[h=2]Data compiled since the New York GOP primary shows that billionaire Donald Trump’s popular vote total in 2016 in states that have voted so far significantly exceeds the vote totals that Mitt Romney, the 2012 nominee, had in those states in total. All in all, in the contests that have been had so far in 2016, Trump towers over Romney—having won more than 2 million more votes in the 2016 GOP primaries.[/h]Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), the next closest vote-getter to Trump this cycle, falls just under 300,000 votes short of Romney’s totals in the 2012 cycle.In total, Trump has received 8,776,586 votes so far this year in states that have already held primaries or caucuses or conventions. In those same states in 2012, Romney received 6,654,029 votes—a whopping 2,122,557 votes less than Donald Trump. That means Trump has gotten a 31.79 percent increase over Romney’s totals.
Meanwhile, Cruz, in states that have voted already in 2016 has received an impressive 6,452,032 votes. While admirable, that’s still 201,977 votes less than Romney’s 2012 totals in those states—a decrease of 3.04 percent from Romney’s 2012 votes. The analysis shows that of the nearly 40 contests so far, Trump’s 2016 vote totals have demolished Romney’s 2012 vote totals in most places.
For those who think that Donald Trump has not been a wild success this year, consider the numbers
Exclusive Data Analysis: Donald Trump Wins More Than 2 Million More Votes Than Mitt Romney in 2012 in States Voting So Far - Breitbart
Please see the entire article for charts comparing these numbers.
No not only has Trump run roughshod over the current GOP primary field - and is poised to continue to do so - but he far out strips the last GOP nominee in getting voters to support him in the primary process.
And this is the candidate who some in the GOP are conspiring to deny the nomination risking the anger and wrath of the GOP primary voter. Not a very smart thing to do when you need those folks in November.
For those who think that Donald Trump has not been a wild success this year, consider the numbers.
For those who think that Donald Trump has not been a wild success this year, consider the numbers
Exclusive Data Analysis: Donald Trump Wins More Than 2 Million More Votes Than Mitt Romney in 2012 in States Voting So Far - Breitbart
Please see the entire article for charts comparing these numbers.
No not only has Trump run roughshod over the current GOP primary field - and is poised to continue to do so - but he far out strips the last GOP nominee in getting voters to support him in the primary process.
And this is the candidate who some in the GOP are conspiring to deny the nomination risking the anger and wrath of the GOP primary voter. Not a very smart thing to do when you need those folks in November.
I am in complete agreement with 538.
The article and analysis is presented NOT as any sort of harbinger for November - but to simply state the level of the rump support in this primary season.
Here is your quote "Not a very smart thing to do when you need those folks in November"
Obviously they are irrelevant to November, and its impossible to tell how many of "those folks" are just left leaning independents just messing with the GOP. Given Trump's poor performances in caucuses and closed primaries it is certainly worrisome
Trump closed a 4% gap by doing nothing. These Trump vs Clinton results mean nothing. Just like the Kasich vs Clinton results mean nothing. If Kasich is the nominee he will definitely lose.I am not questioning his success in the primary, nor his vote numbers vs. Romney 4 years ago.
What I do question is how well Trump can pivot from the attitude and tone during the primary to another strategy going up against Hillary in a General Election context. By most accounts Hillary still has a reasonable lead by the polling against Trump in that scenario.
I can stipulate that Trump has closed some of that gap, but I have my doubts on Trump being able to win against her. As of recent Hillary is +8 against Trump, down from +12. However the only time that Trump has been close to her was back in December last year, long before some of the concerns from the primary season came to be.
The only other consideration to make here is the potential for no Republican to have 1237 delegates headed into the convention. Assuming that happens for a moment, then the number of votes Trump has racked up vs. Romney 4 years ago becomes irrelevant. Once you get past that first round delegate voting just about anything can happen, and we expect GOP shenanigans at the convention anyway.
I do not think we are done, even after today's results.
RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton
I am not questioning his success in the primary, nor his vote numbers vs. Romney 4 years ago.
What I do question is how well Trump can pivot from the attitude and tone during the primary to another strategy going up against Hillary in a General Election context. By most accounts Hillary still has a reasonable lead by the polling against Trump in that scenario.
