Posted on 12/15/2015 9:51:08 AM PST by Red Steel
[Full title] Trump Edges Cruz in Iowa; His Supporters Think Japanese Internment Was Good; Clinton Still Well Ahead of Sanders In State
PPP’s newest Iowa poll finds Donald Trump and Ted Cruz at the top of the heap with 28% and 25% respectively. Marco Rubio at 14% and Ben Carson at 10% are also in double digits with Jeb Bush at 7% the only other candidate who clears even 3%. Chris Christie, Carly Fiorina, and Mike Huckabee all hit that level with John Kasich and Rand Paul each getting 2%, Lindsey Graham and Rick Santorum each getting 1%, and Jim Gilmore and George Pataki both having literally no support.
Trump, Cruz, Rubio, and Bush have all seen varying increases in their support in the six weeks since we last polled Iowa. Cruz obviously has the most momentum, picking up 11 points from his 14% standing in early November. Trump has gained 6 points, Rubio 4 points, and Bush 2 points.
As we’ve been finding across the country for the last month Carson has seen the most serious downward arc in his support, dropping 11 points from his previous 21% standing. Huckabee’s dropped 3 points and Fiorina by 2 points as well.
There are a lot of divisions between where Cruz and Trump’s support is coming from. Among voters whose biggest concern is having a candidate who’s conservative on the issues Cruz leads with 33% to 26% for Trump and 15% for Carson. But with voters whose biggest concern is being able to beat a Democrat in the general election, Trump wins out with 31% to 20% each for Cruz and Rubio. Cruz leads Trump 31/30 with men, but Trump more than makes up for that with a 26/17 lead among women. Cruz has a strong advantage with ‘very conservative’ voters at 37% to 25% for Trump and 14% for Carson but Trump leads based on his strength with moderates, with whom gets 42% to 14% each for Rubio and Bush.
It’s ironic that Trump leads with moderates, because the views of his supporters wouldn’t be considered moderate by most standards:
-78% support Trump’s call to bans Muslims from entering the United States, to only 13% who oppose it. Overall 54% of Republicans support him on that to 28% who are opposed. Supporters of Cruz (62/20) and Carson (54/25) also favor a Muslim ban while backers of Rubio (28/48) and Bush (28/49) are opposed.
-65% of Trump voters think thousands of Arabs in New Jersey cheered the collapse of the World Trade Center, to only 11% who don’t think that happened. Overall 43% of Republicans think that event occurred to 29% who don’t. Supporters of Carson (44/10) and Cruz (45/26) agree with Trump’s that it happened while those of Rubio (24/47) and Bush (12/62) say it didn’t.
-59% of Trump voters support a national database of Muslims, to 18% who are opposed. Republicans as a whole are evenly divided on that issue, 40/40. Carson supporters (42/38) join with Trump’s in wanting a Muslim database but those of Cruz (38/42), Rubio (32/48), and Bush (19/62) are all against it.
-45% of Trump voters want to shut down the mosques in the United States, to only 23% who are opposed to doing that. Overall just 27% of Republicans support that to 45% who are opposed though. Supporters of all the other major GOP candidates are opposed to shutting down mosques- it’s 32/48 with Carson backers, 25/44 with those of Cruz, 9/66 with Rubio voters, and 9/69 with Bush’s.
-Finally as long as we were at it we decided we’d ask people if they thought Japanese internment had been a good idea. Among Trump voters 48% say they support the use of internment during World War II, to only 21% who say they oppose it. Overall just 29% of Republicans support that to 39% opposed, and supporters of all the other candidates are against it- 29/33 with Cruz voters, 23/54 with Rubio’s, 12/48 with Carson’s, and 13/56 with Bush’s.
Trump’s positions aren’t hurting him for now but if he ever does falter Cruz is very well positioned to benefit. Besides his overall second place position Cruz is the most broadly popular of the candidates in Iowa, with a 68/20 favorability rating. He’s also the most frequent second choice of Iowa voters at 19% to 12% each for Carson and Rubio, and 11% for Trump. When you combine first and second choices Cruz leads with 44% to 39% for Trump, 26% for Rubio, and 22% for Carson. Cruz is specifically by far and away the second choice of Trump voters at 36% to 14% for Carson with no one else hitting double digits. Quick notes on some other hopefuls:
-Bush has the highest negatives of any of the candidates with 47% seeing him unfavorably to only 35% who have a positive view. He continues to particularly have a credibility issue on the right- with ‘very conservative’ voters his favorability is 24/61 and just 2% of voters within that group favor him for the nomination.
-What we’re continuing to find with Rubio right now is that he’s sort of in a holding pattern. When we polled Iowa last month he was in 4th place with a 60/20 favorability rating. Now thanks to the collapse of Carson he’s in 3rd place with a nearly identical 59/22 favorability. He’s not getting much momentum but he’s at least not falling apart either.
-Carson’s not just losing out on people saying he’s their first choice- he’s had a general decline in his image with GOP voters. Last month he had a +61 (74/13) favorability, that’s now dropped to +40 at 63/23. His combined first and second choice support has dropped from 40% down to 22%.
-John Kasich’s just really not making an impact. A plurality of GOP voters- 41%- don’t even have an opinion about him one way or the other. Among voters who do have one it’s quite negative with only 22% seeing him favorably to 37% with a negative view.
-Mike Huckabee on the other hand is very popular with the Republican base. 64% see him favorably to just 21% with a negative view, making him the most broadly liked hopeful other than Cruz. That goodwill just isn’t translating into support for the nomination for him though.
On the Democratic side Hillary Clinton continues to be the clear favorite in Iowa. She’s at 52% to 34% for Bernie Sanders and 7% for Martin O’Malley. Sanders leads 47/40 with younger voters, but that’s not enough to make up for Clinton holding a 64/20 advantage with seniors. She leads by pretty similar margins of 19 points with liberals at 56/37 and 22 points with moderates at 52/30. And she also has comparable leads with both women (21 points at 55/34) and men (15 points at 49/34). Clinton’s favorability rating is 73/19 while Sanders’ comes in at 65/23.
Full results here
“Sure pal, whatever helps you sleep at night. I didn’t decide to defend an atrocious violation of civil rights by one of the most Communist leaning presidencies in American history.”
No, you are so eager to damage the United States that you lie about one of the few things said commie scum did right, even if it means that you have to approve of Lincoln suspending habeas corpus during the civil war.
“The fact that you continue to defend such a practice is the greatest of ironies given your rabid denunciation of Communism.”
It’s not a “practice,” zippy. It was an incident. A one-off. And it was exactly as bad as it was, and no worse. That’s where you lose track of reality. Because there were unfortunate aspects, you seem to think it acceptable to make any sort of ridiculous accusation, no matter how lacking in any foundation.
Oh, and “rabid denunciation of Communism”? Really? Hillary, is that you? Get some more treatment for that concussion.
“I don’t have to stick my head in the sand and pretend that FDR made bad choices”
Yup, just as I thought: a leftard.
“because I don’t drag my knuckles on the ground and can differentiate between the nation and the State.”
Whatever you may be capable of, it’s not helping you arrive at any correct conclusions.
“Fools like you just end up as cannon fodder on battlefields like Stalingrad.”
So the US is the moral equivalent of Nazi Germany, is it? Fighting for the US is the same as fighting for Hitler, is it?
I’ve faced my country’s enemies before, and I can’t think of any way I’d rather die. If I am blessed enough to be called upon to fight for the restoration of the Constitution, I hope I do what Patton said.
“Also, relying on ad hominem attacks is the sign of a shallow intellect.”
I don’t rely on them; they’re just a bonus.
When some obdurate pinhead refuses to see what is right in front of him, I am often unable to refrain from mocking him.
“Oh, I can go? Ain’t coming back.”
Those who had someplace to go didn’t have to come back. Get your facts straight, zippy.
“Now, why did you take everything away from me and bring me here at gunpoint?”
Since you don’t like what happened, you are free to say anything you want about it without any regard for the truth.
Wait a minute. Isn’t that lying?
Guess not, when there’s an opportunity to damage the United States. If you’re trying to bring down the Constitution, it’s okay to say anything at all.
Of course the authorities could have done a better job of protecting property. And the internees should have been made whole after the war.
There’s no need to mention that the internees could take valuables like jewelry with them.
There’s no need to mention that the internees owned no land, so their losses in that area were limited to structures.
There’s no need to mention that the internees had the opportunity to stash property before they got on the busses.
There’s no need to mention that the internees recognized that their persons were at risk, and that relocation therefore made them safer. (Let’s see, get killed by a hysterical moron, or sit out the war in safety. I guess you would pick the first.)
And there is certainly no excuse for mentioning that there were spies and saboteurs among the internees. I know, I know, it looks so simple today, given the sure and certain efficiency with which customs officials pick out terrorists from among crowds of middle eastern border crashers, but in those first heady months of WWII, when we really thought we might lose, they didn’t have any reliable way of picking out the Japanese spies from among all the other people with ties to Japan.
“Oh, I have to come back? So...it’s a prison with a furlough plan. That’s a prison.”
Already dealt with that. Besides, that would mean that every dwelling occupied by anyone under the supervision of law enforcement would be a prison. That’s just stupid.
“Oh, why am I here again? color/ethnicity/birthplace/faith? the obvious vileness of that reasoning aside”
What is vile is your loathsome misrepresentation of the facts. They were there because of *ties*to*Japan*, and if you think that’s more racist than the internment of people with ties to Nazi Germany, let me ask how many non-Caucasian Nazis were detected within CONUS. It is a historical accident that the extreme racism and xenophobia of the Japanese guaranteed that Japanese spies were ethnically Japanese, just as the racism of the Nazis guaranteed that Nazi spies would be Caucasian. (There might have been a very few mercenary exceptions, but I’ve never heard of a black Nazi.)
They were interned not for color/ethnicity or/birthplace/faith, but for *ties*to*Japan* and their own safety.
And if the place of internment was a “prison,” why did other Americans of Japanese ancestry serve in the armed forces? Why weren’t they also in prison?
“I was convicted in which court for what?”
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. (Emerson.)
You remind me of the dork who wouldn’t let school busses be used to evacuate New Orleans during Katrina. Who cares if people die, as long as the paperwork is right?
In a great national emergency, a decision had to be made. The right decision was made.
“yeah, just rounded up, possessions stolen”
Oh, now somebody’s pants are on fire. They didn’t have to be rounded up, because they were frightened and/or saw the sense in it. And as for “possessions stolen,” well, when somebody lets go with a foul, stinking, slanderous lie like that, there’s just not much you can do these days.
“and stuck in a camp indefinitely - we call those “concentration camps”, even if random people don’t get starved/murdered.”
There’s a story told about Lincoln. “As the conference [with the President] continued, the President expressed his fear that the Proclamation would not amount to much of anything, and the doctor predicted great things from it. Mr. Lincoln said it reminded him of a farmer out in Illinois who asked his little boy a question in figures. “If you call a sheep’s tail a leg, how many legs will you have?” “Five,” said the boy. “No, it won’t, you fool,” said the farmer, “calling a thing so, don’t make it so!”
Call it a “concentration camp” all you like—it don’t make it so.
But I did run across a post of yours that made your agenda obvious.
“_Abandoning_ the Constitution is suicide. You’d replace it with ... what? nothing? police state? democratic socialism? totalitarianism? anarchy?”
Woah, straight up DU-style argumentation. Nobody suggested “abandoning” the Constitution, and you knew it when you said I had.
“The Constitution is how we _survive_ hard & threatening times. It’s the groundwork for preserving order & liberty & individual rights.”
Yes, it is. I guess you must be much smarter and wiser than Abraham Lincoln. You wouldn’t have found it necessary to suspend habeas corpus if you had been president then. What a shame that the country and the world were denied your genius at that grave juncture in history.
“So the US is the moral equivalent of Nazi Germany, is it? Fighting for the US is the same as fighting for Hitler, is it?”
So you’re the literal personification of America? Look, I’m sorry I used the word “Concentration Camp” instead of your preferred euphemism of “Internment” (never mind FDR using both terms interchangeably) because it offends your fragile ego. Had I known it would have provoked the wrath of an intellectually stunted atavistic dullard who cannot entertain a conflicting thought without resorting to aggression, the likes which every Tyrant seems to rely on for secret police and death squads, I wouldn’t have said anything.
Apparently disapproving of the detainment of American citizens without due process, who you quite bizarrely noted as being that of your wife’s ethnicity, is offensive to you. I’m sorry for being indigent against mistreatment of their people, since apparently nobody else can have an opinion about it besides you.
Truly I have irritated a true Patriot, who loves to protect the Constitution so much that he will throw it out the window whenever deemed appropriate. After all, we’re “only following orders”, right?
I shall now retire with my tail between my legs, ashamed of this event.
Oh, man, so close. You almost had it.
All you had to do was close with some more whining about ad hominem attacks, and you’d have gotten full marks.
And of those who said in truth “this is my home, I am guilty of no crime, I am a loyal American, no I am not obeying your orders”?
Someone comes to my home and says under color of law “you have been identified as a Tea Party type and gun owner by your own writings and registration, we unilaterally declare you and others like you a threat to the will of the people and to the preservation of the living Constitution, you have one day to get your affairs in order and report to a FEMA camp” - what am I as a loyal American to do? There are, indeed, those in power and those who support them who are speaking NOW of such actions, in growing numbers and growing severity of purpose. Do I submit, stash my belongings (as you claim could be done, which my friends’ families found otherwise) in long-term storage, leave my home, and sit with my family on a comfy bunk in a barb-wired cage?
Seems you have a reputation for rationalizing & defending the incarceration of people without adjudicated cause. Yes, I see you explain away individual points, missing the forest for the trees. Like the Left, you would talk me to death rather than recognize, much less respect & defend, my individual God-given inalienable rights. Your reasoning relies much on ad-hominem and non-sequitur attacks, just to derail those demanding their rights.
Declare a war, identify the enemy, and then we may discuss “suspension of habeas corpus”. Until then, you’re just laying the groundwork for Leftist-imposed martial law. **** ***.
“Someone comes to my home and says under color of law ‘you have been identified as a Tea Party type and gun owner by your own writings and registration...’”
When the Tea Party gets a navy together and destroys the fleet at Pearl Harbor, that might be an entirely reasonable thing for the US Government to do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.