AND: Yikes, look at this:
१५ डिसेंबर, २०१५
"Donald Trump has reached a new high in support for the Republican presidential nomination in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll..."
"... drawing on GOP support for his proposed ban on Muslims along with his powerful outsider credentials. Ben Carson’s cratered, while Ted Cruz has advanced to join the double-digit club – but with Trump now unrivaled for the lead."(PDF.)
AND: Yikes, look at this:
AND: Yikes, look at this:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
६५ टिप्पण्या:
Howard Dean is inevitable. YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
Nature abhors a vacuum. Given the current Ruling Class in America, what other outcome should we expect?
How many voters could Cruz or Rubio peel away from Trump if they took his position on immigration (though a bit more charitably).
But will he start crashing in the polls if Limbaugh throws support behind Cruz and continues to openly criticize Trump? Oh the temper tantrum will be a thing to behold if the polls start moving downward for the Trumpster. It's now a clash of the Titans between Trump and Limbaugh, this is funny as hell. Can support for Trump by the worshipping crowds now deflate as quickly as they became engorged?
Saudi Prince AlAweed is not pleased.
Trump is leading a Dhimmis Revolt in the Islam claimed North America that the he Saud family has spent 100 billion petrodollars infiltrating with Wahabist Teachers in Mosques and the sitting President.
Trump says many things that need to be said. Though he says so crudely, it allows others to enter the discussion with more reasoned contributions.
The pro-immigration folks act as if we have closed borders when we are the most generous nation in the world in both immigration and humanitarian aid both by government and private entities. To throw open the doors as they suggest (and Obama has practically done) is absolutely nuts.
Hillbillies of the world unite!
The Republican Party has become a joke. It is amazing that the otherwise discredited Rush Limbaugh still has so much sway over it. But the hillbillies have to have their ancient gods.
I wondered who "Registered Leaned Republicans" were. The report does not really explain what that means, but it did say that "Partisan divisions are 33-23-34 percent, Democrats-Republicans-independents," which is only 90%.
So I suspect the poll was cooked up just for ABC, not only to exaggerate Trump's strength, but also to show him losing to Clinton.
The horse race poll is uninteresting this far ahead of the Iowa caucuses. The other chart is much more interesting.
Let's see, according to the current polls I will have a choice next year between Clinton and Trump. So I can vote for an anti-constitutionalist despot who openly wants to destroy our institutions or an anti-constitutionalist despot who openly wants to destroy our institutions. Lovely. I think I'll just stay home, hunker down, and hope to survive the deluge.
Like the perfect storm of events that led to the inevitable election of Obama in 2008, we have a similar perfect storm ushering in Trump today. So far....
Through the last several years, the polls are proving quite unreliable. They didn't predict the big Republican gains in Congress in 2012. They didn't predict the outcome in several major elections, such as the Kentucky governor's race this year. But by all means, let's keep ignoring all that and publishing poll results!
The journalistic approach to covering elections as if they were horse races is rather tiresome. Add in push polling and you have journalism trying to influence the election as opposed to reporting what is actually happening.
A proposed ban on Muslims? I must have missed that proposal.
I'm sure that there are many Democrats disenchanted with Hillary. I just don't see them voting for Trump. Best case analysis is that they stay home. Which candidate will inspire the most voters to stay home?
I'm not sure that second graph is so "Yikes!" as all that. You don't even have to like The Donald all that much to arrive at those conclusions. Here's what I suspect the respondents are thinking:
Honest and Trustworthy - Carson. Duh. Why is Trump in second? The other three are politicians; who trusts those guys?
Best Personality - Apply the "Have a beer with" test. Trump's a hoot.
Best Chance in the General - Arranged in order of squishiness. Over the last 30 years, Republicans can see that squishiness doesn't win.
Bring Needed Change - Carson is too inexperienced to kick butt and take names in Congress. The other three are to a lesser or greater degree in the pocket of entrenched interests.
Strongest Leader - Trump. Duh. Even if you think he's Hitler, you're going to mark him number one with a bullet on this question.
