There is a notable gender difference among caucusgoers’ preferences. Men prefer Cruz (29%) and Trump (24%) over Rubio (12%) and Carson (12%). Women support Rubio (23%) and Cruz (19%) over Carson (15%) and Trump (14%).AND: CNN just put out a poll on Iowa with a completely different result: Trump 33, Cruz 20, Carson 16, Rubio 11, Bush 4, Paul 3, Fiorina 3, Christie 2...
Both are polls of likely Republican caucusgoers.
ALSO: I thought FiveThirtyEight might shed some light on this, but I guess it's too soon. But I did find this: "The GOP Establishment May Need Religious Voters To Stop Donald Trump."
“The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
That’s what I imagine Reince Priebus, head of the Republican National Committee, repeating to himself as he tries to fall asleep every night.
পোস্টগুলি
৩৯টি মন্তব্য:
Why are these polls are over the map?
CNN just released a poll with Trump leading by 10.
I called this months ago on this very blog.
But there is still a month to go.
Trump and Cruz will be the eventual choice. I really like Cruz, but at this point I would prefer Trump. He is pulling in new voting blocks to the Republican party and I personally would be happy to see all of the Plutocrats go support Hillary. The CoC/Rove wing of the party can get bent. If it is a choice between the CoC and the blue collar block that used to vote for dems the CoC can go.
I don't think Trump has fallen that much. At this point these pollsters can't get anyone to answer the phone. Iowa is a natural location for Cruz however. There is a strong evangelical block there that used to support Carson that Cruz is a perfect fit for.
Not surprised. Cruz organized the church people.
In response to that Trump makes a public announcement in which he calls for all Muslims to be denied entrance to the USA. This is some great entertainment. I got the popcorn, who has the beer? So for the first time in American history a Presidential candidate calls for a full on violation of the Estblishment Clause. Oh hell who cares about the Constitution when you have a Trump? Trump trumps the Constitution, right conservatives?
Interesting, but it's a poll.
Cruz looks a bit like Joe McCarthy. I don't think he is actually like McCarthy but that's not a plus.
Cruz wil win Iowa and lose New Hampshire badly.
NH is not into christianist.
tits
I'm a Cruz believer as time goes by; second only to Fiorina, if you just listen to what he SAYS it makes the most sense.
Two things for Cruz to consider:
1. Can you appear just a little less "politiciany"? Make the hair, the voice, the blue blazer and khaki slacks ... Something ....
2. Can you lose a weight? Just a little less doughy?
Otherwise ... Yes.
Blogger Amanda said...
In response to that Trump makes a public announcement in which he calls for all Muslims to be denied entrance to the USA. This is some great entertainment. I got the popcorn, who has the beer? So for the first time in American history a Presidential candidate calls for a full on violation of the Estblishment Clause. Oh hell who cares about the Constitution when you have a Trump? Trump trumps the Constitution, right conservatives?
Whatever you might think of the proposal, no, its not a violation of the establishment clause.
Ugh. Liberals are so uneducated.
eric said...
"Why are these polls are over the map?
CNN just released a poll with Trump leading by 10."
Because these are inexpensive phone polls. People don't have landlines and it is difficult to get around the laws to call cell phones.
The campaigns spend money on focus groups and case studies.
If Trump is the nominee, I want Cruz as VP until a spot opens up for the USSC. 30 years of Cruz on the USSC - I can just hear the Lib/Prog heads exploding.
Re: Todd Roberson:
1. Can you appear just a little less "politiciany"? Make the hair, the voice, the blue blazer and khaki slacks ... Something ....
Yes, he sounds like such a lawyer. He is an "effective communicator" in that very polished, very lawyerly way that for some reason apparently works on juries, but kind of makes my skin crawl.
I say as a lawyer.
The Monmouth poll that puts Cruz ahead was taken from 12/3-12/6. The CNN poll with Trump ahead was done 11/28-12/6. So, while the periods overlapped, the poll with Cruz ahead is the one that includes only the period after the San Bernardino attack. Perhaps the attack caused a drop in Trump's support in Iowa. Just looking at the recent polls on realclearpolitics, both Trump and Carson do worse in that poll than in other recent polls in Iowa, while Cruz and Rubio both do better.
@Amanda,
So for the first time in American history a Presidential candidate calls for a full on violation of the Estblishment Clause.
No, not at all. These folks are potential immigrants, not on American soil yet & certainly not American citizens. They have no constitutional rights as of yet. American immigration policy can, and has, discriminated against anyone the damn legislative & executive branches have seen fit to discriminate against.
That recent immigration policies have been "more inclusive" of folks from third world countries & non-Christians is simply a change in statute, and has nothing to do with any constitutional principles.
Didn't Iowans throw down for, uh, Santorum and Huckabee the last couple times 'round?
You nice Iowan evangelical FREAK JOBS!
NTTAWWT.
"Trump trumps the Constitution, right conservatives?"
I'll raise you an internment camp and call you.
"The Constitutions not a suicide pact."
Who said that ?
Amanda said...
"In response to that Trump makes a public announcement in which he calls for all Muslims to be denied entrance to the USA. This is some great entertainment. I got the popcorn, who has the beer? So for the first time in American history a Presidential candidate calls for a full on violation of the Estblishment Clause. Oh hell who cares about the Constitution when you have a Trump? Trump trumps the Constitution, right conservatives?"
You seem unaware that there is an actual 1st amendment. Here it is:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
The establishment clause states that the government cannot establish a religion. You were trying to refer to the "prohibiting clause." Not allowing muslims into the country because they believe in taking women like you and beating them until they submit to Sharia law and shooting infidels and apostates doesn't fall under that clause.
Your post was a total failure.
