If you think Richard Trumka over the top in his assessment of Scott Walker -- he wants you to work longer and harder for much less so that the Koch syndicate can wax even richer.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) signed the new state budget into law on Sunday with a last-minute change that strips the words "living wage" from state laws and replaces it with "minimum wage."

The change means minimum-wage Wisconsin workers will earn nearly $6,000 per year less than what the Massachusetts Institute of Technology calculates is a living wage in the state. And they will have no recourse, according to the Center for American Progress. MIT says a living wage would be $10.13 an hour.

The new law eliminates the ability of low-wage workers to appeal for a living wage. Previously, Wisconsin law stated that employee pay "shall be not less than a living wage," defined as "adequate to permit any employee to maintain herself or himself in minimum comfort, decency, physical and moral well-being." Wisconsin's living wage was tied to the state minimum wage, currently $7.25 an hour.

The old law allowed residents to challenge the living wage amount with the Department of Workforce Development. Last year, 100 workers, most earning just above the minimum wage, did just that, contending their pay wasn't a living wage. The state denied their claim, declaring "there is no reasonable cause to believe that the wages paid to the complainants are not a living wage." The workers later filed a lawsuit against the state.

Walker, who announced his 2016 presidential campaign on Monday, also decided workers don't need weekends off. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the budget Walker signed "would allow factory and retail employees to work seven days without a day off, as long as they said in writing that they were doing so voluntarily." The old law required employers to give workers at least one day off for every seven days of work.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_7789472.html

Scott Walker -- making Marxism relevant in America.

If "None of the Above" was a candidate on the ballot, your vote might actually mean something.

Trump Leads USA Today Poll, But Weakest in GOP Against Clinton

By Greg Richter | Tuesday, 14 Jul 2015 04:51 PM

Donald Trump leads yet another poll of presidential candidates, though the poll also finds the billionaire businessman the weakest Republican against Democrat Hillary Clinton.

Trump leads the latest USA Today/Suffolk University Poll with 17 percent of the crowded GOP field, followed by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush at 14 percent.

Trump's criticism of what he terms America's lax enforcement of illegal immigration was the main reason for his surge, USA Today reports.

Trump's numbers have risen 6 percentage points since the last poll in June, while Bush's numbers have held steady.

Rounding out the poll as first choice for president were:
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker: 8 percent
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz: 6 percent
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio: 5 percent
Retired surgeon Ben Carson: 4 percent
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul: 4 percent
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee: 4 percent
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie: 3 percent

"We've seen Donald Trump make it to the top, but the question is can he stay on top," David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center, told USA Today.

"In 2012, Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain led the GOP primary field briefly but only to fade."

And Trump comes in dead last in head-to-head competition against Clinton, according to the poll.

Trump trails Clinton 51 percent to 34 percent. Bush is strongest, trailing only 46 percent to 42 percent.

Related Stories:
Trump Surges With Tea Party Voters in Monmouth National Poll
Reuters-Ipsos Poll: Trump, Bush in Virtual Dead Heat
© 2015 Newsmax. All rights reserved.


Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Don...#ixzz3fxgMrAl2

Reuters-Ipsos Poll: Trump, Bush in Virtual Dead Heat
Saturday, 11 Jul 2015 07:18 AM


Donald Trump, who became the center of attention in the race for the 2016 Republican U.S. presidential nomination with his denunciation of illegal immigrants from Mexico, has vaulted into a virtual dead heat with Jeb Bush atop the field, a Reuters-Ipsos poll released on Saturday showed.

Trump, a billionaire real estate developer, had the support of 15.8 percent of respondents in the online poll of self-identified Republicans compared to 16.1 percent for Bush, a former Florida governor.

They were followed by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie at 9.5 percent, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul at 8.1 percent, surgeon and author Ben Carson at 7.2 percent and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker at 5.8 percent.

However, given a choice of three candidates - Bush, Trump or Florida Sen. Marco Rubio - Bush had a comfortable lead at 42 percent among the respondents in the Reuters-Ipsos Republican poll, compared to 28.4 percent for Trump and 20 percent for Rubio.