Like Yogi said, "It's deja vu all over again". I've been watching this quadrennial circus since 1952. I can't remember anybody, except maybe Eisenhower, who was the favorite a year out winning the nomination. Of course I'm probably mistaken. Us geezers ain't as sharp as we used to be.
I'm real glad Carson has cratered. Good man, great surgeon, but no business running for President. If I wanted a doctor as Prez, I'd vote for Michael K.
France has faced two terrorist Massacres committed by Radical Islam: (1) Charlie Hebdo and (2) Paris.
The US has faced one recent terrorist massacred committed by Radical Islam: (1) San Bernadino
Our President consistently tries to downplay the connection between Radical Islam and these terrorist attacks. The reason he does this is to serve a narrative that somehow, he, by allowing the Navy Seals to nail Bin Laden, has somehow prevailed against AlQueda, and other Radical Islamic terrorists.
Of course, this is bull@$@t of the highest order. (See, ISIS buildup in Syria and Iraq)
Trump has seized on this issue as well as the issue of illegal immigration. Trump, to his political credit, has tapped into the psyche of many Americans who see the Democrat weak-kneed response to these 2 issues.
That is why he leads in the polls. So, in my humble, moderate opinion, Trump deserves credit. I am not currently inclined to vote for him in the primaries (for other reasons), but I salute what he has done on these 2 issues, and I am open to changing my mind.
Republican leaning?
I'm with Grimson. These polls are being cooked to hype another newscycle.
The more the establishment attacks Trump, the more popular with the American people he becomes.
That ought to be telling somebody something.
All these polls, particularly national polls, are pretty much all bullshit. Since the nomination process is based on state elections and the presidential election is determined by 50 indivdual state elections, who cares about all these national polls?
Gahrie: I promise you; that if Trump is the Republican nominee, the media attacks on him will be unprecedented and unrelenting. I don't think that will help Trump. I think his eventual defeat in the general will also be on an unprecedented scale.
Trump isn't getting the support of 40% of Americans right now. Trump has already alienated about 60% of Americans. And that is not a good thing for a presidential candidate in November.
Bay Area Guy: Why in the world do you think that Trump -- WHO VOTED FOR OBAMA IN 2008 -- is the one and only Republican who has made the case for a change of strategy against Radical Islam. Every single candidate for the Republican nomination has criticized Obama and outlined a new and different strategy.
Actually, Lindsey Graham has outlined the most aggressive military action against ISIS. Not Trump.
Again, the one way in which Trump differs from all of the other Republicans is that Trump is the only one carrying the evil baggage of having voted for Obama at one time.
Amanda
Not since Pauline Kael have we found a more closeted commenter on the political scene. Could you be her reincarnation? Is it possible? Can you send us a sign?
Trump's and GOP racisim
@who-knew
Personally I'm voting for Trump in that case because the hand basket ride to hell is going to be so much more fun than the slow Stalinist slide under Hillary.
There is a certain subsection of Trump voters that want him to use the same levers of the state that Obama did, only against the other side. So executive orders, IRS investigations, hate speech restrictions and limits on "due process" (scare quotes courtesy of the NYT). Maybe President Trump will actually issue brown shirts.
200+ LA Schools closed today due to a threat originating in Germany.
What do you think this will do to Trump's numbers? Might he crack 50%?
I suspect this will be a hot topic tonight.
Temporarily banning all non-citizen Muslims from entering the US is a terrible, though legal and constitutional, idea. The problem is nobody else has articulated anything better.
So we should do nothing at all?
John Henry
sunsong: That New York Times editorial is, predictably, disgraceful. I am a Republican who has made no common cause with Trump. So the Times editors can go screw themselves as far as I am concerned.
The Times can publish whatever garbage they might like; but if I met one of them privately and they insisted to my face that I was a "racist," they might lose a few teeth.
