Bill Kristol: ‘We’ll Have to Start’ New Party If Trump Wins Nomination

AP Photos

by BEN SHAPIRO21 Dec 20152673

‪On Monday, Weekly Standardeditor-in-chief Bill Kristoltweeted out what the rest of the Republican establishment is thinking: better Hillary than Donald. Here’s the tweet:

Crowd-sourcing: Name of the new party we’ll have to start if Trump wins the GOP nomination? Suggestions welcome at editor@weeklystandard.com

— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) December 20, 2015

Kristol isn’t alone. As I wrote at Daily Wiretoday, Politico’s Jeff Greenfield says, “If the operatives I talked with are right, Trump running as a Republican could well face a third-party run – from the Republicans themselves.” That follows last Thursday’s Politico column from former New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman, who compared Trump to Hitler and called him “evil,” and last Wednesday’s Politico column reporting that Jeb Bush’s aides “began looking into the possibility of making a clear break with Trump – potentially with the candidate stating that, if Trump were the nominee, Bush would not support him.”

Last week, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough said that former Mississippi governor Haley Barbour “and a lot of the Republican leaders would much rather Hillary Clinton be President of the United States than have Donald Trump represent them as a Republican.” And in November, The Hillreported that “GOP establishment donors have confided to The Hill that for the first time in recent memory, they find themselves contemplating not supporting a Republican nominee for president.”

I’m old enough to remember when it wasscandalous for Trump not to pledge his allegiance to the eventual Republican nominee. Now, day after day, reports from party leaders leak, stating that should Trump gain control over the party apparatus, they will simply smash the machinery.

Classy.

This wouldn’t be the first time.

As Greenfield points out, when iconic conservative Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) won the nomination for president, many of his rivals refused to endorse him for the Oval Office, including Governor Nelson Rockefeller (R-NY) and Governor George Romney (R-MI). Romney ripped Goldwater’s “extremist” supporters” and would later support Gerald Ford over Ronald Reagan in 1976 and George H.W. Bush over Reagan in 1980.

These liberal Republicans, who believed in bigger government, didn’t appreciate Goldwater’s libertarianism and forcibly undercut his doomed bid. Greenfield cites the New York Herald-Tribune going so far as to endorse LBJ, the most leftist president until Barack Obama, for the White House over Goldwater.

And while the Republican establishment would like everyone to think that they were the reason for the rise of Ronald Reagan, they did everything they could to stop Reagan. Not only did establishment Republicans back George H.W. Bush over Reagan in the 1980 primaries – Bush infamously bragged about his support from liberal Republicans like Henry Cabot Lodge – but a few went so far as to support the independent candidacy of former liberal Republican Rep. John Anderson of Illinois, who dumped the Party after Reagan won the nomination. Anderson explained, “I would be more comfortable with Teddy Kennedy in the sense that I do believe that Ronald Reagan’s view of the problems of our day is so utterly inappropriate.”

Obviously, the establishment failed in stopping Reagan. But with the election of H.W. Bush, they grabbed control of the Party again, and they haven’t given it up since.

Today’s establishment Republican “saviors” of the Party like to think of themselves as fighting not Reagan or Goldwater, but David Duke – they color Trump a racist and a xenophobe. The truth, however, is that it wouldn’t matter at all whether Trump were the establishment’s enemy or whether it was Senator Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), currently the second-place finisher in national polls. So long as the frontrunner remains an outsider, the establishment will use all of its power to stop them, including the threat of a third-party run.

Which shows, as always, that they care more about maintaining control of the party apparatus than about beating Hillary Clinton. After all, they said the same about Trump when he was threatening a third-party run.

Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News, Editor-in-Chief of DailyWire.com, and The New York Times bestselling author, most recently, of the book,The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against The Obama Administration (Threshold Editions, June 10, 2014). Follow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @benshapiro.

Read More Stories About:

2016 Presidential Race, Ted Cruz, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, barry goldwater

Polls may actually underestimate Trump's support, study finds

www.latimes.com

Donald Trump leads the GOP presidential field in polls of Republican voters nationally and in most early-voting states, but some surveys may actually be understating his support, a new study suggests.

The analysis, by Morning Consult, a polling and market research company, looked at an odd occurrence that has cropped up repeatedly this year: Trump generally has done better in online polls than in surveys done by phone.

The firm conducted an experiment aimed at understanding why that happens and which polls are more accurate -- online surveys that have tended to show Trump with support of nearly four-in-10 GOP voters or the telephone surveys that have typically shown him with the backing of one-third or fewer.

Their results suggest that the higher figure probably provides the more accurate measure. Some significant number of Trump supporters, especially those with college educations, are "less likely to say that they support him when they’re talking to a live human” than when they are in the “anonymous environment” of an online survey, said the firm's polling director, Kyle Dropp.

With Trump dominating political debates in both parties, gauging his level of support has become a crucial puzzle. The Morning Consult study provides one piece of the solution, although many other uncertainties remain.

Among the complicating factors is this: The gap between online and telephone surveys has narrowed significantly in surveys taken in the last few weeks. That could suggest that Republicans who were reluctant to admit to backing Trump in the past have become more willing to do so recently.

Another issue is that not only can polls change over time, but Trump's support in pre-election surveys might not fully translate into actual votes. He has not invested as heavily as some of his GOP rivals in building the kind of get-out-the-vote operation that candidates typically rely on, particularly in early voting states.

Some of the polls that show heavy support for Trump have also shown him doing better among self-identified independents who lean Republican than among regular GOP voters. At least some of those independents may not be in the habit of voting in primaries and caucuses, which could make a robust turnout operation even more necessary.

On the other hand, a candidate of Trump's level of celebrity may simply not need much of a get-out-the-vote operation. No one really knows.

Another complication is that most polls made public this year have been of people nationwide, not of voters in the states that actually hold the first primaries. In Iowa, which will kick off the election season with party caucuses on Feb. 1, Trump has slipped into second place, trailing Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas in the majority of recent polls.

In New Hampshire, which holds the first primary, on Feb. 9, Trump leads, but less dramatically than in national polls. In recent weeks, he has averaged a bit more than one-quarter of the vote there.

Still, the Morning Consult experiment sheds considerable light on an issue that has puzzled pollsters for months.

The firm polled 2,397 potential Republican voters earlier this month, randomly assigning them to one of three different methods -- a traditional telephone survey with live interviewers calling landlines and cellphones, an online survey and an interactive dialing technique that calls people by telephone and asks them to respond to recorded questions by hitting buttons on their phone.

By randomly assigning people to the three different approaches and running all at the same time, the researchers hoped to eliminate factors that might cause results to vary from one poll to another.

The experiment confirmed that "voters are about six points more likely to support Trump when they’re taking the poll online then when they’re talking to a live interviewer,” said Dropp.

The most telling part of the experiment, however, was that not all types of people responded the same way. Among blue-collar Republicans, who have formed the core of Trump's support, the polls were about the same regardless of method. But among college-educated Republicans, a significant difference appeared, with Trump scoring 9 points better in the online poll.

The most likely explanation for that education gap, Dropp and his colleagues believe, is a well-known problem known as social-desirability bias -- the tendency of people to not want to confess unpopular views to a pollster.

Blue-collar voters don't feel embarrassed about supporting Trump, who is very popular in their communities, the pollsters suggested. But many college-educated Republicans may hesitate to admit their attraction to Trump, the experiment indicates.

In a public setting such as the Iowa caucuses, where people identify their candidate preference in front of friends and neighbors, that same social-desirability bias may hold sway.

But in most primaries, where voters cast a secret ballot, the study's finding suggests that anonymous online surveys -- the ones that typically show Trump with a larger lead -- provide the more accurate measure of his backing.

"It’s our sense that a lot of polls are under-reporting Trump’s overall support," Dropp said.

Obama Goes Beyond Mere Gun Control, Hints at Confiscation

AP

by AWR HAWKINS3 Oct 201539,237

When President Obama spoke in reaction to the heinous October 1 attack on Umpqua Community College, he went beyond his usual calls for more gun control and suggested instead that America consider following the path blazed by Australia and Great Britain.

In the mid-1990s Australia and Great Britain both instituted what were virtually complete bans on firearm possession.

Obama referenced the bans thus:

We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings.  Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours.  So we know there are ways to prevent it.

And Obama is not the only one who suggested taking a gun-free approach to American life. The anti-Second Amendment message was also pushed by Slate, Vox, and Dan Savage.

For example, on October 1 Slate ran a story reminding readers that Australia enacted their gun ban in response to an attack on April 28, 1996, wherein a gunman “opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania.” Thirty-five were killed and 23 others wounded in the attack. Twelve days later Australia’s government banned guns, period.

On October 2 Vox explained that Australia “confiscated 650,000 guns” via a “mandatory gun buyback” program which forced gun owners to hand their firearms over for destruction. Vox claims the result was that “murders and suicides plummeted’ and suggested such a path might be an option for America following “the murder of at least 10 people at Umpqua Community College.”

Vox did not mention that “firearm-related murder and non-negligent homicide” began plummeting in America in the mid-1990s as well. But in America, the decrease in violent crime did not correlate with a gun ban but with a rapid expansion in the number of guns privately owned. The Congressional Research Service reported that the number of privately owned firearms in America went from 192 million in 1994 to 310 million privately owned firearms in 2009. Subsequently, the “firearm-related murder and non-negligent homicide” rate fell from 6.6 per 100,000 in 1993 to 3.6 per 100,000 in 2000 and finally to 3.2 per 100,000 in 2011.

But none of this made any difference to Dan Savage, who responded to the attack on Umpqua Community College by calling for the Second Amendment’s repeal. Savage tweeted, “F**k the NRA, f**k the gun nuts, f**k the Second Amendment — better yet, repeal the Second Amendment.

Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter:@AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, 2nd Amendment, barack obama, gun control, Umpqua Community College, Dan Savage, Gun

Police “Uncomfortable” About Revealing Motive of Las Vegas Strip Killer

According to another eyewitness account, the woman screamed “Allahu Akbar”

www.infowars.com

Police are refusing to reveal the motive behind yesterday’s shocking attack when a woman deliberately ploughed her car into dozens of people in Las Vegas.

The culprit responsible for the horrifying incident, which killed one person and injured another 35, has been named as Lakeisha N. Holloway.

Immediately following her rampage, Holloway drove to a nearby hotel and told a valet to call 911, explaining why she had carried out the attack, although her motive remains a mystery because police are “uncomfortable” about disclosing it, according to Fox News’ Will Carr.

Sheriff: not comfortable disclosing what driver said about why she crashed into so many people on Las Vegas Strip#FoxNews

— Will Carr (@WillCarrFNC) December 21, 2015

Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Sheriff Joe Lombardo said he doubted the attack was “militant” in nature, but refuses to rule it out at this stage. He added that Holloway “didn’t appear to be distressed due to her actions” and was “stoic” when she was arrested.

Holloway reportedly had a falling out with her father before the attack and had been living homeless in her car with her 3-year-old child for the past week.

Some respondents on Twitter speculated that the attack may have been racially motivated.

According to another eyewitness account, the woman screamed “Allahu Akbar” during the attack, although this is from a dubious source and cannot be considered genuine at this time.

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

Follow on Twitter: Follow @PrisonPlanet

Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor at large of Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com.

AZ Sheriff Babeu: We've Had 10,000 Unaccompanied Juveniles In Two Months

AZ Sheriff Babeu: We've Had 10,000 Unaccompanied Juveniles In Two Months Obama Admin Says 'Border Is Wide Open' - Breitbart

www.breitbart.com

Pinal County, AZ Sheriff and Congressional candidate Paul Babeu (R) stated, “just the last two months alone, we’ve had 10,000 unaccompanied juveniles” who are “staying here” and that “the Obama administration says the border is wide open, that there is no law it comes to immigration” on Monday’s “Cavuto: Coast to Coast” on the Fox Business Network.

Babeu said, “just the last two months alone, we’ve had 10,000 unaccompanied juveniles, and also with some family members. And the arms are open, and that’s the message that’s been sent. The last wave, 100,000 from Central America and–.”

He added, “We’re a compassionate nation. We always have been. And this is where I’m tired of being shouted down by President Obama, like somehow we’re not good Americans if we don’t do everything that he says we should to do. And we’ve had a million legal immigrants last year, and we do this every year.” Babeu continued, “I think it’s the most compassionate thing we can do, is reunite them with their families in Central America. What America should be doing is finding ways to solve the problems of violence in Central America, support their governments, because if we don’t solve that core problem, this isn’t going to end. We’re going to have this problem next month, next year, and then we own these people, and all the social network to support them for their entire lives. Because if you think that these kids are going anywhere, think again. They’re staying here.”

Babeu further argued, “our compassion, there has to be a limit to this. And we don’t see people in Europe, in the countries there, taking kids — refugees from central america, yet everybody wants us to take Syrian refugees from halfway across the world. So, where’s the fairness here?”

He concluded, “the new norm here is the Obama administration says the border is wide open, that there is no law it comes to immigration.”

Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter@IanHanchett

Obama Accuses Trump of Exploiting Working-Class Fears

www.nytimes.com

President Obama during a news conference on Friday. In an interview with NPR, he was critical of Donald J. Trump while defending his own strategy for taking on the Islamic State.By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVISDecember 21, 2015

President Obama said in a radio interview airing on Monday that Donald J. Trump, a leading contender for the Republican presidential nomination, is exploiting the resentment and anxieties of working-class men to boost his campaign. Mr. Obama also argued that some of the scorn directed at him personally stems from the fact that he is the first African-American to hold the White House.

Demographic changes and economic stresses, including “flatlining” wages and incomes, have meant that “particularly blue-collar men have had a lot of trouble in this new economy, where they are no longer getting the same bargain that they got when they were going to a factory and able to support their families on a single paycheck,” Mr. Obama said in the interview with National Public Radio.

“You combine those things, and it means that there is going to be potential anger, frustration, fear — some of it justified, but just misdirected,” the president added. “I think somebody like Mr. Trump is taking advantage of that. That’s what he’s exploiting during the course of his campaign.”

The comments were Mr. Obama’s most pointed response to Mr. Trump since the Republican candidate suggested that Muslims be barred from entering the United States after the mass shooting in San Bernardino, Calif. The attack was carried out by a couple who apparently were radicalized Muslims, one of whom had entered the United States on a fiancée visa.

In the wide-ranging interview, conducted the day before he left Washington on Friday for a two-week holiday vacation with his family in Hawaii, Mr. Obama defended his approach to taking on the Islamic State. He dismissed the notion that the militant group is an existential threat to the United States even as he conceded that he had received “legitimate criticism” for failing to adequately explain his strategy for confronting it.

He also described his view of the anxiety on which Mr. Trump has capitalized, arguing that some voters who voice fears about his presidency and doubts about where Mr. Obama’s loyalties lie are reacting to the fact that he is the first black president.

“If you are referring to specific strains in the Republican Party that suggest that somehow I’m different, I’m Muslim, I’m disloyal to the country, etc. — which unfortunately is pretty far out there, and gets some traction in certain pockets of the Republican Party, and that have been articulated by some of their elected officials — what I’d say there is that that’s probably pretty specific to me, and who I am and my background,” Mr. Obama told Steve Inskeep, the host of “Morning Edition” on NPR. “In some ways, I may represent change that worries them.”

“That’s not to suggest that everybody who objects to my policies may not have perfectly good reasons for it,” the president added. He noted, as an example, that voters living in coal-dependent areas may blame him for the loss of their jobs.

Mr. Obama has struggled to appeal to white voters who do not have a college education, carrying only 36 percent of them when he was re-elected in 2012. Republicans perform particularly well among that group, although it represents a shrinking share of the electorate.

On the Islamic State, which is also called ISIS or ISIL, Mr. Obama pushed back against criticism of his approach and said he was “confident that we are going to prevail.”

“This is a serious challenge — ISIS is a virulent, nasty organization that has gained a foothold in ungoverned spaces effectively in Syria and parts of western Iraq,” Mr. Obama said, referring to attacks the group organized in Paris and apparently inspired in San Bernardino. “But it is also important for us to keep things in perspective, and this is not an organization that can destroy the United States.”

He also suggested that heavy coverage of the media-savvy extremist group by news outlets chasing viewership had contributed to the public anxiety that has dragged down his approval ratings on the issue.

“If you’ve been watching television for the last month, all you have been seeing, all you have been hearing about is these guys with masks or black flags who are potentially coming to get you,” Mr. Obama said. “And so I understand why people are concerned about it.”

Asked whether news organizations had been manipulated by the Islamic State, he added: “Look, the media is pursuing ratings. This is a legitimate news story.”

He rejected critiques from Republican presidential candidates who have suggested “carpet bombing” the group, as well as the suggestion by Hillary Clinton, his party’s leading presidential candidate, that the United States establish a “no-fly zone” over Syria. He argued that doing so would require substantial ground troops and would fail to damage the Islamic State, which does not have an air force.

Still, the president said his administration had not done enough to explain its strategy and promote its successes in carrying it out.

“There is a legitimate criticism of what I’ve been doing and our administration has been doing in the sense that we haven’t, you know, on a regular basis, I think, described all the work that we’ve been doing for more than a year now to defeat ISIL,” Mr. Obama said.

On domestic matters, Mr. Obama said he was concerned that a recent uptick in campus protests around the country, in which students have shone a spotlight on racial misunderstandings, has in some cases shut down important debates.

“I think it’s a healthy thing for young people to be engaged, and to question authority,” Mr. Obama said. “I do think that there have been times on college campuses where I get concerned that the unwillingness to hear other points of view can be as unhealthy on the left as on the right.”

He cited as examples student protests last year of planned appearances by Christine Lagarde, the head of theInternational Monetary Fund, at Smith College, and Condoleezza Rice, the former secretary of state, at Rutgers University that led both women to withdraw.

“Feel free to disagree with somebody,” the president said, “but don’t try to just shut them up.”

Correction: December 21, 2015

An earlier version of this article misstated Steve Inskeep’s job at NPR. He is the host of “Morning Edition,” he is not a correspondent.

Clinton wins but O'Malley hits Hillary where it hurts at Democratic debate

DEMOCRATS

Clinton wins but O'Malley hits Hillary where it hurts at Democratic debate

By Douglas E. Schoen

Published December 20, 2015

FoxNews.com

Facebook Twitter livefyre Email

Hillary Clinton speaks during a Democratic presidential primary debate Saturday, Dec. 19, 2015, at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, N.H. (AP Photo/Jim Cole)

It was Hillary’s night

“Should corporate American love Hillary Clinton?” David Muir asked.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Everybody should,” Clinton responded without missing a beat.

This will undoubtedly be one of the most memorable moments of Saturday night’s Democratic debate at Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire, which showcased just three candidates but managed to cover a lot of ground.

Though buried on a Saturday night right before Christmas and up against NFL football no less, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley combined substance with showmanship that made the debate worth watching. It’s a shame that, without even seeing the ratings, I know that many Americans will have missed it.

Hillary Clinton executed a masterful strategy Saturday night. She managed to handily beat the two men on either side of her who represent the progressive left of the Democratic party and at the same time position herself as a leader for the entire country, including a significant portion of Republicans who fear a Donald Trump presidency as much as any Democrat. In fact, her one- liner about Donald Trump turning into perhaps the biggest recruiting tool for ISIS gave everyone pause – as it should.

Clinton showed herself to be the most experienced candidate the Democrats are offering. While Bernie Sanders related almost every issue back to income inequality and the billionaire class in America – his cornerstone issue – Clinton was able to focus on each topic with precision and specifics. Her strategy to combat ISIS, which is an extension of Obama’s plan with a no-fly zone, is the right approach to combating this threat. On the issue of technology companies working with government to help combat terror, Clinton showed that she is a candidate of balance: there is a way to avoid compromising our civil liberties while still giving law enforcement the tools they need to fight terror.

She was the most balanced candidate on how she’d manage the economy. Instead of promising everything for free through increased taxes on Wall Street, Clinton’s plan to offer debt free college instead of freecollege is right on the money. She understands that we can’t raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour without hurting the economy and costing jobs, but that we can bring it up to twelve dollars an hour. And her notion of incentivizing profit sharing is a worthwhile one.

Sanders supporters got a great performance from the Vermont senator. He was completely sincere and passionate, showcasing his major selling points.

Sanders began the night by apologizing to Clinton for his campaign’s mishandling of a donor breach, which set the tone for an evening in which he did criticize her at times – notably on her handling of Middle East foreign policy – but also praised her work and went so far as to thank her for transforming the role of first lady. We saw no surprises from him: he wants to raise taxes and fundamentally redistribute wealth in the country. And he wants to fight ISIS through coalitions, but is opposed to any American boots on the ground, even special forces.

As for O’Malley, he did his best, but flopped on a number of issues. He took swipes at both Clinton and Sanders that won’t resonate with viewers and voters.

He surely has the experience and has notably implemented gun safety reform and raised the minimum wage in Maryland, but he just doesn’t appeal to voters. And in an election where Americans want outsider politicians, they’re never going to choose O’Malley over Clinton as the establishment candidate.

That said, O’Malley did bring up an issue that may haunt Clinton the most: Benghazi. In a veiled swipe at her, he noted how Ambassador Christ Stevens was not provided the proper support and tools to help Libya transition into a thriving democracy – a clear reminder of his untimely death. No doubt this foreshadows what will be in all likelihood a major line of attack from the Republicans and stands to really hurt her going forward.

Even with Hillary Clinton’s strong attempt at bipartisan appeal on Saturday evening, the question remains whether she’ll be able to pull it out if the Republicans nominate a strong, establishment candidate who doesn’t have her baggage.

In recent polling she’s been competitive with each GOP contender – and ahead of some – but we know that Obama’s low approval, American anxiety over ISIS and concerns about the economy could hurt her.

As for the Democratic battle, Hillary Clinton came into Saturday night with a big lead and she leaves with a big lead. Neither Sanders nor O’Malley hurt themselves, but her dominance was clear and it explains why she has her eyes focused on the prize: beating the Republicans come next November.

Douglas E. Schoen has served as a pollster for President Bill Clinton. He has more than 30 years experience as a pollster and political consultant. He is also a Fox News contributor and co-host of "Fox News Insiders" Sundays on Fox News Channel and Mondays at 10:30 am ET on FoxNews.com Live. He is the author of 11 books. His latest, co-authored with Malik Kaylan is "The Russia-China Axis: The New Cold War and America's Crisis of Leadership (Encounter Books, September 2014). Follow Doug on Twitter@DouglasESchoen.

+ FollowFoxNewsOpinion on