November 19th, 2015
The second debate was a catastrophe for Hillary2016. In the wake of the Muslim Terrorist attack against the West in the city of light it was to be expected that Hillary Clinton would turn the events to her advantage but instead she immolated herself on issue after issue in order to protect Barack Obama.
As to Donald Trump, he should strip off his tailored suits and put on white linen cloth so that he can be declared a prophet on issue upon issue.
We’re not exaggerating. We pinpointed the exact doom day of the Romney campaign well before anyone. We pinpointed the moment of doom for Hillary2016 which took place at the second debate. For years we predicted ObamaCare would doom the Dims and that issue is back with a fury. On Muslim Terrorism we’ve noted that Barack Obama cannot be that stupid that Barack Obama purposefully and treacherously wants the enemies of America to succeed and his policies only make “sense” in that light.
Those that want to elect Hillary Clinton in 2016 need to denounce her campaign and her positions until she returns to sanity. Let’s look at events in recent days.
In the second debate Hillary Clinton went out of her way to praise ObamaCare. Hillary could have said something along the lines of “as to healthcare I have a lifetime of experience and I will do what has to be done to improve the health care of all Americans”. That pablum would have inoculated herself a little bit against the horror that is ObamaCare. We think that Hillary should denounce ObamaCare as the Frankenstein monster it is but if Hillary does not wish to do that because she fears the treacherous Barack Obama, the sentence we propose would have been better than what she said. Here’s what Hillary said:
We now have this great accomplishment known as the Affordable Care Act. And– I don’t think we should have to be defending it amount [sic] Democrats. We ought to be working to improve it and prevent Republicans from both undermining it and even repealing it. [snip]
I– I think– I think as Democrats, we ought to proudly support the Affordable Care Act, improve it, and make it the model that we know it can be–
That first sentence from Hillary will launch a thousand attack ads. “We now have this great accomplishment known as the Affordable Care Act.” And “I think as Democrats, we ought to proudly support the Affordable Care Act” will also be featured in countless attack ads.
Why in Heaven, Earth, or Hell, Hillary Clinton defends ObamaCare even the Almighty cannot explain.
Today, Bombshell: United Healthcare may exit individual insurance exchanges after 2016. Yes, that is the latest news from the ObamaCare that Hillary Clinton so defends:
Insurance giant UnitedHealth Group dealt a blow to the Affordable Care Act on Thursday when it warned that it may stop offering insurance plans to individuals through public exchanges established by the reform law.
In a surprise, UnitedHealth (UNH) downgraded its earnings forecast in a sign that ACA, commonly referred to as Obamacare, is taking a toll on the company’s bottom line. [snip]
“If they can’t make money on the exchanges, it seems it would be hard for anyone,” Hempstead said.
More than half of the 23 non-profit insurance co-ops established under the ACA are shuttering by the end of this year, but UnitedHealth is the largest single insurance carrier in the U.S. United’s comments about the health of exchange-plan holders also runs counter to what was expected. Experts including Hempstead assumed the sickest people would get insurance first and then the “risk pool” would improve as more healthy people bought plans.
We wrote about this death spiral to ObamaCare back in 2009. It was easy to see. But Hillary Clinton continues to defend ObamaCare. We also warned repeatedly that deductibles were too damn high and made ObamaCare a killer. On the same day as the second debate, the New York Times published the truth about ObamaCare deductibles which Hillary either did not see or chose to ignore:
Many Say High Deductibles Make Their Health Law Insurance All but Useless [snip]
“The deductible, $3,000 a year, makes it impossible to actually go to the doctor,” said David R. Reines, 60, of Jefferson Township, N.J., a former hardware salesman with chronic knee pain. “We have insurance, but can’t afford to use it.” [snip]
In many states, more than half the plans offered for sale through HealthCare.gov, the federal online marketplace, have a deductible of $3,000 or more, a New York Times review has found. Those deductibles are causing concern among Democrats — and some Republican detractors of the health law, who once pushed high-deductible health plans in the belief that consumers would be more cost-conscious if they had more of a financial stake or skin in the game.
“We could not afford the deductible,” said Kevin Fanning, 59, who lives in North Texas, near Wichita Falls. “Basically I was paying for insurance I could not afford to use.”
He dropped his policy. [snip]
“Our deductible is so high, we practically pay for all of our medical expenses out of pocket,” said Wendy Kaplan, 50, of Evanston, Ill. “So our policy is really there for emergencies only, and basic wellness appointments.”
Her family of four pays premiums of $1,200 a month for coverage with an annual deductible of $12,700.
In Miami, the median deductible, according to HealthCare.gov, is $5,000. (Half of the plans are above the median, and half below it.) In Jackson, Miss., the comparable figure is $5,500. In Chicago, the median deductible is $3,400. In Phoenix, it is $4,000; in Houston and Des Moines, $3,000. [snip]
Mr. Fanning, the North Texan, said he and his wife had a policy with a monthly premium of about $500 and an annual deductible of about $10,000 after taking account of financial assistance. Their income is about $32,000 a year.
The Fannings dropped the policy in July after he had a one-night hospital stay and she had tests for kidney problems, and the bills started to roll in.
Josie Gibb of Albuquerque pays about $400 a month in premiums, after subsidies, for a silver-level insurance plan with a deductible of $6,000. “The deductible,” she said, “is so high that I have to pay for everything all year — visits with a gynecologist, a dermatologist, all blood work, all tests. It’s really just a catastrophic policy.”
Hillary Clinton defends this scam? You pay your premiums then you pay the deductibles and by then the insurance companies have done well but you haven’t. Only if you are very sick and squeeze the system dry is ObamaCare of any use to anyone. And Hillary Clinton defends what by any definition is a scam?
That article comes from the New York Times and published on the day of the debate but somehow Hillary continues to go out of her way to praise ObamaCare??? The Boston Globe follows up today on the scam:
Critics say high deductibles make insurance ‘unaffordable’
“This law was going to give people a chance,” said Cassaundra Anderson, 44, a freelance proof reader.
But in April, when Roger Anderson fell while hiking and hurt his shoulder, he discovered, to his dismay, that simply being insured was not enough. The Andersons’ mid-tier plan, which costs them $875 a month, requires them to meet a $7,000 deductible before insurance payments kick in.
“We can’t afford the Affordable Care Act, quite honestly,” said Cassaundra Anderson, whose family canvassed for Obama in their neighborhood, a Republican stronghold outside Cincinnati. “The intention is great, but there is so much wrong. . . . I’m mad.”
The Andersons’ experience echoes that of hundreds of thousands of newly insured Americans facing sticker shock over out-of-pocket costs. [snip]
“This will be an issue at least one more time in the 2016 election. It could absolutely still hurt Democrats,” said Robert Blendon, a professor of health policy and political analysis at the Harvard School of Public Health. “Polls about the Affordable Care Act have a considerable amount of middle-income people who say either the program has done nothing for them or actually hurt them.”
Repeatedly the concerns cited by Americans quoted at the New York Times and the Boston Globe is that their insurance is not only worthless, but a drain on them. ObamaCare is a scam that takes money by force of law and delivers nothing but bills. Hillary Clinton defends and supports this???
Donald J. Trump promises to burn ObamaCare to the ground.
Hillary Clinton somehow believes that adopting every ObamaCare horror as her own child is somehow a winning strategy. We think it is as catastrophic as Hillary’s demand the United States bring in 65,000 Syrian
refugees potential Trojan Horse invaders.
ObamaCare is a cancer on Hillary2016. That’s the good news. That cancer will slowly eat away at the entrails of Hillary2016. The immediate danger to Hillary2016 is the IED that is Islamic Terrorism which has exploded with devastating instant impact.
The White Working Class
Let’s tie this all up in one neat package for the dunderheads in Brooklyn. Please notice that the predominately white, working class and the middle classes are the ones hurt by ObamaCare. It is also the white working class that is disgusted by Barack Obama’s pro Muslim Terrorist policies. Policies which Hillary2016 adopts like a dog picks up fleas.
In October we noted that Donald Trump was walking away with the Clinton Coalition. Hillary2016, like Barack Obama has orphaned the winning Clinton Coalition. The Wall Street Journal confirms the flight of the white working class to Donald J. Trump:
Trump Rides a Blue-Collar Wave
Fifty-five percent of his supporters are white working-class.
The biggest surprise of the presidential election so far is the emergence and persistent strength of Donald Trump. [snip]
Among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, 39% of the white working class backs Mr. Trump, twice his share of white college-educated voters. Fifty-five percent of his supporters are white working class, compared with 35% for the rest of the Republican field and only 32% for Mr. Carson.
We’ve written a great deal about the importance of the white working class and how the flight of that cohort from FDR/JFK/Clinton Democrats to Trump Republicans reshapes both political parties so we won’t dwell on those implications today. Suffice to say that Donald Trump, a billionaire, resonates so very well with them. And on issue after issue Donald Trump’s forthrightness and clear talk threatens the mush and the crap coming from Hillary2016.
As an example, here’s leftist Kevin Drum at leftist Mother Jones magazine, with a warning to liberals:
Liberals Should Knock Off the Mockery Over Calls to Limit Syrian Refugees
Chris Cillizza on the post-Paris push among Republicans to keep Syrian refugees out of the country:
Over the past 24 hours, almost half of the nation’s governors — all but one of them Republicans — have said they plan to refuse to allow Syrian immigrants into their states in the wake of the Paris attacks carried out by the Islamic State….That stance has been greeted with widespread ridicule and disgust by Democrats who insist that keeping people out of the U.S. is anathema to the founding principles of the country.
….Think what you will, but one thing is clear: The political upside for Republican politicians pushing an immigration ban on Syrians and/or Muslims as a broader response to the threat posed by the Islamic State sure looks like a political winner.
Cillizza has some poll numbers to back this up, but he’s right in more ways than just that. Here’s the thing: to the average person, it seems perfectly reasonable to be suspicious of admitting Syrian refugees to the country. We know that ISIS would like to attack the US. We know that ISIS probably has the wherewithal to infiltrate a few of its people into the flood of refugees. And most voters have no idea how easy it is to get past US screening. They probably figure it’s pretty easy.
So to them it doesn’t seem xenophobic or crazy to call for an end to accepting Syrian refugees. It seems like simple common sense. After all, things changed after Paris.
Mocking Republicans over this—as liberals spent much of yesterday doing on my Twitter stream—seems absurdly out of touch to a lot of people. [snip]
Ordinary people see the refugees as a common sense thing to be concerned about. We shouldn’t respond by essentially calling them idiots. That way lies electoral disaster.
Electoral disaster. As we wrote about the second debate. Hillary wants 65,000 Syrian refugees??? Is there one living brain in Hillary2016???
As with ObamaCare, Hillary Clinton cannot bring herself to talk about Islamic/Muslim Terrorists – even as bodies torn by Islamic bombs and guns littered Paris. Instead at the second debate Hillary was a cheerleader for ObamaCare and national suicide via unguarded borders, illegal immigration, mass migration, and empathy towards the “root causes” that drive these Islamic Terrorists.
The evidence mounts that some of the Muslim Terrorists that attacked in Paris traveled to Europe by declaring themselves to be Syrian refugees. Even worse some of the Muslim Terrorists were home grown in the tolerant enclaves of a Europe stripped of pride in the values of the West. The reports flood in that ISIS and other Muslim terrorists are engaged in efforts to come to and attack inside the United States. From Hillary, mush and empathy instead of denunciations of Barack Obama and his failed domestic and foreign policy.
So it was with supreme stupidity that in the wake of the Muslim attacks against Paris, Big Media declared the death of Trump, again:
GOP leaders: National security will end Carson and Trump campaigns
The reemergence of foreign policy atop the Republican agenda will force voters to reevaluate the outsider candidates, particularly as both Trump and Carson display a lack of knowledge about national security and the terrorist threat, party stalwarts said.
“The losers are going to be Donald Trump and Ben Carson on national security,” said Katon Dawson, the former chairman of the South Carolina GOP. “As the Republican base sobers up, they are the two, if this story lasts a long time, it’s going to hurt.”
Indeed, in interviews with current and former GOP chairs, veteran operatives, lobbyists and strategists, the long-held conviction that neither Trump nor Carson will win the Republican nomination has only strengthened since the attacks in Paris last week.
That was supreme stupidity. Subsequent polls revealed the beltway “wisdom” stupidity as Trump rose in the polls. Of course Ben Carson was doomed from the start and the Paris attacks hastened his demise. But Donald Trump? Donald Trump who proves as prescient as an Old Testament prophet?
While Hillary Clinton even after the Muslim Terrorist attacks against Paris could not come up with an experienced strategy or the guts to mention Islam, Donald Trump, well before the terror attack said what needed to be said:
That was BEFORE the ISIS terror attack in Paris. After the Paris attack Trump released a minute long ad to be heard by the voters in the early primary states:
The tragic attacks in Paris prove once again that America needs to get tough on radical Islamic terrorism. President Obama and other politicans have consistantly failed us. Just hours before the attacks in Paris, President Obama said ISIS had been contained. It is amazing that the United States could have a president who is so out of touch. It is also dangerous. Obama has no strategy to defeat ISIS and now he is preparing to let hundreds of thousands of refugees from Syria into the United States. I will stop illegal immigration. We will build a wall on the southern border, and yes, I will also quickly and decisively bomb the hell out of ISIS. We’ll make the military so strong, no one and I mean no one, will mess with us. If I win, we will not have to listen to the politicans who are losing the war on terrorism, we will make America safe, and we will make America great again.
Clear, precise, English. A strong denunciation of Barack Obama’s policies. Anyone wonder why Trump2016 is doing so well and Hillary2016 is headed toward the November 2016 rocks?
November 16th, 2015
Update: Did Jeb Bush just quit the presidential race? Or is Bush now actively campaigning on behalf of Donald Trump? How else to explain this:
Jeb Bush said he wouldn’t ban Syrian refugees from entering the U.S., separating himself from most Republican governors and his party’s presidential field as he pitched himself as the most experienced candidate running for the nomination.
