Monday, August 29, 2016

Non-hate filled post...

I got a message last night from Roger suggesting that he has a new post worthy of discussion. He called it a non-hate filled post. The post is called "Is Trump out of Time", which I read this morning. So I decided to humor our resident liberal with some discussion. Let's start with the first line:
More than 68%  of Americans have a negative view of Donald Trump.  Clinton is approximately 43%, and her negative opinions have been going down per RCP.
Both statistics are wrong. The 68% is linked to the Huffington Post which shows his unfavorables at 60.6% not 68%. Clinton's unfavorables according to the Huffington Post are at 55.1% not 43%. Roger would like us to believe that Trump's unfavorables are 25 points higher than Clintons. In fact the difference is less than 6%.  Always good to start off a serious analytical post with incorrect data. Gives people an idea of what to expect moving forward.

Secondly Roger cites a poll. (One poll)
In a survey of voters, by Quinnipac University   90 percent of likely voters have already made up their mind about the presidential race and are unlikely to change.
This is the only four way poll released since August 7th that shows the race at more than five points. Roger could have quoted from Bloomberg, Zogby, Pew, ARG, Survey Monkey, YouGov, Rasmussen, Ipsos, Gravis, UPI/Voter, Morning Consult, or the LA Times. All pollsters that show the race within five points, most of them show it within the margin of error, and two of those pollsters have released polls showing Trump in the lead. Instead, Roger chose the poll that shows the best numbers for Clinton to argue that the election is slipping away... and seems to pretend that none of the other dozen or so polls are relevant.

Roger moves on to his in depth analysis:
Recent efforts to muddle the GOP nominee’s hard-line positions on immigration has been a mess. He has made comments then retracted them then does it over and over again.
As Karl Rove suggested very recently. The Trump suggestion that there would be wiggle room on whether or not you can round up 11 million illegals and deport them is nothing new. In fact, Rove provided quotes that go back months, where Trump has suggested similar flexibility on the subject during the GOP nomination battle.

Roger provides no quotes, does no research, and probably didn't put much thought into this. Likely he simply repeated something he read or heard from one of his favorite liberal pundits. Because it came from the left, Roger accepted it to be gospel. Most pundits agree that it's in Trump's best interests to soften his stance on immigration. He won't lose the hardliners on immigration to Clinton or Johnson, and he may gain moderates by showing a softer side.

Roger then moves on to quote one of the most biased liberal rags currently in existence. The Washington Post (with no link).
"Hillary Clinton is methodically preparing for the presidential debates as a veteran lawyer would approach her biggest trial. She pores over briefing books thick with policy arcana and opposition research. She internalizes tips from the most seasoned debate coaches in her party. And she rehearses, over and over again, to perfect the pacing and substance of her presentation. 
Donald Trump is taking a different approach. He summons his informal band of counselors — including former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, talk-radio host Laura Ingraham and ousted Fox News Channel chairman Roger Ailes — to his New Jersey golf course for Sunday chats. Over bacon cheeseburgers, hot dogs and glasses of Coca-Cola, they test out zingers and chew over ways to refine the Republican nominee’s pitch.
First of all, it's been said that Trump has been not only prepping for the debates, but that mocked debates are planned (if not already been happening). Laura Ingraham has been involved because she is supposedly playing the part of Hillary Clinton.

That being said, Debates have always been more about style than substance. From Ronald Reagan's famous "zinger",  to Al Gore's heavy sighs, to Marco Rubio repeating the same lines several times, the things people remember about debates are not the arcane policy details. People remember the moments.

With every passing day, the window closes. Can the most unpopular candidate in history, change enough minds in the swing states, often by 5% to 10% in ten weeks? If he does, it will be historic.
Roger once again, rolls out the tired disproven washed up concept that no candidates have ever come from being down on Labor day to winning the oval office. Again, Roger wants to pretend that Ronald Reagan and George W Bush never became President. Both were two term Presidents, and both were arguably in similar or worse shape in late August against their opponents.

