It’s been a particularly rough week all around, as our nation mourns and tries to make sense of the tragedy in Orlando that took 49 innocent lives and irrevocably changed countless more — not just the 53 injured, but all of those who love the injured and deceased — forever.
And on top of the tragedy, it’s disheartening, to say the least, to see our so-called leaders and media do everything it can to deny the role of Islamic terror in what happened — which, we fear, will only lead to more of these types of tragedies.
We all know that President Obama’s policies — thwarting terror investigations for fear of “profiling,” refusing to say and banning certain key words, for example — have been disastrous. In fact, some have pointed out that ISIS didn’t even exist before Obama — and in just over seven years, they have gone from the JV team to lettering in Varsity, multiple times over.Our nation may not survive the third term of Obama that Hillary Clinton promises to be.
So for those of us in the #NeverHillary camp, perhaps it is a bit heartening to see that Democrat hopeful Hillary Clinton’s lead over presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump has been slipping in the wake of the Orlando attack.
As Breitbart reports:The latest polling data from Reuters finds voters shifting support to Donald Trump in the days following the Orlando terrorist attack.
Prior to the attack, Hillary Clinton led Trump by almost 15 points in the Reuters tracking survey. In the latest results, Clinton leads Trump by 10 points.The results run counter to the media narrative since the terrorist attack in Florida. Politico, for example, has run half-a-dozen stories this week exploring how Trump “flubbed” his response to the attack. Voters, however, don’t simply look at snap political statements in the wake of significant events to gauge candidates. The specifics of events themselves can shift the political landscape.
The Reuters survey is based on a five-day rolling average of interviews with around 1,200 likely voters. Most polls capture a snap-shot of the race within a small window of time. Many of the polls released this week included a large number of interviews conducted prior to the Orlando attack.
The overwhelming majority of interviews in the widely cited Bloomberg poll earlier this week, for example, were conducted before the terrorist attack. That survey showed Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump by 12 points. The poll was released, of course, after the country was reeling from the aftermath of the Orlando attack and was breathlessly reported by the media as somehow reflecting the state of the race. The poll itself, though, was outdated as soon as Omar Mateen murdered 49 people in his own act of jihad.
Terrorism has shot back to the top of voters’ concerns since the Orlando attack. In early May, terrorism was a distant third on the issues most important to voters, according to Reuters data. It was essentially tied with a host of other issues, including healthcare, unemployment and immigration.
By mid-week, however, terrorism was again the number one issue on voters’ minds, edging out concerns over the economy. All other issues, like healthcare and immigration, had slipped to the low-single digits. Support for a temporary ban on Muslims also increased. Today, a plurality of voters support a ban on Muslim immigration into the US. A small majority of likely voters support a ban.
At the end of May, a solid majority of voters opposed such a ban.
Though, as Breitbart points out, even a temporary blanket ban on Muslims into the U.S. is likely unworkable for a variety of reasons — such as challenges to implement — voter support for it speaks to their frustration and mistrust with our political leaders on both sides. As Breitbart says:
A blanket ban, after all, makes sense if one doesn’t trust the government or political leaders to enforce existing laws or pursue potential threats with the necessary vigor.
The attack by Omar Mateen exposed, again, multiple failures of law enforcement or federal authorities to recognize potential threats. A blanket ban simply saves us the consequences of future bad decisions by federal authorities.
And, as the Obama administration has shown us, there is no limit to the bad decisions federal authorities can make under the wrong leader.
While many voters are not happy with either major party choice likely to be on the ballot, voter sentiment in the wake of Orlando suggests that voters trust Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton to effectively handle this apparently increasing issue of radical Islamic terror.
Perhaps that’s why Hillary Clinton is suddenly beginning to change her tune — at least outwardly — on the topic, even finally breaking with President Obama and using the words “radical Islamism” to refer to the Orlando attack.
[Note: This article was written by Michelle Jesse, Associate Editor]