Trump abruptly withdraws from Fox debate in Iowa

If the goal of National Review was to nip Trump, I think it backfired. Their "critique" was simply a collection of name calling; the very criticism they have of Trump.

 

I think Trump is playing to his base- which appreciate him going 'maverick' rather than being up on a podium being made to look like an idiot.

He gets far more publicity doing this- and his voters will just applaud it.

 

They are getting it from World Net Daily polls, which is polling Black Republicans, so I don't think the numbers are valid.

 

T-Rump is making political enemies and that might well be his undoing. It is one thing to be nasty to everyone who doesn't kiss his posterior but it is another to do so in a manner that will give them motivation for sticking it to T-Rump if they get the opportunity at some point in the future.

Going into a GE with enemies on your own side of the political divide makes for a weak team. Anyone on T-Rump's GE team might decide to leak damaging insider information to either the media or the opposition as payback for what he said or did to another candidate.

Not saying that is going to happen but if you want to build a loyal team then T-Rump needs to consider who he is going to need as allies and surrogates in the GE.

 

This isn't the first time that I've heard the comparison between Trump and Berlusconi, although I doubt Trump will be having any bunga bunga parties at the White House (probably those will be at Trump Towers).

 

The Fox debate pullout may hurt Trump to the point of him losing the Iowa caucus, but even that we don't know for sure yet. Overall, I'm OK with Trump pulling out of the debate. Megyn Kelly is a drama queen that tried to turn the first debate into a Rosie O'Donnell show or a bad episode of the View. Britt Hume is a veteran journalist, and there is no reason for him not getting the moderator nod instead of Kelly. And if there is some female quota that has to be filled, Martha McCallum would do a far better job than Kelly.

All the Dems have boycotted Fox debates for years now, including for the General Election; so Trump pulling out one time for good reason is not all that big of a deal.

 

Didn't that disinformation come from the discredited Clout poll?

 

Yes, I always laugh when I hear this malarky.

Where they are getting it from is from a pollster like "Opinion Savvy", which does lots of polling in the Southern states, including but not limited to Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Texas and Oklahoma, a pollster that releases crosstabs with the minority vote figures, only, the subgroup is way, way, WAY too small to warrant a crosstab.

Though it indicates it at the back of the poll, what Opinion Savvy doesn't go out of it's way to explain is that from a poll from, say, Georgia, the GOP electorate is 97% white, 1% black, 1% Latino and 1% other. So, in a polling group of, say, 800 RRV, that means that all of 8 people self-identified as black. This means that the margin of error for any group that small is +/-30% or more, which makes the statistic completely useless.

And when it comes to actual D-vs-R matchups, the same people grasp at one single SUSA poll, from September 2015, that claimed that Trump was getting 25% of the AA vote. Well, SUSA made that claim about Romney in November, 2011, in Ohio: that he was getting 25% of the AA vote. Romney ended up getting 3% of the black vote in Ohio. So, pffft....

Back to the Opinion Savvy thing. Here is the latest OS Georgia poll:

Georgia:


Opinion Savvy / Fox 5 Atlanta, released 18.01.2016:
803 RLV, MoE = +/-3.4


Trump 33.4
Cruz 23.4
-------
Rubio 8.2
Carson 7.3
Bush 7.1
Kasich 3.8
Christie 3.7
Fiorina 3.5
Paul 3.5
Huckabee 3.2


Margin: Trump +10.0


Also, a theoretical 5-way race:


Trump 36.8
Cruz 26.3
Rubio 14.7
Bush 9.3
Carson 9.2
Margin: Trump +10.5


According to the poll, the demographics of the GOP electorate in Georgia are 97% white and 77% over 45 years old. Also 51/49 F/M,

Go to page 3 of the .pdf: it claims that Trump is getting 35.5% of the AA vote. Page 12 or 13 asks about the race/ethnicity of the survey group:

779 White
8 Black
8 Latino
8 Other
for a total of 803 RRV (Republican Registered Voters)

35.5% of 8 = 3 black Republicans who said yes for him. The MoE for this category, which actually should not even be analysed BECAUSE THE SURVEY GROUP IS TOO SMALL TO GET ACCURATE RESULTS, must be at least +/-30%!

At least when ABC/WAPO put out a poll and indicate a stat from a subgroup, they make sure to indicate that the MoE is considerably higher. Anything over +/-6 I personally consider to be totally unreliable.

But these are the kind of "stats" that the Trumpites are clamboring for. False stats.

- - - Updated - - -

Ahhh, the Wenzel-birther poll that I thoroughly debunked.

That was fun!

 

Black republicans mean nothing in the general. Thanks.

 

Trump apparently crafts his own strategy with minimal advice often while alone on his jet. GOP advisors are poison.

 

sat there and did a jigsaw puzzle this morning while flipping between CNN, FOX, and MSNBC. If I heard the name Trump referenced by dozens of people at least 500 times and that is a low ball guess. He is playing the media like a cello.

For the ones who are new at this rodeo thing. The front runner has nothing to gain at a debate, he has only one direction in which he can move - down. At this moment Iowa is the only state that counts right now and Trump is doing a massive event for Wounded Warriors there, think about that a bit. Which would be a better use of his time. Going on National TV and letting the other candidates and mods swing at him like a pinata , or going to Iowa and rubbing shoulders with the caucus goers? he is so far ahead in NH and SC it is just a battle for third. Who knows about Nevada, I rarely hear it mentioned in the news and there are no recent polls

 

Or the enemies Trump has made among other candidates supporters just might stay home and say the heck with it. I'm not voting for that so and so after what he said about my candidate or did to him.

- - - Updated - - -

Mike said it came from WND and were only polling black Republicans. Makes sense.

 

It was very weak. A horrible display of bad judgement from what used to be an important publication.

 

Sounds about right. Winning the black Republican vote, around 4% of the total black electorate is not a huge feat.

 

Yup, the GOP can't afford to have stay-at-home voters.

My recollection was that it was WND that was referring to the Clout poll.

 

It is a shameful move, but honestly, I think it will work out to his benefit. If anyone talks about him during the debate (and of course they will), he will whine again and his base will eat it up. The only thing that Trump could do to lose voters at this point would be to change his position on immigration.

 

I agree with this. I'm not sure that skipping the debate is a good move for him politically. OTOH, if he raises a lot of money for Wounded Warriors with an alternative event at the time of the debate, he will have not only hurt Fox News, but also helped a very worthy cause. So, he has a win and a loss… so breakeven maybe?

 

FOX is the right side of the establishment, like much of the media is the left side of the establishment (status quo). FOX has always been Trump's #1 adversary. In each primary, Fox systematically builds up and then destroys conservative and outsider candidates to leave only the "moderate" left standing - as it did for McCain and Romney.

Maybe it is impossible for any conservative or outsider to accomplish, but unless Trump can win despite FOX constantly trying to gun him down he can't win anyway and Bush is the nominee. FOX's goal is simple to understand. Keep Bush out of the spotlight while blowing away the rest. Blow away Carson. Blow away Cruz. Blow away Trump. Then take out Rubio... in the end leaving only Bush. That is who the Republican establishment/insider powers want - so that is who FOX will make the Republican nominee if it can.

As for Kelly? She's a liberal Democrat and always has been, but does the rightwing flirty dance tactically.

 

I suppose so, since Trump doesn't even have 50% of the Republicans support but was is it in New York, 20% of the Democrats are going for Trump.

 

Rand Paul did not participate in the last debate and no one noticed....lolz!

 

I want to clarify that from my standpoint. The way I see it, every single vote counts. Only, there has been a long tradition of our fellow Black American citizens staying more often than not 9 to 1 for the Democratic Party. How it looked before 1976, no one really knows, but in 1976, Roper started tracking this metric. The Republican who did the best in this rubrik: Pres. Gerald R. Ford, who took 18% of the Black vote, in 1976, and that big jump in the vote very likely allowed him to retain the then-hotly-contested battleground state of New Jersey for the Republican Party. But if you go back and listen to reporting for elections all the way back to 1960, you hear commentators clearly saying, as they used in the terminology of their day, that in "select precincts" where there were lots of Black American voters, the expectation was that they would vote for the Democratic candidate. This is also the reason why we waited until very late into the night in 1968 to see how the dreadnaught battleground states of Pennsylvania and Illinois would fall. Back then, the saying was that no Republican had ever won the White House without Ohio -and- Illinois. After 1996, when Bill Clinton captured the state twice in a row (and it hasn't looked back since then), people dropped Illinois from the list.

I would not say that Black Republicans mean nothing in the General. I respectfully disagree with that sentiment. Only, there are not very many of them left and after the hateful treatment of Pres. Obama over 8 long years, I think it is just pie in the sky stuff to think that Black Americans are going to flock to a Donald Trump type, especially after the treatment of black protesters, and yes, they were protesters, at Trump rallies.

- - - Updated - - -

That made no sense at all and is completely detached from reality.

Better luck to you next time around.

 

I was going to post the same reply to your post but decided maybe you would have better luck next time.

You might want to actually look at who Trump's supporters are. Trump has the field pretty well covered, especially during the primaries where they have open primaries.

 

Here, it takes the black vote back to 1936

http://blackdemographics.com/culture/black-politics/

 

NM is 47% Latino. It is highly unlikely that any GOP candidate is going to pick-up the state. It is a mistake to think that the results of mid-term elections will be the same as presidential elections. They are not, nor will they be so. A much larger, much more diverse electorate comes out during a presidential cycle vis a vis a mid-term cycle. That's a well proven fact.

Arizona, as you correctly (imo) indicated, is not likely to go for Clinton, but alone turning it into a battleground state would then force the GOP to divert funds from places where they would like to try to open up a battleground or two. See: Indiana and North Dakota, 2008.

 

Very interesting. I sure would like to know where they got the pre-1976 data, because before Roper, no one was collecting national data on this, so I can only assume that that is a hodge-podge of sources that led to extrapolations. I will research this.

Also see that the 1976 figure does not jive at all with the 1976 Roper figure and Roper really is considered the definitive source on this kind of stuff. Roper shows Carter 83 /Ford 17 (often quoted at 18, I believe there was a rounding issue with that one), not 15:

http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-1976/