According to the ABC/WP poll, among 2016 voters, @realDonaldTrump would beat Hillary Clinton in a rematch — in the popular vote, no less.
…And were the 2016 election held again today, it shows Trump would avenge his popular-vote loss.
What we do know is that Clinton based her entire campaign on the notion that Trump was socially unacceptable and dangerously unqualified. We also know that that strategy proved to be insufficient, but we gain little insight into how it came to be or whether any alternative was discussed. Also left uninvestigated is the extent to which Clinton’s “deplorable” remark, which became a rallying cry for her opponents, hurt her among white working-class voters.
12:10 AM EDT
Someone asked why do so many people dislike Hillary so much. Just my view but you asked so here it is:
Fundamentally dishonest, profoundly corrupt, a complete and total phony, her next original thought or idea will be her first, inherently nasty person whose attitude toward 99% of the population wavers between condescension and contempt…..I could go on for quite a while longer but that should give you an idea.
What’s surprising to me is why do some not see these obvious character flaws. I voted against H, not for T. If election were held today would do the same. As bad as he is, she would have been worse. Just my view, understand those who disagree, but you asked, I answered.
Letter: Putin’s target wasn’t election
Why would the Russians hack and release information detrimental to Hillary Clinton? The reason provided by the Democratic Party is that Vladimir Putin wanted Donald Trump to win the presidential election. The true underlying reason was to weaken the position of the apparent president-to-be in order to weaken the world leadership of the United States.
The issue must be evaluated from the Russian perspective. What did Putin want? Prior to the election, every reported poll showed that Clinton would win the election, and many predicted a landslide victory. Does it make sense for the Russians to expect to change the results of the election, or should we believe their goal of dominance overshadows their concern for American personalities?
It is more reasonable to believe that the real reason the Russians hacked into the systems and released so much derogatory information was to weaken Clinton’s position as president. Putin wants to be the leader of the world but he knows that his aspiration is not possible as long as the U.S. president is strong. Putin attempted to reduce her image internationally.
It does not matter what any individual thinks about 1) Clinton’s wisdom in using her own personal e-mail server to transmit classified information, or 2) her judgment in leadership decisions, such as those with Benghazi, or 3) her selling influence to foreigners in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation, or 4) the Democratic Party’s plotting to undermine the Roman Catholic Church. Putin knew that publicizing derogatory details of each of these would weaken Clinton’s position internationally. Weakening her would elevate him. That is exactly what he wanted.
Since no one believed that Trump would become president, Putin had no incentive to denigrate him. The Russians also hacked the Republican Party, but they did not waste effort disparaging the expected loser. The goal was to weaken the expected upcoming president, allowing Putin to take over the leadership of world politics. He desires power and respect, both for himself and for Mother Russia.
The story we are hearing provides the Democratic Party with a scapegoat for their awkward, surprising loss. It also provides the press with an excuse for their own failure to detect Trump’s political strength. It is always easier to blame outsiders. For those of us who watch world politics, it is more sensible to believe that Putin’s goal is world dominance to be achieved by weakening the power of the United States and the position of the expected landslide winner of the upcoming election.
U.S. Army, retired
Opinion: The rest of the story: What Obama won’t tell you about his legacy
From the economy to race relations, the president failed to deliver on his promise of hope and change
Michael Barone commentary: Obama’s policies were sloppy in the first place
Saturday January 7, 2017 5:00 AM
President Barack Obama went up to Capitol Hill on Wednesday to counsel congressional Democrats on how to save Obamacare. Or at least that’s how his visit was billed.
But to judge from the responses of some of the Democrats, his advice was typical of the approach he’s taken to legislation in his eight years as president, which is to say disengaged, above the fray, detached from any detailed discussion of how legislation actually works.
He was ”very nostalgic,” said Louise Slaughter, a veteran of 30 years in the House and the ranking Democrat on the House Rules Committee. But, she added, he left it up to Hill Democrats to come up with a strategy to protect Obamacare.
This is in line with the standoffish relations Obama has had with members of Congress, even with Democrats who are inclined to be and capable of being helpful. Schmoozing with those he gives the impression of regarding as his inferiors has not been his style.
Nor has he ever seemed interested in the content of laws, even his trademark health care legislation. His February 2010 decision to move forward on Obamacare despite the election of Republican Sen. Scott Brown in Massachusetts meant accepting a bill with multiple flaws, many of them glaringly visible after passage.
But policy just hasn’t been his thing. At the Hill meeting, Obama — according to Massachusetts Democrat Bill Keating — was ”basically saying, ‘Let’s not get down into policy language.”’ The key word there may be ”down.”
The problem with this approach has been apparent since the 9 o’clock hour on election night, when it became clear that Donald Trump was going to be elected president. In 2010, Obama assumed there always would be a Democratic Congress to repair any glitches in Obamacare. In 2016, he assumed that there would be a President Hillary Clinton to keep his pen-and-phone regulations and ”guidances” in place.
The Obama Democrats’ policies, passed through slapdash legislation or through questionably legal regulations, never really captured the hearts and minds of the American people.
Obamacare was based on the shaky premise that mandating often expensive and limited health insurance would be seen as guaranteeing good health care. As a result, as historian Walter Russell Mead recently wrote for The American Interest, ”it did not generate enough public support to protect itself from its opponents.”
Regulations imposed on coal and other fossil fuel production — instituted after Democrats, even with strong congressional majorities, were unsuccessful in passing cap-and-trade legislation — failed to impress a population that did not share liberal elites’ faith that climate change is certain to produce catastrophe.
And regulations legalizing the presence of millions of undocumented immigrants have failed to pass muster in federal courts, thanks to legal maneuverings as sloppy as the legislative legerdemain that shoved through Obamacare.
Public policies prove to be enduring when they address what people regard as genuine needs and thus create constituencies that politicians dare not defy. Social Security retirement benefits are a prime example. You can jigger the taxes and benefits, as a bipartisan majority did in 1983, but voters who believe they paid for their benefits will insist they not be taken away.
Policies that induce long-term reliance also tend to endure, a prime example being the home mortgage interest deduction. There’s a good argument that this policy, like the Social Security benefit formula, unduly benefits the affluent. But that argument doesn’t move most voters.
In my view, Obama owed his election and re-election to the feeling — widely shared by Americans, including many who didn’t vote for him — that it would be a good thing for Americans to elect a black president.
What they didn’t expect, but got, was a president who governed according to the playbook of campus liberals, imposing, or attempting to impose, policies that he believed would be good for people, whether they knew it or not.
This was governance that was both inattentive to detail and law and out of touch with how policies affect people’s lives. That is why so many of these policies seem headed for the ash heap of history.
Michael Barone is senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner.
Farewell to a Decade of Media Drooling Over Barack Obama
As a candidate, the Associated Press celebrated Obama as “something special,” while as President-elect, the Washington Post drooled over his “chiseled pectorals,” on display during a vacation in Hawaii. As President, reporters touted his “prodigious talents,” his “amazing legislative agenda,” and his “huge achievements.” And as an individual, journalists fawned over Obama, calling him “one of our brightest presidents,” a “huge visionary,” “the perfect American,” “our national poet,” and “the most noble man who has ever lived in the White House.”
With the Democratic Party defeated, ObamaCare set for repeal, and incoming President Donald Trump poised to revoke a host of his executive orders, Obama’s actual legacy will likely fall far short of what his media fan club once imagined. But one aspect of his place in history seems secure: Barack Obama has been the lucky recipient of more biased, positive “news” media coverage than any other President in history.
“Obama seemed the political equivalent of a rainbow — a sudden preternatural event inspiring awe and ecstasy….He transcends the racial divide so effortlessly that it seems reasonable to expect that he can bridge all the other divisions — and answer all the impossible questions — plaguing American public life.”
— Time’s Joe Klein, October 23, 2006 cover story, “Why Barack Obama Could Be the Next President.”
Why The Pollsters Missed Trump’s Victory
If angry white men constituted three quarters of the electorate, then Trump’s share of this demographic might make Clinton’s race-baiting words plausible. Unfortunately for an angry white man named Bill Clinton, that particular group composed just 34 percent of November 8’s voters. Trump’s slice of these white men, angry and otherwise, totaled only 21 percentage points of his vote. This was not even half of the 46 percent he actually won, and in just the right states to secure the Electoral College.
Perhaps Bill Clinton’s well-honed ballot-counting skills have been hobbled by seeing his warhorse wife lose to a political rookie. For the Clintons, the painful truth is that a surprisingly diverse collection of voters handed Trump his jaw-dropping upset. If not a full-blown rainbow coalition, Trump’s spectrum of supporters is hardly as white as a sheet….Trump won 52 percent of all men. He also gained 57 percent of white voters. That’s 2 percent less than Mitt Romney won in 2012. This makes Trump’s coalition darker than Romney’s.
THE LEFT’S SELECTIVE OUTRAGE OVER ALLEGED VOTER FRAUD
Donald Trump and the Tainted Presidency
2:40 AM EST
Our country is ruled by Constitutional law. The bible has no power in the courts.
Trump has stacked the deck against himself
VIDEO – Trump can not win…