Althouse: "Donald Trump and Marco Rubio won Tuesday’s night primetime Republican debate, according to an overnight poll of Internet users who watched the contest..."

November 11, 2015

"Donald Trump and Marco Rubio won Tuesday’s night primetime Republican debate, according to an overnight poll of Internet users who watched the contest..."

"... but Mr. Trump came out as the favorite among Republicans and left the best impression about his ability to serve as president. Some 24% of debate-viewers named Mr. Trump and 23% picked Mr. Rubio as the winner of the eight-candidate event, which was sponsored by the Wall Street Journal and Fox Business News. Ted Cruz and Ben Carson followed, with 13% declaring each to have won...."

The Wall Street Journal reports its poll done by Google Consumer Surveys.

30 comments:

YoungHegelian said...: i know we're talking subjective judgements here, but I watched all but the first 20 minutes, and my response to the idea that Trump came out on top is Whaaaaaaaaat??!!

Last night was not his finest hour. He even got booed a couple of times. I don't think he made a pain of himself like Kasich, but others just seemed to me to be more in the swim of it than Trump.; 11/11/15, 9:11 PM
madAsHell said...: Carly would have won, but she wasn't rockin' the low riser jeans.; 11/11/15, 9:18 PM
Michael K said...: It's too early to judge. I am just amazed at how Carson is hanging in there.; 11/11/15, 9:29 PM
Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...: Mrs. Gritzkofe favors Ted Cruz. Hammond concedes that Cruz has the right philosophical position. To boot, he thinks well on his feet and expresses his ideas well.

Nonetheless, excepting a close race next November, Hammond will be pulling the Libertarian lever. This on the reasoning of indicating to present and future office aspirants the philosophy they should espouse if they would have Hammond's future vote.; 11/11/15, 9:35 PM
David said...: So you're voting for Hillary, Hammond. Thanks a bunch.; 11/11/15, 9:41 PM
rcocean said...: Seems the less Carson says the better he does. Will the USA elect a question mark? They did in 2008.; 11/11/15, 9:43 PM
MikeR said...: My son also watched the debates, and thought that Trump was totally pwned by Rand Paul on China and the TPP. He definitely felt that Trump did poorly.; 11/11/15, 9:50 PM
narciso said...: well possibly, however, you think 'the 800 pound guerilla' will not find a way to get into the TPP.; 11/11/15, 9:53 PM
ddh said...: Trump's fans are as loyal as any Ron Paul had in earlier election cycles; Paul easily won every Internet poll, which is what Google conducted.; 11/11/15, 10:11 PM
Mark said...: ddh,the Trump supporter as Ron Paul supporter is an interesting thought; 11/11/15, 10:14 PM
Drago said...: Mark: "ddh,the Trump supporter as Ron Paul supporter is an interesting thought""

I'm not sure if ddh is going there, but I believe the "mainstream" opinion is that Trumps troops, like Pauls before, are small in number but extraordinarily motivated and supportive of their candidate. This intensity then creates an impression that the supporters are much greater in number than they actually are.

Hence the difference between polls and actual real voters who turn out to pull the lever for the candidate.; 11/11/15, 11:46 PM
Drago said...: I'm not sure I'm buying that opinion btw.

Again, with the election and reelection of Obama (due directly to the eleventeen-zillion imported voters (and more on the way all the time)), the terrain has shifted so much that it might very well be true that Trump is in the catbird seat.; 11/11/15, 11:48 PM
Achilles said...: ddh said...
"Trump's fans are as loyal as any Ron Paul had in earlier election cycles; Paul easily won every Internet poll, which is what Google conducted."

As long as Trump is the only person who stays on top of the immigration issue he will never drop below 25%. He could punch a baby in the face at a debate and as long as he promises to enforce the law on immigration he will have a baseline of support.

I am not saying I totally agree with him on that issue, but that is the underlying issue there.

