A tale of two campaigns
Last week the President spoke at a rally in New Hampshire. Looking out at the crowd he gave another of his gut reactions to the size & enthusiasm of the crowd:
"We’re actually here today to officially launch our campaign to win the great state of New Hampshire in 2020. And I saw some fake polls put out by the fake news media, and it said that I’m tied with three of the other candidates, the Democrats, I’m tied in New Hampshire. I don’t think so. One of them has a rally, he’s got 100 people. So this holds 12,000 we’re full. And we could fill it up four times at least. We could fill it up four times. But I just want to thank you all. I just think it’s going to be a tremendous four years. We’re going to have a tremendous four years. Can you believe it? We only have a little more than a year to go, where it all started, right? The greatest political movement in the history of our country." .....President Trump
We all know how that goes, the msm then needs to prove him wrong. The strange thing is that he smashed all records for the venue:
"According to the Manchester Fire Marshal there were over 11,500 people inside the arena (pictured above), and around 8,000 to 9,000 outside watching jumbo screens (pic below). The total exceeds 20,000 . The previous record was 11,300 for an Elton John concert."
And let us not forget there were many outside:
What a night it was!
For the democratic candidate who dominates the DNC primary the grand question is where are the energetic crowds?
"Last Saturday, when Biden held a rally for his headquarters’ opening in Philadelphia, his campaign estimated the crowd size was 6,000 — a count that some local observers thought might be generous. One local elected Democrat who supports Biden privately told POLITICO the rally was smaller and less energetic than expected.
The event fell far short of the size his surrogates predicted in one of the nation’s largest Democratic cities. Just before Biden formally announced his candidacy last month, former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, who helped organize a fundraiser for Biden, had loftier expectations.
“He’s enormously popular here,” Rendell, a former Philadelphia mayor, said in a late April interview. “We could get tens and tens of thousands of people … For one rally, I think we could do that.”
It’s not just the size of Biden’s events that are modest, he’s also holding far fewer of them than his primary competitors. Since his launch, he’s visited Iowa only once. And while Democrats crisscrossed early presidential primary states during the long Memorial Day weekend, Biden took it off."
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/pj-gladnick/2019/05/28/politico-relays-excuses-joe-bidens-small-crowd-sizes
Crowd waiting for Joe Biden in downtown Las Vegas
Many months ago Biden and Trump campaigned in Nevada on the same day. The difference in the attendance at the two events was staggering. Lately the Biden campaign has scaled back Biden's appearances, most likely to avoid the costly gaffes he can't seem to avoid. The Iowa speech comes to mind when he famously said ‘Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids" and we prefer truth to facts!
Biden has also been all to willing to apologize for past long-held positions which he readily flips on. Come to think of it, the Biden campaign is starting to resemble another....what was the slogan?... "Stronger together?"
Does standing by your convictions mean anything?
I say it does.
Does crowd size mean anything?
It was the only real indicator of a Trump victory in 2016 when the polls were so terribly wrong.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
87 visitors
Actually, the major national polls were quite right. They had Clinton winning by a small amount, which turned out to be three million votes.
National polling organizations generally don't do state by state polls, those are most often done by local newspapers or television stations.
By this point in time we pretty much know what Trump's support is - around 40%. His hard core support is certainly less, probably around 32-35%.
They had her winning handily!!! What polls are you now quoting John? You got to go find one that was somewhat close. Go ahead, lets see it
The results of Tuesday’s presidential election came as a surprise to nearly everyone who had been following the national and state election polling, which consistently projected Hillary Clinton as defeating Donald Trump. Relying largely on opinion polls, election forecasters put Clinton’s chance of winning at anywhere from 70% to as high as 99%, and pegged her as the heavy favorite to win a number of states such as Pennsylvania and Wisconsin that in the end were taken by Trump.
BLOOMBERG POLITICS/SELZER & COMPANY: In the last Bloomberg poll of the campaign , Clinton held on to a three point lead, 44 percent to 41 for Trump. Johnson took four percent and Stein two, with four percent saying they wouldn’t be voting at all this year.
IBD/TIPP:
The IBD poll was the only one of the eight issued on the final day before the election to show Trump ahead, in this case with 43.1 percent to Clinton’s 40.7. Johnson captured 6.3 percent and Stein 2.2, while 5.3 percent answered “not sure.”
CBS NEWS: The outlook was rosier for Clinton in the final CBS News poll with Clinton holding a four-point, 45-41 lead.
FOX NEWS: In the final Fox News poll, conducted by Democratic pollsters Anderson Robbins Research and Republican research firm Shaw & Company Research, Clinton also holds a four-point lead, 48 percent to 44.
ABC News/Washington Post: In another daily tracking poll , Clinton also held a four-point lead at 47-43 over Trump.
MONMOUTH UNIVERSITY: New Jersey-based Monmouth University was one of two pollsters on Monday who found a commanding six-point lead for Clinton
THE ECONOMIST/YOUGOV: The polling firm YouGov along with The Economist magazine found a four-point lead for Clinton, at 45-41.
RASMUSSEN REPORTS: The final daily “White House Watch” tracking poll from Rasmussen Reports — another polling firm that had shown better results for Trump than many other polls throughout the campaign — found that Clinton held a two-point lead over Trump on the eve of the election, 45-43.
