Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Wednesday, February 12, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 538)

“If Donald Trump Consolidates Republicans or Peels Off a Few More Independents, Clinton is Going to Lose”

Presumptive nominees Donald J. Trump, left, and Hillary R. Clinton in New York AP

Presumptive nominees Donald J. Trump, left, and Hillary R. Clinton, right, give victory speeches on Tuesday, June 7, 2016, in New York. (Photos: AP)

Democrat Hillary Clinton has a smaller-than-anticipated lead against Republican Donald Trump in the state of Nevada, a result that shocked Clinton supporters. A new [content_tooltip id=”38870″ title=”Monmouth University”] Mrs. Clinton holds a small 4-point lead over Mr. Trump (45% to 41%), while Republican Joe Heck leads Democrat Catherine Cortez Masto by 2 points in the U.S. Senate race in Nevada.

“One question at this early stage is whether Clinton can hold onto the small but crucial number of Republican voters who are currently supporting her or whether Trump can win them over as well as Democrats backing Johnson,” said Patrick Murray, director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute. “Otherwise, this contest looks to be lining up along familiar demographic divides where turnout will determine the ultimate outcome.”

Mr. Trump has the support of self-identified Republicans (88%) but 6% back Mrs. Clinton and 2% back Libertarian and former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson or another candidate. But among Democrats, 92% support Mrs. Clinton while 3% choose Mr. Trump and 3% back Gov. Johnson. However, as has been the case among independents in other battleground states and nationwide, independents back Mr. Trump 39% to 37%). Ten percent (10%) back Gov. Johnson and 8% choose “none of these candidates.”

In the race to replace outgoing Democratic Minority Leader Harry Reid in the U.S. Senate, Rep. Joe Heck leads with 42% to 40% over former Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto. Tom Jones of the Independent American Party earns 5% and “none of these candidates” has 6%, with another 7% who are undecided.

“It would not help the Democrat if this race turns into a referendum on Reid’s leadership in Congress,” Mr. Murray said. “An early campaign theme has been the influence of special interests, but voters don’t see this as a big deal right now, partly because they don’t know a lot about the two nominees despite their years in elected office.”

Again, roughly 8-in-10 Republicans (81%) support Rep. Heck and a similar number of Democrats (83%) support AG Cortez Masto. But independents back Heck by 43% to 30%, a larger margin than they back Mr. Trump.

“The fact of the matter is the 2016 Republican nominee is polling stronger among Hispanics than his very vocal critic, the 2012 nominee. If Donald Trump consolidates Republicans or peels off a few more independent voters to form a new coalition, then Hillary Clinton is going to lose,” said PPD’s senior political analyst Richard Baris. “The Silver State is expected to have the third largest percentage of Hispanic voters among the key battleground states and it wasn’t supposed to be this close.”

Both the presidential election and the race for U.S. Senate in Nevada are rated Toss-Ups on the PPD Election Projection Model.

The Monmouth University Poll was conducted by telephone from July 7 to 10, 2016 with 408 Nevada residents likely to vote in the November election. This sample has a margin of error of + 4.9 percent. The poll was conducted by the Monmouth University Polling Institute in West Long Branch, NJ.

Democrat Hillary Clinton has a smaller-than-anticipated lead

[brid video=”54391″ player=”2077″ title=”Oversight of the Department of Justice”]

Attorney General Loretta Lynch testifies at the House Judiciary Committee regarding issues facing the Justice Department, including Hillary Clinton. The committee will also seek information about the disturbing politicization of the Justice Department under the Obama Administration, including the Department’s involvement in crafting the New Orleans Police Department’s sanctuary policy and its use of mortgage settlements to funnel money to third-party activist groups.

“Additionally, the recent announcement by FBI Director Comey that he does not recommend criminal charges be brought against Hillary Clinton for her mishandling of classified information raises serious concerns,” Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., said in a statement. “It is uniquely troubling in light of Attorney General Lynch’s secret meeting with former President Bill Clinton. No one is above the law and the American people need to know that federal law enforcement is taking this misconduct seriously.”