Democrats won't be staying home, not facing what will be the likely Republican candidates Trump or Cruz, absolutely not. And Democrats will not be voting for Trump or Cruz. Either candidate will be a huge loss for Republicans. One might even feel a bit sorry for them, but, nah, they've brought it on themselves. The chickens have come home to roost, so to speak. Years of regressive policies.... that's what you got.
Temporarily banning all non-citizen Muslims from entering the US is a terrible, though legal and constitutional, idea. The problem is nobody else has articulated anything better.
Well spotted.
We heard, for years, that Republicans had to provide ALTERNATIVES to Obamacare.
But nobody is expected to provide an alternative to shutting down Islamic immigration to the US. Why not? A bad idea can be beaten by a bad idea, but all e have is Trump's somewhat bad idea and the status quo which is a way worse idea.
Trump is leading in the national polls because of name-recognition and the fact that he leads the news cycle about once a week.
There isn't really an easy solution for the other GOP candidates. Trying to out-Trump Trump would be transparent and dangerous. So they have to go for the slow-and-steady approach of actually trying to win caucuses and primaries.
"So we should do nothing at all?"
I said "yes" the last time I was asked this question.
@ Chuck
We're not disagreeing too much. I don't think Trump is the ONLY one who's made the case about addressing Radical Islam. But, politically, he's been the most effective proponent of that case (which is what matters in the primary season).
And, if Trump voted for Obama in 2008, then, Yes, some candidate should definitely seize on this -- Have they?
My very, very simple formulation is this: Supporters of Trump should calm down -- he's not going to save us. In fact, he will let you down, like most elected officials. Critics of Trump should calm down. He's not Hitler, he's not racist, he's a pro-American Nationalist, who wants less immigration, and a tougher fight against our sworn enemies. That's a good thing.
Further, my other very, very simple formulation is that the Democrat party (I used to be one) is rotten to the core and Obama has caused needless damage to our country. So, I think it wise to break free from Democrat power and politics, and defeat Hillary. Therefore, I am mostly interested in the GOP candidate who can best defeat Hillary -- even if it's a squishy establishment candidate or rabid tea-partier.
@William, how many Democrats would wade 5 miles through chest-deep snow to vote against Trump? Because there are plenty of Republicans and indies who'd wade 5 miles through chest-deep snow to vote against Hillary.
John Henry said..
So we should do nothing at all?
Better than nothing is a high standard!
I agree with your point, but couldn't resist the easy snark...
Nate Silver thinks Trump's chances of winning the nomination are in the range of 20-1. Until Silver goes on a losing streak, I'll put my faith in his ability to use poll results to predict election outcomes.
Trump and media have a mutualistic relationship. It drives up Trump's celebrity and poll numbers. It drives up ratings, clicks, etc. for media. It will not translate into enough votes to seriously threaten for the nomination. When votes were actually cast in 2012, Silver was proved right. It's going to happen again.
Perhaps it is time we quit talking about ISIS and ISIL and start them "Islamic State In Syria" and "Islamic State In Levant"
Or perhaps just Islamic State.
John Henry
“Hundreds of [Syrian] migrants entering Norway have images of severed heads and executions on their phones, police have admitted.”
I wonder why Trump is popular?
@ Bay Area Guy
Have you read this from Mollie Hemingway? I couldn't agree more.
Rush made the point today that Trump is displaying a rarely seen trait in DC or the media: common sense. Common sense would tell you not to change the best health care system in the world. Common sense would tell you that now is not the time for open borders. Common sense would tell you to be a bit more aggressive in surveying the social media rantings of would-be immigrants from certain obviously suspect countries. And on. And on. And on. The American people see their "leaders" consistently and with pride going against the most basic and common sensical instincts of normal people. It is disturbing to think that a whole class of "elites" have no common sense. Bizarre.
Amanda
Do you get the papers there in otherland? You aware of the losses in the Senate and House these last elections? You up to date on the Governors? We know that you don't know any Democrats who would vote for Trump but we also know you don't know any Democrats who don't like arugula.
Gerrymandering works miracles, eh, Michael?
The Times can publish whatever garbage they might like; but if I met one of them privately and they insisted to my face that I was a "racist," they might lose a few teeth.
You know who isn't housing any "refugees"?
A single NY Times reporter.
Nor the publisher.
Nor the editor.
They want OTHERS to do it.
Mighty sweet of them there.
Gerrymandering works miracles, eh, Michael?
Hold on to that.
Trump is your nominee. Have fun. I can only hope non Trump voters will come to their senses. I see a comment above about 'common sense' associated with Trump. Are you kidding? Good grief. He's a circus act who plays to the crowd and follows poll numbers and says anything to get elected. Yeah, he's a politician like every single one of them. The difference is he talks louder and has celebrity behind him. But he is not a man with common sense for the simple reason that he has absurd plans that cannot and will not happen. But the populist crowds eat it up without actually thinking about what he says or how it can be implemented.
"Nate Silver thinks Trump's chances of winning the nomination are in the range of 20-1. Until Silver goes on a losing streak, I'll put my faith in his ability to use poll results to predict election outcomes."
I respect Silver's analysis as he is more often right than wrong and seems to care more about getting his information correct than any political ideology, but I can't imagine that Trump's chances at the nomination are so slim. I could see him getting upended by Rubio, Cruz or someone else who rises from the pack, but there's still a very good chance Trump pulls enough pluralities that he could pull it out.
Of course, everyone thought Howard Dean had it in the bag at this point in 2003, so we'll see how the Iowa caucuses go.
He's a circus act who plays to the crowd and follows poll numbers and says anything to get elected.
So, he's Hillary.
But he is not a man with common sense for the simple reason that he has absurd plans that cannot and will not happen. But the populist crowds eat it up without actually thinking about what he says or how it can be implemented.
Yup, Hillary.
All those damned gerrymandered gubernatorial races! How do the Republicans get away with such skullduggery?
Of course Amanda recognizes that GOP electoral success is only due to gerrymandering.
Even she has to admit that it's pretty impressive the way the republicans have managed to change state borders to elect so many governors!
Gahrie: I promise you; that if Trump is the Republican nominee, the media attacks on him will be unprecedented and unrelenting.
It doesn't matter who the Republican nominee is, the attacks on him from the media will be unrelenting, however they won't be unprecedented because it happens all of the time.
Terra! Terra! Terra!
Be very afraid. VERY AFRAID!
The terrorists are very interested in you and that podunk town you live in.
"All those damned gerrymandered gubernatorial races! How do the Republicans get away with such skullduggery?"
Fish. Barrel.
Amanda has gotten her well-deserved pantsing for suggesting that it's all about Republican Gerrymandering. I can't add much by piling on there. Much as I'd like to. Ya can't gerrymander governorships, and don't forget you can't gerrymander senate seats either. And the huge Republican house victory in 2010 was accomplished without redistricted lines.
But further to the point. The 2010 election was huge, and we should all be eternally grateful to Democrats for their overreach after Obama's swearing-in. And we should be very grateful for the Tea Party and what they meant to 2010. And since elections have consequences, the Republicans redistricted the shit out of a lot of states. Haha. It will stick, until after 2020.
And let's thank the Republican insurgents who've given us some good folks like Rubio, Cruz and Paul. Cruz and Paul defeated very good and decent Republicans. Rubio beat a hateful worm (Charlie Crist) and thank God he did.
But back to those Republican governors from 2010. Walker (WI), Kasich (OH), Snyder (MI), Branstad (IA), Corbett (PA); all of these guys in critical Big Ten country swing states were mostly good-government/small government Republicans who were notable for NOT being social issue flamethrowers. Only Snyder in Michigan counted as any sort of political outsider.
And there have been some very bad Republican candidacies in the era of Obama. Christine O'Donnell cost us a Senate seat in Delaware. Todd Akin cost us Missouri. Sharron Angle squandered a good chance to defeat Harry Reid.
Insurgency is not a silver bullet. The Tea Party doesn't have all the answers. Good candidates are great to have. Bad candidates are just plain bad.
