Poll: Donald Trump Hits 65 Percent in New York, More than 50 Percent Ahead of Ted Cruz
17 Mar 2016Washington, DC BREITBART
A new poll out on Thursday obliterates the latest mainstream media narrative confronting billionaire Donald Trump: That he can’t get majorities, but can only get pluralities, in election results.
The poll of New York state, conducted by Boston’s Emerson College, has Trump dominating his only two remaining competitors in the Empire State with 65 percent of Republicans there backing him. Only 12 percent back , Trump’s closest competitor, and just one percent support Ohio Gov. John Kasich.
The poll was conducted over three days, March 14 to March 16, during two days of which was still in the race. Rubio dropped out on the evening of March 15 after an abysmal performance in his home state of Florida, where Trump walloped him by more than double digits. In the portion of the poll conducted before Rubio suspended his campaign, the pro-amnesty Floridian got just four percent in New York. Nineteen percent chose someone else or were undecided.
In a video accompanying the polling release, Emerson College Polling Society adviser Spencer Kimball called Trump’s towering over Cruz and Kasich a “commanding lead.”
In a direct matchup between just Cruz versus Trump, Trump still wins New York 69 percent to 25 percent—something that will probably make Cruz backers a bit uneasy, as they’ve been hoping that a head-to-head with Trump would be more beneficial to the Texas senator.
Trump’s favorables are also higher than Cruz’s or Kasich’s ratings. “Trump has the highest favorable ratings with GOP voters, 71%/23%, followed by Cruz at 52%/44% and Kasich at 54%/34%,” the polling release states. “Consistent with other primaries, Trump supporters are the most loyal, with 89% of those who see him favorably planning to cast their ballot for him. In contrast, only 21% of Republicans who have a favorable opinion of Cruz say they will vote for him.”
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) of Vermont in the Democratic primary. Clinton takes 71 percent compared to Sanders’ 23 percent, a 48-point lead for the former U.S. Senator from New York—who was elected after her time as First Lady to President Bill Clinton.
In a general election matchup, either Democrat wins easily against any of the remaining three Republicans—although Trump stands the best chance of beating either Clinton or Sanders in the Empire State. At this time, Clinton beats Trump 55 percent to 36 percent in New York,while Sanders beats Trump 53 percent to 36 percent. Clinton beats Cruz, meanwhile, 61 percent to 30 percent.
This massive lead for Trump in New York comes as the state primary looms around the corner from now on April 19. The delegate rich Empire State offers its 95 delegates proportionally, but if Trump wins this big, he could conceivably get an even bigger slice of the pie than many in the media think he will get.
Between now and then, Republicans in Arizona, Utah, and Wisconsin will make their presidential selections. Arizona’s 58 delegates are winner-take-all, while Utah’s 40 delegates are awarded proportionally. Wisconsin’s 42 delegates are awarded on a winner-take-all basis statewide and by congressional district.
Trump has a massive lead in Arizona polling, though no new polling has been done since Rubio dropped out. Both he and Cruz are hitting the trail there this weekend. Cruz is holding a press conference on the U.S. border with Mexico and several events throughout the state on Friday, while Trump is set to hold rallies over the weekend in Arizona. Previous Trump rallies in Phoenix have drawn thousands and thousands of people.
Arizona and Utah both vote this coming Tuesday, on March 22, while Wisconsin votes two weeks later on Tuesday, April 5. Then New York is two weeks after that.
It is currently mathematically impossible for Kasich to win the nomination outright before the convention, since he can’t get to 1,237 delegates at this point. For Cruz, it’s a serious uphill climb, and Trump seems to be coasting all the way there. If Trump pulls in just 42 percent of delegates from here on out, per a New York Times analysis published late Wednesday, he can hit the 1,237 mark easily by the convention.
Several Republicans, including Florida Gov. Rick Scott, are saying it’s now time for the GOP to coalesce behind Trump as the nominee heading into the general election.
Well of course my vote doesn't count because every Republican candidate is Hitler - it's Hitlers all the way down -ReplyDelete
Republican Presidential Candidate Is Hitler
The “Big Lie” has been around for over fifty years.
March 18, 2016
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.
“Except for Adolf Hitler's extermination of the Jewish people, the American bombardment of defenseless peasants in Indochina is the most barbaric act of modern times.”
That quote didn’t come from some Soviet hack coughing up copy for Moscow, but from Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern. (Some years later, McGovern would compare the Communist massacres in Cambodia to the Holocaust and call for some of that barbaric military intervention.)
Vice President Hubert Humphrey also brought out Hitler when running against Nixon, declaring, “If the British had not fought in 1940, Hitler would have been in London and if Democrats do not fight in 1968, Nixon will be in the White House.” Chicago Mayor Daley had accused Nixon of “Hitler type” tactics.
McGovern had set a record for comparing Nixon to Hitler, which made him very popular with the left, but he hadn’t originated it. Comparing any Republican presidential candidate to Hitler had been a standard Democratic political tactic for some time no matter how inappropriate it might be.
Before McGovern was comparing Nixon to Hitler, he was comparing Barry Goldwater to Hitler. Goldwater had a Jewish father and a distaste for Socialism, which would have made him unwelcome in the ranks of the racially and politically pure National Socialists, but that didn’t stop the Hitler accusations from being hurled by the Democratic party and its political allies in the press.
Governor Pat Brown of California said, “Goldwater's acceptance speech had the stench of fascism. All we needed to hear was Heil Hitler.” Mayor Jack Shelley of San Francisco claimed that Goldwater strategists got all their ideas from Mein Kampf.
Even though Goldwater had been an early NAACP member, NAACP leader Roy Wilkins warned, "Those who say that the doctrine of ultra-conservatism offers no menace should remember that a man come out of the beer halls of Munich and rallied the forces of rightism in Germany. All the same elements are there in San Francisco now."
The NAACP accused Goldwater of appealing to “fear and bigotry”. Martin Luther King said, “We see danger signs of Hitlerism in the candidacy of Mr. Goldwater.”
Union leaders launched a national campaign to denounce Goldwater as Hitler II. "I have drawn a parallel between Goldwater and Hitler and I make no apology for drawing that parallel," George Meany of the AFL-CIO declared. While Goldwater wasn’t Hitler, the CIO part of the AFL-CIO had strong Communist influences and after the Hitler-Stalin pact, some unions within it staged strikes to sabotage production and prevent aid from reaching the Allies who were fighting Hitler. Not only was Goldwater not Hitler, but some of the organizations represented by Meany had aided Hitler when Stalin told them to.Delete
Accusing Republicans of being Hitler for assorted petty reasons dates back to the time when Hitler was still around. FDR accused Republican candidate Wendell Willkie of using “Hitler tactics” by repeating his slogans frequently. But it was the frequent associations of Republicans and Hitler by Democrats that was the true Big Lie. Its only purpose was a senseless association through the repetition of ridiculous and baseless accusations that every single Republican was just Hitler in a better suit.
Typical of this tactic was Senator Tom Lantos ranting, “If you overlook your involvement in the KKK, or the Nazi party, or the Republican Party, you are lying.” The issue at hand had nothing to do with Nazism. It was about Clinton’s Secretary of Agriculture taking bribes. The goal was to associate Republicans with Nazism by classing the two together as frequently as possible regardless of relevance, decency or truth.
In the Iran-Contra trial, Oliver North was accused of “following Adolf Hitler’s official strategy”. What did one have to do with the other? Nothing. But this sort of lazy accusation had become typical and routine. William Shirer, who had also compared Nixon’s bombing of Hanoi to the Holocaust and called Nixon an “apt pupil” of Hitler (Pentagon spokesman Jerry Friedheim was Goebbels), compared Reagan to Hitler for intervening in Grenada. Then Shirer compared Bush I to Hitler for trying to outlaw flag burning.
By the Reagan years, the left had achieved a banality of Hitler analogies. Everything Reagan did was just like Hitler. All of Reagan’s associates were just like Hitler. It was Hitlers all the way down.
President George W. Bush inherited this banality of Hitlers. To left-wing Truthers, open and covert, 9/11 was the Reichstag fire, the Patriot Act was the beginning of a national dictatorship and Bush was a dictator. As Kurt Vonnegut quipped, “The only difference between Bush and Hitler is that Hitler was elected.” Hitler wasn’t elected, Bush was, but you can’t expect a left-wing loudmouth to know history.
Congressman Charles Rangel compared the Iraq War to the Holocaust. “This is just as bad as the 6 million Jews being killed." (Rangel had also claimed that the Contract with America was worse than Hitler.) Senator Durbin compared Gitmo to Nazi concentration camps. Senator John Glenn compared Republican arguments to Nazi propaganda. “It’s the old Hitler business… if you hear something repeated, repeated, you start to believe it.” Like repeatedly accusing Republicans of Nazism.
