Poll: Trump would lose a three-way race if a strong third-party candidate jumps in

[mystery-ak]

Poll: Trump would lose a three-way race if a strong third-party candidate jumps in

AllahpunditPosted at 8:01 pm on January 30, 2019

Maybe this will convince the left to dial down their meltdown over Howard Schultz’s candidacy from “Chernobyl” levels to a more manageable “Three-Mile Island.”

The obvious problem for Scott Rasmussen in polling this was how best to measure support for someone like Schultz. You can’t ask people if they’d vote for him specifically. Most of the public hasn’t the faintest clue who he is yet. So Rasmussen tried a different tack, offering generic alternatives to Trump to try to gauge how broadly receptive voters might be to the idea of a three-way race. Would they even consider directing their vote to a third-party candidate? As it turns out, yes. Many would.

    Given a choice between Donald Trump, a centrist Democrat, and a third-party candidate, 39% would vote for the centrist Democrat, 32% for President Trump, and 29% for the third-party option.

    The results are similar when asked about a progressive Democrat. In that match-up, the Democrat gets 40%, Trump 33% and the third party candidate 27%.

    In both options, 23% of Republicans would vote for the third-party candidate. Among women, just 27% would support the president.

more
https://hotair.com/archives/2019/01/30/poll-trump-lose-three-way-race-strong-third-party-candidate-jumps/

[Cyber Liberty]

This about a Rass poll?

That's like taking legal advice from that Judge Napalitano guy.

[Jazzhead]

Polls are not gospel, but they do provide insight.    If a quarter or more of the GOP electorate is prepared to reject Trump in favor of a third party alternative,  that tells me that it would be best for Trump to choose not to run in 2020.   

[ABX]

This is way too early for any predictions to be made.

[skeeter]

This about a Rass poll?

That's like taking legal advice from that Judge Napalitano guy.

Wouldn't it depend upon who the third party candidate is? I doubt Ralph Nader would split the GOP vote but these days who knows.

[Wingnut]

2 days ago I was told trump would win if the rats were up against a 3rd party candidate?

[Frank Cannon]

2 days ago I was told trump would win if the rats were up against a 3rd party candidate?

Polls this far out from an election last go round had The Bern against The Jeb!.

[Cyber Liberty]

Wouldn't it depend upon who the third party candidate is? I doubt Ralph Nader would split the GOP vote but these days who knows.

That's perzackly the reason I think this article is Rass-inspired rubbish.  Who the Heck knows who a third-party candidate could be.

[Cyber Liberty]

Polls this far out from an election last go round had The Bern against The Jeb!.

Further proof this speculation is rubbish.

[Bigun]

Polls!

[truth_seeker]

Polls are not gospel, but they do provide insight.    If a quarter or more of the GOP electorate is prepared to reject Trump in favor of a third party alternative,  that tells me that it would be best for Trump to choose not to run in 2020.   

So who would be the strongest GOP candidate, instead of Trump?

This nation of children views Republicans as mean parents.

Children=democrats-media-#nevertrump moderates like Kristol, Romney, Sasse, Flake, Ryan etc.

[Emjay]

This about a Rass poll?

That's like taking legal advice from that Judge Napalitano guy.

Polls are the reason everyone was so stunned when Trump won.

And, by the way, 'centrist democrat'?  Do they still exist?

[libertybele]

Polls!

My sentiments exactly!

[Cyber Liberty]

Polls are the reason everyone was so stunned when Trump won.

And, by the way, 'centrist democrat'?  Do they still exist?

@Emjay

A "Democrat" wants to take all the citizens' guns and throw them in jail.  A "Centrist Democrat" just wants to take all the guns.  To me, there's not a heckuvalot of difference.

[Wingnut]

@Emjay

A "Democrat" wants to take all the citizens' guns and throw them in jail.  A "Centrist Democrat" just wants to take all the guns.  To me, there's not a heckuvalot of difference.

Like moderate Muslims.  No such thing.

[edpc]

That's perzackly the reason I think this article is Rass-inspired rubbish.  Who the Heck knows who a third-party candidate could be.

Except for all the times Trump has touched the 50% approval mark. It’s been a Rasmussen poll and posters here have called him the most accurate polster in the game. Plenty of threads have been posted here, directly based on his polls, when results are favorable.

[Wingnut]

Except for all the times Trump has touched the 50% approval mark. It’s been a Rasmussen poll and posters here have called him the most accurate polster in the game. Plenty of threads have been posted here, directly based on his polls, when results are favorable.

You trot out that old canard every time there is a thread like this.  Just repeating it doesn't make it true

[Jazzhead]

So who would be the strongest GOP candidate, instead of Trump?

IMO,  Nikki Haley.   For the following reasons:

 -  She's isn't aligned with the Never-Trumpers;  she has served the President with distinction.  Her tenure as U.S. ambassador to the U.N. was inspiring and very much in line with Trump's concept of America first.   I can think of no one better qualified to keep the GOP coalition together. 

 -  She's a solid conservative on most issues,  but can, I think, appeal to independents as well. 

 -  As  female of Indian heritage,  she counterbalances the Dem obsession with identity politics.

-   She has a solid background of executive experience.   I generally favor governors over Senators;  the latter play games, the former make tough, real world decisions.   

 

[Cyber Liberty]

Except for all the times Trump has touched the 50% approval mark. It’s been a Rasmussen poll and posters here have called him the most accurate polster in the game. Plenty of threads have been posted here, directly based on his polls, when results are favorable.

I feel the same way about polls as does @Bigun.  Especially "approval ratings" which don't say "why" they disapprove.

[Bigun]

Polls for public consumption have long ago been weaponized and are now MUCH more about driving opinions than measuring them!

[truth_seeker]

IMO,  Nikki Haley.   For the following reasons:

 -  She's isn't aligned with the Never-Trumpers;  she has served the President with distinction.  Her tenure as U.S. ambassador to the U.N. was inspiring and very much in line with Trump's concept of America first.   I can think of no one better qualified to keep the GOP coalition together. 

 -  She's a solid conservative on most issues,  but can, I think, appeal to independents as well. 

 -  As  female of Indian heritage,  she counterbalances the Dem obsession with identity politics.

-   She has a solid background of executive experience.   I generally favor governors over Senators;  the latter play games, the former make tough, real world decisions.

That is sound thinking. But does she want to do it now (fire in the belly)? @Jazzhead

[edpc]

I feel the same way about polls as does @Bigun.  Especially "approval ratings" which don't say "why" they disapprove.

There is no question polls can be manipulated to push and agenda. However, serious operatives use them to strategize. The inside information the Trump campaign had in 2016 was used to make the push in places like PA, MI, and WI. Based on the results from MI and WI, it is obvious a third-party option can affect outcome. See the ‘92 election as an example, as well. The only argument I have with this poll is the fact that uses a centrist as the example for the democrat nominee. That isn’t going to happen. More likely, they will be far left and drive more people to a viable third-party option. Unfortunately, that would probably still result in a democrat victory.

[Jazzhead]

That is sound thinking. But does she want to do it now (fire in the belly)? @Jazzhead

I don't think she has the "fire in the belly" to challenge Trump in the primary.   But if Trump were to decline to run for a second term,  I think she could be persuaded to run.   

The practical problem we face is that gearing up to run for President takes both time and money.   Right now,  few if any Republicans would be willing to challenge Trump in a primary.  (The "centrist" Republicans who might, like Kasich, will likely do so from the position of a third party independent.)    But until Trump makes his intentions known,  the Dems will have an advantage in terms of exposure and fund-raising.   

[Cyber Liberty]

IMO,  Nikki Haley.   For the following reasons:

 -  She's isn't aligned with the Never-Trumpers;  she has served the President with distinction.  Her tenure as U.S. ambassador to the U.N. was inspiring and very much in line with Trump's concept of America first.   I can think of no one better qualified to keep the GOP coalition together. 

 -  She's a solid conservative on most issues,  but can, I think, appeal to independents as well. 

 -  As  female of Indian heritage,  she counterbalances the Dem obsession with identity politics.

-   She has a solid background of executive experience.   I generally favor governors over Senators;  the latter play games, the former make tough, real world decisions.

Did you turn against Kasich because he was an A-hole on a plane recently?

(Just teasin' you, man!  How's the leg?  I know that has to be taking a while.)

I like Haley too, but not for this office right now.  She's better than average, I'll give you that.  She was tough in the UN, better than expected.

[Cyber Liberty]

There is no question polls can be manipulated to push and agenda. However, serious operatives use them to strategize. The inside information the Trump campaign had in 2016 was used to make the push in places like PA, MI, and WI. Based on the results from MI and WI, it is obvious a third-party option can affect outcome. See the ‘92 election as an example, as well. The only argument I have with this poll is the fact that uses a centrist as the example for the democrat nominee. That isn’t going to happen. More likely, they will be far left and drive more people to a viable third-party option. Unfortunately, that would probably still result in a democrat victory.

The press is not a "serious operative," they see themselves as Kingmakers fit to manipulate the results as needed to accomplish their partisan goals.  I am quite sure campaigns have accurate poll results, it makes sense for them, but it also makes sense they wouldn't publish those numbers normally.