In the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton remained in front with the support of 48.3 percent of self-identified Democrats polled, with Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders continuing to inch up, at 22.9 percent, and Vice President Joe Biden, who has not entered the race, at 10.7 percent.

Numerous businesses including NBC Universal, Univision, Macy's, Serta and NASCAR have cut ties with Trump since he accused Mexico, in his June 16 speech announcing his candidacy, of sending rapists and other criminals into the United States. Trump on July 6 added that illegal border-crossers from Mexico are carrying "tremendous infectious disease."

The controversy over Trump's immigration comments has dominated news coverage of the Republican campaign in recent weeks, and he has climbed in the Reuters-Ipsos poll to draw essentially even with Bush. On June 30, the poll had Bush at 16.9 percent and Trump at 12.8 percent.

A hard line against illegal immigration may find a receptive audience in Republican primary voters, with U.S. conservatives often accusing President Barack Obama of doing too little to secure America's border with Mexico.

Trump also has accused Bush of being weak on illegal immigration, bringing Bush's Mexican-born wife into the debate. "If my wife were from Mexico, I think I would have a soft spot for people from Mexico. I can understand that," Trump said in a CNN interview.

Trump has increasingly come under fire from some of his rivals for the Republican nomination including Bush.

"Everybody has a belief that we should control our borders," Bush said last week. "But to make these extraordinarily kind of ugly comments is not reflective of the Republican Party. Trump is wrong on this."

In the Reuters/Ipsos poll of the Republican race, 404 self-identified Republicans age 18 or over were questioned from July 6-10. The poll had a credibility interval, a measure of accuracy, of 5.7 percentage points.

In the Reuters/Ipsos poll of the Democratic race, 504 self-identified Democrats age 18 or over were questioned over the same time period, with a credibility interval of 5.1 percentage points.


© 2015 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/trum...#ixzz3fxhiY11z

If the primaries are indeed to be decided by which candidates have the best scores on my system compared to those who won in the past, regardless of other factors, then it will indeed be Trump vs. Sanders in November 2016.

My scores for the candidates:
(positive indicators - negative indicators)

GOP:

Trump 15-4
Bush 16-6
Rubio 17-12
Paul 12-8
Perry 9-5
Fiorina 13-11
Christie 16-15
Santorum 7-7
Huckabee 6-6
Jindal 13-14
Cruz 4-6
Carson 4-6
Walker 6-10
Kasich 8-15
Graham 2-3

Dem:

Sanders 10-0
Chafee - 20-6
Webb 14-8
Clinton 9-8 (plus Uranus rising, a strong positive indicator)
O'Malley 14-14

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

If you think Richard Trumka over the top in his assessment of Scott Walker -- he wants you to work longer and harder for much less so that the Koch syndicate can wax even richer.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_7789472.html

Scott Walker -- making Marxism relevant in America.

Scott Walker: the plutocrats' best friend.

“Independents” Are Growing Because Republicans Are Shrinking
by Robin Marty
July 14, 2015
http://www.care2.com/causes/independ...shrinking.html



As the election season approaches, the analysis of important voting blocks that could swing the results has already begun. Often it is the women’s vote, or the millennials, or communities of color.

Then of course there is that fabulous catch-all known as the elusive “independents,” that voting block that follows no rules, belongs to no major party, subscribes to no strict set of policy beliefs and allegedly is there for the taking of any political candidate that can figure out the right set of legislative promises in order to capture their attention.

The “independents” are back in the limelight again, as according to political pundits their numbers have now swelled to make them bigger than either those who identify as Democrats or those who identify as Republicans combined.

“A recent NBC poll confirms that the partisan political environment is, in fact, taking a toll on the two major parties, with voter registration revealing that self-identified independents are the fastest growing voting bloc in America,” reports IVN.com. “NBC commentators coin it ‘the rise of an ‘independents’ era,’ reporting that in 2014 the number of people self-identifying as independent was at 39 percent, passing that of Democrats (32 percent) and Republicans (23 percent). As of June 2015, the number of self-identifying independents has grown to 45 percent — just 2 points shy of the number of Democrats and Republicans COMBINED.”

Are independents really rising? Well, sort of. But a closer look at NBCs numbers show it’s not quite as simple as that. Despite being unwilling to directly come out and say so, independents are growing because the Republican party itself is hemorrhaging members.

“Data from the Pew Research Center shows independents are now the biggest partisan group in the United States. The percentage of people self-identifying as independent was 39% in 2014. The number for Democrats is 32% and for Republicans it is 23%,” explains Meet the Press. “Just 10 years ago, 31% of Americans identified as independents, in between Democrats at 33% and Republicans at 29%. And, perhaps more notable, that current 39% represents the highest measure of independents in 75 years, according to Pew.”

People who say they are independents increased by eight percentage points in the last decade, but the number of people identifying as Democrats went down just a mere percentage point. Those who want to be labeled Republicans, on the other hand, went down a massive six points. Especially telling is the fact that the states that NBC points to as having the largest independent or no party designations are places like Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire or North Carolina, all of which still have more moderate political streaks and often high level Democratic office holders.

All it takes is a quick peek at our current Republican representatives to get a clear picture of why many are picking “independent” instead of Republican. With the religious right dominating the policy planks of the GOP, there is no longer any room in the tent for those who support marriage equality, believe in reproductive rights, support fair housing and voting or workers rights or believe that there is more to government than guns, religious liberty and big business interests. While the current slate of Republican presidential candidates is fighting over who has the best plan for stopping immigration or denying gay couples a marriage license, a vast majority of small government moderate conservatives no longer has anyone fighting to representing them on the ballot.

“Pundits… frequently claim that political polarization goes both ways. That’s actually not true. While the polarization is real, it’s asymmetric — Republicans have run much further right than Democrats have moved left,” writes Michigan political commentator Susan J. Demas. “Sure, Democrats have moved left on some issues, like marijuana and gay marriage. But so have voters – so you have a party being responsive to the electorate. Republicans, on the other hand, are not. They’ve become ‘ideologically extreme … unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science,’ as Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institute notes.”

Are independents growing? Yes, and they are going to continue to do so as the GOP continues to move further to the right, and reject anyone who won’t move with them. Luckily, that provides Democrats with an excellent voter pool to draw from heading into 2016.

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/independ...#ixzz3fzTrfyKb

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Walker, who announced his 2016 presidential campaign on Monday, also decided workers don't need weekends off. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the budget Walker signed "would allow factory and retail employees to work seven days without a day off, as long as they said in writing that they were doing so voluntarily." The old law required employers to give workers at least one day off for every seven days of work.

"I wear the chain I forged in life! I made it link by link and yard by yard! I gartered it on of my own free will and by my own free will, I wore it!" --If you don't know where this quote is from, God save you, you humbug.

~Chas'88

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/0...es-120113.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...birth-abortion

Originally Posted by Chas'88

"I wear the chain I forged in life! I made it link by link and yard by yard! I gartered it on of my own free will and by my own free will, I wore it!" --If you don't know where this quote is from, God save you, you humbug.

~Chas'88

"There are some upon this earth of yours who lay claim to know us, and who do their deeds of passion, pride, ill-will, hatred, envy, bigotry, and selfishness in our name; who are as strange to us and all our kith and kin, as if they had never lived. Remember that, and charge their doings on themselves, not us.”

Oh, by the way -

"...permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a doornail.”

Originally Posted by Chas'88

"I wear the chain I forged in life! I made it link by link and yard by yard! I gartered it on of my own free will and by my own free will, I wore it!" --If you don't know where this quote is from, God save you, you humbug.

~Chas'88

Advice to ruling elites in America and elsewhere:

Heed Charles Dickens lest you make Karl Marx relevant. Your choice.

Virginia is a fairly-good microcosm of America, and it could easily be the tipping-point state of 2016 for the Presidency.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/p...e_VA_71615.pdf

Buried in the crosstabs is something telling: although the approval/disapproval rating for President Obama is 47 to 48 (were it not for the pesky 22nd Amendment and he were running for re-election, he would be in excellent shape to win Virginia) there is a generational component to the vote.

