Poll: Nearly 20 Percent of Democrats Would Vote for Trump Over Hillary

[mystery-ak]

http://www.newsmax.com/PrintTemplate.aspx/?nodeid=708859


Newsmax
Poll: Nearly 20 Percent of Democrats Would Vote for Trump Over Hillary
Saturday, January 9, 2016 04:20 PM

By: Todd Beamon

Nearly 20 percent of Democrats would leave the party and vote for Republican Donald Trump in a match-up against Hillary Clinton, according to a new poll.

The survey of 916 likely voters by the Mercury Analytics research firm in Washington found that only 14 percent of Republicans would cross party lines and vote for Clinton.

"The challenge to Hillary — if Trump is the nominee and pivots to the center in the general election as a problem-solving, independent minded, successful 'get it done' businessman — is that Democrats will no longer be able to count on his personality and outrageous soundbites to disqualify him in the voters' minds," said Ron Howard, Mercury Analytics CEO.

The survey was conducted between Wednesday and Friday and has a margin of error of 3.5 percent.

Here are the key results among crossover voters:

Are you 100 percent sure that you vote for the candidate of the other party?

    Democrats: 63 percent say they are 100 percent sure they would vote for Trump over Clinton.
    Republicans: 39 percent say they are 100 percent sure they would vote for Clinton over Trump.

In other results, the poll tested response among the Democrats to Trump's first campaign spot, which was unveiled on Monday:

Do you agree that Trump's ad raised some good points?

    Agree completely: 25 percent.
    Agree somewhat: 14 percent.

Does Trump’s ad represent how you feel?

    Agree completely: 21 percent.
    Agree somewhat: 11 percent.

"We expected Trump’s first campaign spot to strongly appeal to Republican Trump supporters, with little impact — or, in fact, negative impact — on Democratic or independent voters," Howard said. "However, what we see is that among a segment of Democratic and independent voters who don’t like the 'messenger' of Trump, the issues he is raising — immigration, terrorism — are real concerns they share."

[Right_in_Virginia]

Reagan democrats have a reason to vote Republican again.  This is very good news. 

[Longiron]

 


http://conservativeread.com/political-shock-trump-could-win-it-all-dem-defection-20-are-now-for-trump/

[Formerly Once-Ler]

I find it interesting that back in 2008 conservatives whined about the open primaries of some states and claimed McCain won the nomination because he appealed to rats and independents, not conservatives.  rat support was not an asset when McCain was the candidate.

[rangerrebew]

That is the 20% that will admit it.

[Scottftlc]

This is good, without blue collar Democrat votes, no Republican will ever be elected again. Republicans can NEVER win a significant portion of the Hispanic vote. A huge portion of Hispanic immigrants are socialists, Democrats are socialists, and the Democrats will always outbid the Republicans in the giveaway of government (taxpayer funded) goodies.

The blue collar workers are a much better target for the Republicans than immigrants who are used to socialist government largesse.

[alicewonders]

This is good, without blue collar Democrat votes, no Republican will ever be elected again. Republicans can NEVER win a significant portion of the Hispanic vote. A huge portion of Hispanic immigrants are socialists, Democrats are socialists, and the Democrats will always outbid the Republicans in the giveaway of government (taxpayer funded) goodies.

The blue collar workers are a much better target for the Republicans than immigrants who are used to socialist government largesse.

Trump has already figured out which demographics he can't win - and which ones he can.  Something the GOP hasn't yet. 

[Fishrrman]

Scott wrote above:
"This is good, without blue collar Democrat votes, no Republican will ever be elected again."

What this really translates to are "white" votes (moreso than "blue collar" votes).
Which is exactly what I've been posting on this board again and again for a few years now.

You're completely correct in your assertion regarding Hispanic voters. Republicans are not going to be able to win more than 25-30% of that vote for the foreseeable future, and perhaps even those percentages are on the optimistic side.

And I will again restate that Hispanic voters are concentrated in "blue states" which typically "vote democratic" anyway.

We're much better off aiming at the "purple battleground" states, many or most of which do not yet have large concentrations of Hispanics. "Turning" say, 5-8% of the white vote in these states will make the difference between losing and winning.

And like alice wrote above, Mr. Trump seems to have this figured out already.

[HonestJohn]

Scott wrote above:
"This is good, without blue collar Democrat votes, no Republican will ever be elected again."

What this really translates to are "white" votes (moreso than "blue collar" votes).
Which is exactly what I've been posting on this board again and again for a few years now.

You're completely correct in your assertion regarding Hispanic voters. Republicans are not going to be able to win more than 25-30% of that vote for the foreseeable future, and perhaps even those percentages are on the optimistic side.

And I will again restate that Hispanic voters are concentrated in "blue states" which typically "vote democratic" anyway.

We're much better off aiming at the "purple battleground" states, many or most of which do not yet have large concentrations of Hispanics. "Turning" say, 5-8% of the white vote in these states will make the difference between losing and winning.

And like alice wrote above, Mr. Trump seems to have this figured out already.

And I will again restate that Hispanic voters are concentrated in "blue states" which typically "vote democratic" anyway.

If Texas is a blue state, then there will never be a Republican president again.  (or even a Republican controlled Congress)

[Free Vulcan]

I live in a Democrat county, roughly 10K registered Dems, 10K Indies, 4K Reps. In a Presidential, roughly 90% of our GOP votes, about 80% Dems, 70% Indies for about 19K total votes.

I've done alot of election analysis running campaigns. When I assume the breakeven point on the vote, I shoot for 90% of the GOP vote for us, 60% Indies, and 25% of the Dems.

It's early, and Trump already has an admitted 20%. Hillary should be worried.

[Paladin]

I find it interesting that back in 2008 conservatives whined about the open primaries of some states and claimed McCain won the nomination because he appealed to rats and independents, not conservatives.  rat support was not an asset when McCain was the candidate.

I want you to know how much I adore these unsubstantiated generalizations you employ in order to support your opinions. All Conservatives in 2008 whined about the open primaries, everywhere and at all times? Why do I doubt that statement? Why do I also believe you cannot document it, just as you somehow failed to return to the thread, "House passes ObamaCare repeal, sending measure to president", to present the requested proof for this claim: "From 2011 until now conservatives have complained that even though the GOP knew Obama would VETO an Obamacare repeal it should be sent to his deck on principle.  Today it happened and conservatives still complain.  The unappeasable right strikes again."?

Conservatives sure seem to be bad people, at least in your view. Maybe you can show your statements are true which would lend your claims greater weight. 
 

[Formerly Once-Ler]

I want you to know how much I adore these unsubstantiated generalizations you employ in order to support your opinions. All Conservatives in 2008 whined about the open primaries, everywhere and at all times? Why do I doubt that statement? Why do I also believe you cannot document it, just as you somehow failed to return to the thread, "House passes ObamaCare repeal, sending measure to president", to present the requested proof for this claim: "From 2011 until now conservatives have complained that even though the GOP knew Obama would VETO an Obamacare repeal it should be sent to his deck on principle.  Today it happened and conservatives still complain.  The unappeasable right strikes again."?

Conservatives sure seem to be bad people, at least in your view. Maybe you can show your statements are true which would lend your claims greater weight.

I used to think I understood politics and people Paladin.  I assumed you were politically active in 2008, but if you were, I would not have to justify my statement. 

Bigun justified my post at "House passes ObamaCare repeal, sending measure to president"  I could offer proof, but you could just as easily search for it your.self, so I wont.  I don't know that anyone in the media spoke about it...it just was.  I was there, so was Bigun, so was most everybody else who posts here.  Only you need proof.

We should not be enemies.  You are not my enemy.  You are an intelligent woman with an opinion that is counter to mine.  I accept that and I embrace it.  What a dull world we would live in if everyone agreed with me.

I don't think conservatives are bad people.  I used to call myself conservative.  I just don't understand what conservatism means anymore.  I think I understand people like Bigun, Musiclady, Truthseeker, Cuky, Libertybele, Jmyrlefuller, Machiavelli, Andy58-in-nh, and others who wonder what conservatism stands for today...but I freely admit I'm trying to pick up the broken pieces of my party.

I don't want to be at odds with you Paladin.  I am dazed and confused by how this new paradigm works and I look to you to help me find my bearings.

[Fishrrman]

HonestJohn wrote above:
"If Texas is a blue state, then there will never be a Republican president again.  (or even a Republican controlled Congress)"

My error for not specifically mentioning Texas as the exception to the rule.

But even Texas is "turning", demographically. In all the major urban areas of the state, the majority of new births are to Hispanics, both legal and illegal.

Of course, these young'uns can't vote now. But wait 18 years.
It's going to be a problem for the Anglos down there.

...Although I do recognize that Texan Hispanics seem to be somewhat more "conservative" than Hispanics elsewhere. Didn't G.W. Bush get 40% of their vote? (Aside: That's still not enough -- still "a losing proposition" for Republicans.)

I recall reading recently (can't vouch for the accuracy of the source) that nearly half of the nation's Hispanics were concentrated in California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois and Florida (hope I got that right).

The presidential election outcomes in all those states (Florida excepted) is almost a foregone conclusion. (Aside: could Donald Trump upset the apple cart in New York?).

The "other half" of the Hispanic vote (notwithstanding the large chunk in Texas) is pretty "scattered" and not-all-that critical in the purple states.

This is why winning the white vote in those states is all the more important.