Share This Article with a Friend!


Presidential Horse Race 2016: Don’t judge all Trump backers by the craziest amongst us

Now that Donald Trump is a couple days removed from his “state visit” to Mexico and from delivering his much anticipated immigration policy speech on Wednesday night, reaction continues to filter in, mostly praising the Republican nominee for his bold moves and willingness to take risks in this year’s campaign.

Speaking of Trump’s meeting with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, Byron York of the Washington Examiner wrote, “Indeed, it was a big win — a very big win — for Trump. Going into a meeting with the potential for disaster — who knew how Pena Nieto would receive the world's most controversial presidential candidate or what embarrassments might lie ahead? — Trump came out of the meeting looking very much like a potential Grandma in Wedding CrashersPresident of the United States. Standing beside the Mexican leader in front of a green-gray granite wall reminiscent of the United Nations, Trump presented the picture of a statesman.”

Yes indeed, he did. York also reported that behind the scenes, Trump’s campaign advisors were confident the Mexico venture was a “can’t lose” event. I agree. Trump’s sole purpose was to get before the cameras and the microphones, utter something a president might say and then get on his plane and fly back to the United States.

That’s not to claim he took advantage of the Mexican president by visiting. Far from it. Nieto didn’t roll over in Trump’s presence either, so this was little more than just a “meet and greet” to establish a foundation for future talks. And we know if Trump is elected, there will be many such occurrences.

As would be expected, the #NeverTrump people weren’t quite as complimentary in their analyses of Wednesday’s happenings.

A prime example would be RedState’s Caleb Howe, who scribbled, “Trump played diplomat in the morning, demagogue in the evening. In both settings, he probably won a few points with the audience he was targeting. In Mexico, his audience was the Establishment, the RNC, the donors. People who feared he couldn't play nice.

“In Arizona, it was his base. Angry. Stubborn. In no way interested in compromise. The ‘deport them all, let God sort them out’ crowd. To neither did he speak completely plainly, and neither should trust that what they heard was true. There's no basis for that trust.

“In neither case did he score a home run. In fact, he was kind of a jerk, lying in the morning and strutting in the evening.”

Aside from Howe’s sarcastic attitude, it seems like he didn’t even listen to either speech, which is typical behavior for #NeverTrump. All they care about is appearance and diction.

Concerning the “deport ‘em all” crowd, in Arizona, Trump made it very clear he was only interested in expelling criminal aliens immediately -- not “everyone.” The rest would be subject to U.S. immigration laws. In other words, there aren’t going to be any baton yielding gestapo-like ICE goons going around to peaceful neighborhoods rooting out every last alien; and no paddy wagons filled with broken down old men and sobbing young women nursing infants on their way to being packed tightly in a holding pen and then loaded onto a ship bound for their home country.

That’s a fantasy concocted by liberals like Crooked Hillary who talk only about “keeping families together.” Under Trump’s real plan, I can see where people will be given plenty of time – likely years -- to return to their countries to apply for legal reentry.

And there will be an E-verify system. Illegal aliens will have a harder time getting work. That’s a good thing for legal American workers.

Besides, it’s going to take a while to deport the two million criminal aliens currently residing in U.S. jails. That’s a fact, not some made-up fiction by the over-reacting fear everything crowd.

But to the #NeverTrump group, laws don’t matter as much as “tone.” Maybe Trump wasn’t nice enough for them in his meeting with Nieto or his Arizona speech.

If I didn’t know better, I would have thought Howe’s post came from a leftist rag publication like Mother Jones or The New Republic. I almost had to glance up and double check that this was…RedState?

It couldn’t be. RedState used to be a semi-reliable conservative slanted publication before it dived headfirst into the increasingly irrelevant #NeverTrump mosh pit. Now all of the RedStaters are shoulder deep in political purgatory along with poor Erick Erickson and his The Resurgent crowd. They’ve all become a bunch of fearmongering nincompoops in predicting an end to the country if Trump is elected.

To demonstrate how far removed he’s gone, Erickson himself claimed that the Tea Party is now dead in a lengthy post on Thursday and wished it good riddance.

