Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Monday, February 24, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 649)

Donald-Trump-Hillary-Clinton-Getty

Donald Trump visits Turnberry Golf Club, after its $10 Million refurbishment, June 8, 2015, in Turnberry, Scotland. | Hillary Clinton speaks at the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials’ (NALEO) 32nd Annual Conference at the in Las Vegas, June 18, 2015. (PHOTO: GETTY)

Many Americans used to regard New York City as a bankrupt foreign vessel docked on their Atlantic coastline. Then the place got cleaned up, and after the heroism (and stoicism) of Sept. 11, 2001, much of the hostility was replaced with affection.

Perhaps nothing signifies the change in status more than the prospect of four — count ’em, four — New Yorkers as leading candidates for president. The latest would be former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, who just said he was considering a third-party run.

Already on base in this subway series are Donald Trump, former New York Sen. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, a senator from Vermont whose voice never left Brooklyn.
Bloomberg’s interest in entering the race apparently reflects his alarm that socialist Sanders might be the Democratic candidate and bigmouth Trump the Republican. Two polarizing candidates might open up a third-party opportunity. Nothing personal, you understand.

Ted Cruz probably regrets his attack on Trump’s alleged “New York values,” which he defined as “socially liberal, pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage and focus around money and the media.”

Trump’s defense of the city drew cheers from the Republican debate audience. But the best comeback was later supplied by Long Island Republican Pete King, who advised Cruz, “Go back under a rock.”

Global Mayors Summit Addresses Climate Issues During COP21

Michael Bloomberg at a news conference at the COP21 climate summit in Paris, on Dec. 4, 2015. (Photo: Christophe Morin/Bloomberg/Getty)

New York City has long been misunderstood as a hotbed of radical left politics embodying an attitude of anything goes in one’s behavior. That’s not quite right. More than socially liberal, New Yorkers are socially tolerant. There’s a difference.

New Yorkers must deal with people of all colors, accents and cultural folkways. There are 8.4 million stories in the naked city, and if you can’t make peace with that, New York will drive you nuts.

But the populace also has a conservative streak. They want the chaos carefully managed. Current Mayor Bill de Blasio is the first Democrat elected in 20 years — and his radical-left policies are not going over very well.

Obviously, party labels in the city’s local government don’t matter much. Bloomberg was a former Democrat elected mayor as a Republican and then re-elected as an independent. Pragmatism is his middle name.

The combative New York way of speaking may be helping the Trump and Sanders campaigns. Linguists say it conveys emotion and an air of honesty, a telling-it-as-it-is. It’s no accident that the most successful right-wing radio haranguers are New Yorkers Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage.

For good or bad, Trump towers over the rest as the quintessential Broadway showman. He makes average working people feel they’ve been invited to his party. When Trump says of Cruz, “He’s a strident person; nobody likes him,” that’s intimate cocktail banter he’s sharing with everyone.

And his are madcap parties. Trump lit up with childish delight during Sarah Palin’s disjointed endorsement of his candidacy. It was as though he had just seen a chimpanzee swing on the chandeliers.

The other New Yorkers are far more contained. Clinton, a daughter of the Midwest, is guarded. Boston-born Bloomberg is sober to a fault. Sanders, meanwhile, neatly divides the world between “establishment” (bad) and those on his side (good).

As for Bloomberg’s possible run, the other New Yorkers have responded with cautious courtesy. Trump said he likes Bloomberg. Clinton said she feels likewise, adding that Bloomberg won’t have to run if she’s the Democratic nominee. And Sanders offered a fairly innocuous self-reference: “Now I’ll be running against two billionaires.”

No New Yorker has occupied the White House since Franklin D. Roosevelt died while in office 71 years ago. That’s a long time for New Yorkers to be out of the presidential game. They may very well be back.

New Yorkers haven't claimed the White House

Donald-Trump-Sunshine-Summit

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump addresses the Sunshine Summit in Orlando, Fla., Friday, Nov. 13, 2015. (Photo: AP/John Raoux)trump

Remember the odious, immoral, and corrupt TARP bailout?

