2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSources matter: Trump's analytics company released the poll showing 20% of Dems would vote for him
From here:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-01-08/new-poll-shows-donald-trump-is-a-real-threat-to-hillary-clinton
20% of Dems would vote for Trump over Clinton! Wow! Why isn't this poll being trumpeted anywhere but an opinion piece on US News? That would be because of who the numbers come from.
Mercury Analytics was hired by Trump to gauge feedback on the resonance of his first campaign ad. They are working for Trump. Trump. In fact the CEO of Mercury Analytics, Ron Howard, is an admitted long time friend of Trump:
---------
"The medias ability to influence is undeniable," says Ron Howard, a Washington-based CEO of Mercury Analytics, an online polling and research firm.
Howard is a longtime friend and conceded that while, yes, the influence is obvious, "there are some issues or topics that are easier to ignite than they are to suppress, or vice-a-versa the fact that they could make Trump larger than life does not mean that they can as easily bring him down."
------
Quote from an article titled " Trump Survives Media Bashing "
http://www.poynter.org/2015/media-clout-overstated-as-it-bashes-trump-he-clearly-survives/364607/
Please don't be a person who is going to claim the sky is falling by buying into a Trump campaign message disguised as a poll. We're better than that.
Gothmog
(145,130 posts)SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)as I said here:
bvf
(6,604 posts)Mercury Analytics is now in my dumper.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Apart from creative skewing of more or less meaningless polling that is, like how Bernie does against Marco in NH. Real relevant.
world wide wally
(21,740 posts)Godhumor
(6,437 posts)I'm pretty sure people should be critical of a firm that says Trump is doing well that are also working for Trump. But hey, I may be funny that way.
world wide wally
(21,740 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Tyrone: 27%.
John: ... you said that immmediately, and with some authority.
Tyrone: Obama vs. Alan Keyes. Keyes was from out of state, so you can eliminate any established political base; both candidates were black, so you can factor out racism; and Keyes was plainly, obviously, completely crazy. Batshit crazy. Head-trauma crazy. But 27% of the population of Illinois voted for him. They put party identification, personal prejudice, whatever ahead of rational judgement. Hell, even like 5% of Democrats voted for him. That's crazy behaviour. I think you have to assume a 27% Crazification Factor in any population.
John: Objectively crazy or crazy vis-a-vis my own inertial reference frame for rational behaviour? I mean, are you creating the Theory of Special Crazification or General Crazification?
Tyrone: Hadn't thought about it. Let's split the difference. Half just have worldviews which lead them to disagree with what you consider rationality even though they arrive at their positions through rational means, and the other half are the core of the Crazification -- either genuinely crazy; or so woefully misinformed about how the world works, the bases for their decision making is so flawed they may as well be crazy.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)The RW sure doesn't want to have their boy face Clinton in the Fall.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)sufrommich
(22,871 posts)doubt Trump embraces such nonsense with gusto.
pamela
(3,469 posts)They buried that little factoid.
http://www.mercuryanalytics.com/hillary-clinton-vs-trump-a-tough-battle/
The results show, that if the election were held today, between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton has the edge, but would be facing a very tough competitor.