Posted tagged ‘Polls’

New poll shows Palestinian Arabs don’t want peace, under ANY circumstances

January 26, 2018

Friday, January 26, 2018 Elder of Ziyon

Source: New poll shows Palestinian Arabs don’t want peace, under ANY circumstances

{Something you won’t be seeing on the six o’clock news. – LS}

A joint poll by the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research (TSC), Tel Aviv University and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) shows that Palestinians are against any possible solution to the conflict.

Their press release doesn’t say it, but the poll itself does.

A series of options are given to Palestinians:

Mutual recognition of Palestine and Israel as the homelands of their respective peoples. The agreement will mark the end of conflict, Israel will fight terror against Palestinians, and no further claims will be made by either side. 56.9% oppose.

The independent Palestinian state which will be established in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip will be demilitarized (no heavy weaponry) 77.4% oppose

A multinational force will be established and deployed in the Palestinian state to ensure the security and safety of both sides. Support or oppose? 60.5% oppose

The Palestinian state will have sovereignty over its air space, its land, and its water resources, but Israel will maintain two early warning stations in the West Bank for 15 years. Support or oppose? 67.2% oppose

The Palestinian state will be established in the entirety of West Bank and the Gaza strip, except for several blocs of settlement which will be annexed to Israel in a territorial exchange. Israel will evacuate all other settlements. 62.7% oppose

The territories Palestinians will receive in exchange will be similar to the size of the settlement blocs that will be annexed to Israel. Support or oppose? 70.6% oppose

East Jerusalem will be the capital of the Palestinian state and West Jerusalem the capital of the Israel. Support or oppose? 71.6% oppose

In the Old City of Jerusalem, the Muslim and Christian quarters and al Haram al Sharif will come under Palestinian sovereignty and the Jewish quarter and the Wailing Wall will come under Israeli sovereignty. Support or oppose? 71.4% oppose

The only provision they supported was “right of return”:

Palestinian refugees will have the right of return to their homeland whereby the Palestinian state will settle all refugees wishing to live in it. Israel will allow the return of about 100,000 Palestinians as part of a of family unification program. All other refugees will be compensated. Support or oppose? 52.4% supported

For the majority that opposed a package deal of “demilitarization of the Palestinian state, equal territorial exchange, the family unification in Israel of 100,000 Palestinian refugees, East Jerusalem the capital of Palestine and West Jerusalem the capital of Israel, and the end of the conflict,” they were asked if any further sweetening of the deal would change their minds:

If in addition to the above items of the permanent settlement package, Israel agreed to accept the Arab peace initiative and in return all Arab countries supported this peace treaty? Support or oppose? 69.9% oppose.

The agreement states that the state of Palestine will have a democratic political system based on rule of law, periodic elections, free press, strong parliament, independent judiciary and equal rights for religious and ethnic minorities as well as strong anti-corruption measures. 58.6% oppose.

The agreement includes formal guarantees by the US, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, who will create a joint commission to ensure proper implementation on both sides. 68.1% oppose.

The agreement states that Palestinians, including refugees, are allowed, if they wish, to live as permanent residents inside Israel while maintaining their Palestinian citizenship, as long as they are law abiding 70.4% oppose

The agreement allows the current Palestinian National Security Force to become an army with light weapons but without heavy weapons 80.8% oppose

The agreement states that Israel recognizes the Nakba and the suffering of refugees, and provides compensation to refugees? 58.1% oppose

Also, when given a choice of options (status quo, armed resistance, unarmed resistance, peace treaty) a plurality of Palestinians preferred armed resistance over peace, 38% to 26%.

The only thing that Palestinians agree on is that they do not want peace.

The poll didn’t ask the obvious question, because the people behind it don’t want the world to know the answer, but the real question should have been: Do you hope to see Israel destroyed and replaced by Palestine?

Other questions that would illuminate how Palestinians feel might include “would you support an Iranian nuclear attack against Tel Aviv, even if it would kill thousands of Arabs in Jaffa?”

These polls dance around the real feelings of the Palestinians because the answers would far more explicitly show that they have no desire for a real, permanent peace with Israel. Yet one only has to look at these (unpublicized) results from the poll to see that this is exactly what they feel.

Don’t expect the media to notice, though.

Cartoons of the Day

November 24, 2016

H/t Freedom is Just Another Word







H/t Vermont Loon Watch



Via Hope and Change Cartoons



h/t Vermont Loon Watch







H/t Vermont Loon Watch





The Stretch Drive (9)

November 4, 2016

The Stretch Drive (9), Power LineSteven Hayward, November 4, 2016

Just three or four weeks ago all the chatter from the Certified Smart People was that Hillary was “expanding the map,” and could concentrate on campaigning in red states like Georgia, Arizona, maybe even Texas. Now, Hillary’s campaign is frantically buying last minute ad time in . . . Michigan. (And Hillary has added a last minute campaign stop in Michigan today.) She’s suddenly campaigning hard in the key swing states. This should tell you everything you need to know about the state of the race with four days to go.

The ABC/Washington Post tracking poll today has Hillary back up to a three-point lead, 47-44, though with the interesting finding that respondents give Trump a nine-point lead as the candidate best able to deal with corruption. Meanwhile, some new individual state polls show Trump within striking distance in blue states—down two points in Pennsylvania, tied in Colorado, comfortably ahead in New Hampshire and Arizona. But behind in Florida, which may yet again turn out to be the key state. Oh goody.

It’s been obvious for a while now that Trump is actually running against four people: Hillary, her husband, President Obama, and Michelle Obama. I can’t recall a presidential election where the incumbent president made so many campaign appearances. Reagan made only one or two for George H.W. Bush in 1988, and of course Bill Clinton made none on behalf of Al Gore in 2000 (by Gore’s own choice reportedly). This shows how difficult it is to put Hillary over the top.

Finally, in the miscellany department, a reader directs me to this very old ABC 20/20 expose of the Clinton standard operating sleaze. The video is 10 minutes long, but worth watching for its stomach-churning glory. Can we really want to put these people back in the White House?

The Stretch Drive (8)

November 3, 2016

The Stretch Drive (8), Power Line, Steven Hayward, November 3, 2016

The ABC News/Washington Post tracking poll today has Hillary moving back into a narrow lead again, but as all of the results right now are within the statistical margin of error, it means the race is essentially tied, and likely to stay that way through next Tuesday. However, most of the new state-by-state polls, which often lag national polls by a few days, show movement in Trump’s direction. Suddenly New Hampshire, Colorado, and Virginia, where Hillary had been comfortably ahead, now show the race close or with Trump in a slight lead (New Hampshire).

At the very least, the many people who said Donald Trump would suffer a McGovern- or Goldwater-level landslide loss have badly misjudged the mood of voters.

Before continuing with election analysis, let’s pause for a moment to take in the feel-good story of the day:

New York Times reports 95.7 percent fall in quarterly profit

The New York Times Co reported a 95.7 fall in quarterly profit, hit by restructuring charges related to headcount reductions.

Net profit attributable to the newspaper publisher fell to $406,000, or break-even per share, in the third quarter, from $9.4 million, or 6 cents per share, a year earlier.

Revenue fell to $363.6 million from $367.4 million.

The company, struggling to transition to digital, said online ad revenues grew 21.5 percent and now account for more than 35 percent of its advertising receipts.

Slim pickings indeed (heh). Coming soon: New York Times headline on the lousy economy.

Scott and Paul have reported on the blockbuster Fox News and Wall Street Journal news stories about the ongoing FBI investigations of the Clintons. What this means is simple: if Hillary wins, she’ll take office under a huge cloud of scandal, a potential indictment, and congressional investigations that may well start up during the lame duck session. If Hillary wins, I expect a new bumper sticker to appear by the following afternoon: “Impeach Clinton: This Time We’ll Do the Job Right!”

This Trump ad is pretty good:

The Press and Pollsters Are Putting Too Much Cornstarch in the Cherry Pie

August 7, 2016

The Press and Pollsters Are Putting Too Much Cornstarch in the Cherry Pie, American ThinkerClarice Feldman, August 7, 2016

That’s the short take of my friend Thomas Lipscomb and I have to agree with him

Contrary to most of the media-sponsored polls (The LA Times stands alone now calling the race a tie at last view), I agree with this one: Trump will draw in millions of voters who didn’t show up to the polls before and he will beat Hillary Clinton.

I don’t pretend to be a polling expert but note others who claim to be have said much the same thing using different statistical methodologies, including Yale Professor Ray Fair (economic models) and Emory University President Alan Abramowitz (presidential approval ratings), predicts a landslide, noting in recent years the number of people voting for Democrats has dipped while the number of those voting for Republicans has risen.

Conservative Treehouse has argued along the same lines and notes that the NYT buried its own key finding that American voters are whiter than “historic leftist presentations”.

It projects that 73,272,595 Republicans will vote this fall in the general election.

That jaw-dropping number, 7.2 million more potential votes than Barack Obama carried in 2008 and almost 13 million more than Mitt Romney carried in 2012, is the least result achievable when you turn out THE MONSTER VOTE.


What the New York Times is statistically beginning to quantify is the existence of The Monster Vote. If you look closely at the data behind their newly discovered 10 million potential/predictable voters, you’ll notice the additional votes carry to exactly what we predicted in February.

Even if Republican projection turnout was off by 5 million votes, Trump still wins in a landslide. Heck, even if the projection turnout was off by a staggering 10 million votes, the republican nominee (Trump) would still get more votes than President Obama did in 2012 and it is highly doubtful Hillary could turn out that level of support.

♦ Even the fact the NYT would write such an article tells you there are interests (financial interests, globalists) who are looking closely and trying to quantify the challenge they have in front of them.

♦ Remember, even in honest scientific polling — the poll methodologies are based on “assumptions”, or inputs into the collected poll samples in order to make them representative of the anticipated turnout.

♦ Thanks to Donald Trump, historic turnout trends are obsolete. Additionally, historic demographics and party affiliations are also obsolete; And, more importantly, as a consequence…

…any poll data that is relying on obsolete sample methodology is going to be significantly inaccurate.

I don’t know about the methodologies or baselines used by nationally recognized polling companies this year, but I note that Democratic pollster Pat Caddell recently said Reuters midstream shift in its tracking polls comes as close as I have ever seen to cooking the results.”

There are methods for projecting and allocating undecided voters based on complex attitude structures, based on many questions that tell the pollster that this person is in movement to support someone, he said. “Sometimes, they are hiding. That happens. Particularly in the past, or in racially-sensitive cases.”

Caddell cited two examples to Breitbart News.

“On July 25, they originally reported: Trump 40.3 percent and Clinton 37.2 percent, which was a Trump margin of 2.8,” he said. “They have recalculated that now — which I have never heard of — they changed that data, to be: Clinton 40.9 and Trump 38.4, which is a 2.5 margin for Clinton.”

The July 25 Reuters poll now shows a result that reflects a 5.3 percentage point flip from the previously published results, he said.

“Now look at July 26,” he said. “On July 26 they had Trump at 41.5 percent and Hillary at 36.3. That was a 5.2 Trump margin. Then, in the new calculation, they claim that Clinton was 41.1 percent, Trump was 37.5, and the margin was 3.6 for Clinton. Same poll. Two different results. Recalculated, after you’ve announced the other results.”

“What you get is an 8.8 percentage point margin change, almost nine points swinging from one candidate, based on some phony, some bizarre allocation theory that you claim you know where these people are or you are just leaving them out,” he said. “I actually believe they are allocating them because they are claiming they are really Clinton voters and they are using something to move them to Clinton.”

As Mickey Kaus has long noted, many polls are “hamburger helper polls”, that is designed to advance a point of view of the press organs which engage the pollsters so they can promote as fact what is merely their opinion.

In any event, the recent coverage of the election by the major media suggest to me that they are panicking and throwing in as much as they can to make Hillary look as if she were a far better candidate — or at least Trump a far weaker one — than is the case. Obama’s unpresidential and unprecedented attack on Trump, the low turnout at her rallies (and cancellation of some of her appearances), the huge turnout everywhere for Trump, the promoting of the Khan phony baloney story, the Reuters polling change, the  daily press sleight of hand  all suggest to me panic  there is on the left.

The Khan Con

The media fairytale is that Trump dissed a Gold Star family. In fact, it was the other way around. The Democrats used the father of a military hero who died at the hands of Muslim enemies to argue that Trump was wrong in wanting us to suspend immigration from terrorist countries until we had better means to vet them.

How far overboard on this did the media go? This week a number of press and photographers just happened to show up at the same time as two families showed up to pay their respects, the Washington Post even had a shot of one wiping a dry eye. Thomas Sowell long pegged such people as the Khans as “mascots of the anointed”. My friend Janet Shagam has documented the coverage by press which thinks we are dumb enough not to realize this was a staged performance:

* Muslim Soldier’s Grave at Arlington National Cemetery Attracts Visitors After Trump’s Remarks About Parents

NBC Washington 4

* Humayun Khan’s grave becomes a shrine in the wake of his father’s speech

Washington Post

* Strangers visit grave of Muslim US Army Capt. Khan at Arlington National Cemetery

ABC 7 News

from the WaPo link – “Sally Schwartz, 65, and her mother, Harriet Schwartz, 85, stood before the grave. Harriet leaned on a black cane.

“We thought we’d pay our respects,” Sally Schwartz said as the women walked away. ”

From the NBC link – “D.C. resident Sally Schwartz visited Khan’s grave on Monday with her mother.”

The local ABC coverage — The story doesn’t quote Sally Schwartz but she is pictured in the video.

As for the Benghazi soldiers’ survivors there has been scant coverage — even though we know our government not only left them to die but also compounded the crime by lying to them about the motivations of their killers. In the words of another online friend “Iggy”, they were merely “unpeople from Jesusland”.

The same was true of Mary Ann Mendoza, Sabine Durden, and Jamiel Shaw, whose children were killed by illegal aliens, Spanish speakers watching Univision and Telemundo heard they were “anti-immigrant” and gave them only 55 seconds of air time.

Covering for Congenital Liar Hillary is Getting Harder and Harder

Hillary keeps lying about Comey’s report, which said clearly she lied about her private email server. While a number of papers challenged her on this the NYT steadfastly stuck by her story. It was so blatant even the Public Editor of that paper, Liz Spayd, called her newsroom out for covering up for Hillary. As Tom Maguire observes quoting the Spayd:

Waddya expect? The conventions are over and we are at the top of the backstretch, bracing to head for home.

“The Washington Post, NPR, USA Today and PolitiFact all challenged Clinton’s claims, saying they appeared to be based on a selective and misleading interpretation of Comey’s remarks. The Post awarded her ‘Four Pinocchios,’ the worst truth-telling rating it gives, for statements it classifies as ‘Whoppers.’ “

Yeah, whatever. The Times has suspended criticism of Hillary until after the election, due to the national emergency caused by Trump.

Topping off the week and indicative of the media panic is the news that the administration illegally transported $400 million in cash on pallets in an unmarked plane to Iran where it is being used to finance terrorists. The administration dissembled to Congress about the transaction.

The deal had to be kept secret because neither the voters nor the Congress would ever have approved it and it surely sent the wrong message — taking Americans hostage is a money-making proposition, Two more, in fact, have been taken hostage since that covert exchange took place.

It’s a deal (The Iran scam as a whole, not the ransom deal?– DM) so bad that the administration lied and said Israel approved it — prompting the foreign minister to bitterly reject that claim and respond the deal is so bad it is like Chamberlain’s capitulation at Munich.

Trump criticized the hush hush deal and said correctly that Iran had made a video of the pallets of cash coming off the unmarked plane to further embarrass the U.S. This sent the partisan kiddos at the Washington Post into a tizzy, denying there was any such video, when in fact it was easily available to be viewed on YouTube, the BBC, or Memri.

In the meantime — as crowds pour into Trump rallies throughout the country, waiting in long lines for a chance to hear and cheer him, Hillary made a rare appearance before unquestioning Hispanic and Black news reporters where she looked a wreck, almost called Trump her “husb–” and then said her earlier interview lies about Comey’s report were the result of a “short circuit.” It’s a long time between now and the election. Her staff cannot continue to keep her bottled up and appearing only before small, sympathetic audiences and interviewers and I expect so much “short circuiting” from her even the low information voters will have to take notice.