The unprecedented election campaign of Clinton versus Trump

The unprecedented election campaign of Clinton versus Trump

So here we are, barely three weeks from what, likely, will be the most consequential presidential election since WWII, and the descent into gutter politics by the campaigns of both major contenders has hit unprecedented lows. Both candidates are disliked by a majority of the public and their approval ratings in public opinion polls are unprecedentedly low.

As the Clinton campaign and the overwhelmingly liberal press that supports Clinton’s candidacy with unprecedented fervor suggest, Donald Trump has gone from just being a relatively benign BS artist (as we discussed in a prior communication) to being a disgusting sexual predator. Such attacks in at least recent election campaigns are unprecedented, and them coming from the Clinton camp can only be characterized as amazing political “chutzpah.” Yet, we are witnessing an, indeed, unprecedented presidential election campaign, which will not only rewrite standard campaign strategies but may also lead to unprecedented political consequences for party politics and even the two-party system, which has provided political stability for the country for so long.

Hillary, based on WikiLeaks, has again and again been exposed as what she already for decades has been known to be, – a conniving pathological liar, self-serving, unprincipled and ready to say and do anything to achieve power. How much she, indeed, strives for this power, and how much she is willing to sacrifice in the process became shockingly apparent when, after fainting at a public event, she refused to be taken to a hospital for fear that this could impede her election chances. Which person of sane mind would behave that way, – rather taking the chance of significant bodily harm than the risk negatively affecting her campaign for president?

At least subconsciously the public understands how sick a mind must be driving Hillary. Otherwise, it is unexplainable that she has not already “run away” with this election, considering Trump’s at times truly bizarre behavior and her enormous fund raising advantage. Her razor thin advantage in national poles is, in addition, likely exaggerated by biased media reports and, more importantly, by a Brexit-like effect on polling that, likely, underestimates Trump’s electoral following by four to five percentage points.

The, likely, most interesting opinion on this race came from David Gelernter, one of the country’s most original geniuses (and past victim of the Unabomber, whose explosive device, sent through the mail, mangled one of his hands). An artist, writer and professor of computer science at Yale University, he recently published in the Wall Street Journal an article, titled

“Trump and the Emasculated Voter” (October 15-16, 2016). Though also a Contributing Editor at the conservative Weekly Standard, which in its editorial policy strongly opposes Trump, he concluded that “there’s only one way to protect the nation from Hillary Clinton, and that is to vote for Donald Trump.”

And the reasons(s) why the nation needs to be protected from Hillary?

Gelernter astutely notes that over the last few decades the people’s opinions have grown increasingly irrelevant to the political class (whether Democratic or Republicans, though at greatly accelerated pace during the two Obama administrations). He offers examples when asking since when the American public, for example, endorsed affirmative action that has become integrated in our lives in schools and at work. Or since when did the American public accept the fact that men and women should have equal responsibilities in combat in the military. He poignantly asks why are women now in combat in the military but not allowed to play football in the NFL, and reaches the very troubling, though absolutely correct conclusion that we are led by a political class that takes football more seriously than the military.

The larger theme behind these examples is the rapidly increasing encroachment of political correctness, dictated by a political and judicial elite in cahoots with national media, liberal universities and an uber-liberal entertainment industry, telling the American public what can or cannot be said in schools, on campus and at work, who we have to share bathrooms with and, ultimately, how we have to think. Reading some of the ideas behind “safe-zones” in colleges, one is reminded of Communist reeducation camps. One is also reminded of Communism and other dictatorships when our children in college tell us that they cannot express their opinion freely to many of their professors because they would be downgraded if they did not agree with politically correct opinions, like affirmative action, safe spaces, black lives mater, Israel as an Apartheid state, global warming, open borders and others.

Gelernter describes the feeling like that of “encroaching numbness.,” and the American public has, simply, had it with being told how to talk, how to behave and especially how to think. This is where Trump’s popularity stems from, and why accusations against him have been largely ineffective. He is perceived as the only politician who does not play the “political correctness game,” and says it how he sees it. The more outlandish an accusation, the stronger the public, consciously or subconsciously, therefore, will perceive him as unfairly attacked by political correctness. This is also the reason why we here at The Canary believe that Trump under-polls by four to five points.

The third Trump Clinton debate will be important. If Trump manages as similar performance as in the second debate and after that, until November 8, does not self-destruct, we predict that the American public, contrary to what most media want us to believe, will elect Donald Trump as the next president. Using a static pool of representative voters who get interviewed serially, the Los Angeles Times poll is the only one, which has had Trump persistently ahead of Clinton. Considering the unprecedented nature of this upcoming election, we believe that this polling structure is superior to standard polling methods.

President Donald Trump is, as we previously noted in an earlier communication, undoubtedly a risky choice. But, as Gelernter, we also believe that, as of this point, he is the only choice that can protect the nation from Hillary. And nothing is more important than that!

