When a pollster calls there’s no time for debate

 

WSJ grafix

Nevada, like Iowa, conducts a caucus, not a primary.

Perhaps, like Iowa, the pollsters don’t have the best read on the outcome.

The Des Moines Register poll released just prior to the caucus — described as generally the most accurate — gave Donald Trump the lead with 28 points, followed by Ted Cruz with 23 points and Marco Rubio with just 15 on the Republican slate. Hillary Clinton was expected to best Bernie Sanders by 45 to 42 points.

When the smoke cleared Cruz came out on top and Rubio only trailed Trump by a single point and Clinton and Sanders were virtually tied. The Wall Street Journal subscribers can view a graphic with comprehensive results, that also show the delegate count. (Not to spread fear for the future of this country, but … socialist Sanders, according to WSJ entrance poll, won 84 percent of the 17-29 year-olds.)

Telephone polls are more like primaries, where you go into a booth and make a selection and go home. In a caucus, people actually talk to each other and can point out to supporters of Trump that he is an epithet-spewing, snarling bully who has never met a fence he couldn’t straddle.

He has contributed as much money to Democrats as Republicans, including Harry Reid and Hillary and Bill Clinton.

He strongly favors using the government power of eminent domain to take property from a private property owner to give to rich real estate developers like himself.

He backed a single-payer health care system, saying, “I believe in universal health care. I believe in whatever it takes to make people well and better,” but now says he opposes ObamaCare.

He has criticized the NRA for balking at gun restrictions, but doesn’t say that now.

He was for privatizing Social Security, but not now.

He opposes giving Western states greater control of federal public lands.

He announced his candidacy shortly after getting a phone call from Bill Clinton.

As in Iowa, the latest Nevada poll by Gravis shows Trump leading here with 33 points compared to 20 for Cruz and 11 for Rubio. But perhaps that will change once people start talking to each other about where the candidates really stand on the issues.

The Nevada precinct caucuses later this month will elect delegates to county conventions, where delegates to the state convention will be picked and that’s where delegates for the national conventions this summer will be selected.

The Democrats caucus at noon on the 20th and Republicans on the evening of the 23rd at either 5 p.m. or 7 p.m., depending on the location.

Republicans must be registered with the state by Feb. 13. Republicans may preregister for the caucus at nevadagopcaucus.org.

Democrats may register the day of the caucus. Information can be found at nvdems.com/caucus.

 

Advertisements

34 comments on “When a pollster calls there’s no time for debate

  1. Rincon says:

    Interesting that the 17-29 year olds are so enamored with Sanders. I may be overreading this, but perhaps they’re alienated because our economic model has failed them. Even though productivity has doubled, most of them make less money than their parents did at their age (inflation-adjusted). Why would they vote for more of the same?

  2. “If you’re 20 and not a liberal, you don’t have a heart. If you’re 40 and not a conservative, you don’t have a brain.” — attributed to various people, most often Churchill, though unlikely since he was a member of the Liberal Party much of his life.

  3. Steve says:

    I think it’s a lot simpler than all that.

    He doesn’t take PAC money and his message resonates among people with little power at their fingertips.
    Obama tapped into that same vacuum. I think most Sanders supporters are new voters and disillusioned Obama supporters.
    Sanders net worth feels very middle class. It’s hard to avoid liking someone who appears to be about as well off as oneself.
    In a way, Sanders may be the least dangerous of all the options because there is nothing he is proposing that has a snowballs chance of getting through Congress!
    Now, that really all depends on who he chooses for a running mate…..

    And, from the Democrats Iowa caucus’s, 6 coin tosses go for Hillary? What are the odds?
    And what would the odds of a conspiracy be?
    Both are just as unlikely….but go ahead, toss a coin six times… what do you get?
    I got 2 tails and 4 heads. OR should we try having 6 different people toss one coin each?

    I think Iowa tie breaker law should be changed to Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock. instead of the coin toss.

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/coin-toss-broke-6-clinton-sanders-deadlocks-in-iowa-and-hillary-won-each-time-2016-02-02

  4. What resonates…is that most of these young folks don’t even know what socialism means, and because Uncle Bernie is going take care of all their student loans and increase their burger flipping pay to $15 an hour.

  5. Rincon says:

    Your explanation may explain part of it, Steve, but why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to the over 30 crowd?

    They may not know what socialism means, but they have seen the results of our brand of capitalism and know that they’ve been screwed over big time.

  6. Crony capitalsim and government redistribution of wealth…is NOT free market capitalism. It might be your brand of capitalism…but it certainly isn’t the brand of conservatives, libertarians and like minded lovers of liberty and freedom.

