Kiss Of Death: Obama Endorses #Hillary2016 – For Now

Take your clothes off, pour sugar water over yourself, then visit a Zika mosquito swamp. That’s the Hillary2016 strategy.

An argument could be made that an endorsement of Hillary2016 by Barack Obama could have been useful early in the primary season. But now? No.

It’s mid June, election day is less than five months away. Now is not the time to embrace Barack Obama. In all honesty we don’t think it is ever the time to go near ol’ stinky, but there is scant evidence for an Obama hug at this point. Look at the news and see why.

George Soros, the leftist loon, is “shorting stocks, buying gold” because he thinks the Obama economy is in bad shape. Goldman Sachs predicts a “big market selloff” with no “place to hide”. The May jobs report was a catastrophe which even Hillary2016 found “disappointing”. The financial press optimistically declares a “summer panic” about to sweep the markets – and that’s without serious consideration of the big Brexit earthquake. Janus Capital is straight faced about what they see:


This is when Hillary Clinton decides to tour with the Zika mosquito? Winner? Donald J. Trump who has more evidence for his coming attack against Hillary as the “Obama Third Term”.

Is there a functioning brain at Hillary2016? No. Let’s look at the evidence.

For a long while now we have been assured that, as is traditional in presidential campaigns, Hillary would move to the left for the primaries then move to the center for the general. But if it is true that Hillary Clinton will campaign for, er, with Barack Obama in the coming weeks this is an indication that Hillary intends to go deeper and deeper into the fever Zika swamps of the left.

Why would Hillary embrace Obama now even more than she has embraced Obama throughout primary season? An argument could have been made that Obama would have helped Hillary finish off Bernie Sanders if Obama had endorsed Hillary early in the primary cycle. But now? When Hillary supposedly has defeated Bernie Sanders? Hillary doesn’t need Obama if we are to believe that Hillary has the delegates to nominate her.

Perhaps the consideration is party unity and solidify the “Obama coalition”? As we have argued since 2007 the “Obama coalition” is a joke audience more appropriate for a network TV programmer of a “situation comedy“. But even if the “Obama coalition” could be taken seriously the fact is that the monstrosity has been shattered. The young white voters that comprised the “Obama coalition” split to Bernie Sanders and that is why Hillary campaigned almost exclusively in black precincts in state after state as the only way to defeat Saint Bernard.

The facts about the abomination called the “Obama coalition” is even more dire for Hillary2016. Since 2007 we made the argument in many installments of “Mistake in ’08” that the Clinton coalition which focused on the white working class was the winning coalition. This week the New York Times shattered any delusion that we might have been wrong. Yup, it’s the white working class, stupid:

There Are More White Voters Than People Think. That’s Good News for Trump.

One of the biggest reasons Donald Trump is considered to be a long shot to win the presidency is the diversity of the country.As Joe Scarborough of MSNBC put it, “There are not enough white voters in America for Donald Trump to win while getting routed among minorities.”

But a growing body of evidence suggests that there is still a path, albeit a narrow one, for Mr. Trump to win without gains among nonwhite voters.New analysis by The Upshot shows that millions more white, older working-class voters went to the polls in 2012 than was found by exit polls on Election Day. This raises the prospect that Mr. Trump has a larger pool of potential voters than generally believed.

The race-baiters of the left who called Hillary and Bill Clinton “racists” in 2008 will, along with Hillary and Bill Clinton try to race-bait Trump on the basis of his appeal to white voters. But Trump’s appeal to Latinos and black voters is very surprising at this point and will likely increase, so the race-baiting will not work against Trump. Also, the registration efforts geared towards Latinos have thus far failed. And that New York Times article which corroborates our many articles on the importance of the white working class will not be shunted aside. Even the Trump haters at HotAir understand it’s significance. This latest analysis deserves a great deal of scrutiny from the dummies at Hillary2016:

The wider path may help explain why Mr. Trump is competitive in early general election surveys against Hillary Clinton. And it calls into question the prevailing demographic explanation of recent elections, which held that Barack Obama did very poorly among whites and won only because young and minority voters turned out in record numbers. This story line led Republicans to conclude that they had maximized their support from white voters and needed to reach out to Hispanics to win in 2016.

Those previous conclusions emerged from exit polls released on election night. The new data from the census, voter registration files, polls and the finalized results tells a subtly different story with potential consequences for the 2016 election.

The data implies that Mr. Obama was not as weak among white voters as typically believed. He fared better than his predecessors among white voters outside the South. Demographic shifts weren’t so important: He would have been re-elected even with an electorate as old and white as it was in 2004. Latino voters did not put Mr. Obama over the top, as many argued in the days after Mr. Obama’s re-election. He would have won even if he had done as poorly among Latino voters as John Kerry.

This is all good news for Mr. Trump. There’s more room for him to make gains among white working-class voters than many assumed — enough to win without making gains among nonwhite or college-educated white voters.

The post 2012 election analysis by the Republican Party was put together by Jeb Bush and Paul Ryan shills who sought to twist the direction of the GOP to a direction favorable to these hapless fools. Donald J. Trump did the smart thing and ignored that junk study in favor of a strong defense of the white working class and jobs, jobs, jobs. Jeb Bush and Paul Ryan drank their own bad data kool-aid and now Hillary Clinton is slurping the same poison:

When you hear about the demographic challenges facing the Republican Party, almost all of the data comes from exit polls: surveys conducted with tens of thousands of voters at precincts across the country on Election Day, along with a supplemental telephone survey with early voters.

The exit polls are excellent surveys. But like any survey, they’re imperfect. The problem is that analysts, including me, have treated the exit polls like a precise account of the electorate. [snip]

The voter file data used for analysis here comes from Catalist, a Democratic data firm that offers an academic subscription. Researchers have found that the data is unbiased and more accurate than public voting records.

These sources show a 2012 electorate that was far whiter, older and less educated than the exit polls indicated.

Over all, the exit polls suggest that 23 percent of voters in 2012 were white, over age 45 and without a college degree. Catalist puts this group at 29 percent, and the census at 30 percent — implying 10 million more voters than the 23 percent figure

This latest analysis has real world consequences in 2016 battleground states:

Take Ohio, where the exit polls show that the black share of the electorate increased by four percentage points to more than 15 percent of voters in 2012. If these figures are taken as precise, it would imply that nearly 250,000 more black voters turned out than in 2008, with the turnout reaching 88 percent of adult black citizens. There is no trace of this kind of surge in turnout in the actual result. The black turnout in Cleveland actually dropped — to 55 percent of adult citizens.

This type of story repeats itself across the battlegrounds. It also plays out with age, where the exit polls imply that youth turnout was higher than turnout among seniors; with education, where the exit polls show that more college graduates voted than actually live in America; or Hispanics, where the exit polls show that white and Hispanic turnout was nearly equal, despite decades of evidence to the contrary.

We can hear the howls of those that ask us why we can’t “give Hillary her day.” But dumb is dumb. Hillary Clinton’s embrace of Barack Obama is plain ol’ dumb. Dumb. Dumb:

The larger number of white working-class voters implies that Democrats are far more dependent on winning white working-class voters, and therefore more vulnerable to a populist candidate like Mr. Trump. [snip]

Mr. Obama’s dependence among white voters might seem surprising in light of the 2012 postelection consensus. But it won’t be surprising if you think just a little further back — to the pre-election story line. Mr. Obama’s advantage heading into the election was thought to be a “Midwestern Firewall” — a big edge in Midwestern battlegrounds where white working-class voters supported the auto bailout and were skeptical of Mr. Romney, who was criticized for his time at Bain Capital.

The pre-election story line was tossed aside when the national exit polls showed an electorate that was even more diverse than it was in 2008, while showing Mr. Obama faring worse among white voters than any Democrat since Walter Mondale in 1984.

Mitt Romney and John McCain lost because they did not fight against Barack Obama strongly. Mitt Romney and John McCain lost because they did not inspire the white working class to vote in great numbers for them. Mitt Romney in particular was too weak and did not take on Barack Obama. Barack Obama got enough white working class votes to win over weak Romney and McCain. The white working class wanted a leader and all they got was a dog on the car roof.

All the “demographics” future nonsense the left deluded itself with has now deluded Hillary2016. There is not a functioning brain at Hillary2016 that read the New York Times blockbuster report. Hillary Clinton needs to embrace the Clinton coalition and the white working class component of that winning coalition – not the Zika virus Obola Obama. The demographics nonsense we debunked in 2007 is now debunked by the New York Times:

Demographics Overrated. The data implies that demographic shifts played a somewhat smaller role in Mr. Obama’s re-election than the postelection narrative suggested. Even if the electorate were as old and as white as it was in 2004, Mr. Obama would have won, because of the gains he made among white voters in states like New Mexico, Colorado and Iowa.

Hispanic voters played only a modest role in Mr. Romney’s defeat. They cost him Florida — a must-win state for Republicans, but also the closest contest. Elsewhere, Mr. Obama would have easily survived even if Mr. Romney had equaled George W. Bush’s 2004 share of Hispanic voters.

All of this is good news for a Republican who intends to win with greater strength among white working-class voters, like Mr. Trump. [snip]

To win, Mr. Trump will need to make gains among white working-class voters. The earliest evidence, and polling this early can be quite inaccurate, suggests that he is doing that handily.

Hillary2016 needs white voters. The very voters Trump appeals to much more than Mitt Romney and John McCain. So why campaign as an Obama third term with Barack Obama? It’s not as if Hillary will be running against McCain or Romney. If Hillary Clinton is nominated, her opponent will not be cowed by “racist” taunts nor embarrassed to court the white working class vote.

Have we changed our opinion that Hillary Clinton will not be nominated? No. If anything when dealing with a treacherous viper like Barack Obama and his lantern-jawed wife we immediately suspect that what Obama says is the opposite of what Obama does. We’re not alone. At the Obama supporter website Althouse, the thinking is “I think this Barack Obama campaigning for Hillary is cover. She’s going to get indicted.” “He knows she’s going to get indicted. He’ll be able to say, ‘I didn’t know. Why would I be campaigning for her?'”

Picture this scenario: Just before the convention, or during the convention, something happens to derail Hillary Clinton. Maybe that’s why after Obama met with Bernie Sanders yesterday he then met with the Attorney General to lynch Hillary? At this point, after something derails Hillary, Bernie Sanders says he should be the nominee. Joe Biden says he should be the nominee. Corrupt Cuomo and others think they should be the nominee. Up steps Barack and says “I supported Hillary (after she had the delegates and did not need me) and campaigned with Hillary. But Hillary has got to go. We also cannot afford the chaos of so many candidates running. So here’s my candidate which I have not plotted for years to nominate no matter what HillaryIs44 says!” Barack can add “Hillary will not object to this and as proof look how I stole delegates from her in 2008 and the bitch still backed me.”

Of course it might be easier to replace Hillary after the convention, away from the public eye, as was done to Tom Eagleton.

Before, during, after the convention, all Hillary Clinton can expect from Barack Obama is treachery. Why Hillary Clinton embraces this bloodsucking mosquito and his disaster economic failures is a mystery.

Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.

Share