Share This Article with a Friend!

Presidential Horse Race 2016: Symptoms point to Democrat panic attack over Donald Trump

As if we needed any further evidence that the Democrat machine is becoming unglued over the possibility Donald Trump might actually be winning this year’s presidential race, on Wednesday First Lady Michelle Obama provided it.

Lady Obama is now all-in on the greater Democrat effort to warn people about how “unstable” Trump really is Hillary Clintonwhile exhibiting some rather strange vulnerability in the process.

Alex Pappas reports in the Daily Caller, “The first lady — who famously said in her convention speech this summer that when Republicans ‘go low, we go high’ — portrayed Trump as a monster during a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania campaign rally.

“’If a candidate is erratic and threatening; if a candidate traffics in prejudice, fears and lies on the campaign trail; if a candidate thinks that not paying taxes makes you smart; or that it’s good business when people lose their homes; if a candidate regularly and flippantly makes cruel and insulting comments about women, about how we look and how we act, well, sadly, that’s who that candidate really is,’ [Obama] said.”

Not a single word about Trump’s policies, only character assassination. When bimbo-chasing Bill Clinton originally ran for president in 1992, the Democrats downplayed character as a factor to be considered in the election.

My, how things have changed.

And it’s not like their candidate deserves consideration for a Girl Scout merit badge. Hillary’s character closet is so full of skeletons they’d need to add a wing on to the White House just for the bones if she’s elected.

When we hear this incendiary rubbish from someone like Michelle Obama, shouldn’t we be examining Crooked Hillary’s character as well? If Trump is so awful, shouldn’t she be ahead by 50 points?

In her Wednesday speech the first lady also remarked that candidates don’t change once in office. I guess that means her husband is still the same sleazy community-organizing corrupt leftist he was before spending eight years in the White House. That’s not a comforting thought.

One thing’s for sure…all of this over-the-top Trump slander indicates there’s quite a bit of panic in Democrat-land today.

The only reason why voters are considering Gary Johnson is because Hillary is so awful

While the pundit class continues to bicker over who prevailed in Monday night’s widely viewed first presidential debate, some are saying that both candidates were so unimpressive and unlikable that the real “winner” was someone who wasn’t even there -- Libertarian Gary Johnson.

After highlighting a CNN poll where nearly half those responding selected “neither” in a 3-way (Trump-Clinton-Neither) contest, #NeverTrump RedStater Brandon Morse writes, “The fallout of the debates even seemed to spur on voters to like Johnson's Facebook page, which according to one Reddit user grew 26%. This is highly irregular, as generally there is a bleeding of support from the 3rd party candidates after debates. As it stands, Johnson is currently doing better than Perot did in the 90's. Given the situation, it's no surprise that people would be seeking out someone outside the duopoly.

“With Jill Stein and Evan McMullin not even coming to close to having the numbers Gary Johnson does, Johnson becomes the next best thing for wayward Republicans and Democrats, and someone who fits the best of both worlds.”

The fantasy that Americans will reject the two major party candidates en masse is shared by the dwindling group of #NeverTrumpers, Bernie Sanders-loving outcasts and the token few kooks in the country who choose not to participate in politics regardless of who is running.

Oh yes, then there are the Gary Johnson supporters, the nebulous gaggle of Americans drawn to a third alternative – any alternative – because they don’t like Trump’s brash personality and are just as fed up with Clinton’s establishment lies and corruption.

This is the never-never crowd who believes all of politics is (insert curse word here, I was thinking male cow manure) and they place themselves too high above the fray to pay attention or participate. After finishing up their daily social media surfing these unhappy people probably switch on the TV to watch the home shopping network.

These folks don’t give a hoot that Johnson doesn’t have a ghost of a chance to win on Election Day, but it doesn’t matter to them. These are the protest voters, the ones who make big statements like “I cannot in good conscience cast a vote for either Trump or Clinton, both are unfit. I will still vote on Election Day, but it will be for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein.”

“And oh yeah, my single vote won’t tip the balance so it doesn’t matter anyway.”

I’ve even seen lengthy scholarly dissertations written about how individual votes never factor into determining the outcome of an election. If this were the case, why bother voting at all? If you don’t believe it matters, why not stay home and do needlepoint rather than vote for Johnson?

