In blockbuster poll, Sanders destroys Trump by 13 points

thehill.com ^ | Dec. 22, 2015 | Brent Budowsky

[Company Man]

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
THE DONALD IS DONE FOR

[MadMax, the Grinning Reaper]

Brent. Lay off the booze when you work. You know it makes you dyslexic. The poll really said that Trump would clean out the toilets with the Marxist pipsqueak from Vermont.

[CyberAnt]

I came close to spitting out my dinner when I read this.

LOL .. these people are so desperate .. they will say anything just to see if they can stir the pot a little more.

Poor things.

[gnawbone]

The media is not going to stop its obsession with Trump - they want him to be the nominee so that they can take the huge collection of things Trump has said and try to destroy him with it. It will be different when we get to summer and there is just one candidate from each party and those candidates run constantly repeating campaign commercials.

The typical American voter is not paying much attention right now and once they do I don’t have a lot of confidence in their ability to sort all this out (Obama x2 as my proof).

Matt Lauer this AM was attempting to cover the ‘schlong’ business and it was eerie to watch - he was actually very fair and if you didn’t know better you’d have thought he is not biased. I think they’re playing it straight now until Trump is the nominee and then it’ll be all hands on deck - God knows Trump has given them plenty of material to work with. I have no idea if it will work or if Trump is a candidate that will defy all conventional wisdom.

[minnesota_bound]

How much bribe money does Quinnipiac charge for their polls?

[Tallguy]

If the object here is to suggest that Sanders actually has a shot to defeat Hillary, then the author is dreaming. Sanders is Hillary’s punching bag. She just whispers in his ear and he drops for the 10-count. Sparring partners not only aren’t supposed to win, they’re not even allowed to make their employer (the REAL fighter) look bad.

[o2bfree]

The media has been working overtime to smother Trump’s campaign before the primaries commence. They’re giving him mostly negative coverage... and yet he still rises in the polls!

If what you said was true, Trump would be getting fawning, mostly positive media coverage. But the coverage he gets by and large is meant to distort his comments, and to present them in a negative light.

On the other hand, the liberal GOP candidates Rubio, and Bush, are getting the kind of attention designed to boost their campaigns. And it isn’t helping them maybe because they are so liberal its too hard form them to conceal it. Rubio and Bush are self-evidently liberal from top to bottom. Liberals through and through.

[gnawbone]

I agree they are not ignoring him but ANY other political figure that has said some of the stuff he has said would have the hounds out with their chorus of “he must quit his campaign”.

Jeb Bush is the main one saying that Trump is unfit and should drop out.

The comment Trump made about Megan Kelly would have been the end of any other Republican candidate - not just because they’d back away but because the press would have the vapors so bad they’d never let it go.

As for smothering his campaign - are you kidding? The media covering him is his campaign, he’s not spending any TV money - he doesn’t have to he gets it all for free and since Republicans hate the media they discount what the media’s slant on a story is and just listen to the soundbites of Trump that they get from the media (for free for Trump).

Again, Matt Lauer this morning really caught me off guard - criticized Hillary as much as he did Trump - no eye rolling, smirking, none of that. Something smelled about the way he behaved this AM.

I’m not necessarily disagreeing with a lot of what you said I just can’t believe the vitriol from the media is as tame as it compared to the things Trump says and how the media has reacted in the past. (think Dan Quayle and potato(e) or W’s comment on the ship about “mission accomplished - even though they don’t know what a mission is).

[Steven Scharf]

Nationwide polls are useless. We elect our president state by state.

[jstaff]

They had one of the best accuracy scores in the last cycle.

[JmyBryan]

So, Hillary will be dropping out by New Years... /s

[Yosemitest]

The Hill is just another DemocRAT mouthpiece, pretending to be something else.
Read this"

Liberals, Conservatives, and Neocons - - - Learn the Difference!
March 12, 2014

Almost everybody is confused about the word "neoconservative" and its shortened form, "neocon."
I find that liberals/Democrats seem to use it as a sort of disrespectful form of "conservative,"
and probably have no idea the the words have distinct meanings.
On the other hand, I know of some conservatives who define it as "new conservatives,"
meaning people who were formerly something else, but have converted to conservatism.
Both are wrong.
As near as I can tell, "neo-" doesn't apply to any other word that way -
formerly not X, but having become X.
No, "neo-" almost always refers to an ideology that is different from the root word in a significant way.
Neoconfederates are not people who want to secede and become a separate country.
They want the ideals of the Confederacy to be applied to modern politics, more or less, but not all of them.
Neoliberal is a more vague term,
but it specifically applies to people who may have SOME of the attributes of liberals,
but who contradict liberalism in their advocacy of free trade and privatization
and other ideas usually thought of as conservative.
And, finally, neoconservatives are mostly those moderate cold war LIBERALS who defected to the Republican party when the Democrats got totally flaky with McGovern and his ilk.
Their ultimate origin, however, is not the Democratic party but the Trotskyite movement.



Jack Kerwick elaborates.

Read this:

Most "Conservatives" Are Secretly Neoconservatives
12 March, 2014, by Jack Kerwick, Ph.D.

A colleague of mine has drawn my attention to a Washington Post blog post - "Why Most Conservatives Are Secretly Liberals" - by a Professor John Sides, a political scientist at Georgetown University.

Sides agrees with fellow political scientists Christopher Ellis and James Stimson, co-authors of Ideology in America.
Ellis and Stimson CONTEND that
America is, at bottom, a "center-left nation,"
for while "30 percent" of self-described "liberals" are consistent in endorsing "liberal" policy prescriptions,
the same sort of consistency can be ascribed to only "15 percent" of "conservatives."
And another "30 percent" of "conservatives" actually advance "liberal" positions.

