Poll: 82 Percent of Trump Voters Say They'd Do It Again

[Victoria33]

Like I said. Go head. Knock yourself out. Just don't cry and give me excuses when you get exactly what you voted *for*.

@roamer_1

I'm with you - not voting if he is on the ballot - put my name on a chair on your porch.

[Concerned]

Well look at where you are going to find this "evidence".    So long as you solicit the opinions of his enemies,  they will always tell you that he shall come to ruin,  and they will also do everything they can to make it into a self fulfilling prophecy.

Well, if you have "evidence" from other sources that my conclusions are wrong, I certainly look forward to seeing them. In fact, I love seeing actual contradictory data.  Unfortunately, actual contradictory evidence or data is seldom offered up when I ask for it.   

[Applewood]

Don't fool yourself.   His boorishness has nothing to do with our Congress stabbing us in the back.   They just use that as an excuse to not do what they don't want to do anyway. 

Baloney.  Trump refuses to be the leader he is reputed to be.   A real leader would make a major effort to hammer out with congress the necessary legislation.  As far as I can tell, beyond a handful of dinners and lunches that looked more like photo ops than doing any real work, Trump has made no effort in this regard.  So he himself can't draft legislation, but he should be able to use his position's influence to give advice and help with strategy.  I don't see any of that here.

And which promises are those?

The ones he made during the campaign -- essentially, the same ones Republicans in congress made. 

No,  they really are the failures of congress.   Obamacare repeal?  Something they voted in favor of something like 50 times back when they knew Obama would veto it? 

Well, they put together a few POS bills that did nothing to repeal Obamacare, and Trump called at least the first House bill "beautiful" or something.  Did he even read it?  Or is he just eager to sign any old legislation, call it "repeal" and tell his fans he kept his promise?  I don't think he really cares what's in this, tax reform or any other legislation.

They were just lying.   Now they've been forced to reveal how they really feel,  and now we get to see that the people who we thought were on our side,  were really not on our side. 

And judging by Trump's actions (or inactions), I believe he is lying and is not the savior of the average working person he has held himself out to be.

Because if Trump would just play kissy face with them and flatter them,   they would do their f***ing jobs?   Why would you believe being nice to them would get a different result?

Never said he should suck up with them.  But he could at least make the effort to show some leadership. As I said previously, sit down with congressional leaders and strategize, make suggestions, try to negotiate.   Then if Republicans in both houses refuse to cooperate, ok -- at least he tried and the blame is solely on congress.  But right now, with his passive approach, Trump is just as much to blame for congressional inertia as they are.   

Whatever happened to the Art of the Deal?  When making business deals, did he spend all his time publicly berating the guy across the table?  if that's how he conducted business, I don't know how he got any deals made.  I would think there had to be negotiation. drafts and redrafts of agreements, numerous meetings and phone calls.  I don't see that here.  I see him delegating it all to congressional Republicans, then whining and pointing fingers when it all turns into dung.

Seems to me Trump is more interested in creating entertainment for his fans vi his Twitter feed than he is in being a real president. 

[libertybele]

All the polls indicated that Hillary would win by a landslide and Trump was the least likely candidate to win against her.  So ... why is anyone paying attention to polls anymore? 

[Concerned]

All the polls indicated that Hillary would win by a landslide and Trump was the least likely candidate to win against her.  So ... why is anyone paying attention to polls anymore? 

"All the polls"?  Really?  I know some Trump supporters like to ignore polls especially when they have a message the President or his supporters don't like, but were "all" the polls leading up to last year's election really wrong and worth ignoring?  Let's look at some evidence and data.  Clinton won the popular vote by 2.1%.  Most polls I saw a week or so before the election had Clinton up by 3% to 4% or so with a Margin of Error of 2.5 to 3.5 (See RCP data linked below).  So the average RCP polls were, in fact, more or less within the margin of error.  "All the polls" certainly did not indicate Hillary would win by a landslide and in fact, the IBD/TIPP Tracking had Trump winning.  3 of the polls identified below had Clinton up by 2 or 3 which was her popular vote margin of victory.  The overall RCP average had Hillary winning by 3.3 and she actually won by 2.1 almost assuredly within the average margin of error. 

