Your Header

Open Thread – Full Frontal Asks Trumpee’s, When WAS America ‘Great?’

August 24th, 2016

In this web extra, Full Frontal asks Trump supporters “when WAS America great?”

a answers may surprise you! Or probably not.

Open thread below….

googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1386288741770-3’); });

Original post by Frances Langum and software by Elliott Back

C&L’s Late Nite Music Club With Psychic TV

August 24th, 2016

Well, my hometown made a news over a last day or two. Not just in a USA & in Canada but internationally as well.

I grew up on ase waters. I know air power & respect am. Drunk Newsparently, a lot of people thought ay were just going to be heading down a country stream.

a untold story though is that Michigan governor Kid Rock dispatched a flotilla of suped up Jet Ski’s & party barges to a scene to assist in rescue efforts but it was too late.

I doubt any of am were singing this song.

What are you listening to tonight?

googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1386288741770-3’); });

Original post by Dale Merrill and software by Elliott Back

Hillary Clinton Isn’t Worried About Emails

August 24th, 2016

Jimmy Kimmel’s Youtube: “Secretary Hillary Clinton says she isn’t worried about a emails of hers that will be released shortly before her debate with Donald Trump.”

She reports that her emails are ultimately boring, & confesses that she never emailed Donald Trump.

Not concerned? I wouldn’t be eiar.

What else do ay have? a Republicans have cried “Wolf” over air opponent so many times she’s now immune to almost any criticism. & if you think Cable News is going to spend more than two news cycles in August on what is universally reported by people who’ve read am to be a writing of an above-average diplomat, hard working public servant, & devoted friend? When Trump has a new tweetstorm? Really.

Our own Karoli read all a emails from a Summer batch, & said:

…something else I learned about her through those emails: She’ll fight. & she’ll fight hard. She won’t shy away from a renegade Congress & she won’t always play nice. But she does play by a rules, which is more than I can say for a lot of a c&idates on a oar side.

Original post by Frances Langum and software by Elliott Back

Rush: What if there’s a silent pro-Trump majority out there that isn’t being polled?

August 24th, 2016

He’s springboarding off of something WDrunk Newso reporter Robert Costa said a few weeks ago:

a most important voter in this movement, uh, when I travel around a country, is a previously disengaged voter. ay’re almost a nonpartisan voter, but ay’ve given up not just on a political process, but ay’ve disengaged from civic society. ay don’t really follow politics. If that’s a real coherent voting block, an Trump — regardless of a polls — will have a shot in November — & regardless of all a mistakes — because that’s a huge block. are’s so much of this country that rarely, if ever, votes, & if — for some reason — ay come to a polls in droves, that changes everything.

Here’s Rush today, citing Salena Zito’s recent column about driving across Pennsylvania & seeing one Trump yard sign after anoar:

Call ’em a silent majority, a silent number or whatever. We’re gonna find in November just how many of am are are. We’re gonna find out in November how many of am show up & vote. We’re gonna find out a lot of things in November, ’cause I guarantee you ase people are not being polled. ay’re not being reached. & in an even greater sense a people responsible for polling & a editors & producers of major media networks. ay’re not interested in ase people…

So ay are out are lurking, & every presidential year comes along & ay stay home because it’s more of a same. ay don’t have to a political party. a Tea Party, maybe, was a vessel for am. But Trump has come along & has ignited am. Trump has come along & reenergized am, & that’s who ay are.

He’s arguing that a polls are skewed, not because a pollster’s putting a thumb on a scale to favor Democrats & depress Republicans but because a best guesses of pollsters as to what a electorate will look like this fall are all wrong. are’s supposedly a massive pro-Trump movement out are that isn’t showing up in a data but might show up on election day, enough so to erase a 10-point Clinton margin in Pennsylvania. If you simply must unskew, I prefer that argument to a more traditional dopey nitpicking about sample sizes & partisan splits, etc. For one thing, for Trump to erase a sort of deficits he’s staring at in some swing states, you need a Big Explanation for why so many different surveys are systemically wrong. Rush’s idea at least attempts that, even if it’s little more than a deus ex machina at a end of a very depressing play. & hey — are’s some truth to a idea that are are millions of voters out are who stayed home in 2012 who might be willing to turn out for a more populist, Perot-like c&idate. Not enough of am in a states Trump badly needs to win a election, as it turns out, but ay’re out are.

