Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Monday, February 24, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 629)

“There is nothing new in the realization that the Constitution sometimes insulates the criminality of a few in order to protect the privacy of us all.” — Justice Antonin Scalia (1936-2016)
apple_hq

Apple headquarters in Cupertino, Calif. (Photo: AP)

After the San Bernardino massacre on Dec. 2, 2015, the FBI lawfully acquired the cellphone of one of the killers and persuaded a federal judge to authorize its agents to access the contents of the phone. Some of what it found revealed that the killer used the phone to communicate with victims and perhaps confederates and even innocents who unwittingly provided material assistance.

Then the FBI hit a wall. It appears that the killer took advantage of the phone’s encryption features to protect some of his data from prying eyes unarmed with his password.

The cellphone was an iPhone, designed and manufactured by Apple, the wealthiest publicly traded corporation on the planet. Apple built the iPhone so that its users can store sensitive, private, personal data on the phone without fear of being hacked by friend or foe.

After the FBI determined it could not replicate the killer’s password without jeopardizing the phone’s content, it approached Apple, and representatives of each negotiated for weeks trying to find a way for Apple to help the FBI without compromising the security of the Internet itself. They failed.

Apple has argued that the government has no legal right to compel it to assist in a government investigation, or to compel it to alter or destroy its business model of guaranteeing the safety and privacy of its customers’ data. Apple knows that any “key” it creates for the FBI, once used on the Internet, is itself vulnerable to hacking, thereby jeopardizing all Apple products and negating the privacy of tens of millions, and even exposing the government to foreign hackers.

The Department of Justice has argued that Apple has a legal duty to help solve the mystery of who knew about the San Bernardino attacks so that the guilty can be prosecuted and the rest of us protected from future harm. Its lawyers asserted that the government would keep secure whatever key Apple created.

After the DoJ/Apple talks broke down, the DoJ made a secret application on Feb. 16, 2016, two and a half months after the massacre, to a federal judge for a search warrant for this key to access the killer’s iPhone.

The warrant was improperly granted because Apple was not given notice of the DoJ application. So, the judge who issued the order denied Apple due process — its day in court. That alone is sufficient to invalidate the order. Were Apple a defendant in a criminal case or were Apple to possess hard evidence that could exonerate or help to convict, the secret application would have been justified.

But that is not the case here.

Instead, the DoJ has obtained the most unique search warrant I have ever seen in 40 years of examining them. Here, the DoJ has persuaded a judge to issue a search warrant for A THING THAT DOES NOT EXIST, by forcing Apple to create a key that the FBI is incapable of creating.

There is no authority for the government to compel a nonparty to its case to do its work, against the nonparty’s will, and against profound constitutional values. Essentially, the DoJ wants Apple to hack into its own computer product, thereby telling anyone who can access the key how to do the same.

If the courts conscripted Apple to work for the government and thereby destroy or diminish its own product, the decision would constitute a form of slavery, which is prohibited by our values and by the Thirteenth Amendment.

Yet, somewhere, the government has the data it seeks but will not admit to it, lest a myth it has foisted upon us all be burst. Since at least 2009, the government’s domestic spies have captured the metadata — the time, place, telephone numbers and duration of all telephone calls — as well as the content of telephone calls made in America under a perverse interpretation of the FISA statute and the Patriot Act, which a federal appeals court has since invalidated.

The DoJ knows where this data on this killer’s cellphone can be found, but if it subpoenas the NSA, and the NSA complies with that subpoena, and all this becomes public, that will put the lie to the government’s incredible denials that it spies upon all of us all the time. Surely it was spying on the San Bernardino killers.

There is more at stake here than the privacy of Apple’s millions of customers and the security of power grids and all that the Internet serves. Personal liberty in a free society is at stake. A government that stays within the confines of the Constitution is at stake.

The late great Justice Antonin Scalia recognized that liberty and safety are not in equipoise when he wrote that there is nothing novel about liberty trumping safety under the Constitution. The primacy of liberty and a government subject to the rule of law is the core constitutional principle that, while honored, will keep tyranny at bay. And when dishonored, will let tyranny thrive.

