“A poll..released on Monday found voters have become more concerned with candidates’ views on gun policy than on President Trump at the same time that the partisan gap has shrunk.” That’s from a Washington Free Beacon story.
The Washington Post/ABC Newspoll, conducted between April 8 and 11, found that 78 percent of registered voters considered voting for a candidate whose views on gun rights and gun control matched their own to be either very or extremely important. Twenty-one percent of those surveyed said it was only somewhat important or not important at all. One percent gave no opinion.
That’s probably not terribly surprising. The post-Parkland anti-gun frenzy has firearms and the right to own them on a lot more minds these days. What’s more noteworthy, however, is . . .
The gap between registered voters who prefer Democrats to Republicans shrunk by 8 points between the last Washington Post/ABC News poll, conducted in January, and the poll released on Monday. Democrats had a 12 percentage-point advantage over Republicans in January but now only enjoy a 4 point advantage.
Hmm. So while the number of voters who think that candidates’ views of guns is important has increased, the margin of support in favor of Democrats has been cut by two-thirds. Could it be that most Americans, as a group, don’t appreciate politicians, the media and the new Anti-Gun Our Gang telling them how deplorable they are for owning firearms?
At the same time, Gallup is reporting today that the subject of guns is actually falling precipitously in importance in the minds of most Americans.
Americans’ mentions of guns or gun control as the most important problem facing the nation fell by over half this month, ticking down to 6% from last month’s record high of 13%. Still, gun control continues to be one of the highest-ranked issues named by Americans — only dissatisfaction with government, immigration and race relations were named more frequently.
So despite the herculean efforts of the media and the Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex, Americans seem to have realized that the country faces far bigger problems.
In the immediate aftermath of (Parkland), public opinion regarding gun control shifted significantly. A March 2-11 Gallup poll found Americans’ support for gun control laws rising to the highest levels since 1993. Meanwhile, the same Gallup poll found a record percentage of Americans mentioning guns as the country’s top problem.
But it remains to be seen how long-lasting these changes in Americans’ attitudes will prove to be. Past shootings, such as the 2012 incident at Sandy Hook Elementary School, have changed at least some aspect of public opinion related to gun control, but these effects have tended to be temporary.
And no doubt will again. Despite David Hogg’s furious efforts to remain on the public stage a few minutes longer. It’s a long time until November.
So situation is normal, no Hogg hype?
Wow, it’s as if *holding our ground* and either *shutting our mouths* or *firmly rejecting any compromise* then waiting for the emotions of anti-gunners’ brainless supporters to subside is the perfect strategy! I wonder why the NRA decided to break ranks with the president, in that case?
They we’re afraid they’d be successful, and wouldn’t have anything to ‘argue over’.
Sounds too much like “never let a crisis go to waste” to me.
Can’t “fight for a seat at the table” to ‘discuss’ (with your “voice”) the farm that they threw away on the bump-stock deal.
I think the ATF&E SHOULD take another look at regulating the NRA.
There’s a reason the hate timer is set at 2 minutes. Keeping riled up over something you don’t necessarily care about is exhausting. Unless a Parkland-esque incident occurs in October gun control won’t affect voting in any meaningful way except for those who are already and always anti or pro.
As a side note this reality makes knee-jerk pols appear more foolish than they know. Especially the RINO’s like the Scott twins. If you don’t want to wait for the hysterics to settle to craft meaningful or at least rational legislation you should at least be willing to hold off so you don’t sell your soul to stupidity for zero political gain whatsoever.
Same with those “pro” idiots who race to make asses of themselves like the X-Products clown this go around. How hard is it to just STFU? Seriously, just STFU. It’s the easiest thing in the world to do. What’s the point of history if nobody is learning anything from it?
“Keeping riled up over something you don’t necessarily care about is exhausting.”
? ? ?
Do more cardio.
F THE EVIL POS communist (D) IN THE GOAT A_ _ .
F EM ALL.
Not at all surprising. There’s a decay factor that always follows a moral panic. What’s embarrassing is how foolish politicians look who got sucked up by the panic and passed coercive anti-gun laws that alienated their core constituency. It’s hard to claim you are a conservative when you vote anti-gun. People Of The Gun have long memories.
It made (most of) them show their true stripes.
I remember it like it was, oh eighteen months ago, that all the professional “polls” showed Donald Trump would suffer the worst landslide loss of any presidential candidate in history.
In these times, “polls” are designed to manipulate response, not just report on results. Greet them with a healthy, “Really? That’s nice.”
I remember, oh 18 months ago, a Second Amendment Coalition and a crashing halt to the 8-year assault on our gun rights…
Trump’s poll readings are the highest they’ve ever been now that he’s shit all over his base supporters. That actually goes hand-in-glove with what you say about polls manipulating responses, but does nothing to change the situation we’ve been put in by a ‘born again’ pro-gun politician.
The polls were pretty much dead on. Hillary Clinton did win nationally by about four points, which is what she was polling at towards the end. What was incorrect was the final outcome in crucial states, which ended up making the difference electorally.
There shouldn’t be too much read into Trump’s victory, one way or the other. Individual races have to be fought by the candidates in those states and districts. Trump will have an influence, but it will mostly come down to how those individuals stack up against their opponents.
“There shouldn’t be too much read into Trump’s victory, one way or the other.”
You missed the point, entirely.
2.5 million votes is not a “landslide”. 2.5 million votes is not the most humiliating defeat ever. Winning the vote in 20 states is not the predicted popular vote landslide. A vote count of Clinton 64,223,958 votes, and Trump 62,206,395 is not the predicted landslide. According to the AP, Clinton won 487 counties nationwide, while Trump won 2623; not the predicted landslide.
Every poll but one predicted a Clinton victory.
Do you see a common thread here?
I do see a common thread in the last election; the lack of a Republican candidate actively trying to throw the race. I know we all assume the Dems are the ones calling the shots since their schemes have been revealed first via the DNC hack, but I think it’s equally likely the Republicans are the ones actually conspiring to fail their campaigns. Both parties are sleazes, only one of them is claiming to support responsible (i.e. difficult/unpleasant) governance. That side therefore has tremendous incentive to make sure it never has the responsibility to live up to its promises by winning real authority over public policy. On the contrary, the Dems blindly pursue their insane policies and therefore seek One Party Rule as the mechanism.
Dole was never meant to win, GW Bush was never expected to win (and damn near didn’t), McCain plainly threw the election to his idol, Romney was an intentionally divisive candidate guaranteed to alienate voters in swing states, Jeb was clearly unserious about taking on the mantle of a presidential campaign from the get-go. Somehow, all these half-hearted candidates manage to win the backing & support of the college-trained strategists with decades of experience winning where it benefited themselves. Methinks the incompetent strategy, is the strategy; they just overdid it this last go-around since Hillary was so utterly God Awful and even Bob Dole (apparently still alive per wiki) would kick her ass easily, and got the Trump Ascendancy as a very unexpected reaction to the naked refutation of public will. The public as usual way overshot any sort of logical reaction and chose the most offensive candidate available as a form of punishment (‘burn down the GOPE!’ was a common refrain during the primaries as I recall), and in so doing denied itself more stalwart & valuable allies.
The “common thread” is that polls are unreliable, even with great mounds of “data” behind them.
The inability to separate the election from the validity of the polling, to understand the written word, should scare all of us…and you.
2.5 million votes, most of which were either illegal or dead. In reality Lord Trump won the popular vote.
The dims were just too incompetent to steal the election.
” 2.5 million votes, most of which were either illegal or dead. In reality Lord Trump won the popular vote.
The dims were just too incompetent to steal the election.”
Et tu, Brute?
My commentary was not about the election details, but the uselessness of polling. Did I miss my goal that badly?
People like lower taxes too…the RINO scum will regret betraying US too.
Doesn’t sound good for the allegedly pro-gun Republican governors of Florida and Vermont.
The people who vote for the likes of Hickenlooper and Mcauliffe are never going to vote for nominally conservative Republicans, no matter how hard they jump on the gun control bandwagon.
But the people who voted the Scotts into office won’t vote to reelect somebody who turned all hickenloopy on them.
Idiots have already forgotten Trump screwed over gun owners on bump stocks while he’s still screwing them, so I suspect those traitorous governors will do just fine. Gun owners are terrible at voting for their interests, we should all realize this by now. We’ve all seen Florida turning over for a long time, and with the PR influx it’s a way forgone conclusion they’re blue for good; this is just what the flip looks like once it finally happens (a bunch of political decisions that don’t make sense based on past reality, but are rather obvious based on current/future reality).
Hey nazi saluting pipsqeak. Your 15 minutes are up. Good luck at your local juco. Yes, I insulted the the little darling. No apology will be forthcoming.
Time to clean the government out of RINOs and democraps.
Lemme know how that works out, lol
What is the possibility the left had someone close to Nikolas Cruz (Parkland shooter) nudging him that direction.
What is the possibility the left “influenced” the FBI, Sheriff and local LEO to hold off for a while?
What are the odds there will be a school shooting in late October?
What a coincidence that would be….or not.
I am a rabid pro-gun supporter, but I really don’t understand the bump stock issue. (Other than maybe the slippery slope thing.) Maybe it’s because I spent the better part of four decades standing behind full auto weapons. Mostly over rated unless you’re part of an infantry unit and the weapon in question is belt fed. (They are a little fun to shot though.) Anyway, a friend bought one of those bump stock things when they first came out and mounted it on one of his semi-auto M-4s. I shot a couple of mags through it. Didn’t take long to master, but I quickly lost interest. So did he. I’ve said it before about other weapons systems, if I get in a fight I hope my adversary has one.
Yes, it’s the slippery-slope thing…
You haven’t been paying attention to the fact that these “bumpstock” laws don’t SPECIFICALLY mention bumpstocks. They all say “devices that increase the rate of fire”.
That means your muzzle brake, match triggers, recoil springs, and other devices that reduce recoil and increase comfort by extension increase the rate of fire beyond what a human could do without them.
So by default, semiauto guns are defacto banned!! Who determines what an acceptable rate of fire is?
The issue with a bump stock ban is not about bump stocks. It sets a precedent for limiting “rate of fire”. “Nobody needs to shoot 100 rounds per minute” will become “nobody needs to shoot 50 rounds per minute”, then “nobody needs to shoot 20 rounds per minute”. How about a nice ban on any firearm capable of firing more than 10 rounds per minute? Idiotic? Of course, but that is how anti-civil rights bigots roll.
That’s the problem with many of these Fudds on our end who want to give them away or don’t care about them.
The laws as written ipso facto ban semiauto rifles.