  7. Keynesianism is not capitalism.

  8. Steve says:

    I think my answer includes all ages, Rincon.
    You find anywhere I limited it to one age group?

  9. Barbara says:

    My daughter is 18 and like me a Cruz supporter. She says all her friends support Sanders for 2 main reasons. First he is promising free college education, and 2nd, they absolutely can’t stand Hillary Clinton. They see her very much as untrustworthy. They indeed are unaware of exactly what socialism means to their daily life. It is just an idea in a book, but they very much believe that college should be free. The looming cost of life after high school is very real.

    They have never considered voting Republican as their parents have always voted Democratic. Additionally, many of the teachers at her school have Bernie stickers on their cars. She attends an inner city magnet school that has a regular school also. I have asked her what her teachers and friends think of her support for Cruz and she said most don’t know anything about Cruz but are happy she does not support Trump. She took a Cruz campaign sign to her history class (her teacher has signs up for all the campaigns) and she said her history teacher from last year came into the class and said, “Thank God. I knew you would be on the right, but I was hoping you were supporting anybody but Trump.” To their credit, she says she doesn’t know who either of her history teachers are supporting.

  10. nyp says:

    Why isn’t “keynesian capitalism” capitalism?

  11. Nyp says:

    I guess we haven’t had a capitalist system for the past 60 years

  12. Patrick says:

    According to the definition most “conservatives” would like to force on the world “capitalism” has never and will never exist.

    It give them the opportunity to claim that all bad that happens, economically at least, can’t be blamed on a system that encourages greed and ultimately, the demise of every human being, all the while pretending that it’s the greatest thing ever.

  13. You’re beginning to sound like Bernie Sanders now…or rather Marx and Engels…or Mao.

  14. Rincon says:

    Can anyone explain to me which liberal policies have made the rich get richer and the middle class relatively poorer? Silly me. Here I am thinking that worsening income inequality is a natural consequence of capitalism.

  15. Patrick says:

    HFB:

    Perhaps you would enlighten me about your definition of capitalism?

    Because, the one I hear from some conservatives is an economic system without government interference.

    As I said, this system has never existed (and will never exist) but there is a benefit in defining it this way, as I said above; you can never blame a system that has never existed for anything right? But you could CLAIM that it was the greatest thing since sliced bread.

  16. Winston Smith says:

    “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – John Adams

    “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.” –John Adams, A Defense of the American Constitutions, 1787

    “avarice” – greed
    “only for a moral and religious people” – should not rip off others and should help others

    “I am for doing good to the poor, but…I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.” – Ben Franklin

    With the introduction of Marxist forced redistribution of wealth to a society, the rich and the poor are set against each other, and greed grows amongst both, as the poor use government to rob the rich, and the rich begin to hate them for it.

  17. Rincon says:

    As long as you’re throwing quotes around about moral and religious people, try this one: “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. – John Kenneth Galbraith

  18. “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest.” — Adam Smith

  19. Patrick says:

    “All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition.”

    -Benjamin Franklin, communist

  20. Patrick says:

    Psalm 115:16
    The heavens are the heavens of the LORD, But the earth He has given to the sons of men.”

    If God gave the earth to the sons of my, by what divine right does one son have to tell another that he does not own what God gave to him?

  21. Patrick says:

    “Finally, there seem to be but three Ways for a Nation to acquire Wealth. The first is by War as the Romans did in plundering their conquered Neighbours. This is Robbery. The second by Commerce which is generally Cheating. The third by Agriculture the only honest Way; wherein Man receives a real Increase of the Seed thrown into the Ground, in a kind of continual Miracle wrought by the Hand of God in his favour, as a Reward for his innocent Life, and virtuous Industry.”

    -Benjamin Franklin communist

    (Noting especially Franklins comments regarding commerce.)

  22. Patrick says:

    None other an authority than John Adams, called Thomas Paine, the author of the pamphlet “Common Sense”, the “father” of the American Revolution and said that “”Without the pen of the author of Common Sense, the sword of Washington would have been raised in vain.”

    Wonder what the father would say?

    ““There are two kinds of property. Firstly, natural property, or that which comes to us from the Creator of the universe – such as the earth, air, water. Secondly, artificial or acquired property – the invention of men. In the natural property all individuals have legitimate birthrights. Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvement only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property…”

  23. Patrick says:

    How about Thmas Jefferson? Surely he’d stand fast for the “natural right” of man to exclude anyone from his property right?

    “Another means of silently lessening the inequality of [landed] property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in a country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate the natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided for those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not, the fundamental right to labor the earth returns to the unemployed…”

    (Again, note particularly the part about the earth being given as common stock and the obligation to give people land, in so many words, when there is some ncultivated and men are unemployed)

  24. Patrick says:

    More from “the father of the revolution”:

    “I shall now proceed to the plan I have to propose, which is, to create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property; and also, the sum of ten pounds per annum, during life, to every person now living, of the age of fifty years, and to all others as they shall arrive at that age…[For context, the average annual wage of an agricultural laborer was around £23, which is almost US$50,000 today. £10 would translate to about US$21,000 and £15 to nearly US$32,000.]”

    Thomas Paine, communist

  25. Winston Smith says:

    An imperfect man failing in his moral and/or religious obligation to voluntarily assist the poor never justifies the organized legal plunder of the haves by a government seeking to “level” the playing field by punishing the productive and rewarding the poor.

    Unfortunately, there are two opposing economic world-views at work here…

    1. Marxist: The rich have become wealthy by abusing others; the poor are a result of being abused by the rich.

    2. Libertarian: The rich earned their wealth by working harder, smarter and longer; the poor are lazy and need to change in order to prosper.

    Now, both of these are extreme presumptions, based on generalities, but, none-the-less, valid in some (perhaps many) situations.

    As usual, the truth is somewhere in between. As far as I’m concerned, there are fascist/globalist banksters that have abused our nation, stolen our wealth, and slaughtered (directly or indirectly) our countrymen. So I guess I would be agreeing with the Marxists in this instance. However, I also know that there are very rich people who have worked hard and smart to earn every cent, and they also help the poor whenever given the opportunity.

    So, bottom line, in a free country, we should be able to earn our wealth without forced redistribution, choose for ourselves whom we will help, and let chips fall where they may.

    The fact is, patrick, that the Founders did NOT implement, certainly at the federal level, any type of “share the wealth” schemes. If some random town felt predisposed to do so, that was the townsfolk’s prerogative.

    “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” – James Madison, Father of the Constitution

    http://personalliberty.com/sockdolager-a-tale-of-davy-crockett-charity-and-congress/

    As far as your quotes about property, or land, being held by the public, it is clear that is only until individuals should seek to live on and improve such land. Jefferson, the classic agrarian, believed that all empty land should be available to anyone with enough gumption to work it, and that by staying close to the land, people would have a better appreciation for Nature and Natural Rights, and not be stuck in large cities, where corruption thrived.

    Of course, that philosophy was dominant for a hundred years, as people continually moved west, until the federal government decided it would retain control over the majority of western states’ land forever. And now, with Agenda 21, the feds seek to move us all off the farmland and back into the cities, where we will be more easily controlled.

    So, patrick, who’s side are you defending in this struggle?

  26. nyp says:

    Agenda 21!

  27. Patrick says:

    Winston:

    Let me say first that its refreshing that rather than quote people about what they thought, for one of the first times I can remember, you (mostly anyway) wrote original content; I appreciate that!

    I’ll say that there’s a lot that you wrote that I disagree with (but you probably knew that anyway) and I won’t address everything but I will say that in all the quotes I quoted, there wasn’t anything that would lead a reasonable person to conclude as you have.

    No Winston, it is NOT “clear” that Jefferson believed as you suggested. Jefferson “believed” apparently, what he wrote which was that:

    “Whenever there are in a country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate the natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on.”

    We have “uncultivated lands” in this country, and “unemployed poor” and according to Jefferson this makes it clear that the laws of property have violated the natural right. Simple even if unpleasant to you.

    And, in this country of freedom, a representative republic, the laws of property are what the people, through their representatives say they are. And if those people choose to make the laws in such fashion that money is “taken” from those with, and given to those without, THAT is what the country is, and not what you believe it ought to be.

    The last 150 years or more form a sufficient historical record that demonstrates that the above is what a free people choose. Whether your libertarian philosophical bent is in accord or not, is truly irrelevant, as is my more…liberal one I suppose.

    Finally, Winston, I tried to put it out there earlier that the dog eat dog economic system some “conservatives” like to call “capitalism” or perhaps more palatably “free markets” is to blame for moving people off land and into the cities and definitely not the constantly castigated as weak UN and any policy that organization may suggest.

    But I suppose you, like HighFlyingBrian, will claim that “the free market was corrupted, which makes it crony capitalism” and not REAL capitalism, and thus you will disown the actions of those who practice capitalism best; in a dog eat dog fashion without restriction.

  28. Steve says:

    Cherry picked hot air!

  29. Patrick says:

    your mother?

  30. Steve says:

    Why, Thanks Patrick! It’s so refreshing to read such a unique point of view!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s