Congressman Keith Ellison, a former Nation of Islam supporter who had defended its anti-Semitism, compared the September 11 to the Reichstag fire while hinting at 9/11 Trutherism. Al Gore claimed that “The administration works closely with a network of rapid-response digital Brown Shirts”.
Democratic Senator Robert Byrd, a former Klansman, compared Bush to Hitler stooge Herman Goering. Byrd, who had filibustered the Civil Rights Act, also compared efforts to block Democratic filibusters to Nazi Germany. The “nuclear option” that Byrd was denouncing became a reality under Obama and Reid, but by then using it did not make Senators Democrats into the successors of Nazi Germany.Delete
To most people, Nazi analogies summon up images of the Holocaust and a ruthless dictatorship. To the left however, any populist reaction against their rule is Nazism. In their world, there is a battle between progressive and reactionary forces. Any movement that dares to run for office by challenging progressive policies is reactionary, fascist and the second coming of the Third Reich. Republican victories are lazily attributed by liberal hacks to mindless public anger being exploited by right-wing demagogues.
And so the only thing we can truly be certain of is that any Republican nominee will be Hitler. It doesn’t matter what he believes. It doesn’t matter if Democrats considered him a moderate 5 minutes ago. Accusations of Nazism remain the default argument for a Democratic Party turned far to the left.
Republicans aren’t progressive. Therefore they’re Hitler. It’s really that simple.
Optimists thought that the Democrats had reached “Peak Hitler” under Bush. But for the left there is no Peak Hitler. The same tired line of attack has been trotted out for fifty years. It will go on limping around the liberal corral for another fifty years or a hundred years. The Big Lie will continue being repeated to indoctrinate each new politically active progressive with the conviction that anyone to the right is Hitler and that every election is a brand new battle to stop Hitler 2.0 from taking over America.
Goldwater was Hitler. Nixon was Hitler. Reagan was Hitler. Bush was Hitler. None of the latter three men declared the Fourth Reich, made themselves dictators for life and ran concentration camps. But the Big Lie retroactively rewrites the past by claiming that last decade’s Hitler was a decent moderate while the latest Republican Hitler is a terrifying monster. Goldwater, Nixon and Reagan were all resurrected as moderate contrasts to each other and then to Bush. The process of recreating Bush as a moderate has already begun. And so each Republican makes the electoral journey from Hitler to a political moderate whom a latter generation of liberals mourns while complaining that this latest Republican really is Hitler.
Yup, Hitlers all the way down.
For a good look at what the Republicans really look like, see pic of Republicans with Hitler moustaches in photo at the beginning of this article.
No one has really ever accused me of being Hitler, I'm not important enough, but I have been called a Nazi.
Which was surprising to me as I was just a farmer and nowadays hardly ever leave the house, and only rarely make political contributions, except recently to Ben Carson, and that's it for this year, but then of course Ben is Hitler too.
Paul Krugman: Republican Elite’s Reign of DisdainReplyDelete
Why have Republican elites "lost control of the nominating process"?:
Republican Elite’s Reign of Disdain, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: ...
There has been a lot of buzz over the past few days about an article by Kevin Williamson in National Review, vigorously defended by other members of the magazine’s staff, denying that the white working class — “the heart of Trump’s support” — is in any sense a victim of external forces. A lot has gone wrong in these Americans’ lives — “the welfare dependency, the drug and alcohol addiction, the family anarchy” — but “nobody did this to them. They failed themselves.”
O.K., we’re just talking about a couple of writers at a conservative magazine. But ... this attitude is widely shared on the right. ...
The ... writers at National Review are right to link these social ills to the Trump phenomenon. ... The question, however, is why this is happening. ...
Stripped down to its essence, the G.O.P. elite view is that working-class America faces a crisis, not of opportunity, but of values. ... And this crisis of values, they suggest, has been aided and abetted by social programs that make life too easy on slackers.
The problems with this diagnosis should be obvious. Tens of millions of people don’t suffer a collapse in values for no reason. Remember, several decades ago the sociologist William Julius Wilson argued that the social ills of America’s black community ... were the result of disappearing economic opportunity. If he was right, you would have expected declining opportunity to have the same effect on whites, and sure enough, that’s exactly what we’re seeing.
Meanwhile,... every other advanced country has a more generous social safety net than we do, yet the rise in mortality among middle-aged whites in America is unique: Everywhere else, it is continuing its historic decline.
But the Republican elite can’t handle the truth. It’s too committed to an Ayn Rand story line about heroic job creators versus moochers to admit either that trickle-down economics can fail to deliver good jobs, or that sometimes government aid is a crucial lifeline. So it ends up lashing out at its own voters when they refuse to buy into that story line.
Just to be clear, I’m not suggesting that Donald Trump has any better idea about what the country needs; he’s just peddling another fantasy, this one involving the supposed power of belligerence. But at least he’s acknowledging the real problems ordinary Americans face, not lecturing them on their moral failings.
And that’s an important reason he’s winning.
galopin2 has been sucked into the Paul Krugman orbit recently.ReplyDelete
It's Paul Krugmans all the way down for galopin2 recently.
I hope some other larger gravity field liberal economist will suck galopin2 into another orbit soon, as I'm sick of Paul Krugaman.
Obama-Backed Solar Plant Could Be Shut Down For Not Producing Enough Energy......DRUDGEReplyDelete
SURVEY: YOUNG PEOPLE PREFER INTERNET TO SUNLIGHT......DRUDGEDelete
(what the hell is happening to us ?)Delete
I blame it on the influence of Idaho faux farmers.
I know young people love to read the timeless wisdom of Idaho faux farmers, but can't they do it at night ?Delete
Take the quiz -ReplyDelete
Which Terrifying Political Voice Said It ?
I scored 8 right 7 wrong.
'Great disappoint', I think I was judged.
There Is No Russian Withdrawal From SyriaReplyDelete
78 ISIS elements killed during operation in Muhammadi area in western AnbarReplyDelete
(IraqiNews.com) al-Anbar – Media officials with the Ministry of Defense announced on Thursday the killing of 78 ISIS elements during the liberation operation of the area of al-Muhammadi in western Anbar.
The officials said in a statement obtained by IraqiNews.com, “The Anti-Terrorism Directorate killed 21 terrorists in the liberation operation of al-Muhammadi area,” adding also that, “57 terrorists had been killed in air strikes by the international coalition aviation,” while pointed out that, “Orders were given to the families to stay in their homes after placing white flags over the houses.”
Black flags replaced by white flags.Delete
"A Donald Trump rally was delayed for nearly two hours yesterday due to fog. At one point the fog was so thick, Trump supporters couldn’t even see who they were punching."ReplyDelete
“Republicans are blaming President Obama for creating Donald Trump, while others say he was created in a lab when a young real estate developer was bitten by a radioactive douchebag.”Delete
And yet it's the left with there Ferguson and Baltimore antics that people have been killed....Delete
Go Bernie Go...
The only difference between Trump and Hillary is that Hillary has bigger hands.
They're both dicks.Delete
Apple Engineers Plan to Resist, Quit Jobs if Government Tries to Force Them to Unlock iPhone
If the F.B.I. wins its court fight to force Apple’s help in unlocking an iPhone, the agency may run into yet another roadblock: Apple’s engineers.
Apple employees are already discussing what they will do if ordered to help law enforcement authorities. Some say they may balk at the work, while others may even quit their high-paying jobs rather than undermine the security of the software they have already created, according to more than a half-dozen current and former Apple employees.
Among those interviewed were Apple engineers who are involved in the development of mobile products and security, as well as former security engineers and executives.
The potential resistance adds a wrinkle to a very public fight between Apple, the world’s most valuable company, and the authorities over access to an iPhone used by one of the attackers in the December mass killing in San Bernardino, Calif.
It also speaks directly to arguments Apple has made in legal documents that the government’s demand curbs free speech by asking the company to order people to do things that they consider offensive.
“Such conscription is fundamentally offensive to Apple’s core principles and would pose a severe threat to the autonomy of Apple and its engineers,” Apple’s lawyers wrote in the company’s final brief to the Federal District Court for the Central District of California.
The employees’ concerns also provide insight into a company culture that despite the trappings of Silicon Valley wealth still views the world through the decades-old, anti-establishment prism of its co-founders Steven P. Jobs and Steve Wozniak.
“It’s an independent culture and a rebellious one,” said Jean-Louis Gassée, a venture capitalist who was once an engineering manager at Apple. “If the government tries to compel testimony or action from these engineers, good luck with that...”