For his part, the Libertarian nominee appears to be taking full advantage of the “neither” crowd, arguing that he not only deserves a place on stage at the next debate but also that Americans shouldn’t be restricted to a choice between Democrats and Republicans.

Mariana Barillas of the Washington Examiner reports Johnson wrote in a New York Times editorial on Wednesday, “The America I know wasn't on the television screen on Monday night. My America is about the freedom to make choices, pursue your dreams and use your skills as entrepreneurs. It is about having more choices than just red versus blue...

“’Less than six weeks before Election Day, independents and, particularly, young voters are increasingly turning to Bill Weld and me as reasonable, rational and experienced candidates. We are the party that can break the partisan gridlock which for too long has kept real solutions out of reach,’ Johnson wrote.”

Even though Johnson was a Republican governor of New Mexico (and running mate Bill Weld was a Republican governor of Massachusetts) in his pre-Libertarian Party days – and should therefore theoretically draw more Republicans -- Democrats are the ones who are objecting the most to his presence in the race right now.

Perhaps it’s because of Johnson’s pro-pot smoking, pro-abortion and pro same-sex marriage views, which naturally appeals to the mindset of liberal Democrat constituencies old and young. Or maybe it’s because Democrats correctly figure that Johnson is such a serious alternative for the Bernie Sanders “bros” that they don’t want him around.

While it’s widely believed that Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the presidency in 2000, it’s just as easy to find people who think Ross Perot helped Bill Clinton win in 1992. This fact is hard to dispute since Perot was kind of a precursor to Trump with many of the same fed-up anti-establishment conservative-leaning voters rejecting the Republican elites represented by George H.W. Bush in that year.

At any rate, the Democrats look to do something to keep Johnson from crashing their party this time around.

Jonathan Easley and Ben Kamisar of The Hill report, “Democrats panicked by third-party candidates drawing support away from Hillary Clinton are ramping up their attacks against Gary Johnson and warning that a vote for a third party is a vote for Donald Trump.

“Liberal groups are passing around embarrassing videos of Johnson and running ads against him warning about his positions on issues like climate change that are important to young voters and independents.”

It’s almost as though the Democrat smear machine is getting tired of besmirching Trump and needs to expand its operation to kicking the hapless Gary Johnson. But the Democrat mind-control gestapo should be wary about the historical fallacy of waging a two-front war – it almost always ends badly.

Truth is, this new Democrat effort is all too hilarious coming from the party whose leadership actively aided Crooked Hillary in vanquishing Sanders in the Democrat primaries (remember all those emails released just before the Democrat convention?). Now they’re fixing their talons on people who aren’t even Democrats in order to protect their queen.

Though Donald Trump admitted a couple times the other night that he agreed with Hillary on certain things (keeping guns out of the hands of people on the no-fly list comes to mind), this seems to be the ONE area where both parties can probably concur: that a vote for a third-party candidate is effectively a vote for either Trump or Clinton depending on whether the voter would typically support the major party candidate in a normal year.

Talk about consensus.

This effort against Johnson, like so many things associated with Crooked Hillary, is just a bunch of smoke intended to mask the fact that Democrats have a truly awful candidate who people despise as well as don’t trust or believe. Not only does Hillary lie, she’s not even good at it like her husband. The impressionable youth that Democrats usually prey on to sustain their candidates apparently are turned off by the establishment this year. Why else would they flock to someone like Bernie Sanders?

If Democrats are truly worried about Gary Johnson and Jill Stein taking votes from them, they probably should be. Not even the most gullible voters can stomach Hillary this year.

Uh oh -- Democrats in a panic over Trump’s outreach to African-American voters

In case you thought that Crooked Hillary and the Democrats are only concerned about losing the youth vote this year, think again. They’re just as worried that one of their other core constituencies is less than enthusiastic about the woman at the top of the ticket.

Marc Caputo and Daniel Ducassi of Politico report, “To kill Donald Trump's chances of capturing the White House, Hillary Clinton needs to win Florida. And to do that, she needs a big minority turnout.

“But Democrats are beginning to worry that too many African-American voters are uninspired by Clinton’s candidacy, leading her campaign to hit the panic button this week and launch an all-out blitz to juice-up voter enthusiasm.”

Part of that “blitz” includes sending big bubba Bill Clinton on a bus tour of the northern part of the Sunshine State to beg African-Americans to turn out on Election Day. Meanwhile, Crooked Hillary herself will also be spending time in Florida trying to gin up black voter support for her flailing candidacy.

This Clinton-sized alarm is significant for a few reasons. First, having all of the top Democrats (including Obama and Michelle – see below) holding rallies in various swing states to try and get their base motivated to vote for them is a crucial diversion of time and resources this late in the game that should be deployed elsewhere in trying to steal votes away from Trump and the Republicans.

Hillary similarly spent a substantial amount of time the other night attempting to scare women into voting against Trump (just as they do every four years as part of the “War on Women”). Now she and Bill are heading to states that they arguably should have secured already to try and push people to the polls.

In contrast, Trump is mining Democrat voting blocs for additional support. There’s a huge difference here.

Second, it isn’t just black voters that Democrats are concerned about in Florida. Trump made a visit to the Cuban-American community in Miami on Tuesday and received a very enthusiastic welcome.

It should be noted that Cubans tend to favor Republicans (after all, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are both Cuban), but there are other signs that Hispanics in general aren’t as angry at Trump as the media has been portraying for months.

Lastly and most importantly, Clinton’s pandering to the Democrat base implies that Trump’s outreach to black voters in the past month is showing signs of success. As I’ve suggested many times, Trump only needs to turn a small percentage of African-Americans into Trump voters and it will virtually sink Hillary’s candidacy right there.

Trump’s campaign to speak to minority voters is helping expose the lie Democrats have relied on for decades that Republican policies will hurt them and that Democrats naturally have their best interests at heart.

The worsening of race relations under Obama along with the continuing deterioration of the quality of life in the inner cities where many minorities live is no doubt forcing some people to reconsider their lifelong allegiance to a party that’s only interested in them for their votes. Instead of working to provide increased business opportunities for people in the cities, Democrats only offer more wasteful bureaucratic federal programs that perpetuate the problems.

Economic growth will help poor inner city residents improve their lives. Trump’s been pounding the message…and it appears to be working.

Hillary didn’t convince many skeptics in Monday’s debate

Finally today, watching the TV pundits tumble over themselves the past couple days in declaring a big game-changing victory for Crooked Hillary in the first presidential debate has been fairly humorous, largely because it doesn’t seem to be matching the impressions of the voters themselves.

Take for example one group of undecided voters in North Carolina.

David Lightman and Tim Funk of the Charlotte Observer report, “Indeed, while polls found that Clinton had won the first general-election debate with Donald Trump on Monday, she may not have won actual votes. And she may even have lost some, at least in the battleground state of North Carolina.

“In a focus group of 21 voters from around Charlotte conducted by McClatchy and The Charlotte Observer, four who had been up for grabs before the debate had moved away from her by the end.”

The quotes from the article are telling, with so-called undecided voters being unimpressed by Hillary’s economic message. It should be noted that Trump didn’t convince anyone either, entering with three supporters and having only those same three backing him after the debate.

But at least there weren’t any supporters who turned against him because of what was said in the 90 minute program.

As would probably be expected, several of the watch-party attendees said they were now looking at Gary Johnson as a possible alternative to the top candidates. Here’s thinking they’ll be back to Trump or Clinton by Election Day.

While it’s safe to say that the results from the North Carolina group were inconclusive, there’s little question who won the debate according to most of the online snap polls taken after the event. It was Donald Trump in a landslide.

Trump, of course, has been winning post-debate polls by huge margins since the beginning of the Republican nomination cycle, so it’s really not a surprise that he won against Hillary too. The snap polls themselves don’t reveal much other than Trump supporters are very enthusiastic and care enough to take part in these minute long-surveys in the first place.

We all know there isn’t a whole lot of emotion propping up Hillary’s campaign…except for maybe anger against Trump.

Enthusiasm will certainly figure into the election, but it’s hard to tell exactly how much. It will be interesting to see how the post-debate polls from the next debate differ, if at all, from those of the other night.

Share this