Finally, controlling immigration cannot be underestimated. I’ve said that issue was the fuel which launched his rocket when he announced. It continues to this day.
He packs tens of thousands into stadiums under all kinds of weather conditions and with long lines because he has Secret Service protection. The most pathetic establishment conventional wisdom disparages those people by saying they’ll show up for a freak show but won’t vote.
And they wonder why they’re hated?
Of course that’s Trump’s rocket fuel!
A region that cannot control its borders may be a beauty spot full of nice people. But it is not a nation state. It will likely descend into no-go zones for the police and the loss of hard-won historic rights for, say, women and minorities—whenever those rights conflict with the attitudes, values, and beliefs of the incoming tidal wave. That tidal wave gains force from the prevailing message that its culture is just as worthy of support and respect as the current one’s.
Anyway, I wrote back to ask, then what about Hillary? Top People back her. No one cares about her lies, betrayals, and security breaches any more.
Also, what about socialist Sanders? He’s a populist like Trump. He draws crowds too.
PA wrote back last night to say he’d had a chance to think about it and:
Hillary Clinton will be the democratic nominee barring indictment for her egregious, extraordinary security lapses springing from maintaining her own unsecured private server while serving as Secretary of State.
Will she be indicted? I would be shocked given this administration’s well established dishonesty and disregard for the rule of law.
The most recent Democratic debate was Sunday evening January 17th, the evening before a federal holiday which made it a three day weekend for most Americans.
Bernie Sanders was held to have won and won decisively. If the Democratic National Committee wasn’t run by loyal Clintonites Hillary would be in even more trouble than she is now. Debates have been kept to half a dozen and scheduled at times of maximum television invisibility.
The contrast to Republican debates could hardly be starker: viewing records have been shattered, starting with the first one where approximately 24 million Americans tuned it. And yes, the numbers were large because of Donald Trump’s presence.
Clinton is a poor retail candidate, trotted out to carefully vetted audiences (always rather small) and in contrived environments. She will then disappear from view for days on end, 8, 9, 10. Then another appearance somewhere else.
Bernie Sanders, a self-professed socialist Senator from Vermont, where Canadian in exile Mark Steyn lives, has drawn very large crowds and has the virtue of appearing to believe the words he speaks before them.
He has also set a record in America for the number of small dollar donations, exceeding even the Messiah Barack Obama’s then record-setting amounts.
In any other race, this would not be nothing. But so formidable is the Clinton’s lock on the democratic establishment that these strengths will avail Sanders very little.
Yet at the same time, many Democrats are rightly leery of Hillary as a general election candidate. She’s the opposite of her sexual predator husband Bill, who was a natural.
Hillary is the definition of unnatural. Even though she ran and lost in 2008, she has not improved.
Margaret Thatcher understood, and remedied, the natural shortcomings in her speaking voice: volume, pacing, timbre.
Hillary Clinton apparently has had no such training nor undertook any efforts to improve. She is extremely difficult to listen to and, again, this is not nothing. The subconscious line of analysis is: who would want to listen to this for four years?
Hillary’s poll numbers plummet the more she is exposed to voters. Imagine you’re a campaign manager: How do you win with this being the case? You keep your candidate hidden, rely on surrogates and hope the disparate coalition stitched together by Obama won’t fray before next November.
Except it already has. POLITICO, an influential, decidedly liberal political website, had earlier this week published an article boldly stating: “How Donald Trump Defeats Hillary Clinton.” The New York Times, no less, published a detailed map of the country showing where Trump’s strength resides and it is produced below. It’s not political madness or naiveté when Trump suggests many states not usually in play for a Republican presidential candidate would be just that.
Indeed, recent polling shows Hillary losing the woman vote. Can it get any more alarming?
Add to this Donald Trump’s strength among them, as well as blacks and Hispanics, and the idea of Hillary winning the presidency as a sure bet is anything but.
I don’t recall who said this but I believe it’s an essential truth to understanding what is going on: No Obama, no Trump. After the most Left president, the most divisive, the most painfully incompetent, America is in no mood for a third term via Hillary.
I can’t tell the future any more than the next person. I do know America is on the threshold of nominating a non-politician candidate in the Republican Party.
If the race is Trump vs. Clinton, I believe the odds are better than even that we see a President Trump. While the world will be astonished, no country will be more so than America.
Reality check: The question a Canadian still naturally asks is, why could the Republican establishment not have fielded a candidate who unambiguously spoke for those Americans (of all shades, it seems) who want control over immigration in order to have some control over their national culture and destiny?
It’s assuming a lot, but might resident women and visible minorities have put political correctness and official lies aside just briefly and realized that it isn’t really in their interests to sponsor open borders?
See also: American political junkie friend explains why Trump will win
The Political Animal, by the way, had also asked, bemused, why is Justin Hair Model Canada’s PM?