Love Trump inspite of his gaffes and impulsive tweets. Underneath it all is a patriots heart of gold.
Now that will be the best looking First Family to grace our White House of all time.
Just another reason to vote for Trump.
Trump should put a photo of his family vs. the clintoons crime clan, like he did with
'hideme cruzy'. What a contrast of Ivanka vs. Chelsea .
A successful business man, Husband, Father and Grandfather, with long, deep roots in this country!
America First
Trump/Wall 2016
Now that will be the best looking First Family to grace our White House of all time.
Just another reason to vote for Trump.
Trump should put a photo of his family vs. the clintoons crime clan, like he did with
'hideme cruzy'. What a contrast of Ivanka vs. Chelsea .
A successful business man, Husband, Father and Grandfather, with long, deep roots in this country!
America First
Trump/Wall 2016
I'm afraid both Mabel and Shirley are dead, but I get your point......however it does call to question your racist and plus size bias claims. Rerun is also gone, God rest his soul.
I haven't made such claims.
Freddy Rerun Stubbs. In one episode Dwayne had quite a nice football betting streak going for Reruns brother in law. It blew up on them though. Maybe Dee Thomas is still available.
Know that episode well. Rollo, Lamont Sanford's friend from Sanford and Son played the brother in law. Can't remember completely but I believe it was Da Raidahs who screwed Dwayne and it was on MNF. Last I heard, Dee left acting and became a veterinarian. I was just a kid but that was one of my all time favorite shows.
.- APRIL 08, 2016 -
DONALD TRUMP’S PATH TO 1,237 IS NOT MISSION IMPOSSIBLE
The New York Times
Until Wisconsin, Donald Trump was considered likely to win a majority of pledged delegates. In truth, his plan to reach 1,237 was already very vulnerable; Ted Cruz had built enough support by March 15 that even adding a modest share of Marco Rubio’s voters was likely to start him on the road to deny Mr. Trump a majority.
But after Mr. Trump’s loss Tuesday, the conventional wisdom has gone too far in the other direction. His path to 1,237 is still clear. It is certainly narrow, but it may require him to do only two challenging things: win two tossup states, Indiana and California. There’s an argument he’s currently favored in both.
Yes, Mr. Trump lost badly in Wisconsin and, perhaps more important, Mr. Cruz fared really well. It could prove to be a turning point in the race for the Republican nomination, the moment when Mr. Trump’s opposition finally coalesced behind a single conservative candidate.
But the word “could” isn’t a cop-out. It really only “could” be a turning point. It won’t be if Mr. Cruz can’t maintain such a large share of the non-Trump vote.
Mr. Cruz’s strength might have depended on a convergence of factors that can’t necessarily be repeated, like the strong support of the state’s G.O.P. establishment; one of the nation’s most engaged electorates; strategic voting to deny Mr. Trump; and a deep pool of religious and well-educated conservatives.
Northeast
All of the factors that made it so easy for Mr. Cruz to consolidate the anti-Trump vote will mostly fade in the Northeast, where the race turns next. Neither polls nor the political establishment will send a clear signal that Mr. Cruz — and only Mr. Cruz — can beat Mr. Trump.
John Kasich has just as good a case. He ran ahead of Mr. Cruz in Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire and in the D.C. suburbs. He also ran ahead of Mr. Cruz around Detroit and in the core of the Chicago metropolitan area.
That didn’t happen in Wisconsin — Mr. Cruz won Dane County, which includes Madison — but even there Mr. Kasich was in striking distance. He won 29 percent of the vote, far better than his 14 percent statewide result.
The polls in the Northeast suggest that Mr. Cruz would be lucky to end with the split of anti-Trump voters (38 percent for him and 29 percent for Mr. Kasich) that he got in Madison. Mr. Kasich has generally run ahead of Mr. Cruz in the Northeast.
Not only will Mr. Cruz struggle to maintain the same level of support among non-Trump voters, but the Northeastern states are also far more favorable to Mr. Trump than Wisconsin. Wisconsin was always poised to be one of his worst states; the same measures suggest that Mr. Trump should approach or exceed 50 percent in some Northeastern states.
The combination of better territory for Mr. Trump and a more divided field could allow Mr. Trump to win in the Northeastern corridor by huge delegate margins, perhaps winning more than 80 percent of them on April 19 (New York) and April 26 (Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island). Mr. Trump could win even more than that if he ends up faring well in deeply Democratic districts with few Republicans and many minorities.
His path is narrow enough that every delegate counts. He might need as much as 90 percent of the delegates from the Northeastern states and West Virginia to keep his delegate target in California manageable. But it’s not very difficult to imagine Mr. Trump doing so well. It’s basically what the polls say he’d get, at least right now.
Indiana
The most important state that no one is talking about is Indiana. The contest there comes one week after the Northeastern primaries, and it’s arguably the most balanced state left in the race. It has a mix of both Mr. Cruz and Mr. Trump’s strengths, somewhat like the two states where they’ve fought two of their closest races so far, North Carolina and Missouri.
Indiana awards its delegates on a winner-take-all basis by congressional district, which could easily allow Mr. Trump or Mr. Cruz to claim most of the state’s 57 delegates with a modest victory.
There isn’t much polling data in Indiana, but Mr. Cruz would be a favorite if he could get the level of support among non-Trump voters that he did in Wisconsin. It would be a closer race than Wisconsin; it’s the type of state where Mr. Trump ought to approach or exceed 40 percent of the vote, not the 35 percent he won in Wisconsin.
The catch, though, is that there’s no guarantee that Mr. Kasich will be that weak again. If anything, after what is expected to be a wave of big wins for Mr. Trump in the Northeastern states and potentially a series of second-place finishes by Mr. Kasich, it might be more difficult for Mr. Cruz.
Provided he dominates in the Northeast as expected, Mr. Trump will have a good chance to win the nomination if he can carry Indiana. Without it, it’s very difficult for him to reach 1,237. He would either have to win nearly all of California’s delegates or win a state where he’s an underdog — most likely Montana — and post a clear win in California. It’s possible, but it’s hard to see how he would be poised to do either of those things if he’s losing in Indiana.
California
If Mr. Trump wins big in the Northeast, carries Indiana and picks up a few proportional delegates in New Mexico, Oregon and Washington (as he is all but assured to do), the race will come down to California on June 7.
It’s too far away to be very confident about whether Mr. Trump would have a realistic chance to win the 70 percent or so of California delegates that he would need to win an outright majority.
But, at least right now, it looks realistic.
Three top-tier pollsters have shown that Mr. Trump could pull it off: the vaunted Field Poll, a Los Angeles Times/U.S.C. poll conducted by the prominent Democratic firm GQR and a poll by the Public Policy Institute of California. The three polls found Mr. Trump ahead by 7, 1 and 11 points among likely Republican voters, with Mr. Trump winning between 36 and 38 percent of the vote.
There’s good reason to believe that Mr. Trump’s weakest poll — The Los Angeles Times/U.S.C. poll that showed him ahead by one point among likely voters — underestimates his strength. It showed Mr. Trump ahead by seven points among all registered Republicans, like the methodologically similar Field Poll. The detailed results offered reason to think that Mr. Trump’s support might more closely resemble that seven-point margin than the reported one-point edge among likely voters.
The poll, which used the state’s voter registration file and therefore had information on the past vote history of respondents, found that Mr. Trump was ahead by five points among voters who participated in either the 2012 or 2014 Republican primaries (neither of which were especially high profile).
It found he was up by eight points among voters who participated in either the 2014 or 2012 general election. It found he was up by two points among people who voted in both the low-turnout 2014 and 2012 primaries. All considered, it is hard to imagine that Mr. Trump would be ahead by only one point in a high-turnout primary — especially given the state’s penchant for early voting.
Mr. Trump would have a very good shot to win 70 percent of the delegates with a seven-point victory, since the state awards its delegates on a winner-take-all basis by congressional district. He would still have at least a chance to earn 70 percent of the delegates with a far smaller margin of victory.
It’s also a state where Mr. Kasich could fare quite well, if he’s still relevant. There are a lot of districts in fairly liberal stretches of coastal California where he could break 25 percent of the vote — which again might help Mr. Trump win with a lower share of the vote.
