Indiana- Clout Research GOP Primary Poll: Trump +2 (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:46:57 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls
  Indiana- Clout Research GOP Primary Poll: Trump +2 (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Indiana- Clout Research GOP Primary Poll: Trump +2  (Read 6271 times)
Seriously?
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,029
United States


« on: April 29, 2016, 12:07:11 AM »

Methinks we're calling the race for Trump a bit early. Remember, results in the NE don't tell us much about Indiana.

Mostly agree.  I think Cruz will narrowly win Indiana in the end and do great in Nebraska, proving that nothing has really changed in the Midwest.  But then Trump nearly gets his Northeast numbers on the West Coast, in which case he will still have a pledged majority unless he screws up WV and gets absolutely nothing from IN. 

I don't buy into the IN is similar to the Plains states meme. To me, it is more of an extension of the Rust Belt, Chicagoland and Kentucky to the South, a region where Trump has done well.

I don't see Indiana as Wisconsin.

Keep in mind the only state that Trump didn't win immediately surrounding Indiana is Ohio and that's only because Kasich is a sitting governor.
Logged
Seriously?
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,029
United States


« Reply #1 on: April 29, 2016, 12:29:43 AM »

Methinks we're calling the race for Trump a bit early. Remember, results in the NE don't tell us much about Indiana.

Mostly agree.  I think Cruz will narrowly win Indiana in the end and do great in Nebraska, proving that nothing has really changed in the Midwest.  But then Trump nearly gets his Northeast numbers on the West Coast, in which case he will still have a pledged majority unless he screws up WV and gets absolutely nothing from IN. 

I don't buy into the IN is similar to the Plains states meme. To me, it is more of an extension of the Rust Belt, Chicagoland and Kentucky to the South, a region where Trump has done well.

I don't see Indiana as Wisconsin.

Keep in mind the only state that Trump didn't win immediately surrounding Indiana is Ohio and that's only because Kasich is a sitting governor.

I agree with your reasoning but not your conclusion. Trump received 35% in Wisconsin, 36% in Ohio, and 38% in Michigan and Illinois, all of which were open primaries like Indiana is. The variation between the results in these states was in which of Trump's opponents did well or poorly. (Incidentally, the parts of Illinois and Ohio that look demographically like Indiana tended to be areas where Trump did worse, not better, than his average in those states).

Trump wins Indiana if backlash from the Cruz/Kasich deal and momentum from his mid-Atlantic wins get him new supporters. If you think Indiana will behave like its neighbors, then the conclusion that Cruz will win is inescapable. The argument for Trump winning here is reliant on a change in the broader electorate having occurred since the Wisconsin vote (since the New York vote, probably).
Wisconsin was a perfect storm for Cruz. Trump had a terrible week. Cruz had the local talk media basically in his pocket ambushing Trump. It is the home to Prebus the GOP-e. #NeverTrump was at its apex.

A lot has changed since then and this "we're going to collude and tell you to vote for strategy" reeks of desperation. Voters see right though it.

Using percentages from Ohio, Michigan and Illinois as the basis of a Trump ceiling in Indiana doesn't really play. There were a lot more candidates in the race at that time. Wisconsin is a fair assessment, but I don't equate those upper midwest states (WI and MN) with the lower midwest/transitional states like Illinois/Indiana.
Logged
Seriously?
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,029
United States


« Reply #2 on: April 29, 2016, 12:56:16 AM »

Mid-to-high 30s is not his ceiling, but it has been his typical performance in Midwestern open primaries. Trying to draw a distinction between Trump's performance in Wisconsin and Illinois isn't particularly useful, because Trump got 36% in WI and 38% in IL. If the dates of the two primaries were flipped, Trump would've won Wisconsin while the opposition was still divided, and he would've lost Illinois to Cruz. Again, if Trump wins Indiana, it's through new supporters having been attracted either by distaste for the Cruz/Kasich deal or through his mid-Atlantic victories.

Trump had a terrible week because he was losing Wisconsin. He did not lose Wisconsin because he had a terrible week. His performance in Wisconsin polling did not shift at all during that week.

Trying to group Minnesota in with Wisconsin is even less useful, because Minnesota was a closed caucus and Trump performed way worse. The difference is incredibly marginal.
Trump internals have him up 20. Cruz internals per CNN have him down 10. One of Clout's partners tweeted out what is basically a #NeverTrump tweet. I believe 538 gave Clout a D rating.

I'd treat this thing as an internal for Cruz. And if that's the case and Trump +2 is the best they can do, you and I both know that means it is really not looking pretty for Cruz.
Logged
Seriously?
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,029
United States


« Reply #3 on: April 29, 2016, 01:23:02 AM »

If you don't know what you're talking about, then sit back and listen. There's no need to make sh**t up.

Make sh**t up. OK...

"Cruz allies and people close to the campaign describe a budding sense of gloom, with internal polls diving as Trump mounted even stronger than expected showings in his native northeast. In Indiana, which Cruz backers once believed they were favored to win after his strong defeat of Trump in Wisconsin, Cruz's numbers have fallen precipitously: Once leading, Cruz now trails in the state by eight to 10 points, according to a person who has seen the numbers, with Trump over the 40% mark. Cruz's campaign did not respond when asked about those figures."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/28/politics/ted-cruz-carly-fiorina-indiana-plan/index.html

Alleged Trump internal.

https://twitter.com/kincannon_show/status/725816659563393026?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Tweets of Clout Research's PJ Wentzel, clearly #NeverTrump

https://twitter.com/PJWenzel/status/707723509712232448
https://www.facebook.com/pjwenzel/posts/10154020877909740

The only thing I was wrong on was the D. That was for Wenzel's other firm Wenzel Strategies. Same pig, different lipstick.
Logged
Seriously?
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,029
United States


« Reply #4 on: April 29, 2016, 01:25:11 AM »

Since when does Trump have internals? The Manafort hirering?
My guess is if these "internals" are true, it would come from the Manafort hiring. He obviously stopped the bleeding with unpledged delegates in PA, so you would think they had some sort of micro-polling available in crucial states like PA, IN and CA.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.031 seconds with 13 queries.