AG Lynch came under heavy fire for meeting secretly with former President Bill Clinton on her taxpayer-funded airplane in Phoenix at a time when his wife, the former secretary of state and presumptive Democratic nominee, was under criminal investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation for mishandling classified information.

“I look forward to hearing from Attorney General Lynch and learning more about how she and the Justice Department are addressing these important issues,” Chairman Goodlatte added.

WITNESSES

Name Occupation Organization Testimony Truth in Testimony
The Honorable Loretta Lynch Attorney General United States Department of Justice

Attorney General Loretta Lynch testifies at the

U.S. President Barack Obama attends a press conference following a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the NATO Summit in Warsaw, Poland, July 8, 2016. (Photo: AFP)

U.S. President Barack Obama attends a press conference following a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the NATO Summit in Warsaw, Poland, July 8, 2016. (Photo: AFP)

President Obama’s knee-jerk reaction to the Dallas shootings brings into clear relief his biases and double standards on racially or religiously motivated violence. Have we ever had a president as blinded by his ideology and as oblivious or dismissive about his own biases and the double standards he invokes?

If blacks or Muslims commit acts of violence, Obama calls for unity and demands we not rush to judgment. He bends over backward to deny the racial or religious motives of the actors. In countless acts of Islamic terrorism, before he has even expressed outrage or sorrow over the victims’ deaths, Obama lectures us on the immorality of blaming actors of a single religion, tells us how wonderful and peaceful the religion is, and admonishes us against drawing inferences based on indisputable facts.

If, on the other hand, blacks or Muslims are even arguably the victims of racial or religious violence, he immediately rushes to judgment and attributes racial or religious motives to the actors.

In Warsaw, Poland, during a news conference, one journalist asked Obama to address the motives of Micah Johnson, the shooter who massacred police officers in Dallas. She said: “Help us understand how you describe his motives. Do you consider this an act of domestic terrorism? Was this a hate crime? Was this a mentally ill man with a gun?”

Obama replied, “First of all, I think it’s very hard to untangle the motives of this shooter.”

No, it’s not hard to untangle the motives of the killer, because they weren’t tangled. He made them quite clear both on Facebook and in his exchanges with cops during the standoff. Troubled or not, he appeared to hate white people and was livid at cops. Indeed, Dallas Police Chief David Brown said Micah Johnson “wanted to kill white people, especially white officers.”

Obama simply ignored the question of whether the Dallas shootings were a hate crime, yet he had no difficulty in so characterizing the recent police shootings of black men in Louisiana and Minnesota. Nor in these cases did he call for unity and restraint. Instead, he reflexively detailed the evidence that allegedly demonstrates law enforcement discrimination against minorities, though the evidence of such bias is hotly disputed, as shown by Heather Mac Donald’s thorough examination of the data in her new book, “The War on Cops.”

Obama’s flagrant double standard has been on display throughout his tenure in office.

When Nidal Hasan, with known ties to radical Islam, fatally shot 13 people and injured more than 30 others while screaming “Allahu akbar,” Obama said, “We don’t know all the answers yet, and I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts.”

When police in Cambridge, Massachusetts, arrested black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. at his home, Obama sprinted to judgment, wholly without benefit of all the facts, and condemned the police, who he said “acted stupidly.”

After George Zimmerman was acquitted for the shooting of Trayvon Martin, Obama couldn’t resist the urge to identify with Martin, saying, “Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago.” He couldn’t pass up a chance to lecture us on the “history of racial disparities in the application of our criminal laws,” even though Zimmerman is Hispanic.

When the Tsarnaev brothers planted bombs at the Boston Marathon and killed three people and injured hundreds more, Obama said: “In this age of instant reporting … there’s a temptation to latch on to any bit of information, sometimes to jump to conclusions. But … it’s important that we do this right. … That’s why we take care not to rush to judgment — not about the motivations of these individuals, certainly not about entire groups of people.”

