Super Tuesday Is Setting Up President Clinton II

0 Shares

This is my second attempt at writing a political article, something I swore from the beginning I’d never do. As a rule, I find politics to be boring. I’d even classify myself as apolitical. In most elections, no matter who wins – or which party prevails – the outcome is roughly the same. But this election year is very different. It has everything to do with Bernie Sanders and especially Donald Trump. But Sanders and Trump notwithstanding, the real story is that Super Tuesday is setting up President Clinton II – almost like a script from a long-winded movie.

For what it’s worth, that’s not the outcome I’m hoping for, it’s just they way the dominos seem to be lining up. And that’s despite all of the distracting dribble from the political elite that’s hyper-focused on Trump and Sanders.

Why I Like the Trump Factor

Super Tuesday Is Setting Up President Clinton II
Super Tuesday Is Setting Up President Clinton II

As he has for millions of Americans, Donald Trump has stimulated my interest in politics – but not for the reasons you might think. It’s not that I love Donald Trump, the man, the business mogul or the politician. Quite frankly, I think he’s arrogant to the core. Between he and Hillary, the prospect is real and this may be a contest between the two biggest egos in American history. As well, Trump has yet to lay out any concrete agenda to help us to decide specifically what it is we might be voting for or against.

But what I like about Trump actually has nothing to do with Trump, but rather what his candidacy has done for this country. For the first time since the 1980 presidential election, Americans seem to be coming alive with a grassroots kind of passion. Love him or hate him, Trump is causing deep emotions to stir in the political arena.

I must confess, I thought that kind of passion had left the American spirit forever. And while this may yet prove to be just a late flicker in a pattern of continued long-term decline, it’s still refreshing to see that the American spirit is not so crushed as to be completely dead.

Trump also recently made a couple of observations on a news interview that were downright refreshing. He noted that 1) the 5% unemployment rate is a fiction designed to benefit politicians and especially presidents (claiming that the real rate is closer to 25%), and 2) that Hillary Clinton is being protected in regard to the email scandal.

Since I agree with both statements – and he had the chutzpah/independence/conviction to say both in the same interview – I have to say it invokes a positive feeling in me. Who else has that kind of honesty and courage these days?

But as I wrote in my first political article, the Status Quo is supreme in US politics, and it is likely to remain so even after the 2016 election – even if Trump is elected.

And I still don’t think that will happen. Here’s why…

Trump Hasn’t Pulled Any Majorities

Despite the media hysteria over Trump (in either direction) as the clear front runner for the Republican nomination, Trump may not be as popular within the Republican Party as is commonly assumed. The full Super Tuesday vote counts aren’t in as of this writing, but it doesn’t look like Trump has won any primary victories with 50% or more of the vote.

Obviously, that has a lot to do with the fact that there are three popular candidates vying for the Republican nomination, in Trump, Cruz and Rubio. But at the same time it shows that support for Trump is hardly universal. Winning primaries with 37% of the vote is not nearly the same thing as winning with 70%, as Hillary is doing in the South.

My gut feeling is that this will be a factor in the general election, and maybe even for the final nomination.

But for the moment, let’s go with the mainstream narrative that it will be a Trump-vs.-Clinton race for the White House.

Democrats Will Unite Behind Clinton, Republicans Will Splinter Over Trump

We are already seeing the Democratic Party closing ranks behind Hillary Clinton. Sanders may not withdraw from the race prior to the Democratic Convention, but it’s become crystal clear that the nomination is Hillary’s. The Democratic Convention is likely to be a touchy-feely emotional outpouring in which Sanders instructs his followers to unite behind Hillary, as the two embrace on stage and call for yet another “time of healing in America” (Democrats get off on that kind of invocation).

What’s more, not many Sanders supporters are likely to cross party lines and vote for Trump. In the end, they’re mostly all Democrats, and the one thing Democrats fear more than anything else in the universe is a Republican-controlled White House.

Such unity is entirely unlikely at the Republican convention, and in fact in the time leading up to it. Trump is an outsider to the Republican Party. He is not a politician, he is not bought and paid for (yet), and he speaks his mind. He has openly condemned George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003, something that is near and dear to the hearts of committed conservative Republicans. He’s not afraid to cry foul in the face of what he considers to be misdeeds by someone of either political stripe.

This makes mainstream Republicans very nervous. The neocon fortress that they’ve been building up since 2001 could be torn down by Trump. This is no longer the party of smaller government, lower taxes, greater personal liberty, and support for small business. The Republican Party in 2016 is a certified big government party that’s every bit as interested in intervening both internationally and in the lives of private citizens as the Democratic Party has historically been.

No one in the Republican mainstream wants that to go away. As Republican leaders continue to rail against Trump, the Republican faithful will increasingly decide not to vote. And if they do, President Clinton II will be the outcome.

The Mainstream Media Will Take Aim at Trump as soon as He’s Nominated

It’s not just the Democratic faithful who will unite behind Hillary Clinton ? it’s also the mainstream media. TV Pundits Praise Hillary Clinton On Air, Fail to Disclose Financial Ties to Her Campaign reports how mainstream media political programming hides its true democratic orientation.

The mainstream media has always leaned to the left. This is just a theory of mine, but I think that since mainstream media personalities are overwhelmingly journalists/journalism majors, they tend to see themselves more as writers than reporters. They self-identify as artists, feeling some equivalent status to creative artists, performing artists and celebrities. Hillary is not only the front-running Democrat, but she also embodies the very celebrity that mainstream media personality types like to identify with. And then there’s that emotional fascination with the 1960s that older Democrats crave and that Hillary delivers on.

She will be able to count on their support. Hillary’s inspiring speeches and interviews will be trumpeted across the media. Her weak performances and gaffes will be given short air time. Media scribes will write articles designed to explain away her mistakes and misdeeds.

And the email scandal? Forget about it! A Democratic White House is not going to indict the Democratic presidential nominee. And the media is not going to allow email scandal stories ? or any other negative Hillary stories ? to get much coverage on the front page.

And while they are protecting Hillary, the mainstream media will run a savage full frontal assault on Donald Trump. Since an attack on Trump is the equivalent of an endorsement of Hillary, mainstream media practitioners will do so with the conviction of a convert.

Trump?s personality will bring out the worst emotions. Since he is not politically correct, and doesn’t bow down to media types, it’s likely that he’ll have no trouble silencing his critics in face-to-face encounters. But the media types will lash out after the fact. The chorus of mainstream media stooges coming against Trump en mass can paint Trump ugly. That will resonate with the undecided voters, who will either pull the lever for Clinton, or sit home on election day.

And we should never put it past the media to dredge up some small negative issue about Trump, that will be presented as if he?s committed high treason.

We’ll have to see if Trump can survive such waves of attack. He may, but he’ll need the entire Republican party to stand behind him in the process.

That’s not guaranteed.

The “X Factor” – the Threatened Republican Brokered Convention

We’re hearing increased scuttlebutt of a brokered convention by the Republicans as Trump continues to advance through the primary circuit. While that may sound for all the world as though the Republican power structure is threatening to take control of the process, it will virtually guarantee delivery of the White House to another Clinton.

Here’s why…

Trump as an Independent Candidate – Hillary Wins Big

Trump has vowed that if he does not secure the Republican Party nomination, he will run as an independent. But should this play out, Hillary will win the White House, and I suspect she will do it quite easily.

Trump is after all running as a Republican candidate. Should he switch to an independent ticket, either by choice or as a result of a brokered convention, it will split the Republican vote. That is, Trump will draw voters from the Republican ranks, and not from Democrats.

That is to say that Hillary will get all the votes she could be expected to get, but Trump and the anointed Republican candidate will split the Republican vote.

Result: Hillary wins with a mandate, possibly capturing both houses of Congress.

We have to suspect that the Republican party leadership is aware of this. If they push Trump off the ticket, it will confirm that they are more interested in preserving the status quo than they are of preventing a win by the other party. America will be worse for it.

Hillary’s Democratic Base is Larger and More Reliable than Trump’s

This is an anecdotal assessment on my part, but in my experience people who vote Republican tend to do so mainly because of ideology. For example, they may do so because they support lower taxes, smaller government, a stronger military posture, or tougher law enforcement. I refer to these as ideologies because none provide a direct benefit to the voter.

On the other side of the coin, Democratic voters seem to most often be vested in some sort of direct benefit. For example, a person might vote Democratic if she is employed by government, if he receives significant government benefits, or if they have a child who is in college and relying heavily on student loans. All direct benefits that make them politically reliable.

Statistically, that arrangement ? if it’s accurate ? favors Hillary versus Trump in a big way. Consider the following:

Government assistance. A 2014 Forbes article reported that 49.2% of Americans receive benefits from one or more government programs. A poll showed that recipients of government assistance are overwhelmingly likely to vote Democratic. Winner of the group: Hillary.

Government employees.The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that as of 2014, about 22 million people work in federal, state and local government jobs which represents about 15% of the total US workforce. Winner of the group: Hillary again (see second link below).

Union workers. The BLS also reports that 17.7 million people hold union jobs, though about 7.7 million are also government workers (35.2% of government workers are unionized). Statistically, government and union workers tend to favor Democrats almost across the board. Winner of the group: Hillary yet again.

The Black vote. A Washington Post article reported that on average 85% of African Americans voted for the Democrat in presidential elections going back to 1972. Hillary has scored big primary wins in Southern states that have large African American populations – and that was against fellow Democrat Bernie Sanders. Winner of the group: Hillary – she should do even better in the group when the opponent is a Republican.

So what does all of this mean? Mostly that Trump’s support comes mostly from angry white voters, who are very likely to be divided as to exactly which way to vote come November. Hillary?s base on the other hand, is very solid and very predictable. If there is any crack in the Trump/Republican wall, Hillary will take the White House, and maybe even by a landslide.

Once again, that’s not the result that I’m hoping for ? but the stars are definitely lining up in that direction, despite the media chatter and distraction.

The status quo – that’s what America really wants. Including many Republicans. Do you agree or disagree?

( Photo by DonkeyHotey )

0 Shares

5 Responses to Super Tuesday Is Setting Up President Clinton II

  1. It would be interestinng to see Trump’s methods filter down to the state and local contests. That is where the real changes can be made. I don’t think my life will be much different no matter who wins the presidency. Things are so messed up in Congress that it’s hard for any president to actually get anything done. I do have to give President Obama credit for getting as much done as he has. But mostly it was done by going around the legislative branch.

  2. Hi Ric – My greatest hope is that Trump will succeed in awakening/reinvigorating the citizenry to expect and demand better out of our government. For the past two or three decades we’ve made some sort of collective decision that we’re not going to get involved, not going to hold anyone in the power structure accountable. That has to change if we’re to have a future as a great nation. Auto pilot doesn’t work in government. Freedom isn’t free, and that starts at home with eternal vigilance. I’m hoping Trump swings the pendulum in that direction. It’s much more important than any specific policy initiatives.

  3. I do believe Trump has invigorated a certain percentage of voters, as has Sanders. However, I do not believe Trump truly invigorates anyone; he is rebel rousing and there is a difference. He strikes me as a egoist and a demagogue and his rallies have the tone of some of the early Fascists from WWII.
    He does say some things from time to time with which I agree but even then, I do not like the tenor of his delivery. I think many people are following Trump because they are glamorized because he is a rich celebrity and many more because they don’t like who else is running.
    Unlike many Americans, I do not follow a party per se nor do my beliefs follow a strict left or right belief structure. I read and listen to people and news from both sides of aisle and also from other nations and cultures and decide my positions accordingly.
    I am including a link to a blog by a Jewish conservative evangelical Christian novelist who also does some non-fiction and journalistic work. He was a senior adviser to many US and Israeli business and political leaders.
    I am not as conservative as this man on most issues but I agree with many of his gripes about Trump. Rosenberg started sounding the alarm about Trump well before Mitt Romney and other Republicans. https://flashtrafficblog.wordpress.com/2016/03/01/seven-more-reasons-a-trump-presidency-would-be-a-catastrophe-trump-must-be-stopped/

  4. Hi Mary – I’m familiar with Joel Rosenberg. I’m always leery when I hear comparisons of individuals to Hitler, allegations of fascism, and declarations that this or that country represents the rise of the next Germany/Third Reich. Those labels conjure up broad visions from WW2, but that doesn’t mean they’re accurate. But our society has embraced such terms to discredit people we don’t like or countries we want to invade. Do you remember the Hitler/fascism/Third Reich allegations against Saddam Hussein and Iraq just before we invaded? It’s standard language used to describe our enemies at the international level.

    On the domestic front, other terms widely used for the same affect include “anti-semite”, “racist”, “homophobe”, “chauvanist”, and the current catch-all label, “hater” – just to name a few. In my opinion, such allegations are abused, and employed mostly to shut people up who the speakers/writers don’t agree with. I tend to dismiss them instinctively when I hear them because I think the people who use such words tend to use them frequently, and are in fact haters themselves. Some would even say that me making such a statement makes me guilty of each of those labels, which is utter nonsense.

    The purpose of those terms is to repress free speech – and there’s even a du jure word for that too of course – “hate speech”. It’s become a three ring circus of mud-slinging and nothing good is coming out of it. That isn’t to say that there aren’t people who those labels fit, but there are a lot of false accusations on that front these days, and it harkens back to the Salem Witch Trials. No small number of college professors are losing their jobs because someone is making an allegation against them using one of those terms.

    Let me get off my soapbox here – Mr. Rosenberg struck a nerve that I rarely discuss publicly, but have deep convictions on, as you can tell.

    Back to Trump. I’m not in love with the guy either, and found it difficult to stomach his arrogance on the Apprentice. BUT – he represents our best chance to get an outsider in the White House, which is something I feel we desperately need. If we get Hillary or Ted Cruz, we’re accepting business as usual, and I don’t think that will work in the next few years. Another recession and maybe a depression is coming as this financial bubble unwinds, and we’ll need more dynamic leadership than we’ve had the past few decades. That may take someone who “isn’t nice”, like Donald Trump.

    And as far as the fears people have about him, I don’t think the system we have will allow him to be as evil as his detractors think he can be. This article http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/the-trumpster-sends-the-gopneocon-establishment-to-the-dumpster/ by David Stockman explains why I think Trump may be our best hope in this election. I personally consider the prospect of the Republican party in its current malevolent state or another eight years of the Clintons to be far more dangerous than four years of Trump. The fact that the Republican establishment is downright hysterical about the prospect of a Trump presidency should speak volumes about what’s really going on. I don’t believe that the current political construct with the Demopublican parties is nearly as benign as most others do. But that’s a topic for a different day.

  5. Hi again Mary – I want to add one more point (as if I haven’t said enough already!) about Trump’s threatening language and behavior. He’s a New York boy, and there’s an entire language that comes with that. Having grown up in Northern New Jersey I know that language well, and that’s probably why I dismiss it more easily than most. It’s coarse in it’s presentation, and would be considered offensive and threatening in most of the rest of the country, but it’s quite common there. I did not experience it in 21 years of living in Georgia, so I’m pretty sure it’s a regional thing.

    Many people from the area use language that sounds threatening, and I suspect it’s mostly a defense mechanism since there are a lot of areas there where it’s something approximating survival of the fittest. I’m not just talking dangerous neighborhoods here, but also industries such as Wall Street and others. The style is definitely confrontational, and it involves use of coarse language, wild boasts, and blatant threats. For example, somewhere I read that Trump said he’d punch someone’s lights out. That’s common NY language. It’s meant to make the speaker sound tough. In reality, at 69 and at least 50 pounds overweight, Trump isn’t going to punch anyone’s lights out. In NY that’s posturing, trying to get the other party to be intimidated into backing down/off so you don’t have to resort to violence.

    Probably my biggest misgiving about Trump, since I’m a Bible believing Christian, is that his professions of Christianity are blatantly hollow. He doesn’t even know how to quote or interpret scripture. How big of an issue is that? I don’t think we’ve had too many genuine Christians in the White House in recent decades (or of any faith). Most of them do lip service to faith at election time, which Trump is admittedly very bad at, then behave as if they’re certified non-believers in the course of their leadership.

    And on a side note, I just read a blurb that Cruz, Rubio and Carson have conceded that they’ll back Trump if he’s the nominee. I’m guessing they read my article here 😉

Leave a reply