You can also see some wheels turning. Now that the GOPe is left with Rubio as it's last hope Cruz and Trump are starting to go after him. Hopefully they put an end to his chances.; 11/11/15, 11:52 PM
Achilles said...: Drago said...
"... This intensity then creates an impression that the supporters are much greater in number than they actually are.

Hence the difference between polls and actual real voters who turn out to pull the lever for the candidate."

I think it is the opposite. All of the polls try to weed out people that are unlikely to vote. I believe most of Trumps supporters are people who haven't voted for a while. They are very unhappy with how DC is ignoring them and importing people that drive down their wages.

He draws huge ratings wherever he goes. I think he will outperform his polls.; 11/11/15, 11:55 PM
Anonymous said...: Google? Can you trust Google? Google rigged poll to select Trump to lose to their Hillary.; 11/12/15, 12:12 AM
Ctmom4 said...: His answer to the foreign policy question was incoherent. He embarrassed himself with the rant about China in the TPP. And he said wages are too high. Not minimum wage, wages. Oy vey.; 11/12/15, 1:00 AM
Brando said...: Trump fans would have to be cultists to think he "won" that debate. In the span of two hours he demonstrated that (1) he doesn't know what's in the TPP agreement that he so loudly denounces, proving he is just as ignorant on trade issues as any Sanders-ite; (2) his stance on immigration is delusional (send them all over the border and then let them back in? If he meant to say something more coherent than that, he didn't do so Tuesday night); (3) he's as delusional about thinking he can get Putin to do whatever he wants because he met him once, suggesting the same naivete as Obama and Bush had on the Russian; and (4) he's pointlessly rude. Even someone favoring Trump but watching the debate with an open mind would have to admit that he didn't acquit himself well that night (and frankly should have migrated to Cruz, who whatever you think of his policies at least articulated them pretty well).

But Trump fans are so dedicated to the idea of the man, this image of a business whiz who can roll in and solve all our problems with vague assurances (didn't we have a similar candidate like that in 2008? I wonder what happened with him?) that nothing will sway them. And this is a sizable chunk of the GOP electorate.; 11/12/15, 6:12 AM
MacMacConnell said...: Ditto what Brando said.; 11/12/15, 6:28 AM
Nichevo said...: All of them are fine or fine enough; that is, all are better than the Democrats well, if Bernie were in it to win it and not afraid of laying a glove on HRC, I might have to look closer, but no, so, no.

Trump or Carson or Fiorina won't destroy the world. Even Rand Paul is more reachable than Obama. The J. Farmers of the polity will search in vain for a candidate quite so ready to watch the world burn.

Trump was kind of burned on the details such as TPP, he's pandering to the middle already, I did not see his face. Pound Carson, Carly on such.

Have steel cage death debates, 1v1 for an hour on one topic at a time, like a debate tournament, though BFL does only one topic a year, in policy debate at least.

First up: Have Carly vs Trump on military affairs would seem to be a slaughter in the making, as Trump apparently thinks the 61,000 ships of the US Navy in WWII is not enough, we should be bigger than "ever." If he can sell that vs Fiorina's actual grasp of actual bounds of reality, more power to him; if he likes to walk it back or spin it, let him show grace and poise.

See, if there is winnowing to be done, let it be like this. Judge on substance ! It's so crazy, it just might work...

Ann, close your ear s and stomp your little foot, but: Raise or ding candidates based on actionable ideas and opinions on relevant, current issues of importance.

Would you vote Trump vs Carson because of pyramids? This is a much better reason to switch back. Otoh Trump did have a valid point on currency, don't recall anything about IP.

Obama has proven that you don't have to be a practicing politician to execute the office of The President. What at core you have to have is intelligence, wisdom, charisma, and character.

Sarah Palin had equal or greater experience than Obama and it's literally impossible that she could have done worse for the country. Why should I be afraid of Dr. Carson? I firmly believe that he is a good man. We like to rebound from pole to poke in the American electorate? Very well, let's go from the worst black man in America to the best black man in America.

