The
86-year-old priest was butchered while two nuns and two parishioners
were held by assailants who raided the church in
Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray near Rouen in Normandy during morning mass at
9am.
The
clergyman, named as Jacques Hamel, is believed to have been beheaded
during the attack while another hostage, said to be a nun, is fighting
for life in hospital.
The
two attackers were 'neutralised' by marksmen as they emerged from the
building, which is now being searched for explosives. French president
Francois Hollande said France is 'at war' with ISIS while the terror
group has claimed responsibility for the killing.
There
were reports the attackers shouted 'Allahu Akbar' as they ran out of
the church while at least one of the men was dressed in Islamic
clothing.
The 27-year-old was turned away from the event
by security workers in Ansbach, a town of 40,000 people southwest of
Nuremberg that is also home to a U.S. Army base. He was wearing a
backpack carrying explosives and metal projectiles.
Roman Fertinger, the deputy police chief in
nearby Nuremberg, said more casualties were likely if the bomber had
managed to enter the open-air concert venue....
Hermann said the man had been under psychiatric treatment after at least two previous suicide attempts.
"It's terrible...that someone who came into
our country to seek shelter has now committed such a heinous act and
injured a large number of people who are at home here, some seriously,"
he told a news conference.
"It's a further, horrific attack that will
increase the already growing security concerns of our citizens. We must
do everything possible to prevent the spread of such violence in our
country by people who came here to ask for asylum."
From: Mark Paustenbach, DNC.org To: Luis Miranda, DNC.org Subject: Take a look "We'd like to replace the second bullet under the CBS poll with this bullet.The "note" inthe new bullet indicates the problem that we don't have
the right data. It's a long bullet but it's factually correct.
Thoughts?"...(Suggested copy follows)
"PPP's new Ohio poll finds Donald
Trump leading Hillary Clinton 42-39 in the state, with Gary Johnson at
6% and Jill Stein at 2%. Voters who support either Johnson or Stein or
are undecided in the full field go to Clinton by an 18 point margin if
they had to pick between just Clinton and Trump, making the head to head
match up a 45/45 tie.
When PPP last polledOhio in June Clinton led 44/40. The tightening
of the race has come completely thanks to Trump consolidating his
support among Republican voters. Where he had only a 66/15 advantage
with them in June, he's now ahead 82/9....Independents have remained completely
steady- Clinton was up 39/38 with them in June, and she's up 41/40 with
them now.
[Ed. note:Page 21 regarding independent voters,Trump and Hillary are in a statistical tie, 41-40, though PPP describes it as "she's up." Margin of error is 2.7 for the total poll. Even using a 2.7 error margin on the 23% independent subset, Trump could be 42.7, Hillary could be 38.3. Why say twice that one is "up" over another with onlya one point lead?
The Poll includes 23% self-identified independent voters, compared to
39D and 38R. It's customary for error margins for smaller subsets to be
greater than for an overall poll. This poll only mentions an error
margin for the overall poll.]
(continuing): "There's one big finding in this poll that bodes quite well for
Clinton moving forward. 48% of voters in the state say they'd choose
Barack Obama if the choice was between him and Trump, to only 44% who
say they'd go with Trump....That suggests that...the President may be the
best surrogate she has out on the campaign trail.
The convention does seem to have been a success in Ohio though- 43%
of voters in the state think it was a success for the GOP to 38% who
think it was a failure. And 68% of voters in the state are glad the
convention was held in Ohio to only 13% who wish it would have been held
somewhere. One clear takeaway from our post convention polling is that
Trump's family may be the best surrogates he has. Trump's children get a
collective 51/21 favorability rating from voters in Ohio, and voters
appear to be pretty nonplussed by Melania's plagiarism scandal as she
comes in at 43/30 favorability. Among the political figures who spoke at
the convention Ben Carson (49/34 favorability) and Rudy Giuliani
(45/33) fare well with Ohioans while Newt Gingrich (38/42) and Chris
Christie (32/46) don't do as hot.
Mike Pence didn't make a strong impression on voters in Ohio one way
or another. A 40% plurality came out of the convention with no opinion.
Among those who do have one, 33% see him favorably to 27% with a
negative view.53% of voters say Pence's selection has no bearing on
their likelihood to vote for Trump one way or another, with 21% saying
Pence makes them more likely to vote for Trump and 22% less likely. That
just makes Pence normal in the pantheon of Vice Presidential
selections, which rarely have much impact on the race....Full resultshere."
The new findings mark Trump's best showing in a CNN/ORC Poll against
Clinton since September 2015. Trump's new edge rests largely on
increased support among independents, 43% of whom said that Trump's
convention in Cleveland left them more likely to back him, while 41%
were dissuaded. Pre-convention, independents split 34% Clinton to 31%
Trump, with sizable numbers behind Johnson (22%) and Stein (10%). Now,
46% say they back Trump, 28% Clinton, 15% Johnson and 4% Stein.[p. 23]... ...........
............ The
convention also helped Trump make strides in his personal image. A
majority (52%) now say Trump is running for president for the good of
the country rather than personal gain, just 44% say the same about
Clinton. He's increased the share who call him honest and trustworthy
(from 38% to 43%), and who would be proud to have him as president (from
32% to 39%). And nearly half now say he's in touch with the problems
ordinary Americans face in their daily lives (46% say so, 37% did before
the convention). ...........
Despite
Democratic criticism of the Republican convention's message as divisive,
the percentage who say Trump will unite the country rather than divide
it has increased to 42%, compared with 34% pre-convention. ........
Clinton's ratings on these same measures
took a hit, though in most cases her drop-off was not quite as large as
Trump's gain. Perhaps most troubling for the Clinton supporters
gathering in Philadelphia this week: 68% now say Clinton is not honest
and trustworthy, her worst rating on that measure in CNN/ORC polling.... .........
Cruz's
move, however, appears to have backfired. While 60% of Republican
voters had a positive impression of the former presidential candidate
before the convention, just 33% have one now.... ........
The USC Dornsife / LA Times Presidential Election "Daybreak" Poll
"The 2016 USC Dornsife / LA Times Presidential Election Pollrepresents a pioneering approach to tracking changes in Americans'
opinions throughout a campaign for the White House. Around 3000
respondents in our representative panel are asked questions on a regular
basis on what they care about most in the election, and on their
attitudes toward their preferred candidates. The "Daybreak poll" is
updated just after midnight every day of the week."
This chart tracks our best estimate, over time, of how America plans to vote in November
The final blue and red figures on the right side of the chart represent
our most recent estimates of Hillary Clinton's vote (blue squares) and
Donald Trump's (red diamonds). These estimates represent weighted
averages of all responses in the prior week. The gray band is a
"95-percent confidence interval". Figures lying outside the gray band
mean that we are at least 95% confident that the candidate with the
highest percentage will win the popular vote.
About the Survey✝:
The USC Dornsife/LA Times Presidential Election "Daybreak" Poll is part
of the ongoing Understanding America Study: (UAS) at the University of
Southern California’s (USC) Dornsife Center for Economic and Social Research, in partnership with the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics
and the Los Angeles Times.
Every day, we invite one-seventh of the members of the UAS election
panel to answer three predictive questions:
What is the percent chance that… (1) you will vote in the presidential
election? (2) you will vote for Clinton, Trump, or someone else? and
(3) Clinton, Trump or someone else will win? As their answers come in,
we update the charts daily (just after midnight) with an average of
all of the prior week’s responses. To find out more about what lies
behind the vote, each week we also ask respondents one or two extra
questions
about their preferences and values. The team responsible for the USC
Dornsife/LA Times Presidential Election Poll four years ago developed
the
successful RAND Continuous Presidential Election Poll, which was based
on the same methodology." ......... "Survey Methods" (tab)
More than 3200 UAS panel members so far (July 2016) have agreed to
participate in answering questions about the election, and we expect
that number will increase over time. Each day, 1/7th of those who have
agreed to participate (more than 400 per day) are invited to answer
three predictive questions: What is the percent chance that... (1) you
will vote in the presidential election? (2) if you were to vote, you
will vote for Clinton, Trump, or someone else (percentages add to 100)
and (3) Clinton, Trump or someone else will win (percentages add to
100). The order of the candidates in the questions is randomized so that
about half of the respondents see Clinton as the first choice and half
of the respondents see Trump as the first choice.
