out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted August 16, 2016 Report Share Posted August 16, 2016 He could be loading up his spending for a massive late push. It could work. He just cant say one more stupid thing between now and nov I saw it work locally once for a judge. The dems screwed over the long time incumbent democrat judge for a new guy. The incumbent judge then switched from democrat to independent. The new democrat guy spent lots of money on advertising in the summer and the incumbent judge didn't spend anything. I accidentally got hold of an internal memo that was mistakenly placed in a file sent to my office from the prosecutors office. They had internal polling showing the new guy running for judge winning by a landslide and the memo was pretty much about measuring for the drapes. Then in October the incumbent judge running as an independent put on an advertising blitz and ended up winning the race easily. Not sure if this would work for a presidential election on a national level though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoorta Posted August 16, 2016 Report Share Posted August 16, 2016 Trump polls are so BAD, Hillary SuperPAC is moving ad spending from battleground states!! The Trumpsplosion continues rolling on, as a Hillary SuperPAC has announced that it is suspending ad buys in battleground states because the polls are so much in their favor. There is no way that Trump can win the presidency without snatching up Pennsylvania, but Hillary backers are so sure she’s going to win there that they’re shifting away spending. This has all the look of a disaster landslide, but Trump (and some of his supporters) are blissfully ignoring it all… Yep, there's serious D-Nile in the Trump camp. WHOA: It’s no wonder Trump is losing with numbers like these! I just don’t get this. Every major 2016 presidential campaign has spent more money on TV ads than Trump! Bradd Jaffy ✔ @BraddJaffy Total ad spending: Clinton campaign: $61,000,000 Jill Stein: $189,000 Gary Johnson: $15,000 Trump campaign: $0 http://nbcnews.to/2aWpsjt 8:44 AM - 16 Aug 2016 Exactly two months ago, Hillary Clinton’s campaign went up with its first general election TV ads in battleground states, and in that time it has spent $61 million over the airwaves, while pro-Clinton outside groups have chipped in an additional $43 million. That’s a combined $104 million in total ad spending for Team Clinton. But in that same time frame, Donald Trump’s campaign still hasn’t spent a single cent on a general-election ad, with two pro-Trump outside groups coming to the rescue with $12.4 million over the airwaves. That’s a nearly 9-to-1 advantage in ad spending. Oh, and get this: The Green Party’s Jill Stein ($189,000) and Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson ($15,000) have spent more on ads than the Trump campaign ($0) in this general election. What in the world is Trump doing? He’s way down in the polls and hasn’t spent a dime on TV ads? It’s like he doesn’t want to win. Yup here in SW Ohio I've seen dozens of ads Hillary bashing Trump & that's pretty easy to do. If Donald thinks he's got so many of his silent minions locked up for November he doesn't have to buy TV time- he's dead wrong. As I mentioned- Trump and the RNC probably aren't getting 1\10 the contributions they usually get. I pointed out many of the big $$$ contributors have already written Trump off as a lost cause, and are shifting support to the down tickets. Hell's bells, it should be damn obvious by now a major portion of Republicans are taking a hard look seeing what happened in the primary- and asking themselves- how in the hell did we let this happen? The Force is Strong with # Never Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted August 16, 2016 Report Share Posted August 16, 2016 Trump benefited the most with a field of 17 candidates running in the republican primaries. He was probably the worst of the 17 in terms of winning the general election with the highest negatives with women, Hispanics, blacks and millennials. How can you win a general election with those kind of sky high negatives and there was concern if he won the nomination (from those who follow politics) he might get blown out in the general election. He hasn't done much to help himself improve with those demographics either since locking up the nomination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted August 16, 2016 Report Share Posted August 16, 2016 He needs to spend money, above all. He has a decent amount on reserve - needs to get on TV. How much more can he be on TV? But agree ads are needed to construct a message. His teleprompter speeches simple are not cutting it. They are not well delivered. Comparisons to "POW" style statements aren't all that fair afield. He seems constrained. But even polished ads won't withstand a continuing flow of undisciplined comments his base seems to draw out of him at rallies. The dems playbook is to campaign early and try to define the opposition before they can define themselves. Trump campaign has silently stood by and watched the dems do this for months now without responding. Very true, but in a normal campaign the GOP would race to do the same. Prime example was John Kerry in 2004. His phone was still warm from W calling to congratulate him on his nomination when "swift-boating" him was set in motion. And it worked... Some of the delay may be due to Trump, but some may be due to a belief that HRC's baggage would drag her down. You can only "define" an unknown candidate. In this race that is Trump. HRC may be the most known candidate ever. Are any pro-Trump PACs running ads in Ohio? Saw a few here a while ago, but nothing recently. Not too surprising as TX is not exactly a battleground state. I don't think the polls are wrong but we are still in mid August and we have the debates yet. Also I think there is a good chance Wiki Leaks has more to come with Clinton's emails and Clinton's unpopularity even among many democrats should help Trump. The demographics though are terrible for Trump among blacks,Hispanics,women and young people.....really bad Completely agree with your assessment. The "millennials" stats that just came out surprised me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted August 16, 2016 Report Share Posted August 16, 2016 Trump did not have to spend to win the nomination. Seems convinced the same can be true of the general. BTW, I was at the theatre last week and saw a Gary Johnson shirt. Like, for real. Probably was him, can't imagine there are too many supporters out there. Don't know about UK, but here he is polling around double digits and in a few was threatening the 15% threshold to get him in the debates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted August 16, 2016 Report Share Posted August 16, 2016 Trump didn’t really spend that much of his own money. According to CNN Money in early March, Trump had only spent 250,000 of his own money while ‘loaning’ his campaign the rest. This allows him to pay himself back for the rest with campaign funds he’s raised, which I’m sure he fully intends to do, especially if he loses. Perhaps that’s why Trump hasn’t spent any money he’s raised on ads yet? Maybe he wants to make sure he has enough of the money he’s raised to pay himself back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.