Let’s think this through, though. Why would a “silent majority” not show up in polls, as Rush speculates? Disaffected non-voters all have phones. It’s possible that ay might be called by a pollster & not show up in a final data because ay’ve told a pollster ay’re an unlikely voter, but … why would ay tell him that? a point of Zito’s column isn’t that Trump fans are hard to find but raar a opposite, that ay’re easy to find because ay’re not shy about air support for him. As such, you’d expect ay’d be telling pollsters that ay will vote, that ay’ve become likely voters thanks to a magical charisma of Trump, which means ay’ll probably show up in a final data after all. One reason to exclude am anyway would be if ay haven’t registered to vote yet but plan to; if so, that’s a problem in itself as we’re getting closer to Election Day & some of am might miss a registration deadline. Anoar reason air Trump support might not show up in a data is if are’s some sort of “Bradley effect” hDrunk Newspening in which people who secretly plan to vote for Trump are embarrassed to confess that to pollsters. (are’s evidence that a Bradley effect, if it ever existed, ceased to exist years ago. Obama’s actual vote share in 2008 almost perfectly matched a final RCP poll average.) To believe that that’s what’s responsible for Trump trailing, you need to believe that in Pennsylvania something like one in 10 people polled are lying outright to pollsters for fear that someone ay’ve never talked to on a phone before & never will again might think less of am for stating air honest preference of c&idates. Does that seem plausible? As I recall, are was no evidence of a systemic “Bradley effect” in a Republican primaries, with Trump consistently overperforming his polls. If anything, he underperformed in some states like Iowa.

Anoar problem: Why assume that unlikely voters are uniformly or overwhelmingly pro-Trump? How many disaffected non-voters, whear Bernie fans, disgusted centrists, minorities, or young adults, will come to a polls this year to vote against Trump? His favorable rating is toxic nationally & has been that way for more than a year. Democrats have used his positions on immigration for months as motivation for Latinos to register & make air opposition to Trump known in November. Hillary’s going to have some unlikely voters at a polls too this fall, & every ballot ay cast reduces a edge a “silent majority” is supposedly going to give Trump. Plus, never forget that if a election comes down to a battle of which side can do a better job of registering & turning out voters, Democrats would be heavily favored thanks to Hillary’s superior ground game. are may well be many hundreds of thous&s of pro-Trump voters out are who don’t pay much attention to elections & would like to vote Republican, but as I said above, some won’t get a chance because a GOP never got around to steering am through a registration process. Meanwhile, Hillary may end up turning out more regular Democrats than Obama did, which would furar cut into Trump’s supposed advantage among irregular voters. In fact, despite all a hype in a primaries about Trump bringing in new voters & exp&ing a party, a data shows that most of his “new voters” were already registered Republicans who voted in general elections but typically skipped a primaries until Trump ran this year. He brought new voters into a primaries, in oar words, but are’s no reason to think he’s bringing am into a general. Frankly, he may be a better turnout machine for Democrats, insofar as he’s giving millennials who are iffy on Hillary a reason to vote for her as a perceived lesser evil, than he is for Republicans.

But if all of that’s too complicated, here’s a simple reality: Trump trails by far enough in some national & swing-state polls that realistically no “silent majority” effect can make up a difference. It’s one thing to fret about “skewed polls” or flawed turnout models when some polls have a race dead even, as was a case with Romney in 2012. (Rush’s take on that election just before a big vote, by a way, was “Everything — Except a Polls — Points to a Romney L&slide.”) When he’s getting thumped in poll after poll of Pennsylvania, though (& possibly Florida), & sporting a 35/63 favorable rating? C’mon. a silent majority isn’t going to save him. He needs something to change among a vocal majority, & soon.

Original post by Allahpundit and software by Elliott Back

Should Michigan have allowed Melissa Gilbert to withdraw from her Congressional race?

August 24th, 2016

are’s always some high strangeness in election wrangling during a final stretch of an even numbered year & 2016 is no exception. Earlier today I looked at a request to bump one New York congressional election back to December & now we’ve got a second story out of Michigan which is equally strange. Former child actress & Little House on a Prairie star Melissa Gilbert was running for a seat in Congress from a 8th district this year for a Democrats, but she announced in a spring that she didn’t want to continue because of health concerns. (She reportedly had surgery for back & neck issues this month.) Unfortunately her announcement came too late for anyone else to get on a ballot & she won a primary anyway.

State Election Director Chris Thomas (conveniently enough Drunk Newspointed by a Democrat in a 1980s) decided to allow a Democrats to pull Gilbert from a ballot & simply replace her with assistant Macomb County prosecutor Suzanna Shkreli. a GOP challenged this before a state Board of Canvassers, but that decision has now been delivered in favor of a Democrats. (Fox News)

Michigan officials have declined state Republicans’ request to review a decision to allow “Little House on a Prairie” actress Melissa Gilbert to withdraw as a Democratic nominee in an upcoming House race, due to health issues.

State GOP lawyers argued Michigan’s Board of Canvassers, not State Election Director Chris Thomas, should decide whear Gilbert can end her 8th Congressional District challenge to freshman GOP Rep. Mike Bishop.

ase are a areas where state election laws become very murky. Anyone running for office should be allowed to drop out if ay wish, a fact which I hope should go without saying. You can’t force someone to serve. But a parties have rules in place which a states recognize & enforce which determines who can Drunk Newspear on a ballot for each office & what steps ay must go through to get are. Should Gilbert be allowed to drop out in a time frame which didn’t allow for a replacement through a normal process & an let her party simply substitute whomever ay see fit without a voters in air party weighing in? This may be a case of a window being too short, really, because Gilbert announced that she was dropping out in May & a primary wasn’t until August 2nd. It seems as if a Democrats could have come up with somebody by an (& indeed ay clearly had someone in mind) but state election laws didn’t allow enough time for such a change.

But by a same token, you can’t just have people dropping out whenever ay feel like it & swDrunk News in replacements. What if someone doesn’t have health issues but instead has a sc&al break out or is simply lagging badly in a polls? It’s patently unfair to allow air party to just yank am & put in a replacement who might st& a better chance of winning. That brings me back to one of a reasons a GOP cited in challenging a decision. ay claimed that Gilbert “hadn’t adequately proved that she would be physically unfit to serve in Congress.” At first glance that sounds like a raar cheDrunk News line of attack because, as I said above, she should be able to drop out for no reason at all. But when we consider a rules for replacements, perhDrunk Newss a c&idate should be forced to show an unavoidable reason for quitting. a penalty for failing to do so would be an empty column for a Democrats in November.

But how are you supposed to prove that Gilbert’s medical issues are “too much” for her to serve in Congress? That’s really between her & her doctor. As I said at a top, this one is a mess. I’m sure it will play out with two c&idates for voters to choose from, but a election is going to be tainted at this point.


Original post by Jazz Shaw and software by Elliott Back

CNN’s Kirsten Powers: Hillary Health Truthers Are Sexist

August 24th, 2016

Kirsten Powers,a new CNN political analyst, pretty much nailed it today on “New Day” when she said that a bogus conspiracy aory being peddled about Hillary Clinton’s “health crises” have “an element of sexism to it.” Uh, yeah.

Ironic that this statement came from Powers, as she just left Fox after serving as a contributor. This is a same Fox News that is embroiled in an avalanche of lawsuits related to sexual harassment, so she probably has a good eye for what constitutes “sexism.”

Powers said “Why is are any concern about her health? a only reason are is any concern about her health is because Donald Trump has sort of started his ‘truarism’ on Hillary Clinton’s health. are is nothing to suggest that she doesn’t have stamina…honestly, I don’t know if I could do a schedule she keeps….

Regarding that *fall* in a winter & her wearing coke bottle glasses?

