Thursday, October 27, 2016

Trump preferred in Montana by all age groups, both males and females, all education levels, Montana poll, Oct. 3-10, 2016. Plurality in Montana say government is most important problem facing US today, ahead of both terrorism and economy-Montana State Billings poll

Trump 43
Hillary 27
Johnson 7
Stein 2
Oct. 3-10, 2016, 590 adult Montanans, 48 male, 51 female, 70% cell phone, 48R, 28D, 16 Ind. (p. 32). Error margin 4% (p. 4)

Oct. 2016, "Montana Poll 2016," Montana State University Billings

p. 16, Trump is favored by plurality of both males and females: Trump: 50% of males, 37% of females. Hillary: 33% of females, 22% of males

p. 16, "Education: A plurality of respondents among all education groups supports Trump.

p. 16, "Age: A plurality of respondents among all age groups supports Trump." 


p. 11, If voting for House candidate today, Republican candidate would be preferred over Democrat candidate 45-27

p. 12, If voting for State Senate candidate today, Republican candidate would be preferred over Democrat candidate 44-25.


p. 15, Impact of ObamaCare on Montana:

22% positive
58% negative
12% neither positive nor negative 

p. 18, "Approval of US Congress:"

12% approve
73% disapprove


p. 20, "Most important problem facing US today:"

1. Government (15%)
Tied for second place:
2. Terrorism and Economy (13%)


p. 21, Should undocumented immigrants without criminal record be allowed to say in US?

Yes 42

No 48

p. 29, In general how involved should US be in foreign conflicts and crises?

Very involved 10% (down from 16.5% in 2015) 
Involved in limited way 75%
Not involved 12% (up from 7.4% in 2015) 

"None of the demographic variables (gender, ideology, party ID, income, education, and age) are statistically significant."...

"This report summarizes the results of a statewide random sample telephone survey of 590 adult Montanans. 70% of the survey respondents were contacted via cellphone and 30% were contacted via landlines. The sample was acquired from Marketing Systems Group. The poll was conducted from October 3-10, 2016." Image above from Montana poll


Trump has 3.3 lead over Hillary in Florida in Oct. 25-26, 2016 Dixie Strategies poll. Trump has 13 point lead in favorability. "It appears that momentum in Florida may have shifted to Donald Trump in recent days"

Trump 45.7
Hillary 42.4
Johnson 2.0
Stein 1.4

Poll dates: Oct. 25-26, 2016, 698 likely Florida voters, 3.71 error margin, landline and cell phones. Automated voice. Trump has 13 point advantage in 'favorability'. No link to actual poll.

10/27/16, "Another Florida poll shows Donald Trump pulling ahead," Tampa Bay Times, Adam C. Smith

"An Oct. 25-26 robo poll by the Republican consulting firm Dixie Strategies of St. Augustine  finds Donald Trump edging out Hillary Clinton, 45.7 percent to 42.4 percent, and Republican Sen. Marco Rubio leading Patrick Murphy 48.6 to 43 percent. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.7 percent. 

The poll shows just 40 percent of those surveyed have a favorable view of Clinton while 53 percent have a favorable impression of Trump."


Two additional citations:

10/27/16, "Dixie Strategies Poll: Trump Leading Hillary in Florida," Newsmax 

"Donald Trump leads Hillary Clinton by more than three points in Florida less than two weeks before Election Day, according to the latest Dixie Strategies poll released Thursday.
Here are the results, based on interviews with 698 likely voters conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday: 

Trump: 45.7 percent. 
Clinton: 42.4 percent. 
Libertarian Party Candidate Gary Johnson: 2 percent. 
Green Party Candidate Dr. Jill Stein: 1.4 percent.

In the U.S. Senate race, incumbent Republican Marco Rubio holds a strong lead over Democratic Rep. Patrick Murphy.

Rubio: 48.6 percent. 
Murphy: 43 percent.

The Dixie Strategies poll has a margin of error of 3.7 percent."

10/27/16, "New Florida Poll Shows Trump Up," East Orlando Post, Jacob Engels

"The poll was conducted by North Florida based firm Dixie Strategies, and taken yesterday (Oct. 26). 

Following a Bloomberg Poll showing Donald Trump with a slight lead over Hillary Clinton across the state of Florida, yet another poll signals good news for the Republican nominee.
Dialing out to both landline and cell phones, it surveyed close to 700 voters, with a margin of error of 3.71%.

Voter confidence in the poll was at 95%, giving Trump the edge with 45.70% to Clinton's 42.41%.
Only 6.30% of voters remained undecided.

It appears that momentum in Florida may have shifted to Donald Trump in recent days,” said Brian Graham, Managing Partner of Dixie Strategies. “Florida is still America’s largest, most diverse, and closely watched battleground state. The difference in this election will be turnout.” 

The Dixie Strategies poll also asked voters about our contentious Florida Senate race, where Marco Rubio leads Patrick Murphy 48.64% to 43.02%, with 4.49% undecided."


Wednesday, October 26, 2016

Trump leads by 2 points in Florida, 44-42, in new Bloomberg Florida poll, Oct. 21-24, 2016. Including over sample, 22% of 953 likely Florida voters polled are Hispanic

Trump 44
Hillary 42
Johnson  4
Stein 2

(Question: For whom would you vote today or for whom did you vote?)

Oct. 21-24, 2016, (Fri-Mon.) 953 likely Florida voters including 148 oversample of likely Hispanic voters (for a total of 212 likely Hispanic voters, 22% of the 953 total, p. 5). Land lines and cell phones. 46 male, 54 female (+8 female). Error margin on full sample 3.2, error margin on Hispanic sample 6.7. "In order to look more closely at Hispanic voters, an oversample of 148 likely voters identified as Hispanic on the Florida registered voter list was conducted, leading to a total of 212 likely Hispanic voters." On regular sample:  67 white, 12 black, 14 Hispanic, 1 Asian, 3 other. Political affiliation (D, R, Ind.), page 4.
10/26/16, "Bloomberg Politics Florida Poll," Selzer and Company

Added: En Espanol? Candidate's ability to speak Spanish is virtually meaningless to Florida likely Democrat voters:

page 4, "asked only of [Hillary] Clinton supporters":

"Is Tim Kaine’s ability to speak Spanish a factor in your decision about which presidential ticket to vote for, or is it not a factor? (Asked only of Clinton supporters, n=415.) 

8 Is a factor 

89 Is not a factor

3 Not sure"


Trump 45.3, Hillary 44.2, USC Dornsife LA Times Presidential Election Daybreak Poll, Oct. 26, 2016

Trump 45.3
Hillary 44.2

Oct. 26, 2016, "The USC Dornsife / LA Times Presidential Election "Daybreak" Poll"

"About the Survey✝

The USC Dornsife/LA Times Presidential Election "Daybreak" Poll is part of the ongoing Understanding America Study: (UAS) at the University of Southern California’s (USC) Dornsife Center for Economic and Social Research, in partnership with the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics and the Los Angeles Times. Every day, we invite one-seventh of the members of the UAS election panel to answer three predictive questions: What is the percent chance that… (1) you will vote in the presidential election? (2) you will vote for Clinton, Trump, or someone else? and (3) Clinton, Trump or someone else will win? As their answers come in, we update the charts daily (just after midnight) with an average of all of the prior week’s responses. To find out more about what lies behind the vote, each week we also ask respondents one or two extra questions about their preferences and values. The team responsible for the USC Dornsife/LA Times Presidential Election Poll four years ago developed the successful RAND Continuous Presidential Election Poll, which was based on the same methodology." 


Woodward and Bernstein in 1970s did the job Wikileaks does today, sought to expose government. Media today is the opposite, see themselves as protectors and defenders of the state-Rush Limbaugh, 10/26/16

10/26/16, "Obamacare Failure and Lies Revealed by WikiLeaks Should Disqualify Democrats," Rush Limbaugh

"Do you realize if journalism today was as it was back in the 1970s, we wouldn't need WikiLeaks? We had Woodward and Bernstein who did, back in the 70s when Nixon was the target, exactly what WikiLeaks is doing today. But the thing that's changed is that Woodward and Bernstein did not consider themselves defenders and protectors of the state. 
Woodward and Bernstein thought they were there to blow up the state. They were there to prove everybody in the state was a lying SOB, and that's because Nixon ran the state. Today, the Drive-By Media in no way wants to hold the state, people in government, accountable for anything. The only enemy in America today is the Republican Party and the conservative movement, and that's it.  That's the sole focus."...(parags. 8 and 9)


Hillary and her neocon donors dream of sending more Americans to die in endless wars in the Middle East and Africa (including placing US military in so-called 'training' and 'advisory' roles in dangerous and hopeless hell holes). Hillary has promoted every major foreign policy issue harmful to Americans in last 20 years. Donald Trump is clearly correct on major foreign policy issues facing America. His policies also have a chance of making the world better. Hillary's can't possibly. Everything Hillary and globalists have achieved and strive for has proven harmful for the US and the world-Laura Ingraham

6/20/2014, "Being a Neocon Means Never Having to Say You’re Sorry," Foreign Policy, Stephen M. Walt 

"The neoconservative-liberal alliance in effect re-legitimates the neoconservative world view, and makes their continued enthusiasm for U.S.-led wars look "normal.""

 9/7/2015, "How Neocons Destabilized Europe" by Robert Parry, 
"The refugee chaos that is now pushing deep into Europe...started with the cavalier ambitions of American neocons and their liberal-interventionist sidekicks who planned to remake the Middle East and other parts of the world through “regime change.”

Instead of the promised wonders of “democracy promotion” and “human rights,” what these “anti-realists” have accomplished is to spread death, destruction and destabilization across the Middle East and parts of Africa and now into Ukraine and the heart of Europe. Yet, since these neocon forces still control the Official Narrative, their explanations get top billing – such as that there hasn’t been enough “regime change.”"...


2016 US presidential election 

10/25/16, "How the Elites Blew Up the World," Laura Ingraham, 

"Those who squandered America's economic and strategic advantage are trying to distract from their record." 

"The truth is that the “world order” in question exists only in the minds of those pundits who aren’t paying attention to life on this planet.
The entire concept of a continuous, stable, and peaceful “world order” that goes back to 1945 would come as a shock to the many Americans who lost friends and loved ones on battlefields in Korea, Vietnam, and countless other places during that period.

The reality of the situation is that between 1945 and 1990, the United States faced very severe challenges-not only to any type of “world order,” but to its very freedom. Some presidents-like Reagan and Eisenhower-dealt with those challenges successfully, helping Americans to enjoy brief periods of peace and prosperity. Others-like Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter-failed to meet the foreign policy challenges of their time, and left a more dangerous world to their successors. The whole notion that the world simply ran on autopilot, and that U.S. policymakers had few critical decisions to make, is simply wrong.

After America’s triumph in the Cold War, however, the difficulties of that struggle were quickly forgotten in Washington and the capitals of Europe. Instead, Western leaders congratulated themselves on the notion that they had reached “the end of history,” and that liberal capitalism would reign supreme in perpetuity-a conclusion directly contradicted by centuries of real-world experience. Armed with this false premise, U.S. foreign policymakers on both sides of the aisle made a series of disastrous blunders:

*They believed that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) would promote better relations in North America, and reduce concerns over illegal immigration. They were wrong. Instead, illegal immigration from Mexico to the United States surged, while relations between all three NAFTA countries have generally deteriorated. By 2008, even Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were calling for NAFTA to be re-negotiated-but of course, that was just another empty promise. 

*They believed that the World Trade Organization (WTO) would serve as a bastion of support for market economies, and would encourage countries like Japan to give up their mercantilist practices. They were wrong. Instead, the United States has become the main target of the WTO's dispute settlement system, as our trading partners regularly treat us as a punching bag, winning disputes and forcing us to change our laws to better suit their preferences. This year, the globalists in the Obama administration blocked an appointment to the WTO's Appellate Body — because even they are tired of losing so many cases there.
*They believed that facilitating the rise of China — by giving the Chinese practically unlimited access to Western markets and technology — would lead to a freer and safer world. They were wrong. The relentless dictators in China are using their newfound wealth to consolidate their power, both inside China and around the world. If current trends continue, we will soon be driven from Asia, and a Communist dictatorship will replace the United States as the world's largest economy.

*They believed that a weakened Russia could do little to challenge the West. They were wrong. Vladimir Putin's government, despite an economy smaller than that of Canada, has tied Western policymakers in knots — making them look feckless and weak, and undermining NATO.

*They believed that spreading democracy in the Middle East would lead to more stable and peaceful governments in that part of the world. They were wrong. The disastrous wars and other mistakes of the last 15 years have created a Middle East that appears to be more violent and dangerous than ever. Furthermore, the Middle East is now flooding the West with refugees and terrorists, who are creating huge political problems in the United States and Western Europe.

*They believed that cramming most of the historic nations of Europe into a single union with a shared currency would lead to peace and prosperity. They were wrong. Europe's economy has been staggering for years, and the voters of the United Kingdom grew so disgusted with the European Union that they voted to leave it altogether — another development our elites failed to anticipate. 

*They believed that Angela Merkel, the chancellor of Germany, was a force of calm and stability within the Western alliance. They were wrong. She has proven to be an unyielding fanatic whose absolute refusal to change course-no matter how bad that course may be-has not only damaged the economies of southern Europe, and driven Britain from the E.U., but has destabilized Germany itself by opening that country to a surge of Middle Eastern refugees for which the German people, and their government, were not ready.

*They believed that giving away our manufacturing base and welcoming illegal immigrants from around the world would lead to a happier and more prosperous America. They were wrong. The U.S. economy has performed so poorly that experts like Larry Summers now suggest we have entered a period of permanent "secular stagnation." Meanwhile, U.S. politics are riven by the utter mistrust that many voters feel for the elites who govern them — and by the contempt many of those elites feel for those voters.

*They believed that as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton-a donor controlled hack-who may be the least persuasive person ever to hold high public office in this country — could help resolve the significant foreign policy problems that were already becoming obvious by 2009. Instead, she failed at that job, and the world is now less stable and more dangerous than when she went to Foggy Bottom.

*I could go on, but surely these examples are more than sufficient to prove that our leaders have committed blunder after blunder since the end of the Cold War. History is not kind to fools, and the United States is paying an enormous price for throwing away the strategic advantages it enjoyed after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Consider the following facts:

*Last year, for the 16th year in a row, real median household incomes in the United States were lower than they were in 1999. Middle-aged Americans have now lost most of their careers to an era in which the standard of living for the typical household has fallen.

*In 1999, the year before Congress agreed to let China join the WTO, the United States accounted for 25.78 percent of world GDP. By 2014 (the last year for which data is publicly available), that figure was down to 22.43 percent — the lowest it has been in government records going back to 1969, according to the Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

*In 1999, China's annual GDP was $1.094 trillion. Last year (2015), it was more than $11 trillion. 

*In 1999, the U.S. national debt was $5.7 trillion. Last year (2015), it was $18.1 trillion.

In short, by almost any measure, the United States is weaker than it was during the afterglow of the Cold War — while China, our chief geopolitical adversary, has gotten much stronger. This decline was not inevitablecertainly no major U.S. policymakers predicted it. Instead, it is the result of a series of foolish mistakes that have consistently undermined our position while making life easier for our enemies.

At this point, it should be obvious that the "world order" for which our elites pine has gone the way of the flip phone and other artifacts from the 1990s. For most Americans, the global economy has become a nightmare from which they are trying to escape. But like the generals in World War I who kept sending larger and larger numbers of men to die in hopeless battles, our elites believe that we need more of the same
Not satisfied by a series of trade agreements that have failed to work as advertised, they now promote the Trans-Pacific Partnership. 

Not satisfied by an immigration policy that has roiled U.S. and European politics for most of the last two decades, they scheme to bring more illegal immigrants into the West.  

Not satisfied by the losses we have already suffered in the Middle East, they dream of sending new armies to die in that war-torn region.

No wonder they are uniting behind Hillary Clinton — the author and supporter of so many of these disastrous policies.

Let us be clear: If Hillary Clinton is elected president, all of the problems we see around the world today will continue to fester — because she will continue the same policies that got us here. Four years from now, if she is president,  

the United States will be weaker, 

China will be stronger, 

Russia will be more dangerous, 

terrorists will be more emboldened, 

the Middle East will be more unstable, and 

conditions in Europe will be worse than they are now. 

We already know that our current policies lead to these results.

Why would we want to let things worsen for four more years?

The time has come to strike out on a different path. When you look past all the elite blather about Trump's "temperament" and "tone," 

one thing becomes obvious: 

On the big foreign policy issues facing America, Trump is right, and the elites are wrong.  

It is insane — and dangerous — to keep propping up a global trading regime that treats Chinese companies better than American companies
It is insane — and dangerous — to keep wasting the U.S. military on missions that cannot succeed. 

It is insane — and dangerous — to continue trying to maintain a position in the world that we can no longer afford

It is insane — and dangerous — to tear down all borders and effectively dissolve the nations of the West. 

Most of all, it is insane to install, as president of the United States, a vapid and untrustworthy politician who has consistently been wrong on every major foreign policy issue of the last 20 years.

Hillary Clinton may win this election. But Trump and his supporters will ultimately win the argument over foreign policy — because his policies at least have a chance of making the world better, while hers never will."


Tuesday, October 25, 2016

Trump and Hillary tied in Florida, 46-46, Oct. 20-22, 2016 Axiom poll. Trump leads by 8 points among Florida independent voters

Trump 46
Hillary 46
Johnson 2
Someone else 2
Undecided 5

Independent voters
Trump 44
Hillary 36
Johnson 3
Someone else 5
Undecided 11 

By race, p. 4
Trump: White 56, Black 24, Hispanic 38, Other 34

Hillary: White 36, Black 74, Hispanic 51, Other 45

Oct. 20-22, 2016 poll dates. 1646 likely Florida, error margin 2.41. Female 55, male 45 (female +10), 40R, 40D, 20 Ind. White 64, Black 15, Hispanic 18, other 3 (p. 6)

10/25/16, "Florida Statewide," Axiom Strategies, Remington Research 

"Survey conducted October 20 through October 22, 2016. 1,646 likely General Election voters participated in the survey. Survey weighted to match expected turnout demographics for the 2016 General Election. Margin of Error is+/-2.41%."


Trump leads by 4 points in Ohio, Oct. 20-22, 2016 Axiom Strategies poll of 1971 likely gen. election voters. Trump also has 4 point lead among Ohio independent voters

Trump 46
Hillary 42
Johnson 4
Someone else 2
Undecided 4

Independent voters, p. 3

Trump 41
Hillary 37
Johnson 6
Undecided 11 

Voters by race
Trump, racial composition, p. 4
White 52
Black 19
Hispanic 30
Other 30

Hillary, racial composition
White 36
Black 72
Hispanic 60
Other 46

Oct. 20-22, 2015, 1971 Likely Ohio voters, 2.2 error margin. Female 54, Male 46 (p. 5). 43R, 34D, 23 Ind. (p. 5). White 80, black 12, Hispanic 4, other 4 (p. 6)

10/25/16, "Ohio Statewide, Axiom Strategies, Remington Research Group

"Survey conducted October 20 through October 22, 2016. 1,971 likely General Election voters participated in the survey. Survey weighted to match expected turnout demographics for the 2016 General Election. Margin of Error is +/-2.2%."