Recap: This is a wonderful non-hate filled posts where we learned several things:
  • Quinnipiac is the only pollster to release a poll recently.
  • Trump's negative ratings are 25 points worse than Clinton's (in Roger's mind).
  • Ronald Reagan and George W Bush (two of our last five Presidents) made historic comebacks of epic proportion that may never be duplicated. 
But the real bottom line to the analysis provided by Roger, was that it was entirely one sided. He neither acknowledged or addressed Clinton's own problems (which are many and not going away). He neither acknowledged or addressed that the polls are closing (not widening). He neither acknowledged or addressed any of the recent positive improvement in the Trump message and the Trump brand (something all but the most die-hard Trump haters acknowledge).

He "only" sees what he wants to see and only allows for analysis that is favorable to his predisposed opinion. It's classic bias confirmation along with more cognitive dissonance. But that is simply my opinion. Of course, I encourage you to read it and come to your own conclusions.


rrb said...

It's classic bias confirmation along with more cognitive dissonance.

don't forget invincible ignorance.

in other words ol' rog has hit the trifecta.

Commonsense said...

It certainly wasn't analysis.

In my view, Trump's path to victory will be difficult but not impossible.

I'm still struck by the fact that despite all the money Hillary is spending to put him away, Trump keeps creeping closer.

Hillary is deeply unpopular and has shown to be incompetent as well as corrupt.

To my mind she's the more dangerous candidate.

Roger Amick said...

The separation of popularity is 10.1%, not 6.

I cited an out of date number, but so are you.

And again, to close the gap, he must not make any mistakes.

Trump is no Reagan. Reagan was sane. I know that you hate that, but in your heart, you are worried. But you won't admit it.

Roger Amick said...

26.6 Trump

10.1 Clinton

16.5% difference in unpopular number.

C.H. Truth said...

Roger -

RCP shows Hillary at 53.1% unfavorable.
RCP shows Trump at 61.0% unfavorable.

That's 7.9% difference, not 10.

That being said..

You linked Huffington Post - not RCP.
Huffington post shows it at just under 6%.


And Roger... why don't you tell us when (if ever) Trump was actually at 68% unfavorable? Since you are claiming that the numbers somehow changed between when you posted it, and today?

C.H. Truth said...

Also, Roger...

Where did you get the number that Clinton's unfavorables were approximately 43%? They are at 55% and 53% respectively at HP and RCP.

C.H. Truth said...

One other Question, Roger?

Why did you add a CNN poll from July to your post yesterday? You even copied and pasted the July dates into the post?

Are you confused by what month it is?
(Hint, it will be September later this week).

Roger Amick said...

The CNN poll was on their front page, I assumed it was current. We know what happens when you assume something without verifying it. I'm not perfect, I leave that to you.

Myballs said...

Here come the Trump ad buys.

Meanwhile Hillary looks for her next diversionary appearance. Maybe she can show her toughness by killing a spider.

C.H. Truth said...

Roger -

CNN did not put a July poll on the front page of their CNN website. One of your liberal bloggers might have done so by accident. But not CNN.

rrb said...

And Roger... why don't you tell us when (if ever) Trump was actually at 68% unfavorable?

politico ran a hit piece on 6/17 citing a bloomberg poll from march that had trump at 68% unfavorable.

"The numbers were similar in a Bloomberg Politics poll: Trump’s favorable rating is just 31 percent, with 66 percent viewing him unfavorably. That’s only marginally better than in March, when 29 percent viewed Trump favorably, and 68 percent had an unfavorable opinion."

there's rogers inspiration.

KD, Breathless HB said...

Remember when Hillary fell, got a concussion and those big granny sun glasses came out because the light of day hurt her eyes,,,, well the big glasses are back along with some new FAT clothing, looks like my grandmother used to in her final days on earth, not good optics at all.

Note, On HB's child side blog, He took issue with Trump saying that 58 % of black youths are unemployed, so I gave HB some rope, yep , you know what he did with it.

