Democratic Debate Surprise: Candidates Cave to Matriarch Hillary

/0 Comments/in , /by

I predicted that Bernie Sanders would best Hillary Clinton during the first presidential debate, much as Donald Trump triumphed over the Republican presidential candidates. They both have an edginess and outsider willingness to challenge traditional conventions in a way that appeals to the base of their respective parties. Clinton was the establishment candidate, the Jeb Bush of the Democratic party, the candidate of the old ways the base was busy rejecting. It seemed an easy prediction.

I couldn’t have been more wrong. Instead, Sanders and most of the other candidates bent over backwards to let Clinton off the hook on the biggest scandal that could derail her campaign — Servergate. When asked about Hillary’s emails, Sanders responded,

I think secretary [Clinton] is right, the American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails. Same with the media. The middle class is collapsing, and want to know if well have a democracy or oligarchy. Enough of the emails.

The crowd cheered wildly. O’Malley chimed in and agreed, “We don’t have to be defined by the email scandal, we can discuss affordable college, etc.”

Lincoln Chafee was the only Democrat who dared to criticize Clinton over her emails, saying in a curiously shaky voice, “This is an issue of American credibility. I think we need someone with the best ethical standards.”

Moderator Anderson Cooper of CNN asked Clinton if she wanted to respond to Chafee, and she responded in an arrogant tone, “No,” to much applause. This seems to be evidence something funny is taking place. Did Clinton promise the other candidates cabinet positions in exchange for keeping quiet about Servergate? Or more sinister, did the Clinton machine make some kind of threat to the candidates? Was that why Chafee’s voice was shaking as he challenged her?

While Clinton appears to have taken some voice training to improve her bland, monotone style, every time she opened her mouth it reminded me of her condescending line in the early 1990s about stay-at-home moms: “I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession which I entered before my husband was in public life.” Her rhetoric was full of the usual braggadocio; she managed to get both the words “proud” and “privileged” into her opening statement.

When asked how her presidency would be different than President Obama’s, she declared, “It’s pretty obvious, being the first woman president would be a pretty stark change.” This is quite a contrast from Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina, who has pointed out that being a woman is not an accomplishment. When asked why the Clinton dynasty should continue, Hillary said with a straight face, “the first woman president is an outsider” and went on to repeat her favorite line that she would fight for women and children.

Practically everything she said was duplicitous, trying to have it both ways. The most quoted example was: “I’m a progressive, not a moderate. But I’m a progressive who likes to get things done.”

What about her competitors? Sanders didn’t help himself sound any less scarily socialist. He praised socialist countries: “We should look to Denmark, Norway, Sweden and what they’ve accomplished for their people.” He declared that he didn’t consider himself a capitalist, and when asked what the greatest national security threat facing us today, responded, “climate change.” The audience roared. He said he wants to make every university free and raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour everywhere. He also trotted out the much discredited myth that people are locked up in prison merely for smoking marijuana, as did Clinton.

Jim Webb, who has a prestigious history of military service, came across as the most moderate of the bunch, and was attacked for not fully supporting affirmative action. O’Malley did little to distinguish himself from Clinton. All of the candidates, with the possible exception of Chafee, had little sympathy for NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and said he should be punished. The Planned Parenthood body parts selling scandal never even came up.

The candidates’ messages was one and the same: how to redistribute wealth, taking it away from the rich and setting up new government assistance programs to give it to the poor and middle class. The one thing the candidates did agree upon was that under Obama, the gap between the rich and the poor has increased, the middle class is disappearing and wages going down. And their non-message was also one and the same: There was a noticeable lack of patriotism or optimism about America.

With the other candidates unwilling to really challenge Clinton, it becomes less likely that Joe Biden will enter the race. If the other candidates had shown that they were strongly opposed to her candidacy and hammered her in the debate, or if she had imploded over Servergate, there would have been a natural void for him to enter and immediately become the frontrunner. Now, the Democratic race is up in the air, and Clinton again has a realistic chance at winning the nomination. (For more from the author of “Democratic Debate Surprise: Candidates Cave to Matriarch Hillary” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Circumventing Senate and Constitution, Obama Admin. Subjects US to Global Police Force

/7 Comments/in , /by

Following a recent United Nations (U.N.) Leaders’ Summit on Countering ISIL and Violent Extremism, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch just announced that the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) would be collaborating with several U.S. cities to form “a global law enforcement initiative,” known as “The Strong Cities Network” (SCN).

The objective is to “strengthen community resilience against violent extremism.” Lynch and others argue that American cities “are vital partners in international efforts to build social cohesion and resilience to violent extremism.”

In order to build “global social cohesion” SCN states it will identify city-level practitioners and members of their respective communities to participate in a series of workshops. Chosen individuals will contribute to and utilize an online repository of municipal-level good practices and web-based training modules.

Yet, underlying all of SCN’s “collaboration” is a serious unconstitutional reality: sub-national authorities from “different regions” will attempt to enforce U.N. rules and laws on American soil to achieve SCN objectives.

Furthermore, while SCN’s stated goal appears to combat “violent extremism,” how it identifies and defines “extremism” and– what acts it seeks to criminalize– is critical to recognizing SCN as a genuine national security threat. A cursory look at those involved with SCN at its highest levels provides insight.

It is noteworthy that the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Prince Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, gave opening remarks prior to Lynch’s keynote address at the U.N. Zeid is known for having long opposed the most basic of all human rights: free speech.

Foreign Policy writer Jacob McHangama points out that Zeid has consistently voted to force U.N. states to criminalize acts of “defamation of religion.” McHangama writes:

“From 1999-2010, member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) successfully tabled resolutions on “combating defamation of religion” as part of their campaign to implement a global blasphemy ban under human rights law, in the Human Rights Council (known as the U.N. Commission on Human Rights until 2006) and the General Assembly. During both of Ambassador Zeid’s periods as Jordan’s ambassador to the U.N., Jordan voted in favor of these resolutions when they were introduced at the General Assembly.”

Yet, “defamation of religion” relates specifically and solely to Islam. And, Zeid not only defines but also enforces criminality for violating such defamation– according to Sharia Blasphemy and Apostasy Laws.

Also noteworthy is SCN’s International Advisory Board, which is directed by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD). ISD’s links to George Soros’s Open Societies Institute are easily identifiable. Soros has made no secret about his efforts to create a worldwide government, worldwide police force, worldwide currency, and worldwide socio-economic policies.

One cannot discount the mayor of Montréal, Denis Coderre, who said of SCN: “This global network is designed to build on community-based approaches to address violent extremism, promote openness and vigilance and expand upon local initiatives like Montréal’s Mayors’ International Observatory on Living Together.” (The only American city to join Montréal’s network, is Atlanta, which is listed as part of the “World Association of the Major Metropolises.”)

Montréal’s stated focus is “inclusion and security in an era of radicalization and terror attacks.” Yet, closed door meetings allegedly included discussions focused on “creating diversity” and “taking a public stance against intolerance.” Again, “tolerance” is specifically and solely related to “minority” communities, which are allegedly being targeted for “so-called terrorist radicalization.”

Finally, and simultaneous to these U.N. events and announcements, on October 1, 2015 the National Assembly of the Quebec Legislature unanimously passed a motion condemning “Islamaphobia.” This also specifically and solely limits what can/cannot be said about Islam and Quebec’s Muslim minorities.

The common denominator among all of this “collaboration,” from the U.N. to Jordan to Canada, is the incremental implementation of Shari’a Blasphemy and Apostasy Laws. Initially, these laws impose limits on free speech and expression. Eventually, they make illegal freedom of speech and free exercise of religion– both of which are protected in America by the U.S. Constitution.

Further still, and even more troubling, is the head of the Department of Justice announcing that the United States will participate in a global plan subject to United Nations jurisdictional authority. The head of an agency allegedly committed first and foremost to enforcing the U.S. Constitution, is deliberately rejecting the very law she swore to uphold.

Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution specifies that any international agreements, including treaties, can only be agreed to after first being subjected to the authority of the U.S. Constitution. No federal government official, cabinet member, agency bureaucrat, not even the President, can enter into international agreements like the SCN Lynch just announced.

The Constitution is quite clear. Only a two-thirds majority of the U.S. Senate can approve of entering into such an agreement. Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 specifies that 67 members of the U.S. Senate must first agree. It states: The President, “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.”