Well, it’s becoming an issue in the 2016 presidential race, with some folks criticizing Donald Trump for siding with Bush and Obama on the issue.

I suppose I could make a snide observation about the absurdity of Trump being perceived as an anti-establishment candidate when he supported a policy that had unanimous support from political insiders.

But I would much rather focus on the policy implications. So when Neil Cavuto asked me to comment on Chris Christie’s rejection of bailouts, I took the opportunity to stress (once again) that it wasn’t a TARP-or-nothing choice and that there was a sensible, non-corrupt, way of dealing with failing financial firms. Simply stated, only bail out depositors and let bondholders and shareholders take the hit.

[brid video=”26027″ player=”2077″ title=”Dan Mitchell explaining why TARP was immoral destructive and unnecessary”]

For the geeks who are reading this, you’ll recognize that the policy I’m advocating is often called the FDIC-resolution approach.

And it’s worth noting that this was used at the beginning of the financial crisis. As I pointed out in the discussion, two of the big financial institution that first got in trouble – WAMU and IndyMac – were liquidated.

But once Bush’s execrable Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson, took control of the process, decisions were made to rescue the fat cats as well as the depositors.

The bottom line is that a lot of establishment figures, including GOPers like Dick Cheney and Mitt Romney, argue that TARP was necessary because the financial system needed to be recapitalized.

Yet that’s also what happens with the FDIC-resolution approach. The only real difference is whether financial institutions should be rescued along with depositors.

Well, my view is that capitalism without bankruptcy is like religion without hell.

P.S. The other guest in the interview made a very good point about America becoming “bailout nation.” I fully agree. To the extent that we have private profits and socialized losses, we’ll have bigger and bigger problems with moral hazard. After all, if you’re in Las Vegas and someone else is covering your losses, why not make high-risk/high-reward bets.

P.P.S. If anyone cares, my driveway is finally clear. A special thanks to the family next door. Not only were they smarter than me (as I wrote yesterday, they parked their cars near the end of their driveway), they’re also nicer than me. They came over and helped me finish when they were done!

Actually, I like to think I’d be equally thoughtful. I’ll have to look for a chance to repay their good deed.

By the way, I should add that the father next door works for a social conservative organization, which is one more piece of evidence for my view that so-cons and libertarians should be allies.

Tim Carney explains that natural alliance much better.

P.P.P.S. In hopes of convincing some of my leftist friends, I can’t resist making one final point.

When government gets to pick winners and losers, it’s highly probable that those who get the handouts, bailouts, and subsidies will be rich, powerful, and politically connected. Heck, just think of the Ex-Im Bank.

As noted by my former colleague, Will Wilkinson, “…the more power the government has to pick winners and losers, the more power rich people will have relative to poor people.”

I realize that statists won’t agree with me that it’s wrong for the federal government to redistribute from rich to poor. But I hope they’ll be on my side in fighting against redistribution from poor to rich!

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

The corrupt TARP bailout is becoming an

Michael-Moore-Donald-Trump-Muslims

Photo Right: Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump greets supporters during a campaign rally at the American Airlines Center on September 14, 2015 in Dallas, Texas. Photo Left: Michael Moore. (Photo: Tom Pennington/Getty/Facebook)

Mediates and politicians have tried to label Donald Trump a bigoted, xenophobic racist since announcing in June he was running for president. At Trump Tower, the Republican frontrunner vowed to build a wall on the southern border and make Mexico pay for it. In December, shortly after the terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, Calif., Trump called for a temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration to the United States.

The press, most of his chief rivals, and even the president predictably went bizerk. President Obama said it was “totally contrary to our values as Americans,” values which he insists are “universal.” But the data, as I’ve explained repeatedly here and here, shows the truth.

American values are not universal. In fact, before the American Left adopted the failed theory of multiculturalism out of the soon-to-be lost European nations, even their own progressive heroes understood the basic need to demand assimilation.

While “it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin,” as President Theodore Roosevelt said in 1907, “this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all.”

