Share This Article with a Friend!

Presidential Horse Race 2016: Wikileaks proves Trump was the best Republican to run against Hillary

At various times during the 2016 presidential race the lead minds behind #NeverTrump have argued that any of the other 15 major candidates in the Republican primary field would have been leading Hillary Clinton at this point in the campaign and it wouldn’t be close. They say this simply because in their view none of the other Republicans were as damaged as Donald Trump and she would have a lot less “ammunition” at her disposal to attack them with.

Thanks to the most recent Wikileaks dump of emails from Clinton’s associates, we now know that the Trump leads poll#NeverTrumpers are wrong again. The Democrats were digging deep a year ago in anticipation of facing either of the top two outsiders in the GOP race or the lead establishment candidate.

Sarah Westwood of the Washington Examiner reports, “The emails, obtained illegally from the inbox of Clinton's campaign chair, showed the Democratic National Committee dug into Trump's legal, financial and marital history ahead of the Republican primary in anticipation that he could emerge as the party's nominee.

“The DNC compiled hundreds of pages of opposition research against Sen. Marco Rubio and Sen. Ted Cruz as well...

“Democratic operatives collected the most ammunition to use against Rubio. His 431-page research book was far longer than the 201 pages dedicated to Cruz or the 157 pages written about Trump.”

So in other words, the Democrat slime machine was preparing for full operation no matter who won the Republican nomination. This comes as no big shock to anyone and I’m sure the Republicans were gathering the same types of information against Hillary, but there are a few things at play here.

First, judging by the length and depth of the research it seems obvious the Democrats were predicting that Rubio would ultimately win. A football coach doesn’t spend time reviewing a lot of film and compiling a playbook on an opponent that he doesn’t think his team will ever play. The Democrats saw Rubio as a huge threat to Hillary because he’s young, well-spoken and likeable – everything Hillary is not.

Westwood notes in her article that Hillary was planning to hit Marco over social issues and depict him as hostile to women’s rights.

It’s been evident to me since the beginning that the Democrats were going to play the “woman card” regardless of the identity of the GOP nominee and with Rubio they would have pulled out all the stops smearing him on his pro-life views, opposition to same-sex marriage and denial of the science on climate change of all things.

Second, for Ted Cruz the Dems were going to primarily focus on his shutting down the government over Obamacare in 2013 and his perceived lack of legislative accomplishments. They also would have hammered on Cruz’s strained relationship with his Senate colleagues in order to portray him as a radical that no one can get along with…so in essence, he’s out of touch.

Again, someone claiming Ted has no friends. It gets old, folks.

Lastly, the attacks Hillary and the Democrats are currently leveling at the Republican nominee were dreamed up about a year ago, namely that Trump is a man who doesn’t care about anything but himself, is a racist and a misogynist. We’ve seen it all play out before our eyes for about six months now. Bit by bit and piece by piece the Democrats dragged a successful American icon into the mud and systematically whipped him with an electronic cane.

Once again, for any of the candidates, the Democrats were counting on putting out a narrative that wasn’t the least bit grounded in fact in order to define the Republican nominee for the uninformed to digest.

It doesn’t matter which candidate won in the primaries. I supported Ted Cruz, though I’ve thought if I could do it all again I would give serious consideration to Marco Rubio, establishment amnesty warts and all because I’ve recently come to believe Rubio would have had the easiest road against Clinton this year – which has become the ultimate goal in this election, to defeat her.

Now, knowing that the Democrat sleaze operation was prepared for all of the top potential candidates, I’m not so sure that the race didn’t turn out with the best possible alternative in Donald Trump, simply for the reason that Trump is a wildcard and doesn’t hesitate to hit the Democrats where it hurts.

Ted Cruz would also let it loose, but Trump has the unique characteristic of being a true outsider.

With the Democrat playbook exposed to the world it’s even more critical to get behind Trump now. #NeverTrumpers, take note.

Pundits battle over the meaning of the polls but the best answer is no one really knows

With now less than two weeks to go until Election Day, debate continues as to the value of the public opinion polls which offer a wide disparity of results, with the preponderance showing Crooked Hillary Clinton with a comfortable lead.

The usually reliable Real Clear Politics average, for example, puts the Hillary margin at just over five points. But as I pointed out yesterday, there are a few surveys that either have the race tied or give Trump a narrow lead. In other words, the overall national race is still within the margin of error leaving the outcome of the election very much in doubt.

Of course these “close race” polls are in the minority, balanced out by the results of the most recent ABC tally which has Hillary ahead by a dozen and the CNN poll putting her in front by six. Why don’t the media talkers say that these are the outliers rather than the polls that are more even?

Because a tight contest doesn’t fit their pro-Hillary narrative, that’s why. It’s fashionable for those in the pundit class to have already declared the race done with and then move on to look for clues on how Hillary is going to redecorate the White House after the Obamas have defiled it for eight years. I wonder if Bill will revisit the Oval Office library, home to his infamous liaisons with Monica Lewinsky?

Regardless of the future possibilities, all of the poll speculation right now is premature. No wonder there’s so much consternation over the meaning of the numbers. Jonathan Easley of The Hill reports on the growing battle between supporters of both sides to win the public’s verdict. “Trump and his supporters argue that mainstream pollsters are under-sampling Republicans to account for a rise in Independents, while failing to account for an enthusiasm gap that favors Trump or the new voters he could bring into the fold.

“A half-dozen pollsters interviewed by The Hill acknowledged the difficulties of polling the 2016 race.

“They blamed unprecedented volatility, two historically unpopular candidates, fast-changing voter behavior patterns and shifting demographics. All of those factors make it tough to figure out exactly who will show up on Election Day.”

In his article, Easley references “conservative news sites” that are ripping the polls. It brings a sense of pride to see there are others outside of the mainstream media who view the race as still going at full speed rather than winding down for the post-election commentary.

Pollsters are at a loss to explain the discrepancy in the state of the race with several arguing the surveys showing a tight contest are oversampling Republicans and independents while others are pointing to the changing nature of the demographics of the electorate.

A few of the experts admit they really don’t know…I tend to believe those who aren’t so sure about what they don’t know. One of my law professors used to say, “You know what you know and you don’t know what you don’t know.”

His statement just about covers the polls this year. No one pinpoint it one way or the other.

Still there are those in the #NeverTrump contingent who are all too happy to jump on “the election’s over and no one’s to blame but Trump” bandwagon. They’re already trying to dig themselves out of the enormous hole they’ve created and seek to refashion the culpability for the whole mess on the GOP nominee and his supporters.

Jay Caruso writes at RedState, “When campaigns are losing, they look for somebody to blame. It’s a natural instinct, but Trump and his supporters take it to a whole new level. Like President Obama supporters, nothing is ever Donald Trump’s fault. No matter how little the issue is, it is the fault of some outside source, whatever it may be…

“Sooner or later the time comes to take responsibility. Trump does nothing but blather about ‘winning’ like a spray-tanned version of Charlie Sheen but when he starts losing, he blames everybody but himself. His supporters do the same thing.”

I’ve found it curious over the course of months how the #NeverTrumpers have slowly shifted the responsibility for nominating Trump from the candidate himself to his newfound defenders, as if those of us who have not yet cast our first vote for him are still guilty of producing him in the first place.

I’ve been very open about who I favored in the Republican primaries. As I indicated above, it was Ted Cruz. I’m proud of that vote and if the same field was presented all over again, I’d choose Cruz a second time.

But the concept of “blame” is an interesting one because it’s no one person’s fault in a national election, not even the candidate himself. Politicians present a package of attributes – issue positions, platform, promises, personality and personal characteristics such as charisma and leadership – but it’s the voters who decide which candidate wins.

In the end, Trump’s boorish behavior should not even be a consideration two weeks before the election. The media and Hillary want it to be all about Trump; but reality says it’s a little about Trump and a lot about the direction of the country. That’s where #NeverTrump gets it wrong.

Victor Davis Hanson writes in National Review, “It also remains a curious artifact of this election that many conservatives are outraged far more by Trump’s obnoxiousness, crudity, and rhetorical excesses than they are by Hillary’s concrete record of premeditated criminality and habitual prevarication — especially given the likelihood that on illegal immigration, defense spending, Obamacare, abortion, the debt, taxes, and regulation, Trump’s published agenda is the far more conservative.

“Apparently a vicious, insider liberal establishmentarian poses less threat to the republic that does a more conservative outsider fop.”

Fop. That’s a good word. According to Wikipedia, “A modern-day fop may also be a reference to a foolish person who is excessively concerned about his clothing, luxuries, minor details, refined language and leisurely hobbies. He is generally incapable of engaging in conversations, activities or thoughts without the idealism of aesthetics or pleasures.”

Sound like Trump?

Perhaps. But Donald Trump is no fool. By his claiming the polls are wrong or the election is rigged Trump refocuses attention on his candidacy and forces people to once again consider whether there’s some merit to what he’s saying.

In the end, in the closing days of this campaign, I’m thinking people will see the real choice. And Donald Trump will end up being the wisest one after all.