I can stipulate that Trump has closed some of that gap, but I have my doubts on Trump being able to win against her. As of recent Hillary is +8 against Trump, down from +12. However the only time that Trump has been close to her was back in December last year, long before some of the concerns from the primary season came to be.
The only other consideration to make here is the potential for no Republican to have 1237 delegates headed into the convention. Assuming that happens for a moment, then the number of votes Trump has racked up vs. Romney 4 years ago becomes irrelevant. Once you get past that first round delegate voting just about anything can happen, and we expect GOP shenanigans at the convention anyway.
I do not think we are done, even after today's results.
RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton
Primary turnout means nothing. Agreed.
But taking the election away from the pretty clear frontrunner and handing it off to second place or even someone else? That's a whole different issue.
While there might be some elements of that, its not as if the Dems do not have their own very competitive race going on to interest their own members. If this was a 2012 Obama automatic nomination situation - then yes, it might present a solid opportunity to mess with the other party and play havoc with them. But I see little evidence of it this time.
If Trump is getting Dems - they seem the tradition Reagan Republicans and there is a good chance he could keep them in the fall.
You cant take away what hasnt been earned.
Not to mention that the system that Tumpettes are whining is "rigged" is actually favoring Trump himself, despite getting 39% of the total vote he has 48% of the total delegates.
The front runner not winning the nomination has happened plenty of times before the primary era. Thats how a republican form of govt works sometimes.
Actually it hasnt been the close on the democrat side at least from a reality stand point. Bernie has certainly closed the gap but Hillary being the nominee has never been in doubt to any non Bernie supporter and the lack of turnout shows that.
Now you have ventured off the path of being silly into fantasy land.
You have to remember that in 1976 the electorate was 43% democrat and just 28% republican by 1988 it was 37% democrat and 35% republican where it similarly remains today.
Reagan democrats have long since become republicans
Popularity does not equal winning or success. If we went solely based off popularity, the American political system would be nothing more than a glorified high school class president election.
Popularity does not equal winning or success. If we went solely based off popularity, the American political system would be nothing more than a glorified high school class president election.
Primary turnout means nothing. Agreed.
But taking the election away from the pretty clear frontrunner and handing it off to second place or even someone else? That's a whole different issue.
The standard is 1,237. The first person to meet that standard is the nominee. :shrug: And that's it.
A good chunk of the GOP primary electorate will refuse to vote for Trump, and a good chunk will refuse to vote for anyone but Trump. That's baked in the cake at this point. Changing the rules to give the nod to one candidate is no better than changing them to give it to another.Yep. And everyone is fine with that... Unless they support the person who has the most delegates but not 1237. You're arguing what the rules are. And I don't disagree with you at all. I'm just trying to point out that the rules aren't going to make the butthurt feel better. It's easier to unify the party if you have the front runner win or a clear winner. That's my assumption any way. I'm not saying that half the party is going to stay home in November, but I do think it will be an important factor.
You need to convince those genius trump voters that it wasn't stolen. Good luck with that.
A good chunk of the GOP primary electorate will refuse to vote for Trump, and a good chunk will refuse to vote for anyone but Trump. That's baked in the cake at this point. Changing the rules to give the nod to one candidate is no better than changing them to give it to another.
Trump voters are prepped to believe that Muslims in New Jersey celebrated on 9/11, that Bush lied about WMDs, birtherism, and the notion that caucuses become illegitimate as soon as Trump loses them. Those people are Lost to rationality, regardless of what happens.
Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
Fair points.A good chunk of the GOP primary electorate will refuse to vote for Trump, and a good chunk will refuse to vote for anyone but Trump. That's baked in the cake at this point. Changing the rules to give the nod to one candidate is no better than changing them to give it to another.
Trump voters are prepped to believe that Muslims in New Jersey celebrated on 9/11, that Bush lied about WMDs, birtherism, and the notion that caucuses become illegitimate as soon as Trump loses them. Those people are Lost to rationality, regardless of what happens.
Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
I have bad news for you.....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?