There is more at stake here than

home-foreclosures

National and State Mortgage Risk Indices are tracked and released by AEI’s International Center on Housing Risk.

The National Mortgage Risk Index (NMRI) for Agency purchase loans gauging housing market risk stood at 12.23% in January, up 0.33% from a year earlier. The NMRI, which measures how government-guaranteed loans with a first payment date in a given month would perform if subjected to the same stress as in the financial crisis that began in 2007, has increased year-over-year in every month since January 2014.

An NMRI value of 10% for a given set of loans indicates that 10% of those loans would be expected to default in a severe stress event, based on the actual performance of loans with the same risk characteristics after the financial crisis.

The increased risk is driven by Agency purchase loan originations continuing to migrate from large banks to non-banks in January. The shift in market share accounts for much of the upward trend in the Agency purchase NMRI because non-bank lending is substantially riskier than the large-bank lending it replaces.

The riskiness of Agency refinance mortgages also increased over the past year and now stand at 11.10% in January, up 0.58% from a year earlier. The data exclude VA refinance loans, which are not yet risk rated by AEI’s International Center on Housing Risk, which conducts the largest housing market survey available.

The NMRI for the composite of Agency purchase and refinance loans stood at 11.70% in January, up 0.44% point from a year earlier, driven by year-over-year NMRI increases for both types of loans.

Meanwhile, the National Association of Realtors, representing the housing market lobby, said this week that their existing homes index gained in January. Yet, they are pushing for legislation to once again increase lending with loosened restrictions and standards. NMRI Analysts say this is not only unnecessary but irresponsible given the current trends.

“The data continue to show that first-time buyers have plentiful access to credit,” said Stephen Oliner, codirector of AEI’s International Center on Housing Risk and senior fellow at UCLA’s Ziman Center for Real Estate. “Assertions to the contrary are simply ignoring the facts.”

“The NMRI data along with the NAR’s February 23rd existing home sales release showing both an 8.2% year-over-year increase in median existing home prices and a seller’s market that has now entered its 41st month, confirms home prices are rising at unsustainable levels, feed by low interest rates, continued credit easing, and moderate economic growth,” said Edward Pinto, a resident fellow at AEI and a former executive vice president and chief credit officer for Fannie Mae.

While S&P/Case-Shiller U.S. National Home Price Index covering 20 metropolitan areas was flat last month, it increased 5.8% in the prior survey on a year-over-year basis compared with 5.5%.

“As NAR’s chief economist warned: ‘Home prices ascending near or above double-digit appreciation aren’t healthy – especially considering the fact that household income and wages are barely rising.’”

Other notable takeaways from the January NMRI include the following:

Purchase loan volume in January was little changed from a year earlier. About 185,000 purchase loans were added in January, of which 95,000 were to first-time buyers. These figures likely understate the trend growth in loan volume, as the implementation of the TRID rule appears to have substantially reduced loan volume in January (based on the loan’s first-payment date, our dating convention).

First-time buyers have been the focus of the easing in credit standards for Agency purchase loans. The first-time buyer NMRI stood at 15.75% in January, up 0.74 percentage point from a year earlier, and well above Repeat Primary Homebuyer NMRI of 9.80%.

The cut in FHA’s annual insurance premium early last year raised its purchase-loan market share to 28% in January from 23% in March 2015. This increase has come largely at the expense of Fannie Mae and the Rural Housing Service.

The seismic shift in market share from large banks to nonbanks continued in January, boosting overall risk as nonbank MRI is much higher. The large-bank share of purchase loans sank to 17.3% in January from 22.6% in December and about 65% in November 2012.

Fueled by historically low mortgage rates and high and growing leverage, the national seller’s market, now 41 months old, has strengthened. As a result, real home prices have risen more than 14 percent since the 2012:Q3 trough, far outstripping real income growth and crimping affordability.

The NMRI is similar to stress tests routinely performed to ascertain an automobile’s crashworthiness or a building’s ability to withstand severe hurricane force winds. The NMRI is published monthly utilizing a nearly complete census of loan-level data for loans guaranteed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, FHA, VA, and Rural Housing. These same Agency data are also used to track loan volume and other characteristics.