Teddy-Roosevelt-immigration-1907

And there you have it. Roosevelt, the progressive hero who broke up the big monopolies, was a closet xenophobe.

While his critique could apply to other demographic groups, the problem of Muslim assimilation is particularly difficult because Islam is neither only a religion and definitely is not a race. Islam is a political, judicial, civil and spiritual way of life that not only insists upon “divided allegiance” but also holds geo-political aspirations.

In a majority of Muslim-dominated Middle East countries, large pluralities–and, in many countries such as Afghanistan, Syria and Pakistan–majorities support making Sharia law the official law of the land. Worth noting, recent polls show 54% of Muslim Americans living right here is the U.S, right now, agree.

Now, as someone who has researched extensively and help define it, perhaps with and in more detail than any other before me, I can say with confidence that the American national identity is antithetical to the “values” forced upon subjects under Sharia, or Islamic law. They are not “universal values” and, subjugating the sovereign authority of the U.S. Constitution, at its core, violates a basic principle captured in Roosevelt’s words.

“We have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people,” the former president said in 1907.

That’s exactly the point, which everyone wants to avoid. The Constitution places national loyalty to and sovereignty with the American people, an idea that is completely foreign to practicers of Islam.

Obama also pointed out the “extraordinary contributions” Muslim Americans have made to the U.S., including those serving in the military. About those contributions, while I certainly applaud any American’s service, the overall numbers are actually quite concerning.

Military enlistment, as we study the political maturation of other migrant groups in the 19th and 20th century, can serve as a fairly good indicator of assimilation. There are few equal or greater acts to demonstrate patriotism than military service. Unfortunately, the numbers for Muslims indicate there is a major assimilation problem juxtaposed to other migrant groups. That is, if you agree with President Roosevelt and Mr. Benedict Anderson, the latter being the man who literally wrote the book on the very real concept of nation.

According to the Pentagon, there are roughly 5,896 Muslims serving on either active duty or guard in the U.S. military. We heard this number cited repeatedly following Trump’s proposal, including from an outraged former Marine-turned-talk show host Montel Williams. But that represents just 0.00027550809655493385 percent of the roughly 2.2 million Americans currently serving their country, and 0.32755555555555554 percent of their share of the U.S. population. That’s far below the proportional 18,000 that would put them in line proportionately with the enlistment rates for the rest of the country.

Going back to World War II, when Italian-Americans were targets of ethic discrimination and struggling to assimilate, more than 500,000 served on behalf of the U.S., making their enlistment and service rates the highest among any minority ethnic group. The roughly 0.8333333333333334 percent of the 6 million Italian Americans serving in the U.S. military is despite the fact that they were fighting on the opposite side as their home country.

For those who want to blame a non-existent, widespread anti-Muslim environment, I’d just point out that 200,000 Jews served in World War I at a time when anti-Semitic sentiment in America was far worse. In fact, according to the latest statistics from the FBI, there are still far more and worse crimes committed by anti-Semitic Muslims than anti-Muslim whites or Jews.

Nevertheless, the bottom line is that politicians, pundits and just everyday Americans concerned about the future of our nation, should be able to point out these disturbing facts without being labeled xenophobic. A recent Pew Research study of demographic projections estimated that Muslims will make up 2.1% of the U.S. population by the year 2050, surpassing Americans who identify as Jewish on the basis of religion as the second-largest faith group in the country.

Considering the disturbing truth about Muslims’ views, which were revealed in a serious video produced by The Clarion Project in December, it’s not xenophobic to question the impact these demographic changes might have on American citizens. Public policy should hold the preservation of our values and our way of life above all, and the threat to that preservation would’ve concerned President Roosevelt just as much as it does Trump and his supporters.

[mybooktable book=”our-virtuous-republic-forgotten-clause-american-social-contract” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

Donald Trump has been called a xenophobe

[brid video=”26005″ player=”2077″ title=”Churchill Solitaire Full Trailer”]

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld launched a new app “Churchill Solitaire,” the most diabolical version of solitaire ever devised and played by the WWII hero, himself. According to Rumsfeld, 83, the app is a variation on solitaire that former British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill devised and played with a young protégé named André de Staercke during World War II.

Staercke, who was a young NATO diplomat at that time, in turn taught Rumsfeld in the 1970s. The game includes two decks of cards, 10 rows of cards (instead of seven), and an extra end-game goal called the “Devil’s Six.”

“Up until a few years ago, there were probably a dozen or so people in the entire world who knew how to play this game,” Rumsfeld wrote in a Medium post late Sunday. “Winston Churchill was gone. André de Staercke, as well. And I knew I wouldn’t be around forever. There was every chance the game Churchill so enjoyed could be lost to the ages.”

“Churchill Solitaire is not a game for everyone,” Rumsfeld said. “It takes patience and perseverance, cunning and concentration, and strategy and sacrifice.”

The new app is free to download and play but includes in-game purchases. Rumsfeld and the Churchill family’s profits are going to be donated to a charity. The app will eventually be available for both Google Play and the App Store, but Android users will have to practice their patience.

It’s coming soon.

Former Secretary Donald Rumsfeld launched a new

McDonalds-Corporate-HQ-IL

McDonald’s corporate headquarters is pictured in Oakbrook, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago. (Photo: AP), pushing shares up 3% in premarket trading. The earnings report topped economists’ expectations for profits of $1.23 a share on sales of $6.22 billion.

McDonald’s Corporation (BMV:MCD), the world’s biggest burger chain revealed fourth-quarter earnings per share of $1.31 on revenue of $6.34 billion. The earnings report far outpaced economists’ expectations in a poll conducted by the research firm Consensus Metrix.

“We took bold, urgent action in 2015 to reset the business and position McDonald’s to deliver sustained profitable growth,” said McDonald’s President and Chief Executive Officer Steve Easterbrook. “We ended the year with momentum, including positive comparable sales across all segments for both the quarter and the year – a testament to the swift changes we made and the early impact of our turnaround efforts.”

Same-store sales in the U.S. jumped 5.7% during the period after October’s all-day breakfast launch. Shares of McDonald’s rose 3% in pre-market trading. The company’s net income rose to $1.21 billion, or $1.31 per share, in the fourth quarter ended Dec. 31, up from $1.1 billion, or $1.13 per share, year-over-year.

Analysts on average had expected earnings of $1.23 per share, according to Thomson Reuters I/B/E/S.

“We enter 2016 committed to managing the business for the long term and aligned as a System around the critical imperative that we must run great restaurants each and every day for our valued customers,” Easterbrook said.

Fourth quarter results included:

  • Global comparable sales increase of 5.0%
  • Consolidated revenues decrease of 4% (increase of 5% in constant currencies)
  • Consolidated operating income increase of 7% (16% in constant currencies)
  • Diluted earnings per share of $1.31, an increase of 16% (26% in constant currencies)

McDonald’s Corporation implemented a new plan to serve all-day breakfasts in its U.S. restaurants in October, a bid to attract more diners in the face of growing competition from rivals such as Chipotle Mexican Grill and Shake Shack. It was a resounding success to be sure, as the earnings data show. But the burger chain also posted solid numbers globally, as well.

Full year results included:

  • Global comparable sales increase of 1.5%
  • Consolidated revenues decrease of 7% (increase 3% in constant currencies)
  • Consolidated operating income decrease of 10% (flat in constant currencies)
  • Diluted earnings per share of $4.80, flat (increase 10% in constant currencies)

“In November, we announced financial goals in conjunction with our business turnaround plan,” said Kevin Ozan, McDonald’s Chief Financial Officer. “We outlined specific targets to return about $30 billion to shareholders through a combination of dividends and share repurchases for the three-year period ending 2016, plans to refranchise about 4,000 restaurants by the end of 2018 and reduce our net annual G&A spending by $500 million, the vast majority of which will be realized by the end of 2017. These targets are designed to enhance long-term shareholder value while supporting the work underway to reignite our business results.”

“We are demonstrating that our turnaround plan is key to restarting growth and becoming a modern and progressive burger company,” Easterbrook added. “I am inspired by the dedication and collective determination of our U.S., International Lead, High Growth and Foundational markets to leverage our competitive strengths as they pursue their growth opportunities. As we enter 2016, we expect continued positive top-line momentum across all segments.”

McDonald's Corporation (BMV:MCD), the world’s biggest burger

Rick-Perry-Ted-Cruz

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, left, and GOP presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, right. (Photo: AP)

DES MOINES, Iowa – Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who dropped out of the Republican presidential race last year, is endorsing fellow Texan Sen. Ted Cruz for president, Fox News first reported early Monday. The move comes as Cruz trails Perry’s former political rival and GOP frontrunner Donald Trump both nationwide and in the aggregate PPD average of Iowa caucus polls.

PPD has confirmed the endorsement decision has been made.

“What I am looking for is someone who is a principles conservative,” Gov. Perry said.

Perry said Cruz is a “consistent conservative candidate” who would take on the Washington establishment. The former Texas governor, the state’s longest ever in history, said that he got to know Cruz over the last couple of months and that he was nothing like the caricature the media has created.

“He’s one of the best listeners I’ve ever come across in the political arena,” Perry said Monday morning. “He knows what he doesn’t know, and he’s not just listening quietly, he’s processing. And I can’t tell you what a virtue that is in this business for the President of the United States.”

However, Cruz was also the governor’s former political rival, supporting Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst against the senator in his 2012 Senate bid. Obviously, Perry’s disdain for Trump runs deeper. Perry vehemently rejected the premise that the endorsement was more against Trump than pro Cruz.

“Oh absolutely, no.”

Gov. Perry became the first candidate in the crowded 17-person GOP field to drop out, announcing he was suspending his campaign on Sept. 11, 2015. He was later joined by Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, George Pataki and Lindsey Graham.

Prior to Perry, Graham was the only prior candidate to make an endorsement. The South Carolina senator announced his support for former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush earlier this month.

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who dropped

Obama-Lynch

Attorney General Loretta Lynch, left, speaks at the U.S. Mission in Geneva, while President Barack Obama, right, speaks in the Oval Office in the wake of San Bernardino. (Photos: Getty)

Boy, what a neat trick this is.

President Obama tells the American public he’s going to bypass Congress on gun control and instead, issue some unilateral commands. One of his leading lying ladies, aide Valerie Jarrett, follows that, to paraphrase, by spinning, ‘Oh, don’t be silly, Obama’s not really bypassing Congress – he’s just issuing executive orders.’

And now we’ve got an entirely disingenuous U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch taking to Capitol Hill to say: Obama’s taking executive action – true. But it’s really not really, truly executive action. Why not? Because Congress already gave him authority, via the Gun Control Act, to take these executive actions – and as such, they’re not really, truly executive actions.

Well, shut the front door. Suddenly, Obama’s much-hated executive actions on gun control have become legislative actions.

And the added political genius for this far-left White House? They’re not just legislative actions. They’re Republican legislative actions – since Congress, after all, is controlled by the GOP.

As the Grateful Dead might say, when it comes to Obama’s unconstitutional seizure of powers and his team’s subsequent rationalization of said seized powers: What a long, strange trip it’s been.

Only scratch the “long.” Obama’s spin only took a few weeks.

Look at what Lynch just told members of a Senate Appropriations subcommittee, with a straight face: “The Gun Control Act lists the people who are not allowed to have firearms, such as felons, domestic abusers and others. Congress has also required that background checks be conducted as part of sales made by federally licensed firearms dealers to make sure guns stay out of the wrong hands. … The actions announced by the president, which focus on background checks and keeping guns out of the wrong hands, are fully consistent with the laws passed by Congress.”

By that logic, the president doesn’t need a Congress at all.

Think about it. What Lynch is saying is that if a law exists on a particular topic, then the president of the United States is free to run with that law in whatever direction his (or one day perhaps, her) personal agenda leads. The only standard to abide would be to show the executive action is “consistent” with the previously passed law.

Nobody knows for sure, but one count put the number of federal laws and regulations that could be criminally enforced somewhere in the vicinity of 300,000. Other estimates don’t even try to count, suggesting to do so would be akin to numbering the sands of the sea. But if Lynch’s view were to hold true – and if the president were constitutionally justified in taking any old previously passed law and adding to it as seeing fit — then the door seems wide open to dismiss all the members of Congress and send them home. Who needs them?

Not the president, who could then command and direct and order and dictate at will, so long as White House lawyers are able to make the case these commandments and directives are “consistent” with existing laws.

What an absurd argument. An executive order is an executive order is an executive order.

What a skewed argument. That it came from the mouth of our nation’s highest law enforcement official, the one who’s supposed to prop up the legal foundations of our federal government and stand firm on the side of justice and truth, is just evidence of the absolute wickedness of this current White House and of Obama’s chosen few.

[mybooktable book=”police-state-usa-how-orwells-nightmare-is-becoming-our-reality” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch was being

Billionaire real estate mogul Donald Trump said he believes black voters will “love” him and said the nation’s first black president has done nothing for them.

“I think I am going to do great with the African American minority,” Trump said. “You know if you look at minorities, the African American poll came out. I was at 25%. No republican has been above seven or eight percent. I am going to do great with African Americans. I think i am going to do great with the Hispanics. I think I am going to do great with the Asians.”

Trump is in fact polling particularly high among black voters than a Republican candidate traditional performs. In 2004, former President George W. Bush increased his share of the black vote from 7% to a little over 13%, a significant shift that helped carry the ever-important battleground state of Ohio. Bush also pulled in nearly 20% of the black vote in Pennsylvania and performed higher-than-expected in other Rust Belt states, which almost deprived John Kerry of Electoral Votes Democrats consider safely in their column.

“Look at what happened, as an example, with African American youth. Fifty-four percent, 58% — they don’t even know it’s so high,” Trump said of the unemployment rate among young black Americans. “They can’t get jobs. Look at African-American people in their prime – 30s and 40s and 50s – look at their unemployment rate. They want jobs. They are going to like me better than they like Obama. The truth is Obama has done nothing for them.”

Donald Trump, the GOP frontrunner, said he

[brid video=”25976″ player=”2077″ title=”Crime Spree Marco Rubio for President”]

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio released a new ad entitled, “Crime Spree” that mocks a Washington Post story revealing a 26-year-old misdemeanor arrest in 1990. Sen. Rubio was 18 years old at the time and was drinking a beer in a park after hours. He was never even taken into custody.

“Rubio, who has no history of criminal convictions, has never discussed his arrest publicly, and he did not mention it in his 2012 memoir, ‘An American Son,'” reported the Post on Thursday. “There’s no indication that Rubio was involved in any illegal activity other than drinking beer and being in a public park after closing.”

The Rubio camp ripped into the story by depicting supporters of rivals revealing Rubio’s chronic crime spree activity. Of course, the accusations are ridiculous.

“Marco Rubio double-dips potato chips,” says a woman wearing a Ted Cruz T-shirt.

“The man once took eleven items through the express line,” says someone in a

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio released a new

The Donald Strengthens Frontrunner Status in Latest Polls, Could Sweep Early States

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 holds a commanding lead nationwide and has retaken the lead against Texas Sen. Ted Cruz in the Hawkeye State with just one week to go before the Iowa caucuses. PPD’s aggregate analysis of the latest polls for the week ending Saturday January 23, 2015, shows Trump poised for a big win in the early voting states.

The Donald leads his closest rival in the crowded GOP field by 15.8% on the PPD average of national polls. He now has more than a third of the vote (34.6%) to Sen. Cruz’s 18.8%. The frontrunner leads across nearly all demographic groups, including evangelical voters (nationwide), which he briefly ceded to Cruz two weeks ago by 2 points. Trump’s strength among the electorate is deep, with voters viewing him to be 1) the strongest leader on every issue except for abortion, and 2) the only candidate who can beat Hillary Clinton.

That number surged after Trump refused to back down against Clinton’s war on women attack, instead raising the issue of Hillary’s role in the mistreatment of Bill’s alleged sexual assault victims.

While anything can happen in a week in politics, Trump may very well go on to sweep the early states. If the billionaire real estate mogul can either win or beat expectations in Iowa, which once hinged on whether he could convert independents over to caucusgoers, then he will go on to win New Hampshire (and likely South Carolina) easily. But Trump now only trails among evangelicals in Iowa by 3 points, and campaign insiders tell me they believe they will break caucus turnout records.

Diluting some of the predicted 55% white evangelical vote is a heavy lift, historically speaking, but polling appears to back them up. It is widely believed that Cruz has the better organization on the ground. However, whether that will be enough to close the 5.4% lead Trump holds in the PPD average of Iowa caucus polls, is an open question. The frontrunner leads Cruz in the two most recent caucus polls by an identical 11%, a heavy lift for even the most effective GOTV operation.

You don’t need to be a political pundit to spot the trend and, as we previously warned, Cruz might have peaked too early.

The Granite State is a much better fit for Trump ideologically, thus it should come as no surprise that he holds a commanding 19.3% lead on the PPD average of New Hampshire primary polls. Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who has surged to second place, is still far behind the frontrunner 31.8% to 12.5%.

The Kasich camp touts their ground game, much like the Cruz team does in Iowa, but with Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (10.5%), Gov. Jeb Bush (8%) and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (7.5%), all vying for the same vote, Kasich’s room to grow by such a significant margin is limited. We are curious to see how Granite State voters will react to Christie’s decision to return to his home state to manage the crisis, a move that may just spark a memory of his leadership post-Hurricane Sandy.

There is a long way to go until voters in the Palmetto State get to have their say. But, as of now, Trump (35%) holds a 14.5% lead over Cruz (20.5%) in South Carolina. Rubio (11.5%) moved quickly to gobble up support from the state’s politicos, but he hasn’t gained traction among actual voters.

Unsurprisingly, the endorsement of longtime Sen. Lindsey Graham, who was polling next to nothing in his own home state before dropping oute, hasn’t done enough to move the needle for Bush on the PPD average of South Carolina Republican primary polls.

While Bush jumped 3 points to 10%, he is still stuck behind Rubio with Kasich (2.5%) and Christie (2.5%) drawing much-needed support from the same ideological lane.

In Florida, where 99 delegates are up for grabs in a winner-take-all contest, both Rubio (13.3%) and Bush (10.7%) are abysmally trailing Trump (38.3%), who leads Cruz (19%) in second place by 19.3%. The PPD average of Florida Republican primary polls could actually be understating the frontrunner’s lead. The latest polls show Trump with a much larger (32%) share of the vote and, the PPD Sunshine State Survey last week showed Trump hitting the crucial 50-percent threshold.

Pundit’s Perspective

Again, while anything can change over a week in politics, the latest polls suggest that the TV pundits are about to suffer a serious blow to their professional credibility, not to mention their egos. Though we won’t name names, largely because we all know who they are, pundits have embarrassingly refused to take Donald Trump seriously. Thus, by extension, they refused to take the message from voters seriously.

This week, the National Review came out with a 22-essay special issue “Against Trump,” which was authored by some I respect and some I do not. But as someone who speaks to hundreds of voters each week, I will tell you that this move was not only foolish but actually had an adverse impact. Trump’s strength comes from their failure and, whatever their conservative credentials (though many have none), they have yet to understand that unfettered immigration and radical Islam are seen as a direct threat to American values.

Voters, as they have been for sometime, are genuinely fearful for the future of the nation if these two issues are not addressed. While elites ponder and lecture voters about the principles of conservatism, common sense tells them there will be no conservatism if the status quo continues. They didn’t listen and, now, it would seem that the voters are about to send the pundits and the party elite a message they cannot ignore.

PPD's aggregate analysis of the latest polls

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