Posted on 08/13/2016 1:37:35 PM PDT by Kaslin
Paul Ryan, Kelly Ayotte, and John McCain got what they wanted. At the expense of their party, they bludgeoned Donald Trump into supporting their RINO candidacies over their superior conservative challengers. Perrinnial Leftist lapdog, anti-gun activist Susan Collins (whose Collins/Snowe "Hamlet routine" in 2009 helped pass ObamaCare), also got a "doggie treat" from the press for her betrayal.
But, for other RINO's tempted to backstab the man who could be president, they may want to tattoo this talking point on their palms and read it whenever the Leftist press (including Fox) asks them anything about Donald Trump.
The talking point is this: "I have no obligation to denounce my allies, just because you "order" me to do so. And this is particularly true so long as you continue to excuse the vile, loathsome, and dangerous behavior of Hillary Clinton."
The fact is, there's a universe of things I find disgusting, starting out with each morning's edition of the New York Times. And while I am almost always tempted to write a letter denouncing their contemptible hypocrisy, I never do.
Because you choose your fights -- and your denunciations. And you probably should choose to fight your enemies, rather than your friends.
And whether the RINO's understand it or not, the loss of the White House this year will probably determine the course which this nation will take for the remainder of our lifetimes.
And everyone understands that but them.
These are the facts: Donald Trump will win the presidential election on November 8, 2016.
Unless the Republican base throws the race.
Which they're more than capable of doing, at the behest of a "puppet press" which wants to utterly destroy them.
THE "TODD AKIN PLAYBOOK"
Make no mistake about it: The press is running the same "playbook" they used to defeat Missouri GOP Senate candidate Todd Akin -- and to keep the Senate in Democrat hands that year.
But the "Todd Akin playbook" relies, for its success, on the Republican base buying into it. Without that, it fails.
What is the "Todd Akin playbook"? It works like this: The Left takes a small misstep by a Republican candidate and trumpets it as though it was the most execrable error in the history of man. The quote is initially taken out of context, but, after the first day, it is no longer even quoted, and is merely characterized as "racist, bigoted, anti-woman, fascist," etc.
Coupled with phony polls to "show" the race is hopeless, the "Todd Akin playbook" only works if the press can convince Republicans to decimate their own candidate.
In the end, the race almost always turns out to have been imminently doable, but we find that out only after Republicans have abandoned it.
What sort of "missteps" are we talking about?
Two weeks ago, Democrats and the press were attacking the mother of a son killed at Benghazi in these terms: "cynical exploitation," "an early dip into the gutter," "so offensive it was hard to comprehend," "the weaponization of grief," "deranged." One Democrat said he wanted to "beat [the mother of the dead son] to death."
Now, these same hypocrites are working to destroy Donald Trump on the basis of mild comments about the varieties of sacrifice.
Ditto, Trump's comments Tuesday about the Second Amendment -- and Hillary's assumption that all 100,000,000 gun owners are killers, criminals, and assassins and that that's what Trump meant.
Ditto, a president who excoriated the Supreme Court to its face, and is suddenly strangely protective of Gonzalo Curiel, the biased, anti-Trump judge he appointed.
In each of these cases, our most ruthless enemies demand that Republicans throw the election, just as the usual suspects (John McCain, Kelly Ayotte, Lindsey Graham) obediently jumped up and barked, in the hopes that liberals would throw them a "doggie treat."
Why would we do that?
REASONS WHY ELECTION PROSPECTS LOOK GOOD
First, in dealing with national "head-on-head" polls, you have to subtract at least four points from Clinton's totals in order to find out where the race really is.
This is because Clinton will get 3-to-4 million (or more) excess votes in California, New York, and Illinois which will do her absolutely no good.
In 2012, Barack Obama won the popular vote by almost 5-million votes -- nearly 4% of the votes cast for Obama or Romney. And, yet, a switch of under 214,800 votes in Ohio, New Hampshire, Florida, and Virginia would have put Romney in White House. Thus a razor-thin 0.2% of voters determined the outcome of a race Obama won by nearly 5,000,000 popular votes. It was a virtual "tie race," even though Obama won it by 4% of the popular vote.
The disparity arises from this reality: In 2012, Obama won California by over 3,000,000 votes. He could have lost 1.5 million votes in that state, and it would have made no difference in his electoral college votes. Similarly, Obama won New York by almost 2,000,000 votes. He could have lost nearly 1,000,000 of those, and it would have made no difference. In Illinois, Obama won by over 875,000 votes -- a surplus of over 430,000 useless votes.
Similarly, Gore beat Bush by over 500,000 votes in 2000. But he lost the electoral college 271-268. And the reason is that, even back then, Gore won California by over 600,000 unneeded votes and he won New York by over 800,000 unneeded votes (half his 1,707,395 margin of victory). Together these "wasted votes" from these two states alone constituted about 1.5% of the total popular vote.
And as California becomes bluer, with the recent registration of 1.5-million Democratic Hispanics, the trend is much more dramatic even than in 2012. In fact, to account for the electoral college, in national head-on-head polls, you would have to subtract at least 4% from Clinton's total in order to determine where the race really stands.
And this is assuming polls which rely on 2008 and 2012 demographic models are remotely accurate, which they are not. It's also assuming that polls (like Monmouth) which show 9% more Democrats than Republican (although the numbers are about equal) are not deliberately slanted, which is certainly also not true.
In 1996, when Pat Buchanan won the New Hampshire primary (and I was his chairman), the same unreliable polls (WMUR) which are now being bandied about showed him in single digits, until immediately before the election.
Similarly, during the Virginia McAuliffe/Cuccinelli gubernatorial race, the same polls which now show Trump losing that state (e.g., Reuters, Washington Post, etc.) showed Cuccinelli losing by up to 17 points. Cuccinelli lost that race in a squeaker -- after Republicans largely gave up on him.
Second, in order to be successful, all Trump has to do is win (1) 24 traditionally "red" states, plus (2) Florida, with a 1-point spread, (3) Ohio, with a 4-point spread, and (4) (A) Pennsylvania, (B) Virginia and New Hampshire, (C) Virginia and Iowa, etc.
This week -- the week of Clinton's post-convention apogee -- Trump is within the margin-of-error (or better) in all of these states except Pennsylvania (or its substitutes). And these polls will inevitably look better for Trump as ISIS attacks and Wikileaks continue to eat into Clinton's narrative.
And, in the three swing states, Clinton has four system problems: guns, coal, Cuba, and trade.
Third, Clinton has spent enormous amounts of ad money early in the election, even though the general thinking is that the effects of this spending is transitory.
The exception was 2012, when June spending was used to "define" a relatively unknown Romney. But neither Clinton nor Trump has been a "blank slate" for decades.
SUMMARY
When a front-page "news" article in the New York Times argues that the Times should abandon its policy of news objectivity (!!!) because of the importance of this election, it tells you something about the rest of the "puppet press's" "news" coverage. And the most important lie the press can make is the lie that "it's hopeless." They have run this playbook before with Netanyahu, Cameron, and Brexit, however, and phony polls are not self-executing. They work only if the victims "buy into" their narrative.
Why should we do that?
The sad part is, he’ll get no help from GOP traitors.
She can’t handle the rigors, either.
I don’t think Trump has a chance to win WI or IL, I hate to say.
I’d love for him to win IL (my state) but the D’s could run some sort of politician with health problems and a 30 year history of criminal behavior and still win...
Remember, our dead get 3 votes here.
This guy’s delusional.The Former Twelfth Lady absolutely *can* win....and has a very real chance of winning.The author has failed to appreciate,among other things,how many people get one type of government check or another.That number has skyrocketed,by design,over the last 7.5 years.As we all know,getting a government check strongly inclines one to vote Rat,the Rats being “The Mommy Party” as once described by Chris “Tingles” Matthews.
Good shot of the Rump running against Trump.
I agree with this analysis. Although, I’m one of these people who expect Trump to win PA and NY.
exactly, that is how I am thinking as well
Let them all think they got this in the bag
I understand that sentiment
but this election is way different from Romney
First Trump did not invent “Romneycare”
second Trump is not afraid of his wealth or success, he brags about
third, Trump did not get his butt beat by Candy Crawly on national debate stage. Romney looked like a beta male arguing with his wife and backed down like a coward. Trump would have destroyed her. OR better yet, Candy Crawly would have never been a debate moderator in the first place.
fourth, Trump won’t disappear from the campaign stage two weeks before the election, where was Romney? I know hurricane Sandy devastated the North East, but he could have still campaigned.
Fifth, what did Romney stand for? What does Trump stand for? We all know what Trump wants to do, we know his campaign slogan, we know about the wall and trade deals. Romney, we know he was a Mormon and he put his dog on the roof of his car, oh And that he isn’t Obama, that was about it.
This election is nothing like Romney. I don’t remember enthusiasm for Romney, sure we all voted for him, but that wasn’t enough. The blue collar guy who hasn’t voted since Reagan or Clinton, did not bother to show up. That is Trump’s voters he is bringing in.
Now if we can get rid of the Never Trumpers in our own party
In 2012, Barack Obama won the popular vote by almost 5-million votes — nearly 4% of the votes cast for Obama or Romney. And, yet, a switch of under 214,800 votes in Ohio, New Hampshire, Florida, and Virginia would have put Romney in White House. Thus a razor-thin 0.2% of voters determined the outcome of a race Obama won by nearly 5,000,000 popular votes. It was a virtual “tie race,” even though Obama won it by 4% of the popular vote.”
Is this really correct?
A swing of a total of 214,800 votes in 4 (!) states would have made Romney win? As in 4 states together, not 218K in EACH?
Is that really correct?
If so...that is incredible.
To use an old cliché, comparing 2014 and 2016 elections is like that of apples and oranges.
Hillary’s numbers are soft in Blue NY. She is not getting over 50%.
State is in play.
In LS we trust. Do you have an opinion why he hasn’t started TV ads? Keeping his powder dry until September?
yes, because NY and CA accounted for most of the popular vote margin.... and Shrillary may not even win NY in 2016! (I can hope).... but leave aside all of those millions of votes in CA and NY, and the margins in the handful of key “swing” states were very very close.
I think he plans a very short “real” campaign. I think those guys are convinced that all the crap that goes on before mid-September is a waste of effort and money, except for the rallies, which he uses as voter recruitment and worker recruitment.
Good point.
The NEVER Trumpers in our own party are NOT enough to make a damned bit of difference when Trump gets rank and file union members, all police members, fire dept. members, all first responders, there are MANY legal Hispanics that WANT the borders closed, evangelicals WILL be out in FULL FORCE for Trump due to the Johnson amendment this was NOT so for Romney, evangelicals I believe WERE the reason Romney LOST the election they stayed home, they DID NOT believe a word that came out of his mouth, they BELIEVE Trump! He may NOT be their perfect candidate but he does NOT lie to them!!!!!! Evangelicals are a HUGE force in politics and Republicans have been putting them on a back burner working for their donors instead!!! Trump WILL WIN BIG!!!!
Enthusiasm is what matters. When Hillary rents an arena for 2,500 people, and only 500 show up...it says something about enthusiasm for her campaign. Starting in last summer, you saw this as a continual trend. It’s rare that she ever gets more than half-capacity for a speech. Trump gets a full arena every time.
On this basis....I think the election is mostly over and she’ll be lucky to carve out 40-percent.
500 show up? That many?
I seen her get middle school gyms and they don’t even bother to roll out the bleachers and about 80 people are around her and most are either press or security
Trump mills 10-15,000 seat arenas and have an additional 5,000 outside listening in on speakers
Enthusiasm is what I believe is going to win this election, Obama won because of Enthusiasm not because of his policies.
Trump is appealing to people who don’t usually vote or never voted, if they show up, he wins
Thanks! Well, he certainly crushed the GOP field and she is a very weak candidate. Hopefully, he will start to tee off soon
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.