At the risk of over-quoting, Erickson said, “When Jeb Bush entered the Presidential race, the angry and suspicious became the angry and paranoid. They rallied to Donald Trump, not so much because they agreed with him, but because they were desperate. They had become convinced there was no hope, 2016 could mean the end of America, and they must take drastic measures to turn the tide. Drastic measures meant Trump. The conservatives, like Paul, Rubio and Cruz, could not be trusted because they were of Washington. That they had opposed Washington to varying degrees made no difference. The angry and paranoid concluded they were infected by establishmentarianism.”

If all Trump supporters are in the “angry and paranoid” faction, then the RedStaters and Erickson are in the ridiculous and inane cabal.

In a separate post, Erickson did admit Trump did two things right, namely going to Louisiana a couple weeks ago while Obama was golfing in Massachusetts and Hillary was…well, somewhere out of the media spotlight. The second thing Erickson said Trump did right was going to Mexico on Wednesday.

It’s hard to argue in either case and I was glad to see Erick at least has the fortitude to admit Trump’s done some things correctly. Not so for his comrades at RedState who wouldn’t concede a point if it killed them. In this post, RedState Editor Leon Wolf said he wouldn’t have been as diplomatic as Glenn Beck was in answering Sean Hannity’s “I’ll blame you if Hillary wins…” rant from earlier this week.

Frankly, Leon, nobody really cares how diplomatic or undiplomatic you are. And that goes double for Caleb Howe in saying Trump was a “jerk” in Mexico and Arizona on Wednesday.

It is so abundantly obvious from these #NeverTrump people that they’ve let their blind hatred for the GOP nominee get in the way of recognizing what Trump is actually representing, namely the views of millions of Americans who are flat out fed up with the ruling class of both parties lying to their faces in promising for decades that something would be done about illegal immigration.

Wolf, Howe and Erickson can all sit behind their keyboards and blame Trump and all of his supporters for some racist kooks who post anonymous comments on internet blogs and then argue that everyone who supports Trump is therefore similarly kooky.

In doing so, it’s like blaming the rest of the family for the bizarre and bigoted things the grandmother says at the dining table in the movie “Wedding Crashers” (warning: link contains some non-PC salty language for the sensitive). Sorry, Leon and Caleb, but just because a few nutcases pop off about Trump doesn’t mean the rest of us are defined by it.

The fact is, Trump had an incredibly successful Wednesday. Only the most biased anti-Trump naysayers would argue otherwise.

Polls are moving in Trump’s favor, but experts aren’t exactly confident in the numbers

It’s hard to dispute that ever since Trump hired media pro Steve Bannon and pollster Kellyanne Conway to head his team that his campaign has changed course in a positive direction.

The polls are now reflecting that change and one even shows Trump creeping ahead.

Kelly Cohen of the Washington Examiner reports, “For the first time since mid-July, Hillary Clinton has fallen behind Donald Trump in a new national poll.

“The latest poll by the right-leaning Rasmussen Reports shows Trump leading 40 percent-39 percent among likely U.S. voters, putting the race within the poll's margin of error. Last week, Clinton led by 4 points, 42-38.”

It’s curious how Cohen says Rasmussen is “right-leaning”, but last week when Clinton was ahead, I guess it wasn’t so slanted.

At any rate Rasmussen’s is just one poll and the Real Clear Politics average still shows Crooked Hillary with a healthy four-plus point advantage. With another 10 percent going to third party candidates Gary Johnson and Jill Stein in the same survey, that still leaves about one-tenth of the population as undecided.

Perhaps with such a large undecided population, pollsters are having a hard time figuring out how much weight to give to Trump’s candidacy.

Reid Wilson of The Hill reports, “Pollsters are debating whether Donald Trump’s ‘silent majority’ of voters exists, and are scrambling to make sure that their surveys reflect the opinions of voters who might not ordinarily be included in opinion polls.

“Democratic and Republican pollsters alike are determined to get their predictions for the 2016 elections right in the wake of a series of high-profile missed calls.”

As I’ve talked about before, when it comes to polls, it’s all about your sample and predicting the size of the electorate. I would argue this year it isn’t necessarily just about finding hidden voter preferences, it’s about determining whether the “I’m not sure” crowd is really hiding their inclination for Trump.

Deny me three times, right?

Another reason the pollsters are confounded, perhaps, is because it’s just darn hard to find many Hillary Clinton supporters, even in liberal strongholds. If you haven’t seen it already, click on this link as “Millennial Millie” goes in search of Hillary’s die-hards. She only found a few who would admit to liking Hillary, even at the home town of ultra-liberal Kent State in Ohio.

A good share of Millie’s interviewees said they were completely undecided, which would seem consistent with several of the polls. Or as suggested above, there were some people in there who wouldn’t admit to supporting Donald Trump. Who knows.

Polls are polls and I think we’ll be seeing some movement in the next couple weeks as Hillary continues to flounder and Trump shores up his Republican base.

Forget about a “rigged” election, how about a “hacked” election?

The up and down nature of opinion polls is only one factor in trying to figure out who will ultimately win this year’s election.

There’s also the very real issue of voter fraud to contend with. And then it was recently revealed that voter databases have been compromised by hackers, too.

A.B. Stoddard writes in Real Clear Politics, “With just two months to go until Election Day, we learned this week there may be reasons for both sides to question the final vote count no matter who wins: Foreign hackers successfully penetrated voter databases in two states this summer, calling into question the security of the voting machines many states will use on Nov. 8. The FBI revealed that the intrusions into election databases in Arizona and Illinois from overseas may have been connected. Outside experts said the data indicated the attacks could have been perpetrated by Russian criminals or Russian government officials.”

The Russians seem to be credited/blamed for a lot of things these days, such as the email dump that occurred in the days leading up to the Democrat convention in July. (Isn’t it funny how Democrat collusion was such a big deal at the time and now no one’s even talking about it with Hillary’s other scandals having displaced it?)

Now apparently there’s reason to believe someone’s out there digging into state voter data with the possibility of fixing the election one way or another.

Who’s to say it’s a foreign source? I wouldn’t put it past the Democrats to do such a thing. If they’re so averse to requiring someone to pull out an ID to ensure a fair election, why would they object to stealing thousands or hundreds of thousands of votes in a more sophisticated manner?

Stoddard offers her solution to the issue. “We face an unprecedented threat to our democracy that would have global ramifications for years to come. Voters, state parties, state governments and the federal government need to treat this as the emergency that it is, and both candidates need to call for a safe and secure process using paper ballots.”

I highly doubt we’ll see Crooked Hillary and the Democrats suggest such a thing. They’ll probably claim paper ballots are racist.

But Stoddard’s is a very sensible suggestion, though even paper ballots have their problems. Anybody remember the “dangling chad?”

It seems to me that in order to ensure the integrity of elections, voting by mail should be eliminated, Voter ID should be universal and further comprehensive measures – like paper ballots – should be instituted to guarantee to the extent possible that one person equals one vote.

It’s kind of like an “all of the above” solution to the potential for “rigged” elections. You can’t have just one safeguard. It has to be the whole bag full.

Then and only then could neither side get away with claiming the election was compromised.

Gary Johnson thinks “illegal immigrant” only applies to Hispanics. Does that make him a racist?

Finally this week, Libertarian Gary Johnson seems to be trying everything to get in the news and he’s even taken to pandering to Hispanics to drum up some coverage.

Rebecca Savransky of The Hill reports, “Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson got into a heated exchange over the term ‘illegal immigrant’ on Wednesday during an interview with a conservative host.

“Johnson said people should instead use the term ‘undocumented’ when referring to people in the United States who have entered the country illegally or overstayed a visa.

“’If you use the term illegal immigrants, that is very incendiary to our Hispanic population here in this country,’ Johnson said during the interview with Townhall's Guy Benson.”

Oh brother. It’s not incendiary in the slightest if you’re here…legally. White people, black people, Asians, brown people…they all can be here illegally. And that makes them “illegal immigrants.”

Hasn’t Johnson ever seen the Sandra Bullock movie “The Proposal”? Bullock’s character in the film had overstayed her visa and was in danger of being deported. She was Canadian.

I purposely have avoided saying too much about Johnson – or Green Party candidate Jill Stein – because they are just a distraction from the real contest at hand while also serving as a convenient excuse for #NeverTrump Republicans to not support the party nominee.

Former Republican Johnson seems to be dazed and confused about what he really believes, but I guess we shouldn’t be too surprised. After all, he’s a big-time advocate of legalizing marijuana…put two and two together.

Share this

Fighting Voter Fraud

I agree that we should call for PAPER VOTING!!! PLEASE!! But HOW do we DO such a thing? Does anybody know?