From a new Rasmussen poll.
Also: "Eighty-four percent (84%) of blacks support Clinton, while Trump holds modest leads among whites and other minority voters...." So Trump leads among Hispanic people?
And Trump easily wins the "would you rather have a beer with" question — 45% to 37%. And:
While roughly 70% of Republicans would prefer Trump in both scenarios, even more Democrats say they’d prefer Clinton for a beer or a meal. But voters not affiliated with either major party would prefer Trump in both cases - for a beer 50% to 25% and for dinner 46% to 27%.
पोस्ट्स
७० टिप्पण्या:
Only 10% of Democrats listed terrorism as a serious concern earlier this spring.
It will be interesting to see if this shifts as the year goes along, especially if there is another attack, which I expect.
"Clinton posts an 83% to four percent (4%) lead among those who see the killings as chiefly a gun control issue...."
How many people, as a percentage of all voters, actually believe this? (It seems hard to believe that there could be such people, except they're all yelling up and down my Facebook feed.)
I disapprove of both Clinton and Trump, but I find Trump to be less loathsome and hypocritical.
But Obama has told us that we must never disrespect Muslims when they are slaughtering infidels. That just makes them madder at us.
The Muslims most love tying up their latest groups of slaughter victims with hands behind their backs.
Come to think of it the entire USA and State Government, under orders from Obama, has had its hands tied up behind its back. But that is just to make Muslims not get madder at us...like arming Iran with nukes is to make those Muslims not madder at us.
No wonder Democrats are so desperate to blame the NRA or gun control or anything, anything at all, except radical Islam for the massacre.
Fate or Co-inky-dink?
"Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC."
The poll also found that Trump leads Clinton 77 to 23 percent on the "who would you rather have sex with" question. Surprisingly in that category he still maintained his lead with heterosexual white males 64 to 36.
If only those homosexual, Muslim, registered Democrats, couldn't get guns....
If only those homosexual, Muslim, registered Democrats, couldn't get machetes....
If only those homosexual, Muslim, registered Democrats, couldn't get flammable materials....
Let alone the small-government, Constitution-supporting right wingers.
Hillary would stiff us with the check.
"Clinton posts an 83% to four percent (4%) lead among those who see the killings as chiefly a gun control issue...."
Which is exactly why the Democrats, the media, and NPR are bending over backwards make it about guns. Is this surprising?
Trump has been stuck at around 40% forever. I would have thought that, if anything, this attack may have helped him and hurt Hillary, but I guess I really don't understand my fellow voters motivations.
Different groups respond to violent attacks in different ways. We are no longer Americans united as one people, we are fully balkanized. Now more than ever we can be easily neatly divided into demographic groups with entirely different outlooks and interests. In many ways, Obama and the left in general has won by successfully breaking us apart and reinforcing those divisions at every turn. We are now more polarized and angry than ever. Sure, some of this can be blamed on some demographic shifts, but these divisions more than that.
The tsunami of negatives about Trump coming out from attack armies hired by Bezos and friends are relying on the "nobody likes Trump, everybody hates Trump" trope.
That is what Trump said about Cruz once. But it was mostly true about Cruz. But as for Trump, every legal citizen outside of the DC Metroplex actually likes Trump.
Ergo: the new poll results are faked like the rest of what WaPo and CNN are reporting.
...Among voters who consider the mass murders in Orlando, Florida this past weekend primarily a terrorist attack...
Whadya mean "voter?" Whadya mean "primarily?"
Hammond suggests another pollster contact the same persons five minutes later and ask the qualifying question: "Are you a voter, and do you consider .... to be primarily a hate crime?"
Many will likely say they consider it both primarily a terrorist attack and primarily a hate crime.
I'll vote for neither Trump nor Clinton, but then again, I see the recent mass murder in Orlando, Florida as chiefly the work of an angry nut job.
Not surprising, coordinated.
There is no mass-media free press in the US, or very little of it, it is an interrelated cartel.
I'm not grokking how gun control is supposed to help. It hasn't worked in Europe. Why would it work here?
Additionally, the concept of limiting guns to the hands of security guards who walk around announcing they want to kill lots of people is terrifying me. Literally terrifying me.
Trump doesn't drink beer. Or shake hands with the riffraff.
I would not want to have a beer with a person who wanted to have a beer with Hillary.
It's definitely a gun control issue. We are no longer controlling their use by the insane, imbeciles, or morons.
