Good gracious. Running against Donald Trump, for a Democrat, is the definition of a “target rich environment.” On every conceivable liberal topic: Racism, sexism, globalism, rich dilettante-ism, corruption (ok, well almost every topic), Hillary is up to her armpits in ammunition. Her problem is that she can’t hit the side of a barn.
This is why the polls are narrowing, with the RCP average putting Clinton inside the margin of error. I know, polls in June are pretty useless. But more telling is the electoral map.
Trump has flipped the race on Hillary, drawing rust-belt states like Ohio and Pennsylvania out of the blue into the toss-up category, while losing grip in solid-red states Georgia, and even Texas. The numbers still show Hillary with a fairly clear electoral lead–about a third of the states are now toss-ups.
Clinton can’t help herself. Everything that comes out of her mouth is filtered through a HEPA screen that filters out truth and lets lies pass through. Every statement is triple-qualified to the point of meaninglessness. She’s so practiced at saying things like “there’s no proof,” that she can’t help but utter vapid lawyerisms.
And then there’s the gaffes. One of the latest is when Clinton said “People keep discovering me. I’m an archaeological dig.”
"People keep discovering me," Clinton says in LA. "I'm like an archaeological dig."
All Clinton needs to do is start tweeting and saying “Racist Donald” every chance she gets. But she can’t pull it off. If she does that, then she has to take responsibility for the National Council of La Raza and others who advocate violent protests at Trump rallies. Trump would hang it around her neck like a Mexican manhole cover.
Hillary Clinton has no idea how to street fight her way to November, so she’ll hide behind massive ad spending and using Trump’s own words against himself. The laws of politics favor this approach, and favor Clinton to win in November. But we said that the laws of politics predicted Trump’s fall in the primaries too.
Mark Green assured Democrats that Hillary will beat Donald in an LA Times Op-Ed.
Who wins a race for both POTUS and SCOTUS between a tough-love mom and your crazy uncle? Based on historic trends and their comparative assets, my best guess is that Clinton prevails by at least 53% to 46%, perhaps even a double-digit landslide. The most unpopular presidential nominee ever won’t be elected president. At least not if Democrats remember Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ admonition: “The way the inevitable came to pass was effort.”
Just days before, Ben Boychuk assured Republicans (despite him being #NeverTrump, himself) that Donald would crush Hillary. Writing in the Sacramento Bee, Boychuk concluded, “Get ready for President Trump.”
Clinton doesn’t know how to respond to Trump. The campaign is peddling the catchphrase, “Love Trumps Hate.” But as [Dilbert cartoonist Scott] Adams points out, that’s a terrible slogan. “Humans put greater cognitive weight on the first part of a sentence than the last part,” he writes. “This is a well-understood phenomenon. And the first part literally pairs LOVE and TRUMP.”
So which is it? Does the unconventional master persuader win or does the gaffe-prone old woman? To quote Hillary, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”
The race between Hillary and friend of/donor to Hillary yields two equally unacceptable results. If I had to put money on it, I’d bet on Trump. He follows Genghis Khan’s advice: “It is not sufficient that I succeed. Everyone else must fail.” Clinton is just better at failing.
The American media has largely embraced a progressive, anti-conservative and explicitly anti-Trump bias. Stories about the President, like the Fort Sill story, are put in the worst possible framing a …