Poll: Trump Beats Hillary in General Election Match-Up

Loading

A new FoxNews poll shows GOP frontrunner Donald Trump edging Hillary Clinton in a general election match-up. A December poll from Fox showed Hillary ahead of Trump by 11 points. This latest poll, however, has Trump beating Clinton by 3 points, 47-44 percent.

Since early December, Trump has been engulfed in media controversies surrounding his proposal to temporarily ban Muslim immigrants and his rhetoric confronting Hillary about President Bill Clinton’s salacious past and allegations of sexual misconduct with women. In that time, a potential general election match-up against Hillary has swung 14 points in Trump’s favor.

At the beginning of summer, Hillary led Trump by 17 points in an earlier Fox poll. Hillary is plagued by two significant challenges. Voter approval of Barack Obama is only 42 percent, while 53 percent disapprove of his job performance. Obama’s approval numbers are near the historic lows of his presidency.

Worse, however, are Obama’s marks on a number of important issues. In fact, on every issue tested, whether improving health care or containing ISIS, a strong majority of voters believe Obama will be remembered more for his failures than successes.

More at Breitbart

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
12 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

It is truly amazing that someone with such an extensive history of corruption and lies compared to a record of failure and non-accomplishment can even be seriously considered for the Office of the President. Only in liberal-land.

For Rich:

Nearly 20 percent of likely Democratic voters say they’d cross sides and vote for Trump, while a small number, or 14 percent, of Republicans claim they’d vote for Clinton. When those groups were further broken down, a far higher percentage of the crossover Democrats contend they are “100 percent sure” of switching than the Republicans.

(And from the above article)

Hillary’s challenge isn’t just Obama’s unpopularity, however. She receives the lowest marks of any candidate running for president on being honest and trustworthy. Only 36 percent of voters believe Hillary is honest. A staggering 62 percent, almost two-thirds, say she is not trustworthy.

@Ditto: I think any Dem crossover is more anti HRC than pro Trump. Think Rubio , Kasich or Christie would get more crossover Dems. Demographics and Electoral College landscape play heavily against Trump.
Trump also has problem with 35% of Repubs and over 55% of Indies. Give him a 1 in 4 chance of winning Presidency.
HRC 5-4 Rebio 3-1 Cruz 7-2( 50-50 fav. to win Repub nom) Kasich good longshot bet at 12-1

Trump taps into a lot of frustration on both the Democrat and Republican sides. So far, there has not been a political analyst, steeped in the politics, that has been able to accurately predict the direction of Trump’s campaign. What he has touched, what he has unleashed and is exploiting defies conventional explanation.

Hillary’s problems keep multiplying and, thanks to Trump, deploying the Bubba weapon has only added to them. She is certainly indictable at this point and if she does poorly against Sanders in a few primaries, I think she will be indicted. If she does well and looks like the nominee, she will NOT be indicted; thus is the level of corruption in the Obama DOJ.

I haven’t seen any national polls where Trump leads HRC though he is within margin of error in most. Rubio definitely leads HRC.

Trump gets SCHLONGED by Bernie 51-38 in latest Quinnipac Poll

Feel The Bern—-Sanders could beat HRC in Iowa AND N.H. Dem race in turmoil should that happen though HRC would remain a SHAKEY favorite and Repubs. would get a boost.

Championship tonight–Think 7 point dog Clemson can beat Alabama-34-31.

For The Record Jim Webb gets in it’s over for Dems. as many (like myself) who can’t stomach Hillary but won’t vote Repub. get on his team. He’ll win Virginia –a must for Dems–and hurt HRC in must win states of Ohio and Penn.

To no one’s –at least not mine– surprise, Trump is playing the birther card on Cruz in Iowa. Trump, while claiming his questionable bona fides with Iowan Evangelicals, mentions his feigned concern for his “friend” Ted’s constitutional legitimacy.
Sleazy.

@Richard Wheeler: Feel The Bern—Sanders +15 in N.H. and +5 in Iowa-over HRC–ONLY trails 47-41. nationally.-getting interesting—-is Uncle Joe waiting in the wings?

Trump called SOTU boring—from someone who is a bore. He could learn from the class and grace of Gov. Haley.

Cruz–“Trump embodies New York values” The ultimate Texas put down.
Trump–Ted should withdraw from race unless he gets the courts to affirm his prez. legitimacy—
This bromance is officially over. Trump pulling out all stops to win Iowa..

@Richard Wheeler:

Team Hillary invented the ‘birther’ campaign. The Democrats tried to use a ‘birther’ attack against McCain. They are looking forward to the chance to bring on a ‘birther’ attack against Cruz or Rubio. Trump is doing Cruz a favor. It’s better to have it discussed now, as the Democrats would without question bring it up should Cruz win the Republican nomination.

Trump hasn’t specifically said that Cruz isn’t eligible, he hasn’t said that Cruz is. Trump merely says that this is a question that must be answered for Cruz to be eligible. The real question is what would the SCOTUS have to say? There is no question that Cruz is a US citizen by birth.

Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president

By Mary Brigid McManamon January 12

Mary Brigid McManamon is a constitutional law professor at Widener University’s Delaware Law School.

Donald Trump is actually right about something: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) is not a natural-born citizen and therefore is not eligible to be president or vice president of the United States.

The Constitution provides that “No person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President.” The concept of “natural born” comes from common law, and it is that law the Supreme Court has said we must turn to for the concept’s definition. On this subject, common law is clear and unambiguous. The 18th-century English jurist William Blackstone, the preeminent authority on it, declared natural-born citizens are “such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England,” while aliens are “such as are born out of it.” The key to this division is the assumption of allegiance to one’s country of birth. The Americans who drafted the Constitution adopted this principle for the United States. James Madison, known as the “father of the Constitution,” stated, “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. . . . [And] place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”

Cruz is, of course, a U.S. citizen. As he was born in Canada, he is not natural-born. His mother, however, is an American, and Congress has provided by statute for the naturalization of children born abroad to citizens. Because of the senator’s parentage, he did not have to follow the lengthy naturalization process that aliens without American parents must undergo. Instead, Cruz was naturalized at birth. This provision has not always been available. For example, there were several decades in the 19th century when children of Americans born abroad were not given automatic naturalization.

Article I of the Constitution grants Congress the power to naturalize an alien — that is, Congress may remove an alien’s legal disabilities, such as not being allowed to vote. But Article II of the Constitution expressly adopts the legal status of the natural-born citizen and requires that a president possess that status. However we feel about allowing naturalized immigrants to reach for the stars, the Constitution must be amended before one of them can attain the office of president. Congress simply does not have the power to convert someone born outside the United States into a natural-born citizen.

For myself, I’m making no claim one way or the other about whether Cruz is a “Natural Born Citizen” . Rubio of course is not eligible, which I think is another reason why so many Democrats want him to be win the nomination. Even the Liberal rag Mother Earth News agrees:

Up until last year, Marco Rubio described his parents as exiles from Fidel Castro’s communist regime in Cuba: “In 1971, Marco was born in Miami to Cuban-born parents who came to America following Fidel Castro’s takeover,” his Senate biography stated. But it turns out his parents actually arrived in the US in 1956, before the revolution, and even made multiple trips back to the communist island.

The question is whether Cruz, by Constitutional law is a “natural citizen.” The only time the US Supreme Court ever did define the class of persons who were POTUS eligible under Article 2 Section 1 was in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), wherein it was held:

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.

@Ditto: C.mon SCOTUS is not going to hear this. Cruz and Rubio are both eligible.
The Donald brings this up daily–just as when he falsely went after BHO—simply trying to muddy the waters in Iowa. “Helping my friend Ted.” Right.

Cruz’s ‘Natural-Born Citizen’ Status Tested in Birther Suit

Republican presidential contender Ted Cruz should be disqualified from the race because he isn’t a “natural-born citizen,” a fellow Texan claims in a “birther” challenge filed against the senator in a U.S. court.

The suit seeks a court definition of the term to clarify whether Cruz — who was born in Canada to an American mother — can or can’t serve if elected.

“This 229-year question has never been pled, presented to or finally decided by or resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court,” Houston attorney Newton B. Schwartz Sr. said in his 28-page complaint. “Only the U.S. Supreme Court can finally decide, determine judicially and settle this issue now.”

Claiming that “time is of the essence” because of the rapidly approaching Iowa caucuses and March 1 Super Tuesday primaries, Schwartz asked that the case be expedited for resolution by the nation’s highest court as soon as possible.

(Snip)

Schwartz, 85, said in a phone interview he isn’t connected to any particular campaign, though he personally “probably” supports Bernie Sanders, the Vermont senator seeking the Democratic nomination.

“Honestly, I was watching C-SPAN one night when Donald Trump was talking about it and I couldn’t believe no one had thought to just file something with the court,” said Schwartz, a practicing trial attorney and self-described news junkie.

“It’s such a simple procedure — I’m amazed no one did it,” Schwartz said. “Senator Cruz should have filed it himself to avoid the question.”

Marco Rubio seeks to dismiss court challenge to his eligibility to be president

This week Rubio sought to have a court complaint in Florida against him thrown out, saying the argument “would jeopardize centuries of precedent and deem at least six former presidents ineligible for office.” (Last week he told reporters of Cruz, “I don’t think that’s an issue.”)

Rubio was born in Miami in 1971. But Rubio’s Cuban immigrant parents did not become U.S. citizens until 1975.

That’s convinced so-called birthers to conclude Rubio is ineligible under Article 2 of the Constitution, which says “no person except a natural born citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

The questions arose in 2011 when Rubio was being talked about as Mitt Romney’s running mate.

“It’s nothing to do with him personally. But you can’t change the rules because you like a certain person. Then you have no rules,” New Jersey lawyer Mario Apuzzo told the Tampa Bay Times in 2011.

(Snip)

In 2011, Rubio played down the talk about eligibility.

“I’m not going to answer that because I’m not thinking about it,” he told the Tampa Bay Times. “All I care about is my qualifications to serve in the Senate. I just don’t think it’s relevant.”

To press their case, birthers dug up Rubio’s parents immigration papers. While the eligibility question is unresolved, in some eyes, the file (which the Times independently obtained) confirmed his parents were given citizenship in 1975. Rubio at the time said he did not know why his parents waited, though experts told the Times that it wasn’t uncommon for some immigrants to wait.

The immigration dossier broke some news: It showed Rubio’s parents came to the United States in 1956, not after Fidel Castro took over, as Rubio’s his official biography noted and he repeatedly implied when talking about his “exile” parents.