Age group Cohort Approval Disapproval

18-29 1985-1997 58 31
30-45 1969-1985 48 45
46-65 1949-1969 45 52
66+ to 1949 41 55

These age groups do not quite fit Howe and Strauss' generational divides, but all in all it would seem that the Millennial Generation (all of the youngest identified cohort in this data) isn't drifting rightward. To be sure, the 30-45 age group is mostly X, but the youngest of them are Millennial adults whose first votes were for Barack Obama.

...So much for the argument of some conservatives that the Millennial Generation is 'coming to its senses' and recognizing the alleged virtues of crony capitalism, environmental pillaging, degradation of the public sector, tax cuts for the rich, and wage cuts.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Virginia is a fairly-good microcosm of America, and it could easily be the tipping-point state of 2016 for the Presidency.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/p...e_VA_71615.pdf

Buried in the crosstabs is something telling: although the approval/disapproval rating for President Obama is 47 to 48 (were it not for the pesky 22nd Amendment and he were running for re-election, he would be in excellent shape to win Virginia) there is a generational component to the vote.

Age group Cohort Approval Disapproval

18-29 1985-1997 58 31
30-45 1969-1985 48 45
46-65 1949-1969 45 52
66+ to 1949 41 55

These age groups do not quite fit Howe and Strauss' generational divides, but all in all it would seem that the Millennial Generation (all of the youngest identified cohort in this data) isn't drifting rightward. To be sure, the 30-45 age group is mostly X, but the youngest of them are Millennial adults whose first votes were for Barack Obama.

...So much for the argument of some conservatives that the Millennial Generation is 'coming to its senses' and recognizing the alleged virtues of crony capitalism, environmental pillaging, degradation of the public sector, tax cuts for the rich, and wage cuts.

Looking at their buckets, and interpolating into S&H buckets:

Millies: Strongly approve
Xers: Approve (by a slim margin)
Boomers: Disapprove
Silents: Strongly Disapprove

Matches my own on-the-ground experience.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Looking at their buckets, and interpolating into S&H buckets:

Millies: Strongly approve
Xers: Approve (by a slim margin)
Boomers: Disapprove
Silents: Strongly Disapprove

Matches my own on-the-ground experience.

Generation X is not so reactionary as Howe and Schwartz said that it would be. It has learned the harsh realities of politics in the School of Hard Knocks that the Christian Right and the Corporate Right are not their friends.

The big difference between Generation X and Boomers is that Generation X is more minority in make-up... and even minorities (by ethnicity, religion, or sexuality) that do well economically in America (like homosexuals, Asians and Jews in general and the Black and Latino bourgeoisie) recognize no trustworthiness in a Right that willingly uses racist demagoguery to rile poor, uneducated white people with which middle-class minorities have nothing in common. Middle-class white people may still be R-leaning... until they see that the demagoguery seems directed at a Jewish co-worker, a Latino son-in-law, an Asian daughter-in-law, their black ('biracial' is still black if one of the two races is black) grandchildren, or a gay or lesbian member of the extended family. What may work in lily-white communities in the Mountain South might not work so well in suburban Chicago or Cleveland.

Generation X is fairly conservative on the scope of government.... but it is also very secular.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Generation X is not so reactionary as Howe and Schwartz said that it would be. It has learned the harsh realities of politics in the School of Hard Knocks that the Christian Right and the Corporate Right are not their friends.

The big difference between Generation X and Boomers is that Generation X is more minority in make-up... and even minorities (by ethnicity, religion, or sexuality) that do well economically in America (like homosexuals, Asians and Jews in general and the Black and Latino bourgeoisie) recognize no trustworthiness in a Right that willingly uses racist demagoguery to rile poor, uneducated white people with which middle-class minorities have nothing in common. Middle-class white people may still be R-leaning... until they see that the demagoguery seems directed at a Jewish co-worker, a Latino son-in-law, an Asian daughter-in-law, their black ('biracial' is still black if one of the two races is black) grandchildren, or a gay or lesbian member of the extended family. What may work in lily-white communities in the Mountain South might not work so well in suburban Chicago or Cleveland.

Generation X is fairly conservative on the scope of government.... but it is also very secular.

Sort of similar to saying we have more minorities, X, as you know, has the greatest percentage of immigrants of any American generation. We are truly an example of the notion that America is a nation of immigrants. Also a very personal observation related to your comment about Middle Class "white-people." As I've previously revealed I have African blood (from the Melungeon branch that married into my family tree a couple generations ago). But I was raised white, self identified as white until much later in life, etc. Nonetheless, I have full on black cousins by marriage and therefore overtly bi-racial cousins (e.g. their kids). So yeah, it's really true, one's notions about race are "colored" in many cases by one's own family situation! LOL!

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Sort of similar to saying we have more minorities, X, as you know, has the greatest percentage of immigrants of any American generation. We are truly an example of the notion that America is a nation of immigrants. Also a very personal observation related to your comment about Middle Class "white-people." As I've previously revealed I have African blood (from the Melungeon branch that married into my family tree a couple generations ago). But I was raised white, self identified as white until much later in life, etc. Nonetheless, I have full on black cousins by marriage and therefore overtly bi-racial cousins (e.g. their kids). So yeah, it's really true, one's notions about race are "colored" in many cases by one's own family situation! LOL!

Remember that 23andme post of yours? Well, since it was only $99 and I wanted to just get a gander at health related stuff. I got the preliminary results in and under ancestral origins most of it was uneventful:

By "tribes"
1. Germanic , yes, I'm aware of that.
2. Celtic , yes I'm aware of that as well,
3. Yatkut/Native American, yes, ditto.
3. Bombshell: North African?????!

The email said they'll the ancestry stuff finalized in about a week. I'll have to sort out what race boxes to check on the 2020 census. Wrt Native American for example, they may not have a sufficient sample size to state the exact tribe. The North Africa thing goes all the way from the Atlantic coast to Iran.

Just think if someone like David Duke got something like that. Just think about the mindfuck he'd get.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Remember that 23andme post of yours? Well, since it was only $99 and I wanted to just get a gander at health related stuff. I got the preliminary results in and under ancestral origins most of it was uneventful:

By "tribes"
1. Germanic , yes, I'm aware of that.
2. Celtic , yes I'm aware of that as well,
3. Yatkut/Native American, yes, ditto.
3. Bombshell: North African?????!

The email said they'll the ancestry stuff finalized in about a week. I'll have to sort out what race boxes to check on the 2020 census. Wrt Native American for example, they may not have a sufficient sample size to state the exact tribe. The North Africa thing goes all the way from the Atlantic coast to Iran.

Just think if someone like David Duke got something like that. Just think about the mindfuck he'd get.

Not sure what is meant by North African. Not sure if they meant the "North Africans" who were actually migrated Turks or some other group. Maybe Cathaginian / other pre-Semitic or pre-Turkic peoples? There were also some Vikings who ended up settling there (all I need to know that is to look at an Algerian dude I know who's about 6 foot 4, blonde, blue eyes).

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Not sure what is meant by North African. Not sure if they meant the "North Africans" who were actually migrated Turks or some other group. Maybe Cathaginian / other pre-Semitic or pre-Turkic peoples? There were also some Vikings who ended up settling there (all I need to know that is to look at an Algerian dude I know who's about 6 foot 4, blonde, blue eyes).

The finalized results just came in. Here's the slots:

Originally Posted by 23andme

Iran	23andMe	158
Turkey	23andMe	129

Palestinian	HGDP	51
Bedouin	HGDP	48
Mozabite	HGDP	30
Egypt	23andMe	28
Palestine	23andMe	28
Morocco	23andMe	19
Algeria	23andMe	14
Saudi Arabia	23andMe	8
Tunisia	23andMe	7
Jordan	23andMe	5
Yemen	23andMe	5
Kuwait	23andMe	3
United Arab Emirates	23andMe	2
Bahrain	23andMe	1

Originally Posted by 23andme

Ancestry Composition tells you what percent of your DNA comes from each of 31 populations worldwide. This analysis includes DNA you received from all of your recent ancestors, on both sides of your family. The results reflect where your ancestors lived before the widespread migrations of the past few hundred years.

I think that means that there may have been some intermarriage between folks there and Vikings. You see, it's a long way from Scandanavia to N. Africa. That makes for some really horny Vikings.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

The finalized results just came in. Here's the slots:





I think that means that there may have been some intermarriage between folks there and Vikings. You see, it's a long way from Scandanavia to N. Africa. That makes for some really horny Vikings.

Vikings and offspring of Moses. LOL!

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Sort of similar to saying we have more minorities, X, as you know, has the greatest percentage of immigrants of any American generation. We are truly an example of the notion that America is a nation of immigrants. Also a very personal observation related to your comment about Middle Class "white-people." As I've previously revealed I have African blood (from the Melungeon branch that married into my family tree a couple generations ago). But I was raised white, self identified as white until much later in life, etc. Nonetheless, I have full on black cousins by marriage and therefore overtly bi-racial cousins (e.g. their kids). So yeah, it's really true, one's notions about race are "colored" in many cases by one's own family situation! LOL!

Add to this, mixed marriage is much more common than it used to be. The white or Anglo (with Latino) participant is likely to get a different set of political and economic values if the ones that the white spouse were typical of conservatives.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Add to this, mixed marriage is much more common than it used to be. The white or Anglo (with Latino) participant is likely to get a different set of political and economic values if the ones that the white spouse were typical of conservatives.

-- hmmm dunno.. Jeb Americans Need To Work Harder Bush comes to mind...

Poll: Hillary Sweeps Past Sanders, Other Democrats
By Melanie Batley | Tuesday, 21 Jul 2015 08:28 AM

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has a commanding lead in the race for the Democratic nomination, a new poll has found.

According to a Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted July 16-19 of 1,002 adults, Clinton has 68 percent support among the five declared candidates. Her lead drops slightly with the inclusion of Vice President Joe Biden, who has not said whether he will run.

With Biden included, the Democratic field after Clinton shows:

Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders – 14 percent
Vice President Joe Biden – 12 percent
Former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb – 2 percent
Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley – 1 percent
Former Rhode Island Gov. and Sen. Lincoln Chafee – 0 percent
The poll also found that Clinton is more popular among women than men by a margin of almost 20 points. And roughly 90 percent of her supporters say they are enthusiastic about her candidacy.

According to the survey, Clinton enjoys ideological approval with nearly 7 in 10 voters saying she is "about right" in her positions.

Just 40 percent say the same about Sanders, but that may also reflect a lack of knowledge about his positions given that nearly as many say they do not know enough about him to form an opinion, according to the Post.

Liberal Democrats are the most likely to say they support Sanders compared to those who identify as moderate or conservative, the poll found.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/hill...#ixzz3gYGEpJVU

Clinton's Poll Numbers Dropping With Voters, GOP Opponents: CNN
By Melanie Batley | Tuesday, 02 Jun 2015 10:24 AM
(EDIT: Note that this one is out of date compared to the one above)

Signs are indicating that 2016 Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton has hit a speed bump in her campaign for the presidency, with more people having an unfavorable view of her now than at any time since 2001, a new poll has found.

According to a CNN/ORC poll conducted May 29-31 of 1,025 adults, half of Americans have an unfavorable view of the former secretary of state and a growing number of people say she is not honest and trustworthy.

Specifically, 57 percent say they do not think she is honest and trustworthy compared to 49 percent in March. And 47 percent say they feel she cares about them, down from 53 percent in July.

Fifty percent also say they feel she does not inspire confidence, an increase from 42 percent last March.

Clinton's lead has also slimmed or disappeared altogether in match-ups against top Republican contenders, marking the tightest spread since any point in the survey's history:
Clinton has 48 percent compared to 47 percent for Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul
Clinton has 49 percent compared to 46 percent for Florida Sen. Marco Rubio
Clinton has 49 percent compared to 46 percent for Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker
Clinton leads at 51 percent compared to 43 percent for former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush
Clinton has 52 percent compared to 43 percent for Texas Sen. Ted Cruz

The shift appears to come from independent voters, CNN said, but Clinton is also losing ground among those in her own party. Specifically, her support among Democrats has dropped 9 points since April.

And earlier this year more than 8-in-10 Democrats said they thought she was honest and trustworthy, but the figure has now dropped to 73 percent.

Meanwhile, Bush has problems of his own.

Fifty-six percent of those surveyed said his family connections would make them less likely to support him for the presidency, compared to just 27 percent who say the links to two former presidents would make them more likely to support him.

Among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, 42 percent say they are more likely to back Bush because of his family connections but 38 percent say they are less likely to vote for him for that reason.

The survey also found that no one has emerged as a leader in the crowded Republican field, even though there has been some shake-up at the top since the last CNN/ORC poll in April:

Rubio leads with 14 percent
Bush gets 13 percent
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Walker each have 10 percent
Cruz and Paul each have 8 percent support
Retired pediatric neurosurgeon Ben Carson has 7 percent support

Overall, about half of Republicans polled, or 49 percent, say they would like to see one strong front-runner emerge earlier, compared to 46 percent who say they would prefer a longer campaign with a range of strong contenders competing, the poll found.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/hil...#ixzz3gYHQ1Tam

I think Clinton has grown a lot over the past 10 years and has overcome many previous negatives. Years ago she'd have been the mean bitch who threw stuff at Bill (e.g. based on stories from Little Rock) and a bit later the kniving chameleon who didn't divorce Bill on grounds of adultery, in order to have access to power. I can't completely discredit those earlier assessments but as I noted she's grown. Behavior counts.

When debating Obama, she belittled him for stating that he'd under certain circumstances take the WoT into Pakistan. Well guess what? We took the WoT into Pakistan, while Clinton was Sec of State! So, if nothing else, she understands how to move on from yesterday's debate, and "git 'er done." There is a lot to be said for that.

By far the most impressive thing to me is how she served notice regarding our pivot to Asia. Now look at the scenario, we were not all talk. We are really bolstering that front, all the while beefing up things along the front with Russia. The whole pivot to Asia really convinced me that she is ready for prime time.

The Donald just gave out Lindsey Graham's personal cell phone number in front of several hundred people and on TV - it's gone viral -

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/07/tr...y-graham-south

Pretty janky video but Trump reads Graham’s number at about 2:30 here https://t.co/R2mRHhTSpr

— Stefan Becket (@stefanjbecket) July 21, 2015

Trump now brandishing a card he says Graham scribbled down his own cell phone number on and gave to him a few years ago.

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) July 21, 2015

Donald Trump just read Lindsey Graham's cell phone number out loud at his rally in South Carolina and told people to "give it a shot."

— Josh Dorner (@JoshDorner) July 21, 2015

Hmm. Is there maybe something ELSE people secretly wish someone like Trump would say about Lindsey Graham?

— David Waldman (@KagroX) July 21, 2015

TRUMP JUST GAVE OUT LINDSEY GRAHAM'S PHONE NUMBER TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP

— Oliver Willis (@owillis) July 21, 2015

Aaaaand Trump just doxxed Lindsey Graham. Now officially the most amazing primary to the GOP primary ever seen. https://t.co/TIvYuJjjtK

— Mark Follman (@markfollman) July 21, 2015

Donald Trump Just Gave Out Lindsey Graham's Private Phone Number. Here Is What You Hear When You Call It http://t.co/Nss37rBzGd

— IJReview (@ijreview) July 21, 2015

.@woodruffbets called the number and it's for sure Graham's. http://t.co/CI3HrZF9ZA

— Gideon Resnick (@GideonResnick) July 21, 2015

Donald Trump Gave Out Lindsey Graham's Private Phone Number. Here Is What You Hear When You Call It http://t.co/mbTMxdnfeq

— Felix Sanchez (@felix_sanchez) July 21, 2015

Kasich announcement speech instantly drowned out by Trump handing out Graham's cell number. So is R focus on the Planned Parenthood video

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) July 21, 2015

If Trump's poll numbers stay up this week (some suggest they might go higher), the GOP is dead.

This is F'n awesomeness, Donald!