Today's Snapshot: Who’s Winning the Presidential Campaign? Clinton/Rubio

[Book of Jeremiah]

Rubio does not resonate with the American people. Your poll is seriously flawed. This is not a horse race, Dante'.

Actually...this Presidential election cycle has way more in common with horse racing, and sporting events in general, that it does with American voters evaluating their interests, and finding out which candidate's platform most closely matches them.

Even if a registered Republican or Democrat found their interests better represented by a candidate from the other party, our "support your team" mentality wouldn't allow it.

Every American voter should be open to the concept of swing voting

Actually, if not mistaken, horse races at the finish line are decide by fractions of a second. So I'd say politican elections, especially for President have more in common with say a marathon where the winner's usually the winner by quite a bit.

Okay, that in mind..maybe not so much with the horse race analogy...or at least they way I characterized it.

But then, a landslide victory in the Presidential race is 53% 47%. From a numbers perspective, if you walked into a room that had 47 people, and then walked into another room with 53 people...they'd look very much the same

Rubio does not resonate with the American people. Your poll is seriously flawed. This is not a horse race, Dante'.

Actually...this Presidential election cycle has way more in common with horse racing, and sporting events in general, that it does with American voters evaluating their interests, and finding out which candidate's platform most closely matches them.

Even if a registered Republican or Democrat found their interests better represented by a candidate from the other party, our "support your team" mentality wouldn't allow it.

Every American voter should be open to the concept of swing voting

Actually, if not mistaken, horse races at the finish line are decide by fractions of a second. So I'd say politican elections, especially for President have more in common with say a marathon where the winner's usually the winner by quite a bit.

Usually they win by a large margin in the Electorial count, not popular vote.

The possibility that a president can lose the election, and win the popular vote...has only been something Republicans love since Bush beat Gore that way.

Before that...Republicans didn't know the difference between a constitutional republic and a democracy.

SOME Republicans perhaps. Not all. Do not forget that many Democrats do not know who the Vice - President is or who the SOS was. I've seen numerous videos of questionaires - one was asking Democrats who Reagan was and they had no idea. Very sad.

 

[toxicmedia]

The possibility that a president can lose the election, and win the popular vote...has only been something Republicans love since Bush beat Gore that way.

Before that...Republicans didn't know the difference between a constitutional republic and a democracy.

Good job spin doctor. I never said that. The reference was to winning by a large margin. Popular vote is usually fairly close percentagewise. Electorial votes, being an all or nothing proposition in most states, lends itself to large margins.

Further, liberals frequently confuse the terms constitutional republic and democracy far more often.

Shut it...

Everybody knows the difference between them now, but the fact remains that more American voters wanted Gore to be the President.

The day will come when conservative evangelicals will just be outnumbered. All the gerrymandering and the electoral college won't be able to save the GOP's asses

 

[toxicmedia]

Rubio does not resonate with the American people. Your poll is seriously flawed. This is not a horse race, Dante'.

Actually...this Presidential election cycle has way more in common with horse racing, and sporting events in general, that it does with American voters evaluating their interests, and finding out which candidate's platform most closely matches them.

Even if a registered Republican or Democrat found their interests better represented by a candidate from the other party, our "support your team" mentality wouldn't allow it.

Every American voter should be open to the concept of swing voting

Actually, if not mistaken, horse races at the finish line are decide by fractions of a second. So I'd say politican elections, especially for President have more in common with say a marathon where the winner's usually the winner by quite a bit.

Okay, that in mind..maybe not so much with the horse race analogy...or at least they way I characterized it.

But then, a landslide victory in the Presidential race is 53% 47%. From a numbers perspective, if you walked into a room that had 47 people, and then walked into another room with 53 people...they'd look very much the same

Rubio does not resonate with the American people. Your poll is seriously flawed. This is not a horse race, Dante'.

Actually...this Presidential election cycle has way more in common with horse racing, and sporting events in general, that it does with American voters evaluating their interests, and finding out which candidate's platform most closely matches them.

Even if a registered Republican or Democrat found their interests better represented by a candidate from the other party, our "support your team" mentality wouldn't allow it.

Every American voter should be open to the concept of swing voting

Actually, if not mistaken, horse races at the finish line are decide by fractions of a second. So I'd say politican elections, especially for President have more in common with say a marathon where the winner's usually the winner by quite a bit.

Usually they win by a large margin in the Electorial count, not popular vote.

The possibility that a president can lose the election, and win the popular vote...has only been something Republicans love since Bush beat Gore that way.

Before that...Republicans didn't know the difference between a constitutional republic and a democracy.

SOME Republicans perhaps. Not all. Do not forget that many Democrats do not know who the Vice - President is or who the SOS was. I've seen numerous videos of questionaires - one was asking Democrats who Reagan was and they had no idea. Very sad.

You're not really gullible enough to think Jesse Waters would ever show ignorant righties...are you?

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Meaningless analogy, especially the one that has Rubio winning. Whose predictions, the ones who keep predicting Trump will collapse at any minute?

If he converted to Catholicism (from Mormon religion) for a better edge it isn't working. Maybe he should run as a Baptist?

The possibility that a president can lose the election, and win the popular vote...has only been something Republicans love since Bush beat Gore that way.

Before that...Republicans didn't know the difference between a constitutional republic and a democracy.

Good job spin doctor. I never said that. The reference was to winning by a large margin. Popular vote is usually fairly close percentagewise. Electorial votes, being an all or nothing proposition in most states, lends itself to large margins.

Further, liberals frequently confuse the terms constitutional republic and democracy far more often.

Shut it...

Everybody knows the difference between them now, but the fact remains that more American voters wanted Gore to be the President.

The day will come when conservative evangelicals will just be outnumbered. All the gerrymandering and the electoral college won't be able to save the GOP's asses

Wrong. More people voted for Bush Jr. Not many more but more. And that is how he became President of the United States. As for conservative evangelicals? Worry about yourself and work out your own salvation. It will give you plenty to do. PLENTY.

 

[toxicmedia]

Meaningless analogy, especially the one that has Rubio winning. Whose predictions, the ones who keep predicting Trump will collapse at any minute?

If he converted to Catholicism (from Mormon religion) for a better edge it isn't working. Maybe he should run as a Baptist?

The possibility that a president can lose the election, and win the popular vote...has only been something Republicans love since Bush beat Gore that way.

Before that...Republicans didn't know the difference between a constitutional republic and a democracy.

Good job spin doctor. I never said that. The reference was to winning by a large margin. Popular vote is usually fairly close percentagewise. Electorial votes, being an all or nothing proposition in most states, lends itself to large margins.

Further, liberals frequently confuse the terms constitutional republic and democracy far more often.

Shut it...

Everybody knows the difference between them now, but the fact remains that more American voters wanted Gore to be the President.

The day will come when conservative evangelicals will just be outnumbered. All the gerrymandering and the electoral college won't be able to save the GOP's asses

Wrong. More people voted for Bush Jr. Not many more but more. And that is how he became President of the United States. As for conservative evangelicals? Worry about yourself and work out your own salvation. It will give you plenty to do. PLENTY.

I'm a Presbyterian, and I'm sure your passive aggressive little display is not well meant

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Actually I just read an article today that says he isn't. You're looking him as a default candidate but even then he isn't going to work out. He cannot even get the Hispanic vote, Dante'. Wake up.

You can't argue with the method, so you retreat into going out into left field?

Do you disagree with this statement: History suggests that each party’s eventual nominee will emerge from 2015 in one of the top two or three positions, as measured by endorsements, fund-raising and polling.

 

[saveliberty]

The possibility that a president can lose the election, and win the popular vote...has only been something Republicans love since Bush beat Gore that way.

Before that...Republicans didn't know the difference between a constitutional republic and a democracy.

Good job spin doctor. I never said that. The reference was to winning by a large margin. Popular vote is usually fairly close percentagewise. Electorial votes, being an all or nothing proposition in most states, lends itself to large margins.

Further, liberals frequently confuse the terms constitutional republic and democracy far more often.

Shut it...

Everybody knows the difference between them now, but the fact remains that more American voters wanted Gore to be the President.

The day will come when conservative evangelicals will just be outnumbered. All the gerrymandering and the electoral college won't be able to save the GOP's asses

Can't win a debate so you try to silence the opposition? Funny.

More people wanted Bush period.

Democrats gerrymander too, you sound like a whiner to me.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Right, I read an article about it today and they said Rubio is not it. So you can forget about him. He doesn't have a chance. The establishment is desperately trying to sell the idea but the people are not buying.

What are you disagreeing with and why? Be specific. Enough with some vague 'the Establishment' nonsense.

Here, we offer a scoreboard that totes up the factors that matter most, and we’ll update it every day for the remainder of the year. For all the imperfections in his campaign so far, Jeb Bush still leads the Republican field, albeit by a much smaller margin than Hillary Clinton leads the Democratic field.​

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Meaningless analogy, especially the one that has Rubio winning. Whose predictions, the ones who keep predicting Trump will collapse at any minute?

There you go again. Rubio is leading in the horse race using the parameters the Upshot is using. What are you offering to challenge or negate that?

?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I'm a Presbyterian, and I'm sure your passive aggressive little display is not well meant

Where do your American roots lie? My family helped to establish the Presbyterian Church in the American and Canadian colonies and provinces

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

...

can't notify you by pm

please desist from taking the thread off topic .

you should not be hijacking this thread

 

[S.J.]

Meaningless analogy, especially the one that has Rubio winning. Whose predictions, the ones who keep predicting Trump will collapse at any minute?

There you go again. Rubio is leading in the horse race using the parameters the Upshot is using. What are you offering to challenge or negate that?

?

The method is flawed. Rubio is near the bottom in almost every poll.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The horse race. It is interesting to see. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/presidential-candidates-dashboard.html

What’s NewMarco Rubio has taken a noticeable lead over Jeb Bush and other Republicans in the prediction markets. Ben Carson is now leading in the Iowa polls, pulling ahead of Donald Trump, who had been in first place since July.

History suggests that each party’s eventual nominee will emerge from 2015 in one of the top
two or three positions, as measured by endorsements, fund-raising and polling. UPDATED Oct. 25, 2015​

DataLab | FiveThirtyEight

Politics | FiveThirtyEight

Nate Silver | FiveThirtyEight

*BoT

*back on topic

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Meaningless analogy, especially the one that has Rubio winning. Whose predictions, the ones who keep predicting Trump will collapse at any minute?

There you go again. Rubio is leading in the horse race using the parameters the Upshot is using. What are you offering to challenge or negate that?

?

The method is flawed. Rubio is near the bottom in almost every poll.

The article and the quotes in the OP clearly state who is ahead in polls. What they add is other information to back up the claim that History suggests that each party’s eventual nominee will emerge from 2015 in one of the top two or three positions, as measured by endorsements, fund-raising and polling

what is flawed about that method? And is your method a cafeteria method of picking polls?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Can't win a debate so you try to silence the opposition? Funny.

More people wanted Bush period.

Democrats gerrymander too, you sound like a whiner to me.

please refrain from taking this thread off topic

 

[S.J.]

Meaningless analogy, especially the one that has Rubio winning. Whose predictions, the ones who keep predicting Trump will collapse at any minute?

There you go again. Rubio is leading in the horse race using the parameters the Upshot is using. What are you offering to challenge or negate that?

?

The method is flawed. Rubio is near the bottom in almost every poll.

The article and the quotes in the OP clearly state who is ahead in polls. What they add is other information to back up the claim that History suggests that each party’s eventual nominee will emerge from 2015 in one of the top two or three positions, as measured by endorsements, fund-raising and polling

what is flawed about that method? And is your method a cafeteria method of picking polls?

The method is outdated. It doesn't take into account the shift in the attitude of today's electorate. People are no longer following the media's lead in suggesting who they should vote for. These guys are basing their conclusions on PAST events that no longer apply. Example: The establishment has been funding and trying to bolster Bush's campaign and he's barely hanging on. His funding doesn't mean shit this time, so that indicator is useless now.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The method is outdated. It doesn't take into account the shift in the attitude of today's electorate. People are no longer following the media's lead in suggesting who they should vote for. These guys are basing their conclusions on PAST events that no longer apply. Example: The establishment has been funding and trying to bolster Bush's campaign and he's barely hanging on. His funding doesn't mean shit this time, so that indicator is useless now.

No longer apply? This early out in past election cycles we've seen almost the exact same situations.

What has changed is funding of campaigns. Citizens United and other cases.

Believing nothing is the same in this election cycle contradicted by past facts also. Rudy and others were widely popular this far out. Rudy who? Exactly

 

[S.J.]

The method is outdated. It doesn't take into account the shift in the attitude of today's electorate. People are no longer following the media's lead in suggesting who they should vote for. These guys are basing their conclusions on PAST events that no longer apply. Example: The establishment has been funding and trying to bolster Bush's campaign and he's barely hanging on. His funding doesn't mean shit this time, so that indicator is useless now.

No longer apply? This early out in past election cycles we've seen almost the exact same situations.

What has changed is funding of campaigns. Citizens United and other cases.

Believing nothing is the same in this election cycle contradicted by past facts also. Rudy and others were widely popular this far out. Rudy who? Exactly

Again, you're making your case by referring to "past election cycles". I'm looking at the fact that the electorate isn't following the media and establishment like sheep this time.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Again, you're making your case by referring to "past election cycles". I'm looking at the fact that the electorate isn't following the media and establishment like sheep this time.

As a matter of fact the electorate has yet to speak. You bash the media while allowing the media to set your narrative

 

[S.J.]

Again, you're making your case by referring to "past election cycles". I'm looking at the fact that the electorate isn't following the media and establishment like sheep this time.

As a matter of fact the electorate has yet to speak. You bash the media while allowing the media to set your narrative

You're right, the electorate has yet to speak, so how can you put any stock in their predictions? It's all a matter of speculation and opinion. I'm simply pointing out that IMO the attitude of the electorate is different this time and they've gotten wise to media manipulation, therefore the methods aren't going to apply in this election.
Another flaw I see in their method is the financial backing they talk about. Since Trump isn't using pac money, how can they accurately factor that in regarding him?