It is doubtful if the U.S. Senate has even heard of SCN. It most certainly has not voted on it.

Yet the Attorney General of the United States decides to bypass them and the Constitution to implement a global initiative subjecting Americans to U.N. rules– and eventually Shari’a Blasphemy and Apostasy Laws. (For more from the author of “Circumventing Senate and Constitution, Obama Admin. Subjects US to Global Police Force” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Here’s What Donald Trump Says Bernie Sander’s Huge Mistake Was at Democratic Debate

/2 Comments/in , /by

Bernie Sanders made a “big mistake” by giving Hillary Clinton cover not to discuss her emails, Donald Trump said the morning after the first Democratic presidential debate.

“You have an FBI investigation on the emails and he just let her off,” the billionaire businessman and Republican presidential front-runner said Wednesday on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “When you’re losing that badly you have to go a lot stronger” . . .

“I thought the others were not strong. They were not going after her. They were kind to her. Very gentle,” he told GMA. “They had to hit her hard. They decided not to do that.”

Despite some strong sound bites, Trump said Sanders will not overtake Clinton as the front-runner.

“I don’t think he’s going to get her. I think his performance was OK,” he said. “He had to be much better than okay. He had to come out the clear winner. And he didn’t.” (Read more from “Here’s What Donald Trump Says Bernie Sander’s Huge Mistake Was at Democratic Debate” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Bernie and Hillary Try to Join the Tea Party’s Populist Bandwagon but Fall Flat

/1 Comment/in , /by

Watching the Tea Party’s successful messaging against crony capitalism, it’s no wonder that leading Democrat senators and presidential candidates, most prominent in the platforms of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, have embarked on a populist campaign against policies they view as beneficial to Wall Street and well-connected lobbyists and detrimental to ordinary Americans. This was on full display at last night’s Democratic presidential debate as all the Democrat candidates ingratiated themselves to “the little guy” by bashing the evil rich people and their politically connected cronies.

While there is merit to some of the progressive populist diagnosis of the flawed and corrupt structure inherent in our political class, they have the wrong prescription to fix the broken political system. And in fact, their version of populism – de facto venture socialism, as former Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) once observed – is nothing more than warmed-over government largesse, which has engendered the very sort of cronyism she inveighs against on a regular basis. Only free market populism, which eliminates the ability of the federal government to pick winners and losers in the first place, will foster the fairest and most prosperous economy for both Wall Street and Main Street.

BANKING

Although both authentic conservatives and principled liberals share the same disdain for government-sponsored handouts to big banks, the banking industry in itself is not the source of the economic downturn in 2008, and trash-talking banks as an ends to itself will not usher in an era of prosperity.

Last December, Elizabeth Warren referred to the Dodd-Frank provision in the Cromnibus as “the worst of government for the rich and powerful” that “would let derivatives traders on Wall Street gamble with taxpayer money and get bailed out by the government when their risky bets threaten to blow up our financial system.”

It’s true that this non-germane carve-out had no business being slipped into a budget bill without any transparency. And indeed, the lack of transparency is one of many reasons why conservatives voted against the bill. But once again, her diagnosis of the problem and ensuing prescription misses the mark. The “worst of government for the rich and powerful” that led to the housing crash, credit crisis, and subsequent bailout of the banks stems from the very government interventionist policies that Warren and her fellow leftists have championed for decades.

Social engineering policies such as Bill Clinton’s National Homeownership Strategy, coupled with the officious interventions of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, created the entire culture – directed straight from Washington to Wall Street – that coerced banks to underwrite risky mortgages in order to please the central planners in Washington. It was these greedy government-sponsored entities that bought up almost all of the subprime mortgage securities. It was these government policies and agencies “that gamble with taxpayer money and get bailed out by the government when their risky bets threaten to blow up our financial system.”

In fact, it was her prized legislation – the Dodd-Frank bill – that created the Financial Stability Oversight Council – a government agency that can completely bypass the bankruptcy process and bail out companies deemed too big to fail. Dodd-Frank is ostensibly the Obamacare of the financial industry and is another example of how the arsonists in the political class dress up as firefighters to solve the problems they helped create. The fact that this law was named after two politicians who embodied this big government collusion with the big banks is quite fitting.

