Two Issues
In George Holding’s poll, we asked voters about several issues he and Linda Coleman disagree on.
For example, George Holding opposes Sanctuary Cities and here’s a video of Linda Coleman, at a Democratic forum, saying she supports Sanctuary Cities (at 27:20 into the video).
It turns out voters oppose Sanctuary Cities 70% to 22%. Undecided voters oppose them 70% to 21%. Independent voters oppose them 74% to 16%. Women oppose them 67% to 24%. Moderates oppose them 52% to 36%. And a third of the Liberals oppose them.
As an issue, Sanctuary Cities is not just about immigration – it’s about crime. Sanctuary Cities protect criminals and that’s a reason women, especially, oppose them. The message is simple: Sanctuary Cities protect criminals. George Holding opposes Sanctuary Cities. And Linda Coleman supports them. That’s the choice. That message would give undecided voters a reason to say, I’m not crazy about the Republicans in Washington. But I don’t agree with Linda Coleman on Sanctuary Cities. I’m voting for George Holding.
George Holding has also taken a stand against abolishing ICE. But when Linda Coleman was asked about the same issue she sidestepped. And carefully parsed words. She said she didn’t want to abolish ICE completely. But she wants it revamped. Revamped how? She declined to say. Here’s a video of Coleman’s statement (she talks about ICE at 7:10) and here’s a transcript:
Question: “What is your stance on abolishing ICE?”
Answer: “You know I don’t think ICE should be abolished completely, but I certainly think that it needs to be revamped. I think that every program — you gotta look at it — and again these programs have to take into account into changes that are occurring in our country. Nothing stays the same and when things change we have to be flexible enough to change with the programs and address those issues. But we have to do it in a humane way. What we do, we have to do very humanely, and we are not acting as a country in a humane way at this time.”
Question: “So do you support the abolishment or you just want to revamp the program and how would you revamp the program?”
Answer: “I would want to revamp the program.”
Question: “How would you do that?”
Answer: “I don’t know how yet because I have not studied that issue in depth to give you the kind of answer that I would want, but I would be happy to look at the issues and get back with you and let you know.”
Voters disapprove of abolishing ICE 71% to 17%. And here again, on abolishing ICE, the issue isn’t just about immigration – it’s about crime. Abolishing ICE means fewer criminals will be deported.
To be continued…
Two Issues
In George Holding’s poll, we asked voters about several issues he and Linda Coleman disagree on.
For example, George Holding opposes Sanctuary Cities and here’s a video of Linda Coleman, at a Democratic forum, saying she supports Sanctuary Cities (at 27:20 into the video).
It turns out voters oppose Sanctuary Cities 70% to 22%. Undecided voters oppose them 70% to 21%. Independent voters oppose them 74% to 16%. Women oppose them 67% to 24%. Moderates oppose them 52% to 36%. And a third of the Liberals oppose them.
As an issue, Sanctuary Cities is not just about immigration – it’s about crime. Sanctuary Cities protect criminals and that’s a reason women, especially, oppose them. The message is simple: Sanctuary Cities protect criminals. George Holding opposes Sanctuary Cities. And Linda Coleman supports them. That’s the choice. That message would give undecided voters a reason to say, I’m not crazy about the Republicans in Washington. But I don’t agree with Linda Coleman on Sanctuary Cities. I’m voting for George Holding.
George Holding has also taken a stand against abolishing ICE. But when Linda Coleman was asked about the same issue she sidestepped. And carefully parsed words. She said she didn’t want to abolish ICE completely. But she wants it revamped. Revamped how? She declined to say. Here’s a video of Coleman’s statement (she talks about ICE at 7:10) and here’s a transcript:
Question: “What is your stance on abolishing ICE?”
Answer: “You know I don’t think ICE should be abolished completely, but I certainly think that it needs to be revamped. I think that every program — you gotta look at it — and again these programs have to take into account into changes that are occurring in our country. Nothing stays the same and when things change we have to be flexible enough to change with the programs and address those issues. But we have to do it in a humane way. What we do, we have to do very humanely, and we are not acting as a country in a humane way at this time.”
Question: “So do you support the abolishment or you just want to revamp the program and how would you revamp the program?”
Answer: “I would want to revamp the program.”
Question: “How would you do that?”
Answer: “I don’t know how yet because I have not studied that issue in depth to give you the kind of answer that I would want, but I would be happy to look at the issues and get back with you and let you know.”
Voters disapprove of abolishing ICE 71% to 17%. And here again, on abolishing ICE, the issue isn’t just about immigration – it’s about crime. Abolishing ICE means fewer criminals will be deported.
To be continued…