Donate search


  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • send Email
  • print Print

The ‘Bitter Clingers’ Will Sink Hillary

Hillary Clinton is running a 1992 campaign, and that’s the reason she’s the weakest Democrat to seek the office in decades.

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, wrote an excellent analysis in the Washington Post of the groups that weren’t a factor in the 1990’s which will destroy Hillary at the ballot box. A shorter summary of those groups is contained in President Obama’s 2008 reference to the “bitter clingers.”

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

In 2008, Hillary could afford to ignore these groups (but she failed to catch on with the progressive wing of her own party), but after 8 years of Obama, things have decidedly changed.

The “bitter clingers” will kill Hillary’s campaign:

  1. Home schoolers
  2. Charter school supporters
  3. Concealed-carry permit holders
  4. Fracking workers
  5. Vaping and e-cigarette users
  6. Uber and other sharing economy workers

Hillary is chained to big unions, especially the powerful teachers’ unions. The American Federation of Teachers has given more than $1 million to her campaign (not to mention what they give to PACs like American Bridge). The teachers’ unions hate home schoolers and want to gut charter schools by having them require their onerous rules (the absence of which is what makes charter schools work).

Home schooling and charter schools weren’t around (much) in 1992. Now they represent up to 7 percent of K-12 students. And the home schoolers are firmly in Ted Cruz’s corner. Not so good for Hillary.

The heart of “bitter clinger” territory, the “small towns in Pennsylvania and the midwest” are the biggest recipients of jobs in the fracking oil and gas boom.

Hillary’s two largest donors are George Soros ($7 million and counting) and the Laborers Union. Soros is opposed to fracking, with his billions supporting such envirokooks and goons like the Alliance for Climate Protection, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Union of Concerned Scientists. (Although he isn’t opposed to making money off fracking when it suits him.)

Norquist puts the blade to the strop for Hillary’s chances:

Try winning 270 electoral votes while threatening to damage the nearly 186,000 energy jobs in Ohio, almost 73,000 jobs in Pennsylvania and more than 100,000 jobs in Colorado.

Again at the March 6 debate, Clinton made this not-so-veiled threat: “By the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place.”

And last, we have the guns.

But in the March 6 Democratic presidential candidates debate, Hillary Clinton said, “I think we have to try everything that works to try to limit the numbers of people and the kinds of people who are given access to firearms.”

This is an insult to the 13 million Americans who have decided to take upon themselves the task of protecting themselves and their families. Perhaps Clinton thinks she can ignore those whom some liberals consider rubes living in square states out west. But let’s look at swing states in 2016: Florida has about 1.4 million concealed-carry permits, Pennsylvania 1 million, Michigan 600,000, Ohio 460,000 , and Colorado 160,000.

After 8 years of Obama’s hijacking of every shooting in America to unsuccessfully hound us into becoming a gun-free Australia or Europe, gun sales are booming. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that message is not resonating in swing states that Hillary needs to carry.

It’s prescient that Obama’s 2008 remarks predicted Donald Trump’s rise. It’s almost like he summoned a Golem and it appeared 8 years later.

And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

What Obama intended to be a dismissive and academic remark about hicks in flyover country will be the dragon’s tail that slays the Democratic Party’s hopes for 2016.

Hillary is still living in 1992, and her only chance to win is for Donald Trump, the singular political figure more hated in America than her, to take the Republican nomination. Cruz should take her down in a landslide.


  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • send Email
  • print Print


More Top Stories

Buttigieg’s Appropriation of God is Not Ok

In a crowded field of competitors I get what he’s doing.  And politically I don’t blame him.  South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg is a longshot candidate who lacks the pedigree, chops, and e …

Ben Shapiro Misfired

Normally, I’m a fan of Ben Shapiro. He’s a brilliant writer and a staunch conservative. He also (like so much of the conservative puditocracy) has a nasty habit of making unfortunate comme …

The Trump Labor Department Protects Religious Liberty

This is a very big deal from the Trump Administration and progressive activists are spitting mad about it. Under previous Obama era interpretations of law, religious organizations could not help the g …