Titus has the pulse of the Republicans in New Hampshire measured perfectly. I believe that completely. Of course I do. Who wouldn't?
/sarc
No indeed I was not dear man. I was referring directly to this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
Trump is calling for the Congress to basically establish every religion but Islam as acceptable to the State. That IS unconstitutional. Don't try to explain what others mean, makes you look stupid, Achilles.
Amanda,
As others have pointed out, the constitution doesn't say what you think it says.
But what concerns me is the suggestion one would have beer with popcorn.
People don't have landlines and it is difficult to get around the laws to call cell phones.
Really? Exactly, who is enforcing these laws?
VoIP has allowed telephone calls to be spoofed. My cell phone is always lighting up with calls from numbers in places I've never been.
Eric: Amanda,
As others have pointed out, the constitution doesn't say what you think it says.
I think the futility of trying to explain the establishment clause to Amanda has been, ahem, established.
Not that I don't admire your charity in laboring on hopefully.
The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend , but may become one while he is my ally.
I live next to New Hampshire and they are not religious. They are libertarians.
I love New Hampshire. The Mountains, Concord, Manchester, Dartmouth, Portsmouth.
NH is so New England and more and more democrat after the Massholes moved up there.
I can go to Portsmouth on the weekend in 30 minutes and have fab food at their fab restaurants.
Amanda said...
No indeed I was not dear man. I was referring directly to this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
"Trump is calling for the Congress to basically establish every religion but Islam as acceptable to the State. That IS unconstitutional. Don't try to explain what others mean, makes you look stupid, Achilles."
Banning Islam is not the same as Establishing every other religion. The very next line in the first amendment is about prohibiting free exercise of religion with the attached concept of making no law that would do that. I posted the first amendment for you. Please read it.
He is also not banning Islam. He is not allowing muslims to move here.
You are trying to think consciously and I give you credit for that. Now you obviously didn't read my post or if you did you didn't comprehend it. Try it please. Also I am not the one that looks stupid.
This situation with Amanda is a prime example of the disconnect delayed moderation creates. But hey..at least no Shouting Thomas...yet.
Has Iowa ever really launched a Republican to the White House? Isn't it better not to win but to lose Iowa while finishing better than expected? And then win New Hampshire. New Hampshire actually counts.
Blogger Amanda said...
No indeed I was not dear man. I was referring directly to this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
Did you know we have a communist party in the United States? This is thanks to the first amendment, freedom of speech.
Did you know communists are barred from immigrating to the United States?
Think about it. You're smart. You'll figure it out.
Amanda:
A point was made alluding to internment camps...did that evade you?
The US has always had discriminatory policies about who we let in. If you think that people can't be rejected for their religion because to exclude something is somehow 'establishing', well... that leaves you open to the response that the clause prohibits "establishing an religion". It says nothing against the establishment of multiple religions.
Certainly a more logical argument than your own.
You represent that uniquely Leftist logic where somehow the political party that is trying to keep government small ultimately creates an Authoritarian government... while the party that believes in ever more governmental interference will ultimately create more freedom.
Meade is spot on. The polls headline are used as fodder.
CNN's poll was taken using those that said they are likely attendees at the caucus. The other poll required the answers be only from among those who attended last time.
So CNN measures New Voters who are the ones interested in Leadership and not stuck on stupid falling for overt religious piety.
So now Cruz will have to defend Muslims from Trump while trying to garner the support of working class whites. This should be entertaining.
Cruz is used to being the one who other Republicans have to criticize while not being called RINOs. Arguing against banning Muslims from the US is not going to be popular with the base. Count Chocula of Canada is about to melt from the sunlight
"Trump is calling for the Congress to basically establish every religion but Islam as acceptable to the State. "
The people of this country can set up immigration as they please. Constitution does not require USA to allow anyone to come to the USA.
Mccollough said--"So now Cruz will have to defend Muslims from Trump while trying to garner the support of working class whites. This should be entertaining"
Yeah, but Cruz is too smart to fall for that cheap stunt. Why should he have to defend ANY remarks Trump makes? And I'm sure he'll be quite scathing to the reporter dumb enough to ask him to do it.
David Brooks' column Friday - the one which you didn't like becase of he pink and blue rug analogy - mentioned FiveThirtyEight. Maybe you didn't read down so far.
He said that Nate Silver had a chart that gave his idea of real support for different candidates..
Nate Silver says it is really:
Undecided: 80%
Trump: 5%
Carson: 4%
Cruz: 3%
Rubio: 2%
(Which adds up to only 94%.)
You're not yet seeing the number of Google searches for candidate's names like you see when people are really making up their minds. Like you see right before the caucuses. The week or two before.
(Of course that may be the ecological fallacy. )
The polls are skewed to exaggerate support for Trump. The entertainment value generates viewers.
FG
The people of this country can set up immigration as they please. Constitution does not require USA to allow anyone to come to the USA.
A 19th century legal example: Congress stipulated that the Utah territory give up religious-based polygamy as a condition for admittance to the Union. The very same can be done to other outside groups adhering to bazaar religious customs.
"Oh hell who cares about the Constitution when you have a Trump? Trump trumps the Constitution, right conservatives?"
Trump tells them to "trust him" and why shouldn't they? It's not as though he hasn't violated the trust of literally everyone who took him on faith in the past four decades.
There's nothing "conservative" about following a cult figure who makes his own reality.
Key sentence from the Monmouth poll:
" Just 1-in-5 (20%) Iowa GOP caucusgoers say they are completely set
on their choice, which is basically unchanged from two months ago (19%)."
So, 80% of likely Iowa GOP caucus voters are undecided.
Please click through to Amazon as often as possible between now and Christmas.
Obama is hiding a dark secret that just came out and this effects you!
http://tinyurl.com/hy844s7
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন