No 1162 “En mi opinión” Febrero 23, 2016
“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R Gonzalez Miño Editor
Lázaro R González Miño para Alcalde de Miami
AMENPER: Match your values/beliefs to the candidates
Me mandaron este quiz para ver a quién y por qué apoyaba en las elecciones.
El resultado mío lo pueden ver presionando en el enlace abajo, y pueden hacer el suyo
Me dio Marco Rubio 98% y Cruz 97% Es como creo no por personalidad pero por los temas que nos afectan en a nación.
Esto es lo que me dio
Objetivamente, he comprobado por qué creo
que Rubio debía de ser el presidente.
In a message dated 2/22/2016 12:58:21 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
…interesante ejercicio….lo tome dos veces y casi me dio el mismo resultado…..
TRY IT FOR YOURSELF, MAYBE YOU’LL BE SURPRISED AT WHICH CANDIDATE (S) ALIGNS MORE WITH YOU.
Be sure to move the’importance spot’ on the left and
USE the “Another Stance” choice often, it can better define your stand.
Try this short quiz to see which candidate you agree with on various subjects It is very well done.
AMENPER: Técnicas Modernas en la Mentira…
La tácnica moderna a creado una nueva dimensión a la mentira. Ahora se puede afirmar una mentira presentando a la persona sobre la que mentimos, substanciando la mentira en sus propias palabras con un audio o video alterado, o una composición fotográfica.
El impacto es difícil de borrar, ya sea en el caso de ver a Marco Rubio estrechar efusivamene la mano del presidente Barack Hussein Obama, cómo verlo en un video burlandose de la biblia y del padre de Ted Cruz o afirmando que ha tomado la posición de fronteras abiertas o a favor del aborto..
Son cosas que nunca sucedieron, son mentiras substanciadas por la tecnología moderna.
Y esto es algo moralmente grave, porque una simple mentira puede ser basada en la ignorancia o mala interpretación de un hecho, una mentira alterando tecnicamente una foto, video o audio, entra en el campo de premeditación y alevosía.
Y esta ha sido hasta ahora la conducta de Rick Tyler el jefe de comunicaciones de la campaña de Cruz.
Si Cruz no conocía la última mentira, tiene que haber conocido las anteriores. Los que hemos dado el beneficio de la duda en cuanto a la alegada acción de la campaña sobre Ben Carson, ahora tenemos que pensar que quizás Ben Carson tenía razón, y ruvo razón hace unos días cuando rechazó la posición de acercamieno de Cruz en una reunión con la campaña de Cruz.
Cómo el error de Marco Rubio de no haberse preparado correctamente para responder a Chris Christie en un debate, estas mentiras de Ted Cruz, benefician al gran mentiroso que nunca pide perdón, Donald Trump.
Esperemos que los votantes no beneficien a Trump por este error de Cruz, esperemos que sea verdad que Cruz no tenía nada que ver con las mentiras que eran algo que venía solamente de Rick Tyler.
Porque hay mucho por medio en estas elecciones primarias, hay la posibilidad que escogiendo al candidato que no puede ganar, terminemos con un socialista en la presidencia.
ISLAM – CRISTO
|ISLAM O CRISTO
(leerlo por favor y difundirlo ]
Atención a esto…
En una reuniónm mundial de ministros de diferentes denominaciones se concluyó que la religión musulmana es la que más crece en el planeta especialmente entre los grupos minoritarios.
El mes pasado asistí a la clase de entrenamiento requerido para mantener mi status de seguridad en el Departamento de Prisiones.
Durante la reunión hubo una presentación por tres disertantes: uno Católico, uno Protestante y un Musulmán, quienes explicaron sus creencias.
Me interesaba sobre todo lo que el Imán islámico diría. El Imán hizo una completa y gran presentación de las bases del Islam incluyendo vídeos.
Después de las presentaciones se concedió tiempo para preguntas y respuestas.
Cuando llegó mi turno pregunté al Imán:
“Por favor y corríjame si me equivoco, pero entiendo que la mayoría de Imanes y clérigos del Islam han declarado la Yihad (guerra santa) contra los infieles del mundo. De modo que matando a un infiel (que es una orden para todos los musulmanes) tienen asegurado un lugar en el cielo. Si así fuera el caso… ¿Puede usted darme una definición de infiel? ”
Sin discutir mis palabras contestó con seguridad:
“Son los no creyentes”.