The National Mortgage Risk Index (NMRI) for

Donald-Trump-Marco-Rubio-Getty

Donald J. Trump, left, waves to supporters on caucus night in Las Vegas, Nev., on Feb. 24, 2016, while Florida Sen. Marco Rubio speaks to supporters at a S.C. rally. (Photos: Getty Images)

Terry Sullivan, the campaign manager for Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, told supporters in an email that the Republican nomination is now “a two-man race.” Sullivan vowed to push the long-anticipated and predictable narrative up until Super Tuesday on March 1, when

“Marco had a strong showing in Nevada last night,” Sullivan wrote in an email to would-be donors. “We’re coming out of there having beaten one of our main rivals and adding delegates, and the race looks even more like a two-man race now than it did this past weekend in South Carolina.”

While Trump won the Nevada Republican Caucus in a landslide–dominating across every single demographic and breaking his media-imposed “ceiling”–Sen. Rubio’s campaign is hoping to highlight he Sen. Cruz, 23.9% to 21.4%. The Donald once again beat Mr. Cruz on his own turf, casting further doubt on the Texas senator’s path to victory moving forward and providing the Florida senator with an opportunity to cast himself as the anti-Trump.

White evangelicals backed Trump (40%) over Cruz (27%) in the Nevada caucus, while evangelicals overall gave the winner a slightly bigger 40% to 26% margin. Both Sens. Rubio and Cruz, who are of Cuban-American decent, lost the Hispanic vote to Mr. Trump. But the Florida senator also finished a distant second place behind the frontrunner in South Carolina, where he enjoyed strong establishment support from Gov. Nikki Haley, Sen. Tim Scott and Rep. Trey Gowdy. With Mr. Cruz out of the race, they believe they can avoid an embarrassing defeat in the Sunshine State, where 99 delegates are up for grabs in a winner-take-all on March 15.

“That’s the message we’re going to be hammering home over the next week before the race really gets going, with Super Tuesday right around the corner on March 1,” Sullivan added. “Conservatives can win this nomination, and we can have a conservative in the White House next year.”

According to the PPD average of aggregate polls, Mr. Trump leads Sen. Rubio in his own home state by roughly 25 points. But he also trailed Sen. Cruz in the latest survey and hopes to push him out either before or shortly after Super Tuesday. However, it is less than clear whether Mr. Cruz’s exit would help or hurt Mr. Rubio. PPD’s research shows supporters of the Texas senator are more likely to back the outsider.

“The Republican Establishment is pushing others, including Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Sen. Cruz to get out of the race and give their supporters to Sen. Rubio,” PPD’s senior political analyst Richard Baris, said. “But that’s not how it works, particularly this year. We are now getting to a point where a small number of supporters from each candidate is more than enough to get Mr. Trump to a majority of the popular vote. Our research shows that Cruz’s exit will only expedite that trend.”

Sen. Cruz pushed back on Wednesday against such claims, citing his Iowa win as why he is the only candidate in the race that can and did beat Mr. Trump.

Terry Sullivan, the campaign manager for Florida

Ted Cruz SC AP

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz speaks to the crowd during a Conservative Leadership Project presidential forum in Columbia, South Carolina, on Friday, January 15, 2016. (Photo: AP Photo/Sean Rayford)

An unnamed staffer for Texas Sen. Ted Cruz allegedly told CNN Monday before the Nevada Republican caucus that he thought “his [Cruz’s] campaign is done.”

“The Cruz campaign has to focus on getting basic campaign techniques right,” an unnamed “Republican operative” in the Cruz campaign told CNN. “I don’t think Cruz can win the nomination at this point. I think his campaign is done.”

However, the staffer’s comments came after Cruz finished in a disappointing third place in South Carolina, where evangelical or born-again Christians made up 74% of the Republican primary electorate. Donald J. Trump was so dominant across the state, including among white evangelical voters, he turned the Palmetto State into a winner-take-all, capturing all 50 of the state’s delegates.

While PPD’s senior political analyst Richard Baris argues the results suggest Cruz likely will not perform as well on Super Tuesday as his campaign and supporters hope, he said there was still a chance for the senator to make a change. But that was before the results of the Nevada Republican caucus, in which Trump won with 46% by increasing–not decreasing–his share of Cruz’s targeted core voting blocs.

“Trump broke his ceiling and attracted thousands of new voters who pollsters completely missed, not once but twice. He also increased his share of the vote among groups Cruz and, to a lesser extent, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio need,” Baris said. “The laws of statistics and American voters don’t behave the way the media pundits seem to believe or expect. The anti-Trump vote is still a slight majority but very weak and shrinking by the day. Possibly by the hour.”

Trump won the Nevada Republican Caucus in a landslide, dominating across every single demographic and breaking his media-declared “ceiling.” But Sen. Rubio also beat Cruz, 23.9% to 21.4%. The Donald once again beat Cruz on his own turf, casting further doubt on the Texas senator’s path to victory moving forward. White evangelicals backed Trump (40%) over Cruz (27%), while evangelicals overall gave the winner a slightly bigger 40% to 26% margin.

Sen. Cruz pushed back on Tuesday night and Wednesday morning against claims made by the Rubio campaign. Citing Iowa, he argued he is the only candidate in the race that can and did beat Trump. However, Rubio began to push the narrative following the caucus that he is the only conservative in the race who can unite the party factions, activist and establishment alike. The Florida senator added the usual caveat by raising the allegations of cheating and dirty tricks on behalf of the Cruz team.

Mr. Cruz announced Monday he had fired his communications director Rick Tyler, who pushed a false story on social media claiming that Rubio made derogatory statements about the Bible. In reality, he made comments to the exact opposite. But the story followed a series of others, including one that casts real doubt on whether Sen. Cruz would’ve even beat Mr. Trump in Iowa had his caucus captains not been instructed to falsely tell caucus-goers that Dr. Ben Carson dropped out of the race. They pushed them to support Mr. Cruz, instead.

Further, in South Carolina, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., was furious with the Cruz campaign and its allies for what he called “outright lies” and engaging in “underhanded tactics” during the days leading up to the South Carolina Republican primary. Rep. Gowdy, a former federal prosecutor and chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, previously endorsed Rubio. He said there has been a “systematic effort by Sen. Cruz and his allies to spread false information.”

But time is running out for both senators to stop The Donald, who received more votes than both Sens. Cruz and Rubio combined on Tuesday in Nevada. In Rubio’s own home state, he trails Mr. Trump by double-digits and, even if 100% of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s voters were to get behind him, he’d still lose the Sunshine State by nearly 20 points, according to polls.

“The Republican Establishment is pushing others, including Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Sen. Cruz to get out of the race and give their supporters to Sen. Rubio,” Baris added. “But that’s not how it works, particularly this year. We are now getting to a point where a small number of supporters from each candidate is more than enough to get Mr. Trump to a majority of the popular vote.”

Regardless, the reality, as Baris outlined on Tuesday, is that Mr. Trump can win an outright majority of delegates with a rather small plurality of the Republican primary vote. In fact, he can win with as little as a third of the vote.

“The party better be careful what they wish for. They’ve been wrong all cycle and they’re wrong on this,” Baris concluded. “While Sen. Cruz’s path has narrowed significantly, he just may have a better shot then Sen. Rubio to stop Mr. Trump. Our research shows Cruz voters will disproportionately back the outsider, not the Florida senator or any candidate touting mainstream endorsements from the very pols Republican primary voters want to tar and feather this cycle.”

An unnamed staff member for Texas Sen.

Home-Prices-Home-Sales-Reuters

Home sales and home prices data and reports. (Photo: REUTERS)

The Commerce Department reported on Wednesday that new single-family home sales fell 9.2% last month to an annualized rate of 494,000 units. The report showed the decline was fueled by home sales in the West plummeting, taking the gauge off of a 10-month high.

The median forecast that came from economists polled by Reuters had called for new home sales, which account for about 8.3% of the housing market, to fall to a 520,000 unit-rate last month. Sales in the West completely plummeted 32.1% to a 110,000 unit-rate, which is the lowest level since July 2014 and, on a percent basis, the decline was the largest since May 2010.

The Commerce Department reported on Wednesday that

Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton

2016 Democratic presidential candidates Bernie Sanders, a socialist senator from Vermont, left, and former secretary of state Hillary Clinton. (Photos: AP)

Which group has suffered the most because of Obamanomics? That’s hard to answer. We know that the average family has less income today than when Obama took office.

If we want to narrow things down, we know that blacks have endured hardship because of a weak economy. But you also could make a strong case that young people have been the biggest victims.

Which is why it is so discouraging that many of them support big government. Here are some depressing numbers from a Frank Luntz survey, as reported by U.S. News & World Report.

Fifty-eight percent of young people choose socialism over capitalism (33 percent) as the most compassionate system. …A plurality of 28 percent say the most pressing issue facing the country is income inequality – one of Sanders’ top themes.

I strongly suspect, by the way, that these young people (just like Hillary Clinton and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz) have no idea how to define socialism.

But that’s hardly a cause for cheer. Even if they simply think socialism is class-warfare taxation and lots of redistribution, it’s still bad news that so many of them have been seduced by the politics of hate and envy.

youth unemploymentIt’s like they’re totally oblivious to the damage that big government has caused for young people in Europe.

Their views on income inequality are similarly flawed, though perhaps slightly more understandable since millennials have suffered through a very weak economy.

But that’s what makes this polling data so puzzling. Why on earth are young people supportive of statism when they’ve been among the main victims of the weak Obama economy?!?

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Daniel Arbess ponders the bizarre fact that so many young people support Bernie Sanders.

…voters in the millennial bracket, 18- to 34-year-olds, will for the first time equal the baby-boomer share of the electorate, at 31%. These young voters appear to be falling headlong for the Vermont senator’s plaintive narrative of economic “unfairness.”…throwaway prescriptions for redistributing income and wealth… These young voters seem not to realize that the economic policies they find so resonant are the least likely to promote the growth and the social mobility they desire.

Arbess looks at some of the data about how Obamanomics has been bad for young people.

The millennials can’t be faulted for being anxious about their economic prospects. They are coming of age in the weakest economy in generations. The underemployment rate (measuring those working a job for which they’re overqualified and underpaid) for young adults below age 30 is 60%. The overall employment-to-population ratio of 77.4% for those in the prime-of-working-life 25-54 age bracket translates into 1.5 million jobs below the 20-year average. The college graduate living in his parents’ basement and working a marginal job to service a student loan is by now an archetype of the Obama era.

He then elaborates on the self-destructive instincts of many young voters.

…Why wouldn’t young voters want “free stuff” paid for by the rich, as the Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton narrative promises? Because the no-free-lunch axiom is still true: Mr. Sanders’s socialized education, health care and other policies would cost up to $20 trillion, according to analysts, requiring tax collections to increase up to 47%. And have we not at least learned from the collapse and dismantling of socialism over the past quarter century that governments lack the incentives and resources to effectively allocate and manage capital in the microeconomy? …Yet millennials, who would most benefit from a real economic recovery, replacing the false one of the past several years, so far seem intent on voting against their interests.

This video is a good summary of the issue.

Given all this evidence, I’m mystified that young people are big supporters of statism.

And it’s not just what we’ve looked at today. I’ve previously shared data indicating that they are clueless on public policy issues.

At the risk of sounding like some old guy who yells “you kids get off my lawn,” maybe the solution is to raise the voting age. Or, better yet, change the rules to that you only get to vote when you have a job and pay taxes!

More seriously, the answer is more education.

[mybooktable book=”global-tax-revolution-the-rise-of-tax-competition-and-the-battle-to-defend-it” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

I strongly suspect, correctly, that young people

Jennifer Lawrence

20th Century Fox said Jennifer Lawrence was just too young to play the title role in Joy.

According to Betfair.com, Jennifer Lawrence probably won’t win best actress at the Oscars Sunday. I’m rooting for her, though — not because of her acting, but because the movie she stars in, “Joy,” celebrates the difficulty of entrepreneurship.

Lawrence’s character is based on real-life entrepreneur Joy Mangano, who invented the self-wringing Miracle Mop and other “Ingenious Designs,” as her company is known. Now she hawks them and other products on the Home Shopping Network.

The film accurately depicts struggles businesses face. Joy goes deep into debt to finance her idea, overcomes manufacturing problems, persuades skeptical marketers and deals with such menaces as patent trolls.

Patent trolls are usually lawyers/parasites who don’t even come up with working prototypes for inventions they later claim as their own. They just grab someone else’s idea, or buy a bunch of them, register patents with the government and wait. When someone with real technological and business skill creates something useful that’s similar, the troll threatens to sue.

Often the inventor pays just to keep the business alive. It’s extortion. But when lawyers do it, it’s legal extortion.

In Joy’s case, a lazy rival claims to have come up with her idea first; Joy risks a physical confrontation to defend her invention. I won’t spoil the details of the movie — but since the real Joy Mangano went on to make millions, you can guess that it has a happy ending.

Writer/director David O. Russell, like many in Hollywood, has made movies critical of capitalism and businesspeople, so I’m glad he saw a spark in Joy Mangano, the driven businesswoman.

Hollywood may not understand economics or government regulation, but there are things Hollywood often gets right. Hollywood celebrates heroic individuals who fight injustice and corrupt establishments. Hollywood also has a healthy suspicion of the power of covert government activities.

Sure, the “Mission Impossible” crew and plenty of other Hollywood heroes are secret agents — and Hollywood consults with real cops, secret agents and military advisers to capture details more accurately. That helps the government shape messages to its liking. But plenty of Hollywood government agents end up being villains anyway.

The film “Sicario,” nominated for three Oscars, shows an ordinary cop, played by Emily Blunt, lured into the dark world of the CIA’s cross-border drug war. She thought she was just going to be stopping bad guys a little farther from home but discovers that she might be part of an elaborate assassination plot.
I’m biased in favor of Emily Blunt movies because we both are stutterers, but I’d appreciate “Sicario” without that connection, too.

“Sicario” is informative because throughout the movie, even the cops aren’t sure who the good guys are, and almost no one has any idea what the rest of the government is up to. It makes it clear that average citizens don’t stand a chance of finding out. This is a realistic picture of the drug war.

Corruption and lack of transparency are inevitable when government takes on a mission as hopeless as a war on a substance that lots of people want. When there’s demand, customers tend to get what they want, even if other people don’t approve.

Hollywood writers and producers, who have also made plenty of movies about our failed attempt at alcohol Prohibition and the gangsters who rose to power in that period, sometimes understand that the drug war is unwinnable, too.

The U.S. can send helicopters to destroy coca plants in Colombia — or even build a wall between Mexico and America — but that just increases profit margins, so drug-sellers take even greater risks to get their product to customers.

The climax of “Sicario” involves underground tunnels used by Mexican cartels to move drugs (and illegal immigrants) across the border. None of the characters even consider the possibility of shutting down all the tunnels. They know they’d never find them all, and that if they did, the cartels would just build more. Even if they closed all the tunnels, the smugglers would use boats. And planes.

Things don’t work out as well for the characters in “Sicario” as they did for Joy Mangano. In real life, government efforts don’t bring as much joy as entrepreneurship.

Jennifer Lawrence likely won't win best actress

Donald-Trump-VT-Rally-AP

Donald Trump talks with supporters and signs autographs during a campaign stop at the Flynn Center of the Performing Arts in Burlington, Vt., Thursday, Jan. 7, 2016. (Photo: AP)

Donald Trump has won the Nevada Republican Caucus in a landslide, dominating across every single demographic and breaking his “ceiling.” Florida Sen. Marco Rubio appears to be leading Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, though it’s too early to declare a winner.

Trump won more than 4 in 10 Hispanic voters in the Silver State 41% to 29% over Rubio despite his position on immigration, which most of “the geniuses” said would turn them off. Overall, Nevada caucus entrance polls found 2 in 10 cited immigration as their main issue of concern, higher than in previous states (it’s averaged 12%). The real estate mogul dominated this vote.

“This is a devastation blow to the Republican Establishment and the media, as Mr. Trump clearly broke what we have always called an artificial ceiling,” PPD’s senior political analyst Richard Baris. “Trump got his people to the polls, they are exactly scores of angry white people and he won big. Period. There is no spinning this win.”

Trump is carrying Churchill County and Humboldt County with roughly 40% of the vote, while he’s walloping the field in Esmeralda County with more than 62% of the vote. Clark County, where more than 70 of the state’s vote comes in, he leads with more than 42% of the vote. If that margin holds or grows, it is statistically impossible not for Trump to break through the ceiling the media has lamented over for weeks.

The Donald won voters statewide who said they were very conservative (38% to 32% for Cruz), somewhat conservatives (47% to 29% for Rubio), moderates (56% to 26% for Rubio), men (44%) and women (45%) and every age group.

“The city filled with bartenders and maids working for casinos just chose to vote for the casino owner instead of the son of a bartender,” Baris said, referring to Rubio. “We are already starting to hear the spin from the usual suspects, but Rubio’s window is rapidly closing if it hasn’t closed already.”

Much has been made about Trump’s ability to win outside of working-class, lower-educated voters. However, as we’ve explain repeatedly, that was never a real factor. Trump won post-graduate degree voters with 35% to 30% for Rubio and overall college degree voters 40% to 31%.

The Donald once again beat Cruz on his own turf, casting further doubt on the Texas senator’s path to victory moving forward. White evangelicals backed Trump (41%) over Cruz (27%), while evangelicals overall gave the winner a bigger 41% to 27% margin.

Donald Trump has won the Nevada Republican

2016 Massachusetts Democratic Primary

116 Delegates: Allocated Proportionately (March 1, 2016)

(Please Note: Total delegates include 59 district, 20 at-large, 12 Pledged PLEOs; 25 Unpledged PLEOs.)

[election_2016_polls]


Polling Data

[wpdatatable id=31]


Above is the 2016 Massachusetts Democratic Primary polls aggregated and averaged by People’s Pundit Daily (PPD). There are 116 delegates up for grabs in the Bay State on Tuesday March 1, 2016. Of the 116, 91 to the Democratic National Convention are pledged based on the voting results in the Massachusetts Democratic Primary.

A mandatory 15% threshold is required in order for candidate to be allocated National Convention delegates at either the congressional district or statewide level. Further, 59 district delegates are to be allocated proportionally to candidates based on the primary results in each of the State’s 9 congressional districts.

Only 32 delegates are to be allocated to a candidate based on the primary vote statewide, while 20 at-large National Convention delegates and 12 Pledged PLEOs.

[ssbp]

2016 Massachusetts Democratic Primary 116 Delegates: Allocated Proportionately (March 1, 2016) (Please

2016 Ohio Democratic Primary

159 Delegates: Allocated Proportionately (March 15, 2016)

(Please Note: Total delegates include 143 soft pledged and 16 soft unpledged “superdelegates”)

[election_2016_polls]


Polling Data

[wpdatatable id=30]


Above is the table listing the latest 2016 Ohio Democratic Primary polls and aggregate PPD average. There are 143 delegates up for grabs in the Ohio Democratic Primary on Tuesday March 15, 2016, which are to be allocated proportionately. A mandatory 15% threshold is required in order for a presidential contender to be pledged National Convention delegates at either the congressional district or statewide level.

Of the 207 tied to vote totals, 135 district delegates are to be pledged proportionally to presidential contenders based on the primary results in each of the State’s 27 congressional districts. Further, 72 delegates are to be pledged to presidential contenders based on the primary vote statewide.

There are 93 district delegates are to be pledged proportionally to presidential contenders based on the primary results in each of the State’s 16 congressional districts. Further, 50 delegates are to be pledged to presidential contenders based on the primary vote statewide, including 31 at-large National Convention delegates and 19 pledged.

[ssbp]

2016 Ohio Democratic Primary 159 Delegates: Allocated Proportionately (March 15,

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