The GOP is in trouble...

[lockedout]

So the more education you have, the more democrat you are?

I didn't say that you did.

[Vanyali]

Okay, well it also makes room to believe the credibility of the poll is non-existent. I don't know anyone that creates an argument and at the end basically says "I think, this info could be wrong due to biased info".

Liability laws. Dumb, but there ya go.

It's pretty well known that you can fuck polls by your questioning -

"Would you rather vote for Trump or a criminal politician" --> Trump getting lots of votes over Hillary
"Would you rather vote for Hillary or a bankrupt businessman" --> Hillary getting lots of votes over Trump.

That's why looking at the wording of polls is super important, because they're not as blatant as those examples, but are still loaded.

[Deleted]

What if trump actually wins the vote because people dislike the establishment that much?

[akris15]

Liability laws. Dumb, but there ya go.

It's pretty well known that you can fuck polls by your questioning -

"Would you rather vote for Trump or a criminal politician" --> Trump getting lots of votes over Hillary
"Would you rather vote for Hillary of a bankrupt businessman" --> Hillary getting lots of votes over Trump.

That's why looking at the wording of polls is super important, because they're not as blatant as those examples, but are still loaded.

Exactly which is why I am being critical of that Rasmussen poll today. Instead of saying unknown third party candidate and replaced it with a name (Jill Stein) then we could actually figure out if Clinton is having a problem with her base. For example, if that 16% is Jill Stein then Clinton needs to pander to the Bernie voters and go left. If they actually said Stein but she received much less votes (which as a 3rd party candidate she would historically) where would that difference in votes go? Clinton, Trump or just pass on the election? Like when you introduce an unspecific variable such as that (like are they saying a liberal 3rd party or a conservative 3rd party) it hard to get a clear picture past neither side like the candidates.

[Eliseus]

Liability laws. Dumb, but there ya go.

It's pretty well known that you can fuck polls by your questioning -

"Would you rather vote for Trump or a criminal politician" --> Trump getting lots of votes over Hillary
"Would you rather vote for Hillary of a bankrupt businessman" --> Hillary getting lots of votes over Trump.

That's why looking at the wording of polls is super important, because they're not as blatant as those examples, but are still loaded.

I'm not stating this is an accurate representation or not (not saying you are saying that either, just talking). I just have a problem with polls like this because they are trying to represent 318million people based off this. I strongly believe statistics can give an accurate representation of something, but logically I have to process how accurate a representation is of this size. Law of large numbers after all.

[TZucchini]

Gotta' love the people who bring this up. If Clinton wants to run for election, she should be fair game to political attacks.

The fact people would possibly sympathize with her because she has a vagina is utterly stupid.

I'm not saying that I agree with the sentiment, but it absolutely exists. Did you watch the debate when Bernie said "Excuse me, I'm talking."

Whether or not it's fair, Trump needs to be careful.

[lockedout]

I'm not saying that I agree with the sentiment, but it absolutely exists. Did you want the debate when Bernie said "Excuse me, I'm talking."

Whether or not it's fair, Trump needs to be careful.

The last thing Trump needs to do is be careful.

[TZucchini]

The more democrat you are the more you don't like the GOP, news at 11.

This response makes no sense. Not terribly surprised.

- - - Updated - - -

The last thing Trump needs to do is be careful.

I should have been more specific. If Trump wants to win the general election, he needs to be careful.

[FrothyMug]

I only read a couple of pages of responses, but I felt I had to interject in the middle of this liberal circlejerk of a thread. Most of you have no idea why the GOP is in trouble; you only know of what your usual sources tell you.

The GOP is in trouble because it's actually abandoned its true conservative voter base. The "establishment" Republican party has been ignoring its constituency for the last several years, instead choosing to pander to whatever groups will supposedly keep them in power and keep the political influence and money flowing into the right pockets Rather than stand up for the values of its voter base, it relies on either lethargy or "cutting deals" to benefit the pocketbooks of the party's most influential figures.

Trump and his supporters represent a simple disgust and fury held by many citizens, not just Republican voters. Cruz promotes a different angle that less relies on emotion, and more on returning to the basics of conservatism as the answer to our current problems. However, the party has begun to cleave between these two groups of supporters. If either candidate wins the general election, there will definitely be a massive shift in party structure and priority. I'm both eager and apprehensive as to what the future brings. There's basically no knowing what the party will be like after a few years from now.

[Vanyali]

I'm not stating this is an accurate representation or not (not saying you are saying that either, just talking). I just have a problem with polls like this because they are trying to represent 318million people based off this. I strongly believe statistics can give an accurate representation of something, but logically I have to process how accurate a representation is of this size. Law of large numbers after all.

I believe for the US you only need ~2k people to get an accurate sample. The big thing would be making sure your polling is actually *random* and not pre-selected.

A lot of polls still (or did until recently) rely on landlines.. who has landlines? That's why you get "shocking" results that go against polls. one that includes cell phones will be a great deal more accurate, as most people have cell phones but not landlines.

Statistics is actually really funky. the number you need for any sort of representation is very low compared to actual population if you're looking at it from a "logical" perspective rather than a statistical one

[lockedout]

This response makes no sense. Not terribly surprised.

- - - Updated - - -



I should have been more specific. If Trump wants to win the general election, he needs to be careful.

The poll makes no sense.
Anyone trying to win the general election should tread lightly.
Anything else that Captain Obvious needs to be here to cosign or are you done?

[BuckSparkles]

The poll makes no sense.
Anyone trying to win the general election should tread lightly.
Anything else that Captain Obvious needs to be here to cosign or are you done?

Even as somebody who argues with 9-11 often, I would say you are being harsh. He does bring up a good point.

Clinton has the woman card. The media will abuse any direct attack on Clinton from Trump.

[TZucchini]

The poll makes no sense.

What is confusing to you? It's a survey to see how the general public views each party. It's broken down into demographics as well.

Anyone trying to win the general election should tread lightly.

You literally just said that Trump doesn't need to be careful.

[Eliseus]

I believe for the US you only need ~2k people to get an accurate sample. The big thing would be making sure your polling is actually *random* and not pre-selected.

A lot of polls still (or did until recently) rely on landlines.. who has landlines? That's why you get "shocking" results that go against polls. one that includes cell phones will be a great deal more accurate, as most people have cell phones but not landlines.

Statistics is actually really funky. the number you need for any sort of representation is very low compared to actual population if you're looking at it from a "logical" perspective rather than a statistical one

True, makes me also curios how the entire process worked. It seems they tried to create a randomness by at least getting a selection from every state, but what about after that? Also, can they leave messages for call backs? I skimmed the polled, may of missed this info.

[akris15]

True, makes me also curios how the entire process worked. It seems they tried to create a randomness by at least getting a selection from every state, but what about after that? Also, can they leave messages for call backs? I skimmed the polled, may of missed this info.

Some do have call backs, some don't. For example, SurveyUSA (who I considered the Gold standard in the polling survey game) is purely automated so they leave you a message and you can call back then take the poll at your leisure (within the time limit naturally).

SurveyUSA also has the best system in asking questions because they randomize the same question in 3 different ways to ensure there isn't a survey bias in how the question is stated.

[Eliseus]

Some do have call backs, some don't. For example, SurveyUSA (who I considered the Gold standard in the polling survey game) is purely automated so they leave you a message you can call back and take the poll at your leisure.

Now it's like we need a poll on how many people would callback to a poll and their political affiliation. XD

[truckboattruck]

that graph shows polarization
which any half awake person could tell you is happening

[Lenonis]

The GOP is in trouble because it's actually abandoned its true conservative voter base.

Ah yes, the "not conservative enough" people have arrived. It's so clear that the GOP base just wants a more conservative candidate which is why Cruz, easily the most conservative candidate, is winning the nomination handily.......oh wait.......

The GOP (as a party, not specific people) are in trouble for a few reasons.

1) They simply refuse to let go of the social conservatism which alienates an increasingly large segment of the voter base. Gays, blacks, hispanics, etc. avoid the GOP, often in huge numbers, because the GOP has rhetoric which is either perceived as awful or is actually awful to these minority groups. You also have to realize that in some cases GOP anti-minority policy will lose voters who sympathize with minorities -- the gay issue is probably the best. Poeple who have friends and family members who are gay will be hard pressed to justify pulling that GOP lever if they feel close to those gay people in their lives.

2) The obstructionism. Whether or not you agree with it, or agree it is happening the GOP is perceived as the party of "no". It started as a tactic to discredit the Democrats (Obama in particular) and it has started to backfire. People may not want government to be unleashed, but they certainly don't want it to do nothing -- often times to the determent to the population. I'm looking at you infrastructure.

3) The warmongering. This hits both parties, but the GOP is considered the pro-military party. There are a lot of people who are tired of the endless spending on the military. The fearmongering about the middle east gets harder and harder to justify as 9/11 slips further and further into memory. In a few years people will be of voting age who weren't even alive when 9/11 happened and are likely to be far more anti-war and anti-interventionist than the people who lived through that day.

4) The pandering to the rich. As the middle class shrinks and wages stagnate there is more and more of an uproar over the benefits the rich get -- both individuals and corporations. Trickle down economics and continued breaks for the wealthy haven't worked, and people want to know why we're still going down this economic road. This is probably the #1 reason why Sanders got as popular as he did -- he tapped into the frustration people have with a system they feel is rigged to keep them down at the benefit of the wealthy.

Now, if you want to argue with me about how right or wrong these are in fact, that's fine -- but my impression is these 4 items represent the majority of why the GOP is struggling to maintain power on the federal level. This election may very well be a horrible one for them -- they don't have a strong presidential candidate, they are highly vulnerable in the Senate this year. The lock-down of the house is likely untouchable but if there is a swing in turnout due to the GOP being unable to coalesce support behind Trump it's theoretically possible the house could go blue as well (but extremely unlikely -- would likely require a near historic loss).

There are a lot of people posting here who seem to live in opposite land who are ignoring the flat out facts on the table that polling and numbers are showing -- but it's definitely the GOP who is vulnerable this year, not the Dems.

I was rather hoping for a Cruz win for the primary -- just to finally show the people who claim the GOP just needs a candidate who is truly conservative to win that it isn't what the problem is, but that looks like it won't happen. Mark my words when Trump loses there will be a loud chiming of "he wasn't conservative enough" just like Romney and the GOP will again fail to learn their lesson.

[Damajin]

Who cares if it dies, it's one pillar holding up a leaky roof. Let it die.

[xChurch]

The GOP needs less Nixon and more Eisenhower.