Tag Archives: impeach Obama

Drudge Super Poll: Clinton huge loser; Cruz big loser, Sanders very big winner; Trump the winner

By Kevin “Coach” Collins

This is will go down as the most amazing and unusual political campaign for the presidency in American history. Matt Drudge’s Super Poll, conducted over the past 18 hours, will become a permanent part of this process.   

The results of his Super Poll, as of this writing, are nothing less than astounding.

In short they show Donald Trump is still the one to beat for candidates on either side; but Bernie Sanders cannot be ignored. They prove the presidential dreams of both Republican Ted Cruz and Democrat Hillary Clinton are over.

With approximately 1.1 million votes cast, the huge loser is Democrat Hillary Clinton who despite being the favorite in all national polls has thus far seen her votes translate into .9%, a total putting her in 11th place. There is no enthusiasm whatsoever, for Clinton’s campaign.

The big loser is Republican Ted Cruz who has seen his votes translate into 19% which is good for third place but far behind the contest’s very big winner Socialist/Democrat Bernie Sanders. This blows away any argument that Cruz can win a general election. He can’t.         

Sanders has thus far pulled a very very impressive number of votes that translates into 31% of the total for second place. This indicates the Republican establishment, the media and the Consultant Class are not the only ones fearful of losing their free ride. Sanders has tapped into the ever present reservoir of greed and resentment to be found in any industrial society. He must be taken seriously and defeated.

While no one could have expected the results for these three, first place in the poll is not surprisingly held by Republican businessman Donald Trump.  Trump’s numbers at this writing show him getting 378K votes and holding a shockingly small lead of 2 ½% over Sanders.

The wild ride is just beginning. Trump has to redouble his efforts and retool his attacks toward Sanders and forget about Cruz and Clinton. They are done for.





New Reuters survey shows Trump is schlonging Ted Cruz among new “very motivated voters”

By Kevin “Coach” Collins

A Reuters’ survey with a very low 2% m. o. e. says Donald Trump is schlonging Ted Cruz among new, very motivated voters. 

It is undeniable that Donald Trump is running a very unconventional campaign. He has turned the old rules on their ear and found continuing success along the way.

Nevertheless, one of the rules of campaigning that Trump is following, without much fanfare, is the one that says the surest way to win is to expand the existing voter universe and swamp it with your new voters; thereby guaranteeing they will vote for you.

The newly released, very extensive Reuters/Ipsos survey conducted between June 1 and December 31, 2015 found that people described as “new voters” because they have either not voted in the last four general elections or never voted before, are backing Trump over Ted Cruz by an astounding 27% to just 3.4% which actually puts him behind Marco Rubio’s 4%.

Bringing in new voters is always the aim of all well run campaigns so there is no reason to think the Cruz and Rubio campaigns have not been trying to sign up new people; but very clearly neither is having much success at it.

Because of the edge Trump has, Cruz has to hang his hopes for victory on getting much bigger margins of regular voters than current polls of Iowa show.  

Even stipulating that Cruz is ahead in Iowa – which is not at all clear- whatever margin he has does not begin to blunt the effect of the new voters.

More than this, it is very unlikely that people who have not voted in at least four general elections or ever before, are being polled. There would be no way any polling company except a very large and established one like Reuters would have the wherewithal to do such lineal polling.

The “new voter” effect could be very problematic for Cruz in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada.

Trump is already way ahead with older White regular voters so this survey does nothing to help Ted Cruz.     



For Cruz New York “values” San Francisco “values” and “Swanson values” are Negotiable

By Kevin “Coach” Collins

We’ve heard Ted Cruz detests “New York values.” What we’re not hearing about is his hypocritical “situational” approval of these values and the “values” of a similar location: San Francisco.  Nor have we heard about the Senator’s refusal to stand up and defend his New York and San Francisco “values” donors whose lives are threatened by the “values” of Pastor Kevin Swanson one of his convenient Iowa supporters.  

In 2009 when Cruz first decided to run for public office, he received a donation of $251,000 from Peter Thiel a San Francisco billionaire whose “values” include supporting gay marriage. Cruz wanted to run for Texas Attorney General but eventually ended his campaign.

So a billionaire from California, who just happens to be gay and supports gay marriage, decides to give the unknown Cruz what turned out to be 20% of his campaign war chest with no promises about  gay marriage?  There is no indication that Cruz returned the “San Francisco values” money to Thiel.

Last April Cruz sat in the home of a prominent “New York values” gay marriage supporting couple and received the minimum $2,700 allowed by law from each man. Since that would barely cover Cruz’s travel expenses it raises the question of how many other gay activists with “New York values” he spoke to and what they gave Cruz; but not what he promised them. Cruz has since said that gay marriage would not be a priority to him. They have apparently bought his silence on the issue.

Along the way Cruz stood on a stage in Iowa (November 6, 2015) with a Pastor Kevin Swanson who has regularly shown that his “values” include calling for Christians to execute gays.

It seems that Cruz likes New York and San Francisco “values” when they come with a check attached to them; and is okay with Swanson “values” if they help him in Iowa.

It’s doubtful Cruz will go back to New York or San Francisco to beg for more money; but couldn’t he just man up and condemn Swanson for his savage “murder gays values?” 

Maybe he will after the Iowa Caucuses. Swanson won’t be useful to him then.        








 Ted Cruz wins a straw poll of New York City’s Republican Establishment elite; what does that say?

By Kevin “Coach” Collins

It is true that Ted Cruz won a straw poll of members of the New York City Metropolitan Republican Club.  Cruz beat Donald Trump by a single point. This raises the questions: What is the NYCMRC’s history? Is this good news for Cruz?

The NYCMRC headquarters was the setting for Michael Bloomberg’s 2005 mayoral campaign. The Met Club (as it calls itself), proudly lists George Pataki as one of its success stories during the 2000s when its membership “swelled”, as they report, to 521 establishment Republicans.

It was also the power base for State Senator Roy Goodman’s years and years of being Mister Republican Establishment in New York City.   

The Met Club lists John Lindsay election as New York City’s mayor in 1965 but omits any mention of helping Lindsay when he unsurprisingly switched parties to win re-election as a Democrat.

It was the center of the New York City effort to pass the “Equal Rights Amendment” to both the Federal and New York State Constitutions. The Met was the power base for the Rockefeller Republican United States Senator Jacob Javitz; and indeed all other New York City Rockefeller Republicans.

The NYCMRC is Republican Establishment through and through and always has been. Winning the straw poll of this club is not something the “outsider” Ted Cruz should be proud of. How can he explain the Club’s long list of Rockefeller Republicans who governed to the left of many Democrats to his supporters who demand conservative purity?  

A Cruz victory among this bunch, even by one percentage point, says those portraying him as an outsider ought to rethink that assertion. The Met Club is loaded with penny loafer Lacoste golf shirt wearers who probably aren’t much different from the RINOs at Goldman Sachs and Citi Bank. After all, the Met Club is headquartered on the Upper East Side of Manhattan.

Isn’t Manhattan a place that Cruz supporters despise?

It’s clear the people at the Met Club of New York City share some something with Ted Cruz. The only question is what is it?

Source: http://www.metclubnyc.org/         


Is the question of Cruz’s eligibility something we want to trust to the Supreme Court?

By Kevin “Coach” Collins

Should we be forced to trust our future to a Supreme Court ruling on Ted Cruz’s eligibility? Should we be made to stand by helplessly while John Roberts is blackmailed into voting against America CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTSagain?   

On its face there seems to be no question about Senator Ted Cruz’s eligibility to serve as president.  Nevertheless, the matter has not ever been litigated anywhere; so characterizing it as settled law is not accurate and may be fraught with danger.

Those who support Senator Cruz want this question to go away. That’s very understandable; but wanting something to go away and seeing it actually disappear are two different things.

For those who want to see that no Democrat is elected in TED CRUZNovember, this is not an issue that can be merely dismissed as “a Trump dirty trick.”

Donald Trump is not the one threatening to sue Cruz over his eligibility.  The enemy here is Florida Democrat Congressman Alan Grayson. Grayson is not just talk on this issue as his record shows. Grayson will file his lawsuit at the worst time for us.  

Anyone who wants to hang the future of our country on a Supreme Court ruling about Senator Cruz’s eligibility ought to keep in mind

Justice Roberts
Justice Roberts

that this is the same Supreme Court we were “sure” would not legalized same sex marriage but did. It is the same Court we were sure would kill Obamacare twice but twice we were stabbed in the back by John Roberts.

Justice Roberts and Children

It is not a wild unsustainable thought to consider that the established fact that there are problems with the adoptions of Chief Justice John Roberts children played a role in how he voted on these two very vital issues.  

This raises a question: What happens if Ted Cruz is “unfairly outrageously and ‘unconstitutionally’” ruled not eligible to serve as president by the Supreme Court? 

Besides there being no place left to appeal such a ruling, here’s what happens – we the people will see our will thwarted once again and we will have to live in a world ruled by those who, at best, don’t have America’s interests at heart.  

Saying “I don’t like this question so I’ll ignore it”, might feel good for Cruz supporters but it could present a real danger to our liberty.