Obviously a lot could change between now and June, but this is not a crazy scenario. It’s consistent with the current state polling and it’s consistent with how demographically similar states have voted so far this cycle. If Mr. Cruz can’t unify Republican voters, it might just happen.
DONALD TRUMP’S PATH TO 1,237 IS NOT MISSION IMPOSSIBLE
The New York Times
Until Wisconsin, Donald Trump was considered likely to win a majority of pledged delegates. In truth, his plan to reach 1,237 was already very vulnerable; Ted Cruz had built enough support by March 15 that even adding a modest share of Marco Rubio’s voters was likely to start him on the road to deny Mr. Trump a majority.
But after Mr. Trump’s loss Tuesday, the conventional wisdom has gone too far in the other direction. His path to 1,237 is still clear. It is certainly narrow, but it may require him to do only two challenging things: win two tossup states, Indiana and California. There’s an argument he’s currently favored in both.
Yes, Mr. Trump lost badly in Wisconsin and, perhaps more important, Mr. Cruz fared really well. It could prove to be a turning point in the race for the Republican nomination, the moment when Mr. Trump’s opposition finally coalesced behind a single conservative candidate.
But the word “could” isn’t a cop-out. It really only “could” be a turning point. It won’t be if Mr. Cruz can’t maintain such a large share of the non-Trump vote.
Mr. Cruz’s strength might have depended on a convergence of factors that can’t necessarily be repeated, like the strong support of the state’s G.O.P. establishment; one of the nation’s most engaged electorates; strategic voting to deny Mr. Trump; and a deep pool of religious and well-educated conservatives.
Northeast
All of the factors that made it so easy for Mr. Cruz to consolidate the anti-Trump vote will mostly fade in the Northeast, where the race turns next. Neither polls nor the political establishment will send a clear signal that Mr. Cruz — and only Mr. Cruz — can beat Mr. Trump.
John Kasich has just as good a case. He ran ahead of Mr. Cruz in Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire and in the D.C. suburbs. He also ran ahead of Mr. Cruz around Detroit and in the core of the Chicago metropolitan area.
That didn’t happen in Wisconsin — Mr. Cruz won Dane County, which includes Madison — but even there Mr. Kasich was in striking distance. He won 29 percent of the vote, far better than his 14 percent statewide result.
The polls in the Northeast suggest that Mr. Cruz would be lucky to end with the split of anti-Trump voters (38 percent for him and 29 percent for Mr. Kasich) that he got in Madison. Mr. Kasich has generally run ahead of Mr. Cruz in the Northeast.
Not only will Mr. Cruz struggle to maintain the same level of support among non-Trump voters, but the Northeastern states are also far more favorable to Mr. Trump than Wisconsin. Wisconsin was always poised to be one of his worst states; the same measures suggest that Mr. Trump should approach or exceed 50 percent in some Northeastern states.
The combination of better territory for Mr. Trump and a more divided field could allow Mr. Trump to win in the Northeastern corridor by huge delegate margins, perhaps winning more than 80 percent of them on April 19 (New York) and April 26 (Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island). Mr. Trump could win even more than that if he ends up faring well in deeply Democratic districts with few Republicans and many minorities.
His path is narrow enough that every delegate counts. He might need as much as 90 percent of the delegates from the Northeastern states and West Virginia to keep his delegate target in California manageable. But it’s not very difficult to imagine Mr. Trump doing so well. It’s basically what the polls say he’d get, at least right now.
Indiana
The most important state that no one is talking about is Indiana. The contest there comes one week after the Northeastern primaries, and it’s arguably the most balanced state left in the race. It has a mix of both Mr. Cruz and Mr. Trump’s strengths, somewhat like the two states where they’ve fought two of their closest races so far, North Carolina and Missouri.
Indiana awards its delegates on a winner-take-all basis by congressional district, which could easily allow Mr. Trump or Mr. Cruz to claim most of the state’s 57 delegates with a modest victory.
There isn’t much polling data in Indiana, but Mr. Cruz would be a favorite if he could get the level of support among non-Trump voters that he did in Wisconsin. It would be a closer race than Wisconsin; it’s the type of state where Mr. Trump ought to approach or exceed 40 percent of the vote, not the 35 percent he won in Wisconsin.
