Paul Ryan, Kelly Ayotte, and John McCain got what they wanted. At the expense of their party, they forced Donald Trump to support their RINO candidates over their better conservative rivals. The left’s perennial dog, anti-gun activist Susan Collins (whose 2009 Collins/Snowe “Hamlet routine” helped get ObamaCare passed), also got a “doggie treat” from the press for her betrayal.
But other RINOs who are tempted to backstab the man who could become president should get this point tattooed on their hands and read it every time the leftist press (including Fox) asks them anything about Donald Trump.
The theme is: “I have no obligation to condemn my allies just because you ‘tell me to.’ And that is especially true as you continue to excuse Hillary Clinton’s vile, disgusting, and dangerous behavior.”
The truth is that there is a whole universe of things that I find disgusting, starting with every morning edition of the New York Times. And although I almost always feel like writing a letter denouncing their contemptible hypocrisy, I never do.
Because you choose your battles — and your damnations. And you should probably choose to fight your enemies, not your friends.
And whether RINOs understand it or not, losing the White House this year will likely determine what path this nation takes for the rest of our lives.
And everyone understands it except them.
Here are the facts: Donald Trump will win the presidential election on November 8, 2016.
Unless the Republican base loses the race.
Which they are capable of doing, certainly at the behest of the “puppet press” that wants to completely destroy them.
“TODD AKIN’S HANDBOOK”
There is no doubt about it: The press is employing the same “strategy” it used to defeat Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin in Missouri and keep the Senate in Democratic hands last year.
But the Todd Akin playbook relies, for its success, on the Republican base believing in it. Without it, it fails.
What is the “Todd Akin playbook”? It works like this: the left makes a miniature mistake by the Republican candidate and trumpets it as if it were the most disgusting mistake in human history. The quote is initially taken out of context, but after the first day it’s not even quoted anymore and is simply labeled “racist, bigoted, anti-woman, fascist,” etc.
Combined with counterfeit polls that are supposed to “show” the race is hopeless, the “Todd Akin playbook” will only work if the press can convince Republicans to decimate their own candidate.
Ultimately, the race almost always turns out to be doable, but we only find that out once the Republicans have given up on it.
What “mistakes” are we talking about?
Two weeks ago, Democrats and the press attacked the mother of the son killed in Benghazi with words like “cynical exploitation,” “an early plunge into the gutter,” “so offensive as to be beyond comprehension,” “weaponization of grief,” “deranged.” One Democrat said he wanted to “beat [the mother of the dead son] to death.”
Now these same hypocrites are working to destroy Donald Trump based on soft comments about the diversity of sacrifices.
The same goes for Trump’s comments Tuesday about the Second Amendment, as well as Hillary’s assumption that all gun owners in the world are murderers, criminals, and bombers, and that’s what Trump meant.
Ditto, a president who has openly criticized the Supreme Court has suddenly become strangely protective of Gonzalo Curiel, a biased, anti-Trump justice he himself appointed.
In each of these cases, our most ruthless enemies demand that Republicans lose the election, just as the usual suspects (John McCain, Kelly Ayotte, Lindsey Graham) obediently jumped and barked, hoping that liberals would throw them a “dog feast.”
Why would we do that?
REASONS WHY ELECTION PROSPECTS LOOK GOOD
First, in the case of national “head-to-head” polls, to figure out where Clinton really is in the race, you have to subtract at least four points from her results.
This will happen because Clinton will win 3 to 4 million (or more) additional votes in California, New York, and Illinois, which will not benefit her at all.
In 2012, Barack Obama won the popular vote by almost 5 million votes—almost 4 percent of the votes cast for either Obama or Romney. Yet a swing of less than 214,800 votes in Ohio, New Hampshire, Florida, and Virginia would have put Romney in the White House. So the outcome of a race that Obama won by almost 5 million votes was decided by just 0.2 percent of the electorate. It was effectively a “tie race,” even though Obama won it by 4 percent.
The disparity is a result of this reality: In 2012, Obama won California by more than 3 million votes. He could have lost 1.5 million votes in that state, and it would have made no difference to his Electoral College votes. Similarly, Obama won New York by almost 2 million votes. He could have lost almost 1 million of them, and it would have made no difference. Obama won Illinois by more than 875,000 votes—a surplus of more than 430,000 useless votes.
Similarly, Gore defeated Bush by over 500,000 votes in 2000, but lost the electoral college 271-268. And the reason is that even then, Gore won California by over 600,000 wasted votes, and New York by over 800,000 wasted votes (half of his 1,707,395 margin). Together, those “wasted votes” from those two states amounted to about 1.5% of the total popular vote.
And as California continues to grow bluer, with the recent registration of 1.5 million Latino Democrats, the trend is much more dramatic than it was in 2012. In fact, to include the Electoral College, in national head-to-head polls, you would have to subtract at least 4% from Clinton’s vote total to determine where the race really stands.
And that’s assuming that the polls that rely on demographic models from 2008 and 2012 are even remotely precise, which they aren’t. It also assumes that the polls (like Monmouth’s) that show 9% more Democrats than Republicans (even though the numbers are roughly equal) aren’t intentionally biased, which they certainly aren’t either.
In 1996, when Pat Buchanan won the New Hampshire primary (and I was the chairman), the same unreliable polls (WMUR) that we utilize now had him in the single digits until just before the election.
Similarly, in the Virginia McAuliffe/Cuccinelli gubernatorial race, the same polls that now show Trump losing in that state (e.g. Reuters, Washington Post, etc.) had Cuccinelli losing by as much as 17 points. Cuccinelli lost that race in a landslide – after the Republicans largely got rid of him.
Second, to succeed, Trump only needs to win (1) the 24 traditionally “red” states, plus (2) Florida by 1 point, (3) Ohio by 4 points, and (4) (A) Pennsylvania, (B) Virginia and New Hampshire, (C) Virginia and Iowa, etc.
This week—Clinton’s post-convention peak week—Trump is within the margin of error (or better) in all of those states except Pennsylvania (or its surrogates). And those polls will inevitably look better for Trump as ISIS and Wikileaks attacks continue to undermine Clinton’s narrative.
And in three key states, Clinton has four systemic issues: guns, coal, Cuba and trade.
Third, Clinton spent a huge amount of money on advertising early in the election, although it was widely believed that the effects of this spending would be transient.
The exception was 2012, when June spending served to “define” the relatively unknown Romney. But neither Clinton nor Trump have been “clean slates” for decades.
SUMMARY
When a front-page “news” article in the New York Times claims that the Times should abandon its policy of news objectivity (!!!) because of the importance of this election, that tells you something about the rest of the “puppet press” in the “news.” And the most vital lie the press can tell is that “it’s hopeless.” But they’ve done this before with Netanyahu, Cameron, and Brexit, and counterfeit polls aren’t self-perpetuating. They only work if the targets “buy” their narrative.
Why should we do this?
