Trump Is Doubling Down On A Losing Strategy

[CPUd]

For once I agree with you. Trump's latest speech, where he said he regretted saying a lot of stupid things before, might help him turn things around. Now if his supporters will follow along he might win.

It will bring his polling up some, but he needs to do it every day for the next few weeks.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Almost every poll that asks the question is showing the opposite to be true:


http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...lead-voters-doubt-trump-s-temperament-n631351

Almost every poll is following the defective metrics previously discussed (undersampled independents, oversampled Democrats, 'registered voters' instead of the more reliable 'likely voters,' no indice as to their real intent to vote, etc), thus the temperament answers cannot be trusted.

End of the day, who is more motivated to turn out to vote against a candidate--somebody who dislikes 'mean things' Trump said, or somebody who doesn't want Hillary to be appointing 3-4 Justices? Somebody who is vain about his wealth, or somebody who bumps off people? A new poll that more accurately reflects the turnout electorate shows Trump is ahead by six points:

Trump UP 6% in a new poll based upon a realistic voter turnout = 34% D, 33% R, 33% I… Trump (44%) vs. Hillary (38%)

Donald Trump with forty-four percent (44%) support to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s thirty-eight (38%).

The Survey, conducted August 13-17, was a sample of 1,405 likely voters, of which 475 were Democrats (34%), 462 were Republicans (33%), and 468 were Independent or Other (33%).

http://investmentwatchblog.com/trum...stic-voter-turnout-trump-wins-34-d-33-r-33-i/

 

[CPUd]

Almost every poll is following the defective metrics previously discussed (undersampled independents, oversampled Democrats, 'registered voters' instead of the more reliable 'likely voters,' no indice as to their real intent to vote, etc), thus the temperament answers cannot be trusted.

End of the day, who is more motivated to turn out to vote against a candidate--somebody who dislikes 'mean things' Trump said, or somebody who doesn't want Hillary to be appointing 3-4 Justices? Somebody who is vain about his wealth, or somebody who bumps off people? A new poll that more accurately reflects the turnout electorate shows Trump is ahead by six points:



http://investmentwatchblog.com/trum...stic-voter-turnout-trump-wins-34-d-33-r-33-i/

That poll you keep posting, you realize where it came from?

 

[Peace&Freedom]

That poll you keep posting, you realize where it came from?

This poll is different than the one done on 50,000 respondents, as this one was done with about 1500.

 

[adissa]

For once I agree with you. Trump's latest speech, where he said he regretted saying a lot of stupid things before, might help him turn things around. Now if his supporters will follow along he might win.

Are you ready to join us yet?

 

[CPUd]

This poll is different than the one done on 50,000 respondents, as this one was done with about 1500.

https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughTrum...posted_an_obviously_fake_poll_on_rthe_donald/

 

[Peace&Freedom]

https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughTrum...posted_an_obviously_fake_poll_on_rthe_donald/

I did previously identify the 50,000 survey as an 'amateur' poll. The second one is not necessarily fake. If the Daily Wire blog (referenced in two more well regarded sites, WRH and IWB) is another example of an amateur effort, it still begs the question as to why the defective samples are being used in the "professional" polls. All my points about those sampling issues stand. Are high-authority polls with false metrics superior to non-authoritative polls using true metrics?

 

[CPUd]

I did previously identify the 50,000 survey as an 'amateur' poll. The second one is not necessarily fake. If the Daily Wire blog (referenced in two more well regarded sites, WRH and IWB) is another example of an amateur effort, it still begs the question as to why the defective samples are being used in the "professional" polls. All my points about those sampling issues stand. Are high-authority polls with false metrics superior to non-authoritative polls using true metrics?

They're not "non-authoritative polls", they are made up by people trolling Trump supporters.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

They're not "non-authoritative polls", they are made up by people trolling Trump supporters.

If you believe that and want them set aside, fine. But if a 'real' poll incorporated the more representative independent sample of 40% of respondents, would the results be any different? SO TO REPEAT, verbatim, what about not setting aside the points made about the defects of most of the polls?:

Almost every poll is following the defective metrics previously discussed (undersampled independents, oversampled Democrats, 'registered voters' instead of the more reliable 'likely voters,' no indice as to their real intent to vote, etc)... End of the day, who is more motivated to turn out to vote against a candidate--somebody who dislikes 'mean things' Trump said, or somebody who doesn't want Hillary to be appointing 3-4 Justices? Somebody who is vain about his wealth, or somebody who bumps off people?

 

[CPUd]

If you believe that and want them set aside, fine. But if a 'real' poll incorporated the more representative independent sample of 40% of respondents, would the results be any different? SO TO REPEAT, verbatim, what about not setting aside the points made about the defects of most of the polls?:

Almost every poll is following the defective metrics previously discussed (undersampled independents, oversampled Democrats, 'registered voters' instead of the more reliable 'likely voters,' no indice as to their real intent to vote, etc)... End of the day, who is more motivated to turn out to vote against a candidate--somebody who dislikes 'mean things' Trump said, or somebody who doesn't want Hillary to be appointing 3-4 Justices? Somebody who is vain about his wealth, or somebody who bumps off people?

The data shows temperament outweighs the other factors.

 

[jmdrake]

Are you ready to join us yet?

Nope. If I was going to vote for the lesser of two evils I would have voted for McCain or Romney. Donald Trump supports eminent domain for private business and that's unforgivable. Plus he supporter Hillary longer than he opposed her. I'm voting for Castle in the general election. Trump will win my state anyway. The GOP could nominate a Pokemon and still win my state. I will tell you what you need to do to win though. That's cause I'm "that kind a guy" and I can't stand Hillary. Lay off attacking the Gold Star parents that shall not be named. Seriously. That was the stupidest thing Trump ever did and the stupidest thing his supporters continue to do. Who gives a flip if the mom wears a hijab and didn't say anything on stage? The Christian Bible says women should have their heads covered and not speak out in assemblies. Who cares if the father is an immigration lawyer? If we are to believe Donald Trump when he says he's not going to keep out all Muslims but wants "extreme vetting" for those who come in, that means more work (and money) for immigration lawyers. And as for what law is supreme? For me and my house Christian law is supreme over even the U.S. Constitution. If the Constitution were amended to say all people must bow down and worship a statue of George Washington would you do it? I wouldn't. So it doesn't bother me that a Muslim has the same personal feeling about Muslim law. As long as he doesn't advance that position through violence, he has every right to go to the ballot box and say "Sharia law means marriage is between a man and a woman so that's how I'm going to vote" as I do with regards to Christianity. (Trump, by the way, belongs to a liberal Christian sect that ordains lesbian ministers.)

Now, I just told you what not to do. Here is what you should do to win. Re-frame the debate. Why is the Goldstar family who shall not be named more famous that the families of the Benghazi victims? After all those family members spoke out against Hillary at the RNC. They are right now suing Hillary for libel. She lied to them, like she lied to the rest of the country, about what caused the attack on the consulate. But then she claimed she never said that, in effect making them liars. I can't think of their names and that shows how Trump supporters have utterly failed to carry the ball on this. Instead of attacking the Muslim Goldstar family, start pushing the case for the Benghazi families!

Also instead of talking about keeping the Muslim refugees out, point out the fact that Obama is not letting the Christian refugees in and ask the question "Is that fair?" Until you re-frame the debate to positions that Hillary cannot defend, you'll lose.

 

[jmdrake]

Almost every poll is following the defective metrics previously discussed (undersampled independents, oversampled Democrats, 'registered voters' instead of the more reliable 'likely voters,' no indice as to their real intent to vote, etc), thus the temperament answers cannot be trusted.

End of the day, who is more motivated to turn out to vote against a candidate--somebody who dislikes 'mean things' Trump said, or somebody who doesn't want Hillary to be appointing 3-4 Justices? Somebody who is vain about his wealth, or somebody who bumps off people? A new poll that more accurately reflects the turnout electorate shows Trump is ahead by six points:



http://investmentwatchblog.com/trum...stic-voter-turnout-trump-wins-34-d-33-r-33-i/

Trump could be ahead 6% in the popular vote and still lose by a landslide. I could care less how many republicans are motivated to turn out for Trump in states like Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi etc and "run up the score" where he's already going to win. What matters is what happens in states like Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia etc. Your poll doesn't address that so as far as I'm concerned it's worthless. And as for "mean things" vs "judicial appointments", if not for the stupid "mean things" Trump is having to walk back he would be ahead of Clinton. He's been his own worst enemy, treating a general election like a primary. In the primary Trump was able to get away with insulting every U.S. military prisoner of war ever in the history of this nation because people on the far right were enamored by what they think is his stance on immigration. (Most can't bring themselves to admit that Trump really supports touchback amnesty.) But the general electorate isn't as immigration focused at the republicans. So Trump "winning" on that issue doesn't carry nearly as much weight.