The problem here, of course, is being right on the popular vote doesn't really matter if the electoral college goes the other way.  I'll be curious to see if the pollsters starts summarizing polling data differently in 2020 to show electoral in addition to popular voting results.  I suspect that would be pretty difficult though.

https://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

"All the polls"?  Really?  I know some Trump supporters like to ignore polls especially when they have a message the President or his supporters don't like, but were "all" the polls leading up to last year's election really wrong and worth ignoring?  Let's look at some evidence and data.  Clinton won the popular vote by 2.1%.  Most polls I saw a week or so before the election had Clinton up by 3% to 4% or so with a Margin of Error of 2.5 to 3.5 (See RCP data linked below).  So the average RCP polls were, in fact, more or less within the margin of error.  "All the polls" certainly did not indicate Hillary would win by a landslide and in fact, the IBD/TIPP Tracking had Trump winning.  3 of the polls identified below had Clinton up by 2 or 3 which was her popular vote margin of victory.  The overall RCP average had Hillary winning by 3.3 and she actually won by 2.1 almost assuredly within the average margin of error. 

The problem here, of course, is being right on the popular vote doesn't really matter if the electoral college goes the other way.  I'll be curious to see if the pollsters starts summarizing polling data differently in 2020 to show electoral in addition to popular voting results.  I suspect that would be pretty difficult though.

https://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html

Yep. This thread proves how dumb and stupid the conservative base is. These apes will never understand how polls work.

[Mesaclone]

"All the polls"?  Really?  I know some Trump supporters like to ignore polls especially when they have a message the President or his supporters don't like, but were "all" the polls leading up to last year's election really wrong and worth ignoring?  Let's look at some evidence and data.  Clinton won the popular vote by 2.1%.  Most polls I saw a week or so before the election had Clinton up by 3% to 4% or so with a Margin of Error of 2.5 to 3.5 (See RCP data linked below).  So the average RCP polls were, in fact, more or less within the margin of error.  "All the polls" certainly did not indicate Hillary would win by a landslide and in fact, the IBD/TIPP Tracking had Trump winning.  3 of the polls identified below had Clinton up by 2 or 3 which was her popular vote margin of victory.  The overall RCP average had Hillary winning by 3.3 and she actually won by 2.1 almost assuredly within the average margin of error. 

The problem here, of course, is being right on the popular vote doesn't really matter if the electoral college goes the other way.  I'll be curious to see if the pollsters starts summarizing polling data differently in 2020 to show electoral in addition to popular voting results.  I suspect that would be pretty difficult though.

https://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html

All that polling data is technically true, but the aggregate overview of it as compiled by the Left's "Great One"....Nate Silver...concluded that Trump had a 5% chance of winning the electoral college based on that data. A 95% certainty that Hillary Clinton was our next President...based purely on the data YOU are citing. So while you are right in listing the base polling data, you are entirely wrong in your assessment of how statistical guru's across the political spectrum interpreted that data. A mistake they are almost certain to repeat in 2020...and as they look forward even now at the 2020 contest.

Put plainly, there was a broad and vast consensus that Trump was going to get annihilated in the Electoral College, and that Clinton's 4% win in raw polling equated to an almost certain electoral landslide.

More importantly, you're using this new data....82% of Trump's voters still favoring him...as a negative. Its really not. Have you compared it to similar polling of past GOP presidents at this stage of their time in office? Because that is the ONLY informative comparison with such data...so until you've done that, what your looking at is entirely meaningless as it lacks any context whatsoever. Further, Trump voters are NOTORIOUS for not being honest with pollsters...as well as demonstrating an avoidance of being polled. So polls on his approval, ongoing support, and future support are extremely difficult to gage for accuracy.

I'm not saying to ignore polling BTW. Quite the opposite. And there may be some signs of trouble in recent polling, but none of the arguments made in this thread or that I've seen recently in the media, deviate much from the kind of failed analysis that occurred prior to the 2016 election.

Lets be clear here, what almost gave the election to Hillary...and what, if he were to lose, would give the election to a Dem in 2020....is the idiots on the right who'd rather sit out an election, vote for some Alt-right 3rd party moron, or who simply lack the sense of their own convictions. You know, the moral narcissists.

So, Concerned, if you are going to use data....and I'm a huge fan of doing so...put it in context. And if you want to look at the 2016 polling data in context you must start and end with Nate Silver's analysis...and yes, he was viewed by the data geeks on BOTH sides of the aisle as THE pre-eminent authority on electoral forecasting. In summary, yes, the consensus of the polling gurus was that Hillary would win in an electoral landslide. That's just not a debateable point, as you can go back and quote endlessly from them in the latter days of the election. Hell, the Exit Polling data showed a landslide, which is why nearly all the network anchors and dimwits like the Young Turks were having Hillary-gasms all day right up until 5-6 PM.

