Posted on 12/15/2015 12:18:50 PM PST by GonzoII
So dominant is Hillary Clinton's polling in the presidential primaries, notes the press critic Howard Kurtz, that the media have essentially stopped paying attention to the Democratic race at all. The logic, for a media organization, is simple: Why lavish limited resources on a fait accompli? The Democrats, after all, have spoken. They are fully ready for (or perhaps fully resigned to) Hillary.
That's certainly not the case on the Republican side, where, we are told (ad nauseam), that the race is still "wide open." With "no clear frontrunner" on the GOP side, the contrast between the Republican and Democratic contests could not be clearer. It will be Hillary representing the Dems, and it could be just about anybody (well, maybe not anybody) who ends up leading the ticket for the GOP.
Yet are the races really all that different?
According to the two latest national polls, conducted as the furor over Trump's call for a temporary moratorium on Muslim migration reached a fever pitch, the real estate magnate leads the Republican field by either 23 or 27 points. Tuesday's Washington Post/ABC News poll has Trump with more than double the support of the second place finisher, Ted Cruz. Indeed, Trump's lead over his primary opponents is larger than both Ronald Reagan's was in the 1980 race, and George H. W Bush's was in the 1988 contest.
The latest national polls of the Democrats, meanwhile, show Secretary Clinton leading Bernie Sanders by a mere 20 or 19 points. And her support appears to be plateauing, while Trump's numbers are surging. All of which is to say, on a national level, Trump is clearly in a stronger position than Clinton is.
Looking at the crucial first two states, Clinton does appear stronger in Iowa than Trump. According to the latest polling averages, Trump is up by only one point in Iowa, whereas Clinton leads Sanders by more than 15. But Trump is in much better shape in New Hampshire. He's up by 16 points in the Granite State, while Clinton is clinging to a tenuous five point lead.
So, does this mean that Trump is a shoo-in for the Republican nomination? Hardly. He has a fight on his hands (good thing he's in such great shape) â but then again, by the same standard, Secretary Clinton does too. The media should behave accordingly.
Good thing the election isn’t being held today I guess.
I don't know. Based on a glance at some of the threads on FR in recent days, many conservatives are threatening to stay home rather than vote for Trump. He would have to overcome that, the MSM (which he is capable of doing), and the DEM voter fraud (which will be difficult).
I see a possible repeat of 2012 if it is Trump vs. Hillary. A weak (or weakened) DEM candidate winning over a GOP candidate that lost due to low conservative turnout.
And yet Trump is behind Clinton by an average of 5.8% in the last 5 polls. Just saying.
The DNC belief is the less you see of hear Hillary Clinton, the better.
Please look at my post #13 on this thread and tell me how the ABC poll shown in post #5 is accurate.
A caller asked Rush today if Trump would not have the ability to contest more than the traditional purple states and contend, basically. wherever there was a Republican governor. Rush admitted that he himself had been considering making that prediction.In analyzing electability, Rush noted that Hillary has been quiet lately, and therefore her poll numbers were up. Whenever she is vocal, tho . . .
I was reading A Time for Truth, by Ted Cruz, at the time - and Cruz described beating Dewhurst in the senate primary by running a commercial which accused Dewhurst of being the invisible man, unwilling to submit to grass roots questioning. Hillary could find herself facing the same sort of criticism in the General.
Mr Trump..are you Batman...Yes, I am...
One of the classic Trump moments
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/16/politics/donald-trump-iowa-state-fair/
Go Trump 2016!
You “shoo” the cat off the countertops and out the door, you “shoo” the flies away from the food, (ever heard of “Shoo-Fly Pie”?)
JMHO, YMMV
and thanks for the great visual!
And they were just as much against Reagan back then. Although the media was not nearly as sleazy.
At least now we have internet- can you imagine ONLY hearing ABC CBS and NBC??? And having to decide based on there info?
I think people were not as stupid back then either, now that I think about it.
My guess is that the 33-23-34 number was incorrect and should have been 33-33-34.
Trump’s lead is impressive, but we haven’t had a 14-17 candidate field before. So far, Trump has been getting a portion of each significant candidate falling out. If that continues, then it is game over once Trump gets above 50% (assuming polling translates into real votes, a significant “if”). We aren’t there yet.
I’ve run the percentages assuming that. It’s not possible unless the data is corrupted or made up.
LOL
Go Bobalu...
That would be something! It's going to be interesting next year.
Its like Trump said its not just him its a movement. I agree.
I don’t know about others, but here it’s whatever.
Man the sour grapes is strong with Crewz...
Exactly...
So would most men. For their ladies of course.
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.