Respond to Post 8
Last post for this trimester! Please respond to someone from post 8 and react to their post about the New Hampshire primary. Please use research from this week to back up your opinion. You have until Friday, February 19th to make your post.
Friday, February 19th is also your last shot at contributing to the class blog for points. Some of you are VERY SLOW at contributing. The majority of your classmates won't be reading this after Friday so if you post after Friday I will not be giving you points in the grade book. Please post on time.
Please turn into me by Monday, 2/29 what you feel like is your best original post and response post. Feel free to turn this into me earlier but not later.
posted by Ms. Aby @ 7:27 PM
18 Comments:
After the New Hampshire primary, as Gina said in her post, “it was clear that this is going to be an exciting and close presidential race” and I could not agree more. With Clinton barely winning Iowa, and Sanders blowing her out of the water in New Hampshire, the Democratic nomination is really up in the air. And while Ted Cruz won Iowa, Trump won New Hampshire by a substantial amount. While I do agree with Gina that this is going to continue to be an exciting and close race, I do not agree with her when she says that the Republican side of the New Hampshire primary is “somewhat representative of the country’s views.” Even though Trump won the New Hampshire primary, a Pew Research Center survey found that 52% of registered voters believe that, if elected, Trump would make a poor or terrible president (1). I really do not believe that the New Hampshire primary really represents the views of Americans in any way, except for the voting population of the state itself. For example, John Kasich was in 8th place in the Iowa caucus, and received only 1.9% of the vote but then in New Hampshire won 2nd place with 15.8% of the vote (2). This just shows how different parts of our country votes and what kind of candidates they vote for, but I do not believe that the New Hampshire primary was representative of America as a whole. I agree with Gina when she says that she doesn’t think that “this primary is representative of the whole country” when it comes to the Democrats and the primary. However, I disagree with Gina when she says that she doesn’t believe that “the majority of the Democratic party agrees with all” of Sanders views and that they will end up voting for “Hillary Clinton or a Republican candidate.” Except, for Sanders self-proclaimed socialist ideas, many of his views on issues such as climate change, immigration, women’s rights, and same-sex marriage follow right along with the views of the Democratic party (3). Perhaps because of Sander’s socialist views, Democrats will support Clinton, but I do not agree that it is because of this reason that any Democrat would support a Republican candidate over both Sanders and Clinton.
Source:
http://www.people-press.org/2016/01/20/voters-skeptical-that-2016-candidates-would-make-good-presidents/ (1)
http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016/02/2016-iowa-caucus-results-open-thread/ (2)
https://berniesanders.com/issues/ (3)
With Trump and Sanders taking home victories at the New Hampshire Primaries, we have to question how well these results reflect the national opinion. When you look at who was voting, the Democratic votes were split pretty evenly between Sanders and Clinton, Sanders pulled ahead because he was able to attract independent voters, too. (1) Sanders is also from the area and is rather well known. As Leela pointed out, a new name been brought to the forefront of discussions. Republican John Kasich won second in New Hampshire. Although he is still pretty far behind Trump, he got his name out there and is now being talked about. By taking stances on balancing budgets and working with Democrats, Kasich is appealed to New Hampshire’s large population of independent voters. (2) Kasich will focus now on the Midwest where his message will be able to resonate with the voters. (3) Considering Sanders also hit if off with the independents, they might have some competition for the independent votes in the future. I agree with Leele that the results from the New Hampshire primary are not reflective of the views nation wide. Many people are predicting that Clinton still remains the favorite for the nomination. With the chaos that is happening in the Republican Party right now, I’m not sure who they are going to nominate, but it will be exciting to find out.