[Concerned]

All that polling data is technically true, but the aggregate overview of it as compiled by the Left's "Great One"....Nate Silver...concluded that Trump had a 5% chance of winning the electoral college based on that data. A 95% certainty that Hillary Clinton was our next President...based purely on the data YOU are citing. So while you are right in listing the base polling data, you are entirely wrong in your assessment of how statistical guru's across the political spectrum interpreted that data. A mistake they are almost certain to repeat in 2020...and as they look forward even now at the 2020 contest.

Put plainly, there was a broad and vast consensus that Trump was going to get annihilated in the Electoral College, and that Clinton's 4% win in raw polling equated to an almost certain electoral landslide.

More importantly, you're using this new data....82% of Trump's voters still favoring him...as a negative. Its really not. Have you compared it to similar polling of past GOP presidents at this stage of their time in office? Because that is the ONLY informative comparison with such data...so until you've done that, what your looking at is entirely meaningless as it lacks any context whatsoever. Further, Trump voters are NOTORIOUS for not being honest with pollsters...as well as demonstrating an avoidance of being polled. So polls on his approval, ongoing support, and future support are extremely difficult to gage for accuracy.

I'm not saying to ignore polling BTW. Quite the opposite. And there may be some signs of trouble in recent polling, but none of the arguments made in this thread or that I've seen recently in the media, deviate much from the kind of failed analysis that occurred prior to the 2016 election.

Lets be clear here, what almost gave the election to Hillary...and what, if he were to lose, would give the election to a Dem in 2020....is the idiots on the right who'd rather sit out an election, vote for some Alt-right 3rd party moron, or who simply lack the sense of their own convictions. You know, the moral narcissists.

So, Concerned, if you are going to use data....and I'm a huge fan of doing so...put it in context. And if you want to look at the 2016 polling data in context you must start and end with Nate Silver's analysis...and yes, he was viewed by the data geeks on BOTH sides of the aisle as THE pre-eminent authority on electoral forecasting. In summary, yes, the consensus of the polling gurus was that Hillary would win in an electoral landslide. That's just not a debateable point, as you can go back and quote endlessly from them in the latter days of the election. Hell, the Exit Polling data showed a landslide, which is why nearly all the network anchors and dimwits like the Young Turks were having Hillary-gasms all day right up until 5-6 PM.

You seem to put high regard for Nate Silver's analysis.  For me, that's one source of potentially many, but let's look at it.  From the immediate pre-election analysis I found from Silver on 538, he had Clinton favored 71.4% to win and Trump 28.6%.  See below link from the website.  That's a far cry from the claimed 95% certainty referenced above.  In fact, Silver's analysis has Clinton probability peaking around 89% not 95%.

Yes, I believe the 82% who claim they won't vote for Trump again is a negative for him.  I just can't make the math work that that the level of disloyalty (even accepting some it may come back) coupled with an energized "Resistance" against a President who only received 46.1% of the popular vote, isn't doing much if anything to appeal beyond his base, and who won razor-thin electoral margins in a number of key swing states.  If you can make the math work or think it's a positive, I'd love to see the math and/or understand the logic of it actually being a positive.  I don't know what similar numbers were for other Presidents.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

You seem to put high regard for Nate Silver's analysis.  For me, that's one source of potentially many, but let's look at it.  From the immediate pre-election analysis I found from Silver on 538, he had Clinton favored 71.4% to win and Trump 28.6%.  See below link from the website.  That's a far cry from the claimed 95% certainty referenced above.  In fact, Silver's analysis has Clinton probability peaking around 89% not 95%.

Yes, I believe the 82% who claim they won't vote for Trump again is a negative for him.  I just can't make the math work that that the level of disloyalty (even accepting some it may come back) coupled with an energized "Resistance" against a President who only received 46.1% of the popular vote, isn't doing much if anything to appeal beyond his base, and who won razor-thin electoral margins in a number of key swing states.  If you can make the math work or think it's a positive, I'd love to see the math and/or understand the logic of it actually being a positive.  I don't know what similar numbers were for other Presidents.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

According to https://www.270towin.com/2016_Election/ Trump won 7 states totalling 101 EV by 0-5%.  This means in each he received less than 53% of the vote.  82% of 53% is 43%, which means he probably would have lost all of these states and the election.

Now, I have treated each of these states as winner-take-all, without knowing whether they actually are (though I know mine, the biggest, is -- and losing that one to HRC puts her in spitting distance at 256/270).  I'm also assuming that 82% number is more or less universal, when it would be more accurate to break out the poll numbers by state.  Accounting for these, and any other things I may have overlooked, let's assume he retains half of those EVs.  I'll even let him keep the remainder.  That puts him at 254 and pantsuit at 277.

I am applying the numbers to 2016, which is obviously not the same at 2020.  However, I would point out that HRC won only 32 EV in states where her margin of victory was 5% or less.  Therefore, I would assert that, using only what we know today, it is much more likely for the Dem to hold most of her EVs than for the Reps to hold his.

The (admittedly crude) math sure seems to be in your favor.  82% retention does not appear to me to bode well for 2020.

[Suppressed]

More importantly, the choice of neither is a mirage...as you are going to get one or the other in office as President. Choosing neither, simply facilitates the truly evil candidate.

I posit the following proposition:

That the chance of my single vote swaying the state differential between the top two bad candidates is less than the chance of the top two candidates dying between election day and electoral college meeting, and my vote swaying the third choice.

Admittedly, it's a small chance for the latter, but so is the former -- for no real benefit.

[Fishrrman]

Count me amongst the 82%.

Wish that I could vote for Roy Moore, as well.

My attitude toward the democrat-communists -- and towards their fellow travelers right here in this very forum -- can be expressed by this graphic that Sanguine so graciously posted earlier today:

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

@Fishrrman

Ditto.



Dear Lord but this is one buzz kill of a thread.

Can't believe I'm seeing folks here equating murder, death, and evil (of HRC) with being a boor (Trump).

They are most certainly not moral equivalents.

[Cripplecreek]

In other words, he would lose today.

[DiogenesLamp]

In other words, he would lose today.

In other words,  these polls today are probably as accurate as the ones saying Hillary had an 85% chance of winning.   

[Bigun]

In other words,  these polls today are probably as accurate as the ones saying Hillary had an 85% chance of winning.

The exact same poll referred to here asked the same question of those who identified as Hillary voters and the result was that only 78% said they would do it again.  That means that means that if there was a do over today Trump would win again only biglyer!

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

All the polls indicated that Hillary would win by a landslide and Trump was the least likely candidate to win against her.  So ... why is anyone paying attention to polls anymore? 

Ask the questions you want answered in a manner that leaves no other answer, (When did you stop beating your wife?) and you will Poll the outcome you desire.

Polls=GIGO

[Mesaclone]

According to https://www.270towin.com/2016_Election/ Trump won 7 states totalling 101 EV by 0-5%.  This means in each he received less than 53% of the vote.  82% of 53% is 43%, which means he probably would have lost all of these states and the election.

Now, I have treated each of these states as winner-take-all, without knowing whether they actually are (though I know mine, the biggest, is -- and losing that one to HRC puts her in spitting distance at 256/270).  I'm also assuming that 82% number is more or less universal, when it would be more accurate to break out the poll numbers by state.  Accounting for these, and any other things I may have overlooked, let's assume he retains half of those EVs.  I'll even let him keep the remainder.  That puts him at 254 and pantsuit at 277.

I am applying the numbers to 2016, which is obviously not the same at 2020.  However, I would point out that HRC won only 32 EV in states where her margin of victory was 5% or less.  Therefore, I would assert that, using only what we know today, it is much more likely for the Dem to hold most of her EVs than for the Reps to hold his.

The (admittedly crude) math sure seems to be in your favor.  82% retention does not appear to me to bode well for 2020.

You are right...It was HuffPost that had Hillary at 98% chance of winning. Silver was slightly more conservative at 85%. Which all furthers my point as to how the base polling data was interpreted by most mainstream pollsters and organizations.

Again, reading the recent poll showing 82% would still vote Trump...as meaning he would now receive just 43% of the vote...is utterly ridiculous. That number is almost certainly typical for GOP presidents...and extrapolations like yours don’t factor in new supporters being added whilst that 18% wavered.

[Concerned]

Again, reading the recent poll showing 82% would still vote Trump...as meaning he would now receive just 43% of the vote...is utterly ridiculous. That number is almost certainly typical for GOP presidents...and extrapolations like yours don’t factor in new supporters being added whilst that 18% wavered.