When white police officer Darren Wilson shot and killed African-American Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, after his robbery of a convenience store, his resisting arrest and his storming of the officer, Obama didn’t calm activists who were wrongly claiming that Wilson had shot Brown in the back without provocation. He deliberately exploited the incident as an example of the “gulf of mistrust (that) exists between local residents and law enforcement.” He said, “Too many young men of color feel targeted by law enforcement — guilty of walking while black or driving while black, judged by stereotypes that fuel fear and resentment and hopelessness.” Maybe so, but it was highly inappropriate for Obama to mention those matters in connection with the Brown shooting, which had nothing to do with race. And it was reckless for Obama to fan the flames of racial animosity in that way. He expressed no similar indignation when riots ensued, and the havoc resulted in injured people and millions of dollars of property damage.

Obama didn’t demand restraint when Muslims were shot in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. He said the FBI was taking steps to determine whether federal laws were violated. “No one in the United States of America,” he said, “should ever be targeted because of who they are, what they look like or how they worship.”

When African-American Freddie Gray died one week after riding without restraints in a police van after his arrest, Obama, again rushing to judgment while pretending not to, said: “We have some soul-searching to do. This is not new. It’s been going on for decades.”

Immediately after Dylann Roof allegedly shot black Christians in Charleston, South Carolina, Obama said: “The fact that this took place in a black church obviously also raises questions about a dark part of our history. … We know that hatred across races and faiths (poses) a particular threat to our democracy and our ideals.”

About the terrorist shootings in San Bernardino, California, Obama insisted we go along with his patronizing charade that the slaughter may have been the handiwork of disgruntled office workers. He said: “It is possible that this was terrorist-related, but we don’t know. It’s also possible that this was workplace-related.”

Concerning the recent jihadi murder of 49 people in Orlando, Florida, Obama said: “We are still learning all the facts. This is an open investigation. We’ve reached no definitive judgment on the precise motivations of the killer.” Never mind that the killer clearly expressed his motives.

If Obama were to apply a consistent standard to these incidents and not reveal his own biases, he might have some credibility in those cases where he calls for unity. Instead, he has been a catalyst for racial and religious division in his words, actions and policies.
[mybooktable book=”the-emmaus-code-finding-jesus-in-the-old-testament” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

President Obama's knee-jerk reaction to the Dallas

Johnson's Facebook page showed him giving the "black power" salute. (Facebook)

Johnson’s Facebook page showed him giving the “black power” salute. (Facebook)

The gunning down of five cops in Dallas was terrorism, pure and simple. The lunatic who did it framed his rampage as retaliation for police shootings of African-Americans. But these were not two sides of the same coin. They were different coins altogether.

The early evidence suggests that the fatal confrontations in Baton Rouge and St. Paul resulted from bad policing with a possible racial component. But each case involved an interaction between a specific officer and an identified civilian. In piecing together exactly what happened, the actions of the deceased are as important as those of the police.

The Dallas gunman was going after cops, any cops. Before a police robot bomb “neutralized” him, Micah Johnson told negotiators that he wanted to kill white cops. How he could detect the skin color of officers shot from a distance in the dark — some mixed in with the Black Lives Matter demonstration — is unclear. The color he definitely saw was the blue of their uniforms.

Johnson bragged of plans to detonate explosive devices in the city and beyond — all designed to intimidate a larger population. This is the definition of terrorism. It belongs with the mass murder of innocents at a black church in Charleston, South Carolina, and the bloody attacks on nightclubs in Paris and Orlando.

That the perpetrator was, to use the politically correct term, “troubled” does not make his crime something other than terrorism. Johnson left the Army Reserve, reportedly after stealing women’s panties. On seeing his record, several black power groups shunned Johnson’s efforts to join them. Police said he was singing and laughing as they tried to negotiate with him.

Red flags that something’s not right in the head wave in almost every terrorist’s bio. Dylann Roof, the 22-year-old white supremacist charged with the mass shooting in the church, had sunk into drugs and alcohol.

In 2014, a “troubled” black man, citing the Eric Garner and Michael Brown police shooting cases, traveled from Baltimore to Brooklyn, where he assassinated two officers sitting in their patrol car. He shot his ex-girlfriend on his way. Race shouldn’t matter here, but for the record, one of the murdered officers was Asian, the other Latino.

Of course, Johnson claimed to be serving a cause greater than himself — in his case, Black Lives Matter. Terrorists almost always do.

Much of the scorn subsequently heaped on Black Lives Matter is unfair. In social media, there are no controls on who may attach their repugnant views to a hashtag. And frankly, there’s hardly a bizarre thought that can’t find validation somewhere online.

Randomly shooting at officers could be one definition of mental illness, but aiming at the Dallas police hit a new low in rationality. Under Chief David Brown, Dallas has become one of the most progressive big-city police departments in the country. It has gone far in repairing relations with locals feeling harassed and endangered by rogue cops. Complaints of police violence have plummeted.

Left to his own unstable devices, Johnson probably didn’t register that he was shooting at a peaceful Black Lives Matter demonstration. Nor did he seem to notice the officers’ role in encouraging and protecting the demonstrators.

This discussion is in no way intended to downplay the accusations of police brutality against minorities. Every charge deserves a thorough investigation.

There are, in the words of New York Police Commissioner William Bratton, “cops who shouldn’t be here.” But there are over 800,000 police officers in this country, all of them human, most trying to do their hard job. It was a terrorist who judged total strangers by the color of their uniforms.

The gunning down of five cops in

Dallas Police Chief David Brown leaves the Baylor University Medical Center after a visit, Friday, July 8, 2016, in Dallas. (Photo: AP)

Dallas Police Chief David Brown leaves the Baylor University Medical Center after a visit, Friday, July 8, 2016, in Dallas. (Photo: AP)

There was never a more appropriately named book than “The War on Cops” by Heather Mac Donald, published a few weeks ago, on the eve of the greatest escalation of that war by the ambush murders of five policemen in Dallas.

Nor is this war against the police confined to Dallas. It is occurring across the country. Who is to blame?

There is a ton of blame, more than enough to go around to the wide range of people and institutions that have contributed to these disasters. In addition to the murderers who have killed people they don’t even know, there are those who created the atmosphere of blind hatred in which such killers flourish.

Chief among those who generate this poisonous atmosphere are career race hustlers like Al Sharpton and racist institutions like the “Black Lives Matter” movement. All such demagogues need is a situation where there has been a confrontation where someone was white and someone else was black. The facts don’t matter to them.

The same is true of the more upscale, genteel and sophisticated race panderers, including the President of the United States. During his first year in the White House, Barack Obama chastised a white policeman over his handling of an incident with a black professor at Harvard — after admitting that he didn’t know the specific facts.

Nor did he know the specifics when he publicly announced that, if he had a son, that son would look like Trayvon Martin. Are we to decide who is right and who is wrong on the basis of skin color? There was a long history of that in the days of the old Jim Crow South. Are we fighting against racism today or do we just want to put it under new management?

No one should imagine that any of this is helping the black community. The surge in murder rates across the country, in the wake of the anarchy unleashed after the Ferguson, Missouri and Baltimore riots, has taken a wholly disproportionate number of black lives.

But, to the race hustlers, black lives don’t really matter nearly as much as their chance to get publicity, power, money, votes or whatever else serves their own interests.

The mainstream media play a large, and largely irresponsible, role in the creation and maintenance of a poisonous racial atmosphere that has claimed the lives of policemen around the country.

That same poisoned atmosphere has claimed the lives of even more blacks, who have been victims of violence by thugs and criminals who have had fewer restrictions as the police have pulled back, or have been pulled back, under political pressure.

The media provide the publicity on which career race hustlers thrive. It is a symbiotic relationship, in which turmoil in the streets gives the media something exciting to attract viewers. In return, the media give those behind this turmoil millions of dollars’ worth of free publicity to spread their poison.

It is certainly news when there is turmoil in the streets. But that is very different from saying that giving one-sided presentations at length of the claims of those who promote this turmoil makes sense.

The media have also actively promoted the anti-police propaganda by the way they present the news. This goes all the way back to the Rodney King riots of 1992. Television stations all across the country repeatedly played a selectively edited fraction of a videotape covering the encounter between the police and Rodney King, who had been stopped after a wild, high-speed chase.

The great majority of that video never saw the light of day on the TV networks that incessantly played the selectively edited fraction.

When the police were charged with excessive violence in overcoming Rodney King’s resistance to arrest, the jury saw the whole video — and refused to convict the policemen. That is when people who had seen only what the media showed them rioted after the jury verdict.

Today, the media keep repeating the mantra that there was a “peaceful demonstration,” even when it ends in violence. How many people have to die in “peaceful demonstrations” before the media admit that those who promote mob disruptions have to know what is likely to happen when you put mobs in the streets at night?

Mob rule is not democracy. It threatens democracy, as it threatens lives — black or white — and all lives should matter.

[mybooktable book=”wealth-poverty-and-politics-an-international-perspective” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

There was never a more appropriately named

Retired-Lt-Gen-Michael-Flynn-WSJ

Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn speaks at the Wall Street Journal CEO Council on Tuesday. (Photo: Ralph Alswang/WSJ)

Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn said in an op-ed Monday for the New York Post he was fired as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) under President Obama for the “stand I took on radical Islamism.” Lt. Gen. Flynn, who is being vetted by Donald J. Trump for a potential vice presidential running mate, was fired in the winter of 2014 after three decades in the military.

The former DIA head said he asked the director of national intelligence James Clapper, the man who came to deliver the news, if he was forced into retirement because of his leadership of the agency. The answer was “no.”

Two years ago, I was called into a meeting with the undersecretary of defense for intelligence and the director of national intelligence, and after some “niceties,” I was told by the USDI that I was being let go from DIA. It was definitely an uncomfortable moment (I suspect more for them than me).

I asked the DNI (Gen. James Clapper) if my leadership of the agency was in question and he said it was not; had it been, he said, they would have relieved me on the spot.

I knew then it had more to do with the stand I took on radical Islamism and the expansion of al Qaeda and its associated movements. I felt the intel system was way too politicized, especially in the Defense Department. After being fired, I left the meeting thinking, “Here we are in the middle of a war, I had a significant amount of combat experience (nearly five years) against this determined enemy on the battlefield and served at senior levels, and here it was, the bureaucracy was letting me go.” Amazing.

Lt. Gen. Flynn warned of an alliance of secular dictatorships–including North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela–who partner with Iran and other radical Muslim countries and organizations such as the Islamic State, al Qaeda and the Taliban.

“That’s a formidable coalition, and nobody should be shocked to discover that we are losing the war. If our leaders were interested in winning, they would have to design a strategy to destroy this global enemy. But they don’t see the global war. Instead, they timidly nibble around the edges of the battlefields from Africa to the Middle East, and act as if each fight, whether in Syria, Iraq, Nigeria, Libya or Afghanistan, can be peacefully resolved by diplomatic effort.”

“This approach is doomed.”

He went on to outline a comprehensive strategy that includes beating them on the battlefield and delegitimizing their ideology based on that defeat, the first step being one the U.S. had already taken and squandered.

“As we defeat them on the ground, we must clearly and forcefully attack their crazy doctrines. Defeat on battlefields does great damage to their claim to be acting as agents of divine will,” he wrote. “After defeating al Qaeda in Iraq, we should have challenged the Islamic world and asked: ‘How did we win? Did Allah change sides?'”

Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn says he was

Faith-and-Freedom-Coalition-Donald-Trump

Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, speaks at the Faith & Freedom summit on Friday June 10, 2016. (Photo: Facebook/Faith and Freedom Coalition)

Donald J. Trump announced Monday the expansion of the campaign’s communications team, a move that comes just ahead of the Republican National Convention. The announcement was made just before the presumptive Republican presidential nominee spoke in Virginia Beach, Va., where he vowed to uphold law and order and fight to ensure that veterans have access to the best medical care.

“We made a promise to these heroes. You defend America, and America will defend you,” Mr. Trump said at the Westin Virginia Beach Town Center. “There are two Americas: the ruling class, and the groups it favors, and then everyone else.”

The campaign said the additional hirings will “further educate voters on Hillary’s liberal track record of deception, and effectively communicate the campaign’s message” — something that critics have said is overdue.

“Mr. Trump is the only candidate who will Make America Great Again,” the campaign said in a statement.

The Trump campaign has brought on Bryan Lanza as the Deputy Communications Director for Surrogates. He most recently served as Communications Director for the non-profit Citizens United and previously as a Chief of Staff for members of the California State Assembly and Senate.

Mr. Lanza’s focus will be message organizing and mobilizing supporters “in an effective way that allows Mr. Trump’s America First message to resonate with voters,” according to the campaign.

The campaign also hired Steven Cheung to serve as the campaign’s Director of Rapid Response. Mr. Cheung’s focus will be on keeping the campaign up to date on breaking news and pushing back on what they characterized as “false or unbalanced reporting.” That’s music to the ears of most Republicans and nearly all conservatives, who have long-decried the evident bias in mainstream media reports.

Mr. Cheung has worked in communications on several Senate and gubernatorial campaigns, as well as the 2008 McCain-Palin presidential campaign, most recently serving as the Director of Communications and Public Affairs for the Ultimate Fighting Championship.

The Trump campaign, which has nearly ten times fewer paid staffers as the Clinton machine, said it will continue to build out the communications team before November 8th. Mr. Trump will also be in Westfield, Indiana on Tuesday night, where he is expected to appear with his possible vice presidential pick–Indiana Gov. Mike Pence.

Donald J. Trump announced Monday the expansion

Theresa May, the next UK prime minister following the resignation of David Cameron. (REUTERS/Peter Nicholls)

Theresa May, the next UK prime minister following the resignation of David Cameron. (REUTERS/Peter Nicholls)

The Conservative Party in the United Kingdom confirmed Theresa May will take over for Prime Minister David Cameron on Wednesday this week. May said Monday she was “honored and humbled” to be chosen as Britain’s next prime minister, making her the second woman–alongside Margaret Thatcher–to hold the nation’s most powerful position, both of whom being conservatives.

“Together we will build a better Britain,” May said.

May, who has served as Britain’s home secretary for six years, basically won the post by default. She instantly became the conservative party’s only choice after her sole remaining rival, Energy Minister Andrea Leadsom, unexpectedly withdrew earlier Monday. Mr. Cameron has said he will step down on Wednesday and May will immediately replace him.

“We will have a new prime minister in that building behind me by Wednesday evening,” Prime Minister Cameron said in front of 10 Downing Street on Monday.

Mr. Cameron announced his resignation after failing to convince voters to remain in the European Union (EU) in a June 23 referendum, or Brexit. Despite the aggregate polling data, the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the imbalanced economic partnership due to unfettered immigration, a lack of economic and national sovereignty. May had campaigned, albeit as a “reluctant remainer,” for Britain to remain but on Monday sought to reassure those who voted “leave” that she would respect their wishes.

“Brexit means Brexit and we are going to make a success of it.”

The Conservative Party in the United Kingdom

Former Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh. (Photo: AP)

Former Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh. (Photo: AP)

Former Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh has decided to run for the open U.S. Senate in Indiana, pitting him against Republican nominee Rep. Todd Young. Democrats are hoping the development will dramatically improve the party’s chances to win back the Hoosier State seat now held by Republican Sen. Dan Coats, who is retiring, and wrest back control from the U.S. Senate.

However, former Sen. Bayh, who the party has been courting for months, forfeited his seat to avoid drowning in the 2010 tea party wave after serving just two terms. He is sitting on around $10 million in left-over campaign funds.

Until now, Bayh sat on the sidelines and former Democratic Rep. Baron Hill won the party’s nomination on May 3. The party is pushing our Rep. Hill, who was not a strong candidate to take on the GOP establishment favorite Rep. Young, in the Republican-leaning state. On Monday, Hill announced he had filed papers to withdraw from the nomination. In a statement, Hill alluded to Bayh’s likely candidacy without mentioning him by name.

“Democrats have a very real chance at winning this Senate seat, especially with a strong nominee who has the money, name identification and resources to win,” Hill said. “I do not want to stand in the way of Democrats winning Indiana and the U.S. Senate. That would not be fair to my party or my state. And, the stakes are far too high in this election not to put my country above my own political ambitions. In accordance with Indiana law, I have filed the necessary paperwork to withdraw from the race.”

Still, Hoosier State voters have moved decidedly to the right under President Barack Obama, which again is why Bayh left the U.S. Senate in the first place. The Republican Party ran a weak candidate in 2012, who was drug down by his comments and the so-called “war on women” that was successfully created by Democrats during the cycle. Incumbent Republican U.S. Senator Richard Lugar ran for re-election to a seventh term in 2012, but was defeated in the primary by Richard Mourdock.

Rep. Joe Donnelly painted himself as a moderate Democrat from Indiana’s 2nd Congressional District and Murdock’s remarks regarding rape pushed Donnelly to victory. But Rep. Young is not Murdock, as PPD’s senior political analyst said in a reaction on Twitter.

Former Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh has decided

FBI Director James Comey, left, speaks during a press conference on July 5, 2016, while Hillary Clinton, right, followed by aide Huma Abedin, to her right, at Andrews Air Force Base on July 5, 2016. (Photos: AP)

FBI Director James Comey, left, speaks during a press conference on July 5, 2016, while Hillary Clinton, right, followed by aide Huma Abedin, to her right, at Andrews Air Force Base on July 5, 2016. (Photos: AP)

A new poll finds a majority of voters disagree with FBI Director James Comey’s decision not to seek a criminal indictment against Hillary Clinton. A Rasmussen Reports survey shows only 37% of likely voters agree with the FBI’s decision, while 54% disagree and believe the FBI should have sought a criminal indictment of Clinton. Only 10% said they were undecided.

Worth noting, the American voter predicted FBI would decide not to indict months ago, with 65% thinking Mrs. Clinton broke the law by sending and receiving e-mails containing classified information through a private e-mail server while serving as secretary of State. Yet, in a demonstration of just how little faith they have in the system, just 25% said in January that it was even somewhat likely she would be charged with a felony.

Not surprisingly, 64% of Democrats agree with Director Comey’s decision not to seek an indictment and 79% of Republicans, 63% of voters not affiliated with either major political party disagreed. Just 25% of Democrats disagree with the decision.

A sad 81% of all voters believe powerful people get preferential treatment when they break the law, while only 10% disagree. Among those who think powerful people get better treatment under the law, 63% disagree with the FBI’s decision not to seek a criminal indictment of Clinton. Ninety percent (90%) of those who do not believe the powerful are treated differently agree with the FBI’s action.

Sixty-two percent (62%) of voters have a favorable opinion of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but that includes only 16% with a Very Favorable one. Twenty-eight percent (28%) share a favorable view of the federal agency, with 11% who see it Very Favorably. Eighty-two percent (82%) of voters who agree with the Clinton decision have a favorable opinion of the FBI, compared to just 49% of those who disagree.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on July 5, 2016 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

A new poll finds a majority of

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial