Exclusive: Clinton campaign also hacked in attacks on Democrats - sources

By Mark Hosenball, Joseph Menn and John Walcott

WASHINGTON/SANFRANCISCO (Reuters) - The computer network used by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign was hacked as part of a broad cyber attack on Democratic political organizations, people familiar with the matter told Reuters.

The latest attack, which was disclosed to Reuters on Friday, follows reports of two other hacks on the Democratic National Committee and the party’s fundraising committee for candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives.

The U.S. Department of Justice national security division is investigating whether cyber hacking attacks on Democratic political organizations threatened U.S. security, sources familiar with the matter said on Friday.

The involvement of the Justice Department’s national security division is a sign that the Obama administration has concluded that the hacking was state sponsored, individuals with knowledge of the investigation said.

The Clinton campaign, based in Brooklyn, had no immediate comment and referred Reuters to a comment from earlier this week by campaign senior policy adviser Jake Sullivan criticizing Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and calling the hacking "a national security issue."

The Department of Justice had no comment.

It was not immediately clear what information on the Clinton campaign’s computer system hackers would have been able to access.

Hackers, whom U.S. intelligence officials have concluded were Russian, gained access to the entire network of the fundraising Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, of DCCC, said people familiar with the matter, detailing the extent of the breach to Reuters for the first time.

Access to the full DCCC network would have given the hackers access to everything from emails to strategy memos and opposition research prepared to support Democratic candidates in campaigns for the House.

The hack of the DCCC, which is based in Washington, was reported first by Reuters on Thursday, ahead of Clinton’s speech in Philadelphia accepting the Democratic party’s nomination.

Via: Yahoo

Continue Reading....

Renewed calls for gun control laws spur sales

WASHINGTON — Renewed calls for more restrictive gun laws, following a succession of fatal shootings in the United States, immediately appear to be generating a boost for the gun industry.

Newly released August records show that the FBI posted 1.7 million background checks required of gun purchasers at federally licensed dealers, the highest number recorded in any August since gun checks began in 1998. The numbers follow new monthly highs for June (1.5 million) and July (1.6 million), a period which spans a series of deadly gun attacks — from Charleston to Roanoke — and proposals for additional firearm legislation.

While the FBI does not track actual gun sales, as multiple firearms can be included in a transaction by a single buyer, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System's numbers are an indicator of a market upswing in the face of growing anxiety about access to guns.

"Whenever there is a call for gun control, sales increase,'' said Larry Keane, general counsel for the firearm industry trade association National Shooting Sports Foundation. "Unfortunately, this is a pattern that repeats itself.''

USA TODAY

Gun control measures debated in wake of Roanoke journalist killings

The summer trend is not on par with the panic buying boom that followed the 2012Newtown massacre, which jump-started state and federal campaigns for a host of new firearm measures. During the months that followed the Connecticut attack, which featured new calls for an assault weapons ban and expanded background checks, apprehensive gun buyers emptied the shelves of dealers across the country. Yet, the recent uptick represents a similar buying pattern that dates to the uneasy period before 1994 adoption of the assault weapons ban. (That ban expired in 2004.)

Virginia Del. Patrick Hope, a Democratic member of the state Assembly who proposed an expansion of background checks following last month's shooting deaths of two journalists near Roanoke, said the stockpiling of weapons represented an "over-reaction.''

Via: USA Today

Continue Reading.....

[VIDEO] BEN CARSON: WAR IS ON ‘WHAT’S INSIDE OF WOMEN’

GOP presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson dismissed the Democrat mantra of a “war on women,” saying instead that he thinks the real war should be focused on “what’s inside of women.”

“They tell you that there’s a war on women,” Carson stated at a rally.

“There is no war on women — there may be a war on what’s inside of women, but there is no war on women in this country,” he said, in reference to abortion.

Carson said the Democratic language arguing there is a “war on women” to push the narrative that Republicans are against birth control and women’s health is used to to divide people.

“All of those people who are trying to drive wedges between us, they are the enemy, they are not our friends, and we must learn to recognize them, and not allow them to manipulate us,” Carson added.

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading.....

Democratic Dissidents

Campbell Brown and Kirsten Powers take on the leftist establishment

Democrats are known for many things, but chief among them is the relentless determination to maintain a rigid progressive orthodoxy within their ranks. Bucking that orthodoxy requires character and conviction because those who do can expect a certain level of contempt directed their way from their oh-so-tolerant brethren. Campbell Brown and Kirsten Powers are two women who have demonstrated a willingness to take positions decidedly at odds with the progressive establishment.

Brown’s Democratic roots can be traced back to her father, Louisiana Democratic State Senator and Secretary of State James H. Brown Jr. Although James Brown is Presbyterian, Campbell was raised as a Roman Catholic, which she remained until converting to Judaism following hermarriage to Republican strategist and Fox News analyst, Dan Senor.

Brown worked her way up through the ranks of television reporting, winning an Emmy award for her reporting on Hurricane Katrina while working at NBC. She followed an 11 year career at that network with a stint at CNN. She began in 2008 as an anchor for CNN’s “Election Center,” renamed “Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull” and ultimately “Campbell Brown.” 

During the 2008 election cycle, she engaged in a controversial interview with John McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds, questioning Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin’s executive bona fides. That interview earned her accusations of bias from the McCain campaign, who accused her of going “over the line.” In 2010 CNN released her from her contract due to low ratings.

Brown moved on to writing opinion pieces that indicated such bias was a figment of John McCain’s imagination. In 2012 she penned two pieces for the New York Times. In one, she insisted a “paternalistic” Barack Obama should stop “condescending to women.” In the other she criticizedPlanned Parenthood’s self-destructive strategy of embracing “blind partisanship” that was costing the organization supporters. In 2013 she urged Daily Beast readers to keep the shooting in Newton, CT off the “culture war battlefield. Yet it was a piece for the Wall Street Journal that same year indicating where she was going with her post-TV career: Brown began challenging the left’s cherished nexus between the Democratic Party and the unionized education establishment, taking the New York City teachers unions to task for protecting sexual predators.

Via: Canada Free Press

Continue Reading....

As John Kerry Celebrates Embassy Opening, Cuban Dissidents Are Barred From Attending

The American flag was raised next to the U.S. embassy in Havana for the first time in 54 years Friday, but Cuban dissidents who have influenced U.S.-Cuban relations for decades were barred from the event.

Secretary of State John Kerry justified the exclusion by telling Telemundo the symbolic opening was a “government-to-government moment, with very limited space.”

The State Department conceded the ceremony was not limited to government officials, extending invitations to select private individuals.

Notably, James Williams, president of the prominent anti-embargo lobbying group Engage Cuba, and Zane Kerby, president and CEO of the trade association American Society of Travel Agents, were both invited to the flag-raising ceremony.

“It truly shows the administration’s priorities when there’s space at the flag-raising ceremony for business interests and anti-embargo lobbyists, yet there’s no space for Cuban dissidents. Who in fact are we really supporting with this new policy?” said Ana Quintana, an analyst specializing in Latin America policy at The Heritage Foundation.

Kerry said he would meet with dissidents during a reception at the chief of mission’s residence following the embassy ceremony, after it was demanded he explain how normalized relations will improve human rights standards.

“I look forward to meeting whoever I meet and listening to them and having, you know, whatever views come at me,” Kerry said.

John Suarez, the international secretary at the Cuban Democratic Directorate, said under President Barack Obama’s diplomatic policies with Cuba, human rights have “deteriorated.”

Since Obama announced the U.S.’s plan to normalize relations with Havana in December, Suarez said violence against activists has escalated, nearly 4,000 politically motivated arrests have occurred as a result of dissident demonstrations, and “Cubans continue to be killed for trying to leave the island.”

