So NBC/WSJ/Telemundo Polls Latinos did a POLL on Presidential candidates, and just happened to leave off Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.
Funny how that could happen.
It’s less a case of the mask slipping than of NBC not even trying to hide the fact it’s an extension of the Democratic Party…
Early polls, plenty of time, yadda yadda. But there’s no way that a presumptive frontrunner should be down 10 points in Iowa to an elderly socialist.
Now is probably the time for Clinton to panic. pic.twitter.com/fRONuHa6kH
— Andrew Kaczynski (@BuzzFeedAndrew) September 13, 2015
Also, in New Hampshire, Sanders leads Hillary “by a whopping 52 percent to 30 percent.”
This doesn’t sound like good news for Team Inevitable:
Many Democrats have long hoped that Hillary Clinton might expand Barack Obama‘s electoral coalition by drawing in more white women voters.
A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll suggests she may have a tough time pulling it off. Mrs. Clinton is losing ground with white women and many other important slices of the electorate, the poll shows, amid a spate of reports about her email practices, speaking fees and foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation.
In June, 44% of white women had a favorable view of Mrs. Clinton, compared to 43% who didn’t. In July, those numbers moved in the wrong direction for Mrs. Clinton: Only 34% of white women saw her in a positive light, compared to 53% who had a negative impression of her, the poll found.
Gee, turns out women voters aren’t wild about an inept politicians with anger and entitlement issues who consistently breaks both ethics guidelines and the law for personal gain. Who knew?
Good thing for Hillary that white women aren’t an important part of her voting coalition…
A new Quinnipiac poll of Iowa is out, and it shows Jeb Bush losing to, well, pretty much everyone:
Only 5% of likely Iowa GOP caucus-goers told Quinnipiac University pollsters that they planned to vote for Bush, placing him No. 7 in the field of declared or potential 2016 candidates.
Even worse for Bush: He may not have as much room to grow over the next year as other candidates do. One-quarter of Republicans said they definitely could not support Bush, the lowest ceiling of support of any candidate in the Hawkeye State, and 45% said Bush was “not conservative enough.”
The top Republican in Iowa is Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who garnered support from 21% of those surveyed. Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Ted Cruz of Texas, Marco Rubio of Florida, and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee are tightly packed for second place, each earned between 13% and 11% support. Neurosurgeon Ben Carson, who unveiled his campaign on Monday, tallied 7% of the vote.
Jeb Bush losing to Scott Walker, Ran Paul, and Ted Cruz isn’t a surprise; Bush losing to Ben Carson, a political neophyte who has no chance to win the nomination, is.
When you dig further, Bush’s basic unpopularity rating comes to the fore: “Negative 39 – 45 percent favorability rating for Bush, and 36 percent saying he’s about right on issues, while 45 percent say he’s not conservative enough.”
Polls this early are essentially meaningless (remember when Howard Dean was going to win Iowa?), but the fact Bush is polling so poorly this early suggests both that he’s deeply unpopular with the base, and that he has yet to build an effective political operation in Iowa. Remember, George W. Bush won the Iowa caucuses handily over Steve Forbes in 2000 (McCain didn’t even pull 5%).
So far, Jeb Bush is running considerably behind expectations.
Rand Paul won the 2015 CPAC Presidential Straw Poll with
Paul came in first with 25.7%, while Scott Walker came in second with 21.4% of the vote, and Ted Cruz came in third with 11.5% of the vote, just edging out Dr. Ben Carson at 11.4%. (Carson is 2016’s Herman Cain: The attractive outsider with no real chance of winning. The presidency is not an entry level job…)
Complete results via the magic of Twitter:
BREAKING: Rand Paul wins the #CPACStrawPoll.
Walker, Cruz, Carson, and Bush round out the top 5.
#CPAC #CPAC2015 pic.twitter.com/xR0ZSxl9II
— Justin Gibson (@JGibsonDem) February 28, 2015
Does this mean Rand Paul is the GOP front runner? Not really, since that total is down four points from his father Ron Paul’s showing in 2011. Ron Paul would go on to pick up a smattering of delegates and place first in the U.S. Virgin islands primaries, which did not catapult him to the nomination. Mitt Romney placed second in the CPAC poll before going on to win the nomination.
Now, I happen to believe that Rand Paul is a much more viable GOP candidate than Ron Paul was (though not as viable as Scott Walker or Ted Cruz), but the Rand Paul’s CPAC win shows no sign of him breaking out of Ron Paul’s ideological base, which is not enough for him to win more than (at most) three or four primaries.
Based on polls in Iowa and elsewhere, Scott Walker should probably be considered the font-runner, and the CPAC result doesn’t change that.
In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo shootings, the MSM has trotted out the usual talking points that such extremists views and actions are “not about Islam” and represent “only a tiny percentage” of all Muslims.
There’s just one tiny problem with this theory: It isn’t true.
Polls show that something like 20% of Muslim populations worldwide agree with terrorists, and far more agree with their aims as far as the imposition of Sharia law. Other findings from Pew (which is rarely accused of a right-wing bias):
In the UK, in another poll from 2006, 20% of surveyed Muslims supported the 2005 7/7 suicide attacks, and 40% supported the imposition of Sharia law.
So: Not a “small minority.” And, as Brigitte Gabriel notes in the video below, so what if “most” Muslims are peaceful? The “mostly peaceful” citizens of Germany, Japan, China and the Soviet Union didn’t prevent those who controlled their governments from murdering millions:
One of the first steps toward dealing with the problem of radical Islam is to stop repeating comforting lies about it.
A new Quinnipiac poll shows Colorado’s incumbent Democratic governor John Hickenlooper down ten points to Republican challenger Bob Beauprez.
Michelle Malkin explains why:
It was Hickenlooper who caved to East Coast gun-control zealots and partisan White House lobbying. As Democratic state legislators rigged the hearing process, snubbed Colorado constituents and insulted Second Amendment-supporting women during hearings last year, Hickenlooper was chumming it up on the phone with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Vice President Joe Biden.
You may remember how well ramming through gun control initiatives worked out for Colorado Democrats: Two Democratic state senators got recalled and a third resigned rather than face a recall election.
Hickenlooper was a key player in getting those unpopular measures passed, and this year he may pay the price for it, despite his incredulity at the issue being held against him. (“”What the f—? I apologized!”)
For all the talk of Colorado turning blue, keep in mind that Obama only won 51.5% of the vote in 2012. And if Hickenlooper loses, that will leave exactly one Democratic governor “left standing between California and Missouri.”
Even a Washington Post piece that poo-poos the Quinnipiac poll notes that Hickenlooper has “refused to make clear his position.” They were talking about his position on the Keystone pipeline, but the description applies just as well to a number of other issues Hickenlooper has refused to take a stand on. Long-time political observers know exactly what such reticence indicates: A liberal politician unwilling to let voters know exactly how far-left and out of touch his core convictions are compared to theirs.
One of those issues is flip-flopping on whether to allow the execution of a convicted murderer:
Last month, Bob Crowell — father of 19-year-old murder victim Sylvia Crowell — blasted Hickenlooper for indefinitely delaying the execution of mass murderer Nathan Dunlap. When Hickenlooper confided in CNN that he might grant Dunlap clemency if he loses in November, Crowell didn’t mince words. “I think that’s the coward’s way out, and I view John Hickenlooper as a coward.”
After the recall, I wrote “Bottom line: If you’re a politician, and you choose to listen to Nurse Bloomberg rather than your constituents, you will be replaced.” I suspect that John Hickenlooper is about to learn that, good and hard.
Well, this can’t be good news for Team Wendy:
Texas women prefer Republican gubernatorial candidate Greg Abbott to self-styled feminist Democratic hopeful Wendy Davis, according to a new survey from a left-leaning polling firm.
According to a new Public Policy Polling survey, Davis’ favorability rating is upside down with women, while Abbott is right side up.
Thirty-two percent of women view Davis favorably, while 46 percent view her unfavorably, and 22 percent were not sure. But 35 percent of women viewed Abbott favorably, and only 27 percent said they viewed him unfavorably. Thirty-eight percent weren’t sure.
Abbott also took 49 percent of the female vote in a head-to-head matchup, compared to 41 percent for Davis, with 11 percent unsure.
Also this:
“Women get exhausted with women candidates who say they are pro-woman and then run on issues that real women don’t say are most important to them,” Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway told The Daily Caller.
She added that this is another indication that the Democrats’ “war on women” narrative has run its course.
Let’s hope so.
Poor Wendy. She didn’t start out alienating her supposed base, but she got there as fast as possible…
Or so says a CBS poll on the vast NSA/FISA/PRISM monitoring program. Republicans and Independents were pretty strongly against the government reading their emails and seizing their phone records. Democrats, on the other hand, were evenly split; evidently half of them do want Big Brother monitoring their every move…at least when the person in the White House has a (D) after their name.
A less granular Pew poll show more support for the NSA being able to “monitor everyone’s email. Like any poll (much less a Pew poll), I’d take it with a large grain of salt, especially given how ridiculously over-weighted with Democrats this poll is:
Right after I talked about how the mainstream media thinks you’re stupid enough to swallow badly skewed polls, Jim Geraghty reports that the New York Times is proving my point all over again by publishing a poll with more Democrats and fewer Republicans in the sample than in 2008 exit polls.
Ohio 2008 exits: 39% Democrat, 31% Republican, 30% Independent.
Ohio New York Times/Quinnipiac 2012 sample: 35% Democrat, 26% Republican, 35% Independent.
In this sample, the partisan split is D+9 compared to D+8 four years ago, and the GOP is five percentage points smaller than in 2008.
Pennsylvania 2008 exits: 44% Democrat, 37% Republican, 18% Independent.
Pennsylvania New York Times/Quinnipiac 2012 sample: 39% Democrat, 28% Republican, 27% Independent.
Somehow a D+7 split has turned into D+11 split, and Republicans’ share of the electorate is nine percentage points less than they were four years ago.
Florida 2008 exits: 37% Democrat, 34% Republican, 29% Independent.
Florida New York Times/Quinnipiac 2012 sample: 36% Democrat, 27% Republican, 33% Independent.
Each party’s share only shifts a few percentage points, but the overall split goes from D+3 to D+9.
One again, the New York Times thinks Republicans are too stupid to figure out the con. If they’re going to be that absurdly biased, why not just cut out the middleman and poll Obama for America staffers directly?
Remember: The business model of The New York Times is to envelop liberals in a soft, warm, comforting cocoon of reassurance that their ideas and leaders are popular. You saw this in 2010, when it dangerously blinded them to the coming Republican wave until too late. The same patterns is repeating itself this year.