Oy Vey God Save America from the Schlemel Donnny T .Trump's poll numbers show his ceiling is made of steel, not glass By Bob Beckel, contributor

Trump's poll numbers show his ceiling is made of steel, not glass By Bob Beckel, contributor


Getty Images


After being around politics for 40 years, very little surprises me, except when it comes to polls. Every time I think that political analysts and writers will finally recognize that most of them don’t understand much about political polls, they prove me wrong. They don’t know how to read them, they don’t understand the importance of cross tabs within a given poll and they don’t know how to analyze them.

This wouldn’t be a bad thing if they were just trying to show their political props to friends, but some of these “political pros” go on TV, or write columns interpreting polls for millions of voters who are just now beginning to focus on the presidential race. Most voters assume because these political “pros” are on TV or write for national papers they know politics. Sadly, most don’t have a clue.


A few examples from the past two weeks, "Polls indicate race for White House tightens as Trump closes in on Clinton". And, “Trump’s pivot to a more disciplined candidate has moved him within striking distance of Clinton in swing states polls indicate." As I will illustrate, Trump has not closed on Clinton at all;

An analysis of the data from several reliable polls indicates Trump has not moved up in the polls for the last six weeks, despite showing some signs of discipline; "New Trump team repositions Trump as 'presidential' and the strategy, according to polls, is paying off”. A review of polls from two weeks before Paul Manafort (Trump’s former campaign chairman) resigned last month indicates no positive movement for Trump since his new team was named.

A review of dozens of polls taken from early August thru September 11th in four swing states indicates Trump has gained no ground, rather Clinton has lost ground. Clinton’s post convention bump lasted longer than most, but that can be attributed to Trump’s mistakes in August. Clinton’s current poll standings are what would be expected of any candidate with unfavorable ratings in the mid fifties.

The polls used for this analysis are drawn from the archives of RealClearPolitics.com. The poll dates range from 8/9/16 to 9/12/16 and include Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein.


Pennsylvania: Trump’s average support from 8/9 to 9/8 is 38.5% which is exactly where he was in the first PA poll on 8/9. During the same period, Clinton went from a high of 48% on 8/9 to a low of 44% on 9/8, a loss of 4 points.

North Carolina: Trump’s average support from 8/9 to 9/8 was 40.1%, exactly where he started in the first NC poll on 9/8. During the same month, Clinton went from 43% on 8/9 to 42% on 9/8, a loss of 1 point.

Ohio: Trump’s average support from 8/9 to 9/11 was 39.5% exactly where he stands on 9/11, but that is down 3 points from where he started in the first Ohio poll on 8/9, 42%. During the same month, Clinton went from 44% on 8/9 to 46% on 9/11 a gain of 2 points.

Florida: Trump’s average support from 8/11 to 9/12 was 42%. The latest Florida poll had Trump at 44%, a slight gain of 2 points. During the same month, Clinton went from 45% on 8/11 to 42% on 9/12, a loss of 3 points.

Trump has gained no new support in these crucial swing states in the past 4 weeks. In 3 of the 4 swing states, Trump gained nothing. Only in Florida did Trump show any marginal gains. What these polls indicate is that Trump has a ceiling of voter support that he has not been able to crack.

Moreover, polling data among key demographic groups show Trump making NO progress among African Americans, Hispanics, or white suburban women (single or married). McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012 both got trounced by blacks and Hispanics. By all indications, Trump will do much worse among minorities than either McCain or Romney.

For Trump to have any chance of winning, he will need 65% or more of the white vote. Both McCain and Romney won white women by approximately 15% over President Obama, most of whom were suburban voters.

Drawing from extensive data from the Washington Post’s massive survey of over 79,000 voters coupled with Senate and U.S. House polls of suburbs in swing states, Hillary Clinton is currently carrying white suburban women by 15 points over Trump. Which means Trump would need a swing of 30% among suburban women to attain the normal support for GOP presidential candidates.

Trump has not closed any ground against Clinton in the last 30 days. Clinton, though, has lost support. Polls indicated that millions of voters would chosen Hillary Clinton over Donald Trumpafter a very successful Democratic Convention. Many since have backed off. What I have learned over hundreds of campaigns is if you have lost voters who have supported you in the past, you can get them back. If you never had them, it is very difficult sell.

The lesson here is that Hillary Clinton’s ceiling is still glass, and she can still crack it. Donald Trump has a ceiling as well and it’s in the low 40s.

The difference is Trump’s ceiling is not glass, but is made of hardened steel.

Bob Beckel is a political analyst for CNN, and a Contributor for The Hill.

---

Financing a Billion Run on the White House and Control of Capital Hill

Inside the exclusive events helping to fund Clinton and the Democratic Party

Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail


The Democratic presidential nominee hits the road after her party’s national convention.

The price of entry to see Hillary Clinton on Sunday evening was $50,000 per person, a sum that got you an al fresco meal of tomato and mozzarella salad, lobster, strawberry shortcake and an intimate conversation with the possible next president of the United States.

“It was the easiest event I’ve ever done,” said Elaine Schuster, a longtime Clinton friend who hosted the soiree at her waterfront home on Cape Cod, Mass. “Everyone wanted to come.”

Not everyone could, of course: Just 28 people joined Clinton for cocktails and dinner in Schuster’s back yard. The Democratic nominee has spent much of August in such exclusive environs, helping her campaign and the party scoop up at least $32 million in three weeks as part of a nonstop press of high-dollar fundraisers.

Clinton has touted her growing support from small contributors, whose donations of $200 or less made up nearly 40 percent of her campaign’s $62 million haul in July.

But the former secretary of state devoted much of this month to seeking big money to finance the Democratic Party, a race for cash that has taken her from Greenwich, Conn., to Nantucket, Mass., to Beverly Hills, Calif. The fundraising drive has served as a reminder of her deep and decades-long connections to some of the country’s wealthiest figures, a jarring contrast with her efforts to cast herself as an ally of those left out of prosperity.

Speaking in Warren, Mich., on Aug. 11, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton outlined her vision for the U.S. economy. (The Washington Post)

“There is too much inequality, too little upward mobility. It is just too hard to get ahead today,” Clinton said during a major economic speech this month in the blue-collar community of Warren, Mich. If elected, she pledged, “I will have your back every single day that I serve.”

That appeal to working-class voters was bookended by two expensive fundraisers. The night before, Clinton had held a $25,000-a-head event in nearby Birmingham, Mich., at the home of a musician whose father was the owner of basketball’s Detroit Pistons. Legendary soul singer Aretha Franklin provided entertainment for the roughly 70 guests, performing “Natural Woman.”

And on the evening of her speech, donors paid $50,000 apiece to socialize with the candidate at the Chicago Club, one of the city’s most exclusive social gathering places. Clinton’s running mate, Sen. Tim Kaine (Va.), did his part by appearing at a fundraiser the same day at a Roman-style trattoria in a boutique Manhattan hotel, where admission started at $50,000 as well.

The Democratic ticket’s relentless fundraising this month — which included 50 private events through Monday, split roughly in half between the running mates — is helping to drive what is expected to be a record monthly haul for the campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

But the intense pursuit of big money spotlights what has long been one of Clinton’s biggest vulnerabilities: her immersion in a wealthy elite circle that has supported her family’s political and philanthropic causes over the past four decades. Those relationships were underscored by newly released emails from her time as secretary of state, which showed how the requests of her longtime friends and donors captured the attention of top Clinton aides.

Republican nominee Donald Trump also has devoted much of August to the fundraising circuit, with about two dozen events scheduled in some of the same exclusive enclaves as Clinton’s. But he does not have the same kind of long-standing connections to wealthy donors as the former first lady — relationships that have paid dividends as she has sought financing for her second White House run.



The billionaire real estate developer has attacked Clinton as beholden to her benefactors, picking up a critique that Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) made during the Democratic primaries.

“Hillary Clinton’s donors own her,” Trump said at a rally in Akron, Ohio, on Monday night. “They own her lock, stock and barrel. They own her, and she will do whatever they tell her to do.”

It’s an argument that resonates with many Sanders fans, who remain uncomfortable with Clinton’s pursuit of big money.


“Fifty thousand dollars is more than a lot of people make in a year,” said Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth Action, an environmental group that was an early Sanders supporter.

“When you’re taking such big-dollar contributions, ordinary Americans have a right to question what people are getting in return,” he added.

Some Sanders supporters are even more pointed in their criticism, noting that the senator’s low-dollar fundraising juggernaut surpassed Clinton for several months.

“It seems to be 180 degrees opposite of what Bernie talked about,” said Burt Cohen, a former New Hampshire state senator and host of a podcast called “Keeping Democracy Alive.” “It’s more of that strategy of leaving the Bernie people in the dust.”

Clinton officials said that those writing big checks are supplying just a fraction of the campaign’s contributions. Of the $62 million Clinton raised for her campaign in July, $44 million was contributed online, they said. Donations of $200 or less totaled more than $24 million, about 38 percent.

Trump also brought in about $24 million in small donations in July, about two-thirds of the $36 million he collected in his campaign committee.

Clinton spokesman Josh Schwerin said in a statement that “grassroots support continues to be the lifeblood of this campaign. Hillary Clinton raised nearly 70 percent of her money online in July, with about half of the donations coming from first time donors and the average donation to the campaign for the month was just $44.”

Still, Clinton spent most of August raising huge sums for the national party, which can accept vastly larger contributions than her campaign, as a result of rules being loosened in 2014.

She pulled in at least $1.5 million from 15 guests who attended a dinner in Omaha hosted by Susan Buffett, the daughter of Warren Buffett, a business magnate and investor, according to details released by the campaign.

A few days later, Clinton scooped up at least $750,000 at the home in Bow Mar, Colo., of Charlie Ergen, co-founder of Dish network and reportedly the richest man in the state.

Last weekend, Clinton collected at least $3.8 million in a swing through the toniest oceanfront communities in Massachusetts, headlining five events held by the likes of investor Lynn Forester de Rothschild, former ambassador to Portugal Elizabeth Bagley and former Universal Studios chief executive Frank Biondi.

Then it was off to Southern California, where the candidate spent Monday and Tuesday feted by boldface names such as former basketball star Earvin “Magic” Johnson at six events Monday and Tuesday. On Wednesday, she is scheduled to headline three fundraisers in California’s Bay Area, culminating with a dinner in Los Altos hosted by Apple chief executive Tim Cook.

Those who have observed Clinton in these settings say that she takes pains to point out the vast economic chasm that separates the attendees from the majority of Americans.

“She says the same thing at every one of these events as I see on TV,” said Wade Randlett, a longtime Democratic bundler who is raising money for Clinton’s campaign. “The only difference is that she starts by saying that the economy is working for all of us in the room, but it’s not working for too many people and her job is to make it work for everybody.”

Clinton was the first presidential contender this cycle to take advantage of recent changes in campaign finance rules that allow candidates to seek massive contributions in conjunction with the national party.

By giving to two joint fundraising committees that Clinton’s campaign set up with the DNC, a single donor can contribute as much as $619,200 this year to support her bid. (Trump now has a similar arrangement with the Republican National Committee that allows donors to give up to $449,400.)

A Washington Post analysis of Federal Election Commission filings found that 65 Clinton allies had given at least $300,000 apiece to her joint fundraising committees by the end of June, together accounting for more than $29 million in contributions.

Among them are Univision chairman Haim Saban and his wife, Cheryl Saban, who together donated $1.4 million. The Sabans also have contributed $10 million to Priorities USA Action, a pro-Clinton super PAC.

A Post investigation last year found that the couple ranked as the top political benefactors of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s campaigns since 1992 and also had donated at least $10 million to the Clintons’ family foundation.

On Monday night, the Sabans opened their Beverly Hills home to their longtime friend, hosting 100 supporters who paid $50,000 each to dine with the candidate.

The next day, Clinton took a brief break from her fundraising schedule to participate in a conference call with small-business owners around the country.

During her remarks, she recalled her upbringing in a family that ran a small drapery business in suburban Chicago, saying, “I want to make sure every family has the chance to tell a similar story. And that’s why my top priority as president will be building an economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top.”

Soon after, she was off — headed to mingle with stars such as Jennifer Aniston, Jamie Foxx and Tobey Maguire at the Hollywood Hills home of pop star Justin Timberlake and his wife, actress Jessica Biel, for yet another fundraiser. This one alone would generate more than $3 million for Clinton and the party.

Democrat Convention division over Zion

Getty

By Mike Lillis - 06/18/16 06:02 AM EDT

Democrats are heading into their convention next month with deep divisions over U.S. policy toward Israel.

The issue created deep rifts at the Democrats' convention four years ago, and that discord is likely to grow more pronounced due to the influence of Bernie Sanders, the insurgent liberal populist who's been much more critical of Israel and its approach to Palestine than Hillary Clinton and most of the party brass.

ADVERTISEMENT

Clinton has secured enough delegates to win the party’s presidential nomination, but Sanders is vowing to take his campaign all the way to the Philadelphia convention in order to maximize his leverage and yank the still-evolving platform to the left.

Sanders supporters have wasted no time advocating their position during the platform drafting process, where they're calling to exclude references to Jerusalem while advancing the notion that Israeli settlements in the West Bank represent "an occupation" –– language adamantly opposed by many Clinton backers, who say it would undermine the peace process.  

"For too long the Democratic Party's been beholden to AIPAC [and] didn't take seriously the humanity of Palestinian brothers and sisters," Cornel West, an educator and activist appointed by Sanders to the drafting committee, said last week, referring to the pro-Israel lobbying group. 

"We're at a turning point now."

The Israel debate highlights a key challenge facing Democratic leaders as they seek to unite the party and move from an often contentious primary to November's general election.

Clinton has been a staunch defender of Israel throughout her career. But many liberals have criticized her position as overly hawkish, leaving party leaders with the delicate task of adopting an Israel plank that represents her views –– and doesn't anger Jewish voters –– without alienating the Sanders supporters who tend to be sympathetic to the Palestinian cause and distrust the former secretary of State on issues of foreign policy.

While both Clinton and Sanders are strong advocates of a two-state solution, their divergent positions when it comes to Israel's actions and strategy have been on stark display throughout the primary. 

Clinton has defended Israel's use of force against Hamas and dismissed criticisms about "disproportionate force" harming civilians as an unfortunate part of that defense. She has accused Palestinian leaders of allowing Hamas to turn Gaza into "a terrorist haven." And, speaking at an annual AIPAC convention in March, she said "America can’t ever be neutral when it comes to Israel’s security or survival."

"Some things aren’t negotiable," she said, "and anyone who doesn’t understand that has no business being our president."   

Sanders, by contrast, has called for a more "even-handed approach" that lends more consideration to Palestinian casualties. He's criticized Israel's military actions in Gaza as "disproportionate" at the expense of civilians. And he skipped the AIPAC convention, instead laying out his Middle East agenda in Salt Lake City, where he decried Israel's "occupation" of the West Bank as an impediment to peace.

"Peace will mean ending what amounts to the occupation of Palestinian territory, establishing mutually agreed upon borders, and pulling back settlements in the West Bank, just as Israel did in Gaza — once considered an unthinkable move on Israel’s part," he said in March. 

It's hardly the first time Democrats have grappled with each other over Israel during election season. At the Charlotte, N.C., convention in 2012, party leaders stirred a hornet's nest when they rewrote the platform, mid-event, to declare Jerusalem to be Israel's capital. The contentious voice vote drew a chorus of boos from critics who both opposed the policy and questioned the veracity of the unverifiable tally.

This year, similar lines are being drawn between the Clinton and Sanders camps. Last week, during the first meeting of the 15-member Platform Drafting Committee, Sanders's surrogates promoted the Vermont senator's calls to include the "occupation" language as part of the official campaign message. West led the way and was joined by James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute and another Sanders appointee.

"If we're concerned about security, it seems to me we're going to have to talk seriously about occupation," West said. "I don't know if you'll allow the use of that word. … Occupation is real, it's concrete."

West was addressing a witness, Robert Wexler, who rejected the language outright.

"I would in fact oppose the use of the word 'occupation' for the very reason that it undermines our common objective,” said Wexler, president of the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace and a Clinton supporter. 

“A two-state outcome will result in an agreement on borders," he added. "Once you have borders, the issue that propels your concern as what you refer to as occupation, will be resolved.” 

Zogby spoke next, asking Wexler whether the "occupation" language should not be adopted "as a way simply of clarifying that to get to two states an occupation has to end?"

Wexler fired back that the focus on settlements ignored other vital elements of a much broader narrative.

"Settlements is one part of this very problematic story," he said. "But so is Jerusalem. And so is refugees. And so is security. And so are borders."

Zogby responded: "So should we leave Jerusalem out of the platform?"

"No," Wexler said.

"I think that that would fit your notion, appropriately, that we should not negotiate or litigate any of the issues in the platform," Zogby replied. "I would agree with that."

Wexler pushed back even before the sentence was done. 

"I would agree that we should not litigate the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in terms of the Democratic platform," he said.

"Except for the issues you want to litigate," Zogby said. It was not a question.

"The point is the Democratic platform is a blueprint for bringing the two sides to a conclusion where our shared objectives are met," Wexler responded.

How they get there from here remains to be seen.