1:https://www.romper.com/p/who-votes-in-the-new-hampshire-primary-the-voters-dont-represent-the-us-accurately-5313
2:http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/23/us/politics/with-calm-and-experience-john-kasich-connects-in-new-hampshire.html?_r=0
3:http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/09/politics/new-hampshire-primary-highlights/
In the New Hampshire primary, both Trump and Sanders won for their respective parties, which was expected, especially for Sanders, as Gina said. She noted how much of a lead that each candidate had over the others in their parties, which has been fairly obvious based on polling numbers in New Hampshire in the past few months. As for how representative this primary is of the entire country, it is hard to tell because New Hampshire is historically a moderate state that could swing in either party’s favor when it comes down to the general election (1). I agree with Gina’s perspective that the so-called “anti-Trump” candidates may be able to counter his lead in the polls. As some candidates begin to drop out, their supporters will most likely move their support to others running against Trump if they do not agree with his proposals and ideals (2) Trump does not have a majority, only a plurality, so once there are less candidates he may no longer hold such a large lead. I agree with Gina that Sanders won in New Hampshire because he is well known there, but in the previous election, Clinton was also popular. In 2008, she won the primary with 39.1 percent of the vote (3). Sanders is gaining a lot of support over the past few weeks, but it is still clear that Clinton is the favorite of Democratic voters in the United States. Some people believe that Sanders’ ideas are not plausible, while others are latching onto his self-proclaimed “socialist” premise that he is toting in his campaign.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-new-hampshire-primary-change-20160208-story.html (1)
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/17/krauthammer-anti-trump-voters-need-to-consolidate-behind-another-candidate.html (2)
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/NH.html (3)
I agree with much of what Umaimah said in her most recent blogpost, especially her point about our country still being very divided on who their favorite candidates are for each party. As Umaimah stated, the Iowa caucus ended with a very slim victory for Hillary Clinton. Results from the Iowa Caucus showed that Clinton won 49.86% of the vote, according to the Associated Press, with Sanders on 49.57% – a margin of just 0.29 percentage points. “The two appear to have split the number of delegates Iowa will send to the national Democratic convention roughly evenly, with Clinton collecting 23 and Sanders 21” (1). Umaimah also talked about the fact that despite Bernie Sander’s win in New Hampshire, Hillary still remains the favorite for the nomination. “Despite his recent surges in the poll, Sanders has not seen his odds to become the next President or even win the Democratic nomination move at all” (2). Hillary Clinton remains the odds-on favorite to get the nod from the Democrats.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/02/hillary-clinton-wins-iowa-caucuses-bernie-sanders-young-voters (1)
http://www.oddsshark.com/entertainment/us-presidential-odds-2016-futures (2)
This comment has been removed by the author.
I strongly agree with what Emma had to say in her blog post last week, especially about the analysis that “the people want a candidate who is strong, angry, and ready to fix things.” Anti-establishment candidates like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are inspiring conservatives and liberals into activism (1). I also agreed with what Emma said about voters seeking a candidate they believe will really bring about change. Sanders’ call for a “political revolution” is exactly what those people are seeking and that contributes to his success (1). For example, Nikky Raney is a young Democrat who volunteered for Hillary when she ran for the presidency in 2008 but now she supports Sanders, saying that “it’s Bernie who seems most genuine about universal health care and getting big money out of politics (1).” I also think that Emma’s claim that the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire Primary “show a leaning towards the angry, revolutionary side of the field” still holds true now. Real Clear Politics’ averages on polling done in the past few weeks show that Trump leads by an average of 16 points in South Carolina (3) and 13 points for the Republican Presidential Nomination (4). In polling data Quinnipiac released today, Clinton is shown as less favorable than almost all of the major Republican candidates for the general election, whereas Sanders actually leads all of them by 4-10 points (2).
(1) http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/us/insurgent-candidacies-shaking-up-the-gop-also-dog-democrats.html?_r=0
(2) http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
(3) http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/sc/south_carolina_republican_presidential_primary-4151.html
(4) http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html
I agree with Umaimah that there are still no clear choices for a candidate for either party and that Sanders has come closer in competition to Clinton this far than anyone could have predicted even a few months ago. It does seem clear that the voters do seem to favor an anti-establishment candidate, someone that can shake things up. This has caused both Trump and Sanders to do surprisingly well. I also agree with Umaimah in that the Independent vote will really be the deciding factor in determining the Democratic candidate as Democratic voters are pretty evenly split, and in New Hampshire, Sanders did well because of the support from Independent voters. This probably will not be the case however in every state especially since currently Clinton has an advantage in African American votes in the southern part of the United States.[1]
[1]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-black-voters_us_55ca47f6e4b0f73b20bad91a
The results of both the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries were startling contrasts. I agree with Wyatt, however, in that this was due to the differing regions that the voters resided in. Clinton had a large fan base in New Hampshire, but Sanders won the state by over 20 points, likely because he lived and worked in the next state over, Vermont (1). The high percentages for Sanders show a growing anger and distrust of Clinton’s policies (2). This anger can be seen on the Republican side of the field too. Donald Trump, the main angry man of the GOP, won New Hampshire by a sizeable margin. Now, in South Carolina, Donald Trump is leading the field again by around 16 points (3). This shows that he has name recognition all around the US and is likely to win the nomination through his anger and frustration. This is not the end for Ted Cruz, however. Wyatt confirmed that Ted Cruz led by three points in New Hampshire, putting him at an advantage among conservative Christians. He won in Iowa because there was a large concentration of those demographics that would support him. Cruz is also angry and willing to do whatever it takes to win.
It would have come as a surprise if six months ago I had been told that Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump would have won key primary states. They are on completely different ends of the political spectrum, and far over on those ends. They are both extreme: Sanders is a self-declared socialist and Donald Trump, among many things, is not a politician. However, as Wyatt pointed out, they both have crucial support because of their angry, fiery rhetoric and will to make change (4). It will be interesting to see where the election goes from here.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/09/politics/new-hampshire-primary-highlights/ (1)
http://www.npr.org/2016/02/10/466252880/new-hampshire-primary-5-things-that-explain-the-results (2)
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-south-carolina-presidential-republican-primary (3)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/12149402/new-hampshire-primary-donald-trump-bernie-sanders-live.html (4)
Madeline perfectly summed up the current situation with her last sentence, “Clinton still has a lead over Sanders in other parts of the country, and the Republican party continues to be divided over multiple candidates.” The current Republican party is definitely divided and ever-changing, as shown in recent polls. An article from two days ago in the Wall Street Journal shows that in the most recent polls, Ted Cruz has overtaken Donald Trump, gaining a slight lead of 28% to 26% (1). This development just goes to show the front-runner is a tenuous position in today’s Republican race, liable to change hands at any moment. While the Republican campaigns get lots of attention due to how uncertain they are, the Democratic race is also heating up. I think that Madeline, and the Hillary Clinton currently has the edge going forward, but that may not last for long. As of Thursday, Clinton and Sanders were essentially in a dead heat for Nevada, an upcoming state. Of potential caucus goers, 48% say they are for Clinton, while 47% support Sanders (2). This leaves it up in the air as to which candidate will take home the win in the gambling state.
(1) http://www.wsj.com/articles/ted-cruz-overtakes-donald-trump-in-latest-republican-presidential-poll-1455746450
(2) http://www.wsj.com/articles/ted-cruz-overtakes-donald-trump-in-latest-republican-presidential-poll-1455746450
I agree with what Ana talked about in her last blog post when she said that Sanders is definitely getting a lot of the “younger” vote. In the past, candidates have had a lot of trouble with attracting attention from young voters, and especially with motivating them to go out and vote at the polls. This is for sure not the case with Sanders as teenagers and young adults seem very excited to have the chance to support him in the upcoming primaries, caucuses, and possibly the general election (1). Another point that Ana mentioned was the fact that Clinton is having a hard time receiving votes from women, especially feminists. The key part to Clinton’s campaign is that she could be the first women president. However, when Sanders is receiving and/ or stealing a lot of the women votes, this makes Clinton’s campaign quite weak (1). Clinton is receiving 44% of women’s votes, whereas Sander’s is receiving 55% in recent exit polls (1).
One of the first things Ana talked about was the fact that the “race is a lot closer than expected.” Months ago, many people were very unsure that Trump or Sanders would have that much of an impact on the other candidates or win many votes. But, that has been proved wrong. I for one did not think that Trump would last this long, but he won the New Hampshire primary by 19.5% (Kasich being in second) (2). Another unexpected outcome is how Sanders is really pulling a lot of the votes away from Clinton. According to a Fox News Poll, when Sanders is put against Trump, he wins 54% to 33% (3). Whereas Clinton wins only 43% to 39% (3). This really proves how unexpected the outcome for the Democratic nominee will be. It could either be Sanders or Clinton, when before people thought Clinton would for sure get the nomination.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/10/politics/hillary-clinton-new-hampshire-primary/ (1)
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/10/politics/hillary-clinton-new-hampshire-primary/ (2)
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/18/fox-news-poll-clinton-feels-bern-trails-sanders-by-three-points-nationally.html (3)
I agree with what Leela said about how she is very surprised that John Kasich got second place in the Republican Primary of New Hampshire. I honestly did not even debate Kasich as a major contender until this primary, where he actually showed up on the count and got a decent amount of votes. Kasich came up from nearly no fame, to about 15 percent of the Republican Party voting for him (1). He did beat out Jeb Bush by 4.8 percentage points, and Ted Cruz by 4.1 percentage points, who previously won the Iowa Caucus. This is an impressive win for Kasich, as he was not even on the map before New Hampshire brought him to people’s sight.
On the Democrat’s side of things, Leela said that Sanders is now closing the gap for the Democratic party, and he might be the sole Democratic candidate running for President soon. I disagree with this statement, however, because I think that him winning the New Hampshire Primary was due to many other situations, and not directly related to how the nation views him. New Hampshire is very close to his home state of Vermont (2), which gives him an added base of voters who know, and like him. I feel that across the country, people just don’t know him and his policies as well as the North East corner of America does. However, I agree with Leela when she says that when March 1st comes around, Clinton is going to the be the top candidate for the Democratic Party, as she is currently polling higher than Sanders, and I think that that trend will continue into the general election (2).
1- http://www.ap.org/media-center/elections/us-election
2- http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/09/politics/new-hampshire-primary-highlights/
I completely agree with Zach that in this election, the candidates that have very outspoken opinions seem to be gaining unprecedented support. Perhaps it’s the large number of Americans that have anti-establishment feelings or those who are tired of the way the government operates, but many unconventional candidates such as Trump, Bernie and Carson still remain in the race. Trump, who has absolutely no political history and is completely inexperienced in politics “won with over 30% of the vote” in New Hampshire. Meanwhile Sanders who has self proclaimed himself a socialist, has been continually gaining support from young voters, a group that historically hasn’t had a great voter turnout, in fact they have even begun to come out in numbers to support him. In fact, according to the Washington Post, “Among voters between the ages of 17 and 29, Bernie Sanders won 84 percent of the vote to Hillary Clinton's 14 percent.” (1) Carson, who although dug himself into a bit of a hole, was leading in the race for a while despite also having no political history, a doctor running for president, again unprecedented.
Along the same lines as Zach I don’t believe that the results of the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary are fully representative of the country. Iowa has always been slightly more conservative than the rest of the country, (2) An example of how Zach said “it could still be anyone’s game.” is that although Sanders completely swept the New Hampshire primaries, it is still very much a possibility that Clinton will get the Democratic nomination.
1.https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/02/bernie-sanders-crushed-hillary-clinton-by-70-points-among-young-people-in-iowa-but/
2.http://www.iae.org/publication/the-conservative-heart's-still-beating-in-iowa/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/31/will-hillary-clinton-win-the-democratic-nomination/
I agree with Mr. Terwilliger that it was surprising that more young women favored Bernie Sanders over Clinton. I also disagree with Charlie when it comes to John Kasich (1). He appeals more to the silent majority and as such is more under the radar when it comes to gaining party support. I believe that when people support an unconventional candidate they are more likely to support them in polls and more likely to abandon them on the ballot. I do agree however that New Hampshire is not representative of the US as a whole and I still believe that Clinton will wipe the floor with Sanders on the national level.
(1)http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/08/health/hillary-clinton-women-voters-generational-divide/
I mostly agree with what Matthew has said with some small points of contention. I agree that it is fairly obvious that Sanders campaign is about to become a lot more difficult as he is challenged with winning far more moderate and non-white states. His campaign is heavily reliant on these early victories slingshotting him into a good position by the first super tuesday, a goal that will be difficult to accomplish in Nevada and impossible in South Carolina. Although his hordes of fanatic “Bernie-bros” love the idea of an even more liberal president, black voters who greatly favor Obama’s policies have allied themselves with Clinton due to her celebrity politics of associating herself with the Obama administration (FiveThirtyEight).
As for the Republicans, unless Trump miraculously self destructs his campaign or Cruz convinces his followers to support Kasich, it seems to be unlikely that Trump’s campaign is slowing down any time soon. Although it’s true that many who currently support establishment candidates second choices are also establishment, Trumps likely victory in South Carolina will only further hurt the campaigns of Bush, Rubio, Kasich, and Cruz as they sense the way the wind is blowing (Washington Post).
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/it-gets-harder-from-here-for-bernie-sanders/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/17/if-donald-trump-wins-south-carolina-can-he-be-stopped/
I agree with Esther’s point that the nation wants something new. Younger voters show their support through social media which is why Sanders and Trump are infinitely more popular than their counterparts online (1). Older voters are among those that are more content with the current system, however, this may be attributed to the fact that since voters 65+ are more likely to vote. So the government panders to them and their needs slightly more through programs such as Medicare. Sanders and Trump will have difficulty converting voters who are older given that Trump’s reputation precedes him in because of his reality tv show, The Apprentice. For those who lived through the Cold War along with those who do not know the difference between socialism and communism, Sanders is a nightmare who could never win the presidency. The fact that both candidates are out of place in the presidential election where moderates and politicians with political experience thrived in previous elections, highlights that dissatisfaction is insanely high. Not only that, but it further emphasizes Esther’s point that voters are leaning towards candidates who are more genuine and willing to speak their minds regardless of the consequences. With the proliferation of political coverage by the media, the general public seems more aware of the gridlock in Congress which is why the grassroots candidates are coming out on top. Well, that and the fact that the Republican field still has six candidates, most of which are establishment candidates. In fact, Jeb Bush is the embodiment of the establishment because of his father and younger brother which alienates him from the voters clamoring for something new.
The GOP is suffering from the all out war that its debates turn into, however, people looking for a more tempermental candidate may have found him. As Esther pointed out, Kasich gained national attention from his second place finish in New Hampshire. Kasich, unlike his other Republican counterparts, along with Carson, stayed out of the vicious fighting in Saturday’s debate and some of his campaign managers speculate that the Democrats might win the general election because the Republican party is making a fool out of itself (2). Kasich has set himself out from the rest of the pack as a voice of reason with extensive experience which can bring him far if the moderates of the Republican party mobilize. A performance above fourth in tomorrow’s primary could really solidify his placement as a serious contender for the Republican nomination. Super Tuesday and the upcoming votes in South Carolina and Nevada will set the nation’s expectations, hopefully they will reflect what the American people want.
https://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2016-02-18/millennials-what-will-get-them-to-the-polls-and-what-they-want-from-the-next-president (1)
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/15/us/politics/gop-debate-highlights.html (2)
After taking into consideration what Esther said about the New Hampshire Primary, I think she was correct about Trump’s victory being disproportionate to his true support, as well as the potential for increasing support of John Kasich. Prior to the happenings in the primary, many people, including myself, did not even have Kasich on their radar. However, the aftermath left him in fourth place with 11% in nationwide support for the Republican candidacy, following Cruz with 28%, Trump with 26%, and Rubio with 17% [1]. Along with his increasing campaign base, two national polls have indicated that Kasich is the best bet for the Republicans in defeating Hillary Clinton in the general election [2], as well as being one of the top two contenders if Sanders were to become the Democratic candidate, instead [3]. As Esther commented, Kasich is more moderate; perhaps the most moderate of all the Republican candidates in the race. I think this is why his probability of defeating the Democrats is higher than his Republican competition, as well. With this information, I think he has a good chance at becoming the party’s candidate, giving the party the best opportunity to win. Overall, I think the New Hampshire Primary did a very good job at getting the Kasich name into the minds of the nation, and I think his run is just beginning.
[1] http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/17/trump-falls-to-second-nationally-nbcwsj-poll.html
[2] http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20160218/PC16/160219352
[3] http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/02/17/john-kasich-best-republican-beat-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-poll/80502252/
I agree with Madeline’s predictions that she made in her previous post. She is correct in stating that although Sanders did win New Hampshire’s Primary for the Democrats, Clinton still leads him nationally. In New Hampshire, Sanders had a clear advantage, carrying nearly every single demographic (1). For the Republican field, Trump had a decisive victory in New Hampshire with Kasich coming in second, signaling that moderates do not want someone like Trump to be the candidate for the Republican field (2). Both Sanders and Trump, after coming in second in the Iowa caucus, had strong showings in New Hampshire, but Madeline is right in stating that it is unlikely that their stances will appeal to many Americans. However, despite his positions on many issues, Trump still leads the Republican field nationally. Those who voted for Sanders and Trump are sending a message that they are frustrated with the current government and are seeking to elect an outsider (3). Looking forward, Clinton will have to have strong showings in the coming primaries in order to defeat Sanders and it appears likely that Trump will become the Republican nominee.
http://www.nytimes.com/live/new-hampshire-primary-2016-election/bernie-sanders-wins-every-demographic-group/ (1)
http://www.nytimes.com/live/new-hampshire-primary-2016-election/kasich-the-mild-mannered-republican-wins-the-moderate-vote (2)
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/opinion-blog/articles/2016-02-10/sanders-and-trumps-fringe-appeal-wont-win-over-america (3)
I definitely agree with Jacob’s take on the electoral results thus far. Both parties are undergoing a reformative period, deadlocked between the traditional establishment and a growing number of disillusioned voters. In fact, both parties are polling at historic lows [1]. Being that this is the case, the time is ripe for “outsider” candidates the shake things up. From my reading of Jacob’s post, it seems as though he is suggesting that the Democratic race is now anyone’s ballgame. I can see what he’s saying, in that Senator Sanders is now in a much better place than he was six months ago, but I still think that Sanders is a longshot for the nomination. Among the elderly, Blacks, and Democrats Sanders loses to Clinton [2]. These three groups become increasingly central as the primaries move to the older, more diverse, and closed primary south. Additionally Sanders might be reaching his ceiling soon; a Gallup poll last year found that only 47 percent of voters would even consider voting for a socialist, the worst performing category on a list that included gay muslim atheists [5]. It will be hard for Sanders to overcome that massive cliff he faces. The comparison of Clinton to Nixon is one I think does a fantastic job of displaying the type of election we have. On the surface, the scenario with Clinton now is very similar to what Nixon faced. Both Nixon and Clinton possessed strong government backgrounds with great resumes, but both have an image problem with voters in terms of honesty [3].
As for the Republicans I think Jacob may overstate the importance of Ted Cruz. As I see it, Ted Cruz has a zero percent chance of winning the Republican nomination. Cruz draws his support from evangelicals, as such, he should be clobbering Trump in South Carolina, one of the most evangelical states in the country, but he is trailing in the latest polls there to Trump [4]. I see Cruz more as a roadblock, needing to be paid off more than anything. He might not be able to win the nomination going into the convention, but he most likely will have the power of kingmaker, throwing his support behind the candidate willing to offer him a role as Vice President or, perhaps more unlikely but more interesting to think about, the recently vacated spot on the Supreme Court should the Republican Senate manage to stall Obama’s nominee.
[1]http://www.pewresearch.org/data-trend/political-attitudes/republican-party-favorability/
[2]http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/exit-polls-hampshire-gop-voters-feel-betrayed-party-36821361
[3]http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/hillary-clinton-trust-name-217866
[4]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/sc/south_carolina_republican_presidential_primary-4151.html
[5]http://www.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.asp
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home