A lo cual contesté:
“Permítame asegurarme que le entendí bien. ¿A todos los seguidores de ALÁ se les ha ordenado matar a todo el que no profese su fe para poder ir al cielo? ¿Correcto? ”
La expresión de su cara cambió, de una con autoridad, a la de un muchacho hallado con la mano en la lata de galletas. Avergonzado, contestó:
“Así es ”
Agregué: “ Pues bien, señor, tengo un verdadero problema tratando de imaginar al Papa Francisco ordenándole a todos los católicos matar a todos los Islámicos o al Dr. Stanley ordenando a los protestantes hacer lo mismo para ir al cielo ”.
El Imán quedó mudo.
Continué: “También tengo otra pregunta, amigo, cuando usted y sus colegas les dicen a sus pupilos que me maten, a quien prefiere usted ¿a ALÁ que ordena que me mate para que UD. pueda ir al cielo o a mi Jesús que me ordena amarlo a Ud. como a mi mismo para que yo vaya al cielo y que desea que UD. me acompañe?”
Se podía oír la caída de un alfiler cuando el Imán avergonzado inclinó su cabeza.
Debido al sistema de justicia liberal y a la presión del ACLU (Organización Árabe Americana). Este diálogo no será publicado.
Les ruego que lo hagan circular a todos en su lista de contactos.
Capellán de Prisiones EE.UU. Si ellos matan y se matan por sus creencias……. ¿por qué yo no voy a enviar este email por las mías? El 93% de las personas, no reenviarán este e-mail. No aumentes el porcentaje.
SHOCK: The Picture of 2 Men That Some Say Proves Scalia Was MURDERED
The sudden death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia — and the fact the Obama administration is trying to take full advantage of the situation — has led many to believe that some sort of malice is afoot in the hinterlands of Texas.
Conspiracy theorists have been perhaps most alarmed by two pictures showing two men together. One of the men in the photo below, on the left, is John Poindexter, the man who owns the ranch where Justice Scalia died.
You may perhaps recognize the one on the right.
Advertisement – story continues below
- SICK: Obama Cracks Joke About Justice Scalia’s Death… Media Howls In Laughter
- SCOTUS Expert Makes CHILLING Prediction About Justice Scalia’s Replacement
- Andrea Tantaros Wants Obama To Stay FAR Away From Scalia’s Funeral… Here’s Why
In addition to owning the Cibolo Creek Ranch, Poindexter was a major donor to the Democrat Party, something that will always get the attention of the commander in chief. DC Whispers, which obtained these photos, remarked that Poindexter was being honored for his service in Vietnam.
However, the coincidence has many people alarmed, particularly since Poindexter was the man who found Scalia’s body.
On his Monday show, conservative radio host Michael Savage raised questions over the particulars of Scalia’s death and said further investigation was needed.
“We need a Warren Commission-like federal investigation,” Savage said, referencing the congressional commission that investigated the assassination of John F. Kennedy. “This is serious business.”
““There was no medical examiner present. There was no one who declared the death who was there. It wasdone by telephone from a U.S. Marshal appointed by Obama himself,” Savage continued. He elaborated on this in a piece he wrote for his website.
“The question is, is it a conspiracy theory to ask questions that are so obviously in need of answer, or is it just common-sense,” Savage asked. “And where is the common-sense both in the press and the Republican Party(?)”
Savage also asked what would happen if Justice Ginsburg had died and Donald Trump were the president.
“Do you think the left would be screaming that Donald Trump would have no right to appoint anyone to the Supreme Court? Do you think they would be demanding an autopsy and a full federal investigation?” Savage wrote.
Whatever the situation, it’s certainly the latest strange development in a death which has raised more questions than it has provided answers.
Do you think Justice Antonin Scalia’s death is suspicious? Please share this story on Facebook and Twitter and let us know!
Do you think Scalia’s death needs to be investigated by an independent commission?
Charles Krauthammer; ON THE CLINTON’S.
The Clinton Foundation is “organized crime” at it’s finest, and we are financing it! Here is a good, concise summary of how the Clinton Foundation works as a tax free international money laundering scheme. It may eventually prove to be the largest political criminal enterprise in U.S. history. This is a textbook case on how you hide foreign money sent to you and re-package it, to be used for your own purposes. All tax free.
Here’s how it works:
- You create a separate foreign “charity.” In this case one in Canada.
- Foreign oligarch’s & governments, then donate to this Canadian charity. In this case, over 1,000 did contributing
mega millions. I am sure they did this out of the goodness of their hearts, and expected nothing in return. (Imagine
Putin’s buddies waking up one morning and just deciding to send un-told millions to a Canadian charity).
- The Canadian charity then bundles these separate donations & makes a massive donation the Clinton Foundation.
- The Clinton Foundation, and the cooperating Canadian charity claim Canadian law prohibits, the identification of individual donors.
- The Clinton Foundation, then “spends” some of this money, for legitimate good works programs. Un-fortunately,
experts believe this is on the order of 10%. Much of the balance goes to enrich the Clinton’s, pay salaries to un-told numbers of hangers on, & fund lavish travel, etc. Again virtually all tax free, which means you & I are subsidizing it.
- The Clinton Foundation with access to the world’s best accountants, somehow fails to report much of this on their tax filings. They discover these “clerical errors” and begin the process of re-filing 5 years of tax returns.
- Net result foreign money, much of it from other countries, goes into the Clinton’s pockets tax free & untraceable
back to the original donor. This is the textbook definition of money laundering.
Oh, by the way, the Canadian “charity” includes, as a principal one Frank Giustra. Google him. He is the guy who was central to the formation of Uranium One, Canadian company that somehow acquired massive U.S. uranium interests & then sold them to an organization controlled by Russia. This transaction required U.S. State Department approval, and, guess who was Secretary of State, when the approval, was granted? As an aside, imagine how former, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell feels. That poor schlep, is in jail because he and his wife took $165,000 in gifts, and loans for doing minor favors, for a guy promoting, a vitamin company. Not legal, but not exactly putting U.S. security risk.
Sarcasm aside, if you are still not persuaded, this was a cleverly structured way to get unidentified foreign money to the Clinton’s, ask yourself this: Why did these foreign interests, funnel money, through a Canadian charity? Why not donate directly to the Clinton Foundation? Better yet, why not donate money directly to the people, organizations & countries in need?
This is the essence of money laundering and influence peddling. Now you know why Hillary’s destruction of 30,000 e-mails was a risk, she was willing to take. Bill and Hillary are devious, unprincipled, dishonest, and criminal, and they are Slick! Warning : They could be back in the White House, in January 2017. Do not let it happen. Remember, most people are not well informed. We must somehow inform and educate them.
Charles Krauthammer; Warm Wishes and May God Bless America.
It does smells rotten….
El juez Scalia Had reunión secreta con Obama Horas antes de su muerte
16 de de febrero de, el año 2016 [MC]
Tribunal Supremo de Estados Unidos juez Scalia tenían un secreto Reunión de Texas con Obama apenas unas horas antes de su muerte
Un impresionante informe preparado para la Oficina del Presidente (OP) por el Servicio de Inteligencia Exterior (SVR) el examen de la carta enviada al presidente Putin por el multimillonario estadounidense Donald Trump la semana pasada que parecía predecir el asesinato del Tribunal Supremo Antonin Scalia sugiere que pocas horas antes de esta muerte juristas estimado que había mantenido una reunión secreta con el presidente Barack Obama a bordo de un avión de la Fuerza Aérea de Estados Unidos rumbo a un rancho de Texas aislada propiedad de un amigo personal y de los donantes de campaña superior del líder de los Estados Unidos.
Tribunal Supremo Antonin Scalia (izquierda) y el presidente Barack Obama (derecha)
De acuerdo con este informe, RVS “Patrimonio del” informó de que el 11 de febrero tanto el presidente Obama y el juez Scalia estaban en la base común Andrews (JBA) prevista para dos vuelos separados de la Fuerza Aérea de Estados Unidos de Andrews Field-la primera teniendo el presidente Obama a Los Ángeles, y teniendo el segundo juez Scalia a Marfa Municipal Aeropuerto (KMRF), ubicado en la región suroeste de Texas, cerca de la frontera con México.
Mientras que el presidente Obama estaba programado para salir en uno de los aviones Boeing VC-25 de la Fuerza Aérea de los EE.UU. dos (comúnmente conocido como Air Force One), este informe continúa, el vuelo de Justicia Scalia fue programado a bordo de un Gulfstream C-37A-que es los EE.UU. designación de la Fuerza aérea para su flota de los aviones jet privado Gulfstream V populares.
Justo antes de estos dos aviones de la Fuerza Aérea de los EE.UU. saliendo desde Andrews Field, este informe señala, RVS “Patrimonio del” asignados a la vigilancia de los principales figuras políticas y militares estadounidenses señalaron una “discrepancia de protocolo normal” cuando la división de seguridad judicial del juez Scalia tres US Marshal Servicios ( JSD) “protectores / defensores” salió de la base aérea de la “protección personal” de este jurista señaló de ser transferido al Servicio secreto de Estados Unidos (SS).
Tras diferentes vuelos, tanto del presidente Obama y el juez Scalia que salen de Andrews Field, este informe continúa detallando; una “discrepancia de protocolo normal” aún mayor fue señalado por el SVR cuando fueron informados por las Fuerzas Aeroespaciales (AF) de monitorización por satélite personal que la fuerza aérea F-16 aviones de combate de tres bases diferentes (Shaw Air Force Base, Montgomery Field y Lucas Base de la Fuerza aérea) acompañado todo el vuelo, tanto de la Boeing VC-25 y la C-37A Gulfstream-un nivel de protección que normalmente sólo se concederá al presidente de Estados Unidos exclusivamente.
En cuanto a la razón por la Fuerza Aérea de los Estados Unidos proporcionó combate F-16 protección de aeronaves de vuelo del juez Scalia, este informe continúa, se hizo aún más preocupante para el SVR, cuando después de que el avión aterrizó en Marfa, Texas, este “cobertura aérea de protección extrema” se mantuvo hasta el Gulfstream C-37A partió tres horas más tarde y voló a la Base Aérea de los Ángeles (LAAFB) acompañado de su avión de combate escolta y dónde exactamente al mismo tiempo la prensa estadounidense que cubre el presidente Obama comenzó a cuestionar dónde estaba, sólo para ser contada que el presidente Obama había estado ausente debido a una tarde-noche, fuera de la cena con los libros tres de la élite de Hollywood la Casa blanca no comentará más adelante.
Este informe SVR, sin embargo, “sugiere fuertemente” que el presidente Obama había, de hecho, estado a bordo del Gulfstream C-37A con el juez Scalia de Andrews Campo de Marfa y luego viajó más lejos de Tejas a Los Ángeles en él-que dicen que es la solamente
conclusión que se alcanzó debido a la protección continua de la Fuerza Aérea de Estados Unidos de la misma.
En apoyo de esta conclusión, este informe continúa, AF radar de satélite y análisis espectro electrónico de Marfa, donde el Gulfstream C-37A aterrizó con el juez Scalia y (tal vez) Presidente Obama, muestra un convoy de cuatro vehículos de salir del aeropuerto KMRF y viajando a una 12.140 hectáreas (30.000 acres) finca llamada la Cibolo Creek Ranch.
Fundamental tener en cuenta acerca de este Cibolo Creek Ranch, este informe dice, es que es propiedad de Tejas multimillonario John Poindexter, quien además de ser el dueño de la gran conglomerado JB Poindexter & Co., Inc., es un amigo personal desde hace mucho tiempo del presidente Obama quien en uno de sus primeros deberes a electos concedido una medalla de guerra a Poindexter por su servicio durante la guerra de Vietnam.
John Poindexter (izquierda) y el presidente Barack Obama (derecha)
De mayor preocupación amigo personal del presidente Obama John Poindexter, los analistas de RVS en este estado informe, es que dentro de las 36 horas de Justicia Scalia llegar a su Cibolo Creek Ranch raíces que, Poindexter, informó a los medios que el jurista había muerto y quién a continuación, en coordinación con las autoridades locales de Texas para que el juez Scalia declarado muerto a través de una conversación telefónica con el médico forense área sin un examen médico actual del cuerpo en clara violación de la ley de Texas, que establece una autopsia debe ser preformado cuando “el cuerpo o un órgano parte de una persona que se encuentra y la causa o las circunstancias de la muerte son desconocidas “.
Con el juez Scalia se informa, mientras que el encontrado en la finca de John Poindexter, este informe continúa, se dijo aún más este jurista estimado que se han encontrado con una almohada sobre su cabeza al tiempo que sienta muerto en su cama en cama un-arrugada ropa que acaba por éstos informes solo, bajo la ley de Texas, exigieron que la autopsia ser preformado para identificar la causa de la muerte.
A medida que el régimen de Obama continúa con su encubrimiento de la muerte del juez Scalia, este informe llega a la conclusión, un conocimiento previo del presidente Obama por horas de la muerte del juez Scalia, junto con el ex oficial de inteligencia del Ejército de EE.UU. Ray Starmann indicando su preocupación de que “juego sucio” estuvo implicado , los conmocionado americanos en una nueva encuesta muestra que el 79% de ellos sospechan de este jurista fue asesinada-pero que el SVR, aunque continuando su investigación, puede que nunca sepamos la totalidad de los detalles acerca.
16 de de febrero de, el año 2016 © UE y EE.UU. Todos los derechos reservados.
área de archivos adjuntos
Previsualización de vídeo de YouTube El Ataque del corazón de la CIA arma que no quieren que usted se entere…
Justice Scalia Had Secret Meeting With Obama Hours Before His Death
February 16, 2016 [mc]
US Supreme Court Justice Scalia Had Secret Texas Meeting With Obama Just Hours Before His Death
A stunning report prepared for the Office of the President (OP) by the Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) examining the letter sent to President Putin by American billionaire Donald Trump last week that appeared to predict the murder of US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia suggests that just hours before this esteemed jurists death he had held a secret meeting with President Barack Obama aboard a US Air Force plane heading to a secluded Texas ranch owned by a close personal friend and top campaign donor of America’s leader.
US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (left) and President Barack Obama (right)
According to this report, SVR “assests” reported that on 11 February both President Obama and Justice Scalia were at Joint Base Andrews (JBA) scheduled for two separate US Air Force flights from Andrews Field—the first taking President Obama to Los Angeles, and the second taking Justice Scalia to Marfa Municipal Airport (KMRF) located in the southwestern region of Texas near the Mexican border.
While President Obama was scheduled to depart on one of the US Air Force’s two Boeing VC-25 aircraft (commonly referred to as Air Force One), this report continues, Justice Scalia’s flight was scheduled aboard a Gulfstream C-37A—which is the US Air Force’s designation for their fleet of the popular Gulfstream V private jet aircraft.
Just prior to these two US Air Force aircraft departing from Andrews Field, this report notes, SVR “assests” assigned to monitoring top American political and military figures noted a “discrepancy from normal protocol” when Justice Scalia’s three US Marshal Services Judicial Security Division (JSD) “protectors/defenders” left the airbase with the “personal protection” of this noted jurist being transferred to the US Secret Service (SS).
Upon both President Obama and Justice Scalia’s different flights departing from Andrews Field, this report continues detailing; an even greater “discrepancy from normal protocol” was noted by the SVR when they were informed by Aerospace Forces (AF) satellite monitoring personal that US Air Force F-16 fighter aircraft from three different bases (Shaw Air Force Base, Montgomery Field and Luke Air Force Base) accompanied the entire flights of both the Boeing VC-25 and the Gulfstream C-37A—a level of protection normally only afforded to the US President exclusively.
As to why the US Air Force provided F-16 fighter aircraft protection to Justice Scalia’s flight, this report continues, became even more concerning to the SVR when after the flight landed in Marfa, Texas, this “extreme protective air cover” was maintained until the Gulfstream C-37A departed three hours later and flew to Los Angeles Air Force Base (LAAFB) accompanied by its fighter plane escort—and where at the exact same time the American press covering President Obama began questioning where he was, only to be told that President Obama had been missing due to a late-night, off-the-books dinner with three of Hollywood’s elite the White House wouldn’t further comment on.
This SVR report, though, “strongly suggests” that President Obama had, in fact, been aboard the Gulfstream C-37A with Justice Scalia from Andrews Field to Marfa and then further traveled from Texas to Los Angeles on it—which they say is the only
conclusion to be reached due to the US Air Force’s continuous protection of it.
In support of this conclusion, this report continues, AF radar and electronic spectrum satellite analysis of Marfa, where the Gulfstream C-37A landed with Justice Scalia and (maybe) President Obama, shows a four vehicle convoy leaving the KMRF airport and traveling to a 12,140 hectar (30,000 acre) estate called the Cibolo Creek Ranch.
Critical to note about this Cibolo Creek Ranch, this report says, is that is owned by Texas multi-millionaire John Poindexter—who aside from being the owner of the vast conglomerate J.B. Poindexter&Co., Inc., is a longtime personal friend of President Obama who in one of his first duties upon elected bestowed a war medal upon Poindexter for his service during the Vietnam War.
John Poindexter (left) and President Barack Obama (right)
Of even greater concern about President Obama’s personal friend John Poindexter, SVR analysts in this report state, is that within 36 hours of Justice Scalia arriving at his Cibolo Creek Ranch estate he, Poindexter, reported to the media that the jurist had died—and who then coordinated with local Texas officials to have Justice Scalia declared dead via a phone conversation with the area medical examiner without an actual medical examination of the body in clear violation of Texas law which states an autopsy is to be preformed when “the body or a body part of a person is found and the cause or circumstances of death are unknown”.
With Justice Scalia being reported found dead while in John Poindexter’s estate, this report continues, this esteemed jurist was further said to have been found with a pillow over his head while laying dead in his bed in un-wrinkled bed clothes—which just by these reports alone, under Texas law, demanded that an autopsy be preformed to identify the cause of death.
As the Obama regime continues with its cover-up of Justice Scalia’s death, this report concludes, President Obama’s pre-knowledge by hours of Justice Scalia’s death, along with former US Army intelligence officer Ray Starmann stating his concerns that “foul play” was involved, the shocked American people in a new poll shows that fully 79% of them suspect this jurist was murdered—but which the SVR, though continuing their investigation, may never know the entire details about.
February 16, 2016 © EU and US all rights reserved.
Donald Trump is deeply unpopular with college-educated voters, a group the Republican Party needs to recapture the White House.
By Varad Mehta
February 22, 2016
Donald Trump is the candidate of the white working class. His popularity with this cohort was recognized early in his candidacy. The preponderance of commentary on the Trump phenomenon since then, whether favorable to the tumescent real-estate mogul and reality television star or not, has proceeded from this assumption.
These analyses affirm Trump’s allure to white, working-class voters as central to his candidacy. His dominant standing in the polls rests on the pillar. If Trump wins the Republican nomination, it will be through their support.
Yet these analyses, revealing as they are, overlook a salient fact. The verdict of working-class voters will not be the only one rendered on Trump, or the most important one. However, popular Trump may be with the working class, he is as unpopular with voters who have graduated from college, a group without whose backing the GOP has a chance at regaining the White House.
Trump does respectably among college-educated Republicans. In Quinnipiac University’s most recent poll of the Republican race, Trump received the support of 30 percent of respondents who had a college degree, more than any other Republican did. This was an improvement from earlier this month, when Trump trailed Marco Rubio in this demographic. But if three-tenths of college-educated Republicans back Trump, then seven-tenths of them do not. To put it another way: the vast majority of Republicans with college degrees oppose Donald Trump.
Let’s Compare Donald Trump to Everyone Else
Trump does have a positive favorability score among college Republicans of 55 to 37 percent. Yet his net rating is the lowest of any GOP candidate. Ted Cruz (61 to 27 percent), Marco Rubio (75 to 15 percent), and John Kasich (62 to 9 percent) all best Trump on this measure.
Source: Quinnipiac University Poll, 17 February 2016.
Trump also does worst on the question of which candidate “you would definitely not support for the Republican nomination for president.” Twenty-eight percent of all Republican voters would refuse to back him, which improves to 26 percent when only Republican college graduates are considered.
Trump has a hard ceiling with the latter group that manifests in survey after survey. College graduates constituted 54 percent of Republican turnout in the New Hampshire primary. Trump won this group with 29 percent of the vote. This is a good number. But it also means the other 71 percent went for Trump’s rivals.
In Iowa, Trump fared worse. College graduates made up 51 percent of the GOP caucus electorate. Trump could do no better than third, winning 21 percent of college-educated Iowa Republicans. Both Rubio (28 percent) and Cruz (25 percent) bested him in this crucial demographic. All told, fourth-fifths of Iowa Republicans who graduated college opposed Trump. As Tim Alberta notes in his exegesis of the exit polls from the first two nominating contests, these results suggest “the formation of an anti-Trump coalition among college-educated Republicans.” Trump’s “weak link,” as Ron Brownstein calls it, followed him to South Carolina, where Rubio beat Trump 27 to 25 percent among voters with at least a four-year degree.
There is no reason to believe Trump’s fortunes with college-educated Republican voters will improve—and this is just Republicans. With college-educated voters as a whole, Trump is poison. Pure, lethal poison.
The preceding chart, also drawn from Quinnipiac’s latest polling, is illuminating. For one thing, it shows that Hillary Clinton, the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, is 13 points underwater with college-educated voters. Yet she is a homecoming queen compared to Trump, who is an unfathomable 37 points in arrears with college-educated voters. Cruz is also anathema to college graduates. They even look askance at Rubio now, while earlier this month they were enamored of him. Only Bernie Sanders gets positive marks from this group.
A candidate’s standing with college graduates is significant because it correlates with how well he or she performs on head-to-head ballot tests against other candidates. Here the news is no better for Trump. He would get crushed among college voters, and consequently lose the election.
This chart reveals just how poorly Trump would do with college graduates against Hillary Clinton. While he loses to Clinton by one point overall, his deficit soars to 15 points with college graduates. This is a gap Trump’s vaunted working-class support cannot fill. According to Quinnipiac, he only leads by five points with voters who do not have college degrees, 45 to 40 percent.
Cruz, not usually categorized as a champion of the working class, does better with them against Clinton than Trump does. The Texas senator gets 48 percent of working-class voters to 39 percent for the former secretary of state. His deficit among college voters is only 13 points (52 to 39 percent), though, so he leads Clinton 46 to 43 percent. Rubio polls best against Clinton with both groups, trailing 40 to 46 percent with college voters and leading 50 to 37 percent with non-college voters. This translates to a 48 to 41 percent lead for the Florida senator overall.
College-Educated People Vote More
The “diploma divide” among Republican voters was a key factor in the 2012 primary, and it has recurred in 2016. In 2012, college-educated Republicans lined up behind Romney, while those without degrees fragmented among several candidates. But in 2016, as David Wasserman noted in December, it is college-educated Republicans who have divided their support while those without degrees have coalesced behind Trump. Consequently, Trump leads the GOP field because even though he gets only a quarter of Republicans who graduated from college, he gets two-fifths of those who did not.
The problem for Trump (or any candidate) is that winning non-college graduates while losing degree holders does not a winning coalition make.
The problem for Trump (or any candidate) is that winning non-college graduates while losing degree holders does not a winning coalition make. All it does is guarantee defeat. Per the 2012 exit polls, Romney won college graduates 51 to 47 percent over President Obama. Romney won the only educational cohort on his way to a four-point loss.
Trump supporters might counter that he would make up for it by winning overwhelming support from working-class voters. This is wrong for two reasons. The first reason is that, as seen in the Quinnipiac poll, Trump only breaks even with non-college graduates in the general election. The second reason is that there simply are not enough working-class voters to make up for the catastrophic losses among college-educated voters Trump is destined to incur.
Voting propensity is strongly correlated with educational attainment. The more educated one is, the more likely one is to vote. Unsurprisingly, therefore, the two most reliable voting groups in the United States are voters with bachelor’s degrees and those with post-graduate degrees. The following chart, drawn from the 2012 election review by the Census Bureau is Current Population Survey, shows that these two groups turned out at rates of 75 percent and 81 percent, respectively. Even those who attended but did not finish college had a voting rate higher than 60 percent. The rate for high school graduates was just over 50 percent, and it declined sharply for those who did not finish high school.
There is simply no way a candidate can win a presidential election now by losing the biggest turnout group by ten or more points, as polls consistently show Trump doing. College graduates cannot stand Trump, and this surely is no small factor in him having the highest negative rating of any presidential candidate Gallup has ever tested. Sixty percent of Americans have an unfavorable view of Trump. That kind of radioactivity usually requires a Geiger counter to measure.
College graduates vote more, and there are more of them who vote. According to the 2012 exit polls, 47 percent of voters had at least a four-year degree. Another 29 percent spent at least some time enrolled on campus. That adds up to 76 percent. The overlap is not perfect, but if working-class voters are defined as voters with no more than a high school education, then Trump’s hopes rest on taking larger and larger bites from a cherry.
Donald Trump’s Missing White Voters
Even the pit has been consumed. Psychologists and pundits have fixated on “the mystery of the missing white voters” ever since Sean Trende noticed their disappearance after the 2012 election. In a recent series on the Trump phenomenon, Trende posits that the candidate most likely to appeal to these missing voters is Trump, as they were, for the most part, rural blue-collar whites with an affinity for populism who in another age voted for Ross Perot.
There simply are not enough working-class voters to make up for Trump’s catastrophic losses among college-educated voters.
As Nate Cohn puts it, Trump’s base consists of irregularly voting nominal Democrats from the industrial north, the South, and Appalachia. The problem, Trende writes, is that there simply aren’t enough of them to win even if you hold everything else constant. The alternatives are either to win more non-white support or increase the GOP’s already staggering edge with white voters.
There is the rub. Trump could theoretically get more non-white voters (perhaps by appealing to black voters more than Romney did). Or, more plausibly, he could boost turnout among blue-collar whites with his stances against free trade and immigration. But he would do so almost certainly at the expense of support from white-collar voters.
Liam Donovan framed the dilemma well in a recent article in National Review: “Trump can run up the popular-vote score all he wants riding white-working-class resentment. It won’t help him when he gets buried in swing counties such as Fairfax, Hamilton, Hillsborough, and Arapahoe. Sure, he can target the Rust Belt, but big margins in Western Pennsylvania or the Upper Peninsula won’t matter if he can’t play in Bucks or Oakland Counties.”
Trump won’t play in Bucks County. He won’t for reasons Trende articulates in the final part of his excellent series. He argues that Trump is the avatar of what he labels “cultural traditionalism.” Cultural traditionalists share certain attitudes “about the importance of family, religion, achievement, intellectual advancement, diversity (at least within categories deemed important by elites), patriotism, and nationalism” distinct from, and often diametrically opposed to, those of their counterparts, the “cultural cosmopolitans.”
In voting terms, there are more cultural cosmopolitans than there are cultural traditionalists, and by a considerable margin.
The GOP establishment is made up for the most part of cultural cosmopolitans, while many of its voters are cultural traditionalists. Out of this untenable tension sprang Trump. The cultural traditionalists love him not least because he is a giant middle finger to the cosmopolitans.
Cultural cosmopolitans, affluent, college-educated professionals who cringe whenever Trump promises to ban Muslims or deport every illegal immigrant in the country, though, populate the nation’s metropolitan areas and suburbs. As we have already seen, there are, at least in voting terms, more cultural cosmopolitans than there are cultural traditionalists, and by a considerable margin. As we have also seen, they loathe Donald Trump. They are never going to vote for someone who so grievously offends their sensibilities.
Evidence Trump Haters Won’t Switch Sides
A Trump backer might rejoin that I am merely speculating that college-educated Republicans would not flock to Trump if he became the nominee. Supporters of one candidate during a primary often say they won’t support his opponent but rally around the party flag for the general election. This is a fair point. It is hard to prove a negative, especially one that has not happened yet. There is some evidence, however, to indicate Trump may not benefit from this normal pattern.
On Election Day, Akin lost college graduates 50 to 44 percent, a seven-point swing.
There are few analogues to Trump in recent years. One, who resembled the magnate, at least in his capacity for intemperate remarks, was Todd Akin. In the last poll conducted before he devoured his leg, Akin led his 2012 Missouri Senate race against incumbent Claire McCaskill by 11 points. This included a one-point advantage with college graduates, 46 to 45 percent. Yet on Election Day, Akin lost college graduates 50 to 44 percent, a seven-point swing. Moreover, 15 percent of Republican voters defected and voted for McCaskill.
Another GOP Senate candidate who made foolish remarks about abortion in 2012 was Richard Mourdock of Indiana. He managed to win college-educated voters, but like Akin, he bled considerable Republican support: 14 percent of Hoosier Republicans backed Democrat Joe Donnelly, who won.
In 2010, Sharron Angle, the controversial GOP Senate nominee in Nevada, lost 11 percent of Republicans to Harry Reid. Her Colorado counterpart, Ken Buck, saw 10 percent of Republicans shift to Michael Bennett.
Most instructive, perhaps, is the 2008 presidential election, which saw Barack Obama win 9 percent of Republicans and an astounding 20 percent of self-described conservatives. Given the aspirational qualities of Obama’s candidacy, we should not be surprised he had so much cross-ballot appeal. Nine or 10 percent is not much in a decisive contest like his first presidential campaign, but in a close election or a swing state, it could be the difference between victory and defeat.
Donald Trump Means the End of the Republican Party
Trump does not make inflammatory comments about rape or abortion. That is because he is too busy making them about everything else: immigration, foreign policy, economics, his rivals, journalists, you name it. His peanut gallery roars, but the rest of the country is unimpressed. A Trump-inspired descent into white identity politics would be a cataclysm for the GOP because it would alienate the very voters it needs if it wants the White House back. It must get at least a few voters for whom cultural affinity outweighs partisan affiliation. There is no way to win without them. Trump’s campaign, on the other hand, depends on pursuing voters who don’t exist at the cost of those who do.
Trump’s campaign depends on pursuing voters who do not exist at the cost of those who do.
It is well and good to appeal to the working class. It behooves the GOP to do so. There is great merit in criticizing the GOP and its leadership and policy cadres, which often seem to care about little more than hunting such mythical beasts as the flat tax while pretending to pay lip service to any number of causes dear to its rank and file. I have myself avowed that the GOP establishment (and donor class) deserve “incineration.” But Trump should not be the instrument of vengeance. For that sword, once drawn, will be sheathed only with difficulty.
By now, you have surely begun to suspect that I oppose Trump. You are right. I oppose him on philosophical and ideological grounds. But I also oppose him for practical reasons. Nominate Trump, and the GOP would lose college-educated voters for at least a generation, and possibly forever. With them would go the prospect of ever again winning states like Colorado, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida. So, without them, would the GOP be finished as a national party and perhaps as any kind of party at all.
The data speaks in a clear voice and it speaks a simple message: the Republican Party can have Donald Trump or it can have a future, but it cannot have both.
Photo Source: Quinnipiac University Poll, 17 February 2016.
Varad Mehta is a historian. He lives in suburban Philadelphia.
Jorge Alberto Villalón Y.
LAZARO R GONZALEZ
Para Alcalde del Condado Miami Elecciones del 2016
Escriba el nombre de Lázaro R González en
el espacio de la boleta electoral en blanco
Si usted desea que tengamos un Alcalde en El Condado Miami que responda a los intereses de los ciudadanos que viven en este condado, usted no puede votar por los despirfarradores que han desgobernado a nustro condado. No p[odemos continuar con un ejercito de descarados que gastan el dinero del condado en cosas que no se deben hacer si realmente usted quiere acabar el relajo, el robo, el abuso, el descaro, la mala administración y quiere que su gobierno condal le responda a usted y no que esto no sea un feudo de los políticos ladrones y descarados inescrupulosos, no permita más abusos, usted tiene una opción Lazaro R Gonzalez.
Envie nuestros mensajes a sus amigos y conocidos.
“No pedimos donaciones de dinero”
“FREEDOM IS NOT FREE”