Much more at the PDF.
Note that Clinton lost ground on all of these important matters, and she's below Trump on what may be the 2 most important things — the economy and terrorism. Trump picked up 3 points on terrorism while Clinton lost 5 in this survey that was taken after the Orlando massacre.
I wonder what, specifically, people think about when they hear "foreign policy." That's the one place where she's dominating, perhaps because of her experience as Secretary of State. People can picture her doing foreign policy. Trump not so much.
There are a few other issues in this section of the poll: women's equality (69/26), women's rights (70/23), nominating Supreme Court justices (53/39), trade with other countries (50/45), gun policy 43/50, gay rights (62/27).
IN THE COMMENTS: eric said:
Btw, sticking with my theory that each poll needs to be compared against itself, the last CNN poll had Clinton at +13. This current one has her at +5. What's happened that has caused her to lose 8 points?I just got email from something called the "Conservative Campaign" saying: "A series of new polls show Hillary Clinton with a growing lead, including a new Monmouth poll out today showing her up by 8%." But the previous Monmouth poll had her up by 10.
पोस्ट्स
५८ टिप्पण्या:
57% favor Clinton on foreign policy? What is the plural of "ignoramus?"
Hillary is an objective failure on foreign policy. How can that poll be accurate? Haven't people seen the pictures from Syria and millions walking into Europe? The greatest displacement of people since WW2.
"Hillary is an objective failure on foreign policy. How can that poll be accurate? Haven't people seen the pictures from Syria and millions walking into Europe? The greatest displacement of people since WW2."
Where are the Trump ads showing them?
It wasn't too long ago that I finished listening to some audiobook where Richard Dawkins expressed his dismay that some poll showed that a high percentage (46?) of Americans believe the Biblical account of creation, as opposed to the standard science-based account.
Both he and his wife have pleasant speaking voices.
The "few other issues" drive a lot of votes. The campaign to demonize the right (and even the center) on these issues has been very successful over the years and Trump has walked into a lot of those stereotypes.
Note there are no questions about religion. Some of these social issues questions could be framed around religion and the results might vary significantly.
Add to this the Democratic lock on black voters (many of whom are moderate or conservative on a lot of issues) and Republicans have a very hard road. Ditto hispanics to a lesser degree. Lefty demagoguery plus righty bungling and its own demagoguery in some quarters has taken a toll on that group.
These "most important" issues matter but they come in a context that does not favor Trump or the right and right center.
It's early. I don't think he'd last this long. All bets are off.
I do worry about the similarities with Huey Long, who I think Trump resembles.
Long was assassinated a month after he announced plans to run against Roosevelt in 1936.
So they really think that Hillary is better on Gay Rights? They are slapping Republican far Right on Trump on that one. As to Foreign Policy, they need a Reset Button on their thinking.
The Hildebeast may have more experience with Foreign Policy, but it's all bad. Please name for me the successes of the Hillary Clinton State Department.
"Note there are no questions about religion."
Why should there be? There is no religious test for someone seeking political office in America, and such questions have no bearing.
Trump boosters previously said any terrorist attack would result in large swings of support to Donald. Instead, Trump's overall support is down, and on the narrow subject of terrorism in a preference comparison with Hillary, he gained 3 points from 45 to 48 - the equivalent of 1.5 people out of 100 changing their minds and within the poll's margin of error.
Now we hear the Trump campaign has $1.3 million in cash on hand and a support staff 1/10 the size of Hillary's. Trump's advantage was never going to be money or people. It was always going to be his ability to use the media to his advantage, but now that Trump's opponent is Hillary and not Republican leaders, we are likely to find that what the media giveth the media can taketh away.
But, apparently, Ann, it all boils down to who the voter would rather "have a beer with." And that would have to be Trump, at least 75/25 (unless there are a lot more pajama boys out there than I can imagine....and there may be.)
hombre said...
57% favor Clinton on foreign policy? What is the plural of "ignoramus?"
I think what that represents are a bunch of Dems and Independents who "want" to vote for Hillary, but think that Trump has the edge on a number of areas. They, therefore, declare that Foreign policy is the POTUS most important job, Hill obviously has the experience, therefore, I'm votin for Hill....
the fact that it's all 'bad' experience matters less...
You have to understand the mentality of many voters.
