Share This Article with a Friend!


Presidential Horse Race 2016: There will be no negative mandate for “nasty” Hillary Clinton

There are still two weeks to go until Election Day and some people are acting as though the race is already over and have moved on to contemplating what comes after Hillary Clinton’s certain victory.

Naturally there are those who argue – rightfully so – that Clinton’s election will be a disaster. Then there are others who claim Hillary’s ascendance would be preferable to Trump because the latter is too “unstable” to be Hillary Elizabeth Warrentrusted with the power of the U.S. nuclear arsenal at his fingertips.

And then there are folks who are just hoping for a fantasy post-election harmony.

Peter Augustine Lawler writes in National Review, “We can hope that Clinton will accept that negative mandate with the appropriate modesty and let America know she knows her victory was in many ways undeserved. We can hope. More likely is another round of disastrous overreach.

“We can also hope that the Republicans accept Trump’s defeat with appropriate modesty, recognizing that it was the hollowness of their conservatism that allowed their party to be taken over by a loser unfit to run a campaign, much less govern. They can forget Trump, but they can’t forget the huge protest that was the Trump vote reconstructing a conservative majority that can be the foundation of effective but limited government.”

What a pipedream – that Republicans and conservatives will forget the “loser” they nominated. Forget the movement Trump awakened. Forget the issues he championed. The establishment needs to come back strong!

When I first read through Lawler’s column I was wondering if it was some kind of satirical joke because he basically advocated for a big Clinton victory as opposed to a narrow one – therefore, generating a “negative mandate” comparable to LBJ’s win in 1964 and Richard Nixon’s in 1972, where Americans largely voted against a party candidate rather than for the other one.

This is astonishing in its ignorance and outlandish even for some of the writers from National Review. First because there really isn’t a lot of evidence that there will be any “landslide” on Clinton’s behalf and second because any result in favor of Hillary is only going to make the split in the Republican Party worse.

I’ll get to the first point in a moment. In the meantime, let’s play along with Lawler and imagine that Clinton crawls up to near fifty percent of the vote and takes the Electoral College with similar numbers to hubby Bill’s second run in 1996 (where he won 379 votes and 49.2% of the popular vote in a three-way race).

If the polls and Lawler’s “negative mandate” assertion are correct, this should be comparable to what will happen in two weeks.

Trump will have won around 40 percent of the popular vote and be routed in the Electoral College. Republicans will likely retain the House and have at least a reasonable chance of holding onto the Senate if a few races break their way. In any case, it won’t be a complete wipeout for the GOP (as it wasn’t in 1996 when the party kept control of both chambers of Congress and still held a majority on the Supreme Court).

Despite Clinton’s “victory”, the finger-pointing will begin immediately. The #NeverTrump faction of Kasich supporters, embittered establishmentarians and the anti-Trump remnants of Ted Cruz’s and Marco Rubio’s backers will start with the “See, I told you so!” vote-shaming of Trump’s base supporters and most conservatives who went on to back him.

Pro-Trump conservatives will counter with “Don’t start with us, you guys caused all of this by not joining in the effort to beat Hillary.”

After two months of acrimonious back-and-forth in the blame game, Hillary will take the oath of office and I predict it will be much worse than anyone anticipated because not only is she a nasty vindictive witch (more on this below), she’ll be a motivated nasty vindictive witch with a grudge to satisfy against her self-identified “enemy” (Republicans) but also the Obama people who snubbed her back in 2008.

Simply put, Hillary’s going to go on a rampage dismantling the parts of Obama’s legacy that she doesn’t like, probably starting with Obamacare. But her vengeance won’t benefit the country; she’ll just make the problems worse.

At any rate, there is no way there’s going to be “appropriate modesty” (Lawler’s words) from Republicans in this post-election environment and there will be no “negative mandate” in Hillary’s favor. The Republican establishment will basically be in charge of the same things it’s in control of now – namely the House – and the Senate, should it come back under the control of Chuck Schumer and the Democrats will return to a Harry Reid-like legislative deadlock that will accomplish absolutely nothing except for forcing Hillary’s judicial appointments down our throats.

I don’t want to get too far off topic but just wait and see what Schumer will do to the filibuster protocols in order to push through whatever he and Hillary wants. The Senate will become tyranny of a tiny majority because Democrats all vote together.