THIS is why it matters whether it's called radical Islam or not, and Obama knows it. In fact, that's exactly why he says it doesn't matter. He is, after all, a politician.
The scary thing about limiting guns to security personnel is that this shooter was a security guard protecting, apparently, federal facilities, and, thus, would likely be on the list of those who could have guns.
"the work of an angry nut job."
What do you think of the ISIS guys who are burning up women who refuse sham "marriages"?
Or drowning Christians ?
The poll results are amazing as I think that there are a lot of people who will vote for Trump but who won't admit it publicly, even to a pollster. Also, I watched the CBS morning show this morning and they only discussed polls that showed Hillary being the preferred candidate when it comes to handling terrorism--the Florida poll matches what I think is happening better than the polls discussed on CBS this morning. The media's open bias for Hillary is going to backfire and it will help Trump get elected.
So let me get this straight: gun control will help control terrorist attacks, just like it did in France with their Balaclava night club attack?
Right...
The funny thing about the question of who you would prefer to have a beer with, is that the non-drinkers seem to often win that poll. Here it was Trump, and at one point it was GW Bush. What they are really probably polling is who is the more normal, regular, person, and not the most uptight. Hillary would probably be the better person to have a beer with, because she more likely would be drinking hard liquor, while you drank beer, then have a couple more for the road, turning her into the sloppy drunk she apparently sometimes is - unless the drinking brought out her mean side, which is apparently not so funny.
As for gun control - even O'Reilly is talking about banning high powered guns - ignoring that the gun used in the Orlando was not that powerful. We even seem to have Republicans in Congress seeming to take these suggestions seriously, and the NRA seeming to get soft on gun control. My suggestion is to buy now before the clowns can do something to take away our 2nd Amdt rights. JEB Johnson yesterday was asked what gun law could have prevented the Orlando slaughter. He was stumped, but repeated that it was a homeland security issue (not the PC that kept the shooter from losing his rights to be armed, but the rest of us being armed instead).
coupe said...
It's definitely a gun control issue. We are no longer controlling their use by the insane, imbeciles, or morons.
So it's not an insane, imbeciles, or moron, or terrorist problem? The guns made them do it. That's what you're saying.
Which one of the above are you?
"I'm not grokking how gun control is supposed to help. It hasn't worked in Europe. Why would it work here?"
I think there are two groups of people here. One that is disingenuously using gun control to divert attention from their failures and the other that is as dumb as a box of rocks.
Gun control is the Democrats issue and they are like the drunk searching for his keys under the streetlight.
What else do they have ?
The economy ?
Crime? When Chicago is exploding ?
"The poll results are amazing as I think that there are a lot of people who will vote for Trump but who won't admit it publicly, even to a pollster."
May have been true inconsequentially in the Rep primary, but Trump is currently persona non grata to the Rep hierarchy/establishment.
And Trump supporters hatred of the hierarchy/establishment notwithstanding, these are the folk who raise the general election mega $$$ and establish the campaign apparatus for their nominee.
Latest Bloomberg poll has the Rep party w/a 32% favorability rating. Trump is not only tanking personally, but bringing the party down w/him.
What's not to like!
Trump easily wins the "would you rather have a beer with"
Can you really "have a beer with" someone who doesn't drink beer?
"Mexican citizens and legal residents may purchase new non-military firearms for self-protection or hunting only after receiving approval of a petition to the Defense Ministry, which performs extensive background checks. The allowed weapons are restricted to relatively small calibers and may only be purchased legally from the Defense Ministry."
Murder rate is 4 to 5X higher than the US.
The father of one of my Mexican friends was buds with people in the "Defense Ministry" and he owned literally thousands of guns, including a WW2 howitzer.
I've found these polls to be incredibly interesting. Hillary appears to have this election in the bag if you look at the general election polls.
But if you look at the purple state polls, not so much. Obama won Iowa by 6% against Romney me 10% against McCain. Yet Hillary is leading by only 3%?
They are tied in Florida but Obama won that state twice.
How to explain this when combined with the huge leads she is having in the general election polling? Are they polling Californians or something?
Trump was up 2 in Oregon. Oregon! Obama beat Romney by 12 points in Oregon.
How does this work? The only thing I can think of, is Trump is barely winning in the conservative states. In Utah for example he only leads by one percent. In Georgia it's close to that as well.
Hard to square.