For a lot of low info people, the mere fact that Hillary Clinton was a Secretary of State (honestly most of them are probably not aware what exactly she was, just that it had something to do with foreign policy) equates to her being better at foreign policy than Trump. It's really just that simple. Many of them most likely think of the Benghazi debacle as something that Republicans and Fox News made a bunch of noise about but in the end didn't amount to anything. The fine details of the incident elude them and they have pretty much zero desire to educate themselves on them anyway.
"I do worry about the similarities with Huey Long, who I think Trump resembles."
Agree or disagree with Long, like him or hate him, he was a man and politician of substance, in comparison to whom Trump is but a gnat.
Foreign policy?! Oy vey. What reckless military adventurism has this woman opposed in the last 25 years?
Btw, sticking with my theory that each poll needs to be compared against itself, the last CNN poll had Clinton at +13. This current one has her at +5.
What's happened that has caused her to lose 8 points?
"Democracy and Political Ignorance: Why Smaller Government is Smarter"
Eric the Fruit Bat said...
some poll showed that a high percentage (46?) of Americans believe the Biblical account of creation, as opposed to the standard science-based account.
Gallup says: 46% in 2012, 42% in 2014.
19% seem to understand evolution, as opposed to 9% in 1982.
Both he and his wife have pleasant speaking voices.
That's important.
The Secretary of State's job is to see that the President's foreign policy is properly executed.
On that score, if Hillary! is to be criticized, it is for consenting to serve in Obama's cabinet.
Trump keeps winning all of the poll "snippets." So he's got that goin' for him. Which is nice.
Eric: "Dawkins expressed his dismay that some poll showed that a high percentage (46?) of Americans believe the Biblical account of creation, as opposed to the standard science-based account."
There is no standard science-based account of creation.
"There is no standard science-based account of creation."
I ran into some nasty creationists at Ricochet a couple of years ago when I commented that I would not write a letter of recommendation for a medical school applicant who did not believe in evolution.
I quit Ricochet after that.
Medicine is going all genetic and you have to understand evolution to understand genetics.
Hard to believe Hillary will remain on top w.r.t. immigration once the public comes to know what her positions are.
Over at Instapundit, there's a lot of hand wringing about Trump's mostly imaginary decline in the polls. Trump has not been in the news much lately as we're in the eye of the storm. But the winds will pick up again after the convention and you can be pretty sure Trump will make people aware of Hillary's abject failures in all of these categories.
Michael K said...Medicine is going all genetic and you have to understand evolution to understand genetics.
You have to understand evolution to understand biology. Period. You can believe in creationism all you want, but if you don't understand evolution, then you have no business anywhere in the biological sciences.
Robert Cook said...
"Note there are no questions about religion."
Why should there be? There is no religious test for someone seeking political office in America, and such questions have no bearing.
That's stupid. Even for you. Of course many millions of people take religion into account when they are choosing their votes. The fact that the constitution forbids religious tests for political office is irrelevant.
"Of course many millions of people take religion into account when they are choosing their votes."
Even if it's true that "millions of people take religion into account" when voting, (I'm skeptical of that), that's their private business. It still is not anyone's business what an office-seeker's religious preferences or views may be. There is no reason to ask such questions of persons seeking office.
Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's. We're voting for a President, not a pastor.
"There is no reason to ask such questions of persons seeking office."
Unless the "religion" they follow is a complete political system masquerading as religion.
Clearly some other factor matters to the voters, as Clinton still has a healthy lead on him. It's like in 2012 when voters favored Romney on a host of issues, but Obama crushed him with "cares for people like me" (which I was in the minority, because I felt like Romney had empathy for all Americans and Obama seemed too stoic and bristly).
I'm also not sure how respondents can rate either of them on a lot of issues. Which economic policy do they favor? Both seem to want to tinker in the economy, and not touch entitlements, raise the minimum wage (maybe--though both have been all over the place on that one). Both seem comfortable intervening in foreign messes, even as they talk about it differently their conclusions are the same.
Immigration I can see a difference, at least in rhetoric. In terms of what they'd each be able to accomplish, that'll be a wash.
If I were given that survey, I'd be asking if it was possible to give both candidates zeros.
"But, apparently, Ann, it all boils down to who the voter would rather "have a beer with." And that would have to be Trump, at least 75/25...."
Which is weird because Trump is always telling us he never drinks any alcohol, and Hillary frequently poses quaffing some big glass of beer.
Which is weird because Trump is always telling us he never drinks any alcohol, and Hillary frequently poses quaffing some big glass of beer.
Do you know a Lot of people who want to share a beer with a sloppy drunk?
the fact that it's all 'bad' experience matters less...