The catch, though, is that there’s no guarantee that Mr. Kasich will be that weak again. If anything, after what is expected to be a wave of big wins for Mr. Trump in the Northeastern states and potentially a series of second-place finishes by Mr. Kasich, it might be more difficult for Mr. Cruz.
Provided he dominates in the Northeast as expected, Mr. Trump will have a good chance to win the nomination if he can carry Indiana. Without it, it’s very difficult for him to reach 1,237. He would either have to win nearly all of California’s delegates or win a state where he’s an underdog — most likely Montana — and post a clear win in California. It’s possible, but it’s hard to see how he would be poised to do either of those things if he’s losing in Indiana.
California
If Mr. Trump wins big in the Northeast, carries Indiana and picks up a few proportional delegates in New Mexico, Oregon and Washington (as he is all but assured to do), the race will come down to California on June 7.
It’s too far away to be very confident about whether Mr. Trump would have a realistic chance to win the 70 percent or so of California delegates that he would need to win an outright majority.
But, at least right now, it looks realistic.
Three top-tier pollsters have shown that Mr. Trump could pull it off: the vaunted Field Poll, a Los Angeles Times/U.S.C. poll conducted by the prominent Democratic firm GQR and a poll by the Public Policy Institute of California. The three polls found Mr. Trump ahead by 7, 1 and 11 points among likely Republican voters, with Mr. Trump winning between 36 and 38 percent of the vote.
There’s good reason to believe that Mr. Trump’s weakest poll — The Los Angeles Times/U.S.C. poll that showed him ahead by one point among likely voters — underestimates his strength. It showed Mr. Trump ahead by seven points among all registered Republicans, like the methodologically similar Field Poll. The detailed results offered reason to think that Mr. Trump’s support might more closely resemble that seven-point margin than the reported one-point edge among likely voters.
The poll, which used the state’s voter registration file and therefore had information on the past vote history of respondents, found that Mr. Trump was ahead by five points among voters who participated in either the 2012 or 2014 Republican primaries (neither of which were especially high profile).
It found he was up by eight points among voters who participated in either the 2014 or 2012 general election. It found he was up by two points among people who voted in both the low-turnout 2014 and 2012 primaries. All considered, it is hard to imagine that Mr. Trump would be ahead by only one point in a high-turnout primary — especially given the state’s penchant for early voting.
Mr. Trump would have a very good shot to win 70 percent of the delegates with a seven-point victory, since the state awards its delegates on a winner-take-all basis by congressional district. He would still have at least a chance to earn 70 percent of the delegates with a far smaller margin of victory.
It’s also a state where Mr. Kasich could fare quite well, if he’s still relevant. There are a lot of districts in fairly liberal stretches of coastal California where he could break 25 percent of the vote — which again might help Mr. Trump win with a lower share of the vote.
Obviously a lot could change between now and June, but this is not a crazy scenario. It’s consistent with the current state polling and it’s consistent with how demographically similar states have voted so far this cycle. If Mr. Cruz can’t unify Republican voters, it might just happen.
Newsmax/Fabrizio Lee Poll: Trump Has 'Commanding Lead' Over Hillary on National Security
By David A. Patten | Wednesday, 23 Mar 2016 05:07 PM
To the extent terror incidents like the horrific bombings in Brussels keep voters focused on national security, it could give Donald Trump a decided advantage over Hillary Clinton in a projected November match-up.
That conclusion comes from a Newsmax/Fabrizio, Lee & Associates online survey of 1,500 voters.
Overall, the survey showed Clinton leading Trump by a razor-thin margin of 45 to 44 percent in a poll with a 2.5 percent margin of error.
But when voters were asked which candidate would be better suited to keep America safe, they gave Trump a commanding advantage despite Clinton's presumed expertise on the international scene after four years as secretary of state.
By a 37 to 27 percent margin, voters said Trump is better suited than Clinton to keep the United States safe from terrorists. Trump also won – 40 to 32 percent – on the question of which candidate would do the best job "of standing up to" China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea.
Pollster Tony Fabrizio, a veteran of four presidential campaigns and co-founder and partner of the firm that conducted the survey, told Newsmax: "The Clinton people should be quite alarmed that after four years as the secretary of state, Clinton trails Trump on standing up to our enemies and protecting America from terrorism."
