Topic category: Elections - Politics, Polling, etc.
The Myth of Clinton Invincibility
Clinton's inevitability as the Democratic nominee is better news for Republican Donald Trump than the momentum he's built for his own candidacy as the primary season winds down.
One of the biggest casualties of the 2016 primary season is "conventional wisdom". Consider how "conventional wisdom" has been wrong:
From its beginning the campaign of Donald Trump was considered a joke and doomed to a quick demise.
Bernie Sanders' campaign was considered a minor amusement.
The GOP nomination was Jeb Bush's to lose.
The Democratic Convention would be a "coronation" for Queen Hillary, who would subsequently roll over whomever the GOP nominated.
But "conventional wisdom" took it on the chin as the Bush campaign never got off the ground and sank rapidly after Bush began to take on Donald Trump, slamming his positions that, ironically, were resonating with a large segment of not only the GOP but also some Democrats and many Independents.
And "conventional wisdom" took it on the chin as one-by-one all 16 of Trump's GOP rivals dropped out of the nomination race as the Trump campaign built momentum toward his nomination by forging a coalition of voters who found used the ballot to second his determination to "protect the borders" and "create a climate for jobs" in order to "make America great again."
How long has it taken "conventional wisdom" to realize that this is the year of the "outsider"? The 2016 election is not so much about Democrats vs. Republicans or Liberals vs. Conservatives as it is about outsiders vs. insiders.
There are still some sore losers who appear incapable of seeing clearly what 28 years of Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama have done to this nation's culture, economy, and financial stability. It has not been a good 28 years.
Yet doesn't take a genius to see what is transpiring.
Despite the fraudulent "jobs" figures where millions simply drop out of the statistic because the economy cannot support the number of jobs needed, the people are not fooled.
Most people understand that Obama is a pathological liar. He has always been at his smoothest when he lies. It is much more convenient to tell a story that you want people to believe than to admit to the disaster Obama's Administration has been for this country.
When Obama campaigned in 2008, he claimed to be outraged by the increase in our national debt under President Bush, much of that debt coming after Democrats (including Obama) gained control of Congress in the 2006 elections. Yet Obama's spending doubled our national debt!
Throughout the Obama's disastrous presidency, the GOP has appealed for control of Congress. Voters responded by giving the GOP control of the House in the 2010 elections. But nothing happened to stop Obama, despite the GOP having control of appropriations.
The GOP claimed they needed to gain control of the Senate so they could get legislation past the Harry Reid blockade. So voters gave the GOP the Senate in the 2012 election, an election Obama may well have lost had the Benghazi scandal been made an issue (ask Romney about that flaw in his non-campaign!). And, again, nothing happened. Obama got everything he wanted.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton served without distinction a stint as Secretary of State. Except, that is, for her callous disregard for national security and FOIA law when, within 24 hours of completing her mandatory security training/briefing, she illegally had a nonsecure personal email server installed at her home through which she conducted official business and received or originated over 2,000 classified documents from which classification markings had been removed.
When asked if her personal server ever held classified documents, Hillary could honestly respond that no documents marked as classified were ever on her computer. Which is dishonest and fails to respond to the crux of the question. Some of the classified documents found on her server were so highly classified that FBI investigators lacked sufficient clearance to review them when they were discovered.
So along come the national election of 2016 and the people continue to suffer from a horrible economic climate, far too few jobs, porous borders through which drugs, illegal immigrants, and ISIS members posing as "refugees" continue to flow through, a national debt that is obscene, and race relations that are worse than at any time since the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Question: What do voters do when reflecting on Obama and Clinton's dishonesty, ineptitude, and amateur bungling of their jobs as President and Secretary of State); a feckless anemic GOP Congress who are more comfortable fighting their own Tea Party supported members than standing up to Obama's dicates; and a culture of political correctness that has slowly eroded substance from our culture, replacing it with nonsense that is not to be questioned ("human-caused-global-warming/climate-change" being a prime example)?
Answer: They abandon "party" politicians and look for fresh new faces that are on the outside of the cozy relationship between insiders within both political parties.
A realistic look at the national disgrace in Washington that both political parties have brought is all one need perceive to see where this election is headed.
Hillary Clinton's negatives may poll better than Trump's. But Clinton's negatives run strong and deep. Trump's are superficial, partly due to his unconventional non-political approach to politics.
Both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have resonated with the energized voters who will determine the next President.
Despite so-called "conservatives" withholding support from Trump, Trump's movement gains momentum with voters.
Despite Democrat's "superdelegates" designed to thwart the will of voters by assuring the will of insiders prevails, the Sanders movement thrives and gain momentum, clobbering Clinton repeatedly and giving her fits in areas she thought secure. Clinton's ultimate hubris was revealed when she claimed victory in Kentucky before anyone else acknowledged her slim (less than 0.5%) lead would withstand recount.
Hillary Clinton is a horrible campaigner.
Hillary Clinton has never had a job, either in or out of government, that she performed with distinction.
Ask any Clinton supporter to name three specific accomplishments (other than being elected or appointed to a position) that she has to her credit on behalf of those she claims to champion. You will be met with stunned silence as the Clinton supporter realizes that there is really nothing to offer by way of a substantive, accurate response to your question.
Hillary's invincibility as a candidate is a myth.
She is much weaker among women (particularly intelligent women) than one would expect for a candidate striving to be the first woman President. Perhaps Obama's failures as first non-white President are fresh in mind and act as a warning to voters that personal substance matters.
Honest Democrats are tired of being lied to. So they've rallied around Sanders, whose honor cannot be assailed. Yet Clinton will be the nominee.
Republicans are tired of being lied to by politicians claiming to be "conservative" who, once elected, revert to insider politics absent real conservative values. Insider Republicans simply cannot be trusted to honor their promises, behaving just like Lucy Van Pelt in the annual Fall "Peanuts" cartoon where Lucy convinces Charlie Brown that this time, she will not jerk the football away as Charlie Brown comes charging along to make that place-kick, and then Lucy snatches the football away at the last second sending Charlie Brown flying after kicking nothing but air!
Republican voters are tired of "kicking air". This time, they're determined to "kick a--" and Donald Trump is resonating with the issues of real concern to voters. And Trump does not come with the baggage of a history of lying and deceiving voters.
Clinton is extremely weak with male voters, her support among women is tepid, her support among the young voters is almost non-existent. In short, Clinton is in serious trouble with major demographic groups.
Donald Trump, an unconventional candidate running an unconventional campaign, has an opportunity to succeed with a landslide victory in November.
Bob Webster, a 12th-generation descendent of both the Darte family (Connecticut, 1630s) and the Webster family (Massachusetts, 1630s) is a descendant of Daniel Webster's father, Revolutionary War patriot Ebenezer Webster, who served with General Washington. Bob has always had a strong interest in early American history, our Constitution, U.S. politics, and law. Politically he is a constitutional republican with objectivist and libertarian roots. He has faith in the ultimate triumph of truth and reason over deception and emotion. He is a strong believer in our Constitution as written and views the abandonment of constitutional restraint by the regressive Progressive movement as a great danger to our Republic. His favorite novel is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and believes it should be required reading for all high school students so they can appreciate the cost of tolerating the growth of unconstitutional crushingly powerful central government. He strongly believes, as our Constitution enshrines, that the interests of the individual should be held superior to the interests of the state.
A lifelong interest in meteorology and climatology spurred his strong interest in science. Bob earned his degree in Mathematics at Virginia Tech, graduating in 1964.