Works for CEO's. Works for Presidents. People seem to love experience, even if it is terrible experience.
I ran into some nasty creationists at Ricochet a couple of years ago when I commented that I would not write a letter of recommendation for a medical school applicant who did not believe in evolution.
I don't understand the die hards on that. I'm a fervent Christian. I believe that the Bible explains WHY things happened and science explains HOW. I, personally, see no great chasm. Looking at the Bible for the mechanics is idiotic. And science isn't interested in the WHY. Not their concern. Keep things in their proper area. Evolution does not disprove God. It simply explains how God did it, which the Bible never sought to explain.
I have my own tag?
Wow, thanks!
She's leading on foreign policy? Really? She of the "reset" button (that wasn't) with Russia? She who pushed for Qaddafi to be deposed in Libya, leaving a power vacuum that has resulted in a war that has killed thousands? Other than taking a lot of money from foreign governments, what are her foreign policy accomplishments?
I might be wrong but it appears to me that the issues that most concern the likely voters are the economy and security with the other issues being secondary and tertiary. If I am right despite of having no real ground game and spending almost no money Trump is leading where it counts.
"I do worry about the similarities with Huey Long, who I think Trump resembles."
Well taken. Trump resembles HPL in several respects including a very important one : HPL tended to use ad hominem attacks and frecuently made enemies when he didn't have to. To this day you can see the bullet rents in the granite walls of the LA State Capital lobby.
I agree that Trump has similarities to the Kingfish. But Huey Long was more like Hillary in matters of corruption. In any case, Huey Long did more for the people of the state of Louisiana than has any governor in the history of the state. He followed through on his campaign promises, as I believe Trump will.
"Note there are no questions about religion."
"Why should there be? There is no religious test for someone seeking political office in America, and such questions have no bearing."
http://www.mediaite.com/online/trump-questions-hillary-clintons-faith-we-dont-know-anything/
During a meeting with evangelical pastors Tuesday, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump warned that there was no way of knowing what religion his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton belonged to.
“We don’t know anything about Hillary in terms of religion,” Trump said. “Now, she’s been in the public eye for years and years, and yet there’s nothing out there,”
“There’s like nothing out there,” Trump repeated. “It’s going to be an extension of Obama but it’s going to be worse, because with Obama you had your guard up. With Hillary you don’t and it’s going to be worse.”
For what it’s worth, Clinton has always been open about the fact that she is a Christian: a lifelong United Methodist, to be exact. In the lead-up to her candidacy, Clinton even gave a speech at the gathering of United Methodist Women to discuss her faith.
Still waiting for the pivot.
"I agree that Trump has similarities to the Kingfish. But Huey Long was more like Hillary in matters of corruption. In any case, Huey Long did more for the people of the state of Louisiana than has any governor in the history of the state. He followed through on his campaign promises, as I believe Trump will."
Also well taken. And HPL built at least one tall building.
Unknown makes a great point about "the pivot"
How can this be good for Trump?
It's impossible for him to pivot. He could become exactly like Mitt Romney. Timid and afraid. And unknown would still say, "Still waiting for the pivot". There is no upside to it. His detractors will use it to bludgeon him at every turn. He says Hillary lied? Where is that pivot we were promised? Obama is terrible on terrorism? Still no pivot.
In other words, it's a tool for the Democrats to use to say, "Shut up!" Which are their favorite two words.
Trump and Republicans need to stop talking about a pivot. As unknown demonstrates, there is no updside.
No, I think it's imperative to convince Trump supporters that Trump will pivot. Keep hope alive.
Yes, you do think that. That's my point.
No kidding.
In order to fully understand genetics, your must understand molecular physics. And in order to understand molecular physics, you must understand mathematical symmetry. And in order understand mathematical symmetry, your must understand design.
I don't mind pseudonyms as many people have careers they are concerned about but allowing "unknown" commenters is just confusing, and not just to old guys like me. Ann presumably knows the ISPs but it seems to be pretty chaotic. We don't know if they are like telemarketers making random calls.
For one thing they (assuming more than one) they are all lefties and probably doing this for money.
Well, Hillary has to spend those millions somewhere and it does put food on the table for those with no work skills.
Or a couple of ounces of marijuana, as the case may be.
"In order to fully understand genetics, your must understand molecular physics"
No, molecular biology is enough unless you want a PhD.
Lewin's Genes XI is what I use.