I want Carson well vetted, to be sure he can do the job, which is chiefly selecting from alternatives presented by experts. So have at him. But not on fluff.

Hillary! under any serious opposition would be torn apart. The hearings seem to have been a pity but perhaps Mr. Gowdy recule a mieux sauter.. If this is competence then the hell with competence. The ability to fool fools? That's your competence? Damn you to hell!; 11/12/15, 7:31 AM
Nichevo said...: And stop attacking GWB for nicing Putin, goddammit. Tell me any other approach whatsoever that would have got more out of the Russians. How does it weaken Bush or the US to say that Putin has soul? They're big in that in Russia believe it or not. It's like face in China. It's really. Hillary made nasty remarks about Putin and he will never forget, forgive or deny himself an opportunity to shiv her. If you are interested in stuff a little bigger than store-cities of the post-Imhotep era.; 11/12/15, 7:34 AM
traditionalguy said...: OK, I get it. Trump wins polls by being right on the issues the voters care about, and that is cheating.

What about brain surgery???

What about the cold war with the USSR???

What about winning the non-voting Hispanic votes after the Amnesty is declared???

What about the sincerity of his faith in the God we like???

Trump is rude to people who attack him first and is being one of those slippery Pragmatists and not an ideologue.; 11/12/15, 7:59 AM
Larry J said...: Once again, they're reporting on politics as if it were a horse race. Just last week, they were reporting on how polling was so inaccurate in the Kentucky governor's race, and then they turn around an report yet another story based on polling results. "Polling is broken!" followed by "And here's the latest poll results!" Crazy, perhaps insane.; 11/12/15, 8:18 AM
Thorley Winston said...: ddh, the Trump supporter as Ron Paul supporter is an interesting thought

It may not be that far off. Ron Paul’s campaign chair in Minnesota is a Trump supporter and has said publicly that she believes Trump rather than Rand Paul was the true heir of the movement Ron Paul started. I think she’s at least partially correct in so far as the movement was driven by anger at _________ (fill in the blanks here) and was made up of people who just wanted to poke the people that they didn’t like in the eye. I don’t think that’s how Rand Paul sees the movement that his father was credited with leading and it may not be what Ron Paul intended but speaking as someone active in the grassroots, there was a lot of animosity that came in with Ron Paul’s people and not a lot of constructive effort after they took over in a lot of places.; 11/12/15, 9:35 AM
Sammy Finkelman said...: I thought Google wasn't doing Presidential polling during the primaries any more.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-political-polls-are-so-often-wrong-1447285797

In Gallup’s 1930s America, about 90% of those approached answered pollsters’ questions. Today’s Americans are less willing. The Pew Research Center reported that its response rate—the percentage of contacted households that yielded an interview—fell from an already low 36% in 1997 to 9% in 2012. That could increase the possibility that the people who are polled aren’t representative of the population sampled. Pew has studied this possibility and has found no significant effect—yet.

Pollsters have responded by increasing the number of cellphone calls, which is expensive because under federal law they must be dialed by a person, not automatically by machine. Some polls are conducted partially or entirely over the Internet, which risks producing unrepresentative samples because Internet usage is higher among certain groups than others and because Internet respondents are in effect volunteers. Pollsters typically weight their results so that demographic groups underrepresented in most samples—the young, racial minorities—constitute the percentage they will form of the actual electorate. But that’s inevitably an educated guess, since one thing pollsters have always had trouble projecting is turnout.

Some pollsters are simply throwing in the towel. The Gallup organization, polling for 80 years, won’t conduct presidential-primary polls this cycle...; 11/12/15, 10:49 AM
Sammy Finkelman said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 11/12/15, 11:06 AM
Sammy Finkelman said...: Following JALTCOH's advice on his blog I edited this message by copying it and deleting the first post.

Achilles said...

"As long as Trump is the only person who stays on top of the immigration issue he will never drop below 25%. He could punch a baby in the face at a debate and as long as he promises to enforce the law on immigration he will have a baseline of support."

That 25% or so is almost entirely limited to the Republican Party.

It will last until somebody takes issue with the notion that the law must be enforced and/or that no amnesty must be given unless it is the last amnesty. The Republicans are stuck in a logic trap, as a result of 40 plus years of propaganda on talk radio..

How did everybody let Donald Trump get away with that statement that he would deport some 11 million people - and then “hopefully” he would let them all back in! He's said somethinbg like this more than once. It's his standard line.

How would this work? Is he hoping people don’t know anything about the need to change immigration law to make this feasible? And what would be the point of it all?

But then nobody challenged Trump on the preposterous lie that he met Vladimir Putin because they were both on the same episode of 60 Minutes. 60 Minutes doesn't do live interviews!

And then Carly Fiorina says that she met Vladimir Putin, but (unlike Donald Trump that is) not in a green room setting...only on the Tonight Show in September, that's exactly how she described it.

Marco Rubio at least said he didn't meet Vladimir Putin.; 11/12/15, 11:09 AM
Sammy Finkelman said...: By the way, nobody seems to be challenging Hillary Clinton on the un-backed up assertion that she was a great friend, or at least personally knew, U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, which she started saying, almost on the day he was killed.

This has been communicated in many subtle ways, but I think it is a BIG LIE.

She's actually careful what she says herself - she says she picture him in her mind, but she won't say he was a friend, and of course how long she knew him etc. It's more having other people say he was a friend. She may say only taht she picked him and recommended him for the job.

Everybody assumes that it has to be true.; 11/12/15, 11:16 AM
Sammy Finkelman said...: Nichevo said...

I want Carson well vetted, to be sure he can do the job, which is chiefly selecting from alternatives presented by experts. So have at him. But not on fluff.

I think Carson would make at least as good a president as Harding. Some very good appointments and some very bad ones. It would not be an utter disaster, and would have the benefit of maybe being what the politicians deserve.; 11/12/15, 11:48 AM
Nichevo said...: I feel the same about Trump and Carly. Let them, or Carson, or a pol, win or lose on the merits. At least with the outsiders I wouldn't be wondering why the president was born in Canada. Mick gets mocked into outer space but a NBC was born here of 2 citizen parents. I don't even know why that's controversial, that was social studies back in grade school.; 11/12/15, 12:34 PM
Mick said...: Yeah, well Rubio is not eligible and is only there to protect the legacy of the Usurper Hussein Obama.

According to Afronym v. Rusk, Rubio is a naturalized citizen, naturalized by the 14th Amendment ("conferred citizenship") itself. Wong Kim Ark was also the child of legal resident alien parents, and the Rusk case says Wong Kim Ark was naturalized.

“The Court first held that within the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment, Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States, and then pointed out that though he might "renounce this citizenship, and become a citizen of . . . any other country," he had never done so. [Wong Kim Ark] at 704-705. The Court then held that Congress could not do anything to abridge or affect his citizenship conferred by the Fourteenth Amendment. Quoting Chief Justice Marshall's well-considered and oft-repeated dictum in Osborn to the effect that Congress under the power of naturalization has "a power to confer citizenship, not a power to take it away," - Afroyim v. Rusk, (387 U.S. 253, 266)

Of course the law prof will have nothing to say about direct evidence and holding of the SCOTUS that the 14th Amendment ITSELF naturalizes those who are born "subject to the jurisdiction of the US". Like WKA, Rubio was born to legal resident alien parents, who by legal habitation established allegiance, making their children, if born during that legal habitation, "subject to the jurisdiction of the US" within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. (See Wong Kim Ark @ 693). The children of resident aliens prior to 1898 were considered legal resident aliens until their parents naturalized before 1898 (See NA 1802 S. 4).

Rubio is a naturalized citizen, not a natural born Citizen. Everyone who is not born in America of US Citizen parents is naturalized in some way, either by statute or oath.; 11/12/15, 12:57 PM