Each night, Daybreak Poll results are weighted to match demographic
characteristics (such as race and gender) from the U.S. Census Current
Population Survey, and aligned to the 2012 presidential election outcome
using how respondents tell us how they voted in that election. Then the
latest results, averages of all of the prior week’s responses, are
posted onlineat https://election.usc.edu and on the LATimes.com Politics site shortly after midnight.
In particular, to obtain the values shown in the election forecast
chart, we weight each respondent's likelihood of voting for a candidate
with their likelihood of voting in the presidential election. Next we
calculate the mean of that number for all respondents during the last 7
days, taking into account respondent level weights based on demographics
and past voting behavior.
This is the estimated fraction of the
population that will vote for the candidate. The graph shows the
estimated fraction of the votes that a candidate will get, which is
computed by dividing the estimated fraction of the population that will
vote for the candidate by the estimated fraction of the population that
will vote for any candidate. The latter is analogously obtained as the
weighted mean of the respondents' likelihood of voting in the
presidential election.
To find out more about what lies behind the vote, each week we also
ask respondents one or two extra questions about their preferences and
values. Links to documents detailing question text, sample sizes,
response rates and other information for these separate surveys are
provided in the detailed information section below, linked to stories or
press releases where the results were disseminated.
The Daybreak Poll began on July 4, 2016, and will run through the November election.
More information about UAS panel methodology, the panel management and survey software we developed, or our publicly available datasets are available in the links here or at the UAS site (https://uasdata.usc.edu). For other questions, or to inquire about how you can conduct surveys with the UAS panel, contact us. Summary of links to more detailed information about the UAS Panel and the Daybreak Poll: UAS Panel Recruitment UAS Panel sampling UAS Panel Weighting
Temporarily unavailable:
Screen shots of the 3 weekly vote questions (note order of candidates is randomized)
Details of weighting the Daybreak Poll
Detailed survey methods pages for stories and releases based on additional questions
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Do you use a likely voter model?
A: No, the respondents provide us with their own subjective probability of voting and we use that to weight their responses.
Delavande, Adeline, and Charles F. Manski. 2010. Probabilistic
polling and voting in the 2008 presidential election: Evidence from the
American Life Panel. Public Opinion Quarterly 74:433–459. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfq019
Gutsche, T. L., Kapteyn, A., Meijer, E., & Weerman, B. (2014).
The RAND Continuous 2012 Presidential Election Poll. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 78, 233–254. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfu009
Kapteyn, A., Meijer, E., & Weerman, B. (2012). Methodology of
the RAND Continuous 2012 Presidential Election Poll (Working Paper No.
WR-961). RAND Corporation. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2146149
The Koch brothers speak with their words, which can’t be trusted, but they also speak with their money, their investments, which are always honest expressions of their actual beliefs and desires. This time, the Kochs spoke with their money, just a day after that Senator spoke with his words.
They spoke with their investments on July 19th, when they
yanked their money [a Freedom Partners Action Fund media buy] from a U.S. Senator whom they had always financially
backed, until now; and they did it immediately after that
Senator not only went to the Republican National Convention where Donald
Trump was to be nominated, but he gave there a powerful argument for
Republicans to vote for Trump.
Let me repeat that — RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISTS — slaughtering and brutalizing their innocent victims. So the question is, when will America actually confront this terrible reality?
We certainly won’t if Democrats win in November. …
Hillary Clinton is asking America to give her Obama’s third term.
The world is simply too dangerous to elect either of them [either
Democrat Russ Feingold who is running to win the Republican Johnson’s
Senate seat, or Hillary Clinton].
Instead, America needs strong leadership. Leaders who will jumpstart
our economy, secure our borders, strengthen our military, and accomplish
the goal President Obama set over twenty-two months ago [but failed to
fulfill]: We must defeat ISIS, and then remain fully committed to
destroying Islamic terrorists wherever they hide. …
It is a fight we absolutely must win.
Donald Trump and Mike Pence understand that these must be America’s
top priorities. They will be strong leaders, working with Republicans in
the House and Senate to achieve a goal that can unite us all: A
safe, prosperous, and secure America.
Our future hangs in the balance. We must unify, work tirelessly, and together, save this great nation....
The next day, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel bannered “Koch brothers pull ad buy backing Ron Johnson”, and reported that, “A
day after U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin spoke at the Republican
National Convention,a group affiliated with the conservative Koch
brothers pulled more than $2 million in ad time in the Badger State.”
In other words: immediately after one of their owned Senators campaigned for Trump, they cut off his main monetary lifeline. This is a warning to any other Republican who might still be
considering to campaign for Trump; it says, loud and clear: If you do
that, you lose us."...
In a poll this month by Marquette University Law School, Feingold led Johnson 49% to 45% among likely voters."]
(continuing): "The Koch-led contingent of Republican billionaires and
centi-millionaires is one of two Republican financial-backer
contingents.
The other is led by Karl Rove.
The Koch-led network of billionaires (who rely upon hiring
academia and media for manipulating voters), and the Rove-led network of
billionaires (who rely far more heavily upon garnering Wall Street
money and Evangelical clergy for manipulating voters), have long beenthe two financial mainstays of the Republican Party. The Kochs
have now made unmistakably clear that they want Hillary Clinton to
become the next President(and, thus, academics and the media will
overwhelmingly support Hillary).
Previously, there was question as to
whether the Kochs would go so far as to help a Democrat; but, now, there
is no serious doubt about it: they already do (though as quietly as
possible, and not in their own — often lying — mere words).
Even as early as October 2015, it was clear thatthe Republican Party’s mega-donors were already contributing more money to Hillary Clinton’s campaign than to Donald Trump’s....In the ultimate 17-candidate Republican field,
Hillary was already getting more of the 2012 Romney donors’ money than
was each campaign of Lindsey Graham, Rand Paul, Carly Fiorina, Chris
Christie, Rick Perry, Mike Huckabee, Donald Trump, Bobby Jindal, Rick
Santorum, George Pataki, and (the least of all, they donated to) Jim
Gilmore. So, if she were added to that 17-candidate
Republican-candidate list, she’d have been #7 out of the 18 recipients
of Republican money. (And that’s not even counting the money
from Democratic-Party megadonors — virtually all of whom donated and
donate only to Clinton.)
Perhaps Trump is hoping to get lots more contributions from
Democratic donors than previous Republican Presidential nominees have.
But he certainly won’t be able to come even close to matching Hillary’s
campaign warchest, which is widely expected to break all previous
records."...
The remarks fromRobert Mercer of Long Island and his daughter Rebekah Mercer
suggest widening fallout over Mr. Cruz’s convention speech, in which he
did not endorse his former rival and, instead, suggested that
Republicans should “vote your conscience” for candidates “up and down
the ticket.” ...........
The statement continued: “The Democratic Party
will soon choose as their nominee a candidate who would repeal both the
First and Second Amendments of the Bill of Rights, a nominee who would
remake the Supreme Court in her own image. We need ‘all hands on deck’
to ensure that Mr. Trump prevails.”.......
The Mercers invested at least $11 million in Keep the Promise I, one of a group of interlocked “super PACs”
that supported Mr. Cruz in his presidential run. During the contentious
primary race, Mr. Cruz had early praise for Mr. Trump on the belief
that his candidacy would eventually fade and that Mr. Trump’s voters
would move over to the senator’s camp. ........
Instead, Mr. Trump’s candidacy endured and the race between the men grew increasingly rancorous. ............
After Mr. Cruz’s speech at the convention in Cleveland,Sheldon G. Adelson,
the casino magnate who was an early admirer of Mr. Cruz in the
primaries, blocked him from his suite. (A friend of Mr. Adelson’s,
claiming to represent him, insisted after the fact that he was not
trying to disrespect the senator.) .........
“Senator
Cruz considers Bob and Rebekah to be patriots and friends. As Senator
Cruz urged in Cleveland, Hillary Clinton
would be a disaster for America. Republicans need to unite, and the
only way to unite is behind shared principles. His speech laid out a
path — vigorously defending freedom and the Constitution — for our
nominee to unite the party and for Republicans to win up and down the
ticket.” ...........
Mr.
Mercer in recent weeks has helped fund a new effort for donors who want
to defeat Mrs. Clinton, but who do not want to donate to a group that
is openly supporting Mr. Trump. That group is being operated by David
Bossie, the president of the group Citizens United. .......