“The answer to this is not to ban people from coming,” Bush said Tuesday in an interview with Mark Halperin and John Heilemann for Bloomberg Politics’ With All Due Respect. “The answer is to lead, to resolve the problem in Syria.”
Even Chuckie Schumer sees Donald Trump’s Trojan Horse lead and says: “A “pause” on refugees may be necessary.” Hillary2016 stands with JeBush on this one and it is a calamity for both. Can’t fix it.
In 2012 we pinpointed, before and after the fact, the exact hour when Mitt Romney lost the election. It was our “meltdown” moment. We remember that day almost as if it happened this past Saturday. Indeed, it was on a Saturday when Willard destroyed himself.
On that Saturday Willard “Mitt” Romney decided that the best way to wiggle himself out of the many attacks his foolish campaign was subject to was to name his choice for Vice President. Instead of a moment of strength, a great moment for his campaign, the fact that Willard tried to escape his troubles by changing the topic to the VP race only highlighted the explosive sign of weakness and the mess to come in November.
We exploded in rage on that Saturday. Not only did Romney make a Saturday morning announcement in competition with the Olympics – Romney also decided to turn the election into an “issues” election with his selection of Paul Ryan and a Great Lakes strategy – instead of the referendum on Obama’s failed presidency, as Romney had promised.
On that Saturday morning in 2012 Mitt Romney threw away the election.
This past Saturday night, Hillary Clinton threw away the election, presuming she gets the nomination.
On Saturday night Hillary decided to wage war on termites. Hillary discovered two termites named Bernie and Marty in her house – so Hillary burned down her house. Now the two termites are entirely dead but Hillary is exposed to the elements, homeless.
That’s the best explanation we can come up with to deal with Hillary’s suicidal Saturday surrender. Are Bernie Sanders or Martin O’Malley such mortal threats that Hillary had to finish them off in the debate at the cost of Youtube moments that will be used against her in the general election?
Hillary Clinton, the brave woman who in 2008 threatened she would “obliterate” Iran and said so to make her policy lines clear in order that Iran would not miscalculate was nowhere to be found. Hillary Clinton, the woman who in June 2014 said that the many illegal immigrants breaking into the United States through the southern border, many of them children, had to be sent back to Mexico, could not be found on the stage.
That Hillary has been replaced with the Hillary that supports Barack Obama’s deal with Iran which will provide Iran with $150 billion they can use to expand their Persian Empire of Terror. That Hillary after the terror attacks in Paris persisted in her defense of potentially bringing in a horde of killers to the United States draped in the hoods of “refugee” is more than shameful. It is catastrophic.
Hillary Clinton, must have forgotten that when she was the wife of then Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton the Mariel refugee crisis erupted. Mariel refugees from Castro’s Cuba included criminals and psychopaths purposely shipped out by Fidel. Thereafter a riot and escape from Fort Chaffee in Arkansas which enraged Governor Clinton eventually contributed to his re-election defeat.
All that hard history was forgotten on Saturday night when Hillary Clinton blew herself up like a Muslim in Paris suicide bomber:
CBS’s John Dickerson Asks Democratic Candidates If They Use The Phrase “Radical Islam,” None Will
At the second DNC presidential debate, CBS News’s John Dickerson asked the three Democratic candidates whether they can defeat “radical Islam” without using the phrase.
DICKERSON: You have been making the case when you talk about lack of forward vision, you’re essentially saying that Secretary Clinton lacks that vision and this critique matches up with this discussion of language. The critique is that the softness of language betrays a softness of approach. So if this language — if you don’t call it by what it is, how can your approach be effective to the cause? That’s the critique.
DICKERSON: Secretary Clinton, you mentioned radical jihadists. Marco Rubio, also running for president, said that this attack showed and the attack in Paris showed that we are at war with radical Islam. Do you agree with that characterization, radical Islam?
CLINTON: I don’t think we’re at war with Islam. I don’t think we’re at war with all Muslims. I think we’re at war with jihadists who have —
DICKERSON: Just to interrupt. He didn’t say all Muslims. He just said radical Islam. Is that a phrase you don’t…
CLINTON: I think THAT you can talk about Islamists who clearly are also jihadists, but I think it’s not particularly helpful to make the case that Senator Sanders was just making that I agree with, that we’ve got to reach out to Muslim countries.
We’ve got to have them be part of our coalition. If they hear people running for president who basically shortcut it to say we are somehow against Islam, that was one of the real contributions, despite all the other problems, that George W. Bush made after 9/11 when he basically said after going to a Mosque in Washington, we are not at war with Islam or Muslims.
We are at war with violent extremism. We are at war with people who use their religion for purposes of power and oppression. And, yes, we are at war with those people. But I don’t want us to be painting with too broad a brush.
DICKERSON: The reason I ask is you gave a speech at Georgetown University in which you said, that it was important to show, quote, “respect, even for one’s enemies. Trying to understand and in so far as psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view.” Can you explain what that means in the context of this kind of barbarism?
CLINTON: I think with this kind of barbarism and nihilism, it’s very hard to understand, other than the lust for power, the rejection of modernity, the total disregard for human rights, freedom, or any other value that we know and respect.
Historically, it is important to try to understand your adversary in order to figure out how they are thinking, what they will be doing, how they will react. I plead that it’s very difficult when you deal with ISIS and organizations like that whose behavior is so barbaric and so vicious that it doesn’t seem to have any purpose other than lust for killing and power and that’s very difficult to put ourselves in the other shoe.
DICKERSON: Just quickly, do either of you, radical Islam, do either of you use that phrase?
SANDERS: I don’t think the term is what’s important. What is important to understand is we have organizations, whether it is ISIS or Al Qaida, who do believe we should go back several thousand years. We should make women third-class citizens, that we should allow children to be sexually assaulted, that they are a danger to modern society.
And that this world, with American leadership, can and must come together to destroy them. We can do that. And it requires an entire world to come together, including in a very active way, the Muslim nations.
DICKERSON: Governor O’ Malley, you have been making the case when you talk about lack of forward vision, you’re essentially saying that Secretary Clinton lacks that vision and this critique matches up with this discussion of language. The critique is that the softness of language betrays a softness of approach. So if this language — if you don’t call it by what it is, how can your approach be effective to the cause? that’s the critique.
O’ MALLEY: I believe calling it what it is, is to say radical jihadis. That’s calling it what it is. But John, let’s not fall into the trap of thinking that all of our Muslim American neighbors in this country are somehow our enemies here. They are our first line of defense.
And we are going to be able to defeat ISIS on the ground there, as well as in this world, because of the Muslim Americans in our country and throughout the world who understand that this brutal and barbaric group is perverting the name of a great world religion. And now, like never before, we need our Muslim American neighbors to stand up and to — and to be a part of this.
This is not mush coming from Hillary Clinton’s mouth, it is filth. Our first article this year featured the Muslim President of Egypt specifically naming Muslims as the problem when it comes to terrorism:
Is it possible that 1.6 billion people [Muslims] should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants—that is 7 billion—so that they themselves may live? Impossible!
I am saying these words here at Al Azhar, before this assembly of scholars and ulema—Allah Almighty be witness to your truth on Judgment Day concerning that which I’m talking about now. [snip]
I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution. You, imams, are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move… because this umma is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost—and it is being lost by our own hands.
Muslim President of Egypt Al-Sisi righteously blames the entire Islamic population of the world, the Umma, but from Hillary Clinton, filth.
Hillary Clinton would not use the words “radical Islam” even as the blood soaked mounds of Islam’s victims still laid piled up in a Paris theater and morgues. Hillary on Saturday failed the test of leadership. Hillary Clinton refuses to denounce Barack Obama’s polices of appeasement and weakness – if not outright treachery.
Hours after the Koran Killers struck in Paris, Barack Obama continued to release the other Islamic killers luxuriously caged in Guantanamo. From Hillary… silence.
The leftist Atlantic declares the Quran/Koran Kooks to be the problem:
In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors. [snip]
We can gather that their state rejects peace as a matter of principle; that it hungers for genocide; that its religious views make it constitutionally incapable of certain types of change, even if that change might ensure its survival; and that it considers itself a harbinger of—and headline player in—the imminent end of the world.
The Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), follows a distinctive variety of Islam whose beliefs about the path to the Day of Judgment matter to its strategy, and can help the West know its enemy and predict its behavior. Its rise to power is less like the triumph of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (a group whose leaders the Islamic State considers apostates) than like the realization of a dystopian alternate reality in which David Koresh or Jim Jones survived to wield absolute power over not just a few hundred people, but some 8 million. [snip]
We are misled in a second way, by a well-intentioned but dishonest campaign to deny the Islamic State’s medieval religious nature. [snip]
The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.
The Islamic State is Islamic. That’s a truth Hillary Clinton failed to tell on Saturday night. That truth will haunt her.
Hillary Clinton had an opportunity to let the world know that the Islamic State is not a junior varsity team, nor is it contained, both lies from Barack Obama’s mouth.
Barack Obama wants to bring in ten thousand “refugees” which cannot be vetted because they either have no documents or they have forged documents. This is what Donald Trump has intelligently described as “one of the great Trojan horses.”
The moment Hillary Clinton lost the general election was when she said ten thousand was not enough. She wants 65,000 refugees and she compounds that foolishness with the lie that they can be vetted.
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton lie when they say these “refugees” can be vetted. Further, today Barack Obama declared that he will not impose “religious tests” (meaning persecuted Christians will not be exclusively given the religious asylum benefit that “persecuted” Muslims from places such as Chechnya have been given). What about children only? Let’s call them what they would turn into “anchor babies” for terrorists.
Europe and America are undergoing a soft invasion. Most citizens see what our “leaders” insist is not there.
The Trojan War ended when the Trojans themselves brought into the walled city of Troy the masters of their destruction hidden inside a great wooden horse. Troy and the great wooden horse is remembered to this day.
The fall of Troy will never be forgotten. The Trojan War was not just about Trojan prince Paris and his stolen beauty from Greece, Helen. It was a clash of civilizations. The once great Troy fell to the Greeks. The Trojan ruins disappeared from history but Troy survives in the imagination and in great epic poems about a civilization gone with the wind.
The leaders of Troy and that emotional boy prince Paris made foolish decisions. Our leaders too, including Hillary Clinton, are making many foolish decisions and cowardly statements. Some on the left and some on the right believe that the Islamic terror attacks on the city of light will benefit leaders such as Hillary Clinton who have long experience and finally, finally, end the summer of Trump and finish off all the outsiders. We don’t think so.
As the evidence mounts that some of the Muslim killers came in under the immigration tide, as Europe’s leaders face the wrath of their populations, as illegal immigration and terrorism increasingly link in the public mind, as further attacks loom, as his prescient statements on oil and ISIS are remembered, Donald Trump will continue to bask in endless summer.
More so than ever the Muslim killers of Paris bring an end to an era:
If you’re one of the millions of young people who enjoyed this period of relative comfort, I’m sorry to tell you that it’s coming to an end. If Madrid, London, or Mumbai didn’t wake you up, Paris should. In the last week, three major terrorist attacks—not just in France, but in Lebanon and against a Russian airliner in Egypt—have killed more than 400 people. ISIS has claimed responsibility for all three massacres. A year ago, you could have said that the terrorists who wanted to hit the West couldn’t pull it off, or that those who could pull it off it didn’t have the ambition. You can’t say that anymore. [snip]
For those of us living stateside, the last 14 years have been pretty easy. Those days are over. The people who hit Paris will try to hit us here, and they just proved they can do it.
The Muslim killers in Paris were an opportunity for Hillary Clinton to speak the truth. That opportunity came and went along with her chances to ever be president.
Perhaps Hillary will overcome Barack Obama’s machinations to keep the nomination from her. We hope so. But a general election victory? That was blown up in the streets of Paris and in a debate stage in Iowa.
November 14th, 2015
Donald Trump was elected president last night, wrote Ann Coulter. Coulter might easily be right. Tonight at the second debate we will find out if Hillary Clinton has any chance against Trump when he becomes the R nominee, if she becomes the D nominee.
We’ve been writing for a long time that Hillary Clinton and Hillary2016 had to get away from Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton cannot win if she is the third Obama term. Hillary Clinton has to be the candidate of change. By now it should be evident why Hillary will lose if she is seen as the third Obama term.
Before last night we were entirely sure that the second debate featured Hillary Clinton, Baltimore O’Malley, and the barking mad Saint Bernard from Vermont was an act of cruel barbarism. To have Hillary debate those two was equivalent to a Mama Grizzly up against two gerbils.
We were entirely sure that Baltimore O’Malley and barking Bernie Sanders would unveil unrelenting attacks against Hillary only to be devoured, like thin sticks of wood tossed in a chipper, by Hillary. We were absolutely sure that Hillary would reenact Marco Rubio’s response to attacks by Jeb Bush by saying “You’re only attacking me now because you’re losing. At the first debate you were rational but now as you sink into oblivion you attack me because that is your calculation to survive. You should be ashamed of your cheap theatrics…” and on and on.
But now all bets are off. The debate that was supposed to focus on income inequality, bloated increases in spending, and mad economic schemes, is now front and center a discussion on the failures of Barack Obama foreign policy.
Any candidate that tonight does not denounce Obama foreign policy and Obama’s naive, or as we believe THREACHEROUS, policies, is doomed in the general election. Particularly vulnerable is Hillary Clinton.
Barking mad kook Bernie Sanders is not happy with the switch in focus of the debate:
A top aide to Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., one of the three candidates, got into a lengthy dispute with executives from CBS, the network hosting the debate, during a conference call on Saturday morning. A staffer for one of the other campaigns who was also on the call described the exchange to Yahoo News as “heated” and even “bizarre,” and a second source on the call confirmed the nature of the exchange.
