Share This Article with a Friend!


Presidential Horse Race 2016: Could not supporting Donald Trump be considered suicidal?

In the seemingly endless debate between conservatives who have come to support Donald Trump and those who still oppose him under the auspices of #NeverTrump, one of the arguments I’ve often employed in trying to move the latter group is the notion that no Republican other than Trump could possibly win this year’s election.

And if no other Republican could have prevailed against the awful Hillary Clinton, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to refuse to support him now.

Obama ClintonUp until recently the leading voices of #NeverTrump were fond of making the confident boast that Trump would lose badly in November and would therefore drag all the party’s candidates down with him. They picked on his lack of interest in fundraising; they criticized (and still do) his campaign strategy of relying on earned media to promote his candidacy rather than dumping gobs of money into traditional methods such as TV advertising and a huge paid campaign staff.

And they’ve saved special rancor for Trump’s populist appeals at the expense of more traditional GOP mantras such as free trade and aggressive foreign policy. #NeverTrumpers have also questioned his judgment in trying to target Democrat voters instead of doing what past Republican nominees have done by focusing hard on swing states alone and motivating the Republican base to turn out en masse.

In other words, to the disgruntled whiners of #NeverTrump, Trump was the wrong candidate at the wrong time. “Any of the other candidates would be leading against awful Hillary,” they claim, citing various irrelevant surveys that polled people on hypothetical match-ups that would never come to fruition.

As an example, who cares if John Kasich polls well against Hillary Clinton? Kasich polled awful poorly against several in the Republican presidential primary field. He didn’t win and would likely never win the party nomination because he represents an establishment-dominated GOP that just doesn’t work anymore.

Meanwhile, I’ve advanced the assertion that Trump could possibly be the last Republican ever to seriously compete for the presidency if he fails. The reason is Trump’s “deplorable” voters wouldn’t be motivated to vote for John Kasich or Jeb Bush…and probably not even Marco Rubio or sadly, my first choice, Ted Cruz.

And therefore, in the Electoral College, all of these people would lose. So as conservatives, we have Trump. Some are reconciled to that fact.

Victor Davis Hanson writes in National Review, “[I]f Trump’s D-11 bulldozer blade did not exist, it would have to be invented. He is Obama’s nemesis, Hillary’s worst nightmare, and a vampire’s mirror of the Republican establishment. Before November’s election, his next outburst or reinvention will once again sorely embarrass his supporters, but perhaps not to the degree that Clinton’s erudite callousness should repel her own.

“In farming, I learned there is no good harvest, only each year one that’s 51 percent preferable to the alternative, which in 2016 is a likely 16-year Obama-Clinton hailstorm.

“It may be discomforting for some conservatives to vote for the Republican party’s duly nominated candidate, but as this Manichean two-person race ends, it is now becoming suicidal not to.”

And that’s exactly the point. Hillary’s brand of greed and corruption will be piggy-backed on the already disastrous eight years of Obama. Just yesterday there was a report about how the Obama administration is rushing to get a massive number of regulations placed on the books before they leave office next year.

John T. Bennett of Roll Call reports, “White House aides in recent weeks have made it clear that Obama will continue to use his legal authorities on whatever he deems important to wrap up before he leaves the Oval Office on Jan. 20. Major regulatory changes require a 60-day waiting period, meaning Obama theoretically has until late November to tend to his to-do list…

“[T]here are 1,500 proposed rules and regulations in the pipeline, according to the White House Office of Management and Budget. That includes over 700 dubbed ‘economically significant’ in the key final stage…”

As Hanson pleads above, it is “suicidal” to not vote for Trump at this stage. A Hillary Clinton presidency will not only rubber-stamp Obama’s executive overreach, I’d argue her henchmen will be even more aggressive in sending dictates to the states and to The People.

And what’s worse, Hillary’s judicial appointments will find whatever authority is necessary in the Constitution to uphold the administration’s actions. It will be tyranny on a massive scale, virtually invisible to the average American, half of which will remain pacified by Crooked Hillary’s massive federal welfare programs and slogans such as “I’m With Her” and “Stronger Together.”

The other half, when they realize what’s going on, could be in open rebellion.

Donald Trump is not the perfect alternative to the massive threat of Hillary Clinton working the levers of power, but he’s the option that we have now. Trump is the right candidate this year because he can bring enough voters together to defeat Clinton in key swing states and it’s nothing short of recklessness to believe or vote otherwise.