It is moving very fast. I am already through four editions and I'm not even in practice anymore.
It is going even beyond that as new research is really exciting.
A heterogeneous class of noncoding RNAs known as long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) — defined simply by having a length exceeding 200 nucleotides — has been the subject of recent and intensive study. One of the first human lncRNAs to be discovered was identified because of its high expression in metastatic lung cancer cells, as compared with nonmetastatic lung cancer cells.3 Named metastasis-associated lung adenocarcinoma transcript 1 (MALAT1), its elevated expression has subsequently been associated with metastasis and reduced survival in patients with multiple tumor types.4 In human cancer cells grown in the laboratory, MALAT1 inhibition results in reductions in cell proliferation, survival, migration, and invasive capacity, as well as in reduced metastasis when the cells are implanted into immunocompromised mice.
The rna chains can even cause existing metastases to shrink. Nobody knows what these long chain rna segments do in normal life.
Cook: 'Even if it's true that "millions of people take religion into account" when voting, (I'm skeptical of that), that's their private business. It still is not anyone's business what an office-seeker's religious preferences or views may be. There is no reason to ask such questions of persons seeking office.'
As usual, Cook channels Pauline Kael.
Michael K said..."Medicine is going all genetic and you have to understand evolution to understand genetics."
Does this have something to do with my assertion that "there is no standard science-based account of creation," which you quoted?
"Does this have something to do with my assertion that "there is no standard science-based account of creation," which you quoted?"
I think damikesc covered it pretty well.
Evolution does not require atheism. I am agnostic and think the why? is a more reasonable position rather than how ?
What I ran into there was a whole bevy of creationist types who denied they were but who spent days accusing me of trying to keep religious people from going to medical school.
One even told me she went a more prestigious medical school than I did. I saved some of it here.
Anyway, anyone going to medical school now had better understand evolution.
Foreign policy is a catch-all
Michael K: Perhaps my original statement was overly broad and confusing, but genetics has to do with organic matter does it not?
More specifically then, my assertion should have been: There is no standard science-based account of the creation of life. I don't necessarily disagree with damikesc. However, I think the conflation of abiogenesis with evolution is political and unscientific.
Sorry for the confusion.
Anyway, anyone going to medical school now had better understand evolution.
I wonder how so many conservative Muslims made it into medical school? Personally, I think the type of 'evolution' being taught in schools today will some day be derided as heartily as the 'flat earth' theory is now. It would be nice if schools could teach what we actually KNOW rather than what we only THINK we know. This goes for man-caused climate change, too.
"I wonder how so many conservative Muslims made it into medical school? "
I do, too. I certainly didn't write any letters for them.
A friend of mine, a well know surgeon and anatomist in London told me that he is very concerned to see the number of girls who are medical students becoming Muslims. They are not middle eastern ethnicity.
Insane. Mean while the NHS has a spike in hospital infections because Muslim women will not scrub their arms in surgery.
"I think the type of 'evolution' being taught in schools today will some day be derided as heartily as the 'flat earth' theory is now."
I doubt it. If you have some information I should know, please tell me.
So far, I am interested in genetic medicine but if you have a contribution to make let me, or even better , The New England Journal of Medicine, know about it.
Evolution is a chaotic process (e.g. human life from conception). It is because of chaos (i.e. incompletely or insufficiently characterized and unwieldy systems) that human beings have implicitly and explicitly described a scientific logical domain that is frame-based and limited in both time and space, or just space if time is actually a virtual dimension. Evolutionary creation (i.e. origin or source) is a myth told by circumstantial evidence and adopted by people with a particular faith. Evolutionary processes are valid estimates or models of systems that exist within and constrain the scientific domain (e.g. accuracy inversely proportional to the product of time and space offsets from an established reference). Darwin's conception of evolution describes a high-level abstraction (e.g. biological systems) of the underlying physical processes.
"However, I think the conflation of abiogenesis with evolution is political and unscientific."
What in the world is "abiogenesis?"
I guess you mean <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis'> this.</a>
I don;t think there s any evidence one way or the other. I do think we will find life on other planets. That awaits better technology.
Sorry, this.
Insane. Mean while the NHS has a spike in hospital infections because Muslim women will not scrub their arms in surgery.
HOW can they actually refuse? I assumed it was one of the non-negotiables. If they're going to allow infections for PC, it is infuriating.
I'd also argue that allowing the government to run hospitals is a disaster. You won't get far suing the government. Suing a private institution will get results and changes.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा