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.
From: AMENPER@aol.com
To: guarapo1940@bellsouth.net
Sent: 2/22/2016 8:55:10 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
Subj: Re: FW: Match your values/beliefs to the candidates
To: guarapo1940@bellsouth.net
Sent: 2/22/2016 8:55:10 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
Subj: Re: FW: Match your values/beliefs to the candidates
Esto es lo que me
dio
Objetivamente, he
comprobado por qué creo
que Rubio debía de
ser el presidente.
…interesante ejercicio….lo tome dos veces y casi me dio el mismo
resultado…..
Carlos
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.
Rick Mathes
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
RELATED STORIES
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.
TRENDING
STORIES
“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.
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:
1. You create a separate foreign "charity."
In this case one in Canada.
2. 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).
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).
3. The Canadian charity then bundles these separate
donations & makes a massive donation the Clinton Foundation.
4. The Clinton Foundation, and the cooperating
Canadian charity claim Canadian law prohibits, the identification
of individual donors.
5. 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.
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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
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
María Juana
¡DEBES
VER!
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
|
MUST SEE!
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.
Attachments area
|
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 Christopher Halloran / Shutterstock.com
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”
