Thread: Narrative Buster: Against Hillary, Trump Polls Better Than Bush With Non-Whites

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presid...th-non-whites/

Narrative Buster: Against Hillary, Trump Polls Better Than Bush with Non-Whites

Donald Trump
The Associated Press

by John Nolte25 Aug 2015598

One of the top talking points the media and the Republican Establishment are using to scare GOP primary voters away from Trump is the idea that his blunt talk on immigration will so alienate minority voters he won’t have a chance to win the presidency. CNN’s latest poll, however, shows that the billionaire businessman actually does better than Establishment-favorite Jeb Bush with non-white voters.

In a head-to-head match-up with Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush wins only 23% of the non-white vote. Hillary win 72%. That’s a difference of -49 points.

Trump loses the non-white vote by -47 points, 71% to 24%.

The +2 point difference in Trump’s favor is within the poll’s margin of error but blows away the idea that Jeb’s pandering to the Left and media on the issue of border security is the key to Republicans taking back the White House.

When you look at all registered voters, the folly of Jeb’s pandering becomes even more clear. Jeb loses to Hillary by -9 points, 52% to 43%. Trump is only -6 points behind Hillary, 51% to 45%.

According to the Washington Post, against Hillary, Trump is also surging in support among non-white voters:

If Trump’s comments were hurting him and/or Republicans with voters, we’d expect to see them faring worse after the June/July period in which the comments became public — and Trump rose in the polls.

The opposite happened. Trump’s position among non-white voters improved, substantially, when you look at how he fared in a head-to-head match-up with Hillary Clinton. In a CNN/ORC poll conducted in late June, Clinton led Trump by 67 points among non-white voters. By the end of July, she led by 56 points. By mid-August, 49.

White, black or otherwise, people are people and voters are voters.

Currently, we have chaos in the Middle East, chaos along our southern border, and chaos in our inner-cities. We have suffered through 7 years of economic malaise as the deficit has topped $18 trillion. This next presidential election is going to be a Change Election…

And like him or not, Trump is a consequential vote for Change.

I think by November of 2016, Trump could win the black vote and do very well with Hispanics and Asians Why wouldn't he? He supports jobs, protected trade, stopping illegal immigration, reducing if not stopping altogether for awhile all or most legal immigration, and he's already proposed a job finding program for inner cities in his immigration plan. He supports funding women's health issues.

Originally Posted by Judy

I think by November of 2016, Trump could win the black vote and do very well with Hispanics and Asians Why wouldn't he? He supports jobs, protected trade, stopping illegal immigration, reducing if not stopping altogether for awhile all or most legal immigration, and he's already proposed a job finding program for inner cities in his immigration plan. He supports funding women's health issues.

Not exactly true. Trump does not support government funding for abortions, which is considered a women's health issue. He is pro-life, not pro-choice. Supposedly he has evolved on this issue because he used to be pro-choice. Furthermore, supporting the expedited return of the illegals he considers to be the "good ones" is not what I'd call stopping immigration. Actually, I consider it an amnesty. Illegals certainly don't need an expedited ticket back after being deported. They need to wait the time demanded by our current immigration law and go to the back of the line to apply for legal entry.

I too like many of Trump's positions, however, I think it is important that we remain honest and not attempt to sugar coat everything Trump. I'd say the same thing concerning any candidate and that includes Santorum and Walker.

Originally Posted by MW

Not exactly true. Trump does not support government funding for abortions, which is considered a women's health issue. He is pro-life, not pro-choice. Supposedly he has evolved on this issue because he used to be pro-choice. Furthermore, supporting the expedited return of the illegals he considers to be the "good ones" is not what I'd call stopping immigration. Actually, I consider it an amnesty. Illegals certainly don't need an expedited ticket back after being deported. They need to wait the time demanded by our current immigration law and go to the back of the line to apply for legal entry.

I too like many of Trump's positions, however, I think it is important that we remain honest and not attempt to sugar coat everything Trump. I'd say the same thing concerning any candidate and that includes Santorum and Walker.

Yes, my mistake, you're absolutely right about that. Abortions are absolutely a woman's health issue which one can only wonder why so many Republican candidates including Trump want to take a stand against women's health issues which of course is a stand against women.

It's far beyond the time they all start re-thinking their positions. The Pro-Choice position accepts everyone, those who don't believe in abortions, their right, as well as those who do, their right, and our party is neutral supporting the right of choice, whatever the girl or woman involved believes is best for her situation is her business and no one else's.

Originally Posted by Judy

Yes, my mistake, you're absolutely right about that. Abortions are absolutely a woman's health issue which one can only wonder why so many Republican candidates including Trump want to take a stand against women's health issues which of course is a stand against women.

It's far beyond the time they all start re-thinking their positions. The Pro-Choice position accepts everyone, those who don't believe in abortions, their right, as well as those who do, their right, and our party is neutral supporting the right of choice, whatever the girl or woman involved believes is best for her situation is her business and no one else's.

You don't support government funding for abortions, do you?

Originally Posted by MW

You don't support government funding for abortions, do you?

I do. I think as part of women's health issues that poor women who want to terminate an unwanted pregnancy should be covered by Medicaid the same as the poor woman who wants to have a baby she can't afford is covered. It's a medical procedure covering a health issue that she wants because she needs it and her life matters the same as the pregnant woman who wants to have a baby. Abortion procedure costs are very small when compared to the cost of child delivery expenses and all that goes with it, from pre-natal and post, all covered by Medicaid.

To deprive poor girls and women who don't want to reproduce Medicaid coverage for a safe and timely procedure makes no sense to me. The alternative is to force them into unsafe procedures or childbirths against their will. This to me is barbaric and anti-woman.

Why Republicans of all people, the party of laissez-faire which means leave the people alone, the leaders since inception of the party of civil rights, equal rights, workers rights, women's rights, everyone's rights, would want to be the ones behind such a terrible stance is just beyond me, because it contradicts everything our party has ever stood for, fought for, marched for and yes, died for, such as individual liberty, personal freedom, self-determination, independence, privacy, equality and sustainability, all of which culminate in the basic right of a girl or woman to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.