Click here to continue reading…
Apple ought to give it up on this one.Delete
The dead are demanding it, and I agree with them.
Exposing the rot in Iran -ReplyDelete
The Mullahs’ Executions Reach Highest Level Since 1989
Killing in the name of Islam.
March 18, 2016
Dr. Majid Rafizadi
The Left made the argument that if international sanctions were lifted against the Islamic Republic of Iran, the country would open up politically and respect fundamental rights, international law and standards.
Nevertheless, the reality indicates that the ruling clerics are heading toward more radicalism, extremism, fundamentalism, and forceful implementation of Sharia and Shiite laws. The ruling mullahs seem to be proud that their country has hit the highest rate of execution since 1989. The official number shows that Iran performed nearly two times more executions in 2015, in comparison to 2010, when the hardline president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was in office, as well as roughly 10 times more than the number of executions in 2005.
Approximately 1000 people were executed in 2015, according to the latest report from the United Nations investigator, Ahmed Shaheed, the special rapporteur for human rights in Iran. The unofficial number is definitely much higher.
The peak of the executions in 2015 was between April and June in which nearly 4 people were executed every day (on average). Most of the executions were carried out in prisons located in urban areas, such as Ghezel Hesar and Rajai Shahr in Karaj, and Adel Abad in Shiraz, through various traditional methods.
Iran has surpassed China in the number of executions being carried out per capita. Most of the executions in Iran are being done by hanging. In addition to the alarming increase in executions, fundamental rights, including those for ethnic and religious minorities, appear to have regressed, in 2015, as well.
These are all being done under the presidency of the so-called “moderate,” Hassan Rouhani, who has established friendly ties with Secretary of State John Kerry and President Obama.Delete
Moreover, what the media did not tell the American public is that this year witnessed the highest level of disqualifications of political candidates (61 percent) since the establishment of the Islamic Republic, 1979.
In other areas, according to Amnesty International, the Islamic Republic continues to be a leading executioner of minors. Currently, 160 juvenile offenders are on Iran’s death row. Other human rights groups also believe that Iran has executed more juveniles than any other country. Michael G. Bochenek, senior counsel of the children’s rights division at Human Rights Watch, pointed out, “Iran is almost certainly the world leader in executing juvenile offenders.” Some articles in Iran’s criminal code allows girls as young as 9 and boys as young as 15 to receive death sentences.
In addition, ethnic and religious minority communities, including the Christians and Bahais, continue to be systematically targeted and discriminated against.
Other groups include the journalists, artists, writers, musicians, and human rights activists who witness arbitrary arrests, detentions and prosecutions.
Amnesty international and the United Nations argue that they do not have executive power to force Iran to reform its law or hold Iranian leaders accountable. They say they can only offers recommendations, such as the latest one in which Iran was asked to “take the necessary steps to ensure and that it citizens fully enjoy the rights and freedoms awarded to by the Iranian constitution with special emphasis on the right to freedom of expression, the right to political activity and their right to assemble.”
According to one Iranian lawyer based in Karaj, “Iran’s judiciary and parliament will ignore these recommendations and not follow up with them.”
One of Rouhani’s main pledges was to promote and reform restrictive laws in relation to civil liberties and social justice. “The situation has not changed since Rouhani came to power. They only talk about their victory with regards to the nuclear deal, while a lot people and religious minorities face daily discrimination,” Morteza, an Iranian teacher in the city of Esfahan, pointed out.
When it comes to the number of people being executed, as well as the rights of ethnic and religious minorities, Iran’s president would not change the status quo regardless of whether he is being projected as a moderate or hardliner.
The major institutions that have power over these matters are the judiciary system (its head is appointed by the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei), the ministry of intelligence and the office of the Supreme Leader, the Revolutionary Guards, and paramilitary groups such as the Basij.
In order to preserve his own interests and power, an Iranian president will not take a stand against these powerful political establishments, and will support the ruling political establishment because he is one of them, being qualified to run for office by the hardline Guardian Council. In fact, the number of executions and rights for ethnic and religious minorities appear to deteriorate when the Islamic Republic has a “moderate” or “reformist” president. The above institutions tighten the rules in order to send a message to Iranians and the international community that a non-hardline president does not mean that the country is liberalizing its politics.
Finally, the lifting of sanctions not only does not promote human rights in Iran, but it worsens them. The question is whether we want to continue the appeasement policy with the leading country in human rights abuses.