Trump's advantage on national security is even more pronounced among voters who designate "terrorism and homeland security" as their No. 1 issue. These voters see Trump as more capable than Clinton by a huge 51 percent to 19 percent margin.
Trump also enjoys an advantage on an issue often seen as strongly linked to national security: Combatting illegal immigration and getting control of the porous southern border.
"Mr. Trump's strong rhetoric on combatting illegal immigration has also paid dividends," Fabrizio stated in a memo that accompanied the poll results. Fabrizio is a nationally recognized opinion expert, pollster, and strategist.
When voters were asked to choose which candidate would be better able to solve the illegal immigration problem, Trump led Clinton by a 41 to 26 percent.
But a closer look at the survey suggests Trump's advantage on the issue is even greater.
Among voters who cite U.S. immigration policy as a reason why they believe the country is on the wrong track, Trump is seen as more capable to address the issue by a staggering 79 to 5 percent margin. So to the extent the campaign focuses on national security, immigration, and the war on terror, Trump has the advantage.
Clinton has a clear advantage on personal characteristics, however. She enjoys a 19 point margin when voters are asked to identify which one has more relevant experience. She has a 16 percent edge when voters are asked to choose which candidate has the right presidential temperament. And on which candidate would be better positioned to heal the country's racial divisions, voters pick Clinton by a 37-percent to 18-percent margin.
The survey asked voters for their preferences in a hypothetical November match-up between the two candidates. GOP Sen. Ted Cruz's success Tuesday in winning Utah by over 50 percent of the vote, and Democratic challenger Bernie Sanders' victories in Idaho and Utah, suggest both Trump and Clinton could face extended primary-season challenges.
But if terror attacks remain in the headlines, Trump would appear likely to benefit.
As Fabrizio told Newsmax: "The notion that a 'foreign policy/ national security' election would benefit Clinton, given her chops, clearly is not evident in these results."
.
By David A. Patten | Wednesday, 23 Mar 2016 05:07 PM
To the extent terror incidents like the horrific bombings in Brussels keep voters focused on national security, it could give Donald Trump a decided advantage over Hillary Clinton in a projected November match-up.
That conclusion comes from a Newsmax/Fabrizio, Lee & Associates online survey of 1,500 voters.
Overall, the survey showed Clinton leading Trump by a razor-thin margin of 45 to 44 percent in a poll with a 2.5 percent margin of error.
But when voters were asked which candidate would be better suited to keep America safe, they gave Trump a commanding advantage despite Clinton's presumed expertise on the international scene after four years as secretary of state.
By a 37 to 27 percent margin, voters said Trump is better suited than Clinton to keep the United States safe from terrorists. Trump also won – 40 to 32 percent – on the question of which candidate would do the best job "of standing up to" China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea.
Pollster Tony Fabrizio, a veteran of four presidential campaigns and co-founder and partner of the firm that conducted the survey, told Newsmax: "The Clinton people should be quite alarmed that after four years as the secretary of state, Clinton trails Trump on standing up to our enemies and protecting America from terrorism."
Trump's advantage on national security is even more pronounced among voters who designate "terrorism and homeland security" as their No. 1 issue. These voters see Trump as more capable than Clinton by a huge 51 percent to 19 percent margin.
Trump also enjoys an advantage on an issue often seen as strongly linked to national security: Combatting illegal immigration and getting control of the porous southern border.
"Mr. Trump's strong rhetoric on combatting illegal immigration has also paid dividends," Fabrizio stated in a memo that accompanied the poll results. Fabrizio is a nationally recognized opinion expert, pollster, and strategist.
When voters were asked to choose which candidate would be better able to solve the illegal immigration problem, Trump led Clinton by a 41 to 26 percent.
But a closer look at the survey suggests Trump's advantage on the issue is even greater.
Among voters who cite U.S. immigration policy as a reason why they believe the country is on the wrong track, Trump is seen as more capable to address the issue by a staggering 79 to 5 percent margin. So to the extent the campaign focuses on national security, immigration, and the war on terror, Trump has the advantage.
