The Pronk Pops Show 602, January 12, 2016, Story 1: A Choice: Trump or Sanders or An Echo: Bush or Clinton — What A Difference A Day Makes — Part 1 of 2 — Videos

Posted on January 12, 2016. Filed under: 2016 Presidential Campaign, 2016 Presidential Candidates, Abortion, Addiction, American History, Benghazi, Bernie Sanders, Blogroll, Breaking News, Bribery, Business, Cartoons, College, Comedy, Communications, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Drugs, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, Energy, European History, Fast and Furious, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Free Trade, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Health, Health Care, Health Care Insurance, High Crimes, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, Homicide, House of Representatives, Illegal Drugs, Illegal Immigration, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Impeachment, Independence, Insurance, Investments, Iraq, Islam, Islamic State, Jeb Bush, Labor Economics, Language, Law, Legal Immigration, Libya, Media, Medicare, Middle East, Movies, Music, National Security Agency, Natural Gas, Natural Gas, News, Nixon, Obama, Oil, Oil, Philosophy, Photos, Pistols, Politics, Polls, President Barack Obama, Progressives, Public Sector Unions, Radio, Rand Paul, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Religion, Republican Candidates For President 2016, Resources, Rifles, Scandals, Security, Senate, Social Science, Social Security, Spying, Success, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, Ted Cruz, Ted Cruz, Terror, Terrorism, Turkey, Unemployment, Unions, United States Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Violence, Wall Street Journal, War, Wealth, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 602: January 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 601: January 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 600: January 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 599: January 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 598: January 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 597: December 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 596: December 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 595: December 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 594: December 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 593: December 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 592: December 14, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 591: December 11, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 590: December 10, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 589: December 9, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 588: December 7, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 587: December 4, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 586: December 3, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 585: December 2, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 584: December 1, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 583: November 30, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 582: November 25, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 581: November 24, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 580: November 23, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 579: November 20, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 578: November 19, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 577: November 18, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 576: November 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 575: November 16, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 574: November 13, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 573: November 12, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 572: November 11, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 571: November 9, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 570: November 6, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 569: November 5, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 568: November 4, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 567: November 3, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 566: November 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 565: October 30, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 564: October 29, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 563: October 28, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 562: October 27, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 561: October 26, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 560: October 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 559: October 22, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 558: October 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 557: October 20, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 556: October 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 555: October 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 554: October 15, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 553: October 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 552: October 13, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 551: October 12, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 550: October 9, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 549: October 8, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 548: October 7, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 547: October 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 546: October 2, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 545: October 1, 2015 

Story 1: A Choice: Trump or Sanders or An Echo: Bush or Clinton — What A Difference A Day Makes — Videos

bernie sanders hillary clintonclinton sandersbernie-sanders-cartoonbill and hillarynightmarestrump sanders bernie_sanders_donald_trumpTrump-vs-Clinton1trump and sandersbushman clinton

hillary-fbiBBerry-Grandma-NRD-6002

assets-and-liabilitiesTwo-for-OneIbill clinton cosbydancing bush clinton

Jeb-Bush26-mt-bushmoreJeb_Bush_2016_Cartoon (1)

Hillary-Clinton-Will-Run-For-President-As-a-Republican-Jeb-Bush-Will-Run-For-President-As-A-Democratgamebush and clinton

Jeff Koterba cartoon for December 29, 2014 "CLINTON BUSH CAMPAIGN."

clinton-snowden bill-and-hillary-clintonobama clinton

Reuters Polling Explorer

 Republican presidential candidates in 2016

2016 Republican Presidential Nomination

Polling Data

Poll Date
Trump
Cruz
Rubio
Carson
Christie
Bush
Paul
Fiorina
Kasich
Huckabee
Graham
Santorum
Pataki
Spread
RCP Average 12/16 – 1/8 34.0 20.0 11.0 9.5 4.3 3.8 2.8 2.0 1.8 1.3 0.5 0.3 0.0 Trump +14.0
IBD/TIPP 1/4 – 1/8 34 18 9 8 4 4 3 2 2 1 0 Trump +16
FOX News 1/4 – 1/7 35 20 13 10 2 4 2 3 2 1 0 Trump +15
CNN/ORC 12/17 – 12/21 39 18 10 10 5 3 4 1 2 2 1 0 0 Trump +21
Quinnipiac 12/16 – 12/20 28 24 12 10 6 4 2 2 1 1 0 1 0 Trump +4

All 2016 Republican Presidential Nomination Polling Data

Poll Date Sample MoE
Clinton
Sanders
O’Malley
Spread
RCP Average 12/17 – 1/8 48.3 35.5 3.8 Clinton +12.8
IBD/TIPP 1/4 – 1/8 378 LV 5.1 43 39 2 Clinton +4
FOX News 1/4 – 1/7 360 RV 5.0 54 39 3 Clinton +15
Rasmussen Reports 12/20 – 12/21 546 LV 4.5 46 30 7 Clinton +16
CNN/ORC 12/17 – 12/21 414 RV 5.0 50 34 3 Clinton +16

All 2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination Polling Data

2016-GOP-delegate-calendar-with-states-as-of-12-8-15

primaries2016_GOP_del.all

2016 Presidential Primary Calendar

February

Monday, February 1:
Iowa caucuses

Tuesday, February 9: 
New Hampshire


Saturday, February 20: 
Nevada Democratic caucuses

South Carolina Republican primary
(2012 Legislation: codify first in the South status — Died in Committee)
(2014 Legislation: Primary funding — Signed into Law — signed 6/6/14)

[NOTE: The South Carolina Republican primary is subject to change depending on the resolution of the North Carolina presidential primary scheduling.]

Washington Republican caucuses
(Date set on September 12, 2015 at state central committee meeting. The caucuses will begin the
delegate selection process, but have no bearing on delegate allocation/binding.)

Tuesday, February 23:
Nevada Republican caucuses 
(Date set by Nevada Republican Party State Central Committee on August 29, 2015.)

Saturday, February 27:
South Carolina Democratic primary
(2012 Legislation: codify first in the South status — Died in Committee)
(2014 Legislation: Primary funding — Signed into Law — signed 6/6/14)

[NOTE: South Carolina Democrats are planning to hold a February 27 presidential primary. It is unclear whether the North Carolina primary situation will impact this scheduling.]

March

Tuesday, March 1:
Alabama
(2015 Legislation: March 1 primary  Became Law — became law 5/28/15 without
gubernatorial signature)
[+7]
Alaska Republican caucuses
Arkansas
(2015 Legislation: separate March presidential primaryconsolidated March primary — both
Died at end of session)
(2015 Special Session Legislation: earlier May primary — Died in Committee; March 1 primary:
      House — House version Died in Senate Committee]/Senate — [Senate version Signed into Law
— signed 5/29/15])
[+84]
Colorado Democratic caucuses1
    (2015 Legislation: March primary — Died in Committee)
(tentatively set on May 4, 2015 based on draft delegate selection plan)
Colorado Republican caucuses1
(2015 Legislation: March primary — Died in Committee)
(date set on September 26, 2015 after State Central Committee vote)
Georgia
(Presidential primary date set by Secretary of State Kemp on September 3, 2015.)
Massachusetts 
(2013 Legislation: consolidated June primary — Died at end of session)
(2015 Legislation: consolidated June primary)
Minnesota caucuses
(Caucuses date set on 2/14/15)
(2015 Legislation: last Tuesday in March primary: House/Senate)
[-28]2
North Dakota Republican caucuses
Oklahoma
(2015 Legislation: move primary to fourth Tuesday in March)
Tennessee
Texas
(2013 Legislation: Saturday primaryFebruary primary — all Died in Committee)
(2015 Legislation: January primary — Died in Committee)
Vermont
(2015 Legislation: Primary same date as New Hampshire primary: Senate/House — Dead for 2015 
      but carries over to 2016 session)
Virginia
Wyoming Republican caucuses
(Date set at Wyoming Republican Party State Central Committee meeting on July 25, 2015.)
Saturday, March 5:
Kansas Democratic caucuses
(tentatively set on May 2, 2015 based on draft delegate selection plan)
Kansas Republican caucuses
    (tentatively set on January 31, 2015 at state convention)
Kentucky Republican caucuses
(2015 action: date set on August 22, 2015 following central committee vote)
[+73]
Louisiana
(2014 legislation: earlier March primary — Signed into Law — signed 6/19/14)
[+14]
Maine Republican caucuses
(Date set at Maine Republican Party State Central Committee meeting on September 19, 2015.)
Nebraska Democratic caucuses
(tentatively set on March 31, 2015 based on draft delegate selection plan)

Sunday, March 6:
Maine Democratic caucuses
(tentatively set on March 31, 2015 based on draft delegate selection plan)
Puerto Rico (Republicans)

Tuesday, March 8:

Hawaii Republican caucuses

Idaho (Republicans only)
(2015 Legislation: second Tuesday in March primary (I) — Died at end of sessionsecond 
      Tuesday in March primary (II) — Signed into Law — signed 4/9/152016 presidential 
      primary funding — Signed into Law — signed 4/10/15)
[-7]
Michigan
    (2014 Legislation: March primary — Died at end of session)
(2015 Legislation: March primary  Signed into Law — signed 2/20/15)
[-14]
Mississippi
(2015 Legislation: March 1 primary: House/Senate — Senate bill died in Conference)

Saturday, March 12:
Guam Republican convention 
Washington, DC Republican convention

Tuesday, March 15:
Florida
(2013 Legislation: March primary — Died in CommitteePrimary on first unpenalized date —
      Signed into Law — 5/21/13)
(2015 Legislation: March 15 primary — House/Senate — House version signed into Law — signed  
      3/19/15)
[-49]3
Illinois
(2013 Legislation: June primary — Died in Committee)
(2015 Legislation: June primary, July primary)
Missouri 
(2013 Legislation: March primary: House/SenateApril primary — all Died in Committee)
(2014 Legislation: March primary: House/Senate — Senate committee substitute Signed into  
      Law signed 6/4/14)
[-42]

    (2013 Legislation: Move primary to Tuesday after South Carolina primary if South Carolina  
      is before March 15 — Signed into Law — signed 8/12/13)
(2015 Legislation: March 8 primaryMarch 15 primary — Signed into Law — signed 9/30/15)
[+70, then -21+49 overall]
Northern Mariana Islands Republican caucuses

[caucuses set September 30, 2015 by the Republican Party of the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands]
Ohio
(2015 Legislation: March 15 primary — Signed into Law — signed 6/10/15)
[-7]

Saturday, March 19:
Virgin Islands Republican convention

Tuesday, March 22:
American Samoa convention
Arizona
(2013 Legislation: Fix primary date to date of Iowa caucuses — Died at end of session)
(2014 Legislation: move the primary to the Tuesday after March 15 — Signed into Law —
      signed 4/16/14)
(2015 Legislation: Fix primary date to date of Iowa caucuses — Died at end of session)
[-28]
Idaho Democratic caucuses
(tentatively set on March 30, 2015 based on draft delegate selection plan)
Utah Democratic caucuses
(tentatively set on April 30, 2015 based on draft delegate selection plan)
Utah Republican caucuses (online voting begins March 15)
(set at State Central Committee meeting — 5/30/15)
(2015 Changes: Utah Republican Party votes to switch to caucuses. — 3/7/15)

Saturday, March 26:
Alaska Democratic caucuses
(tentatively set on March 17, 2015 based on draft delegate selection plan)
Hawaii Democratic caucuses
(tentatively set on April 3, 2015 based on draft delegate selection plan)
Washington Democratic caucuses
(tentatively set on March 16, 2015 based on draft delegate selection plan)

clinton-cashBreitbart_Clinton-Cash-For-Dummies-Infographic_v5

Judge Nap: Hillary Email Probe Finds ‘Treasure Trove’ of Financial Improprieties

Angelina Jordan – What a Diff’rence a Day Makes –

Angelina Jordan – I’ll Be There –

FBI’s Hillary Clinton Investigation Expands To Look Into Possible Corruption – Cavuto

FBI Expands Hillary Clinton Email Probe To Investigate Public Corruption – The Real Story

FBI Expands Investigation of Hillary Clinton Emails For Corruption

The Hard Line | Dick Morris speaks about the FBI expanding its investigation into Hillary Clinton

The Hard Line | Brent Budowsky and David Harsanyi discuss Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders

Malzberg | Christopher Hahn and Kurt Schlichter join Steve to debate the news of the day

Top 10 Reasons Why Bernie Sanders May Actually Become President

Bernie Sanders on Trump’s view of money in politics

Why Won’t Bernie Sanders Take “Socialist” As An Insult?

Hillary Clinton: A Career Criminal

Hillary Clinton Fired From Watergate Committee for Fraud, Ethics Violations

Clinton 2016? Conspiracy Shocker! Must See Documentary!

Bill Clinton Documentary || The Clintons Secret

Angelina Jordan – Unchained Melody

 

Angelina Jordan – At last

FBI’s Clinton probe expands to public corruption track

By Catherine Herridge, Pamela Browne

The FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of private email as secretary of state has expanded to look at whether the possible “intersection” of Clinton Foundation work and State Department business may have violated public corruption laws, three intelligence sources not authorized to speak on the record told Fox News.

This new investigative track is in addition to the focus on classified material found on Clinton’s personal server.

“The agents are investigating the possible intersection of Clinton Foundation donations, the dispensation of State Department contracts and whether regular processes were followed,” one source said.

Clinton, speaking to the Des Moines Register, on Monday pushed back on the details of a second investigative track. According to reporter Jennifer Jacobs, Clinton said Monday she has heard nothing from the FBI.

“No, there’s nothing like that that is happening,” Clinton said, according to a tweet from Jacobs.

Experts including a former senior FBI agent said the bureau does not have to notify the subject of an investigation.

The development follows press reports over the past year about the potential overlap of State Department and Clinton Foundation work, and questions over whether donors benefited from their contacts inside the administration.

The Clinton Foundation is a public charity, known as a 501(c)(3). It had grants and contributions in excess of $144 million in 2013, the most current available data.

Inside the FBI, pressure is growing to pursue the case.

One intelligence source told Fox News that FBI agents would be “screaming” if a prosecution is not pursued because “many previous public corruption cases have been made and successfully prosecuted with much less evidence than what is emerging in this investigation.”

The FBI is particularly on edge in the wake of how the case of former CIA Director David Petraeus was handled.

One of the three sources said some FBI agents felt Petraeus was given a slap on the wrist for sharing highly classified information with his mistress and biographer Paula Broadwell, as well as lying to FBI agents about his actions. Petraeus pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in March 2015 after a two-plus-year federal investigation in which Attorney General Eric Holder initially declined to prosecute.

In the Petraeus case, the exposure of classified information was assessed to be limited.

By contrast, in the Clinton case, the number of classified emails has risen to at least 1,340. A 2015 appeal by the State Department to challenge the “Top Secret” classification of at least two emails failed and, as Fox News first reported, is now considered a settled matter.

It is unclear which of the two lines of inquiry was opened first by the FBI and whether they eventually will be combined and presented before a special grand jury. One intelligence source said the public corruption angle dates back to at least April 2015.  On their official website, the FBI lists “public corruption as the FBI’s top criminal priority.”

Fox News is told that about 100 special agents assigned to the investigations also were asked to sign non-disclosure agreements, with as many as 50 additional agents on “temporary duty assignment,” or TDY. The request to sign a new NDA could reflect that agents are handling the highly classified material in the emails, or serve as a reminder not to leak about the case, or both.

“The pressure on the lead agents is brutal,” a second source said. “Think of it like a military operation, you might need tanks called in along with infantry.”

Separately, a former high-ranking State Department official emphasized to Fox News that Clinton’s deliberate non-use of her government email address may be increasingly “significant.”

“It is virtually automatic when one comes on board at the State Department to be assigned an email address,” the source said.

“It would have taken an affirmative act not to have one assigned … and it would also mean it was all planned out before she took office. This certainly raises questions about the so-called legal advice she claimed to have received from inside the State Department that what she was doing was proper.”

On Sunday, when asked about her email practices while secretary of state, Clinton insisted to CBS News’ “Face The Nation,” “there is no there, there.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/11/fbis-clinton-probe-expands-to-public-corruption-track.html

 

Do Voters Think A Candidate Should Quit If Indicted?

A former federal prosecutor recently made headlines with his prediction that Hillary Clinton will be indicted soon for trafficking in classified information on a private e-mail server while working as secretary of State. But should a criminal indictment put Clinton’s bid for the Democratic presidential nomination on hold? Just over half of Democrats say no.

Forty-six percent (46%) of all Likely U.S. Voters think a political candidate who is charged with a felony while running for office should immediately stop campaigning. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just as many (47%) feel that candidate should continue running until a court determines their guilt or innocence.

It is important to note that Rasmussen Reports did not include the name of any candidate or include any details in the question that would suggest a specific individual. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Fifty-four percent (54%) of Republicans think a candidate charged with a felony should stop campaigning at once, while 41% disagree. Among Democrats, those findings are reversed: Only 40% say the candidate should quit campaigning, but 53% think they should keep running until a court determines their guilt or innocence. Voters not affiliated with either major party are evenly divided.

Following their third debate in mid-December, the race between Clinton and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders for the Democratic presidential nomination is closer than ever, but she is the heavy favorite among voters who are already certain of their vote in 2016.  Sanders continues to hold a slight edge over Clinton among Democrats under 40, but Clinton leads by double digits among older voters.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it’s in the news, it’s in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on January 6-7, 2016 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of voters think it’s likely Clinton broke the law by sending and receiving e-mails containing classified information through a private e-mail server while serving as secretary of State, with 42% who say it’s Very Likely.

While women consistently have been more supportive of Clinton’s candidacy than men, female voters also believe more strongly that a candidate who is charged with a felony should immediately stop campaigning.

Blacks feel more strongly than whites and other minority voters that an indicted candidate should keep running until a court determines his or her innocence.

Among voters who Strongly Approve of President Obama’s job performance, 53% say a candidate who is indicted should keep running until the courts decide. A similar number (54%) of those who Strongly Disapprove of the job the president is doing say that candidate should immediately stop campaigning.

A year ago, with the president’s immigration amnesty plan and national health care law subject to legal challenges, 43% of Democrats said the president should have the right to ignore the courts, and only 35% disagreed.  Among all voters, 60% said Obama should not have the right to ignore the courts.

Just 31% of voters trust Clinton.

Voters by a two-to-one margin believe Clinton has not been honest in her disclosures and testimony related to the attack in Benghazi, Libya in September 2012 that led to the murder of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.

In recent months, however, much of the public controversy surrounding the Benghazi investigation has focused on the discovery of Clinton’s use of a private, non-government email server while she was secretary of State. Fifty-two percent (52%) of voters believe Clinton’s use of the private server provider for issues at the highest levels of the U.S. government raises serious national security concerns, and 45% think she deliberately used the private email account to hide things from government oversight.

Still, our most recent monthly Hillary Meter finds that 87% of Democrats think Clinton is likely to be their party’s presidential nominee in 2016, with 56% who say it is Very Likely.

Additional information from this survey and a full demographic breakdown are available to Platinum Members only.

Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) or follow us on Twitter or Facebook. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2016/do_voters_think_a_candidate_should_quit_if_indicted

Trump vs. Sanders

Stranger things have happened. Or have they?

By JAMES TARANTO

“The allegation was passed on to reporters for The Los Angeles Times and The New York Times in the waning days of the 1992 Presidential campaign,” the New York Times reported in February 1999. “Regarding it as the kind of toxic waste traditionally dumped just before Election Day, both newspapers passed on the story—that a nursing-home executive had been sexually assaulted in 1978 by Bill Clinton, then the Attorney General of Arkansas.”

So they learned of a toxic spill and tried to cover it up. Isn’t that just typical corporate behavior.

Almost a quarter-century later, the erstwhile nursing-home executive is back. “I was 35 years old when Bill Clinton, Ark. Attorney General raped me and Hillary tried to silence me,” Juanita Broaddrick tweeted yesterday. “I am now 73….it never goes away.” (Bill Clinton was first elected governor later in 1978.)

The reporters on that Times story, Felicity Barringer and David Firestone, observed that it had become harder for the so-called mainstream media to suppress inconvenient stories:

The shadowy, subterranean path the allegation traveled also illustrates the mechanics of the national media after a year of White House sexual scandal.

Never homogenous, the national press is divided in ever-smaller slivers, with smaller outlets on the Internet and cable television sometimes overwhelming the slower and more sober judgments of mainstream news organizations.

Now some news outlets report on the investigations of other news organizations even before they are published.

That trend has certainly continued. Broaddrick made news by resurfacing on social media, which barely existed in 1999. The New York Times, “sober” as ever, has yet to cover the story; the most recent mention of her in its online archives is a June 2006 quote from Ann Coulter. The Washington Post quotes Broaddrick’s tweet in a story today, but it leads with the familiar Clintons-as-victims framing:

The ghosts of the 1990s have returned to confront Hillary Clinton, released from the vault by Donald Trump and revved up by a 21st-century version of the scandal machine that almost destroyed her husband’s presidency.

Once again “smaller outlets on the Internet” are taking the lead—including, perhaps surprisingly, the left-liberal young-adult site Vox, whose Dylan Matthews yesterday morning confirmed that the unverified Twitter account is genuine and produced a lengthy and solid piece summarizing and analyzing the case. (Not that Vox gave it much play: When we looked yesterday afternoon, it was well below the fold on the homepage; and it went unmentioned in the site’s daily “Vox Sentences” email newsletter, which went out at 8 p.m.)

Supporters of Mrs. Clinton have argued that she shouldn’t be judged by her husband’s behavior. They frequently employ words like “affairs,” “infidelity,” “peccadilloes” and “philandering.” Would any candidate other than Mrs. Clinton get that sort of pass for a spouse accused of a violent crime?

Further, some of the details of the Broaddrick saga implicate Mrs. Clinton as well as her husband. Matthews:

In his memoir The Clinton Wars, White House aide Sidney Blumenthal notes that when [sexual-harassment plaintiff] Paula Jones’s lawyers first approached Broaddrick, she refused to cooperate, and upon being subpoenaed signed an affidavit saying, “I do not have any information to offer regarding a nonconsensual or unwelcome sexual advance by Mr. Clinton.” Only after that did she file another affidavit insisting the assault did occur, at which point, Blumenthal argues, she “had no standing as a reliable witness.” That’s one interpretation. But it often takes a while for rape accusers to come forward, so Broaddrick’s initial unwillingness to relay the allegation is hardly airtight proof she’s lying.

Even more telling, if you think like a Clinton as you read the affidavit quote, you’ll see that the key phrase is “to offer.” It was a refusal to come forward, not a denial that anything happened. Blumenthal, as we’ve learned in recent months, has remained a confidante of Mrs. Clinton and was her de facto adviser on the Libyan debacle when she was secretary of state.

Then there’s this:

In 1999, Broaddrick told the Drudge Report that mere weeks after the alleged assault, Hillary Clinton had tried to thank her for her silence on the matter at a political rally:

“[Hillary] came directly to me as soon as she hit the door. I had been there only a few minutes, I only wanted to make an appearance and leave. She caught me and took my hand and said ‘I am so happy to meet you. I want you to know that we appreciate everything you do for Bill.’ I started to turn away and she held onto my hand and reiterated her phrase—looking less friendly and repeated her statement—‘Everything you do for Bill.’ I said nothing. She wasn’t letting me get away until she made her point. She talked low, the smile faded on the second thank you. I just released her hand from mine and left the gathering.”

Perhaps there’s an innocent explanation for such an encounter—or, more plausibly, a somewhat-less-guilty one. “Some Clinton allies have implied that Clinton may have had consensual sex with Broaddrick,” Matthews reports. Broaddrick’s account of the exchange is consistent with the hypothesis that that is what Mrs. Clinton believed.

And of course there is the hypocrisy problem, which we noted last week and which Kathleen Willey—who in 1998 accused Mr. Clinton of sexually assaulting her in the White House five years earlier—sums up nicely in an interview with Alana Goodman of the Washington Free Beacon:

[Willey] was furious to see Hillary Clinton make support for sexual abuse victims a key part of her campaign platform.

“She made that ridiculous commercial about ‘you deserve to be heard,’” said Willey. “I almost fell off the sofa when I saw that.”

[Mrs.] Clinton released an ad in September in which she told sexual assault victims, “Don’t let anyone silence your voice. You have a right to be heard, and you have a right to be believed. We’re with you.”

It’s reminiscent of 2004, when John Kerry ran as a “war hero,” the media ate it up—and the plan was undone by fellow Vietnam veterans who never forgave him for the slanders that launched his political career decades earlier. Those slanders had long been part of the public record, as have the accusations from Broaddrick, Willey and other women.

With one crucial difference: The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth didn’t appear until spring of the election year, when Kerry had long since clinched his party’s nomination. This time, with the Iowa caucuses 3½ weeks in the future, voters still could choose somebody else.

That means it’s time to entertain the possibility of a Trump vs. Sanders match-up in November.

Many Republicans (and some Democrats), horrified by the idea that Donald Trump might win the GOP nomination, have refused to acknowledge him as the front-runner. On Tuesday Vox top Ezra Klein weighed in with a piece titled “Here’s What I Think Donald Trump’s Loss Will Look Like.” It ran more than 800 words, but the nut is simple question-begging:

Trump could just . . . not win. He could lose the Iowa caucuses. He could fall short in New Hampshire. A loss in any early state might lead to a loss in every state. Losing a presidential primary is often like going bankrupt: It happens slowly, then all at once.

New York Times conservative Ross Douthat wasn’t satisfied. He took 1,100-plus words to set forth a more specific Trump-loss scenario.

Obviously it’s possible that events will unfold exactly as Douthat predicts, or in some other way validate Klein’s expectation. But the very fact that they felt compelled to make the case at such length demonstrates that Trump is the front-runner. If we wrote that Jeb Bush just isn’t going to win, nobody would accuse us of begging the question, much less spill thousands of words to press the point.

As for Sanders, he is Mrs. Clinton’s only rival for the Democratic nomination unless you count that guy from “The Wire” who just isn’t going to win. And Sanders has of late shown surprising strength. USA Today reports he raised $33 million in the fourth quarter, just $4 million short of Mrs. Clinton’s haul. Polls show him close or ahead in New Hampshire, and in some cases within 10 points in Iowa. Politicoreports that Nevada, which has “been touted as [Mrs.] Clinton’s firewall . . . is suddenly looking like it’s in play.”

To be sure, Sanders is the decided underdog. Mrs. Clinton managed to lose the nomination eight years ago, but she surely would have won had not massive numbers of black voters abandoned her for Barack Obama and perhaps, even given that, had she been better organized in caucus states (of which she won only Nevada). We mean only to suggest the possibility, not a likelihood, that Democrats will turn away from Mrs. Clinton out of some combination of repulsion and fear.

If that happens, Sanders will have Trump to thank. Observers gave up his campaign for dead after the first debate, in which he seemed to forswear any criticism of her email abuses at the State Department. Just this Sunday, this exchange occurred on CNN:

Dana Bash: Donald Trump says that Bill Clinton’s sexual history is fair game. Do you agree?

Sanders: I think that Donald Trump might want to concern himself with the fact that he’s dead wrong when he says we should not raise the minimum wage, he’s dead wrong when he says that wages in America are too high, he’s dead wrong when he thinks we should give huge tax breaks to billionaires like himself, and he’s dead wrong when he thinks that climate change is a hoax, when the entire—virtually an entire scientific community thinks it’s the great environmental crisis that we face.

Bash: Senator—

Sanders: Maybe Trump should worry about those issues, rather than Bill Clinton’s sex life.

“Sexual history” and “sex life” are two more for the euphemism file. But maybe this is a shrewd approach for Sanders to take. After all, he’s trying to win over supporters of Mrs. Clinton, who are instinctively inclined to defend her. By leaving the attacks to others, he remains an acceptable alternative should they yield to their own misgivings. That means he doesn’t control his destiny, but then neither did the Pittsburgh Steelers as of noon Sunday.

Trump and Sanders could end up benefiting each other in a cycle that is virtuous or vicious depending on your point of view. Both the bombastic tycoon and the truculent socialist worry partisans, who think they’re unelectable. But if, thanks in part to Trump’s kibitzing, Democratic voters start to think Mrs. Clinton is unelectable, they may turn to Sanders. If Republican voters think Democrats are going to nominate somebody unelectable, that may make them less reluctant to support Trump.

In most cases the designation of a candidate as “electable” or “unelectable” is unfalsifiable. Many “electable” candidates—Bob Dole, John Kerry, John McCain, Mitt Romney—were not in fact elected. Thus if an “unelectable” candidate isn’t elected, that doesn’t prove he was unelectable.

But barring a third-party deus ex machina, a Trump vs. Sanders contest would necessarily elect the “unelectable.” It would be as if Barry Goldwater faced George McGovern in the 1968 election. We have no idea what the result would be, except that it would be impossible.

Douthat closes his Trump-won’t-win column by arguing essentially that nothing so strange would ever happen in politics. “Loki does not rule in Asgard,” he writes, referring to a trickster from Norse mythology.

But Washington is not Asgard. Otherwise how does one explain Bill Clinton?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-vs-sanders-1452194667

Millennials Want to See a Trump vs. Sanders Matchup

The under-35 generation would vote for Sanders and Trump in the primaries

Daniel White

Young Americans know who they want to see on the presidential ballot in November: Bernie Sanders andDonald Trump.

A new survey of 18-to-34-year-olds found that if the Democratic primary were held today, 46% of millennials would vote for Sanders, while 35% would back Hillary Clinton—a shift from national polls, which give Clinton a more than 10-point lead over Sanders. In a Republican primary, Trump would win the votes of 26% of millennials, the survey found, followed by Ben Carson at 11%, a better showing than the retired doctor is currently seeing in national polls.

The survey, by USA Today/Rock The Vote, also found that millennials are more likely to be Democrats than Republicans, and more likely to be conservative on economic policy and liberal on social policy. Millennials also support action on climate change—8 in 10 want America to transition to clean energy by 2030—and on gun control, with 82% saying the U.S. should pass a law requiring background checks for all gun purchases.

Most millennials also want to make their voice heard at the polls, with 60% planning to vote in November, which would be an increase from the 51% of young voters who turned out in 2008, according to a comparison of the survey data with historic youth turnout data from Tufts University.

The USA Today/Rock The Vote was conducted by Ispos from Jan. 4 to 7 using online interviews of 1,141 U.S. adults ages 18 to 34 with a credibility interval of plus or minus 3.5%.

http://time.com/4175920/donald-trump-bernie-sanders-millennials-poll/

Millennials (Millennial generation)

Millennials, also known as Generation Y or the Net Generation, are the demographic cohort that directly follows Generation X.

What, exactly, is the Millennial generation?

The term Millennials is usually considered to apply to individuals who reached adulthood around the turn of the 21st century. The precise delineation varies from one source to another, however. Neil Howe and William Strauss, authors of the 1991 book Generations: The History of America’s Future, 1584 to 2069, are often credited with coining the term. Howe and Strauss define the Millennial cohort as consisting of individuals born between 1982 and 2004.

Other proposed dates for Millennials:

  • According to Iconoclast, a consumer research firm, the first Millennials were born in 1978.
  • Newsweek magazine reported that the Millennial generation was born between 1977 and 1994.
  • In separate articles, the New York Times pegged the Millennials at 1976-1990 and 1978-1998.
  • A Time magazine article placed the Millennials at 1980-2000.

Overall, the earliest proposed birthdate for Millennials is 1976 and the latest 2004. Given that a familial generation in developed nations lies somewhere between 25 and 30 years, we might reasonably consider those the start and end points.

There is a great deal of variation from one individual to another within any generational cohort. Nevertheless, the particular environment for any generation affects those individuals in ways that are observable as broad tendencies. This definition of the term discusses those reported tendencies for Millennials in the workplace, Millennials and technology, Millennials and culture.

A snapshot of Millennials, according to their press:

Millennials grew up in an electronics-filled and increasingly online and socially-networked world. They are the generation that has received the most marketing attention. As the most ethnically diverse generation, Millennials tend to be tolerant of difference. Having been raised under the mantra “follow your dreams” and being told they were special, they tend to be confident. While largely a positive trait, the Millennial generation’s confidence has been argued to spill over into the realms of entitlement and narcissism.  They are often seen as slightly more optimistic about the future of America than other generations — despite the fact that they are the first generation since the Silent Generation that is expected to be less economically successful than their parents.

One reported result of Millennial optimism is entering into adulthood with unrealistic expectations, which sometimes leads to disillusionment. Many early Millennials went through post-secondary education only to find themselves employed in unrelated fields or underemployed and job hopping more frequently than previous generations. Their expectations may have resulted from the very encouraging, involved and almost ever-present group of parents that became known as helicopter parents.

Millennial statistics (Source: Pew Research):

  • 50 percent of Millennials consider themselves politically unaffiliated.
  • 29 percent consider themselves religiously unaffiliated.
  • They have the highest average number of Facebook friends, with an average of 250 friends vs. Generations X’s 200.
  • 55 percent have posted a selfie or more to social media sites versus 20 percent of Generation X.
  • 8 percent of Millennials claim to have sexted, whereas 30 percent claim to have received sexts.
  • They send a median of 50 texts a day.
  • As of 2012, only 19 percent of Millennials said that, generally, others can be trusted.
  • There are about 76 million Millennials in the United States (based on research using the years 1978-2000).
  • Millennials are the last generation born in the 20th century.
  • Twenty percent have at least one immigrant parent.

Millennials in the workplace:

Some adaptations have come about from employers accommodating Millennials. The bring-your-own device trend (BYOD), for example, is at least in part a reaction to the Millennials’ near-addiction to mobile devices. Workplace satisfaction matters more to Millennials than monetary compensation and work-life balance is often considered essential. They are less likely than previous generations to put up with an unpleasant work environment and much more likely to use social networking to broadcast their concerns. On the other hand, satisfied Millennials are often employee advocates for the organizations they work for, providing honest, free — and convincing — public relations (PR).

Having grown up being bombarded by advertising, Millennials tend to be skeptical about promotional material of any kind. Whether buying products and services or considering employment, Millennials are more likely to listen to their friends than to be affected by marketing or public relations material. This characteristic makes both conventional marketing and employee recruitment practices often ineffective for Millennials.

 

Millennials and technology

Millennials grew up with computers, the Internet and the graphical user interface (GUI). This familiarity makes them adept at understanding interfaces and visual languages. They tend to adjust readily to new programs, operating systems (OS ) and devices and to perform computer-based tasks more quickly than older generations. Although it’s been proven thatmultitasking is not usually an effective way to work, Millennials may be the employees that are most likely to pull it off.

Millennials are generally comfortable with the idea of a public Internet life. Privacy, in the Millennial eye, is mostly a concern of functional settings limiting who sees their online shares. This comfort with social media means they are good at self-promotion and fostering connections through online media. But this approach often results in an issue when comparing themselves to peers. Millennials are sometimes frustrated by the grass seeming greener on the other side of the fence. That impression may be due to people’s image crafting, which emphasizes their good qualities and exciting parts of their lives.

In schooling, the technology focus increased in programming. Millennials can also very dependent on the Internet for learning how to do things. When their computers or devices don’t work they often need some form of assistance to troubleshoot and correct these issues without the aid of the Internet. In contrast, the technically-inclined members of Generation X may have started when electronics were hobby kits and the best gaming machines were unquestionably self-built computers. That starting point often meant Generation X has a deeper understanding of programming and hardware issues.

Millennials and culture

The Millennials have shown in survey to have the least faith in the institutions of America. Conversely, they also show the highest support of political independents and protestor-formed governments. Although Millennials have less faith in religious institutions, at the same time the numbers have also risen for those who have absolute faith in the existence of a god. Many churches’ messages clash with the Millennial ideal of tolerance for religious, racial, gender, sexual orientation differences. Millennials are also concerned about social justice and will not support institutions that they see as in conflict with social and economic equality.  As such, Millennials are exerting their influence on the world around them, as all prior generations have done.

http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/millennials-millennial-generation

Polling Data

Poll Date
Trump
Cruz
Rubio
Carson
Christie
Bush
Paul
Fiorina
Kasich
Huckabee
Graham
Santorum
Pataki
Spread
RCP Average 12/16 – 1/8 34.0 20.0 11.0 9.5 4.3 3.8 2.8 2.0 1.8 1.3 0.5 0.3 0.0 Trump +14.0
IBD/TIPP 1/4 – 1/8 34 18 9 8 4 4 3 2 2 1 0 Trump +16
FOX News 1/4 – 1/7 35 20 13 10 2 4 2 3 2 1 0 Trump +15
CNN/ORC 12/17 – 12/21 39 18 10 10 5 3 4 1 2 2 1 0 0 Trump +21
Quinnipiac 12/16 – 12/20 28 24 12 10 6 4 2 2 1 1 0 1 0 Trump +4
FOX News 12/16 – 12/17 39 18 11 9 3 3 3 3 2 1 0 1 0 Trump +21
PPP (D) 12/16 – 12/17 34 18 13 6 5 7 2 4 2 4 1 1 0 Trump +16
ABC/WP 12/10 – 12/13 38 15 12 12 4 5 2 1 2 1 1 0 0 Trump +23
Monmouth 12/10 – 12/13 41 14 10 9 2 3 2 2 3 2 1 0 1 Trump +27
NBC/WSJ 12/6 – 12/9 27 22 15 11 3 7 2 5 2 3 Trump +5
CBS/NY Times 12/4 – 12/8 35 16 9 13 3 3 4 1 3 3 0 0 0 Trump +19
USA Today/Suffolk 12/2 – 12/6 27 17 16 10 2 4 2 1 2 1 0 1 0 Trump +10
IBD/TIPP 11/30 – 12/4 27 13 14 15 2 3 2 3 2 2 0 0 Trump +12
CNN/ORC 11/27 – 12/1 36 16 12 14 4 3 1 3 2 2 0 0 0 Trump +20
Quinnipiac 11/23 – 11/30 27 16 17 16 2 5 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 Trump +10
FOX News 11/16 – 11/19 28 14 14 18 3 5 2 3 2 3 0 0 1 Trump +10
ABC/Wash Post 11/16 – 11/19 32 8 11 22 2 6 3 4 3 3 1 1 0 Trump +10
PPP (D) 11/16 – 11/17 26 14 13 19 3 5 2 4 3 4 1 0 1 Trump +7
Bloomberg 11/15 – 11/17 24 9 12 20 4 6 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 Trump +4
FOX News 11/1 – 11/3 26 11 11 23 2 4 4 3 4 4 0 0 0 Trump +3
McClatchy/Marist 10/29 – 11/4 23 8 12 24 2 8 5 3 4 3 0 1 1 Carson +1
Quinnipiac 10/29 – 11/2 24 13 14 23 3 4 2 3 3 1 0 1 0 Trump +1
NBC/WSJ 10/25 – 10/29 23 10 11 29 3 8 2 3 3 3 Carson +6
IBD/TIPP 10/24 – 10/29 28 6 11 23 1 6 2 3 1 1 0 1 0 Trump +5
CBS/NY Times 10/21 – 10/25 22 4 8 26 1 7 4 7 4 4 2 1 0 Carson +4
NBC/WSJ 10/15 – 10/18 25 9 13 22 1 8 2 7 3 3 0 0 0 Trump +3
Monmouth 10/15 – 10/18 28 10 6 18 3 5 4 6 1 4 1 0 0 Trump +10
ABC/Wash Post 10/15 – 10/18 32 6 10 22 3 7 2 5 2 3 1 0 1 Trump +10
CNN/ORC 10/14 – 10/17 27 4 8 22 4 8 5 4 3 5 1 2 0 Trump +5
FOX News 10/10 – 10/12 24 10 9 23 1 8 3 5 1 5 0 0 1 Trump +1
CBS News 10/4 – 10/8 27 9 8 21 3 6 4 6 2 2 0 1 0 Trump +6
PPP (D) 10/1 – 10/4 27 7 13 17 2 10 2 6 4 4 1 2 1 Trump +10
IBD/TIPP 9/26 – 10/1 17 6 11 24 2 8 3 9 4 2 0 0 0 Carson +7
USAT/Suffolk 9/24 – 9/28 23 6 9 13 1 8 2 13 2 2 1 0 0 Trump +10
Pew Research* 9/22 – 9/27 25 6 8 16 1 4 2 8 1 2 1 0 0 Trump +9
NBC/WSJ 9/20 – 9/24 21 5 11 20 3 7 3 11 6 2 0 1 0 Trump +1
FOX News 9/20 – 9/22 26 8 9 18 5 7 2 9 4 3 0 0 1 Trump +8
Bloomberg 9/18 – 9/21 21 5 8 16 4 13 2 11 4 3 0 1 0 Trump +5
Quinnipiac 9/17 – 9/21 25 7 9 17 2 10 1 12 2 2 0 0 1 Trump +8
CNN/ORC 9/17 – 9/19 24 6 11 14 3 9 4 15 2 6 0 1 0 Trump +9
CBS/NY Times 9/9 – 9/13 27 5 6 23 1 6 3 4 3 6 0 1 0 Trump +4
ABC/Wash Post 9/7 – 9/10 33 7 7 20 1 8 5 2 3 3 0 1 0 Trump +13
CNN/ORC 9/4 – 9/8 32 7 3 19 2 9 3 3 2 5 1 1 0 Trump +13
Monmouth 8/31 – 9/2 30 8 5 18 2 8 2 4 2 4 0 0 0 Trump +12
PPP (D) 8/28 – 8/30 29 6 7 15 2 9 1 8 6 5 0 2 0 Trump +14
Quinnipiac 8/20 – 8/25 28 7 7 12 4 7 2 5 5 3 0 1 0 Trump +16
CNN/ORC 8/13 – 8/16 24 5 8 9 3 13 6 5 5 4 0 1 0 Trump +11
FOX News 8/11 – 8/13 25 10 4 12 3 9 3 5 4 6 0 1 1 Trump +13
Rasmussen 8/9 – 8/10 17 7 10 8 4 10 4 9 4 3 1 1 0 Trump +7
FOX News 7/30 – 8/2 26 6 5 7 3 15 5 2 3 6 0 2 0 Trump +11
Monmouth 7/30 – 8/2 26 6 4 5 4 12 4 2 3 6 1 1 0 Trump +14
Bloomberg 7/30 – 8/2 21 4 6 5 4 10 5 1 4 7 1 2 0 Trump +11
CBS News 7/29 – 8/2 24 6 6 6 3 13 4 0 1 8 0 1 1 Trump +11
NBC/WSJ 7/26 – 7/30 19 9 5 10 3 14 6 0 3 6 0 1 0 Trump +4
Quinnipiac 7/23 – 7/28 20 5 6 6 3 10 6 1 5 6 1 1 1 Trump +7
Rasmussen 7/26 – 7/27 26 7 5 5 2 10 3 1 5 7 1 2 1 Trump +12
CNN/ORC 7/22 – 7/25 18 7 6 4 4 15 6 1 4 5 1 2 1 Trump +3
PPP (D) 7/20 – 7/21 19 4 10 10 3 12 4 4 3 8 0 1 0 Trump +2
ABC/Wash Post 7/16 – 7/19 24 4 7 6 3 12 6 0 2 8 0 1 1 Trump +11
FOX News 7/13 – 7/15 18 4 7 6 3 14 8 1 2 4 0 2 0 Trump +3
USAT/Suffolk 7/9 – 7/12 17 6 5 4 3 14 4 1 1 4 0 1 0 Trump +3
Monmouth 7/9 – 7/12 13 9 6 6 2 15 6 1 1 7 0 2 0 Bush +2
CNN/ORC 6/26 – 6/28 12 3 6 7 3 19 7 1 2 8 1 3 0 Bush +7
FOX News 6/21 – 6/23 11 4 8 10 2 15 9 3 2 6 1 3 1 Bush +4
NBC/WSJ 6/14 – 6/18 1 4 14 11 4 22 7 2 1 9 1 0 0 Bush +5
Monmouth 6/11 – 6/14 2 5 9 11 4 9 6 2 1 8 2 3 0 Carson +1
FOX News 5/31 – 6/2 4 8 7 11 5 12 9 2 2 6 2 2 2 Tie
CNN/ORC 5/29 – 5/31 3 8 14 7 4 13 8 1 1 10 1 2 3 Rubio +1
ABC/Wash Post 5/28 – 5/31 4 8 10 8 6 10 11 2 3 9 1 4 1 Tie
Quinnipiac 5/19 – 5/26 5 6 10 10 4 10 7 2 2 10 1 0 0 Tie
FOX News 5/9 – 5/12 4 6 9 13 6 13 7 1 2 10 0 2 0 Tie
PPP (D) 5/7 – 5/10 10 13 12 5 11 9 12 Walker +5
NBC/WSJ 4/26 – 4/30 11 18 7 5 23 11 1 5 Bush +5
FOX News 4/19 – 4/21 5 8 13 6 6 9 10 0 2 9 1 1 1 Rubio +1
Quinnipiac 4/16 – 4/21 9 15 3 7 13 8 1 2 7 2 2 Rubio +2
CNN/ORC 4/16 – 4/19 7 11 4 4 17 11 2 2 9 2 3 0 Bush +5
FOX News 3/29 – 3/31 3 10 8 11 4 12 9 1 1 10 0 2 1 Walker +3
ABC/Wash Post 3/26 – 3/29 12 8 6 7 21 8 1 1 8 1 2 Bush +8
PPP (D) 3/26 – 3/31 16 6 10 4 17 10 6 Walker +3
CNN/ORC 3/13 – 3/15 4 7 9 7 16 12 0 2 10 1 1 Bush +3
McClatchy/Marist 3/1 – 3/4 4 5 9 6 19 7 2 10 1 2 Bush +1
Quinnipiac 2/26 – 3/2 6 5 7 8 16 6 1 8 1 2 Walker +2
PPP (D) 2/20 – 2/22 5 3 18 5 17 4 10 Walker +7
CNN/ORC 2/12 – 2/15 3 6 9 7 12 11 1 2 17 1 2 Huckabee +5
FOX News 1/25 – 1/27 4 5 10 6 15 13 2 13 1 2 Bush +2
CNN/ORC 12/18 – 12/21 4 5 7 13 23 6 3 6 2 Bush +10
ABC/Wash Post 12/11 – 12/14 8 7 8 7 14 10 2 7 3 Bush +4
McClatchy/Marist 12/3 – 12/9 5 3 8 10 16 6 1 3 12 3 Bush +4
CNN/ORC 11/21 – 11/23 7 3 11 9 14 8 3 10 2 Bush +3
Quinnipiac 11/18 – 11/23 5 3 9 11 14 8 2 7 2 Bush +3
Rasmussen 11/20 – 11/21 15 18 13 Walker +2
ABC/Wash Post 10/9 – 10/12 4 8 7 8 13 12 2 12 4 Bush +1
McClatchy/Marist 9/24 – 9/29 4 6 12 15 13 3 Bush +2
McClatchy/Marist 8/4 – 8/4 10 9 13 13 7 3 Tie
FOX News 7/20 – 7/22 9 9 10 12 11 2 3 Tie
CNN/ORC 7/18 – 7/20 8 6 13 8 12 12 3 Christie +1
Quinnipiac 6/24 – 6/30 8 6 10 10 11 2 10 2 Paul +1
CNN/ORC 5/29 – 6/1 9 8 8 12 14 11 4 Paul +2
CNN/ORC 5/2 – 5/4 7 6 9 13 13 10 2 Tie
ABC/Wash Post 4/24 – 4/27 7 6 9 12 15 1 14 Paul +1
FOX News 4/13 – 4/15 7 8 15 14 14 5 Christie +1
McClatchy/Marist 4/7 – 4/10 4 7 12 13 12 0 13 3 Tie
Reason-Rupe 3/26 – 3/30 6 6 10 11 11 15 Huckabee +4
WPA (R) 3/18 – 3/20 9 6 9 11 13 13 3 Tie
CNN/ORC 3/7 – 3/9 8 5 8 9 16 10 3 Paul +5
PPP (D) 3/6 – 3/9 11 6 14 15 14 18 Huckabee +3
McClatchy/Marist 2/4 – 2/9 5 12 13 8 9 1 13 2 Tie
CNN/ORC 1/31 – 2/2 10 10 12 9 14 16 5 Huckabee +2
PPP (D) 1/23 – 1/26 8 8 13 14 11 16 Huckabee +2
ABC/Wash Post 1/20 – 1/23 12 10 14 18 11 Bush +4
Quinnipiac 1/15 – 1/19 9 8 12 11 13 2 Paul +1
NBC/Marist 1/12 – 1/14 5 7 16 8 9 5 Christie +7
FOX News 12/14 – 12/16 12 8 16 12 11 3 Christie +4
PPP (D) 12/12 – 12/15 14 7 19 10 11 13 Christie +5
Quinnipiac 12/3 – 12/9 13 7 17 11 14 2 Christie +3
McClatchy/Marist 12/3 – 12/5 10 7 18 10 12 4 Christie +6
CNN/ORC 11/18 – 11/20 11 10 24 5 15 6 Christie +9
Rasmussen 11/7 – 11/8 12 16 22 12 20 Christie +2
PPP (D) 10/29 – 10/31 15 10 16 14 16 5 Tie
Quinnipiac 9/23 – 9/29 10 12 13 11 17 Paul +4
PPP (D) 9/25 – 9/26 20 10 14 11 17 3 Cruz +3
CNN/ORC 9/6 – 9/8 7 9 17 10 13 5 Christie +4
Rasmussen 8/1 – 8/2 18 21 16 15 Christie +3
PPP (D) 7/19 – 7/21 12 10 13 13 16 4 Paul +3
McClatchy/Marist 7/15 – 7/18 7 12 15 10 9 2 Christie +3
PPP (D) 5/6 – 5/9 7 16 15 15 14 5 Rubio +1
Quinnipiac 3/26 – 4/1 19 14 10 15 Rubio +4
PPP (D) 3/27 – 3/30 21 15 12 17 5 Rubio +4
PPP (D) 1/31 – 2/3 22 13 13 10 11 Rubio +9
PPP (D) 1/3 – 1/6 21 14 14 5 15 Rubio +6
PPP (D) 11/30 – 12/2 18 14 12 7 11 4 Rubio +4

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 599-602

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShow 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShow 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShow 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShow 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShow 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShow 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShow 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShow 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShow 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShow 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShow 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShow 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShow 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShow 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShow 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShow 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShow 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShow 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShow 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShow 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShow 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShow 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShow 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShow 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShow 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShow 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShow 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShow 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShow 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShow 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShow 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShow 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

 

Advertisements

Make a Comment

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

%d bloggers like this: