Donna mentioned turnout in Cali. yesterday, and how voter registration was up for certain groups that lean Democrat. While that may be the case in Cali., actual Democrat turnout in other states is down.
“Election data compiled by Breitbart News on the Democratic Party’s primaries and caucuses in 2016 and 2008 show that turnout in is down significantly, nearly 20 percent, from the last contested election.
The data also show that the about 4.5 million fewer people have voted in the Democratic presidential contest this year versus 2008.”
“Back in 2008, as Obama battled Clinton, a whopping 23,715,866 people voted in primaries and caucuses nationwide in the states that have already voted this cycle. Fast forward to the next time there’s a Democratic primary for president, this year (since Obama was the incumbent president seeking reelection the primaries in 2012 were largely perfunctory), and turnout has dropped off significantly. Just 19,155,825 people have voted thus far in primaries and caucuses this cycle, a decrease of 4,560,041 voters or 19.23 percent.
The steep drop off is so significant on the Democratic side that the vast majority of states saw drops in voter participation in Democratic primaries and caucuses. The following contests saw less voters participate on the Democratic side in the primaries and caucuses than 2008’s contests: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Utah, Wisconsin, Vermont, American Samoa, Hawaii, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, Washington state, and Wyoming.
Only a handful of states have seen increases in participation on the Democratic side, including Arizona, Michigan, Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas and Maine. With the exception of Arizona, Sanders won—and Clinton lost—each of those contests. That means the likely Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, has only increased Democratic primary votes in one of the states she won this cycle as compared with 2008’s primary turnout. Every other state she has won this year has seen less turnout from last go-around.”
I found this interesting, also, Donna. I know one political strategy is to vote for someone in the other party in the primary and then go back to your own party for the final election. This is to actually weaken the ticket of the other party for the final election. How possible that would be would depend on the election rules in each state. I am not sure if this is going on or if these people will actually vote in the final election for the same person.
KI, that is what we believe happened when husband ran for State Senate. The Republicans had a huge increase in voters in the Primary. Went back down for the actual election. There was even a notice posted on the staff bulletin board where husband worked, indicating people needed to make sure he was not elected because he was so anti education. What?
If Trump is the nominee, I think we can expect a yuge and aggressive anti-Trump get-out-the-vote effort in the fall on the part of Democrats. An they do know how to get people to to polls, as we saw with Obama.
Bruce Springsteen is probably warming up the band and post-concert, poll-bound caravans as we speak. 😉
And Latinos can be expected to play a major role in Democrats’ demographics this time around as immigration will be one of the major issues. Trump will be demonized by Democrats — so it may be more of an anti-Trump vote as opposed to a pro-Clinton vote.
But I don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion that Clinton will trounce Trump. One of the Democratic consultants I listened to last night said he thought Trump will be a much more difficult opponent for Clinton than say a Cruz would. And I tend to agree.
It’ll all start shaking out more clearly once the conventions are behind us. But it’ll be an intense fall, that’s for sure.
On to Indiana, where polls now show Trump in the lead. It’s probably Cruz’s last (possible) stand (Trump is running way ahead in California, with double digit leads in the polls). From John Podhoretz today:
… Cruz’s numbers Tuesday night, like his numbers in New York last week, were beyond horrible. With six weeks to go before voting concludes, the man conservatives are hoping can overcome Trump with his clever delegate game and more serious mien is getting 10 to 15 percent of the vote in major states.
It isn’t only that the not-Trump vote is failing to coalesce around Cruz — he’s going backward.
And people are kidding themselves if they think Tuesday night’s results won’t have an effect on voters in Indiana and elsewhere. …
_________________________________
Trump’s “It’s rigged” campaign may be swaying some.
Also, though:
______________________________
… it may not be that undecided voters are gravitating to Trump so much as anti-Trump Republicans are discouraged. Trump faces unusually high levels of intraparty opposition for a front-runner — or at least he had seemed to until the past two weeks. But Kasich and Ted Cruz are also deeply flawed, and somewhat factional, candidates. It’s asking a lot of voters to cast a tactical vote against Trump when that tactic requires (i) going to a contested convention in order to (ii) deny the candidate with the plurality of votes and delegates the nomination in order to (iii) give the nomination to a candidate they don’t particularly like anyway. The #NeverTrump voters might not be voting for Trump, but they might be staying at home.
I mostly buy this argument — I’m as optimistic about Trump’s chances as at any point in the election cycle. (Granted, that isn’t saying that much given that I spent much of last year being highly skeptical of Trump’s chances.)
… I don’t know what’s going to happen in Indiana. But Trump’s strong results over the past two weeks have changed the Hoosier State from potentially being “must-win” for Trump to probably being “must-win” for his opponents.
________________________________
“The Obama State Department last week admitted it withheld a key Benghazi email of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from Judicial Watch since at least September 2014. If the State Department disclosed the email when first supposedly found, Clinton’s email server and her hidden emails would have been disclosed nearly two years ago, before Clinton authorized the alleged deletion of tens of thousands of emails.”
Then there is this. A landlord cannot discriminate:
Background Checks on Renters Raise Questions
DAILY REAL ESTATE NEWS | WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27, 2016
Landlords who deny an apartment applicant a lease due to a failed background check may be breaking the law and face housing discriminating allegations, according to new guidance issued from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Managing the Renting
6 Ways to Avoid the Tenant From Hell
What to Look for in a Property Manager
Tips on Reference Checks
“A policy or practice that denies housing to anyone with a prior arrest or any kind of criminal conviction cannot be justified,” says the HUD guidance, which was issued April 4.
The new guidance marks a change. In the early 1990s, HUD once guided public housing authorities not to rent its subsidized apartments to residents who failed criminal background checks.
HUD says it was forced to reconsider now that nearly one-third of the U.S. population — or up to 100 million people — have some kind of criminal record, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. Also, third-party background checkers often just provide a “pass” or “fail” result, which applicants are then unable to contest for errors or inaccuracies.
“Research shows that people who come out of prison and can’t find housing often become homeless, have high rates of recidivism and often end up back in prison,” says Elayne Weiss, policy analyst for the National Low Income Housing Coalition. “Their not having housing doesn’t help anyone.”
HUD’s guidance directs landlords and property managers to more closely consider the details of a person’s criminal history before refusing to rent to him or her. They should carefully consider “the nature and severity of an individual’s conviction” and “the amount of time that has passed,” according to HUD. But they need to be careful not to discriminate.
“Ensuring resident safety and protecting property are often considered to be among the fundamental responsibilities of a housing provider,” the guidance reads. “The Act does not prohibit housing providers from appropriately considering criminal history information when making housing decisions.”
Source: “Background Check Policies for Apartment Applicants May Be Illegal,” National Real Estate Investor (April 26, 2016)
It is sad on the level that they have had to change it because so many people now have criminal records and on another because a landlord cannot protect themselves from destructive people.
My mother and my sister went to hear Franklin Graham speak at the Texas Capitol yesterday. There was a big crowd and they all prayed for the country. Mother particularly liked the od hymns. Apparently, Graham is going to every state capital.
… Which stage of grief is it when you give up? I’m there. It seems nearly certain that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton will duke it out in November, in what shapes up as the least edifying contest in a long time. Republicans had a golden opportunity to elect a solid conservative, and they blew it.
What should a voter do when there is no conservative in the race? I, for one, will hold my nose and vote for Trump as the lesser of two evils. But, of course, hope springs eternal. Maybe Trump will turn out to be better than I think, both as a candidate and as a president. He has some appealing qualities, not least his willingness to stand up to the liberal press. Maybe, somewhere beneath those decades of crony capitalism and Democratic Party support, a few right-wing principles lurk. Maybe Trump will break the mold by surrounding himself with conservative rather than liberal advisers. Maybe he will put in the hard work it takes to be a good president.
We can dream, can’t we? In any event, Trump can only be a better president than Hillary. He will get my vote. …
_____________________________
Wandering Views 
Donna mentioned turnout in Cali. yesterday, and how voter registration was up for certain groups that lean Democrat. While that may be the case in Cali., actual Democrat turnout in other states is down.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/04/26/exclusive-data-analysis-democrat-turnout-collapses-4-5-million-nearly-20-percent-2016-versus-2008/
“Election data compiled by Breitbart News on the Democratic Party’s primaries and caucuses in 2016 and 2008 show that turnout in is down significantly, nearly 20 percent, from the last contested election.
The data also show that the about 4.5 million fewer people have voted in the Democratic presidential contest this year versus 2008.”
“Back in 2008, as Obama battled Clinton, a whopping 23,715,866 people voted in primaries and caucuses nationwide in the states that have already voted this cycle. Fast forward to the next time there’s a Democratic primary for president, this year (since Obama was the incumbent president seeking reelection the primaries in 2012 were largely perfunctory), and turnout has dropped off significantly. Just 19,155,825 people have voted thus far in primaries and caucuses this cycle, a decrease of 4,560,041 voters or 19.23 percent.
The steep drop off is so significant on the Democratic side that the vast majority of states saw drops in voter participation in Democratic primaries and caucuses. The following contests saw less voters participate on the Democratic side in the primaries and caucuses than 2008’s contests: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Utah, Wisconsin, Vermont, American Samoa, Hawaii, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, Washington state, and Wyoming.
Only a handful of states have seen increases in participation on the Democratic side, including Arizona, Michigan, Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas and Maine. With the exception of Arizona, Sanders won—and Clinton lost—each of those contests. That means the likely Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, has only increased Democratic primary votes in one of the states she won this cycle as compared with 2008’s primary turnout. Every other state she has won this year has seen less turnout from last go-around.”
LikeLike
I found this interesting, also, Donna. I know one political strategy is to vote for someone in the other party in the primary and then go back to your own party for the final election. This is to actually weaken the ticket of the other party for the final election. How possible that would be would depend on the election rules in each state. I am not sure if this is going on or if these people will actually vote in the final election for the same person.
LikeLike
Opps. Sorry, anon. 😉
LikeLike
The Republicans have a closed primary in California so none of that will matter in June.
But extra high Democratic registrations of new voters in the nation as a whole could help Dems in November.
Turnout for the Democrats has been low overall in the primaries. And enthusiasm for Clinton is, at best, lukewarm.
But the general election this time will probably see a rather large turnout on both sides, considering what’s at stake.
LikeLike
KI, that is what we believe happened when husband ran for State Senate. The Republicans had a huge increase in voters in the Primary. Went back down for the actual election. There was even a notice posted on the staff bulletin board where husband worked, indicating people needed to make sure he was not elected because he was so anti education. What?
LikeLiked by 1 person
If Trump is the nominee, I think we can expect a yuge and aggressive anti-Trump get-out-the-vote effort in the fall on the part of Democrats. An they do know how to get people to to polls, as we saw with Obama.
Bruce Springsteen is probably warming up the band and post-concert, poll-bound caravans as we speak. 😉
LikeLike
And Latinos can be expected to play a major role in Democrats’ demographics this time around as immigration will be one of the major issues. Trump will be demonized by Democrats — so it may be more of an anti-Trump vote as opposed to a pro-Clinton vote.
But I don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion that Clinton will trounce Trump. One of the Democratic consultants I listened to last night said he thought Trump will be a much more difficult opponent for Clinton than say a Cruz would. And I tend to agree.
It’ll all start shaking out more clearly once the conventions are behind us. But it’ll be an intense fall, that’s for sure.
LikeLike
On to Indiana, where polls now show Trump in the lead. It’s probably Cruz’s last (possible) stand (Trump is running way ahead in California, with double digit leads in the polls). From John Podhoretz today:
http://nypost.com/2016/04/27/ted-cruz-is-crumbling-before-our-very-eyes/
________________________________
… Cruz’s numbers Tuesday night, like his numbers in New York last week, were beyond horrible. With six weeks to go before voting concludes, the man conservatives are hoping can overcome Trump with his clever delegate game and more serious mien is getting 10 to 15 percent of the vote in major states.
It isn’t only that the not-Trump vote is failing to coalesce around Cruz — he’s going backward.
And people are kidding themselves if they think Tuesday night’s results won’t have an effect on voters in Indiana and elsewhere. …
_________________________________
LikeLike
Nate Silver’s take on possible reasons that Trump is now surging, scoring virtual landslides in the primaries.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its-trumps-nomination-to-lose/
Trump’s “It’s rigged” campaign may be swaying some.
Also, though:
______________________________
… it may not be that undecided voters are gravitating to Trump so much as anti-Trump Republicans are discouraged. Trump faces unusually high levels of intraparty opposition for a front-runner — or at least he had seemed to until the past two weeks. But Kasich and Ted Cruz are also deeply flawed, and somewhat factional, candidates. It’s asking a lot of voters to cast a tactical vote against Trump when that tactic requires (i) going to a contested convention in order to (ii) deny the candidate with the plurality of votes and delegates the nomination in order to (iii) give the nomination to a candidate they don’t particularly like anyway. The #NeverTrump voters might not be voting for Trump, but they might be staying at home.
I mostly buy this argument — I’m as optimistic about Trump’s chances as at any point in the election cycle. (Granted, that isn’t saying that much given that I spent much of last year being highly skeptical of Trump’s chances.)
… I don’t know what’s going to happen in Indiana. But Trump’s strong results over the past two weeks have changed the Hoosier State from potentially being “must-win” for Trump to probably being “must-win” for his opponents.
________________________________
LikeLiked by 1 person
From Politico — probably an early VP (Carly?) announcement?
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/ted-cruz-to-make-major-announcement-at-4-pm-222525
_____________________
Ted Cruz teased a “major announcement” Wednesday as he proclaimed he will continue fighting, despite Donald Trump’s decisive wins Tuesday night.
The Texas senator told reporters in Indianapolis he would be making his announcement at the Pan Am Pavilion on Wednesday afternoon.
“So I encourage folks to come join us at 4 p.m.,” Cruz said. “Hope to see all of y’all there.”
________________________
LikeLike
Another perspective on Hillary’s e-mail scandal:
http://time.com/4273718/fbi-hillary-clinton-emails-interviews/
LikeLike
The State Dept admits to withholding key Benghazi e-mail from Congress and from a FOIA request from Judicial Watch.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/state-department-hid-key-clinton-benghazi-email-from-judicial-watch/
“The Obama State Department last week admitted it withheld a key Benghazi email of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from Judicial Watch since at least September 2014. If the State Department disclosed the email when first supposedly found, Clinton’s email server and her hidden emails would have been disclosed nearly two years ago, before Clinton authorized the alleged deletion of tens of thousands of emails.”
LikeLike
Then there is this. A landlord cannot discriminate:
Background Checks on Renters Raise Questions
DAILY REAL ESTATE NEWS | WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27, 2016
Landlords who deny an apartment applicant a lease due to a failed background check may be breaking the law and face housing discriminating allegations, according to new guidance issued from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Managing the Renting
6 Ways to Avoid the Tenant From Hell
What to Look for in a Property Manager
Tips on Reference Checks
“A policy or practice that denies housing to anyone with a prior arrest or any kind of criminal conviction cannot be justified,” says the HUD guidance, which was issued April 4.
The new guidance marks a change. In the early 1990s, HUD once guided public housing authorities not to rent its subsidized apartments to residents who failed criminal background checks.
HUD says it was forced to reconsider now that nearly one-third of the U.S. population — or up to 100 million people — have some kind of criminal record, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. Also, third-party background checkers often just provide a “pass” or “fail” result, which applicants are then unable to contest for errors or inaccuracies.
“Research shows that people who come out of prison and can’t find housing often become homeless, have high rates of recidivism and often end up back in prison,” says Elayne Weiss, policy analyst for the National Low Income Housing Coalition. “Their not having housing doesn’t help anyone.”
HUD’s guidance directs landlords and property managers to more closely consider the details of a person’s criminal history before refusing to rent to him or her. They should carefully consider “the nature and severity of an individual’s conviction” and “the amount of time that has passed,” according to HUD. But they need to be careful not to discriminate.
“Ensuring resident safety and protecting property are often considered to be among the fundamental responsibilities of a housing provider,” the guidance reads. “The Act does not prohibit housing providers from appropriately considering criminal history information when making housing decisions.”
Source: “Background Check Policies for Apartment Applicants May Be Illegal,” National Real Estate Investor (April 26, 2016)
LikeLike
Well that’s interesting Kim — I wonder if that’s only for subsidized housing ?
LikeLike
Looks like just apartments … Still, very interesting, passing it on as a possible area-wide story for us.
LikeLike
It is sad on the level that they have had to change it because so many people now have criminal records and on another because a landlord cannot protect themselves from destructive people.
LikeLike
It’s about as fair as using your credit report to figure out your home owner’s insurance rate.
LikeLike
Would probably impact the efforts in LA to find landlords willing to accept vouchers for homeless people under the city’s programs …
LikeLike
LikeLiked by 1 person
My mother and my sister went to hear Franklin Graham speak at the Texas Capitol yesterday. There was a big crowd and they all prayed for the country. Mother particularly liked the od hymns. Apparently, Graham is going to every state capital.
LikeLike
An interesting article that contends Trump is worse than Hillary or Obama:
http://thefederalist.com/2016/04/26/if-i-lose-friends-over-trump-so-be-it/
LikeLiked by 1 person
The prospect of losing the Supreme Court for at least a generation is one of the things that still gives me pause 😦
LikeLike
I’m not convinced Trump would be “worse” than Clinton.
But it’s a horrible choice to have to make.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I believe this is pretty much what Dennis Prager has expressed as well.
From Power Line:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/04/trump-vs-clinton.php
____________________________
… Which stage of grief is it when you give up? I’m there. It seems nearly certain that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton will duke it out in November, in what shapes up as the least edifying contest in a long time. Republicans had a golden opportunity to elect a solid conservative, and they blew it.
What should a voter do when there is no conservative in the race? I, for one, will hold my nose and vote for Trump as the lesser of two evils. But, of course, hope springs eternal. Maybe Trump will turn out to be better than I think, both as a candidate and as a president. He has some appealing qualities, not least his willingness to stand up to the liberal press. Maybe, somewhere beneath those decades of crony capitalism and Democratic Party support, a few right-wing principles lurk. Maybe Trump will break the mold by surrounding himself with conservative rather than liberal advisers. Maybe he will put in the hard work it takes to be a good president.
We can dream, can’t we? In any event, Trump can only be a better president than Hillary. He will get my vote. …
_____________________________
LikeLike