How bad is this for Trump?

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

On Sept 9th, he was 33% with rounding nationally, now as of Sept 25th he's fallen to 24% that's almost a 10% drop in the last 2 weeks.

[Donald Trump 2016 !]

Looking at the same graph you are: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-gop-primary#!smoothing=less&showpoints=no&estimate=custom

I noticed that the last time Trump was polling near 24.4% on that graph was early August. This means that he's already lost all the gains he made from early/mid August too now. I think this is bad for Trump but my predictions about Trump were completely wrong the first few months he entered the race so I can't say for sure.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Looking at the same graph you are: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-gop-primary#!smoothing=less&showpoints=no&estimate=custom


I noticed that the last time Trump was polling near 24.4% on that graph was early August. This means that he's already lost all the gains he made from early/mid August too now. I think this is bad for Trump but my predictions about Trump were completely wrong the first few months he entered the race so I can't say for sure.

Yeah, I used less smoothing because it more accurately reflects changes in polling and the averages.

[Donald Trump 2016 !]

Looking at the same graph you are: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-gop-primary#!smoothing=less&showpoints=no&estimate=custom


I noticed that the last time Trump was polling near 24.4% on that graph was early August. This means that he's already lost all the gains he made from early/mid August too now. I think this is bad for Trump but my predictions about Trump were completely wrong the first few months he entered the race so I can't say for sure.

Yeah, I used less smoothing because it more accurately reflects changes in polling and the averages.

I know. My link that I posted just doesn't want to factor that in for some reason. After I adjusted for less soothing on the Huffpost graph (like yours) it still showed that Trump has lost all the gains he made for the past 1.5-2 months. I think he'll continue to go down and level off at about 17-20% for the next few months. When the primary starts gearing up and people start paying more and more attention to policy discussions, Trump will start to lose in the polls unless he starts communicating his policy proposals better. Rubio's recent criticisms of Trump hit the nail on the head. Paul's said similar things about Trump in the past too.

[Mehmentum]

Eh, it could easily be a reversion to the mean, of Trump being at only 25% nationally.  Everyone on this board is so thirsty for Trump to go down that they're bound to overreact to this.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Eh, it could easily be a reversion to the mean, of Trump being at only 25% nationally.  Everyone on this board is so thirsty for Trump to go down that they're bound to overreact to this.

Because Trump literally is the most unqualified person to be President that is running, he's acting like this is a reality show....but I kindly digress.

[bobloblaw]

Eh, it could easily be a reversion to the mean, of Trump being at only 25% nationally.  Everyone on this board is so thirsty for Trump to go down that they're bound to overreact to this.

Because Trump literally is the most unqualified person to be President that is running, he's acting like this is a reality show....but I kindly digress.

He is more qualified than Fiorina or Carson.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Eh, it could easily be a reversion to the mean, of Trump being at only 25% nationally.  Everyone on this board is so thirsty for Trump to go down that they're bound to overreact to this.

Because Trump literally is the most unqualified person to be President that is running, he's acting like this is a reality show....but I kindly digress.

He is more qualified than Fiorina or Carson.

I would agree with you, but all three of them have either businesses that failed miserably, or don't know the issues at all or both.

[Donald Trump 2016 !]

Updated a few hours ago:

[weixiaobao]

It mostly because of that Bloomberg poll.  And most people already question since the beginning that Bloomberg usually operate in Iowa.

The Bloomberg is a huge outlier compare with the rest.

The Gravis Marketing poll in HuffPost Pollster average is just plain wrong.  Fiorina at 22%.  No other poll from the same time period replicated that.

[Donald Trump 2016 !]

It mostly because of that Bloomberg poll.  And most people already question since the beginning that Bloomberg usually operate in Iowa.

The Bloomberg is a huge outlier compare with the rest.

The Gravis Marketing poll in HuffPost Pollster average is just plain wrong.  Fiorina at 22%.  No other poll from the same time period replicated that.

OK, here's the same as the one I posted before but without Bloomberg/Slezer polls and starting in February of 2016:

[weixiaobao]

OK, here's the same as the one I posted before but without Bloomberg/Slezer polls and starting in February of 2016:

Then that should be more accurate.  Trump is indeed going down as shown in state polls also.

[Senator Cris]

https://instagram.com/p/8E5dKNGhYs/

LOL. He's saying that it's an updated poll tracker with all polls of week, but it's updated at September 19.

[Donald Trump 2016 !]

https://instagram.com/p/8E5dKNGhYs/

LOL. He's saying that it's an updated poll tracker with all polls of week, but it's updated at September 19.

What an idiot. His followers are eating this nonsense up as well. Trump's either delusional or trolling.

[eric82oslo]

Very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very bad.

He's beginning to look like such a looser, to be honest.

[Likely Voter]

Trump is already headed towards poll trutherism. He is now touting online polls because he does better in those...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When the time comes when he falls to second in the live phone polls but still leads in the online polls, he is certain to claim the 'media' (live phone) polls are rigged because the media is out to get him and they are tools of the Establishment.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Eh, it could easily be a reversion to the mean, of Trump being at only 25% nationally.  Everyone on this board is so thirsty for Trump to go down that they're bound to overreact to this.

Because Trump literally is the most unqualified person to be President that is running, he's acting like this is a reality show....but I kindly digress.

He is more qualified than Fiorina or Carson.

More qualified in executive experience than Carson (although, as a human being, Carson laps most of the field).

More qualified in terms of success than Fiorina (who embodies the worst of corporate CEOs and neocons all rolled into one person).

More qualified than a whole slew of candidates in terms of actually accomplishing something in the real world, as opposed to being on a "career track" with minimal understanding of how the world outside law and politics works.

I grant you, Trump's lack of elective office experience is NOT a plus, but neither is the lack of real-world experience of a great many candidates.  Especially Rubio, who is the quintessential "manager-in-training" candidate, who, without politics, would be just another lawyer drafting corporate contracts.

[Fuzzy Bear]

As for the "good vs. bad" interpretation of the numbers, this is clearly good for Trump.  He's a SOLIDIFIED front-runner now.  It will REQUIRE a number of candidates to drop out, consolidate behind one candidate for the express purpose of taking down The Donald, and hope that the supporters of these candidates follow suit.

If he dropped, and was now in 2nd place, that would be bad for Trump, but he's not.  He's a consistent front-runner in a large field.  More people want Trump as the GOP nominee than anyone else.  Of course, more people want SOMEBODY else than Trump, but that's not fatal yet.

The GOP Establishment, and even some of the non-Establishment candidates hope Trump will just fade away, or embarrass himself away.  Was that going to happen to George Wallace in 1972?  Could George Wallace, in 1972, have said anything, or done anything, to cause his support to drop?  "Send 'em A Message" was the Wallace 1972 campaign, and that's a lot about what the Trump 2016 campaign was about.  Trump is going to require that the GOP take him down in full view of the voters, unambiguously, and in a way to where it is clear that he will not have their support if nominated.  Put it this way:  How many establishment Democrats outside the Southern states would have endorsed Wallace in 1972 if he had been the nominee?