 

[RDM]

I am no fan of Bill Clinton, but the man is a freaking genius.
http://time.com/3986747/donald-trump-bill-clinton-phone-call/

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Trump could be ahead 6% in the popular vote and still lose by a landslide. I could care less how many republicans are motivated to turn out for Trump in states like Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi etc and "run up the score" where he's already going to win. What matters is what happens in states like Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia etc. Your poll doesn't address that so as far as I'm concerned it's worthless. And as for "mean things" vs "judicial appointments", if not for the stupid "mean things" Trump is having to walk back he would be ahead of Clinton. He's been his own worst enemy, treating a general election like a primary. In the primary Trump was able to get away with insulting every U.S. military prisoner of war ever in the history of this nation because people on the far right were enamored by what they think is his stance on immigration. (Most can't bring themselves to admit that Trump really supports touchback amnesty.) But the general electorate isn't as immigration focused at the republicans. So Trump "winning" on that issue doesn't carry nearly as much weight.

The battleground state polls are subject to the same defects identified in the national polls, so the same turn out dynamics will be reflected in most of them by November (i.e., Trump will win most of them). The reason for putting "mean things" in quotes is to point out that was a characterization, whereas the actuality is Trump is simply talking sharply to break biased mainstream narratives, including those that diefy the military. Those memes are enforced by the entire establishment in the primaries and election, so Trump continuing to challenge it past the primaries is a good strategy.

As stated before, conflating the "touchback" concept with expedited amnesty does not prove the two are identical, especially since touchback is not even in current immigration law. As per Trump's actual proposed policy, immigrants return to their country of origin and apply to lawfully emigrate from the local consulate, as per normal procedure. Applicants would also certify they could financially support their own housing and living expenses---an anti-welfare feature that would delay, not expedite the processing of immigrants.

The data shows temperament outweighs the other factors.

But since the current polls are inaccurately sampled, they are not recording the temperament responses accurately in any case.

 

[undergroundrr]

Are you ready to join us yet?

Flagged for recruiting.

 

[jmdrake]

The battleground state polls are subject to the same defects identified in the national polls, so the same turn out dynamics will be reflected in most of them by November (i.e., Trump will win most of them).

Wishful thinking but okay. Trump has, up until now, only been appealing to his base. Hopefully his recent "mea culpa" means he finally realizes that he can't win battleground states with just the base.

The reason for putting "mean things" in quotes is to point out that was a characterization, whereas the actuality is Trump is simply talking sharply to break biased mainstream narratives, including those that diefy the military.

*cough* Bullshit *cough*

The only reason Trump, who supported Hillary Clinton for longer than he opposed her and was asked by Bill Clinton in 2015 to "get involved with the Republican party" got away with his asinine comments in the primary is because he was so bombastic in his attacks on illegal immigrants that he got a pass on everything else. But there is a difference between not being one to "diefy" the military and being a jackass who insulted every POW ever just because they were a POW when Donald Trump himself was a draft dodger. Had Ron Paul said the shit Donald Trump had said he would have been crucified and you know it.

Those memes are enforced by the entire establishment in the primaries and election, so Trump continuing to challenge it past the primaries is a good strategy.

It's a strategy that took him from being ahead of Hillary Clinton in those same polls you now want to discount to being behind Hillary Clinton 2 to 8% nationally and even worse in the battleground states. The proof that the strategy wasn't working is shown by the fact that he is changing strategy! As I said earlier, the only thing that he has to worry about now is if his supporters are too full of themselves to realize they need to follow his lead and change strategy. It seems that my concerns on that regard may be well justified. Hopefully the electorate will look at what Trump is doing now, forget what he did in the past, and forget that people like you still think it's a good strategy when clearly it isn't.

As stated before, conflating the "touchback" concept with expedited amnesty does not prove the two are identical, especially since touchback is not even in current immigration law.

As correctly stated before, touchback amnesty is a concept that predates Trump and was coined to describe Kay "bailout" Bailey Hutchinson's amnesty plan which Donald Trump has adopted. The fact that it is not in "current immigration law" is irrelevant. What you call "expedient amnesty" isn't in current immigration law either. It's still amnesty. Touchback amnesty is actually more expensive that other amnesty plans and it's still amnesty. And Trump wants his touchback amnesty plan to be "expedient" as he said himself that he wants to bring the "good immigrants" back in as "rapidly as possible." You can deny the truth all you want but guess what? It's still the truth.

As per Trump's actual proposed policy, immigrants return to their country of origin and apply to lawfully emigrate from the local consulate, as per normal procedure. Applicants would also certify they could financially support their own housing and living expenses---an anti-welfare feature that would delay, not expedite the processing of immigrants.

So you are calling Donald Trump a liar?


http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015...o-bring-back-good-illegal-immigrants-rapidly/




But since the current polls are inaccurately sampled, they are not recording the temperament responses accurately in any case.[/QUOTE]

 

[jmdrake]

I am no fan of Bill Clinton, but the man is a freaking genius.
http://time.com/3986747/donald-trump-bill-clinton-phone-call/

Exactly! Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, hell even Ben Carson would be kicking Hillary's butt right now. Trump has to come back from behind because he's run a strategy that was great for the primary but stupid for the general election. Just about everybody but the hardest of the hard core Trump supporters realize this. Even Trump realizes this which is why he finally did something nobody ever thought he would do which is apologize for the stupid things he's said. Trump realizes that he's losing. I sincerely hope he turns this around. As much as I don't like him and as much as I despise many of his supporters I like Hillary even less.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Wishful thinking but okay. Trump has, up until now, only been appealing to his base. Hopefully his recent "mea culpa" means he finally realizes that he can't win battleground states with just the base.

It had nothing to do with just playing to the base. The point of the "regrets" statement was to ADD a humanizing aspect to his past comments, not reverse them. He realized he can't keep letting the Hillary camp spin his every aside into demonizing him, so he has taken away their phony high ground:

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/149174780261/trumps-regrets

The only reason Trump, who supported Hillary Clinton for longer than he opposed her and was asked by Bill Clinton in 2015 to "get involved with the Republican party" got away with his asinine comments in the primary is because he was so bombastic in his attacks on illegal immigrants that he got a pass on everything else. But there is a difference between not being one to "diefy" the military and being a jackass who insulted every POW ever just because they were a POW when Donald Trump himself was a draft dodger. Had Ron Paul said the $#@! Donald Trump had said he would have been crucified and you know it.

Directly brawling with the establishment's frameworks has been a successful strategy to overcome it, but does draw return fire, whether Trump does it or Paul does it. Trump took punches and delivered punches in this battle---the MSM did not cut him a pass on his comments on McCain, they tried to push him out of the race over them, apart from the immigration comments, and you know it. In fact, Trump did not "insult every POW ever," and you know it. He questioned specifically whether McCain deserved hero status, given the details of his case (just as people question whether Bergdahl deserves the status, given the details of his case). Not automatically deifying every veteran holding a POW title is not the same thing as having "insulted every POW ever"---and you know it.

It's a strategy that took him from being ahead of Hillary Clinton in those same polls you now want to discount to being behind Hillary Clinton 2 to 8% nationally and even worse in the battleground states. The proof that the strategy wasn't working is shown by the fact that he is changing strategy!

Adding some humility to the strategy, is not changing the strategy. The dip Trump experienced was the expected drop he was supposed to have following the Democratic convention, plus biased polling that gave Hillary faux momentum. Both are petering out, as judged by the recent LA Times and Zogby etc polls showing Trump slightly ahead, or tied with her. As the polling becomes more focused on likely voters in the coming weeks the tilt to Trump will become more frequent.

As correctly stated before, touchback amnesty is a concept that predates Trump and was coined to describe Kay "bailout" Bailey Hutchinson's amnesty plan which Donald Trump has adopted. The fact that it is not in "current immigration law" is irrelevant. What you call "expedient amnesty" isn't in current immigration law either. It's still amnesty. Touchback amnesty is actually more expensive that other amnesty plans and it's still amnesty. And Trump wants his touchback amnesty plan to be "expedient" as he said himself that he wants to bring the "good immigrants" back in as "rapidly as possible." You can deny the truth all you want but guess what? It's still the truth.

The truth is you are still misreading the policy. To repeat myself: The only 'expedite' aspect of the reform as it stands is these immigrants (by filling out a form that identifies them as having been in the US unlawfully) would not be subject to the 10 year prohibition on illegal migrants from applying for naturalization, under current law. This would "reset" their standing so that they could immediately apply to get in line, but not allow them to cut in that line.

So you are calling Donald Trump a liar?

As before, I'm saying he is adding a kinder gentler edge to the policy, not changing it. His quote at the end of the article you cited reiterates this: "As far as immigration’s concerned, we need the wall. We want people to come in. I want people to come in. They have to be wonderful people, they have to come in legally."

 

[CPUd]

 

[vonMises]

Ron Paul got hella large crowds, too. Not all of them showed up at the polls.

One of the things I wanted to get across last week but didn't because I got sick was that what we see as Donald Trump's success at the moment was borne out of the Ron Paul 2008/2012 campaigns (I had said before that the campaigns, and the Russian role in them, simply played a part or a role, but now I'm suggesting that it was borne out of the two campaigns). A few people here are right to say that "Ron Paul's base" moved to support Trump, and that's because they are the Russian operatives that had spammed Ron Paul as far back as 2007 or are American nationals who knew that the Russians were doing this to help Ron Paul (especially those very close to Ron Paul and who make up the staff of the Ron Paul Institute, and I suspect that those who are associated with the Mises Institute as well, and who also subsequently support Trump, might know of the Russian involvement as well).