Despite media pessimism there are many positive signs for Trump

Just turn to a liberal media publication and chances are it’s full of doomsday predictions about Donald Trump. On Tuesday afternoon, for example, Politico’s lead story was titled “Florida spirals away from Trump” with the subheading reading, “With the GOP nominee trailing in poll after poll and lacking a ground game, a low turnout may be Trump's only hope of carrying the state.”

The article (written by Politico’s Marc Caputo) was chock full of pessimism on Trump’s prospects in the Sunshine State, citing numerous polls that show him behind -- by a lot – with little chance to make up ground because he doesn’t have enough campaign foot-soldiers to turn out the vote.

Then there was a story in the Tampa Bay Times about Trump generating crowds numbering 15,000 to hear him speak. The Times’ reporters wrote, “The average of recent polls compiled by shows Clinton leading the Sunshine State by nearly 4 percentage points, but the giant crowd for Trump in Tampa on Monday night underscored how much more enthusiastic his supporters are than Clinton's. She is scheduled to hold a rally at Curtis Hixon Waterfront Park in downtown Tampa on Wednesday, but she rarely draws more than a few thousand people.”

I see all the polls and my inclination is always to give them serious credence but the reality on the ground just doesn’t seem to match the reporting of the media. Perhaps people don’t care about going to a Hillary rally because they’ve heard her screech for almost thirty years now and already know what she’s going to say, which can be summed up as “I’m going to give you everything and the rich are going to pay for it.”

And when someone actually talks to the people at Clinton’s rallies, the attendees are less than gung-ho on their candidate.

Byron York of the Washington Examiner reports on some of those he met at one of Hillary’s events in North Carolina: “I talked to a lot of students. As it happened, the first I approached — Meghan, age 18, Ashley, age 19, and Alex, age 18 — weren't there for Hillary at all. I asked if they had already voted — they had not — and if they were registered — they were. Then I asked who they planned to vote for.

“Sheepish silence. ‘Should we really say it?’ asked Ashley.

“’Alright, we — ‘ Meghan began. She hesitated a little and then said, almost under her breath: ‘Trump.’”

In fairness, York did find some Hillary backers at her own rally, but you would expect that, wouldn’t you?

Anecdotal evidence and enthusiasm doesn’t always carry the day. It certainly didn’t do much for a Republican victory in 2012. But it’s one more piece of the puzzle in trying to determine where the truth lies in this year’s election. It’s fairly obvious we’re not going to get the clear picture from the media, after all.

Just when you thought the Obamas were almost gone, think again

Finally today, if there is one aspect of the 2016 campaign that has been a positive since day one it is the notion that Barack Obama’s days in office are numbered. No matter who the Republicans nominated or whether Hillary would ultimately win the Democrat nod, it’s always been a good thing that Obama will be on his way back to Chicago come January…or wherever he’s going to go.

Actually, the Obamas are moving just down the road in Washington DC to Georgetown for at least a few years where they can easily still access the seat of power…but thankfully, no more taxpayer funded vacation jaunts for them.

There are rumors Obama himself would be considered for a Supreme Court vacancy should Hillary win. That alone should be reason enough to vote for Trump on Election Day.

As for first lady Michelle Obama, many are whispering about a career in politics that would mirror another famous former presidential spouse.

Amie Parnes and Jordan Fabian of The Hill report, “Michelle Obama’s star turn on the 2016 campaign trail has the political world buzzing about her post-White House plans.

“The first lady has been dubbed the most valuable player of this election cycle for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton after a series of speeches in which she hammered Republican nominee Donald Trump and his treatment of women. 

“As Obama prepares to campaign alongside Clinton this week in North Carolina, some Democrats can’t help but wonder whether the 52-year-old first lady might someday be convinced to launch a political career of her own.”

Fortunately Michelle’s closest acquaintances insist she would never run for political office and has no taste for it.

But just wait until the super-hip current first couple is no longer the darlings of the public’s eye – that could easily change Michelle’s mind in an instant. Personally, I don’t think the Obamas are going to be content to make an appearance every four years at the Democrat convention and then fade into the sunset. They aren’t going to be like the Bush presidents who seemed more than happy to hibernate away from public view after their terms in office.

No, the Obamas are fame seekers and thrive on adoration. I’m betting Michelle will follow a very similar path to Hillary and likely find a way to run for office in a safe blue state in order to lay the groundwork for something bigger later on. After all, her fundraising apparatus is already in place and she’d be a shoo-in on name recognition. She’s a radical dedicated leftist who’s used to sponging off the public and would welcome the chance to destroy what’s left of American traditions and culture in the wake of her husband and Hillary.

I never thought there could be anyone worse than Hillary to run for president. But if Michelle Obama ever gets into the act, we ain’t seen nothing yet.

Share this