Going back to the notion of a “landslide” for Clinton, I just don’t see it happening. The most recent polls show Hillary with about a six-point average lead, but the margins are all over the place in terms of the individual polls. For example, the ABC News tracking poll has her 12 points ahead. The IBD/TIPP Tracking poll shows the race tied and the LA Times/USC Tracking survey now has Clinton +1.

Rasmussen Reports has Trump up two points 43-41. Nothing to sneeze at.

This difference in all the polls is a statistician’s concoction of sample size and the particular turnout model employed. Who knows where it all really stands, but the electorate still seems to be very unsure of where to come down in this race.

In Lawler’s example above, the “negative mandate” races in 1964 and 1972 both involved an incumbent president running for reelection, not some shrill broom rider like Hillary. In other words, people in those years may have been voting against Barry Goldwater in ’64 and George McGovern in ’72 but they also had credible candidates to vote for on the other side.

Not this year. If you find someone who actually likes Hillary, better write down their name because you might not come across another one.

It’s time to stop listening to the naysayers and just get down to what’s real. The days are running out.

If foul language makes one unfit to serve as president, Hillary Clinton should be barred from office

Speaking of listening, much has been written by the major media and their allies in the #NeverTrump movement about the foul language Donald Trump has occasionally used on the campaign trail, in debates and certainly in soundbites and recordings from the past.

If bad words equate to sin then Trump certainly has a lot to atone for on Judgment Day.

But when it comes to Election Day, it’s just as helpful to remember that Hillary Clinton has uttered a ton of things that would not be considered very lady-like in polite company. To put it mildly, the woman curses like a sailor who’s visited one too many adult beverage establishments while on liberty.

Conservative commentator DeRoy Murdock writes in National Review, “Hillary routinely berated her security detail — and in the worst language possible...

“Clinton’s well-documented history of profane, unhinged outbursts against those who work for her spans decades. While Clinton’s vulgarity is presented here in relatively family-friendly form, fill in the blanks and imagine the pain that this woman inflicted when she uttered these words.”

Murdock goes on to offer a number of excerpts and anecdotal stories from those who have routinely felt Hillary’s wrath just because their job required it.

It isn’t pleasant. One example Murdock presented:

“’Stay the f*** back, stay the f*** away from me!’ the then-–First Lady screamed at her Secret Service agents. ‘Don’t come within ten yards of me, or else! Just f***ing do as I say, okay!!?’ Clinton demanded, according to former FBI agent Gary Aldrich’s Unlimited Access, page 139.”

Just the other day I personally talked with a friend who works for the FBI, who himself heard similar accounts from those who’ve come in close contact with the former Secretary of State.

As would be expected, the media doesn’t pass along these types of things because they’re much more interested in portraying Hillary as a lovable ‘ol granny who’s spent her whole life kissing babies and reading bedtime stories to little tots before their nightly journey to dreamland.

In contrast to the “real” Hillary Clinton there’s Donald Trump who may get salty in interviews and private “locker room” conversations but by most accounts is the consummate gentleman and professional when dealing with him on a personal level.

I’m not trying to make excuses for Trump’s language and absolve him of blame for it. But you can tell a lot about a person by the way he or she treats the people around them, especially when they aren’t aware others are watching or taking notes.

If the forces of #NeverTrump are so upset at Trump’s foul mouth as to claim it makes him “unfit to serve,” then what about Hillary Clinton’s abusive language documented over the course of decades? There may not be an audio tape of her oaths but most of these are first-hand accounts.

Words are words and people are who they are, but if you’re going to use Trump’s rough language as part of the justification for not supporting him you’d better at least acknowledge that the alternative is as bad if not worse.

No, Donald Trump is not trying to rig the election so Hillary can win

For a group that usually prefers to pooh-pooh conspiracy theories, #NeverTrump has sure been advancing one of their own lately.

It goes something like this: Donald Trump is a lifelong Democrat who, at the urging of the Clintons, decided to get into the Republican primary race to steal it and then set himself up as an easy target so as to hand the election to his old buddy Hillary.

Erick Erickson elaborates at The Resurgent, “All along it seems more and more obvious that Donald Trump was working hand in glove with the Clinton machine. He called Bill Clinton before running. He drummed up Democrat turn out while building hype about Republican turn out. Turns out that Trump is not expanding the GOP and is not bringing in a wave of new voters. In fact, turn out this year is not a record high...

“The race is being stolen. And the genius of it all is that Trump used Republican voters to steal it from the GOP. Now he is handing it to his friend Hillary Clinton. That also explains why Ivanka Trump and Chelsea Clinton remain very close friends. This was all part of the plan and Trump took advantage of angry voters looking for change.”

Erickson has so many hyperlinks in the post it must have taken him some time to compile it. Clearly he’s given a lot of thought to this notion. I bet he really gets into fringe hypotheses like whether there was a second-shooter on the “grassy knoll” on the day of November 22, 1963 in Dallas.

But what really sold me on Erickson’s theory was the last part about Ivanka and Chelsea remaining friends. The candidates must be working together to fix the entire election or their kids would naturally hate each other, right?

There is other evidence that maybe the candidates aren’t as toxic towards each other as the major media might depict.

Sandy Fitzgerald of Newsmax reports, “Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have been arguing violently for months in one of the most acrimonious presidential campaigns in years, but they were much different behind closed doors at Thursday night's Al Smith Dinner, Cardinal Timothy Dolan said Friday.

“[Dolan] said he did not feel that it was awkward sitting between the battling candidates even though they were awkward with each other.

“’I was very moved by the obvious attempt on behalf of both Secretary Clinton and Mr. Trump to be courteous, to get along, to say nice things privately to one another,’ said Dolan. ‘I was very moved by that. That was pleasant because I was there with them, not only at the dais, but beforehand.’”

It doesn’t matter. Both candidates were back at the name-game the next day.

Everyone knows a lot of not-so-nice things are said about candidates in every election and you can’t say for sure whether one bit of information necessarily connects to another. There isn’t any collusion going on between the Clintons and Trump. Trump has been fairly consistent throughout his life on most of his core platform, though his immigration views certainly seem to have evolved in the past decade.

But that easily could be due to changed circumstances in the country. The problem is much worse than it used to be, especially after the Obama reign of indifference to the issue.

Trump isn’t fixing this election for Clinton any more than Hillary is trying to fake not being sick. If that were the case, he’s certainly had a funny way of showing it by dragging Bill’s sex life back out into the open.

Such stupid theories only detract from the real conversations over voter fraud and media bias. If #NeverTrump wants a “fix,” there’s plenty to look at where those subjects are concerned.

“Nasty” women to vote for Hillary, sensible women to choose Trump

Finally today, as if this year’s campaign wasn’t “nasty” enough already, none other than Massachusetts ultra-liberal Senator Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren injected herself into the conversation on Monday afternoon.

Mariana Barillas of the Washington Examiner reports, “Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., told Donald Trump that ‘nasty’ women like her have had it with Trump, and that they will vote on Nov. 8 to put Hillary Clinton in the White House.

“’Nasty women have really had it with guys like you,’ Warren said at a New Hampshire campaign event with Clinton sitting behind her. ‘Nasty women are tough, nasty women are smart and nasty women vote. And on Nov. 8, we nasty women are going to march our nasty feet to cast our nasty votes to get you out of our lives forever.’”

Barillas’ article contains the video of Warren’s remarks. I would highly recommend you watch them if you have time. Hillary was there beaming along with every Warren declaration.

Listening to Warren talk you almost might believe she’s proud of the fact most sane people think she’s a radicalized “nasty” nut job. There isn’t a better example of a substance-free liberal mouthpiece in the entire Congress…well, except for maybe Bernie Sanders…and Nancy Pelosi.

I wish Carly Fiorina would respond to this type of thing…it would be brilliant.

I don’t doubt for a minute that “nasty” women are going to pull the lever for Hillary. It’s her ultimate identity-politics constituency. Rosy O’Donnell will probably be the first one at the precinct door in two weeks.

But I also think there’s going to be a backlash for Clinton when wrecks like Elizabeth Warren are seen on TV railing against Trump. The woman not only looks unglued – she is unglued.

Are the Republican leaning mushy moderate soccer moms going to flood to Hillary because Warren tells them they’re “nasty” and Trump is evil?

To the extent that someone like Warren makes a difference at all is to scare people away from the Democrats. Like with Hillary, the more Warren's seen the more Americans are reminded about how far off the deep end the Democrats have gone.

Is being called “nasty” worse than Hillary’s calling tens of millions of people “deplorable” and “irredeemable”?

I would be careful if I were the Democrats. If not, the “nasty” stuff left on the front doorstep just might be their own.

Share this