Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

Politics

For the first time….Red States Outnumber Blue in Gallup Tracking

Published

on

From Pamela Geller

We can thank Obama for this.

And we can elect a true conservative like Cruz because of Obama and Hillary.

Carter beget Reagan
Dinkins beget Giuliani
Obama begets Cruz.

Trump is in complete self destruct mode. Today he is attacking Cruz on the Iowa win, calling for a “do-over.” He is taking sore loser to a new low. It won’t fly. Trump’s biggest problem is his poll negatives are sky high despite his popularity.

“Red States Outnumber Blue for First Time in Gallup Tracking,” Gallup, February 3, 2016:
20 states solidly or leaning Republican, 14 solidly or leaning Democratic
Wyoming most Republican state; Vermont, Hawaii most Democratic

Alabama and Idaho are most conservative states

 

From Gallup

PRINCETON, N.J. — Gallup’s analysis of political party affiliation at the state level in 2015 finds that 20 states are solidly Republican or leaning Republican, compared with 14 solidly Democratic or leaning Democratic states. The remaining 16 are competitive. This is the first time in Gallup’s eight years of tracking partisanship by state that there have been more Republican than Democratic states. It also marks a dramatic shift from 2008, when Democratic strength nationally was its greatest in recent decades.

Political Composition of the 50 U.S. States

Importantly, even though Republicans claim a greater number of states, Democrats continue to hold an edge nationally in partisanship. In 2015 Gallup Daily tracking data, 43% of all U.S. adults identified as Democrats or leaned Democratic, compared with 40% identifying as Republican or leaning Republican. That is largely because many of the most populous states, including California, New York and Illinois, are Democratically aligned.

Party Affiliation of U.S. States

Gallup asks Americans each day as part of its Daily tracking survey whether they identify politically as a Democrat, a Republican or an independent. Independents are then probed as to whether they lean toward the Democratic or Republican Party. Combining the percentage of party identifiers and leaners gives a sense of the relative strength of each party in a given state, particularly because the percentage of political independents varies widely from state to state and can be high in states in which one party dominates electoral outcomes. The estimates are based on Gallup Daily tracking interviewing throughout 2015 and include no fewer than 488 residents in any state, with most state samples greater than 1,000.

Gallup considers states to be solidly favoring one party when they have a greater-than 10-percentage-point advantage over the other in party affiliation among the state’s adult population. “Leaning” states are those in which one party has an advantage of more than five points but less than 10 points. Competitive states show the parties within five points of each other.

In 2008, Democrats enjoyed a better-than 10-point advantage in party affiliation nationwide, as President George W. Bush suffered through low job approval ratings as a result of the recession and the ongoing war in Iraq. That year, Gallup classified a total of 35 states as solidly Democratic or Democratic leaning, compared with only five solidly or leaning Republican states.

In the last several years, excluding 2012 when President Barack Obama won re-election, there has been a roughly equal number of Democratic and Republican states. But that changed last year, when many more states’ political leanings moved in a Republican rather than a Democratic direction, giving Republicans a lead in more states than Democrats.

In all, 13 states’ political classifications changed between 2014 and 2015, with 11 of these shifting in a more Republican direction. The Democrats lost three states — Maine, Pennsylvania and Michigan — each of which moved from Democratic-leaning to competitive. Meanwhile, Republicans gained five states — New Hampshire, West Virginia, Missouri, South Carolina and Texas — all moving from competitive to leaning or solidly Republican. Additionally, Alaska and Oklahoma shifted from leaning Republican to being solidly Republican, and Delaware from being solidly Democratic to leaning Democratic.

Nebraska and New Mexico are the two states that moved in a more Democratic direction, though Nebraska remains in the Republican column, shifting from solidly Republican to leaning Republican. New Mexico moved from a leaning Democratic state to a solid one.

The following map displays the political classification of each state based on 2015 data. The full party results for each state appear at the end of the article.

Party Affiliation by State, 2015

Wyoming Most Republican State; Vermont and Hawaii Most Democratic

The Republican Party had its biggest advantage in state party affiliation in Wyoming in 2015 — 60% of Wyoming adults identified as Republican or leaned Republican, while 28% identified as Democrats or leaned Democratic — a 32-point gap. The GOP advantage was nearly as large in Idaho and Utah, at roughly 30 points each. Vermont and Hawaii were the most Democratic states, with advantages in favor of the Democratic Party in excess of 20 points.

Most Republican and Most Democratic States, 2015

The most Republican and most Democratic states have been fairly consistent over time. Wyoming, Utah, Idaho and Kansas have been among the 10 most Republican states in each of the last eight years, and Montana, Alaska, Alabama, Nebraska and North Dakota have appeared in the top 10 in seven of the eight years. There is even greater consistency among Democratic states — all but two of the 10 most Democratic states in 2015 (New Mexico and Connecticut) have ranked in the top 10 in each of the last eight years, with Connecticut appearing seven times. New Mexico ranked among the top 10 states for the first time in 2015, with Delaware falling out of the top 10.

Ohio, North Carolina, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Florida are the most evenly balanced states politically, with less than one point separating Democratic and Republican Party preferences in those states. These states have been among the most highly contested “swing states” in recent presidential elections.

Alabama, Idaho Most Conservative States

In addition to assessing party leanings, Gallup asks Americans whether they identify politically as liberal, moderate or conservative. Nationally, many more Americans say they are conservative than liberal, and consequently, conservatives outnumber liberals in all but three states — Vermont, Massachusetts and Rhode Island. The full data on ideology by state appear at the end of the article.

Partisanship and ideology are highly correlated. As a result, there is usually much overlap between the most conservative and most Republican states and, alternatively, between the most liberal and most Democratic states. Seven of the 10 most Republican states also rank among the most conservative, although Alabama, the fifth-most Republican state, ties Idaho as the most conservative. Vermont ranks as the most liberal state by a wide margin over second-place Massachusetts.

Most and Least Conservative States, 2015

States that rank among the most conservative but not the most Republican include Arkansas, Mississippi and Louisiana, three Southern states that recently have voted Republican but were strongly Democratic states decades ago. Oregon, New Jersey and Washington rank among the least conservative states, but not among the most Democratic. However, those three states rank just outside the 10 most Democratic.

Implications

Monday’s voting in the Iowa caucuses marked the beginning of voting in the 2016 presidential election campaign. The ultimate winner will be determined according to electoral votes won, based on each state’s popular vote on Election Day this November. Presidential campaign strategists spend a lot of time developing their campaign plan and allocating resources based on which states’ outcomes are uncertain to determine where campaigning can make the biggest difference.

The partisanship of the state population is a starting point in determining a state’s likely vote, and there are more states in the Republican column heading into 2016 — a positive sign for the GOP. But because electoral votes are based on state population, the size of the state matters as much as the number of states each party holds. The 20 states that Gallup classifies as solidly Republican or leaning Republican account for 152 electoral votes, less than the 187 accounted for by the 14 solidly or leaning Democratic states plus the heavily Democratic District of Columbia.

But the election will not be merely a reflection of party preferences among adults in each state. If party preferences led directly to vote outcomes, Democrats would surely have won most presidential elections in the past, given their historical advantage in party preferences nationally.

Turnout is another key factor in determining the outcome, and it will especially be key in the 16 competitive states, which together account for 199 electoral votes. Republicans typically have an advantage in voter turnout in elections, and they will need to at least match Democratic turnout in competitive states in which they have a slight party advantage among all adults, such as Georgia, Virginia and Arizona. And the GOP will likely need to exceed Democratic turnout to win some of the larger, most politically balanced states like Florida, Ohio and North Carolina.

These data are available in Gallup Analytics.

 

Join the conversation

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Politics

Liberal City Just Gave NASTY Gift To Every Sex Offender Just 1 Week Before Kids Coming Knocking For Candy

This is horrific!

Published

on

Halloween is just around the corner, and if you are a parent, you most likely have a young child just chomping at the bit ready to go trick or treating. They have their costume all picked out, and their bucket prepared to be filled to the brim with sweet treats from neighbors and friends, and not a worry in the world. However, leave it to liberals to shatter that sense of security with their latest attack on the innocent and pure, and it could not be at the worst time.

For years, the liberal agenda has been targeting children and their innocence, and they aren’t stopping anytime soon. It should not have to be said, but adults are supposed to be the ones that protect children from the evils of the world, but that is not how the liberal agenda works. These sick and twisted liberals have promoted lifting safeguards in public schools by allowing teachers to instruct them on sex education, minimized parental roles, and sexualized them in popular television shows and magazines. 

Now, there has been a push to normalize pedophilia employing the same methods that progressives used with the LGBT community in the past. These nasty liberals are attempting to equate adults who have sexual relations with other consenting adults on the same level as a pedophile seeking to engage in sexual relations with a child. But, before that can be done they must remove roadblocks that protect these innocent children, and it looks like that is being done in one California city.

Just a week before Halloween, Simi Valley City council voted to repeal a law that would protect children from sex offenders. You see, in the past sex offenders were not allowed to participate in giving out candy, decorating their home, or enticing children on Halloween in any way. In fact, these sick individuals were to have all outdoor lighting turned off from 5 pm to midnight so that children did not come to their doors.

However, these liberal city council members caved to lawsuits citing that this law infringed on sex offenders rights, so they did away with it instead of fighting to protect the innocent. 

Here is more from Blue Lives Matter:

The Simi Valley City Council voted on Monday to repeal a law that was put in place to protect children from sex offenders.

The city council says that their decision was based on their belief that the ordinance wouldn’t stand up against a lawsuit which was filed against the city and police department.

The ordinance specifically targeted registered sex offenders and was meant to keep young children away from them on Halloween.

Under the ordinance, registered sex offenders were prohibited from answering their doors to trick-or-treaters, according to CBS Los Angeles.

The ordinance also prohibited them from decorating the outside of their homes, which could attract children, and they were required to have their outdoor lighting off from 5 PM to midnight on Halloween.

With the ordinance gone, no law prohibits sex offenders from attracting trick-or-treaters to their house.

The law was initially passed in 2012, but the city has since seen two lawsuits defending sex offenders’ right to give candy to children.

Janice Bellucci, the executive director of the Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws, filed the latest lawsuit to stand up for sex offenders.

With no clear path to victory for the city, they saw no choice but to eliminate the law.

The lawsuit against the city will now be dismissed.

Nobody had been cited under the ordinance since it was enacted in 2012.

The city is now adopting a new strategy to protect children from the sex offenders.

Mike Harris with Ventura County Star reports that Mayor Bob Huber said the news plan is “a very proactive way to approach the protection of our children. We’ll be sending the link to the Megan’s Law site for our residents to locate and therefore avoid going to homes of registered sex offenders.”

Huber, who is an attorney, is the one who initially created the now-repealed ordinance but said that the courts had been striking down similar ordinances for years, and that requires them to change their strategy.

Only 97 of the city’s 165 registered sex offenders will be listed. The site excludes offenders of certain sex crimes, such as indecent exposure.

It is unfathomable to hear that anyone in their right mind would argue that sex offenders have any rights after they denied someone theirs by force. These sex offenders may have done their time in prison, but they are in no way rehabilitated and should not be allowed to interact with young children no matter what their crime was.

Children need to be protected, and if the city is not going to step up and make sure that happens, then parents are going to need to be more active in their children’s lives. We live in a time where it is evident that the progressive left has infiltrated many government offices and they are not in the business of protecting family values, and that won’t change until we vote them out.

H/T [Blue Lives Matter]

FOLLOW us on Facebook at Freedom Daily!

Continue Reading

Politics

Special Gun Club Just Started With FULL Support From Libs For SICK Reason – Here’s What They’re Training For

This isn’t good!

Published

on

Over the last eight years, the Obama administration has been fanning the flames of division by creating fear and panic in the LGBT community and other minority groups. So, it was no wonder that when Donald Trump was elected as president that the minority communities would fear the change of power from Democrat to Republican.

Shortly after Trump was sworn in, the mainstream media continued to feed that unsubstantiated fear which eventually turned into paranoia. Now, these minority groups are in an utter state of paranoia and are busy arming themselves, and it only gets worse from there.

The liberal agenda has been hard at work for the better part of the last decade dividing Americans by sex, gender, and race to create chaos. While the majority of this division can be attributed to Barack Obama, the mainstream media is equally culpable for the spread of misinformation.

During the presidential campaign, the mainstream media was busy brainwashing minority groups into believing that when Trump was elected, he would round begin to round up individuals in the LGBT community and ship them to concentration camps and openly discriminate other minorities. While that can not be further from the truth, these individuals believed it and now feel that they are fighting for their survival.

In an ironic embrace of the Second Amendment, these members of the LGBT community have begun to take up arms for an impending war. 

Radicalized members of these minority groups have popped up all over the country, and it doesn’t appear it will end anytime soon. For instance, membership in the Pittsburgh chapter of the Pink Pistols, an LGBTQ-oriented gun group with branches nationwide, grew significantly after last November’s presidential election and then again after a member of Antifa was killed during a counter-protester in Charlottesville this past summer.

While there is no argument with anyone in America arming themselves for protection, it is quite another when it is in the spirit of fear and vengeance.

Here is more from AP concerning the increase in LGBT members looking for violent solutions to their political woes. 

The former pacifist pumped a shotgun at the firing line.

Lore McSpadden never touched a gun before the Trigger Warning Queer & Trans Gun Club started this past year. Now McSpadden is among the shooters routinely yelling, “Pull!” and blasting at clay pigeons angling over a mowed field near Rochester.

Trigger Warning members are anxious about armed and organized extremists who seem increasingly emboldened. Their response has a touch of symmetry to it: They started a club to teach members how to take up arms.

“It’s a way to assert our strength,” said Jake Allen, 27, who helped form the group. “Often, queer people are thought of as being weak, as being defenseless, and I think in many ways this pushes back against that. And I want white supremacists and neo-Nazis to know that queer people are taking steps necessary to protect themselves.”

Trigger Warning members meet once a month to shoot still targets and saucer-shaped pigeons. The 18 dues-paying members are all LGBTQ, many just learning about guns.

“I identified as a pacifist really through most of my life,” said McSpadden, 37, who has attended a self-defense seminar and now owns a 20-gauge shotgun.

On a recent evening, their instructor showed novices how to pull a .22-caliber rifle snugly to their shoulders and how to aim slightly ahead of a moving target. Members cheered when shooters shattered a pigeon or hit a bulls-eye.

The light mood belies the apprehension that led to group’s creation this past winter amid a year marked by politically tinged violence ranging from scuffles at protests to a violent clash of white supremacists and counter-protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Zora Gussow recalls a dismal time earlier this year when she began talking to Allen about taking on “the gaping hole in the knowledge of people on the left” about firearms.

“I grew up afraid of guns,” Gussow said. “The first time I was near a gun in a house, it was of one of my friend’s, and I basically jumped back. And that feels dangerous to me in a society where there are so many guns.”

A dozen shooters in a field in upstate New York does not exactly represent a vanguard of a newly armed left. But the group is not alone. Allen said there is another Trigger Warning chapter in Atlanta and he has received inquiries from people in about 10 other cities.

This unfounded fear in the LGBT community just goes to show you how powerful the mainstream media is in their reach to create as much division as they possibly can in an already fractured country. Of course, if anyone listened to the misinformation spouted by these significant news networks daily, they would believe that Trump and conservatives were out to get them and come to the conclusion that they need to fight back.

If any violence does occur in this country between fellow Americans, the blood is on their hands, and they should be held accountable. 

H/T [DownTrend]

FOLLOW us on Facebook at Freedom Daily!

Continue Reading

Crime

Elizabeth Warren At Center Of SICK New Sex Scandal After Nasty Skeleton Comes Crawling Out Of Her Closet

This is disgusting!

Published

on

The United States Senator from Massachusetts, far left wing  Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren, is now jumping on the bandwagon and joining the growing chorus of women sharing their experiences about sexual harassment in the wake of allegations against the sick pervert, Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein.

The Massachusetts Democrat shared a story from when she was a “baby law professor” during a videotaped interview session with three other female senators that aired Sunday on NBC’s “Meet The Press.”

Senator Warren says in the interview that a senior faculty member had asked her to stop by his office one day. When she did, he slammed the door and “lunged” at her. He then chased her around a desk, trying to get his hands on her. She claims she managed to avert the situation and conveniently only told her best friend about the incident. She later goes on to explain that speaking out is a way to show solidarity and say it isn’t the victim’s fault.

If this story is indeed true and not just a fabrication to get ahead in politics, like when she said she was a Native American in order to get a teaching job, then it’s awful that all these things are happening to these women, even a lying hack like Senator Warren.

Via DownTrend:

I’m not going to say this is a lie, weirder things have happened, but, come on. Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren claims the she was sexually harassed by a colleague when she was a law professor. In fact several democrats have come forward to claim victimhood at the hands of evil men. Democrats turned a blind eye to serial rapist Bill Clinton and sexual predator Harvey Weinstein for decades, but suddenly it’s trendy on the left to be outraged by something they have tolerated and encouraged for so long.

Meet the Press reached out to all 21 female Senators to get their stories about sexual harassment and only got 4 (all democrats), most of whom weren’t harassed at all. Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill told this story when she was seeking advice from a male state lawmaker about getting her bill passed:

“I cautiously approached the very powerful speaker of the Missouri House of Representatives. He looked at me and paused and he said, ‘Well, did you bring your kneepads?’ I do think he was joking, but it was shocking that he would make that joke to a colleague,” said McCaskill.

Okay, even McCaskill thinks that guy was joking so let’s call this first one BS; she wasn’t harassed.

Next, North Dakota Senator Heidi Heitkamp talked about how a male law enforcement official said something to her after she made some sort of an effort to curb domestic violence:

“He put his finger in my face and he said, ‘Listen here, men will always beat their wives and you can’t stop ‘em,’” said Heitkamp.

That might be “mansplaining” but it’s not close at all to sexual harassment. So far these ladies are 0 for 2.

Hawaii Senator Mazie Hirono had the least credible sexual harassment story by claiming men have asked her out on dates:

“I’ve been propositioned by teachers, by my colleagues, and you name it,” Hirono said.

0 for 3, which brings us to Elizabeth Warren who said a colleague once invited her to his office:

“He slammed the door and lunged for me. It was like a bad cartoon. He’s chasing me around the desk, trying to get his hands on me. After several rounds, I jumped for the door and got out and I went back to my office and just sat and shook and thought: ‘What have I done to bring this on?’” Warren said.

Warren also mentioned that she kept this attempted attack to herself, which adds zero credibility to her story.

Maybe this did happen, but Warren looks a sissy little boy, so I doubt it. Then again, some dudes have very weird fetishes. If I had to venture a guess, I’d say that Warren’s colleague was just trying to play “Cowboys and Indians” and she misinterpreted it. If it happened when she was a law professor, that’s back when she was pretending to be a Native American princess. It seems cultural appropriation really does have a price.

MSN Reports:

Screenwriter Scott Rosenberg says he knew all about Harvey Weinstein — and so did everyone else

We’ve heard a lot of people in recent days swear that they didn’t know Harvey Weinstein was a serial sexual harasser whose behavior, beyond boorish, was sometimes criminal. Screenwriter Scott Rosenberg, the Needham native whose first two movies, “Things to Do in Denver When You’re Dead” and “Beautiful Girls,” Weinstein produced, is not one of those people.

In an epic Facebook post Monday to some of his followers, Rosenberg insisted everybody who came into contact with Harvey Weinstein knew — maybe not about the rapes alleged by some women — but certainly about a “pattern of overly-aggressive behavior that was rather dreadful. We knew about the man’s hunger; his fervor; his appetite. There was nothing secret about this voracious rapacity; like a gluttonous ogre out of the Brothers Grimm. All couched in vague promises of potential movie roles.”

Rosenberg describes Weinstein’s behavior as “reprehensible,” but he also has had it with what he calls the “current flood of sanctimonious denial and condemnation that now crashes upon these shores of rectitude in gloppy tides of [expletive] righteousness.”

Rosenberg claims many of the denials are coming from people who did, in fact, know.

“Because I was there. And I saw you. And I talked about it with you,” writes Rosenberg. “You, the big producers; you, the big directors; you, the big agents; you, the big financiers. And you, the big rival studio chiefs; you, the big actors; you, the big actresses; you, the big models. You, the big journalists; you, the big screenwriters; you, the big rock stars; you, the big restaurateurs; you, the big politicians. I saw you. All of you. God help me, I was there with you.”

So why didn’t he say something? Do something? The options were few, Rosenberg writes.

“What would you have had us do? Who were we to tell? The authorities? What authorities? The press? Harvey owned the press. The Internet? There was no Internet or reasonable facsimile thereof. Should we have called the police? And said what? Should we have reached out to some fantasy Attorney General Of Movieland? That didn’t exist,” he writes. “Not to mention, most of the victims chose not to speak out. Aside from sharing the grimy details with a close girlfriend or confidante. And if they discussed it with their representatives? Agents and managers, who themselves feared The Wrath Of The Big Man? The agents and managers would tell them to keep it to themselves. Because who knew the repercussions? That old saw ‘You’ll Never Work In This Town Again’ came crawling back to putrid life like a re-animated cadaver in a late-night zombie flick.”

Rosenberg acknowledges that being a friend of Weinstein’s had benefits — and they were substantial.

“Hell, Harvey once took me to St. Barth’s for Christmas. For 12 days! I was a broke-a** kid from Boston who had never even HEARD of St. Barth’s before he booked my travel. He once got me tickets to the seven hottest Broadway shows in one week. So I could take a new girlfriend on a dazzling tour of theater. He got me seats on the 40-yard-line to the Super Bowl, when the Patriots were playing the Packers in New Orleans. Even got me a hotel room, which was impossible to get that weekend,” Rosenberg writes. “He gave and gave and gave and gave. He had a monarch’s volcanic generosity when it came to those within his circle. And a Mafia don’s fervent need for abject loyalty from his capos and soldiers.”

But ignoring Weinstein’s misdeeds had serious consequences, Rosenberg writes.

“We were willing to overlook what the Golden Goose was up to, in the murky shadows behind the barn . . . And for that, I am eternally sorry. To all of the women that had to suffer this . . . I am eternally sorry . . . Their courage only hangs a lantern on my shame. And I am eternally sorry to all those who suffered in silence all this time. And have chosen to remain silent today.

“So, yeah, I am sorry. Sorry and ashamed,” he writes. “Because, in the end, I was complicit.

I didn’t say [expletive]. I didn’t do [expletive]. Harvey was nothing but wonderful to me. So I reaped the rewards and I kept my mouth shut. And for that, once again, I am sorry. But you should be sorry, too.”

What really irks me the most about this whole mess is how everyone knew Weinstein was a sick pervert and sexual predator but still were very ready and willing to his money. In fact, a spokeswoman for Elizabeth Warren put out a statement last week claiming that Warren will be donating the $5,000 in contributions she received from Weinstein for her 2012 senate campaign to charity.

Why are all these Democrats taking all this money from this sicko if everyone always knew what he was into? Then again, they all think of former President Bill Clinton as some kind of God!

Please share if you are sick of the double standards of the left….

FOLLOW us on Facebook at Freedom Daily!

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Trending