Some of the #NeverTrump forces will no doubt continue on with their anti-Trump rantings until Election Day, but if Hillary wins because not enough Republicans were united in stopping her, they’ll own it.

Jeffrey Lord says it well in The American Spectator, “The harsh fact of political life in this campaign season is that yes, of course (Sean) Hannity is right. The Never Trumpers — and the list is longer than the names mentioned even by Hannity — will in fact own Hillary if she wins. From her Supreme Court appointments that promise decades of attacks from within on the Constitution to terrorist attacks on American soil to Obamacare to the inevitable parade of scandals, every last bit of it will rest on their shoulders.”

Yes indeed it will. And conservatives are watching their every move.

A Kennedy spills the beans on Bush family’s preference for Hillary

Speaking of #NeverTrump, though it certainly appears as though most conservatives and Republicans recognize the likely catastrophe that a Hillary Clinton presidency represents, apparently the Bush family didn’t receive the memo.

It’s only hearsay gossip, but former President George H.W. Bush reportedly indicated he’s planning to vote Democrat this year.

Darren Samuelsohn of Politico reports, “Former President George H.W. Bush is bucking his party's presidential nominee and plans to vote for Hillary Clinton in November, according to a member of another famous political family, the Kennedys.

“Bush, 92, had intended to stay silent on the White House race between Clinton and Donald Trump, a sign in and of itself of his distaste for the GOP nominee. But his preference for the wife of his own successor, President Bill Clinton, nonetheless became known to a wider audience thanks to Kathleen Hartington Kennedy Townsend, the former Maryland lieutenant governor and daughter of the late Robert F. Kennedy.”

For what it’s worth, H.W.’s spokesman didn’t deny Kennedy-Townsend’s allegation, merely stating that the Republican former president was intending to vote in this year’s election and it’s a private matter as to whom he will choose.

There are a couple notable things here. First, what the heck is a member of the Kennedy family doing chatting with the Bushes (up in Maine) and then posting chummy photos on social media touting a vote for Hillary? Aren’t these people supposed to be political enemies?

Doesn’t anyone remember Ted Kennedy’s repeatedly calling George W. Bush a liar over the Iraq War?

From an April 2004 CNN report, the late Massachusetts senator said during a speech, “This is the pattern and the record of the Bush administration [on] Iraq, jobs, Medicare, schools, issue after issue -- mislead, deceive, make up the needed facts, smear the character of any critics. Again and again, we see this cynical, despicable strategy playing out.”

All of the “modern” Kennedys were harsh critics of the Bushes. But I guess when you’re all part of the ruling elite, bygones are bygones.

The fact that they’re hanging out together just shows how inbred members of the political establishments of both parties really are. As a leading Republican, George H.W. Bush fought the Kennedys – and the Clintons – practically all of his life. Now they’re pals and exchange Facebook posts complete with smiling photos.

Second and more importantly, the Bush family has completely lost it. Whatever tenuous connection they had to a so-called belief in limited government has gone out the window now. With the head of their family going around telling people he’s voting for Hillary, the secret’s out of the bag.

It’s sad that the Bushes will go down in history as the political family that couldn’t turn the other cheek and support one of their own in perhaps the most consequential election of our lifetimes. It’s sometimes said that silence is golden – and here’s one case where the Bushes should have kept their duplicitous intentions to themselves.

Defeating the biased media’s narratives on how well Trump can do this year

Along with the heavy dose of media disbelief and doubt that has plagued Donald Trump’s candidacy from the beginning, there are a number of people who have claimed the Republican nominee just couldn’t compete in certain states or with particular groups because someone refused to endorse him or his policies would be seen as disqualifying.

Unfortunately for the doomsayers, neither argument is proving to be accurate.

Take the situation in Ohio for example. Governor John Kasich has been one of Trump’s most outspoken critics and has gone out of his way on numerous occasions to draw attention to himself by launching barbs at the New York businessman. Because Kasich is popular in Ohio, some speculated the governor’s lack of endorsement there for Trump would severely hurt the nominee’s chances of winning the state.

Not true. Buckeye State Republicans are casting Kasich aside in the greater effort to defeat Crooked Hillary.

Katie Glueck and Kyle Cheney of Politico report, “Resistance to Hillary Clinton is helping fuel Trump’s recent uptick in state polls, Ohio GOP operatives say. While Kasich, a Republican who refuses to back either presidential nominee, is popular in his home state, local GOP leaders and activists are increasingly willing to break from his lead, indicating their preference for Trump in the hopes of preventing Clinton from winning.

“A CNN/ORC poll last week found that 85 percent of Republicans in Ohio were backing Trump — up from 77 percent in an early July Quinnipiac poll — and virtually the same as the 83 percent of Democrats who said they were backing Hillary Clinton.”

As I’ve often said, the specter of Crooked Hillary as president would automatically get a lot of people motivated. Ohio Republicans aren’t necessarily rejecting Kasich in this process as much as they’re doing what they always do every four years – try to help their presidential candidate win.

We shouldn’t forget that Mitt Romney and John McCain weren’t exactly universally liked and admired by the Republican base. McCain had to bring Sarah Palin onto the ticket in order to get conservatives excited and Romney finally got people revved up going towards Election Day because the prospect of another four years of Obama was pretty scary in itself.

Party members usually rally when the time comes. It’s what they’re supposed to do when given a choice.

Another group Trump is doing better than expected with is the Hispanic voting bloc.

Niall Stanage of The Hill reports, “Donald Trump is performing about as well with Hispanic voters as GOP nominee Mitt Romney did in 2012, according to opinion polls — something that unsettles Democrats and surprises even some Republicans…

“In some places, Trump is actually outperforming Romney. In Nevada, for example, President Obama ran up a 47-point margin of victory among Hispanic voters in 2012, according to exit polls, defeating Romney 71 percent to 24 percent. A recent Marist poll in the state for NBC News and The Wall Street Journal showed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton leading among Hispanics, but by the smaller margin of 35 points, 65 percent to 30 percent.”

Like with African-American voters, a few percentage point shift towards Trump before Election Day can make a significant difference in several states because Clinton is so heavily dependent on their votes for viability.

There’s little doubt that Trump needs to keep pounding his economic plans to appeal to Hispanics who are concerned about their jobs and the health of the economy, just like everyone else.

I believe that Trump’s package of proposals will be a winning combination in places like Ohio and with groups like Hispanic voters because he provides an alternative to Crooked Hillary and the stagnant no-growth status quo.

Therefore, whenever someone says Trump “can’t win” in some places or with certain types of voters, take it with a grain of salt. A winning message will always draw votes.

Trump will have to battle Crooked Hillary – and the moderator – in upcoming debates

Finally today, just a few days out from the first presidential debate (next Monday night) there’s already a lot of speculation about how the liberal moderators selected to ask the questions and follow-ups will slant the forums in favor of Crooked Hillary.

Roger L. Simon writes at PJ Media, “It couldn't be more obvious that Donald Trump will have to battle not only Hillary Clinton but the mainstream media in the three presidential debates that start next Monday.

“And it won't just be the moderators he has to contend with. Somewhere in the vicinity of ninety percent of the pundits who will be endlessly hashing over the events afterward will be against him to one degree or another.”

That’s no joke. While some people tune-in for just the candidate portion of the program, a good many of the expected 100 million viewers will stick around to hear the talking heads discuss the soundbites and who “won” afterwards.

Sometimes in hearing them go back-and-forth with their opinions I wonder if they were even watching the same presentation because they’re so far off the mark.

For what it’s worth, Simon says Trump is good enough to handle the bias. “What Trump has going for him is an increasingly engaging personality.  He seems to be mellowing before our eyes.  There's even a twinkle in his baby blues that must come from the poll numbers. He seems to be having fun and audiences like that. The winner is usually the most likable, not the one who scores the most points.”

The likability factor alone has to favor Trump. Just looking at Crooked Hillary (let alone hearing her phony screechy voice) probably reminds you of seeing half-spoiled leftovers dwelling at the back of your refrigerator for weeks past their usefulness.

As past experience indicates, media bias at the debates is real. But Trump has boned up on policy quite a bit since the Republican primary debates and I think he’ll come off just fine. It will give him an opportunity to display his considerable TV skills opposite Hillary who will no doubt spout many, many names and figures but still drags behind her the chains of public disbelief about everything she says.

The moderator will likely favor Hillary (though Trump says NBC’s Lester Holt will be fair) and the pundits will blast him after the conclusion of the program. But there will be little uncertainty in the voters’ minds as to who scored the most points.

Share this