Clinton has a clear advantage on personal characteristics, however. She enjoys a 19 point margin when voters are asked to identify which one has more relevant experience. She has a 16 percent edge when voters are asked to choose which candidate has the right presidential temperament. And on which candidate would be better positioned to heal the country's racial divisions, voters pick Clinton by a 37-percent to 18-percent margin.
The survey asked voters for their preferences in a hypothetical November match-up between the two candidates. GOP Sen. Ted Cruz's success Tuesday in winning Utah by over 50 percent of the vote, and Democratic challenger Bernie Sanders' victories in Idaho and Utah, suggest both Trump and Clinton could face extended primary-season challenges.
But if terror attacks remain in the headlines, Trump would appear likely to benefit.
As Fabrizio told Newsmax: "The notion that a 'foreign policy/ national security' election would benefit Clinton, given her chops, clearly is not evident in these results."
.
Follow
Donald J. TrumpVerified account@realDonaldTrump
Looks like I was right about NATO. I had no doubt. http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/04/06/senators-slam-nato-free-riders-in-closed-door-meeting-with-secretary-general/ …
Senators Slam NATO ‘Free-Riders’ in Closed-Door Meeting With Secretary General
nald Trump has spent much of his campaign deriding NATO allies for “ripping off” the American taxpayer and failing to contribute to the world’s most powerful military alliance. But on Wednesday, his fellow Republicans joined the chorus during a closed-door meeting with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg on Capitol Hill, according to sources inside the room.
For under an hour, senators grilled Stoltenberg, a former prime minister of Norway, about why only five members of the 28-nation club spend at least 2 percent of their gross domestic product on defense, the official amount NATO recommends each nation set aside. Some expressed particular dissatisfaction with Germany, the fourth largest economy in the world, which does not meet the 2 percent threshold.
“They’re being laggards. I can’t think of a better word for it,” Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, toldForeign Policy after exiting the meeting. “I have expressed this in Munich, I have expressed this in Davos, I have expressed this in every forum where Europeans are listening.”
For years, Corker and other U.S. officials have blasted European allies for taking for granted the disproportionate amount the U.S. contributes to the transatlantic organization. But what once was an esoteric concern confined to the halls of think tanks and embassies is now a red-hot campaign issue. Corker said Trump’s campaign rhetoric speaks to a concern he’s heard from his own Tennessee constituents, which he relayed to Stoltenberg.
“I did mention to him that there’s a populism that is taking place within our country right now, both sides of the aisle,” said Corker. “The American people know that we are a nation spending way beyond our means and when our European counterparts are not honoring their obligations as they should, at some point, there’s going to be a breaking point.”
Last year, the U.S. accounted for more than 72 percent of NATO members’ total defense expenditures, spending about $649.9 billion. The other 27 NATO members combined to spend less than 28 percent, or about $251 billion, of the total.
After exiting the meeting with Stoltenberg, Republican Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, added his dismay that defense spending for “very few” of America’s allies is “where it ought to be.”
“The issue of the other countries paying their full share is not an outlier view at all,” he said.
Still, a number of senators in the room emphasized that their frustrations about burden-sharing within the NATO alliance did not mean they see eye-to-eye with Trump, who has called the alliance “obsolete” and said it may have to dissolve.
“I believe NATO’s an indispensable alliance,” said Sen. Marco Rubio, who suspended his failed presidential campaign last month. “It certainly needs to be modernized but it has a real value to it.”
Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut said that reasonable people can disagree about the contributions of NATO members, but Trump’s open speculation that the alliance may be worth leaving is far outside the mainstream.
“I think it’s important to explain that Trump isn’t the tip of an iceberg,” Murphy told FP. “He is a tiny isolated chunk of ice out in the ocean on this.” The United States has been a member of NATO since it was formed to counter the Soviet Union in 1949.
Regardless, for longtime NATO observers, the unusually high profile of NATO scrutiny is novel for any U.S. election cycle in recent memory.
“NATO has never really gotten attention in presidential campaigns before this year’s with Trump,” said Robbie Gramer, a NATO expert at the Atlantic Council. “The fact that the only attention it has received is through this light underscores how frustrated the U.S. electorate is with its allies. And NATO really hasn’t found an effective way to combat this message.”