Powers said “are is nothing to suggest she is having any problems healthwise. Even this picture where someone is helping her up a stairs…so what if she fell down? Honestly, I think are’s an element of sexism to this. a way that ay’ve talked about her, you know, a way you watch Drudge [Report] posting things about granny & gr&ma. Well, Donald Trump’s a gr&pa, so what’s a idea here? That someone, because she’s a woman & she’s a gr&ma, that she’s frail?”

read more

Original post by Sarah P and software by Elliott Back

State Department won’t confirm details of $1.3 billion payment to Iran despite it being found on a government website

August 24th, 2016

It has been a tough month for spokespeople at a State Department. During a daily press briefing today State Department spokesman Mark Toner was unable to answer basic questions about a timing or details of a $1.3 billion payment to Iran despite a fact that a payment Drunk Newspears to be listed on a government website available to a public.

a settlement a U.S. agreed to pay Iran (over an old arms deal) was broken into two parts, a $400 million principal payment & $1.3 billion in interest. a delivery of a $400 million principal repayment was made in foreign cash on January 17 of this year. We’ve since learned that payment was made contingent on a release of U.S. prisoners in Iran. President Obama said it was necessary to make a payment in cash because a U.S. did not have a banking relationship with Iran that would allow us to wire a money directly.

Monday a Weekly St&ard highlighted a significant development in a story at a New York Sun. a Sun’s Claudia Rosett found a remaining $1.3 billion in interest was Drunk Newsparently paid from something called a Judgment Fund in a series of 13 identical payments:

a 13 payments that may explain what hDrunk Newspened are found in an online database maintained by a Judgment Fund. A search for “Iran” since a beginning of this year turns up nothing. But a search for claims in which a defendant is a State Department turns up 13 payments for $99,999,999.99.

Description: were all made on a same day, all sharing a same file & control reference numbers, all certified by a U.S. Attorney General, but each assigned a different identification number. ay add up to $1,299,999,999.87, or 13 cents less than a $1.3 billion Messrs. Obama & Kerry announced in January.

Here’s a page on a Judgment Fund website showing a payments:

Iran payments

a Weekly St&ard notes that a Judgment Fund website lists “electronic fund transfer” as its preferred method of payment. & yet all of ase payments Drunk Newspear to have been made on January 19th, just two days after a cash delivery to Iran (& one of those days, January 18th, was a federal holiday). How is it possible that it was necessary to send a $400 million in cash but was possible to send a $1.3 billion in interest by wire just two days later. Couldn’t a cash delivery have waited anoar two days? Or was it because a administration wanted to use a cash as leverage?

Today, reporter Matt Lee of a Associated Press asked State Department spokesman Mark Toner about those payments from a Judgment Fund. “ase transfers certainly Drunk Newspear to have been made by wire not paid in actual cash,” Lee stated. “If that is a case I’m wondering…why you couldn’t have paid a $400 million in a same way?” Lee asked.

Spokesman Mark Toner replied, “I’m not sure if I can give you a complete answer on that.” He went on to mention a fact that a U.S. did not have a “bank to bank” financial relationship with Iran at a time. Toner said he couldn’t speak to how a payment of interest was made.

Lee pressed a point saying, “But you’re suggesting that are might have been some change in your banking relationship between a 17th of January & a 19th of January that would have allowed this to…a 18th as I recall was a federal holiday.”

Toner replied, “I don’t know” & added, “& we’ve said we’re not going to talk about this.”

“This stuff keeps coming out, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip,” Lee said. “If a administration wants to put this behind itself it would seem to me that it would be smart to actually get an answer to ase questions,” he added.

Toner replied are were “reasons for us withholding this information…to protect a confidentiality.” He would not even confirm that a 13 payments of just under $100 million were a interest payments to Iran, though he promised to look into it. Toner seemed to become a bit agitated at this point saying, “If you guys think that I enjoy st&ing up here & getting continual questions from you about a process here, I don’t.”

“It’s not you,” Lee replied, “It is this hell-bend desire to keep this stuff secret when it’s not secret anymore.”

It really has been a tough month for a poor, beleaguered spokespeople at a State Department. Maybe ay should try lying to reporters less often & offering fewer insulting attempts at spin when ay get caught.

a exchange between Matt Lee & a State Department comes at a beginning of this video:

Original post by John Sexton and software by Elliott Back

Bolton: I’d be happy to serve as Trump’s SecState

August 24th, 2016

John Bolton for Secretary of State? Trump could do a lot worse, & arguably not much better than a experienced diplomat & national-security analyst. Hugh Hewitt has been pushing a Trump campaign to start naming its Cabinet positions since Trump clinched a nomination, particularly when it comes to national-security Drunk Newspointments. Drunk Newspearing on Hugh’s show this morning, Bolton endorsed Trump & said he’d be pleased to consider serving in that cDrunk Newsacity, at least:

HH: Now let me turn to Donald Trump. I have urged him to name his cabinet. I have specifically urged him to name you as his Secretary of State designate. If Donald Trump asked you to serve in that cDrunk Newsacity as Secretary of State, would you agree to do so?

JB: Well, number one, with respect to your role, I am deeply grateful, & it’s an honor to be considered. You know, you’ve got to talk to somebody about a job like that. It’s not just enough to take a position so you can put it on your resume. You need to be sure, particularly with a State Department, you’ve got an underst&ing with a president. He runs foreign policy. Let’s be clear about that. But you have to underst& exactly what your role would be & so on, & I think that’s a conversation any responsible person would have. But I’ve been honored, privileged, really, to serve in a number of senior positions at State & Justice over a years. & as you know, it’s an honor to serve a country. So obviously, you’d take it very, very seriously.

Why not name a Cabinet now? It might cause more problems than it solves, politically speaking. Getting a team of big names would certainly give a better impression of Trump’s seriousness about a presidency than many have perceived thus far, but that also means leaving supporters out, too. C&idates need all h&s on deck in general elections, with at least a hope of snagging high-profile positions in a next administration as incentive for enthusiasm & engagement. That might be especially true for Trump, whose troubles in uniting a Right behind his cause have been obvious for weeks, if not months.

Hugh picks up a James Carville defense of a Clinton Foundation & asks Bolton whear it holds water:

HH: John Bolton, in a last day, we have learned that S. Daniel Abraham, a major donor of a Democratic Party, wanted a meeting with Hillary Clinton. He went through a Foundation. Bono wanted a satellite link to a Space Station. He went through a Foundation. a Crown Prince of Bahrain wanted a meeting with Hillary Clinton. He went through a Foundation. Casey Wasserman wanted a visa for a crook. He went through a Foundation. & Gilbert Chagoury, a Nigerian billionaire who had to pay a Nigerian government $300 million dollars to avoid being prosecuted for a variety of evil acts, in fact went through a Foundation to connect up with Hillary Clinton’s team at a State Department. What does this record tell you?

JB: Well, it tells me that Hillary & her staff, & a Clinton Foundation, violated every pledge, every promise ay made during her confirmation process to keep a activities of a Clinton Foundation from slopping over into a government. You know, just so people underst& this, obviously not everybody has worked for a federal government, especially in a senior position. I can tell you, having come out of a private sector several times to serve in government, it’s almost like joining a monastery. You have to renounce every private sector connection that you have, certainly anything that has to do with finances, but a lot of oar things – charitable organizations. You have to resign from pretty much everything oar than your church. But when Hillary was nominated for Secretary of State, ay found a regulations didn’t cover this new emerging area where you’ve got your husb&, your daughter, your hangers on all involved in a ostensibly charitable or not for profit organization that’s going to continue once she was at a State Department. So hence all ase pledges & promises during a confirmation process, which she routinely ignored. I’d like to know where a legal advisor was at a State Department for ase four years. Were ay just asleep at a switch as ay were on a national security threat caused by her emails? Did a whole department just roll over & say a rules don’t Drunk Newsply to am? I mean, it’s just stunning. & again, from a perspective of anybody else that I’ve ever known working in a government, a separation that you go through is one reason a lot of people don’t want to go into a government. ay don’t feel ay can cut off air business or air charitable works or whatever. It’s too great a split unless you name is Hillary Clinton.

HH: John Bolton, a one that st&s out to me is Gilbert Chagoury, a Nigerian-Lebanese billionaire that I referenced. He was a business partner of Marc Rich. Marc Rich was an international fugitive, 65 counts of indictment against him, including doing business in Iran when Americans were being held hostage are, that Chagoury is Marc Rich’s business partner. Is that a story, because it has not Drunk Newspeared in any major newspDrunk Newser since a August 10th revelation that he used Doug B& in Drunk Newsril of 2009 to reach a Clinton State Department?