NBC NEWS/SURVEY MONKEY: Finally, on the eve of the election, NBC News and Survey Monkey predict a clear Clinton victory, with a six-point margin for the former First Lady and New York Senator, who beats her former reality TV star Trump 47 percent to 41.
The Huffington Post Pollster .com average of all polls sees Clinton with a 4.6 point lead in the hours leading up to the election, and the Pollster.com election forecast predicts Clinton as a virtual lock to win the presidency, with a 98.2 percent probability of victory, compared to a mere 1.5 percent chance for Trump.
Almost all of these pollsters predicted the final results within the margin of error.
I know that is not the right wing spin, but it is true.
You need to hold on to the myth that the polls were wrong in order to prop up your hopes for trump.
In the hours before the election? Where is the polling we hear all that year?
With few exceptions, the final round of public polling showed Clinton with a lead of 1 to 7 percentage points in the national popular vote. State-level polling was more variable, but there were few instances where polls overstated Trump’s support.
You can't rewrite history John. Even your fellow liberals know the polls had Hillary winning in a route!
BULL SHIT! At the time people like you were voting for Trump in the GOP primaries so that he would get the nomination. You were all so convinced he would lose - just like now. Your'e going to cry again!
BTW where is your link so that we can read the context???
'By this point in time we pretty much know what Trump's support is - around 40%. His hard core support is certainly less, probably around 32-35%.'
I'd say his hard core support is 31%.
You know as much as you did last time
Headed into Election Day, polling evangelist Nate Silver’s 538 website put Clinton’s odds at winning the White House at about 72 percent . By midnight, the site had more than flipped its odds making, giving Trump an 84 percent chance of winning .
The big three were a substantive change in vote preference during the campaign's final days, a failure to properly adjust for an overrepresentation of college graduates, and many Trump voters failing to reveal their preferences until after the election. The last point could have also been the result of late-deciding Trump voters, the report said.
I was responding to John Russell's comment - see the "?"
And I was responding to you
Like John, you expect us to believe that the polls were right. Talk about revisionist history!
You are fundamentally misunderstanding and mischaracterizing the polling. The national polling reflects the popular vote, not the electoral vote. It just so happens that the two almost always coincide. Or have in the past.
The national polling that predicted a Clinton win was RIGHT. She won the popular vote. Most of the polls to that effect were technically correct also, as they fell within their posted margin of error. Give up Vic.
It is you that are misrepresenting what took place. Every cite I liked, which were mostly liberal admit they got it wrong. The closer it got to election day the more those polls changed. When Nate Silver has Clinton with a 72% chance of winning (and that was for a long time) and then goes to Trump having an 84% chance within a few hours, it tells us all we needed to know about the polling in 2016.
As your president would say "It's a teachable moment."
You are flailing.
Even your fellow liberals know I'm right. They won't come on here and admit it, but everyone knows it.
They probably find it boring to discuss a closed issue.
The national polling in 2016 mainly predicted a small Clinton win (4 points or so) in the popular vote , and she won by 2.1%
That's really all there is to it if one wants to be honest.
It may be a matter of integrity.
Polls had her ahead by as much as 7 points
Except that Clinton DID NOT win, so they were wrong. They were right about the total national vote, WHICH IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT TO WINNING THE ELECTION.
Some still can't accept that simple fact either
I love to remember all the good folks who insisted that Trump had no path to 270.
...
...
ht...
tps://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/09/26/trump_has_path_to_270_but_no...
Nice to see people trying to rewrite history again..
Hillary in a landslide sweeping the EC, no possible path for Trump.
Unfortunately we have snowflakes that today still can't get over Hillaryious Hillary's loss.
And recent history at that! As if we didn't all live through it!
I really, really, really liked the poll that took place on November 8, 2016.
Kind of put the cherry on top of all the other polls.
Did you know:
has received more donations from Seattle, Washington than any other 2020 Democrat And his 21,657 donations from the state of Washington are the most recorded at this point in any election, by any candidate ever! America is waking up!...Charlie Kirk
GOP Smashes Records With $20.8 Million July Haul!
What a difference from the uphill climb of 2016
Well, Trump is campaigning against headwinds of his own making. Donald Trump has placed himself in the position of campaigning against himself. Trump has established a lot of potential but doesn't have a lot of accomplishments. Trump is failing on the follow through.
What is surprising is that Democrats aren't even on the playing field. Democrats have chosen a no-win strategy. With a strong economy and low unemployment, one would expect Democrats to campaign on labor and small business issues. Instead Democrats are bleating banker's talking points about free trade and weakness in the financial sector. Rooting for a recession with the looming prospect of bailing out the financial sector again is not a winning strategy.
With the recent significant changes in global geopolitics, one would expect Democrats to campaign on expanding diplomatic efforts on a peace platform. Instead Democrats have chosen confrontational hard line stances intended to block diplomatic efforts. Democrats are even engaged in a political spat with Israel, of all places. Democrats embracing a confrontational foreign policy platform is not a winning strategy.
Not long ago I thought the 2020 election was the Democrats to win or lose. Since then I have changed my mind. Democrats aren't even on the playing field; Democrats are expecting Trump to defeat himself. That's a no win strategy for Democrats. If a Democrat does take the White House it will only be a participation award.