As democrats become nervous (or excited) over the idea that Bernie Sanders beating Hillary, looking back at the 2008 election with Hillary and Obama running we see it could very much happen to her. The turning point on Hillary was after the New Hampshire primary. (February 10th, 2008)
Mr. Sanders is projected to win the New Hampshire primary by a large margin, which could give him the needed boost to possibly win the primary election. Let’s see if history repeats itself.
A California woman supporting Donald Trump for president has had enough with being told what it really means to be “conservative.”
In a 10-minute video uploaded to YouTube Thursday, Kambree Nelson says she was watching “The Kelly File” on Fox News as pundits were discussing the Republican presidential front-runner and his positions, questioning whether he is “conservative enough” for the GOP nomination.
In this graft, we see more voters wouldn’t vote for any candidate than vote for a candidate that claims to be “conservative.” Strong republican claim Donald Trump is not a conservative or has no conservative values.
In this graft, we see “independent” and “none/don’t know” voters changing their party to republican to vote in states with closed elections. Looking back at the first graft, we would say it’s to vote for Trump. Since his numbers are the only one rising. This is a strong republican biggest fear.
In this graft, we see that 75.9% of voters DO NOT call themselves “conservatives.” Most likely they wouldn’t support a conservative candidate. Which means in a general election any conservative candidate would lose the election.
The Republican Party is alienating voters by simply telling voters “you’re not a conservative.” Do they really think after you insult a person/voter, that person would even listen to your point of views? Needless to say vote for your candidate?
The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down Florida’s death penalty sentencing scheme in which jurors make capital-punishment recommendations and judges make the final decision.
In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court said Florida’s sentencing scheme is unconstitutional because the Sixth Amendment requires jurors, rather than judges, to find each fact necessary to impose the death sentence. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the majority opinion (PDF), and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented.
The court ruled in the case of Timothy Lee Hurst, who was sentenced to death for the May 1998 murder of a Popeye’s restaurant manager.
Under Florida’s system, juries render an “advisory sentence” by a majority vote after an evidentiary hearing, without specifying the factual basis for their recommendation. The judge then considers aggravating and mitigating circumstances and decides whether a death sentence is warranted. The judge isn’t bound by the jury’s determination, but he or she must give it “great weight.”
Sotomayor said the sentencing scheme is unconstitutional under the 2002 decision Ring v. Arizona, which held that capital defendants are entitled to a jury determination of aggravating circumstances making them eligible for the death penalty.
Advisory juries weren’t part of the sentencing scheme strung down in Ring, but that distinction is immaterial, Sotomayor said.
Washington D.C. – With the recent news of President Obama’s executive action restricting gun ownership in America, Congressman Ted S. Yoho (R-FL-03) released the following statement:
“Here we go again, President Obama proposing to implement his views on what is right for the American people without their consent or going through Congress. I have always been a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment. The right to bear arms is an unalienable right afforded to all Americans, protected by the Constitution, and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court as recent as 2008. Any changes to gun laws should come through Congress, via the legislative process, not from one man who appears to insist upon circumventing the Constitution and abusing the executive office.
“I oppose any executive overreach by this president. In anticipation of any executive order on gun control, I joined thirty-four Members of Congress in sending a letter to the president requesting the data the president used to support his unilateral action, which policies would have prevented the recent years’ major shootings, and how the White House expects to enforce the new rules on criminals who already operate outside the rule of law.
“It angers me that our president is willing to sell or give – at taxpayers’ expense – military grade weapons to Syrian free rebels or deliver eighty tons of weapons into remote areas of Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq without properly vetting those different groups. Yet when it comes to American citizens, who are guaranteed under the Constitution the right to own and bear arms, he wants to infringe on these rights and restrict access.
“The U.S. Constitution deliberately limits the power of the executive branch within the framework of our system of government. It is unfortunate we have a president who ignores this and operates more like a king over his subjects. The American people deserve better and I will work with my colleagues to make sure we deliver.”
People and political analyst often say look at polling numbers as a snap shot of the current feeling of the public at any given time. We say read polling numbers trends to see who is gaining or losing favorability by reviewing their movement.
But common sense says: Look at how many people attend rallies to know if a candidate is doing well.
To be fair, polling results are often pushed for a certain result by the way questions are asked to the public. Like: Name a person you support for President. Instead of saying: out of the following list who would you support for President.
Below are pictures found on a simple google search of rallies of the different candidates. Next to the picture is their polling favorability. The amount of people attending don’t seem to match their polling numbers. If we use the attendance numbers instead of polling numbers, Sanders and Trump would be the flat-out winners.
Notice the size of the rooms the rallies were held in. Did this happen because the campaign knew it would have been a low turnout?