This demonstrates how inaccurate polling can be. The form of the question clearly pre-selects the responses. What person who thinks the issue is "gun control" related is going to then say "which is why I support Trump, the NRA-endorsed candidate, over Hillary who campaigns against guns"?
New polls out today by Bloomberg and Washington Post/NBC all show Trump is tanking fast. Trump's unfavorables across key demographics are off the charts.
Consolidated betting markets show another drop for Trump to 20% and Clinton up at 74%.
Looks like everything is smelling like roses for Trump.
Blogger Unknown said...
New polls out today by Bloomberg and Washington Post/NBC all show Trump is tanking fast.
The new polls out today are from Rasmussen, CBS and ipsos/Reuters.
The Rasmussen poll has Hillary up by +5. The previous Rasmussen poll had her up by +4. This means Clinton is up by +1 from the previous poll.
The previous ipsos poll shows the same thing. Last one had her at +8, this one has her at +9. A +1 move.
CBS news previous poll had her at +6. This poll has her at +6.
eric -
Trump was up 2 (with independents) in Oregon. Oregon! Obama beat Romney by 12 points in Oregon.
fify.
April
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/or/oregon_trump_vs_clinton-5892.html
Which is exactly why the Democrats, the media, and NPR are bending over backwards make it about guns. Is this surprising?
Exactly
Rick Wilson @TheRickWilson
8/ This weekend, people were lined up hundreds deep to give blood to the victims of Orlando. Your Cheeto Jesus was praising himself.
I would have to have a beer to sit down with Hillary. I mean scotch would be better. Or a blindfold if I had to drive. But something.
machine said...
Rick Wilson @TheRickWilson
8/ This weekend, people were lined up hundreds deep to give blood to the victims of Orlando. Your Cheeto Jesus was praising himself.
And more than a few of them were not gay. And more than a few of them were Christians. and/ or conservatives.
The issue here was clearly not "gun control". The guy worked for a security company, so almost no form of gun control would have stopped him from getting his hands on weapons.
Similarly, Donald's ban on Muslims would have done nothing. The guy was an American Muslim born here.
Two things *might* have had an impact. 1) Less constrained NSA surveillance, or 2) an aggressive military campaign against ISIS showing it to be a "weak horse." As far as I can tell, neither the political Left nor the Trump Right are interested in either approach.
Fun to see you degrade yourself to bend over backwards to find some numbers that sound kind good for Trump.
So pathetic.
The polls are, for the most part, accurate. Forget "unskewing," stop harping about the partisan samples. Trump edged ahead of Hillary after Indiana and now slipped back to about -6.
Here's where Trumpsters can take hope:
1) he seems to be playing the long game, saying things that hurt him in the present but not down the road
2) the recently-named "monster vote." This is the support for Trump that is overlooked by polling samples because of previous voting, or rather, not voting history. It is a theory being hyped on "The Conservative Treehouse.com" based on primary turnout. It was given a big boost this week when Nate Cohn of "The Upshot" (NY Times) acknowledged it.
3) it's very early. The Republican Convention, which will be a doozy, should give Trump a 5-10 point bump.
Time will tell. Me, I just pretty mph accept the present polls as a snapshot of the last two weeks. They are very fluid at this point.
Terrorism, perhaps. It's more likely to have been an act of personal retribution.
I read in the Wash Post that lawmakers are going to present legislation to make it harder for terrorists to get guns. That last is how it was put. So it is understood that we have terrorists and our efforts are to go not after them but their prospective weapons. Put another way the Democrat lawmakers are cool with terrorists blowing people up.
Noted.
n.n.
So all that calling 911 and news stations and pledging allegiance to ISIL was just a ruse to cover up the "personal retribution" he wanted to keep secret?
Michael:
Was it? I don't know. What we do know is that he was transgender/homosexual, and he selected that club specifically. The mass abortion may have been motivated by a moral imperative, and kinship with an organization, but it may also have been the result of a social conflict. The latter is the most common motive for "homophobia", especially underlying intra-class conflicts.
There could have been two motives. They are not exclusive. The latter may have been the impetus or confirmation of the former.
1st of all, it a Rasmussen poll, so it's probably crap
But this was just too juicy to pass up "Clinton posts an 83% to four percent (4%) lead among those who see the killings as chiefly a gun control issue...."
So Clinton leads among self identified lunatics? So much about America is explained.