Warren is correct to assert that banking lobbyists have too much power in Washington. But the way to reduce their power is to eliminate government’s ability to pick winners and losers instead of empowering them to continue growing the government/Wall Street cronyist complex. People have the right to lobby and petition the government all they want, but if Congress actually followed the constitutional enumerated powers, their lobbying efforts would be moot.

PICKING WINNERS AND LOSERS

Like all “hard-core” liberals, Sanders, Warren, and Clinton are content with government handouts to big business so long as they are presented in the form of a subsidy. They continue to champion energy subsidies for green energy cronies who don’t pay taxes. They support the ethanol mandate which uses the boot of government to enrich a small subset of corporate farmers, while increasing the cost of food on families by as much as $2,000 per year. Food prices are projected to be $3.5 billion higher in 2017 as a result of the ethanol mandate. Sanders is a champion of the cronyist ethanol lobby.

They advocate draconian environmental regulations that would have precluded the recent decline in energy prices, and opposes policies that will ramp up production and exportation of energy, which would lower prices even further for American consumers on a permanent basis.

One of the most glaring examples of the Sanders/Warren support for crony capitalism is their vote in support of the Internet sales tax. The so-called Marketplace Fairness Act is pushed by K Street and the big brick and mortar retailers to create an inter-state online tax cartel. This version of taxation without representation will punitively hurt small businesses, consumers, and low-tax states – all to grow government and benefit big business. Indeed, many more Americans beyond the “Donald Trump and his billionaire friends,” whom Sanders decried at the debate, will pay “a hell of a lot more in taxes.”

Indeed, there is nothing novel about the Sanders/Warren brand of liberalism. It was summed up by Reagan long ago as follows: “If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

CONSTITUTIONAL POPULISM

In order to encourage true economic growth for everyone without dividing America into classes, we need to slash taxes and regulations for everyone and abolish subsidies for everyone. Both the corporate and individual tax rates need to be cut, as well as the double taxation on investments, estates, and Social Security benefits.

On the regulatory side, the total cost of federal regulations in 2014 reached $1.88 trillion, which amounts to a $14,976 hidden tax per family every year. According to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, this amounts to 23 percent of the average family budget of $51,000. The $1.88 trillion number is also more than receipts from corporate and personal income taxes combined. By eliminating gratuitous and costly regulations and implementing congressional sunset powers over new regulations, both families and corporations would save more money, which in turn, creates more jobs, raises wages, and lowers the cost of living.

Finally, it would be insensible to ignore illegal immigration. Nothing embodies “the worst of government for the rich and powerful” to the detriment of ordinary Americans more than the elitist open borders/amnesty agenda. Illegal immigration has had a devastating effect on American workers, taxpayers, healthcare, education, and welfare – all to enrich big corporations and lobbyists who want to use lawlessness to artificially drive down wages. Sadly, populist progressive leaders like Senator Warren have bought into the illegal immigrant-first agenda – hook, line and sinker.

If Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are really concerned about wage growth in this country, they should join conservatives in the effort to restore the rule of law and place the concerns of American workers and taxpayers ahead of the special interests and lobbyists. They would join in the conservative effort to protect the welfare system and Social Security from being illegally accessed by those encouraged to migrate here illegally by big business.

Ideally, there would be a lot of common ground to plow through a populist alliance between conservatives and liberals. But that would require courage on the part of liberals to buck the dogma of their party on critical issues, not just on some strategies – something these progressive Democrats have clearly been unwilling to do.

The conservative grassroots and some of members in Congress, on the other hand, have demonstrated an unambiguous commitment to place the interests of the American worker and taxpayer ahead of the lobbyists, even when it means bucking party leadership on fundamental issues. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren would be wise to listen and learn. (For more from the author of “Bernie and Hillary Try to Join the Tea Party’s Populist Bandwagon but Fall Flat” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Top Law Enforcement Official Says Terrorists Infiltrated U.S. Through This Country, It’ll Definitely Surprise You

/4 Comments/in , /by

A few days ago a top law enforcement official finally confirmed that Islamic terrorists have infiltrated the United States through Mexico, a story that Judicial Watch broke last year as part of an ongoing series involving the dangerously porous southern border.

Last October JW reported that four members of the militant group Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS), who entered the U.S. through the Mexican border, were arrested in McAllen and Pharr Texas. Then, over the summer, JW reported that Mexican drug cartels are smuggling foreigners from countries with terrorist links into a small Texas rural town near El Paso and they’re using remote farm roads—rather than interstates—to elude the Border Patrol and other law enforcement barriers. The information comes from sources on both sides of the Mexico-U.S. border who say the Special Interest Aliens (SIA) are being transported to stash areas in Acala, a rural crossroads located around 54 miles from El Paso on a state road – Highway 20.

Prior to that JW published a series of investigative articles citing high-level federal law enforcement, intelligence and other sources certifying that Islamic terrorist groups are operating in at least two Mexican border towns. In August, 2014 ISIS planned to attack the U.S. with car bombs or other vehicle borne improvised explosive devices (VBIED) from a camp in the Mexican border city of Ciudad Juarez. Agents across a number of Homeland Security, Justice and Defense agencies were all placed on alert and instructed to aggressively work all possible leads and sources concerning the terrorist threat. (Read more from “Top Law Enforcement Official Says Terrorists Infiltrated U.S. Through This Country, It’ll Definitely Surprise You” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

On Debate Night, Trump Gets Out-Tweeted by a GOP Rival

/0 Comments/in , /by

There was high anticipation for Donald Trump’s running commentary on the first Democratic debate. But the bombastic Republican front-runner ended up only sending out a few tweets of his own throughout the night. And the tone was rather… well, sedate.

Meanwhile, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee unleashed his social media id:

(Read more from “On Debate Night, Trump Gets Out-Tweeted by a GOP Rival” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Feds Label Ranchers “Terrorists”, Sentence Them to 5 Years for Setting Preventative Fires

/9 Comments/in , /by

This past week, two ranchers from eastern Oregon were sentenced to five years in federal prison for setting preventative fires that burned less than a quarter section of BLM land. Ranchers and farmers across the country are outraged. Here’s what the president of Oregon’s Farm Bureau (OFB) agency had to say:

Today two Oregon ranchers were sentenced to five years in federal prison under terrorism statutes for setting preventative fires on their own land. We are gravely disappointed at this outcome.

Elderly Harney County rancher Dwight Hammond and his son, Steven, a former OFB Board member and Harney County Farm Bureau president, have already served time in federal prison for their mistakes and paid their debt to society for the less-than-140 acres of BLM land that was accidentally impacted by the fires.

This is an example of gross government overreach, and the public should be outraged.

Today’s verdict is also hypocritical given BLM’s own harm to public and private grazing lands, which goes without consequence. It is unjust. OFB worked on this case quietly behind the scenes with BLM through the spring and summer. That diligent diplomatic effort was fruitless.

This prosecution will have a chilling effect across the West among ranchers, foresters, and others who rely on federal allotments and permits. It will harm the positive relationship many ranchers and organizations have worked to forge with the BLM, and undermine the cooperative spirit most ranchers have brought to the bureau in helping the health of the range.

Please join Farm Bureau and declare your support for Steve and Dwight Hammond. Join over 2,600 other citizens from across the country and show BLM that this extreme abuse of power will not go unnoticed and is shameful. Sign the petition at www.savethehammonds.com. This must never happen again.

OFB will continue to work to bring public and policymaker attention to this case.

______________________________________________

Here’s the Rest of the Tragic Story of the “Terrorist” Ranchers’ Sentencing

By The Westerner. Eastern Oregon ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond served three months and one year in federal prison, respectively, after a fire they started on their property spread to BLM land. The fire, set to control juniper trees and sagebrush, burned less than 140 acres of public land. A jury convicted the father and son in 2012, and a U.S. District Judge handed down the sentence. Should have been case closed, except the feds weren’t satisfied. They appealed the sentence because it didn’t meet mandatory guidelines stipulated in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which Congress passed following the Oklahoma City bombing. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, and yesterday U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken re-sentenced the men to five years in federal prison. (Read more about the “Terrorist” Ranchers Who Set the Preventative Fires HERE)

Busted! Jeb Bush Staffer Planted in Audience to Frame Donald Trump Narrative/Hit Job

/0 Comments/in , /by

During an appearance at a Jon Huntsman / The Hill “No Labels” event, a female audience member named Lauren Batchelder played the role of a female antagonist toward candidate Donald Trump.

However, Ms. Batchelder is not just an average audience member. She’s a paid political operative of the GOP and a paid staff member of Team Jeb Bush:

Within minutes of her scripted performance at the event, the producers of CNN were quickly editing soundbites and framing a narrative. That story was pushed into the media stream within hours. CNN’s Jeanne Moos was the delivery vehicle for the a hit piece.

Here’s the CNN narrative as presented yesterday:

However, as previously noted, it didn’t take long to discover that Lauren Batchelder was not just an ordinary audience member, she is actually a current staffer for Senator Kelly Ayotte and also working in New Hampshire on behalf of the Jeb Bush 2016 campaign.

Batchelder’s LinkedIn profile shows she is a Jeb Bush For President 2016 staffer.

Given Senator Ayotte’s position being pro-life, and contrasted against the framework of Ms. Batchelder’s line of questioning being completely opposite of the boss(es) she is working for, it doesn’t take long to figure out this was a planted Establishment GOPe hit job targeting Donald Trump:

Of course, Ms Batchelder quickly began scrubbing her social media history trying to hide who she works for. Almost all of her Twitter history is now deleted, but not before much of it was able to be captured. Several other profiles remain available:

From her Facebook Profile it appears Ms. Batchelder has quite a history as a Thespian (actress).

[You can read more of the texts within her deleted tweets HERE. Not surprisingly most of them are disparaging toward Donald Trump and Ben Carson]

It is amazingly pathetic how the RINO Caucus has to operate in order to try and eliminate their political opposition. (For more from the author of “Busted! Jeb Bush Staffer Planted in Audience to Frame Donald Trump Narrative/Hit Job” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

So How Long Has Ben Carson Really Been a Republican?

/10 Comments/in , /by

Republican presidential front runner Donald Trump has received a lot of scrutiny for donating to Democratic politicians in the past. But Republican primary voters may be curious to know why one of his chief rivals, Dr. Ben Carson, officially joined the Republican Party less than one year ago.

The American Mirror has obtained several public records that show Dr. Ben Carson, one of Trump’s chief rivals, did not affiliate with the Republican Party until he changed his voter registration on October 31, 2014.

Photo Credit: The American Mirror

Carson filed this “record update/change” on that date to change his party affiliation to “Republican Party of Florida” — less than six months before declaring his candidacy for the Republican nomination for president.

The office of Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections confirms, “Dr. Carson was previously registered with a minor political party: Independence Party of Florida (IDP).”

Other records show Carson was also registered as an independent in Maryland. According to the Baltimore County Board of Elections, despite registering to vote in that county in 2001, Carson only voted in the general elections of 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010 and 2012 — and never in any primaries. (Read more from “So How Long Has Ben Carson Really Been a Republican?” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

You’ll Never Guess Who Biden Is More Electable Than, According to This Poll

/0 Comments/in , /by

Vice President Joe Biden trails Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, yet he looks more electable than the former secretary of state against top Republicans.

As Democrats prepare for their first debate Tuesday evening, the latest Fox News national poll finds little movement in the primary. Clinton remains the front-runner among Democratic primary voters (45 percent), with Bernie Sanders (25 percent) and Biden (19 percent) behind her by about 20 percentage points. That’s almost identical to where things stood three weeks ago . . .

In hypothetical 2016 matchups with top-tier Republicans, Clinton trails all the Republicans tested. She trails Ben Carson by 11 points and Donald Trump by 5 points. Jeb Bush has a 4-point edge over Clinton, while Carly Fiorina is up by 3 points.

Biden fares better. He leads Trump by 13 points and tops Bush by 5 points. Biden is preferred over both Fiorina and Carson by 4 points. And Biden narrowly bests Marco Rubio by 1 point.

Though Clinton still dominates the Democratic primary race, the new poll confirms a significant decline in her support since summer. In June, her lead over Sanders was double what it is today (61 percent Clinton vs. 15 percent Sanders). And instead of trailing Trump by 5 points, she topped him by 17 points. Clinton was also up by 6 points over Fiorina then, while she’s down by 3 now. (Read more from “You’ll Never Guess Who Biden Is More Electable Than, According to This Poll” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.