In short, Americans may TALK the talk of "conservatism," but they WALK the walk of "liberalism."
That is, they favor Big Government.

Sides, Ellis, and Stimson, it seems clear to me, are "liberals."
It doesn't require much reading between the lines to discern this.
That they associate "liberals," and "liberals" ALONE, with such virtues as "consistency" and such lofty ideals as "a cleaner environment" and "a stronger safety net" is enough to bear this out.
Yet in peddling the ridiculous, patently absurd notion that
"conservatives" see the media as PROMOTING "conservatism,"
the verdict regarding their "liberalism" is seen for the NO-BRAINER that it is.

There is, though, another CLUE that unveils Sides', Ellis', and Stimson's ideological PREJUDICES:
They equate the term "liberalism" with a robust affirmation of Big Government.
They treat "liberalism" synonymously with its modern, "Welfare-Statist" incarnation.
There is no mention here of the fact that, originally, "liberalism" referred to
a vision that attached supreme value to individual liberty,
a vision in which government played, and had to play, a minimal role in the lives of its citizens.
And there is no mention of the fact that, if "liberalism" is now "an ugly word,"
it is because the very same socialists who made "socialism" an ugly word hijacked "liberalism" when it enjoyed a favorable reception
and visited upon it the same fate that they secured for "socialism."

In other words, if Sides himself wanted to be bluntly honest, he’d have to admit that "liberals" are secretly socialists.

Still, though their premises are bogus, Sides and his colleagues draw the correct conclusion that
most "conservatives" are NOTHING OF THE KIND.
The truth of the matter is that
the vast majority of contemporary "conservatives"; are neoconservatives.

Now, "neoconservatism" is a term that hasn't the best reputation.
It has ALWAYS BEEN CONTROVERSIAL,
and most of its proponents have DISAVOWED IT to the point of, preposterously, condemning it as an "anti-Semitic" SLUR.
But George W. Bush and his party inflicted potentially irrevocable damage upon the label.
"Conservatism" is a more marketable label.

Nevertheless, the reality is that neoconservatism is indeed a distinct school of political thought.
Beyond this, it is fundamentally different in kind from classical conservatism.
Irving Kristol, the so-called "Godfather" of neoconservatism, an appellation that he readily endorsed, ADMITS this in noting both
that neoconservatism exists
and that "conservative" "can be misleading" when used to describe it.

Neoconservatism, you see, is THE INVENTION OF LEFTISTS like Kristol himself.
When the Democratic Party began veering too far to the Left in the 1960s, Kristol and more moderate leftists began turning toward the Republican Party.
So as TO DISTINGUISH THEMSELVES FROM traditional conservatives, they coined the term "neoconservatism."

Neoconservatives, Kristol asserts, are "not at all hostile to the idea of a welfare state" -
even if they reject the "vast and energetic bureaucracies" created by the Great Society.
Neoconservatives ENDORSE "social security, unemployment insurance," and "some kind of family assistance plan," among other measures.
But what's most interesting, particularly at a time when ObamaCare has DIVIDED the country, is that Kristol reminds us that
neoconservatives SUPPORT "some form of national health insurance."

In all truthfulness, however, neither a degree in political science nor an IQ above four is required to know that
neoconservatism has always championed Big Government
for it is its foreign policy vision more than anything else that distinguishes it from its competitors.
For neoconservatives, America is "exceptional" in being, as Kristol puts it, "a creedal nation,"
the only nation in all of human history to have been founded upon an "ideology" of equality, of "natural rights."
The U.S.A., then, has a responsibility to promote this ideology throughout the world.

And it is by way of a potentially boundless military - i.e. Big Government - that this "ideological patriotism" is to be executed.

Had the foregoing political scientists been looking in the right places, they would BE FORCED TO CONCLUDE that most "conservatives" are secretly neoconservatives.

So, you see that those WHO THEY CALL "neoconservatives", are really nothing more than the old moderate side of the DemocRATS.
It's just THAT SIMPLE .

[Marcella]

“...if the dipwad voters elect Hellary or a Bernie then they will deserve all the rotten things coming their way.”

The problem is it would be coming our way, too.

[Marcella]

“It’s a long way to the convention, my hopes and campaign dollars are with Ted Cruz.”

My money is with him, too. His organization is so fine, I do think he will be the candidate facing Hillary and he will win. Our White House would have a smart, dignified, power house President. Our dignity and strength in the world would be back.

[Marcella]

I only vote for conservatives and Trump is not one.

[Marcella]

Thanks for posting that - I read every word. I would say few people know that word history. “Words mean things.” I am a conservative, not a neo one.

[Yosemitest]

Me too.
I HATE that term :Neo-Con".
To me, it stands for NEW COMMUNIST !

[trebb]

Clinton or Sanders would beat Trump. I do not doubt that one bit. The majority of people in this country who have seen Trump’s antics do not want such a blow hard, out of control, trashy mouth, tacky tweeting during the night, president. He wants to win to say he won - I hope he doesn’t for the country’s sake.

Here's hoping you are mistaken. My money goes to Cruz, but I consider Trump the only other viable candidate. March will tell a better story but it currently looks better for Trump than Cruz - perhaps he has the ability to modify his tactics/debating methods if it becomes him against "the only other one".

[nobamanomore]

LMAO is probably better suited to this one. I’ve got money to bet with great odds on a Bernie/Trump contest. Bernie wouldn’t win 3 states.

[wita]

“won’t vote for trump under any circumstances.”

I’m in hopes that Maryland is not the only reason for such an unwise statement.