Seriously, a gay Muslim Democrat attacks a gay bar, calls 911 to say he's attacking in the name of ISIS, and their exist people who think it's a "gun control" issue not a "terrorism" issue?
We need some "sensible, common sense, voting reform": No one that stupid / delusional can be allowed the power of assault voting.
This is about displacing the fear to a less fearsome object, Christians, from Muslim terrorists. This serves the double purpose of minimizing your personal fear and redirecting it to Republicans for political purposes.
You can see why the Clinton campaign is spinning like a 70's Camero on an icy hill.
If we can make it extra hard for an Asian to get into Harvard, why can't we.... Won't say it because it would be raaaacist!
This has been said before, but I don't think it can be said enough. The poll results show exactly why the MSM is pushing like the devil himself to convince people that it's a gun control issue.
n.n.
I would get me to a therapist were I thee.
This is not a gun control issue. If Mateen had not been able to buy an assault rifle, he could have used a hunting gun or guns. If he could not purchase any guns legally, he could have had his wife (or someone else) purchase them for him (the San Bernardino Islamic killers did that). Failing access to any guns, he could have used a bomb, or a car, or simply barricaded the doors and lit the place on fire. Or started stabbing people.
Mateen was deranged enough to want to kill 49 people. Gun control ain't gonna help with that, any more than gun control could have stopped the 9/11 Islamic killers.
Michael:
Well, that's unhelpful. Is your mind so narrow that you leap to conspiracy theories?
While the moral imperative likely engendered cognitive dissonance, Mateen was probably responding to unrequited love or shunning by a clique at that club.
To paraphrase: Hell hath no fury like a partner or wannabe scorned.
It can't be that the gun control response to the Orlando and San Bernardino Islamic mass shootings is to restrict Americans to legally purchasing possibly slightly less deadly firearms. From now on.
It can't be. No one is that stupid.
"Terry said...
This is not a gun control issue. If Mateen had not been able to buy an assault rifle, he could have used a hunting gun or guns. If he could not purchase any guns legally, he could have had his wife (or someone else) purchase them for him (the San Bernardino Islamic killers did that). Failing access to any guns, he could have used a bomb, or a car, or simply barricaded the doors and lit the place on fire. Or started stabbing people.
Mateen was deranged enough to want to kill 49 people. Gun control ain't gonna help with that, any more than gun control could have stopped the 9/11 Islamic killers.
6/16/16, 2:57 PM"
Don't be silly.
Muslim terrorists don't kill people with kitchen equipment
Or a gasoline can.
Or knives.
Donald's ban on Muslims would have done nothing. The guy was an American Muslim born here.
We know from attacks here and in Europe that Muslims that are allowed in do not seek to assimilate and fit in with their new countries. The culture and the attitudes underpinning the culture remain strong within the enclaves they inevitably gravitate toward. They become “no go” zones and the police are afraid to patrol them. We have a troublesome Muslim enclave currently in development in Minnesota.
http://tinyurl.com/jxhze8n
At a certain flash point of percentage of Muslim population sharia law takes over and becomes an informal extralegal system undermining the system of law native to the countries they immigrate to. Even if some Muslim immigrants manage to revert to a less violent way of life than their countries of origin – ALL of which were and are anti-gay, misogynistic and devoid of any kind of personal freedom – a certain percentage of their offspring will “get religion” and answer the call to jihad. And kill us.
That’s what Trump is trying to prevent – a Muslim immigrant population of time bombs with unpredictable detonations – impossible for ANY government to predict and prevent. Impossible to adequately police and patrol. All done by “American” Muslims “born here.”
… it may also have been the result of a social conflict. The latter is the most common motive for "homophobia", especially underlying intra-class conflicts.
Readers, the commentor is stuck within the Western mindset in regards to gayness. In the West these days our homophobia, always benign in comparison to the homophobic sanctions in Muslimland, is fading fast.
But in Muslimland extreme homophobia is the rule and is “normal” for their oppressive societies. That doesn’t change just because they change their residence to the USA. In Muslimland “intra-class conflicts” about gayness do not exist; such a factor is only possible in the non-Muslim lands of the free.
machine:"Rick Wilson @TheRickWilson 8/ This weekend, people were lined up hundreds deep to give blood to the victims of Orlando. Your Cheeto Jesus was praising himself."
After registered-democrat muslim(s) terrorists slaughter innocents it's always a policy of the leftists to signal their support of those actions by insulting Christians.
Donald's ban on Muslims would have done nothing. The guy was an American Muslim born here
You think that this guy is really so stupid he can't see one move ahead?
We could do something you know, we could hook them up to an electroencephalograph and show them pictures. If their pleasure center lights up when they see a picture of the WTC in a smoking ruin, well..., if they are horrified, we let them in.
Like I said, we can keep Asians out of Harvard because we decided it was a problem, apparently, I didn't, but apparently America did in my name, but we can't discriminate against Muslims who are not even citizens and not even in the country...
"Blogger Troubled Voter said...
Fun to see you degrade yourself to bend over backwards to find some numbers that sound kind good for Trump.
So pathetic."
"Profile Not Available"
Hillary troll alert.
"That’s what Trump is trying to prevent – a Muslim immigrant population of time bombs with unpredictable detonations – impossible for ANY government to predict and prevent. Impossible to adequately police and patrol. All done by “American” Muslims “born here.”
Excellent comment, grackle.
I think this is behind a lot that he has not articulated well.
Minnesota might be the next big attack. It will be interesting.
So Clinton leads 83-4 among clueless idiots. No surprise there, of course, since only clueless idiots could disregard her dishonest, corrupt criminality.
I would be a troubled voter too, were I resolved to vote for Hillary and put a rapist back in the West Wing with his own office and interns.
Put a woman under investigation for careless handling of extremely sensitive information, which she has repeatedly lied about, in charge of our nukes.
Put a woman who, as the governor's wife, took 100 thousand dollars from one of Arkansas's biggest polluters.
Put a woman who hid evidence under subpoena in her home in a closet. She was being investigated for a scam where she and her cronies took deposits and easy credit payments from poor people on land that would never be developed and if those people ever missed a single payment, they lost their rights. This is known as an "easy credit ripoff," Good Times.
I would certainly be troubled too.
Hillary leads 83 to 4 among the 100 people who view this as a gun control issue and Donald leads 576 to 144 among the 900 who view this as a terrorism issue.
Result: Donald leads 580 to 227 among all people for this set of 1000.
Writ Small @12:23 said
"The issue here was clearly not "gun control". The guy worked for a security company, so almost no form of gun control would have stopped him from getting his hands on weapons."
Agreed.
"Similarly, Donald's ban on Muslims would have done nothing. The guy was an American Muslim born here."
True. But here's the reasoning behind a ban:
I've read (link) that Western govts. don't have the manpower to monitor the existing terror suspects. Given that, why risk bringing in more terrorists and/or terrorist sympathizers, when we can't effectively monitor the ones already here? It makes sense, to me anyway, to ask why we feel the need to do this to ourselves? If it is for humanitarian reasons, there are other ways to help people w/o putting American lives at risk, and straining our police and intelligence agencies even more.
"Two things *might* have had an impact. 1) Less constrained NSA surveillance, or 2) an aggressive military campaign against ISIS showing it to be a "weak horse.""
Again I agree. In addition, Obama could've led a campaign using mainstream and social media that called for the voices of moderate Muslims to speak out and drown out the messages of hate coming from the, as he call them, perverters of Islam.
Going forward, more surveillance and more agents are indeed needed. But if France-- which declared Martial Law after Paris-- is a guide, we are on the path to living under a police-state. Why can't we learn from the European experience rather than, in the name of political correctness, emulate it? While an immigration ban is too late to stop the problem of home grown Jihadists, if it can ease the strain on our police and intelligence agencies it seems worth it to me.
As for an aggressive military campaign, it will happen either in the ME or on our city streets; it seems inevitable. Obama dropped the ball when he dismissed these guys as JV. And he and Hillary and the PC crowd still believe Trump and right-wing Americans are a bigger threat than ISIS. Because of that, when it comes to the threat from Radical Islam, I don't expect them to act in a way that prioritizes the safety of Americans.
I'm late as usual, but who in God's name would have dinner with Hillary in light of the classic campaign videoreferenced by Althouse in 2008?
I can just imagine it. You invite Teh Hillary for dinner and she spends the meal lecturing about dishes she disapproves of ("too high-fat! high in sodium!"), pulling out bags of carrot sticks from her purse, and proclaiming "I've ordered for the table!" And remember, this video wasn't compiled by an adversary of hers to show what a control freak she is. No, the Hillary campaign itself put this out. This is who Hillary is. It's evidently who she wants to be, even eating a simple dinner in company with other people.
No. Just no.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा