Posted on 09/15/2015 9:51:24 AM PDT by jimbo123
Fivethirtyeight.com founder Nate Silver said that GOP presidential candidates Donald Trump and Dr. Ben Carson have a “maybe about 5%” chance of winning the nomination on Monday’s broadcast of CNN’s “AC360.”
Silver put Trump’s and Carson’s chances of winning the nomination at “maybe about 5% each, somewhere around there.” Silver explained, “there are a of couple things to think about. One is that if you look back at history, you’ve never seen candidates like Donald Trump certainly, or Ben Carson win a party nomination, and secondly, if you look at the polling a lot of times, a candidate leading the polls now, mid-September didn’t win the nomination, didn’t even come close. So, if you look four years ago, Rick Perry was in the midst of a surge right now, and eight years ago on the Democratic side, you had Howard Dean — or 12 years ago, rather, Howard Dean was surging, Hillary Clinton was still way ahead of Barack Obama in 2008. Rudy Giuliani was leading the polls in 2008. I think people — there’s so much interest in this election, in this campaign, people forget that polls five months before Iowa, historically, have told you very, very little.”
-snip-
Silver added that an establishment candidate was “probably” going to be the nominee.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
I don’t think it’s really that unique. The most recent examples to look at would be cases of the incumbent party vacating the seat, so 2008, 2000, and 1988. What seems to happen is that the opposition entertains more “unorthodox” candidates before settling on the consensus nominee. In 1988 Jesse Jackson was making a lot of noise for the D’s; in 2000 McCain was the darling of many conservatives because of the “straight talk”, issues be damned. Obama was a bit different as he was not the favorite of the establishment, but he was far from an outsider - the best comparison for him would probably be like a Rubio. (At least as how the establishment relates to him. I fully understand how most people around here feel about him, but that’s not really the point.)
Bush has at least a 95% chance of getting (not “winning”) the nomination, no matter what his poll numbers now or ever.
Remember the “good old days” when the front runners were Hillary and Jeb?
Hehehe
His logic is flawed. How can his prediction be accurate if it is a unique situation?
The take away line is “..if you look back at history..” appearing as early as the fourth line.
That is possibly the problem with TRump opponents. They are sitting on history, hoping against hope, that history will give them comfort and prove the eventual crush of Trump.
This no ordinary primary, is all I know. It looks like a movement. I hope we roll these naysayers.
Trump is helped by the number of traditional pols running in the race who are splitting up the traditional pol vote.I think there is a hunger out there this year for an outsider and basically he being the most celebrated outsider he has the monopoly on the outsider vote while those other guys have to split up the traditional pol vote.Perhaps when the field gets whittled down to 1 or 2 traditional pols vs Trump, the race will be more competitive. Reminds me of celebrity outsider Schwartznegger winning the governorship in California.
How EXACTLY is the 2016 "unprecedented"?
What is actually different in this election other than the fact that many who usually voting for the GOP are supporting a populist?
What issues are "unprecedented" in this election?
In EVERY presidential election candidates some niche to campaign on, Trump's happens to be immigration. The winner will typically NOT deliver on his promise (ask Obama why we're still fighting in the Middle East), but it doesn't matter because something else will come along and they will either do a good job with it or they won't.
Whether you support Trump or not, the fact remains that he won't be able to campaign on immigration and nothing else, people will lose interest.
Silver does make one good point, twelve years ago it looked like Howard Dean had it locked up on the eve of the Iowa Caucus and his campaigned collapsed almost overnight. The way the primaries are set up now, a candidate MUST win Iowa or New Hampshire to have a real shot and realistically they need to win both. One mistake in either of those states dooms a candidate.
Given the large number of candidates, isn’t that like saying that at this early point, it’s just a toss-up?
Oh for Pete's sake! You may as well ask for a proof for the law of identity.
You can cite tangential similarities to your heart's content, but Trump's "shut-out" strategy seems to be working out just fine, despite Chicken Littles aspiring to Cassandra status.
So, it's different because Trump is a populist?
You can cite tangential similarities to your heart's content, but Trump's "shut-out" strategy seems to be working out just fine,
Howard Dean could have said the same thing, so could Rudy "I was there on 9/11" Giuliani.
Not credibly.
So, it's different because Trump is a populist?
No. It's different because Trump is different.
Why do all those who cite Rick Perry ignore the manifestly obvious differences?
Herman Cain is another (recent) example of how a candidate imploded. He was moderately successful in the polls and his 999 ideas had some merit and then
BOOM!
(bimbo eruptions)
The fact is that’s it’s too early to predict a winner. Anything can happen between today and election day.
I heard Herman Cain answer a question about the black community. No I don’t remember the exact question or who was asking but Cains answer was something like, “well yes I will have to help the black folks first. “
Maybe that had something to do with his fall.
Sorry.
The fact is that it’s too early to predict a winner. Anything can happen between today and election day.
Really? Dean and Giuliani couldn't have made credible claims that they were the front runner?
No. It's different because Trump is different.
How? Be precise because otherwise it just sounds like Chris Matthews getting a "thrill up his leg" from Obama.
Why do all those who cite Rick Perry ignore the manifestly obvious differences?
I never cited Rick Perry, so I don't know.
Yes he was, and he based it on looking at polls!
But now he is ignoring the polls!
Let’s all try to remember that election day is over a year away. Kristol is making threats, Beck is having a psychotic break and it’s only 9/15/15.
Perot had problems.
1. too short. (Trump is a foot taller)
2. High pitched nasal voice with southern twang.
3. He almost never smiled!
4. He dropped out of the race! Then rejoined the race.
5. He looked like a used car salesman.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.