The dispute centered on CBS’s decision to increase the emphasis on terrorism, foreign policy, and national security in the wake of the attacks that left more than 100 people dead in Paris on Friday night. According to the rival staffer, Sanders strategist Mark Longabaugh lit into CBS vice president and Washington bureau chief Christopher Isham when the changes to the debate were detailed on the call.
“It was a little bit of a bizarre scene. The Sanders representative, you know, really laid into CBS and basically … kind of threw, like, a little bit of a fit and said, ‘You are trying to turn this into a foreign policy debate. That’s not what any of us agreed to. How can you change the terms of the debate, you know, on the day of the debate. That’s not right,’” the staffer recounted.
Barkin’ Bernie is right to be worried. But it is Hillary Clinton that should be most worried about this necessary change in debate focus:
Instead, it puts the focus back squarely on the former secretary of state a few weeks after Clinton’s much-lauded marathon Benghazi testimony while underscoring her role as not only the most hawkish candidate on the stage but the only one with direct involvement in formulating an Obama ISIL containment policy stretched to the breaking point now.
Clinton has made no secret that she advocated a more muscular foreign policy than Obama, but she has been reluctant to air those grievances publicly outside a few opaque comments.
Whether Clinton, who pressed Obama to use air power in 2011 during the chaotic aftermath of the Libyan revolution, will draw a contrast with her onetime boss and rival has emerged as the most interesting question in a debate that had been seen as a showdown with Sanders.
“I expect Clinton tonight to call for much more robust action against ISIL – she obviously has no problem changing positions for political gain and distance from Obama’s … approach makes policy and political sense for her,” says Randy Scheunemann, a former adviser to John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign – and a longtime critic of Obama’s policies in the region. [snip]
Clinton – whose support of the 2003 Iraq invasion was a major, and possibly decisive factor in her loss to Obama seven years ago – has always projected foreign policy strength, as exemplified by her famous ‘3 a.m.” against Obama in 2008. But she’s treading a tightrope, running in a primary where the overwhelming majority opposes anything but the lightest intervention – and only last week flatly rejected the idea that the country needed to wage a new “war” on the Islamic State.
“If you have a declaration of war, you’d better have a budget that backs it up,” Clinton said during a campaign stop in New Hampshire on Nov. 11 – an assertion that might have been outrun by Friday’s events.
Bernie Sanders will prove tonight he is not a commander in chief. Neither is Baltimore O’Malley, the house plant on stage. Baltimore O’Malley recently announced that the rise of ISIS was due to global warming a.k.a. climate change and O’Malley also foolishly declared that global warming is the greatest national security threat the nation faces. But to understand how climate change hokum has been eliminated as an issue when compared to terrorism one only has to see how the Muslim terrorist attacks in Paris destroyed Al Gore’s Eiffel Tower Telethon of chumps. In the battle of terrorism or climate change, terrorism blows up Gore.
But Sanders and O’Malley are not the ones with the problem. Hillary Clinton has the problem.
If tonight Hillary Clinton does not name Muslims or Islam or in some way discuss that it is Islamic terrorism that must be confronted and beaten than she has beaten herself.
Donald Trump will have no problem blaming Islamic terrorism:
The GOP presidential candidates, of course, immediately seized on Obama’s unfortunately timed declaration in an interview Thursday that “we have contained” the Islamic State. Donald Trump, never one for political niceties, tweeted: “President Obama said ‘ISIL continues to shrink’ in an interview just hours before the horrible attack in Paris. He is just so bad! CHANGE.”
What Hillary Clinton says tonight will determine if she has any chance against Donald Trump.
November 13th, 2015
Update: Breaking: Multiple deaths in Paris amid reports of shootings, explosion. Another Trump warning goes full Churchill.
On the same day Barack Obama said he had ISIS “contained” Paris is under attack. According to some reports including one from Shep Smith: Man in French custody told police he’s Syrian, he came with 2 others, recruited by ISIS, and that this is an ISIS mission. Other reports appear to confirm what Obama will not admit about the Islamic savages out to destroy Israel and the West even as weak European leaders and Obama praise open borders:
Yasmin, inside the Bataclan, told BFM television: “I saw two guys. The biggest one said: ‘What are you doing in Syria? You’re going to pay now.’
“Then he opened fire.
“I saw bodies falling all around me. I was shot in the foot. It was carnage. I’ve never seen so many dead people all around,” she said, sobbing.
Anyone still wonder why Trump is winning? Europe’s open borders and the American southern border have melded into the most important issue for 2016. And Trump owns that issue.
It’s going to be a very interesting Dem debate tomorrow night and we will all see if these candidates are appeasers of Islamic monsters or will fight for America.
Good thing it was not the Bible. We swore on a stack of Art of the Deal books we would not write an article about how Donald J. Trump won the 4th debate. After every debate we’ve written such articles. But here we are and the latest news confirms: Donald Trump won GOP debate #4.
We wrote before the debate that Trump should focus on ObamaTrade as that is an issue which differentiates him from the others on the stage in a stark manner.
ObamaTrade did not dominate the debate as we thought it should have but it did lead to the second most feisty exchange between candidates. In that exchange Trump was attacked in a very clever manner by the exceedingly foolish Rand Paul.
The wackadoodle Rand Paul must have gotten one of his wiry hairs corkscrewing into his head because Randy did not understand the intelligent argument Donald J. Trump made. The moderator clearly understood Trump’s obvious claims and tried to point it out to the wackadoodle Randy even as a commercial break prevented a follow up from Trump. Subsequent events from Thursday proved Donald J. Trump correct and Rand Paul a clown.
First here is the exchange on ObamaTrade:
Notice that Donald J. Trump explicitly stated that China would come in “through the back door”. Trump denounces ObamaTrade/TPP and declares it a loss for the United States of monumental proportions. Further Trump discusses China currency manipulation and says it is the “single great weapon” China employs and which causes a great deal of job loss in this country.
Rand Paul is technically correct that China is not part of the ObamaTrade/TPP treaty. But that does not mean China cannot take advantage of the ObamaTrade/TPP treaty. Rand Paul is blind to what Trump sees as obvious. Trump is correct:
But Trump never suggested that China was part of the TPP, only that the country would “come in, as they always do, through the back door” of the agreement. And he was right.
The TPP does indeed allow China and other non-members to reap benefits from the deal without having to abide by any of its terms.
Here’s how it works: TPP and other free trade deals allow signatories to exchange goods without tariffs. But we live in a complicated world, with source materials derived from one country often traveling through a supply chain to another and completed in a third before moving to a retail market.
To cope with this, TPP adds a “rule of origin” chapter to determine whether an amalgamated good qualifies for tariff-free status. This is particularly important in Southeast Asian nations like Vietnam or Malaysia, which get a significant amount of production materials from China.
TPP says that all materials that go into a good, outside of a de minimis 10 percent, must derive from TPP countries. However, there are numerous exceptions and exemptions, along with a confusing set of calculations to determine eligibility. Through these cracks in the agreement, as Trump alluded, China can deliver goods to TPP countries without tariffs.
The article we cite above goes deep into the weeds of how China can take full advantage of ObaamTrade/TPP and should be read in full. This is not an academic argument. On Thursday, Trump’s China warnings hit, with real world consequences (via left wing Slate magazine):
Paging Donald Trump: General Motors Plans to Sell Chinese-Made Buicks in America
In a move that is almost certainly destined to become a campaign talking point for one Donald Trump, General Motors is reportedly planning to sell Chinese-manufactured Buicks in the United States. [snip]
If the move is successful, GM and its competitors could try to move more of their production to China. [snip]
There might be other reasons for American workers to worry about Chinese production. Let’s say, for instance, that China’s domestic car market cools down a bit more as the economy slows, and GM suddenly finds itself with lots of excess factory capacity there. The company could theoretically start using it to build more cars for the U.S. rather than open new plants here at home.
Fox Business explains further:
As Labor Costs Rise, GM to Sell Chinese-Made Buick SUV in U.S.
General Motors Co., fresh off agreeing to a new union contract that is expected to drive up its U.S. labor costs, plans to become the first major auto maker to sell Chinese-made cars in the U.S.
The nation’s No. 1 auto maker by sales early next year plans to start selling the Buick Envision, a midsize sport-utility vehicle made in Shandong province, according to people familiar with the plan. The move would add a third SUV to Buick’s U.S. lineup at a time when such crossovers are among the best selling vehicles in the market.
Initially, the company expects to import a modest number–between 30,000 and 40,000–a year. But it signals the beginning of a strategic production shift for the Detroit auto giant and a bold experiment that will be closely followed by other auto companies that have said they would eventually consider such a move.
Long among the top foreign sellers in China by volume, GM has confined production there to meeting China’s recent explosive demand. But as sales gains have moderated and Chinese tastes in cars converge with Americans’, the potential for more Chinese imports from GM and others could blossom. [snip]
In 2011, the UAW agreed to a wage contract that led to big bonuses for workers and the addition of tens of thousands of factory jobs. This year, union officials won much richer contracts that are expected to undermine those investment decisions and lead Detroit executives to look for lower-cost manufacturing options.
Add it all up and the Trump warnings on ObamaTrade/TPP so mocked by Big Media come true fast enough to make an American worker’s head spin.
On illegal immigration Donald J. Trump had an even more successful night when taken together with subsequent events. First, the illegal immigration blast from Trump at the debate as he battled John Kasich and Jeb Bush:
After Trump squashed Kasich, Jeb Bush came in to try to rescue the hapless Ohio Republican:
Marco Glibio joined in to say something, glib, about illegal immigration. But it was Ted Cruz who then took a bat at the illegal immigration ball to hit a homerun:
Cruz: I’m Tired Of Being Told I’m Anti-Immigrant. It’s Offensive
“The Democrats are laughing because if Republicans join Democrats as the party of amnesty, we will lose,” Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz said at FOX Business’ debate on Tuesday night. “And you know, I understand that when the mainstream media covers immigration, it doesn’t often see it as an economic issue. But I can tell you for millions of Americans at home, watching this, it is a very personal economic issue. And I will say the politics of it would be very, very different if a bunch of lawyers or bankers were crossing the Rio Grande.”
“Or if a bunch of people with journalism degrees were coming over and driving down the wages in the press,” Cruz said to laughter. “Then we would see stories about the economic calamity that is befalling our nation.”
“And I will say for those of us who believe people ought to come to this country legally and we should enforce the law, we’re tired of being told, it is anti-immigrant. It’s offensive,” Cruz said to applause from the audience.
“I am the son of an immigrant who came legally from Cuba to seek the American dream.,” he said. “And we can embrace legal immigration while believing in the rule of law.“
Cruz’ response was very effective. So is Cruz the big winner on immigration? Not quite. Subsequent events and political calculations give Trump the win.
After the debate two lines of opportunity have opened for Trump. The first is open warfare on illegal immigration between Ted Cruz and Marco Glibio as they battle to eliminate each other. Second, Ben Carson made a mistake by aligning himself with Kasich, Bush, Rubio on illegal immigration and attacking Donald Trump. That’s the positioning Trump needed and wanted.
First, Cruz versus Rubio on illegal immigration as they battle and weaken themselves:
“I think for voters that are looking for someone who’s consistent and true, I’m the only one on that stage who’s always opposed amnesty,” Mr. Cruz said in an interview on Fox News after the debate, underlining his opposition to the bipartisan immigration bill that Mr. Rubio helped write in the Senate.
Mr. Cruz insisted that he “led the fight against amnesty in Congress with Chuck Schumer and the establishment Republicans,” a cloaked shot at his fellow senator.
Cruz is engaged in a coordinated attack to take out Glibio:
Without calling out his Senate colleague by name, Cruz twice took subtle digs at Rubio during the Fox Business Network debate. At one point, he warned against Republicans who would turn the GOP into “the party of amnesty” — without specifically mentioning that Rubio had championed a bill that would have provided undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship…
“Our record on amnesty is clear and consistent and [Rubio’s] is not as clear and consistent,” [Cruz spokesman Rick] Tyler said. “He was for the Gang of Eight bill, then he said he wasn’t. Then he said he was for a step-by-step approach.” He continued to list the litany of alleged flip-flops before concluding of Rubio, “He essentially has the same position as the president.”
Then the back and forth fight got ugly as Cruz hit Glibio and Glibio hit Cruz:
Via the Right Scoop, enjoy six minutes below of Cruz laying Rubio out this morning on Laura Ingraham’s show, replete with a scriptural reference. Not only was Rubio’s Gang of Eight bill the same old comprehensive garbage that screwed border hawks in 1986, Cruz says, but Rubio joined with the other seven members in opposing all of his amendments to strengthen the security parts of the bill. Which is true: Every time a comprehensive immigration bill comes together in the Senate, the bipartisan coalition behind it agrees to kill off amendments for fear that letting one through from either party will operate as a poison pill. If Cruz’s security amendments had been adopted, Democrats who would have otherwise supported the bill would have bailed and it would have failed. (For Democrats, stronger immigration enforcement is a dealbreaker.) Part of the deal in joining the Gang for Rubio, McCain, Graham, and Flake was systematically defeating any amendment that would upset the balance of the deal they’d struck with Schumer, even if it came from the right. So Cruz’s amendments went down the drain. And now Cruz is going to rub Rubio’s face in it. [snip]
True, Cruz doesn’t support a path to citizenship as Rubio does, but many border hawks will tell you that’s a distinction without much of a meaningful difference. The key for citizenship is giving illegals a foot in the door with legalization; once they have the right to stay here, the right to become citizens will eventually follow as Congress comes under pressure to make it happen. Cruz has also been careful not to go too far right in his broader rhetoric about immigration, knowing that he’s got a real shot at the nomination and will be hit hard on this subject in the general election. Trump has called for deporting all 11 million — but not Cruz. Scott Walker flirted with the idea of reducing legal immigration, a la Jeff Sessions — but not Cruz. Lots of conservatives talk about immigration as a cultural issue — but not Cruz, or at least, not nearly as much as he talks about it as an economic issue. (Which he did two days ago at the debate.) By focusing so much in his public comments on opposing a path to citizenship and demanding more border security, Cruz has craftily managed to convince a lot of righties, I think, that he’s coming at this issue roughly from the same place that Trump and Tom Tancredo. Not so, as some of his competitors in the field have started to notice. Rubio’s going to make sure now that a lot more people notice.
Cruz, who some in the establishment think will eventually take down Trump, is currently engaged in a battle against Glibio. Trump will have a good giggle and watch as Glibio will bloody Ted Cruz, via Youtube:
The Times asked him what we should do about the 11 million and he referred them to his amendment about work permits and green cards. Huh. Doesn’t sound like a guy who supports Trump-style mass deportation to me. But it’s hard to say because, somehow, in 2015, three years into Ted Cruz’s Senate career and many months into his presidential campaign, we still don’t have a clear idea of what he wants to do about illegal immigrants. That’s odd, no? For a guy who loves to talk and is constantly patting himself on the back for taking bold stands, he’s been strangely quiet on that topic. Go figure.
Team Cruz’s spin about his amendment is part of a little game they’re playing, I think. During the primaries, they’re going to tell conservatives that the amendment was nothing more than a ploy designed to show that Democrats care about a path to citizenship. Don’t read anything into it. Once he becomes the nominee, though, they’re going to turn around and tell undecided centrists, who will be inundated with Democratic attack ads that Cruz hates illegals, that Cruz was actually behind the amendment 100 percent. Big fan of work permits and green cards, that Sen. Cruz. And God help the border-hawk RINO like me who dares to point out next year that he talked out of both sides of his mouths on the subject, as that’ll be deemed high treason in the midst of a brutal election battle for the future of America.
Exit question via Harry Enten: Did Cruz move too soon in attacking Rubio on immigration? Rubio’s going to spend weeks now arguing that Cruz isn’t much different than he is on immigration, which would be fine except that Trump’s still at 30 percent in the polls and is seen overwhelmingly by Republicans as the candidate who’d handle immigration best. If Rubio succeeds in framing Cruz as squishy on immigration (if not quite as squishy as he himself is), it’s a golden opportunity for Trump to jump in and attack both of them as pro-amnesty RINOs. Maybe Cruz should have waited until Trump had faded to launch this war. Assuming that Trump ever does fade, that is.
No candidate is safe from Youtube. Trump can sit back and watch Glibio bloody Cruz as Cruz bloodies Glibio. But that’s not the best part of GOP debate #4’s aftershocks for Donald Trump. Consider Ben Carson.
Cruz is viewed by some as the eventual heir to demised Trump’s voters. If the battle ever comes to Cruz v. Trump, it will be a bloody Cruz courtesy of Glibio that Trump will beat up on illegal immigration. It’s even worse for Ben Carson as Ben Carson has attacked Trump on illegal immigration:
A day after the fourth GOP debate, Ben Carson took a hatchet to Donald Trump’s plan to deport millions of illegal immigrants living in the United States. [snip]
“I think they hurt Donald Trump in the long run,” Carson said, referring to the deportation plans. “I think there are enough people who know that there are others in the race that are very reasonable. I don’t think he necessarily is the representation of the Republican Party — far from it.” [snip]
“The people that are here, the 11.5 million people here, rounding them up and deporting them may sound good to some people,” Carson said. “But it’s not pragmatic.”
“It also affects the farming industry, the hospitality industry. So, you know, we have to be pragmatic as a nation. There’s no reason that they should have to live in the shadows,” Carson said.
The famed neurosurgeon doubled down on comments made earlier Wednesday during a press availability in Lynchburg, Va., after his convocation speech at Liberty University, during which he argued that those illegal immigrants who have a “pristine record” should be able to stay in the U.S. as guest workers.
“If they have a pristine record, there’s no reason they can’t get registered, pay a back tax penalty and pay taxes going forward, and be able to remain here as guest workers,” said Carson, who currently sits fourth in the Examiner’s latest power rankings.
“If they want to become American citizens and they want to have voting rights, then they should have to do the same thing as anybody else,” Carson said.
Carson doesn’t seem to understand that he advocates the failed Gang of Eight bill that has so devastated Marco Glibio. Glibio was a golden boy until he went along with comprehensive amnesty reform a.k.a. comprehensive immigration reform.
For Donald Trump it is golden. Along with Trump, Ben Carson is the only candidate in the top tier of candidates. Now that Carson has attacked Trump on his presumed signature issue it is open warfare. It’s on: Carson slams Trump on deportations, calls for “pragmatic” immigration policy
This may be the first breaking point in the primaries; it’s difficult to imagine that the race will be unaffected by Carson’s move, and any significant change in direction will say volumes about the Republican primary electorate.
So what will the Republican primary electorate say? There are significant clues:
Donald Trump and Marco Rubio won Tuesday’s night primetime Republican debate, according to an overnight poll of Internet users who watched the contest, but Mr. Trump came out as the favorite among Republicans and left the best impression about his ability to serve as president.
Some 24% of debate-viewers named Mr. Trump and 23% picked Mr. Rubio as the winner of the eight-candidate event, which was sponsored by the Wall Street Journal and Fox Business News. Ted Cruz and Ben Carson followed, with 13% declaring each to have won.
Mr. Trump’s lead in the Internet survey was larger among debate-watchers who said they’d vote in a Republican primary.
Among those GOP voters, Mr. Trump was declared the winner by 28%, with 23% naming Mr. Rubio. Mr. Cruz followed, with 16%, while Mr. Carson had 14%.
That’s a kinda sorta scientific poll. But it’s significance pales when compared to a scientific YouGov poll on immigration:
Republicans trust Trump on immigration
Trump’s attitude to illegal immigrants resonates strongly with Republicans, but not with Hispanics
Republican businessman Donald Trump and his statements opposing immigration have the support of Republicans – in the latest Economist/YouGov Poll Trump is viewed as the GOP candidate Republicans trust most to handle immigration – and by an extremely wide margin. Trump’s margin on this issue has only increased since the summer.
Half of Republicans view Trump as the candidate who can best handle immigration, more than four times the percentage who name Florida Senator Marco Rubio, the son of immigrants, who is in second place, far behind Trump. Only 5% believe former Florida Governor Jeb Bush would do the best job on immigration.
Perhaps that should not be a surprise. As they did last summer, Republicans overwhelmingly agree with the statement Trump made then: “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re sending people that have lots of problems. They’re bringing drugs. They’re brings crime. They’re rapists.” In the poll question, Trump’s name was not associated with the statement. Republicans overwhelmingly disagree with Bush’s statement that was made about the same time: “Yes, illegal immigrants broke the law, but it’s not a felony. It’s an act of love, it’s an act of commitment to your family…” [snip]
Republicans are far more likely than the rest of the public to view illegal immigration as a very serious problem for the country (70% of Republicans say it is, compared with 46% overall). And many also believe illegal immigrants are more likely than others to commit violent crimes (49% of Republicans versus 29% overall). 57% of Republicans believe immigration from Mexico has a negative impact on the U.S. economy; 37% of all adults do.
That poll and the realization that Donald Trump is far from a summer fling is why the Washington Post published an article about the “panic” in the GOP establishment. The GOP establishment is in such a panic over the collapse of Jeb Bush and the failure of the “fix” for JeBush that now then consider the exhumation of Mitt Romney. That’s almost as funny as the Obama plan to counter Hillary Clinton with Joe Biden.
The GOP establishment is in a crisis. The fix for JeBush failed. Glibio’s only hope is mass amnesia on illegal immigration if he is to become the JeBushito candidate. Meanwhile Trump won’t go away and the Republican primary electorate insists on a wall built Trump strong. And Ben Carson is increasingly a halfway house to Trump and about to implode on the same issue that destroyed Glibio and JeBush. And it’s not only Republican voters that see Trump as the strongest Republican nominee. Democratic primary voters believe Trump is the most difficult to beat:
But which Republican presidential candidate would be the most challenging for the Democratic nominee? At this point, Democratic primary voters say it’s Donald Trump: 31 percent say he would be the most difficult Republican for a Democratic nominee to beat. Ben Carson (15 percent) is a distant second, followed by Marco Rubio (13 percent) and Jeb Bush (13 percent).
Both Clinton and Sanders supporters view Trump as the Republican that poses the most difficult challenge.
The Democratic Party debate will be on Saturday night and Thanksgiving looms nearer and nearer. The Summer of Trump seems never to end. After the 4th GOP debate Trump is stronger than ever and positioned to beat the rest of the primary field.
November 9th, 2015
Update: Will this be the The “everybody get Rubio” debate? The last date with Jeb debate? The get Ben Carson debate? Or as we advise the Donald Trump attacks ObamaTrade debate? Trump today released his trade plan so maybe we get our wish. It’s debate night so get ready for our snark in the comments.
The fourth GOP debate is the big one. The first debate was important because it was the opportunity for the GOP establishment to stop Donald J. Trump from getting on the stage. Once Trump got on the stage with senators and governors to debate, his biggest weakness (not considered a serious candidate) would be overcome. Trump triumphed.
The second debate was important because it was the last chance for the GOP establishment to finish off Donald J. Trump and bring back Bush. Trump triumphed.
The third debate turned into a mess due to Big Media moderators thinking they are the stars, not the candidates. Because the status quo was maintained, Trump triumphed.
The fourth GOP debate is the big one. It should be the moment when Trump crushes the opposition.
The fourth GOP debate will have the best moderators possible:
“My goal is to make myself invisible,” Cavuto, one of three moderators for the prime-time debate, said in an interview last week. “That I’m not the issue. … That we’re not the issue. The answers to what we’re raising become the issue.”
Bartiromo sounded a similar note: “After that [CNBC] debate, I realized, I knew my marching orders. It was clearer than ever what my marching orders are, and that is to help the viewer, help the voter better understand what each candidate’s plan is; is it a realistic plan, can it work and how is it different from the next guy or gal, and that’s what I plan to focus on.” [snip]
“This stuff in and of itself is riveting. People are tuning in for a reason. They’re engaged in this process, so you don’t have to sell it like some sort of TV drama; it writes itself,” Cavuto said. “So we should just make sure we’re being informative and people feel informed, and we’ll let chips fall where they may.”
And, in a veiled reference to the attacks on CNBC, he added, “Don’t trivialize this, don’t ‘gotcha’ this, don’t make this into something it’s not. It’s a debate on economic issues, it’s not ‘Access Hollywood.’”
Maria Bartoromo, and Neil Cavuto are knowledgeable financial types who draw out information from those they interview. On their financial shows the questions are focused and the answers allowed to be heard.
It’s not just the good moderators. Two additional process changes make the fourth GOP debate potentially the best. The first change is that there will only be eight candidates on the stage. The second change is that the candidates will have 90 seconds to respond.
Add to less candidates, best moderators, more time to respond to questions, the topic of the debate, and we have a potential best debate of the 2016 season.
Donald J. Trump should do very well and Trumpmania will continue. The economy is exactly the topic Trump should do well in. Trump has a detailed tax plan so if he can expound on that he will do well.
Trump also can turn every question on the economy into attacks against Obama and illegal immigration amnesty. Candidates such as Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush will have to defend themselves on the question of illegal immigration amnesty. Dr. Ben Carson has a lot to answer for on this issue as well. Ben Carson should also be questioned about his support for statehood for the bankrupt Puerto Rico.
Dr. Ben Carson has a lot of question to answer in the fourth debate. We don’t mean questions raised about his past dubious representations nor possible support of Obama and Al Sharpton which we consider sideshows.
Where Donald J. Trump can crush Ben Carson, Jeb Bush, if necessary Ted Cruz (although Cruz has backtracked on TPP), Marco Rubio and Carly Fiorina, is on ObamaTrade:
“I think Trump’s strength in the Republican primary is in significant part due to his challenging of trade and the fact that he says we haven’t defended American interests effectively,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), whose conservative views on trade and immigration align with those of the billionaire mogul.
On ObamaTrade, Donald J. Trump stands alone:
Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson said Friday that he supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement negotiated by the White House – aligning himself more with the GOP’s establishment wing than with the social conservatives who have powered his campaign.
Mr. Carson’s backing of the 12-nation Pacific trade deal places him at odds with Donald Trump, his chief rival for support among anti-establishment Republicans. Mr. Carson had expressed skepticism about the TPP, saying in a June interview with the Huffington Post that he would not give President Barack Obama “fast-track” authority to negotiate the deal.
Now, a day after the White House posted the text of the TPP deal online, Mr. Carson’s campaign said Friday that he supports the final product.
Mr. Carson, spokesman Doug Watts said, “believes the agreement does help to level the playing field in key markets and is important to improve our ties to trading partners in Asia as a counterbalance to China’s influence in the region.” Mr. Watts said Mr. Carson is “now inclined to support TPP, with reservations.”
The fourth GOP debate will be the last ditch attempt for a bunch of candidates to keep noses above water. Jeb Bush needs a blisteringly brilliant performance to avoid his fate as a Thanksgiving turkey. Rand Paul? Who cares? Paul will soon be begging for votes in Kentucky to keep his senate seat. Carly Fiorina? She has no rationale for running other than her silly presumption that Hillary Clinton is afraid of her. Kasich? If he dares to speak after the Trump thumping in the last debate we will be surprised – Kasich is going the way of Lehman Brothers.
The only candidates of significance left are Trump, Rubio, Carson, and Cruz. Now that he has joined with Trump in opposition to ObamaTrade, Cruz should survive the fourth debate. But Rubio and Carson? – two peas in a pod. Trump will have them for lunch.
At the fourth GOP debate, ObamaTrade should be front and center as the issue that separates the real candidates from the Obama collaborators.