Trump supported as well as Little

Newshub tacked a question on to their Reid Research poll on support in New Zealand for the two main party US presidential candidates:

  • Hillary Clinton 76%
  • Don’t Know 15%
  • Donald Trump 9%

So Trump is around the support level of Andrew Little and Winston Peters for ‘preferred Prime Minister’.

Newshub says “the poll was conducted during the recent Republican and Democratic Conventions” – the timing may not make a lot of difference here but polling across both conventions could get uneven results if done in the US.

And Trump is most popular (perhaps that should be least unpopular) amongst NZ First supporters.

  • NZ First 23%
  • National 9.3%
  • Labour 5.7%
  • Greens 3.5%

But 23% of NZ First supporters is about 2% of all people polled, which is about the same number of Labour supporters, while a bit over twice as many National supporters also support Trump.

The poll of 1000 people was taken between July 22 and August 3 and has a margin of error of 3.1 percent (but the margin of error will be much bigger for the smaller sample sizes for party/Trump support).

Source: Only 9pct of Kiwis want Trump as President

Leave a comment

23 Comments

  1. Gezza

     /  10th August 2016

    Trump’s latest brain explosion is to ‘suggest’ obliquely in a speech (clip shown) that people in favour of the 2nd Amendment might like to do something about Hillary. This is not shooting himself in the foot – this is shooting himself in the head!

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  10th August 2016

      (Shown on TVOne News at 6.)

      Reply
    • The mistakes mount. Some of them are big mistakes – or deliberate but stupid.

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  10th August 2016

        The tense used was interesting and could have been a Freudian slip-instead of the conditional ‘would’, he kept saying ‘will’, as if he was expecting it to happen.

        Reply
  2. Kitty Catkin

     /  10th August 2016

    I wonder if the 9% would even have been that after Trump’s latest faux pas.

    I see that his latest immigrant wife will be speaking on immigration. Let’s hope that this speech is original.

    Reply
    • Corky

       /  10th August 2016

      Trumps winning either way, Kitty. Its just sitting on the sideline saying “I told you so” ain’t as cool as being able to do something about it as president.

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  10th August 2016

        Will be interesting to see whether & how the GOP is able to rebuild itself out of what is beginning to look like might be its utter destruction.

        Reply
        • Corky

           /  10th August 2016

          I can’t see too many problems( apart from support). I’m sure another trim, gleaming white toothed, immaculately turned out candidate can be found espousing true GOP values, and as an added bonus, fair treatment of Muslims and our black brothers in the ghetto.

          I’m more interested in the Democrats camp. I believe Hillary will be a one termer. Will Sanders be around? Who will replace her given:

          1) Obamacare will be causing huge problems. Hundreds of thousands are losing their medical insurance plans.
          2) America would have suffered 3-5 major terrorist attacks during her tenure.
          3) Mexicans will continue to flood across the border.
          4) Hillary will stifle economic growth by sticking to a climate change agenda.

          I think the Democrats will have to seriously look at their core values should the above scenario be right.

          However, the fat lady hasn’t sung yet. But she is heading towards the microphone. Only a terrorist attack can stop her now (?).

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  10th August 2016

            If a terrorist attack happens she only has to borrow from El Trumpo’s songbook.

            The problem with El Trumpo’s approach to ISIS is that it is the same as Dubbya’s, which means more terrorists, because nobody can accuse the Trumpster of being either a historian or a deep thinker, Corky. If the terrorists can’t kill as many Americans in the US as they would like, they’d just kill as many of them as they can everywhere else in the world.

            Reply
            • Corky

               /  10th August 2016

              Yes, true. However, as long as Trump pulled out after annihilating ISIS, that should settle things down. Trump doesn’t seem to have any imperial desires having already stated it was foolish of America to invade Iraq.

              ”If the terrorists can’t kill as many Americans in the US as they would like, they’d just kill as many of them as they can everywhere else in the world”.

              True again. But the main thing is the motherland is protected. The base is secure. From a safe home options can be weighed and implemented.
              I would send troops( by invitation) into Europe. Fight Muslims in someone else’s back yard in return for American support. Amongst those troops would be death squads who would kill “off the books,” They would turn Muslim against Muslim and kill without discrimination when American citizens are victims of terrorism. Of course they would have to clean up behind themselves. The host country would be most unimpressed should they find out.

              And it would be a great way to have troops in that part of the world should relations with China and Russia deteriorate.

            • Gezza

               /  10th August 2016

              Yes, true. However, as long as Trump pulled out after annihilating ISIS, that should settle things down.
              You don’t get it Corky. It’d just be squeezing jelly. For a start, ISIS members, when the chips are down, can suddenly disappear & turn up elsewhere looking just like everybody else in their region who’s not ISIS. In any case, only the peasant cannon fodder & human IEDs are sacrificed anyway. The real ISIS brains aren’t often known, nor is their whereabouts.

              Secondly, ISIS or their affiliates, (and Al Qaeda), and their ideals are now already well-spread throughout North Africa, Central Africa, Asia, Eurasia, the Indian sub-continent – and will continue to spread and grow if they are shut down temporarily somewhere else.

              Thirdly, the US (and lackeys) attacking and killing ISIS (or Al Qaeda) members inevitably & invariably involves killing other innocent people as collateral damage and although this considered a regrettable but unfortunate necessity by the people of the US and in the countries of their lackeys, it is regarded, naturally, much more unfavourably than that by the remaining friends & relatives of the Muslims directly affected, and other Muslim fundamentalists around the world, and generates further recruits to the cause of killing kafirs & infidels from, & in, the countries of their attackers.

              The solution is for them all to pack up and go home, and let all the fanatical Muslims give vent to their extremism at home until the survivors sort themselves out into various different kinds of awful, repressive regimes like Iran’s that they are forced, or prepared, to live under and be dominated by, or rise up against and overthrow. As I have said before, they will still sell us their oil because they need the money.

              Muslims who don’t want to, or are not permitted, on pain of death, to abandon Islam, should live in the place where it originated. The West does not belong there and cannot democratise them. Islam and democracy are incompatible.

            • Corky

               /  10th August 2016

              No, I get it to a T. However, a statement has to be made, no matter the cost. Perception is everything. As long as Trump pulled out after squeezing jelly, Muslims could then fight amongst themselves. Trump would have to prove to supporters and Muslims he walks the talk.

              I don’t disagree with much of what you say. For me, I would even forgo the ISIS attack in favour of a protected homeland. As long as some type of action was taken.

              As for the spread of lSIS…its too late. Even if America was to stop all actions against Muslims they would still be attacked for past transgressions.

              Yes, lets leave them to their own devices, But the minute they attack in our territory, kill, kill and kill. The problem is those killed are replaced with immigration and the cycle continues. Hence, stop Muslim immigration. But it wont happen under Hillary. That’s something I admit I just don’t get, and never will.

            • Gezza

               /  10th August 2016

              @ Corky
              We’re pretty much on the same page then, Corky. Except that, from my onging observation already, Trump won’t be able to pull out without going back there because (1) he won’t destroy ISIS, and the attacks will continue, and (2) he thinks with his gonads. He quite simply lacks the intellectual equipment & RAM to understand what needs to be done without thinking: ‘First, we have to show them we mean business and that will frighten them out of ever doing it again’.

              This is because while he is a sharp – some would say cunning or devious – business operator, and one with not a lot of ethics in that sphere, he is, on other matters, as thick as pigshit and completely resistant to education as a cure to his own egotistical ‘I know all I need to know – it’s in my head’ personality.

              But it wont happen under Hillary. That’s something I admit I just don’t get, and never will.

              Easy. like Trump, she hasn’t read the Quran, Sira & at least the Bukhari & Muslim Hadith. So all she knows about Islam is what the soft-soapers tell her, & thus she sees it through the lens of someone with a Christian background who naively thinks all religions must somehow be good and tolerant. (The Pope does the same thing, as do many other senior Christian clergy of other denominations.) I could expand on this but, with you, I have no need to.

        • Kitty Catkin

           /  10th August 2016

          It was the stupidest imaginable remark. He might as well have asked for someone to shoot her. First he uses a Yiddish obscenity about her that should have had the audience walking out (unless they all didn’t know what a schlong is: unlikely), then he rants on about how disgusting it is that she went to loo during a break (he’s like the fool in the Swift (?) poem who cries out in horror at the discovery that Celia……) as if he either didn’t know that women urinate or finds it revolting….it goes on and on.

          I can’t imagine Winston Peters talking about a woman opponent being ‘schlonged’ or using the English equivalent and not being given a negative reception, even by the braying sychophants of NZ First. It’d be political suicide. I can’t imagine ANY NZ politician talking like that. Martin Elliott in Hamilton lost his chance of being mayor for a crude remark that was nothing like as crude as Trump’s.

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  10th August 2016

            Mine must have gone in a second behind the two above and was answering Corks.

            Reply
          • Corky

             /  10th August 2016

            Relax, Kitty. Trumpy will be steam-rolled. The question is: will America endure the same fate?

            Reply
    • Blazer

       /  10th August 2016

      most Americans are immigrants …dear.

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  10th August 2016

        I am aware of that (or rather that their forebears were) and have said it here myself in this context more than once. That’s why it is an odd thing to talk about-it’s hardly a revelation.
        .

        Trump’s mother was an immigrant and his father’s family came from Germany. All Americans who aren’t ‘Native Americans’ or what were called Indians (which must have annoyed them no end) are from families who came there from somewhere else; the variety of names is a giveaway.

        It’s very patronising to call someone who’s a stranger ‘dear’. .

        Reply
  3. 76% ?? have a hard time believing kiwis are that stupid.

    Stanford University Study Confirms Democratic Election Fraud

    Axel Geijsel
    Tilburg University – The Netherlands

    Rodolfo Cortes Barragan
    Stanford University – U.S.A.

    Our first analysis showed that states wherein the voting outcomes are difficult to verify show far greater support for Secretary Clinton. Second, our examination of exit polling suggested large differences between the respondents that took the exit polls and the claimed voters in the final tally. Beyond these points, these irregular patterns of results did not exist in 2008. As such, as a whole, these data suggest that election fraud is occurring in the 2016 Democratic Party Presidential Primary election. This fraud has overwhelmingly benefited Secretary Clinton at the expense of Senator Sanders.

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6mLpCEIGEYGYl9RZWFRcmpsZk0/view?pref=2&pli=1

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s