I'm just curious what makes you say that this 82% voter retention rate is “almost certainly typical” of GOP Presidents?  Seems to me that this likely would be comparatively low (but that's just an educated guess on my part).  After all, Trump's approval ratings for the first year are low compared to other Presidents (and it seems to me that his voter retention rate would likely be comparatively lower also):

“Former President Barack Obama had a 57% approval rating and 40% disapproval rating — a margin of 17 — at the same time during his tenure in November 2009. Former President George W. Bush had a 89% approval rating and a 9% disapproval rating — a margin of 80 — at this time in November 2001. And former President Bill Clinton had an approval rating of 52% and a disapproval rating of 41% in November 1993 — making his margin 11, the lowest before Trump’s -22% margin in recent history.

Trump’s approval rating has fallen since he took office.”

Factor in new voters?  Where in the world are they coming from?  Trump has done little to no outreach beyond his base.  Just looking here at TBR, I don’t see a good number of non-Trump voters who are now converts.  “The Resistance” is stronger than ever as evidenced by the strong Democratic voter turnout this past week.  His base is strong, but new voters?

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/president-trump-apos-approval-rating-170135702.html

[DCPatriot]

[libertybele]

"All the polls"?  Really?  I know some Trump supporters like to ignore polls especially when they have a message the President or his supporters don't like, but were "all" the polls leading up to last year's election really wrong and worth ignoring?  Let's look at some evidence and data.  Clinton won the popular vote by 2.1%.  Most polls I saw a week or so before the election had Clinton up by 3% to 4% or so with a Margin of Error of 2.5 to 3.5 (See RCP data linked below).  So the average RCP polls were, in fact, more or less within the margin of error.  "All the polls" certainly did not indicate Hillary would win by a landslide and in fact, the IBD/TIPP Tracking had Trump winning.  3 of the polls identified below had Clinton up by 2 or 3 which was her popular vote margin of victory.  The overall RCP average had Hillary winning by 3.3 and she actually won by 2.1 almost assuredly within the average margin of error. 

The problem here, of course, is being right on the popular vote doesn't really matter if the electoral college goes the other way.  I'll be curious to see if the pollsters starts summarizing polling data differently in 2020 to show electoral in addition to popular voting results.  I suspect that would be pretty difficult though.

https://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html

Let me make one thing perfectly clear ... I have not been a Trump supporter; however, I do call things as I see them and I give credit when I believe credit is due.  Secondly there are those (predominately RINO's and DEMS) who believed or hoped Hillary should have won the election and that the electoral college should be thrown out -- swamp creatures at their best!  BTW ... welcome to the BriefingRoom.

[libertybele]

Cute DC ... now ... if you had Cruz holding that picture it would be hilarious.

[Concerned]

Let me make one thing perfectly clear ... I have not been a Trump supporter; however, I do call things as I see them and I give credit when I believe credit is due.  Secondly there are those (predominately RINO's and DEMS) who believed or hoped Hillary should have won the election and that the electoral college should be thrown out -- swamp creatures at their best!  BTW ... welcome to the BriefingRoom.

Thanks for the welcome.  I try and call things the way I see them also, and strive for truth and accuracy as a result.  As such, I call out hyperbolic statements like "all the polls indicated that Hillary would win by a landslide......" as factually untrue, and I try and explain why I find them factually untrue along with the source of my information.  I'm sure some find this tedious and irritating, but if we don't call out incorrect or inaccurate information, we continue to allow it to spread.  If I post something factually incorrect or inaccurate, I certainly hope someone will point it out with the source of their information. Thanks again for the welcome!   

[libertybele]

Thanks for the welcome.  I try and call things the way I see them also, and strive for truth and accuracy as a result.  As such, I call out hyperbolic statements like "all the polls indicated that Hillary would win by a landslide......" as factually untrue, and I try and explain why I find them factually untrue along with the source of my information.  I'm sure some find this tedious and irritating, but if we don't call out incorrect or inaccurate information, we continue to allow it to spread.  If I post something factually incorrect or inaccurate, I certainly hope someone will point it out with the source of their information. Thanks again for the welcome!   

Actually, I'm not interested in playing a game of semantics in the least and actually find it quite annoying and that's when the ignore feature in here becomes quite handy.  Polls indicated that Hillary would win and polls also indicated that Trump was the candidate least likely to win over Hillary.  Obviously those polls were wrong.  Polls indicated that Mitt was going to win over Bammy. Obviously those polls were wrong. I don't hold a whole lot of stock in polling data nor do I hold a whole lot of stock in the polling data reported by the MSM.

[Bigun]

Ask the questions you want answered in a manner that leaves no other answer, (When did you stop beating your wife?) and you will Poll the outcome you desire.

Polls=GIGO

B I N G O ! ! ! 

[Formerly Once-Ler]

you can't fix stupid