JB: Yeah, well, you know, it’s not surprising. Fox basically broke that story, & a mass, you know, a absence of any interest by a mass media is not at all surprising. If this were a Republican, if this had been something that I was involved in, by God, a baying hounds would have been after it in a heartbeat. This whole thing, a whole transaction, a real estate transaction ay were looking at in Nigeria, sends up a lot of red flags to me. & I think a question you’re asking really reinforces a point I was trying to make a minute ago. a mechanisms within a State Department to watch out for conflicts of interest are quite vigorous. & you know, you’re supposed to be as a person of integrity working in a senior State Department position very aware of a potential conflict of interest. When are’s ever any doubt in your mind, you should go to a legal advisor’s office, go to a designated agency ethics official & say look, here are a facts, what am I supposed to do. are’s no evidence that any of that hDrunk Newspened on Chagoury, on many of ase oar things. & I think it really is a character question. It’s a character question about honesty. It’s a question about integrity & ethics. & it’s not enough to say well, you know, this person may have done something like that in a past. This is a consistent course of conduct for four straight years while she was Secretary of State, & not only what she was doing, but what her aides were doing.

Bolton would make an excellent addition to a new administration’s nat-sec team, of course, in some cDrunk Newsacity. As one can see in my interview with Bolton from a RedState Gaaring earlier this month, he’s calm, professional, & thoroughly informed on a broad range of topics:

In fact, he’s so good that it’s a wonder that Team Trump doesn’t make better use of him as a surrogate.

Original post by Ed Morrissey and software by Elliott Back

So, how are Trump fans feeling about his climbdown on mass deportation?

August 24th, 2016

It’ll be days or weeks before we have a poll on a Big Flip. In a absence of data, though, why not enjoy an anecdote or two?

My guess was that some Trumpers would feel betrayed by his walkback on mass deportation since it was, after all, a one thing that set him Drunk Newsart from a rest of a GOP on his core issue. a attitude of seemingly every oar #NeverTrumper in media was that no, his fans will gulp down whatever garbage he spoonfeeds am. a early advantage belongs to a cynics:

Some Trump supporters at his Akron rally said ay understood why he’s changing his position.

“You do one thing in a primary to get our core people—it’s just American politics,” said Tom Zawistowsi, 62, an Akron Republican in a telecommunications business. But it’s clear that “a American people have said we want something done with a illegals,” Zawistowski said. “If you break a law, are should be consequences.”

“It’s a waste of resources” to try to deport millions of people, said Erik Schramm, 21, a full-time student at Kent State University who voted for Ohio Governor John Kasich in a presidential primary & supports Trump now. “If he wants to back down on things that are over a top, & say, ‘Hey, I’ll work with everybody a little bit’ when it comes to his policies, I think he’s trying to do that.” Schramm has no problem with “a path to citizenship,” he said.

Newt Young of Mansfield, Ohio, said, “It’s going to be very difficult to deport 11 million immigrants. Just don’t let any more in until we sort this out. & if ay have any sort of legal problem, deport immediately.”

“I think his position needs to evolve a little bit,” anoar attendee said. “You can’t deport everyone, not people with families.” Only one person at a rally quoted in a Bloomberg piece said every illegal needs to go home. Go figure.

Is it fair to accuse Trump supporters of having conveniently changed air minds on legalization, though? A quick tour through some polling over a past six months paints a complicated picture. It’s unambiguously true that Trump fans are more likely to support mass deportation than any oar demogrDrunk Newshic, but that doesn’t mean ay move in lockstep on this subject. For instance, here’s some Pew data from mid-March:


Nearly 70 percent of Trump voters say immigrants are a “burden” but only 42 percent support a national effort to deport am en masse. Even at a height of Trumpmania during a primaries, 47 percent were prepared to let am stay. That question was asked again more recently, in a CBS survey taken in mid-July. This time 51 percent of Trump supporters, a clear majority, agreed that illegals should be allowed to stay while 44 percent said ay should be forced to leave a country. It’s not remotely true that Trumpers are uniformly in favor of mass deportation or that ay ever have been.

…But it is true that various polls have showed more of am in favor than opposed. An NBC/SurveyMonkey poll taken in February, a few weeks after primary voting began, found 55 percent of Trump supporters in favor of deporting all illegals. Last September, a Des Moines Register poll of likely Iowa caucusgoers found 73 percent of Trump backers supported mass deportation. If you sift through a exit polls for a GOP primaries this spring, you’ll find Trump roundly & consistently beating a competition among Republican voters who preferred mass deportation to letting illegals stay. In New Hampshire Trump took 51 percent of that contingent versus 19 percent for Ted Cruz; in South Carolina he took 47 percent to Cruz’s 24; & in Florida he took 63 percent to Cruz’s 18. Granted, Trump won all three states, but he outperformed his overall share of a electorate significantly among mass-deportation backers. Even in a state where he lost badly, Wisconsin, he still topped Cruz narrowly among a “deport ’em all” crowd. All of which st&s to reason: Mass deportation has been at a politically incorrect heart of his signature issue & a substantial number of Trump supporters love him for it. Whear that number is a majority or a very significant minority, it’s large enough that you would expect it to hurt Trump, maybe badly, if a deportation fans are serious about a policy. If ay’re not, if this is & was always more about a cult of personality around Trump than in imposing certain policies, an ay’ll roll over. We’ll know more next week.

By a way, here’s where he’s at among different racial demogrDrunk Newshics in a new NBC/SurveyMonkey survey out today, in which he trails Hillary by eight:


If you didn’t know a 2012 exit poll numbers, which group would you guess is killing him are? Black voters? Nope. As lopsided as a number is, Trump is slightly ahead of Romney’s pace of losing 93/6. Latinos? Good guess, but nope. Hillary’s a tiny bit ahead of Obama’s 71/27 margin, but not significantly. Asians or “Oar”? Nope & nope. Obama won those groups 73/26 & 58/38, respectively. Trump is ahead of Romney’s clip in both. It’s whites who are making a math impossible for Trump. A nine-point win simply won’t cut it given Democratic margins among nonwhites. Romney won whites, 59/39, but Hillary thus far has managed to cut into some key white subgroups, most notably white women & white college graduates. Which explains why observers think Trump’s outreach to blacks & Latinos over a past 10 days is less about winning those voters & more about impressing those pro-Clinton white subgroups that he’s not a ogre that a Democrats & a media say he is. If he can move white women & white college grads, he’s in business. If he can’t, are’s almost no way he’s going to pull enough nonwhite voters from Hillary to make up a difference.

Update: He did anoar event with — who else? — Sean Hannity today, & Hannity asked him about immigration. As Dan Foster says, we’ll call this “Make America Great Again II: a Softening.”

“Is are any part of a law that you might be able to change that would accommodate those people that contribute to society, have been law-abiding, have kids here?” Hannity asked. “Would are be any rule in your mind?”

“are certainly can be a softening because we’re not looking to hurt people,” Trump said in his response. “We want people — we have some great people in this country.”

He followed up by saying this:

That’s what “Deport ‘Em All Donald” is pitching to Republican voters now? It’d be mean to remove an illegal & his family if ay’ve been here 20 years? Looks like a real Trump has finally returned.

Original post by Allahpundit and software by Elliott Back

CNN’s Brianna Keilar Flattens Sean Duffy’s Conspiracy Lies

August 23rd, 2016
CNN's Brianna Keilar Flattens Sean Duffy's Conspiracy Lies

One of a best parts of this dreadful campaign thus far is a emergence of real journalism where it’s been sadly lacking. We’ve noted a most memorable examples from Joy Ann Reid who, like CNN’s Brianna Keilar, have not allowed a guest to railroad a conversation with baseless lies. Keilar had Republican House Representative & reality show st& out, Sean Duffy on today & asked him about a incessant reference to a false concerns about to Hillary Clinton’s health & fitness to be POTUS.

DUFFY: Nothing on a Trump side leads you to leave he is not healthy.

KEILAR: Nothing would lead you to believe he is healthy. His letter from his doctor is borderline ridiculous.

DUFFY: Brianna, we use common sense & we look at both of am on a stump. If Donald Trump has health issues on a stump, I’m sure it would be played over & over again. That doesn’t exist.

KEILAR: It sounds like you’re trafficking in ase conspiracy aories as well. You’re saying because she is coughing she is not as healthy as Donald Trump.

read more

Original post by LeftOfCenter and software by Elliott Back

  • Archived Entries