The Secret Trump Voters: the silent majority speaks out

[Bacon King]

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/03/secret-donald-trump-voters-speak-out

[SillyAmerican]

I believe the depth and breadth of Trump voters is much larger than folks realize. There's a reason why it's called a "secret ballot" - nobody need know who you vote for, so like the article points out, people in demographic groups that normally would side with Clinton are rethinking their options, and for a variety of reasons.

[Vosem]

I wonder if the guy supporting _trump solely because he opposes HB1 visas changed his mind after last night. Most likely.

I believe the depth and breadth of Trump voters is much larger than folks realize. There's a reason why it's called a "secret ballot" - nobody need know who you vote for, so like the article points out, people in demographic groups that normally would side with Clinton are rethinking their options, and for a variety of reasons.

The actual elections, in which _trump consistently underperforms, occasionally by double-digits, do not agree with you.

[Mr. Morden]

Silent "majority"?  He's won 34% of the Republican primary vote so far.  Shouldn't that be "Silent plurality"?

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

I wonder if the guy supporting _trump solely because he opposes HB1 visas changed his mind after last night. Most likely.

I believe the depth and breadth of Trump voters is much larger than folks realize. There's a reason why it's called a "secret ballot" - nobody need know who you vote for, so like the article points out, people in demographic groups that normally would side with Clinton are rethinking their options, and for a variety of reasons.

The actual elections, in which _trump consistently underperforms, occasionally by double-digits, do not agree with you.

You can't possibly be serious. The caucuses are obvious and fully expected, but Trump performs right in line with his poll numbers in all seriously polled primaries. I liked the _trump shtick, but now you are delving into stupidity.

[Bacon King]

Silent "majority"?  He's won 34% of the Republican primary vote so far.  Shouldn't that be "Silent plurality"?

just using Trump's terminology..

[Vosem]

I wonder if the guy supporting _trump solely because he opposes HB1 visas changed his mind after last night. Most likely.

I believe the depth and breadth of Trump voters is much larger than folks realize. There's a reason why it's called a "secret ballot" - nobody need know who you vote for, so like the article points out, people in demographic groups that normally would side with Clinton are rethinking their options, and for a variety of reasons.

The actual elections, in which _trump consistently underperforms, occasionally by double-digits, do not agree with you.

You can't possibly be serious. The caucuses are obvious and fully expected, but Trump performs right in line with his poll numbers in all seriously polled primaries. I liked the _trump shtick, but now you are delving into stupidity.

Off the top of my head, _trump significantly underperformed expectations in Vermont, Virginia, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, all of which were primaries (along with every caucus so far conducted, except for some reason Nevada). That's roughly half of all contests that have occurred to date, with _trump performing pretty much in line with polling expectations in the other half. Underperforming in half of all contests and never overperforming is a pretty consistent pattern to my mind.

And thank you for your compliment of my _trump shtick. I highly encourage the Silent (but rapidly Awakening) Majority of _trump's opponents to adopt it.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

I wonder if the guy supporting _trump solely because he opposes HB1 visas changed his mind after last night. Most likely.

I believe the depth and breadth of Trump voters is much larger than folks realize. There's a reason why it's called a "secret ballot" - nobody need know who you vote for, so like the article points out, people in demographic groups that normally would side with Clinton are rethinking their options, and for a variety of reasons.

The actual elections, in which _trump consistently underperforms, occasionally by double-digits, do not agree with you.

You can't possibly be serious. The caucuses are obvious and fully expected, but Trump performs right in line with his poll numbers in all seriously polled primaries. I liked the _trump shtick, but now you are delving into stupidity.

Off the top of my head, _trump significantly underperformed expectations in Vermont, Virginia, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, all of which were primaries (along with every caucus so far conducted, except for some reason Nevada). That's roughly half of all contests that have occurred to date, with _trump performing pretty much in line with polling expectations in the other half. Underperforming in half of all contests and never overperforming is a pretty consistent pattern to my mind.

And thank you for your compliment of my _trump shtick. I highly encourage the Silent (but rapidly Awakening) Majority of _trump's opponents to adopt it.

In that case, you're comparing to unrealistic ironic supporter fantasies than to real polling. Morning Consult's heat map effectively in line with VT. Trolls like Torie believed Trump wouldn't win Arkansas because THE POLLS. I'm pretty sure he hit his Virginia numbers exactly, Rubio just outperformed.

I'm not sure I took a close look at Oklahoma before hand. If there were any polls he underperformed, I'd chalk it up to it being a closed primary which forced many of his voters to go to Sanders instead.

[Vosem]

I wonder if the guy supporting _trump solely because he opposes HB1 visas changed his mind after last night. Most likely.

I believe the depth and breadth of Trump voters is much larger than folks realize. There's a reason why it's called a "secret ballot" - nobody need know who you vote for, so like the article points out, people in demographic groups that normally would side with Clinton are rethinking their options, and for a variety of reasons.

The actual elections, in which _trump consistently underperforms, occasionally by double-digits, do not agree with you.

You can't possibly be serious. The caucuses are obvious and fully expected, but Trump performs right in line with his poll numbers in all seriously polled primaries. I liked the _trump shtick, but now you are delving into stupidity.

Off the top of my head, _trump significantly underperformed expectations in Vermont, Virginia, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, all of which were primaries (along with every caucus so far conducted, except for some reason Nevada). That's roughly half of all contests that have occurred to date, with _trump performing pretty much in line with polling expectations in the other half. Underperforming in half of all contests and never overperforming is a pretty consistent pattern to my mind.

And thank you for your compliment of my _trump shtick. I highly encourage the Silent (but rapidly Awakening) Majority of _trump's opponents to adopt it.

In that case, you're comparing to unrealistic ironic supporter fantasies than to real polling. Morning Consult's heat map effectively in line with VT. Trolls like Torie believed Trump wouldn't win Arkansas because THE POLLS. I'm pretty sure he hit his Virginia numbers exactly, Rubio just outperformed.

I'm not sure I took a close look at Oklahoma before hand. If there were any polls he underperformed, I'd chalk it up to it being a closed primary which forced many of his voters to go to Sanders instead.

I was mostly looking at the numbers by margin, since that's more typically how polls are judged. Cruz was supposed to win Texas by 9; he won by 17. _trump was supposed to win Virginia by 15; he won by 2. _trump was supposed to win Oklahoma by 11; he lost by 6. _trump was supposed to win Vermont by 15; he lost by 2. _trump did do a bit better than the averages in Alabama and Massachusetts, where he overperformed by 4, but that pales in comparison to his failings.

If you look at the percents he receives, though, they're usually more accurate. But standing alone the percentage a candidate receives doesn't tell us very much about the result. 35% in a 2-candidate race and 35% in a 4-candidate race are very different performances, for instance.

_trump also underperformed the expectations of betting markets; he was supposed to win every state but Texas, I believe, a feat which he didn't even come close to.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I identify with a number of these people.