I gave him a quote in which Bernie Sanders made a very similar claim, only Bernie put it at 51 %.

When I asked HB:
" HB, do tell , what do you put the black youth unemployment rate at, after 8 years of nothing but full blown unrestrained Progressivism (aka Alt-Left) ?

(place answer here) ____ % unemployed

9:56 AM August 29th, 2016

So over 26 hours later still no facts from HB, IF FACT he deleted my question from his blog twice.

Roger Amick said...

No CH. The CNN poll was from the front page of the website. I didn't get it elsewhere.

FYI, I deleted two off topic posts from K'putz.

You do that too.

C.H. Truth said...

Roger - I was on CNN yesterday afternoon, as I made my rounds. I didn't see any indications of any polls being reported, because quite obviously there were no new polls to be reported.

What you want us all to believe is that it was CNN who screwed up.

Not Roger the blogger?

Roger Amick said...

I was using my kindle. It gets a different view.

C.H. Truth said...

I was using my kindle. It gets a different view.

You might want to try this thing called "refreshing the page".

KD, HB, light headed Alt-Leftist said...

HB, I am not at all surprised by your actions on my question, it is typical ALT-Left behavior, it goes like this.

A fact is stated, your rant that it is not a fact because Trump said it, then I give you the basic same fact in the voice of some one on your team, in this case, Bernie stating that black youth unemployment was at the time at 51 %.

You then state that he too is lying, because by now you have to support the your first ALT-Leftist Opinion, that trump is wrong, oh, and now too is Bernie. Still you don't post any facts just breathless ALT-Leftist jumping up and down fit throwing.

Then when ask to supply what you believe the actual rate is, because you don't believe they are right, yet, still waiting on your response with your source as to what you think that rate is.

" HB, do tell , what do you put the black youth unemployment rate at, after 8 years of nothing but full blown unrestrained Progressivism (aka Alt-Left) ?

(place answer here) ____ % unemployed

Standing question ,,,,, in what three area's has O'Hillary brought the USA together?

Hillary still MIA from Louisiana.

C.H. Truth said...

Actually when Bernie Sanders used the 51% rate...

Polifact rated it "mostly true".

"Since it’s reasonable to assume that dropouts have an even higher unemployment rate than high-school graduates, the figure for "young people who have graduated high school or dropped out of high school," as he put it, is probably even higher than 51 percent, since that figure includes only high school graduates.

All in all, economists agreed that Sanders had a point despite his problems with terminology."

KD, Correcting HB Daily said...

HB, posted on the kiddy blog that he believes it to be around 19%. Where he got that number I do not know, it surely was NOT BLS. BLS, reported :
Not Sure what BS you *HB* posted but the below numbers are right off of the BLS site. Unemployment broken down by Age/Race.

16 to 19 years
31.5 %

16 to 17 years
33.7 %

18 to 19 years
30.3 %

It is called the E-16 Report.

wphamilton said...

Clinton has the worst negatives in history, ahead of only Trump. Because of this fact alone I have no confidence in any poll that filters for "likely voters". There is no precedent; we have no clue about who is likely to vote, nor why. Yet all of these polls are predicated on historical responses to traditional candidates (ie, someone who people actually support and vote for).

I wouldn't be surprised if Clinton's polling lead turns out to be fictional. I'm picking up on a lot of discontent down at the street level and I don't think the pollsters have figured out how to account for that yet. If there is a protest vote for example, that's going to Trump or third party but certainly not Clinton.

Here's a specific that makes me uneasy about these polls. Working class whites has to be the single largest demographic of potential voters, right? 44% of the 2012 vote. This vote usually splits about evenly if I'm not mistaken, but I think that they are being drawn to Trump. I'm not speaking to racism, but to the fact that their concerns relate with a lot of what Trump's been flinging out there. To be blunt, three or four percent of that demographic, if overlooked in current analysis, by itself puts Trump equal or even over the top.