“The current U.S. policy on Cuba will strengthen and legitimize the dictatorship and is undercutting Cuban democracies,” he said.

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who is the son of Cuban exiles, called the State Department’s decision to exclude dissidents in the ceremony a “slap in the face” and said it marked the event as “little more than a propaganda rally for the Castro regime.”

Kerry highlighted opponents’ concerns during the ceremony, calling for a “genuine democracy” in Cuba that includes free elections, freedom of religion and speech, and human rights improvements.

Republican Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona joined Kerry’s delegation in Havana, splitting from the majority in his party to laud the embassy opening.

“The United States will be able to do much more to protect and serve U.S. citizens in Cuba and encourage a better future for the Cuban people with an American flag flying over our embassy in Havana,” he said in a statement.

Via: Daily Signal

Continue Reading....

Conservative PAC Calls On IRS To Investigate Democratic Attorneys General Association

A conservative super PAC is urging the IRS to investigate the Democratic Attorneys Generals Association for failing to properly disclose its contributions and expenditures.

Because of that, the organization, known as DAGA, should be slapped with a 35 percent tax on all of its expenditures and contributions, State Conservative Reform Action PAC (SCRAP) chairman J. Chris Jankowski wrote in a letter to IRS commissioner John Koskinen and Tamera Ripperda, the director of the exempt organizations division at the tax agency.

Ripperda’s position is the same one held by Lois Lerner, the retired IRS official accused of targeting conservative groups who had applied for tax-exempt status.

DAGA, which is operated out of Colorado, is a political organization set up to help elect Democratic attorney general candidates. Its largest contribution last year came from the Teamsters Union, which donated $380,000.

Jankowski writes that DAGA failed to disclose its expenditures and contributions on Form 8872. Political organizations are required to file that form unless they are already exempted because they’ve filed similar information with state agencies or are registered as a federal political committee with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

Jankowski formed SCRAP last year. The former head of the Republican State Leadership Committee, Jankowski’s group focuses on state-level races and generally supports low tax, small government candidates.

In his letter to Koskinen and Ripperda, Jankowski asserts that DAGA is not exempt at the state level and is not registered with the FEC and that as of July 20, it had not filed Form 8872 reports for the 2014 pre-general election period, the 2014 post-general election period, or the 2014 year-end period.

“Failure to file a required form 8872, or failure to include the information required on the form 8872, is a violation of tax law that is punishable by a tax at the highest corporate rate, currently 35 percent, on the undisclosed contributions and expenditures,” Jankowski writes.

“In light of the foregoing it is imperative that the IRS properly conduct an investigation into the serious and ongoing violations,” he adds. “The IRS should determine and impose appropriate sanctions and penalties for any and all violations, including a tax of 35 percent of the unreported expenditures and contributions.”

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] Why Donald Trump Is Leading The Republican Field

There is a simple reason why Donald Trump is leading the race nationally amongst the numerous Republicans vying for the nomination of their party. Voters are despondent, and angry, and looking for somebody different.

Republicans are mad that the Republican controlled Congress has produced nothing. They recognize that the Republican leadership has been ineffectual. They see Donald Trump fighting and fighting hard.

There is a simple reason why Donald Trump is leading the race nationally amongst the numerous Republicans vying for the nomination of their party. Voters are despondent, and angry, and looking for somebody different.

Republicans are mad that the Republican controlled Congress has produced nothing. They recognize that the Republican leadership has been ineffectual. They see Donald Trump fighting and fighting hard.

Same seems to be true on the Democratic side where Hillary Clinton has been forced to re-launch her campaign two times, because she is such a boring candidate who does not say anything to excite rank and file Democratic voters.

Donald Trump has tossed aside the Queensbury rules of combat for a political version of a bloody MMA battle. This has caused chaos in the Republican field that will hurt Gov. Jeb Bush more than any other candidate. As we get closer to debates, it is clear that Trump will train his fire on Jeb and it is not going to be pretty. Expect Jeb to have to tap out of this political fight when it becomes a Trump versus Bush debate battle.

While Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is pulling huge crowds and showing that Clinton has a glass jaw, Republicans leaders in Washington have done as much as they can to help put Hillary, or another Democrat, into the White House.

Polls indicate that since the Republican sweep to victory in 2014, President Obama’s popularity is rising. That helps Hillary.

During that time, Republican rage at leadership is also rising. A recentPew Research Center study found that “the Republican Party’s image has grown more negative over the first half of this year. Currently, 32% have a favorable impression of the Republican Party, while 60% have an unfavorable view. Favorable views of the GOP have fallen nine percentage points since January.” This is because a Republican controlled Congress has helped President Obama close out his second term with some historic victories.

Via: Human Events

Continue Reading...

[EDITORIAL] Hillary’s practiced deceptions

The ‘inevitable’ Democratic nominee is faithfully Clintonesque

The State Department said two dozen of the emails exchanged on Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private server included classified information — potentially undercutting the former first lady’s claims that she did not handle classified information on the secret account. (Associated Press) 

The idea that telling a lie in Washington is somehow shameful was probably born with the fabricated tale of little George, his hatchet and his father’s favorite cherry tree at Mount Vernon. Lies are to Washington what cars once were to Detroit. In our own time Bonnie and Clod have made deceivers fashionable, demonstrating that speaking in fable is no dishonor.

Hillary, aka Bonnie, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, is trying to see whether she can successfully follow Bubba’s example with her passionate denial that she ever got a subpoena from the congressional committee investigating the magic private email server she used when she was the secretary of State. She isn’t as adept at it as Bubba was, with his aw, shucks, good ol’ boy charm. Few pols are. But the larger question is whether Americans in 2015 will let her get by with this abuse of the facts. The answer will say as much about the nation as it does about her.

She cast herself into the trap. In her first full-fledged TV interview since she announced officially, she assured CNN correspondent Brianna Keilar that she had received no subpoena directing her to produce the electronic messages that she had stored on her personal server at home, rather than on official State Department computers. “I’ve never had a subpoena,” she said. “Everything I did was permitted by law and regulation. Now, I didn’t have to turn over anything. I chose to turn over 55,000 pages because I wanted to go above and beyond what was expected of me because I knew the vast majority of everything that was official already was in the State Department system.”

Those specific words didn’t fool a former prosecutor who hasn’t allowed his current job as a congressman cloud his understanding of the law. The next day Rep. Trey Gowdy, chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, issued a sharply worded rebuttal of Mrs. Clinton’s subpoena denial. “The committee has issued several subpoenas, but I have not sought to make them public,” said Mr. Gowdy. “I would not make this one public now, but after Secretary Clinton falsely claimed the committee did not subpoena her, I have no choice [but] to correct the inaccuracy.”

Via: Washington Times

Continue Reading....

CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATS TARGET TRUMP, CRUZ WITH ‘DIVESTMENT’ BILL

The Associated Press

by ADELLE NAZARIAN10 Jul 2015

A group of California’s top Democratic lawmakers on Thursday introduced a bill targeting 2016 presidential candidates Donald Trump and 

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)

96%

 after Trump made controversial comments about illegal immigrants from Mexico, and Cruz defended him.

The resolution notes, in part:

Resolved, That the Senate condemns in the strongest terms possible the racist rhetoric against immigrant families made by Presidential candidate 

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)

96%

; and be it further

Resolved, That the Senate condemns in the strongest terms possible the racist rhetoric against immigrant families made by Presidential candidate Donald Trump; and be it further

Resolved, That the Senate calls upon the State of California to divest from Donald Trump, The Trump Organization, and any affiliated entities; and be it further

Resolved, That the Senate calls upon private businesses and individuals throughout California to end all business ties with Donald Trump, The Trump Organization, and any affiliated entities; and be it further

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate transmit copies of this resolution to the author for appropriate distribution.

“The state of California will not stand for this type of racist rhetoric and racist behavior. Today we stand and call upon the state of California to dump Trump!” Sen. Isadore Hall III (D-Compton), who co-authored the resolution (SR 39), said outside of the Senate chambers, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading....

CALL FOR AN ‘ASSEMBLY OF THE STATES’ IN MAY 2016

It is time for states to undertake specific steps to re-assert their 10th amendment rights against the usurpations of the federal government.

We are, after all, the United States of America, not the United Federal Government of America.

Here’s my proposal for a starting point:

One state legislature can pass an act for it to host an “Assembly of the States” whose purpose will be to identify and share best practices for the assertion by the states of their 10th amendment rights among the several states.

Topics to be addressed would be practical and timely:

(1) Which federal grants (presumably almost all) make the most sense for a state to reject and what are the best ways to deal with the real world consequences of those rejections?

(2) What specific actions shall be taken to resist unconstitutional Supreme Court decisions?

(3) What specific actions should be taken to resist egregious and unlawful federal regulations and which regulations are most deserving of resistance?

(4) What practical free-market health care policies can be introduced at the state level that will improve the availability and delivery of health care services to residents of each state, given the federal government’s ever increasing tentacles of control in that sector of the economy?

The recommendations of the Assembly of the States are not designed to be binding on any individual state; rather they are a set of suggestions for effective actions each state can undertake to restore its constitutionally granted sovereignty based on thoughtful consideration and actual experience.

The proposed Assembly of the States is not an Article V Convention of the States as recommended by conservative author Mark Levin, but there would be no restriction upon the Assembly discussing proposed constitutional amendments for the consideration of any future Convention of the States.

The concept of an Assembly of the States is not entirely original. Several representatives to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the 40-year-old “nonpartisan membership association for state lawmakers who shared a common belief in limited government, free markets, federalism, and individual liberty,” floated the concept in 2014.

Unlike my proposal, however, the ALEC proposal focused more on setting the stage for an Article V Convention of the States as opposed to a “best practices” 10th amendment gathering.

Like the Article V Convention of the States, however, state legislatures under my proposal do not need any authorization from their state’s governor to either host the Assembly of the States, or send a delegation to the Assembly of the States.

The hosting state legislature would invite state legislatures of the other 49 states to authorize and send a five-member delegation to the Assembly of the States, which I propose be held in May 2016 in the capital city of the host state.

The Assembly of the States would convene irrespective of the number of state legislatures that choose to send a delegation. Should all 50 states choose to send a delegation, a total of 250 delegates would be present. Should just the host state’s delegates attend, a total of only 5 delegates will be present.

There is little concern in my mind, however, that only the host state will send delegates to the proposed Assembly of the States.

Several states may be in the competition to serve as host of the proposed initial Assembly of the States in 2016, including my own state of Tennessee. Texas, Montana, Oklahoma, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Alabama, Arizona, Indiana, Kansas, and Idaho all have state legislatures with the independence of spirit necessary to consider hosting the gathering of state delegations.

I doubt any of the state legislatures from the “dirty dozen” blue states in which President Obama received more than 56.2 percent of the vote in 2012 will send delegations, but I leave open the possibility one of them might surprise me. After all, one of the most popular conservative radio talk show hosts in the country, Howie Carr, is based in Boston, Massachusetts and is heard daily in at least half of those “dirty dozen” states.

Whether the proposed Assembly of the States attracts delegations from a mere handful of solid limited government states, all of the “Great 38 States” in which President Obama received less than 56.2 percent of the vote in 2012, or an even greater number, the mere fact that such a gathering convenes at all will send a shot across the bow of the ever growing usurpations of the new federal royalty.

Even more importantly, it will help the states develop a concrete set of action steps that can be undertaken to re-assert their 10th amendment rights and begin to reverse the course of the Big Government juggernaut.

As to the matter of approval of the recommendations made by the Assembly of the States, I propose that each state’s delegation have one vote.

Each state legislature may determine how it wishes to select its 5 delegates. They may select from among their member legislators, appoint any citizens of their state they determine have the appropriate qualities of character and judgment, or hold a statewide election to choose all or some of the 5 delegates in a manner akin to the selection of the delegates to the statewide Constitution ratification conventions of 1787 to 1791.

Those states that choose to elect delegates can do so in the most economical way by “piggy-backing” those elections to the Presidential primary contests already budgeted for and planned in their states for 2016.

My personal preference for my home state of Tennessee would be to select one member of the delegation from the state’s lower legislature, one from the state’s upper legislature, and elect three members of the delegation statewide, either at-large or by geographic area.

The Assembly of the States is intentionally scheduled for May 2016, immediately prior to the 2016 Republican and Democratic conventions so as to allow the Assembly to invite Presidential candidates of both parties to address it.

By watching which candidates accept an invitation to address the Assembly of the States and paying close attention to what those who show up say in their addresses, we should have a good indication which Presidential contenders are serious about restoring constitutionally limited government to the country, and which are mere pretenders.

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading....

In L.A., Obama addresses Washington’s dysfunction: ‘I did not say I would fix it’

BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. — President Obama wrapped up a day he began with an angry and frustrated reaction to the mass killings in Charleston, S.C., by acknowledging that he has been unable to change the culture of polarization and gridlock in Washington.

But he also challenged Democratic supporters to do their part to make the political changes rather than remain disillusioned about the inability of the nation's capital to respond to gun violence and other problems.

"When I ran in 2008, I in fact did not say I would fix it. I said we could fix it," Obama told an audience of about 250 at a fundraising event here at the stately hillside home of film mogul Tyler Perry. "I didn't say, 'Yes, I can.' I said, 'Yes, we can.'"

The president continued: "If you’re dissatisfied that every few months we have a mass shooting in this country killing innocent people, then I need you to mobilize and organize a constituency that says this is not normal and we are going to change it."

Obama arrived here Thursday afternoon to kick off a four-day California trip during which he will attend four Democratic fundraisers in Los Angeles and San Francisco, speak to the U.S. Conference of Mayors and play golf in Palm Springs.

During his appearance at the fundraiser at Perry's house — which was to raise money for the Democratic National Committee — Obama was aiming to rally his audience ahead of the 2016 presidential election cycle. He cited accomplishment, including improvements in the economy, but the tragedy in Charleston could not be avoided.

In addressing the tragedy, Obama sounded notes of frustration about the state of Washington's dysfunction, and he cited a letter he received from a man in Colorado who had voted for him twice but expressed disillusionment over the continuing gridlock.

Via: Washington Post

Continue Reading.....

Baltimore Cop, Activist Slams O’Malley’s Civil Rights Record

Democratic presidential hopeful Martin O’Malley’s credibility is coming under attack from an unexpected source, a long-time friend and African-American civil rights advocate in the Baltimore Police Department.

Sgt. Louis H. Hopson, who has worked at the Baltimore Police Department for 35 years and is a board member of the Vanguard Justice Society, an influential association of Baltimore African-American police officers, charges that O’Malley didn’t know what to do about race relations when he was the city’s mayor from 1999 to 2007. O’Malley was then elected Maryland governor twice.

Hopson blames many of Baltimore’s current racial problems on O’Malley and says many in the city’s African-American community fear an O’Malley presidency.

Hopson made Baltimore civil rights history in 2004 when O’Malley was mayor and trouble was brewing within the police department. White supervisors were accused of improperly sanctioning African-American police officers.

Hopson became the lead plaintiff in a landmark lawsuit, “Hopson v. The Mayor.” The city awarded $2.5 million in 2009 to more than a dozen African-American police officers and required an independent monitor to oversee the department’s disciplinary practices.

“Here’s his problem,” Hopson told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Martin doesn’t know what to do when it comes to the race issue. And like a lot of people, they will just ignore it and hope it goes away,” he said.

“Martin exposed corruption, but he didn’t do anything about it when he became mayor,” Hopson charges. “That’s where the animosity began with African-American officers and African-Americans in the city. Martin O’Malley is not a finisher. We wouldn’t be in the position we’re in today had Martin done something about this.”

Hopson’s comments could spell trouble for O’Malley, who is positioning himself as the more progressive alternative to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential Democratic race.

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading.....

CAUGHT ON TAPE: Dem Governor Says Lobbying For CAP Was His ‘Dream Job’

Former Democratic Ohio governor and former congressman Ted Strickland revealed that being a high-paid liberal lobbyist was his “dream job.”

“I want to tell you, I had a job last year that was a dream job, paid me more money than I’ve ever made in my life,” Strickland said Sunday during a campaign stop at Vern Riffe Vocational School in Piketon, Ohio.

Strickland, who is running for Senate in 2016, was referring to his work as the president of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, the lobbying arm of John Podesta’s left-wing think tank the Center for American Progress. The group spent $40,000 on lobbying in 2014.

Via: The Daily Caller

Continue Reading...

Hillary's huge lead over the GOP? Maybe it never existed

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton delivers a speech at Texas Southern University in Houston, Thursday, June 4, 2015. (AP Photo/Pat Sullivan)

Through all of Hillary Clinton's recent troubles — emails, foundation, Benghazi — Democrats have taken comfort in their all-but-assured nominee's formidable lead over top Republicans in head-to-head matchups. Now that lead is shrinking, and the Democratic comfort level is falling along with it.

 

But it's possible Clinton's big lead was never as big as Democrats thought. Yes, some of the margins looked enormous:

* A CNN poll in March showed Clinton up by 15 points over Republican Jeb Bush, 13 points over Marco Rubio, 11 points over Rand Paul, and 15 points over Scott Walker.

* An ABC News poll in March showed Clinton up by 15 points over Rubio, 14 points over Walker, and 13 points over Bush.

* A CNN poll in April showed Clinton up by 22 points over Walker, 19 points over Paul, 14 points over Rubio, and 17 points over Bush.

Big margins. But at the same time, at least one other poll — by Public Policy Polling, the Democratic polling firm — showed Clinton with much more modest leads over her GOP rivals. A PPP survey in late February showed Clinton with an eight-point lead over Walker, a seven-point lead over Rubio, a seven-point lead over Paul, and a 10-point lead over Bush.

A PPP poll at the end of March showed Clinton with a four-point lead over Walker, a four-point lead over Paul, a three-point lead over Rubio, and a six-point lead over Bush — at a time the other polls showed Clinton far ahead of those rivals.

"I am definitely skeptical that Clinton was ever really up by 15 points like some of the early polls were showing," says PPP director Tom Jensen. The reason for those big leads, Jensen suggested in an email conversation, might have more to do with the other polls' methods rather than any overwhelming Clinton advantage.

We use tighter controls on who we call for our polls than most national surveys do. Although we don't do an actual likely voter screen this far out, we do pull lists based on people who have voted in at least one of the last three elections. So I think we end up with samples that are a little bit more conservative than if we were calling all adults or even just registered voters with no respect to voting history.

If Jensen and PPP are correct, then the core assumption of much political analysis in the last few months was little more than irrational exuberance. Now that Clinton is returning to earth in other polls as well — PPP has a new poll out in about 10 days — the question will be how Democrats react to the realization that there once-inevitable shoo-in president might not be an inevitable shoo-in after all.

Via: Washington Examiner

Continue Reading.....