Gahrie:
It doesn't matter who the Republican nominee is, the attacks on him from the media will be unrelenting, however they won't be unprecedented because it happens all of the time.
I know that. I already said so. They do it to every Republican. My only point is that I don't want to hear from Trump people if he gets the nomination and then loses in an historic landslide, that they wuz robbed and that The Donald wasn't treated fairly. Which is what I predict if he is nominated. And which is why I don't want him to be nominated. In the meantime, I think Trump is just causing lots of trouble. Our enemies in the media are loving it.
Trump is a runaway train and the better he polls the more crazy things the leftist Republicans utter.
A vote for Trump is a vote for Hillary!
Trump can't win!
Trump is in cahoots with Shillary!
If Trump wins, I'm taking my ball and going home!
Cry babies.
As for gerrymandering, I wasn't referring to Governors. I guess I need to add 'duh'.
You should remember the first rule of holes, Amanda. The comment you replied to with cries of gerrymandering included references to the House, Senate and governorships. That you failed to include Republican Senate wins in your 5:07 comment is yet another error on your part. Your 'duh' coda is superbly ironic.
Eh, Fabi, so what? Everyone is aware that genddymandering is done within state lines and it shouldn't have ever even been assumed that I included Governors in that, again....duh. Some of you are pretty thick. Now I'll wait for the next molehill you want to turn into a mountain.
Amanda
Of course you weren't. And Senators?
The terrorists are very interested in you and that podunk town you live in.
I live in San Bernardino.
Michael, why isn't it evident to you and a couple of others that I was referring to the House? Anyone who knows anything about gerrymandering would automatically assume it is the House that is being referred to. Every liberal I know would've assumed that, what is wrong with some of you here that this would be misunderstood? Maybe because you are over eager to create a 'gotcha'? In doing so you only make yourselves look a bit desperate and silly in the effort to somehow characterize a liberal as being 'low info' or some such thing. I really have to just shake my head at the way some of you turn yourselves inside out to get that ' gotcha' moment. Kind of comical actually. Now back to the kids table debate, it's pretty darn interesting.
Amanda
Because you responded to my 2:13 post with the following: "Gerrymandering works miracles, eh, Michael?"
So it wasn't "evident" to the reader that you were referring only to the House when my post of 2:13 included both governors and Senators. That is why your shitty little snark was not only wrong but backfired. And then you kept digging. You are a bit out of your depth on this site , Amanda, but I hope you will stick around and learn to debate better and in better faith.
So, in summary, the reason it wasn't evident that you were referring only to the House is because you weren't.
If Trump were nominated, I would leave the party.
Michael, oh blah blah blah, your shitty little attempt at a gotcha is ridiculous. Again, you assume much. You've done this before, several times now actually. I've come to the conclusion you are full of shit most times and not to be taken seriously. You attempt to portray yourself as having an insididers knowlege of any subject being discussed, but when push comes to shove, you are nothing more than another blowhard. So perhaps you should exchange your seat at your investment banker desk and get on stage with a turban and read people's minds for a living. LOL.
Amanda
Your reading skills are insufficient to participate at a high level here. You got yourself. No attempt required. Read the thread. Quit trying to act like you didnt' make a stupid snarky comment. You did. Own it. Might earn some respect as a commenter. Or perhaps you would prefer a safe place.
Michael,
You aren't in any position to give advice to any other commenter here regarding their reading comprehension, grasp of the topic at hand or their continued presence in the comments sections. You just keep your turban on and perhaps you'll become the resident blog mind reader. I honestly don't care what you think, most of the contributions I've read of yours have been dull, passive agressive and presumptuous. My first instinct about you was right, you get your jollies by trying to discredit liberals here, well buddy this liberal doesn't get intimidated by people like you. I've met many of them in my lifetime and I am not impressed. You are nothing more than the run of the mill ass who comments on political blogs.
Amanda
LOL. Thanks for playing. You cram a little thought into a lot of words.
Fill us in on the gerrymandering any time you feel like it.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा