REFUTING THE FLAWED CAMPAIGN ANALYSIS OF A KOOL AID DRINKING CLINTONITE. AND PREDICTING SICK HILLARY'S DEFEAT IN TOMORROW'S HISTORIC DEBATE
"What are SICK ILLARY's internal polls telling her that made her so bat sh*t crazy yesterday raving like a loon that her lead was too small? That it should be 50 points tall? What polling data is depressing her and making her seem that she's losing hope"
So, where are these "internal polls" that you and so many other Trump supporters have been telling me about? I keep asking to see them and no one can point me to them. In the absence of any evidence that they exist or, if they do, that they say what is claimed, I have to assume that it's just another talking point advanced by some right-wing blog or pundit somewhere, designed to give Trump supporters some hope where the current polling offers none.
But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that they do exist and say what is claimed. I would rather have internal polling be a cause for concern in an effort to generate improvement rather than the pat-on-the-back internal polling that convinced Mitt Romney that he would win easily, to the extent that he bought fireworks for a planned celebration and didn't even write a concession speech. Looks like Karl Rove was caught a bit off-guard, too. 😉
By the way, it looks like the media finally managed to find Trump's lost baggage and is showing us the unsettling contents.
The rest of what you said reminds of what was said about President Obama's re-election. The same claims of a lack of enthusiasm, baggage (the ACA), people staying home, etc., all based more on wishful thinking rather than any hard evidence. In fact, Hillary Clinton received far more votes than Trump in their respective primaries and, unlike Trump, has the enthusiastic support of the vast majority of her fellow party members, including her former rival, Bernie Sanders. She also has a substantial GOTV initiative, unlike Trump who, despite his claims to the contrary, can't even afford basic advertising.
At this point, I have to even wonder if Trump will receive more votes for him than against him.
"And poor SICK ILLARY doesn't have any [enthusiasm]."
And THERE we have it: The utter desperation of a party who has somehow managed to nominate the most unpopular presidential candidate in modern times, despised by even many in his own party: Wishing ill health on his opponent because he has no other path to victory.
I have to chuckle at what I've been reading lately: The best anyone can hope for now is that Trump doesn't "lose it" at the debates. The lowest bar set for any candidate, ever, and one that many are worried he won't be able to hurdle. I also enjoyed reading that Trump's support is exactly where it was months ago, composed of the same small number of die-hard (but very loud) supporters who won't abandon him no matter what, to use your phrase, "batsh*t crazy" things he says or does.
Don't despair, though. Ted Cruz has finally abandoned the only principle he ever had and has now endorsed Trump. As popular as Ted Cruz is, THAT should change a lot of minds. (LOL)
Hillary Clinton's lead increased again today in RCP's national polling average.
It also dropped, again today, in Nate Silver's election forecast.
At least he didn't lose any ground in the LA Times farcical joke of a poll, the only one he is currently leading. Other than the more than 50% drop he managed this week, I mean.
"Internal polling," heh.
Although I disagree with your assertions and conclusions, I do appreciate that you have been generally civil. Thank you.
Is 2016 becoming 2008 all over again for Hillary? It looks that way.
Apparently you've done an outstanding job in ignoring all the signs of SICK LOW ENERGY MISERABLE HILLARY'S health and stamina decline; and in convincing yourself that she's wrong to feel so uncertain and depressed about her chances of success in November. Apparently you believe that this unsmiling, joyless woman has every reason to be the happy warrior: confident, sure and optimistic that she's unstoppably moving ahead to winning the presidency and continuing Obama's tragic legacy of ashes, dust and disaster. You've convinced yourself that the data she's seeing from her internal polling is all wrong; that she needs someone like you to do the analysis for her; and not listen to the likes of CNNs John Phillips who (having actually done the math that you refuse to do) sees this race as neck and neck-despite Hillary outspending Trump 5:1 in key battle ground states.
No my friend, this is a horse race that will be decided by the debates; and SICK PNEUMONIC HILLARY whose health has suffered greatly from 17 months of campaigning (light compared to Trump who did 32 rallies last month to her 11) seems to be losing the confidence needed to win. But how can Hillary be confident when she's so physically ill; and when she failed so badly at the Commander-in-Chief Forum being crushed by Trump 63% to 37% for seeming more competent, professional and presidential looking Trump crushed in the polls 63% to 37%? Often what begins bad ends bad, and Hillary was off to a terrible start.
Tell me, friend, when Hillary loses tomorrow's debate will sore losers like you blame it on Lester Holt not rescuing her like you blamed Matt Lauer for Hillary losing the CIC Forum?
The truth is this: 2016 is looking more and more like the 2008 Democrat primaries where Hillary (she was healthy then) despite her vast experience and huge early lead, lost in a close race to a charismatic candidate who convinced voters wanting change that he was the real deal. Donald Trump is this election's Barack Obama; and status quo Hillary (the creäture of Washington, Wall Street, Big Banks, Big Pharma, Big Oil etc.) is losing heart and greatly fears this year will be 2008 redux. That much is certain from Thursday's crazy, robotic "50 points" union rant where ILLARY looked and sounded like an escapee from the nut house.
This is my prediction for tomorrow: SICK ILLARY at best will be at her very low energy worst, and be way off her game-like she was at the DNC when her dull, joyless, uninspiring acceptance speech put poor husband Bill to sleep; or at worse (and less likely) she'll suffer another medical event that, depending on its severity, could kill her candidacy. Hopefully for her the room temperature at Hofstra will be under 77 degrees to eliminate the chance of fainting again from extreme, unbearable heat. LOL!
Either way Donald Trump will dominate tomorrow's historic event as he did the Commander-in-Chief Forum 19 days before.
BTW, how can anyone wish ill-health on a woman (old beyond her years) already terribly sick-whose energy, stamina and strength are so poor and unfit for the presidency that she'd fall flat on her ugly, lying, twitching face if she campaigned half as hard as Donald "The Wall" Trump?
LATINO CULTURE IS VERY MACHO
And many Latino men love macho man Trump.
MAKE AMERICA MACHO AGAIN!
One glance at Trump's gold-plated, marbled, Versailles-styled residence tells you that he's not going to relate to the "middle class."
Did you think a community organizer would relate to middle class workers who is ideologically hell bent on "economic justice" for the poor at their expense?
Anti-Zionist educator and mind poisoner of Palestinian children Hanan al Hroub was honored by the corrupt, pay to play Clinton Foundation last night. While denying Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state this evil, twisted but very cunning Moslem snake teaches a non-violent approach to destroying it.
The closest thing we ever had to a lifeless corpse running for president told an unenthusiastic crowd at Temple University yesterday that the campaign is "depressing" her. The real concern is if she loses the election will she turn suicidal?
Hillary Clinton, the sickest, most lifeless presidential candidate in US history, who fainted from 77 degree heat on 9/11, whose acceptance speech at the DNC was so lacking in esprit that it put her husband to sleep, who's stamina is so poor she could only do 11 rallies in August (compared to Trump's 32), said to a crowd of millennials at Temple U that she found this campaign "discouraging" and "down right depressing." Why are her spirits so low? Why can't she stay positive, upbeat and strong? Why isn't she a happy warrior having fun instead of looking like she's drugged on downers half the time? Why? Because her opponent is a big bad deplorable ogre who "incites hatred and violence like we've never seen before in a campaign." He's the barbarian at the gates of Obamastan threatening the building of utopia.
Happy, vivacious, high energy Hillary wows us again with her inexhaustible, upbeat, can do mentality.
I WASN'T SURPISED TO LEARN THAT THIS POWERHOUSE OF A ROCK SONG WAS HILLARY'S FAVORITE FROM THE 1960S
WHAT IS THE CURE FOR HILLARY'S BLUES?
ATTEND A TRUMP RALLY
On September 12th 73 year old Joe Biden challenged Donald Trump to accompany him on a health run saying, “I’d like to jog with him, but don’t think he could keep up." Perhaps Biden is right. Perhaps he's in better physical shape than Donald Trump. And perhaps Biden is regretting his decision not to run for the presidency now that Hillary is looking more like a loser with each passing day.
But health wise what is certain is that if Hillary (who told NBC last year that she finds campaigning "incredibly exhausting") were to criss cross the county like the tireless Trump (who finds the race exhilarating and is having the time of his life) and campaign just as hard (doing up to three rallies per day) she'd likely wind up desperately ill or dead having worn herself out. And then Biden could step in to carry on.
If tired, old, incompetent Hillary follows Barack Obama into the White House we'll have a fourth (and possibly fifth) term of Jimmy Carter - at a time, ironically, when Carter himself says America is a declining superpower "inevitably" losing credibility, influence and prestige on the world stage (see).
There is urgent need of improvement in our naturalization law. NO ALIEN SHOULD BECOME A CITIZEN UNTIL HE HAS BECOME GENUINELY AMERICAN [caps mine], and adequate tests for determining the alien's fitness for American citizenship should be provided for by law........
The burden of taxation imposed upon the American people is staggering; but in presenting a true statement of the situation we must face the fact that, while the character of the taxes can and should be changed, an early reduction of the amount of revenue to be raised is not to be expected. The next Republican Administration will inherit from its Democratic predecessor a floating indebtedness of over three billion dollars—the prompt liquidation of which is demanded by sound financial consideration. Moreover, the whole fiscal policy of the Government must be deeply influenced by the necessity of meeting obligations in excess of five billion dollars which mature in 1923. But sound policy equally demands the early accomplishment of that real reduction of the tax burden which may be achieved by substituting simple for complex tax laws and procedure, prompt and certain determination of the tax liability for delay and uncertainty, tax laws which do not, for tax laws which do, excessively mulct the consumer or needlessly repress enterprise and thrift........
THE ENTIRE PLATFORM
Let's see Hillary carry boxes of supplies to people like Trump did in Louisiana . Let's see her unload a truck - of supplies her foundation paid for - in some poor village in Africa.
HILLARY'S "AMAZING" STAMINA AT GRUELING BENGHAZI HEARING?
Every so often when husband Bill is asked about Hillary's stamina and health he will pull from his hat last year's Benghazi hearing and glowingly say how she coolly and masterfully withstood 11 grueling hours of hard Republican questioning. But that's not what exactly happened. Forget about her five days missing in action prior to the hearing where she rested up conserving her energies while Bernie Sanders was campaigning his butt off; and forget that the questioning totaled 8 hours at most not 11 as there were three one hour breaks; truth is, the hearing was not the feat Bill Clinton makes it out to be; roughly half of the hearing was a love fest with fellow Democrats soft balling her; while the hard questions came mostly from three Republicans: Gowdy, Jordan and Pompeo.
But that was nine months ago when Hillary was vastly out polling Bernie Sanders and had done little campaigning herself; since then her exertions have clearly taken a toll on her health and is wearing her out-everyone but her blindest followers know it. This was evident from her DNC acceptance speech (one of the worst ever given) which was so insipid, unmoving, ineffective and dull that it embarrassingly put husband Bill to sleep.
Truth is if Hillary were to do as many press conferences and campaign as vigorous and hard as dauntless, dynamic, indefatigable Donald Trump she would collapse from extreme fatigue within a week. Think I'm exaggerating? As I wrote HERE in 2010 Hillary complained in an interview with Esquire that her job as Secretary of State was too exhausting, and that she couldn't and wouldn't continue in office another four years. If she had a second term at State, or just two more exhausting years, instead of "lying, crooked, low energy Hillary" we'd probably be calling her "no energy Hill."
Hillary giving a speech on national security in Virginia and looking like hell.
But the presidency is far more difficult and demanding than heading the State Department. If Hillary lacked the energy, strength and stamina for State how could she have it for the presidency? And how will she have it for the make or break debates with Donald Trump? Will she be running on empty by then and crash and burn physically and emotionally? Trump is a force of nature, a category four hurricane; Hillary is a spent liberal force in slow declining health that's becoming more apparent and difficult to hide. America will see the stark difference in late September when Trump and Hillary go one on one in New York. Mark my words, in that debate Trump will look like a strong, confident, forceful executive and leader; while Hillary (with worsening health) will look like Trump's weak, flabby, passive, barely competent personal secretary.
So the question, "Will Hillary's health crash before the September debate?" depends on the race tightening between now and then. If that should happen (and Trump is working like hell to make it happen) it will force Hillary to push herself harder and campaign more fiercely than is good for her health.
protesting CO2 pollution and becomes a CO2 polluter./sarc
MAKE AMERICA GREAT,
PROSPEROUS AND POWERFUL AGAIN!
ABANDON THIS FOR HILLARY
THE ARMY OF KILLER CONSTITUTIONALISTS
HILLARY IN 2008 TALKS ABOUT OBAMA BEING ASSASSINATED LIKE RFK
MARCH 3, 2016
THE JUSTLY ACQUITTED
Two articles ago I noted that the 2016 race for the 45th presidency of the United States is extraordinary not only because of political novice Donald Trump's gravity defying triumph in winning big the GOP nomination, and Hillary Clinton being the first female nominee of any major political party, but because these two historic figures are from the same state. This has rarely occurred in US presidential politics. In fact, of the 57 prior presidential contests same state candidates only happened a mere three times in 1860, 1920 and 1944.
Indeed, in 1860 former Republican Congressman Abe Lincoln of Illinois battled Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas for the 16th presidency. In 1920 Ohio Republican Senator Warren Harding fought Ohio Democratic Governor James Cox (FDR was his running mate) for the 29th presidency. And in 1944 New York Republican Governor Thomas Dewey challenged the 32nd president New York's Franklin Roosevelt for the White House.
Now though Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump like Roosevelt and Dewey are New Yorkers this year's same state race is more like the 1860 and 1920 races. For Hillary and Trump, like Lincoln, Douglas, Harding and Cox weren't incumbent presidents running for reelection. Whereas in 1944 FDR was the incumbent running to stay in office for an unprecedented fourth term. In fact, like Republican Donald Trump Lincoln and Harding were agents of change promising a new direction for the nation from the policies and unpopular presidencies of Democrats James Buchanan and Woodrow Wilson. Indeed, Lincoln ran and won on the Republican platform of stopping the expansion of slavery (which he achieved as president and much, much more); and Harding ran and won on the platform of ending the depression that engulfed the nation after World War I and restoring a robustly growing jobs creating economy-which he achieved as President by slashing taxes, federal spending and crushing regulations. However, though Governor Dewey ran as the change candidate against FDR's New Deal wanting to cut taxes, regulations and shrink the size of government (like Harding campaigned for after World War I) America was at war in Europe and the Pacific; and because a sick and ailing FDR was leading the nation to victory, voters wanting to stay the course reelected him for the third time.
Indeed, this year's same state race is more like 1920 than 1860 or 1944. Though in 1860 we were a terribly divided nation about to plunge into a Civil War over the issue of slavery, and there are growing racial divisions and tensions today with cops shooting blacks and visa versa; and though in 1944 we were in a world war like we are today but on a far smaller scale with Islamonazi enemies, the nation now as in 1920 is similar in that the central issue is jobs and economic distress. Though the economy isn't depressed as in 1920 it's clearly in a state of decline headed toward a crisis due to massive debt, runaway spending, high taxes and crushing anti-business regulations (the main reasons for the 1920 depression).
Moreover, 1920 is similar to 2016, and distinct from 1860 and 1944, in that like this election year the incumbent president Barack Obama (a former college professor) is in his second and last term; this too was the case with two term president Woodrow Wilson who, by the way, like Obama was a college professor. And one last similarity to the present race is that Donald Trump's running mate (Mike Pence) like Warren Harding's (Calvin Coolidge*) was the governor of a state.
*Cool Cal was governor of Massachusetts.
So the big question is this: will history repeat itself? Of the three past same state presidential races Republicans won the first two and lost the third. It's two to one in favor of Republicans; and of the three races the Republican year of 1920 is closer to 2016 than the other two years. However, one thing is clear: the 45th President of the United States will be the 7th from New York State after FDR. And by an astonishing and perhaps meaningful or prophetic coincidence if number 7 is Donald Trump instead of Hillary, when he's sworn into office on January 20, 2017 he will be exactly, precisely, amazingly 70 years, 7 months and 7 days old (see).
Could it be? Is it possible that Vladimir Putin is covertly intervening in US politics and aiding Donald Trump (most likely without his knowledge) in his quest for the presidency by doing what he can to undercut and stop Hillary Clinton? Only a fool would deny the possibility. After all, something similar happened in 1983 when Ted Kennedy on behalf of the Dems colluded with the Soviets in trying to defeat Ronald Reagan and elect Walter Mondale-who promised to restore detante and unilaterally freeze the production of nuclear weapons. This was a clear act of treason which Kennedy should have been held accountable for (see).
However, it is certain that Putin prefers Trump in the White House (who he flattered by calling him a "genius") over Hillary who he loathes like Obama. If Hillary is elected it's practically certain she'd be more difficult than Trump to deal with on the lifting of EU and US sanctions which were imposed after Russia annexed Crimea in March 2014. These sanctions, which are hurting Russia in the billions, include restrictions on major Russian state banks and corporations; and the blacklisting of dozens of Russian officials and firms accused of undermining Ukrainian sovereignty. It is practically certain that a Clinton presidency would make the lifting of sanctions contingent on Russia withdrawing its remaining troops from Ukraine, stop supplying anti-Ukrainian rebel separatists with money, training and arms; and lastly returning Crimea to Ukraine. And that would happen in stages.
But with Trump as president there's no telling what he'd be willing to do as he is unpredictable at this point. He did say confidently that he'd get on better with the Russian leader than Obama is doing; but that's about it. From Putin's viewpoint it's preferable for Russia to have a known unknown like Trump as president than a known known like Clinton (as Rumsfeld would say).
But last Friday on the 21st during his impassioned acceptance speech in Cleveland, Trump, as he was listing Hillary's foreign policy failures made one glaring and perhaps telling omission: Russia. Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran, ISIS, and Clinton's overall disaster in the Middle East, were scathingly mentioned. But not a peep about her failure at Russian Reset, or blaming her for Russia's conflict with Ukraine and annexing of Crimea. Russian analysts could not have failed to notice this omission and probably took it as a sign, despite Ukraine and Crimea, of Trump's good will toward their country and its leader. Putin is certainly hoping that a Trump presidency would recognize Russia's ownership of the Crimean Peninsula and lift all sanctions in exchange for withdrawing its remaining troops from Ukraine, and cutting all aid to pro-Russian Ukrainian separatists.
Indeed, it was after Trump's speech on the following day (the 22nd) that Wikileaks posted the 20,000 DNC hacked emails that have thrown the Dems into pre-convention chaos, and forced Debby W. to resign as DNC chairperson, over evidence of their rigged pro-Clinton primary process. Coincidence? I'll let you be the judge of that. But one thing is clear: Putin does not want a third term of Barack Obama, and he'll do whatever he can to prevent it.
THE INVISIBILITY OF PROFESSIONAL HACKERS
TP = TRUE [TEA PARTY] PATRIOTS