Polls: Fiorina even with Trump in presidential race at 22% among debate watchers

Bush came out of the GATE slow

Might depend on when you call the starting gate.

Go here and scroll down to the trend lines. You'll see A) The early high numbers track name ID, the ones you mention are up there; and
B) Bush begins polling high late 2014. Hopefully, we'll agree that the it's a stretch to say the primary "began" earlier than this at least.

I really don't think you are arguing that name ID is NOT important early on in a race with a large field where there is a disparity in it. You could be arguing that, but it's always been that way and as close to proven as anything in political horseraces.

Trump had COMPLETELY flipped his unfavorables to 60-30 favorable

I'd be interested in seeing that one or ones. Please link if you don't mind.

You surely aren't this thick to think the "not" vote is important. The game is delegates.

Then why are you even talking about polling? Because we use it as a a limited predictive tool of primary voting. Of course ground game and delegate-rules, ballot access are where the rubber meets the road.

If you divide the "nots" among six people, let alone 12, many will be lucky to get one or two. But the winner, especially the way some of the states are structured, gets not only his own delegates but every county where he wins as well. (Did you know that?)

Of course. You may not know I made the same basic split-point to you in a prior post: "it may be enough to win the primary - if the vote stays split on "not-Trump" candidate.

The best about our debate here, our interpretations and predictions, is that we will have a result. Wish we could bet some FReepbucks on it.

Thanks for your reply.

Just so my position is clear.

Name ID≠Supports for President in a poll response≠Goes to the poll and votes for.

Favorability rating≠Supports for President in a poll response≠Goes to the poll and votes for.

Name ID+favorability≠Supports for President in a poll response≠Goes to the poll and votes for.

Name ID and Favorability not templates you lay on top and they always fit; either polls or election results. There's always judgement/experience/science/common sense involved in making sense, and trying to predict a political contest based on polling results. They are valuable indicators but not the only ones. And nothing is perfect in politics.

Here's what I think is obviously true:

Very low name ID=not gonna poll well in most circumstances unless all your opponents are in the same boat. Very low favorables=Better have a lot higher name ID than your opponents.

High ID + high favorables=should be doing well, but no guarantee.

Extremely high ID + extremely low favorables + people very solid in their opinion of you = You're pretty much stuck where you're at; better have something great to turn it around or a much superior ground game/GOTV in key precincts/primaries.

The latter is where I believe Trump is at.

Just beyond silly.

Rush talked about this yesterday. You guys have started to repeat the seven stages of grief by returning to denial, which you went through three months ago.

So please mark this down: Paul, Gilmore, Santorum, Jindal will be the next droppers, likely in 30 days.

Probably in December Bush, Christie, Graham drop. Huck and Rubio have money to hang to the first few primaries. Then Huck drops. Bush's money goes to Rubio. Cruz, as per prior deal with Trump, hangs to the end yet never comes in anywhere above #3.

Carson comes in #2 in first round of primaries, causing Fiorina out. Rubio and Carson battle for #2 through Super Tues, and maybe one wins a primary. Irrelevant, because Trump has piled up close to half the delegates by Super Tues to Rubio or Carson's 50 (5:1). At that point either Carson drops or meets with Trump, gets HHS or veep, then drops. Cruz is held in reserve as veep or AG, but really as USSC when Ginzy croaks.

Trump locks up nomination by late spring. Can't predict if Rubio/Fiorina go 3d party but won't matter. Trump wins with 4-6% of vote including highest % of black vote in 21st century (10-12%).

I think amateur psychoanalysis would be considered an ad hominem argument. I’m not into that. I understand this is something you feel strongly about.

I’m not emotional about this discussion. I’m not hoping to make a “not-electable” argument for Trump because I don’t like him as a candidate.

On the contrary, one of the reasons I don’t support him is he’s unelectable. I see the facts and history as quite supportive of my position; no emotional attachment required.

I do appreciate your six month detailed prediction. Gutsy this early out. It will be interesting to see how well you did.

Here’s mine: Trump won’t make it to Spring.

Thanks for your reply.

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.