Why Trump Could (and Maybe Should) Be President

canary in the mine blog donald trump president of united states of america

Everybody can agree that Donald Trump’s persistent lead in the Republican presidential race creates potential conflicts within Republican Party ranks. Trump has shown himself to be rhetorically divisive. He sources his popularity to some degree from being divisive; yet, in our opinion, the Republican Party actually has a potential presidential candidate in Trump for the first time since Ronald Reagan’s successful initial presidential campaign, because he can make significant inroads into core Democratic constituencies.

The Republican establishment is increasingly horrified by the fact that Trump could really become the Party’s nominee. The same competing candidates who attacked him for threatening a third party bid during earlier stages of the campaign are now are suggesting that they may not support him should he become the duly elected Republican presidential candidate. Due to increasingly frantic leaks from the establishment, the idea that their convention may be deadlocked serves as reassurance and threat to those who believe that Trump would have little chance of becoming the Republican candidate in a back-room-brokered convention managed by the political establishment of the Party.

Such a brokered convention last occurred on the Republican side in 1948 when the Party elected Thomas Dewey, who failed to defeat Franklin D. Roosevelt in his fourth election cycle.

Too smart and too sophisticated a tactician, Trump immediately countered the threat of the party’s establishment, threatening to go rogue and run a third-party candidacy, which would doom not only the Republican presidential candidate but also Republican Senate and House majorities.

This leaves few options for the Republican Party establishment, because Trump would view any organized opposition against him as a cause-celebre to go to war. He could do that at almost no cost because more than enough of his loyal followers would vote third party to assure a disastrous Republican election experience in 2016.

If we know that, so does The Donald and so does the Republican establishment. Anybody who does not see Donald Trump as the principal Republican candidate to beat should return to reality.

Which brings us back to the original purpose of this column, which was to explain why Donald Trump could actually rebuild a dominant Republican majority in the country in 2016: one that has not been seen since the days of Ronald Reagan.

Reagan’s electoral success was built on his unique ability (as a former Democrat and union president) to attract a core Democratic constituency, – the so-called “Reagan Democrats.” Those were mostly white, lower-middle class, blue-color workers without college education who had never voted for a Republican candidate (and have not since).

Trump appears to attract the same constituency: maybe more so than Reagan. There are good reasons for that, considering the disastrous economic effects of the Obama years on blue color workers and the middle class in general. Add to this Obama’s divisive race policy and disastrous foreign and security policy and one observes a huge block of traditional Democratic voters not only staying home, but also switching allegiance for the first time since 1981, when the choice was between reelecting Carter or electing Reagan.

But Trump’s and the Republicans’ opportunity looms even larger than that and, once again, Trump’s actions suggest that he is astutely aware of it: for the first time in decades, a significant block of African American voters is up for grasp by a smart Republican candidate, and nobody is rhetorically better suited to go after that vote on the Republican side than The Donald.

Like white, blue collar America, Black America experienced a rather disastrous times during the Obama years. Paradoxically, the county’s first Black president’s policies lead to the most significant economic deterioration within the American Black community in decades, with poverty reaching a new high, incomes declining, youth unemployment at record highs and race relationships the worst since the 60s. The Black community, which, based on their loyalties to the first Black U.S. president, voted almost 100 percent Democratic in the last two presidential elections, will not show the same allegiance to Hillary Clinton or any other Democrat candidate in 2016.

Increasingly, even liberal voices from amidst the African American community are reaching the conclusion that traditional liberal policies have not served their communities well.

And who can blame them?

If one looks around the country, cities under decade-long, one-party Democrat rule like Detroit, Chicago and Baltimore, African American communities are doing the worst. It is in those cities where most black youth are murdered every day, where schools are employment factories for union members but don’t offer even minimal education to children and the economic future of the youth is, therefore, the bleakest.

But the camel’s back was probably broken for the African American community with the apparent murder of the African American teenager Laquan McDonald by a white police officer in Chicago. It was not the murder itself that did it (after all, Chicago is the murder capital of the country for black youth), but the very obvious cover up by the decades-old Democratic administration of the city, which is run by Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s former Chief of Staff at the White House. Emanuel’s administration tried to silence McDonald’s family with a payoff of $5 million and attempted to hide an evidentiary video from the public for over a year out of fear that its disclosure could derail Emanuel’s reelection as major (does that sound like Benghazi deceptions before Obama’s reelection?).

The blatancy of this cover up demonstrated the decades-long abuse of Black America by the Democratic political establishment, which was never able to advance the community’s economic and social interests.

Mayor Emanuel’s administration’s behavior suddenly demonstrated to the world how little Democrats really cared about the African American experience. Just like classical Marxism, allegedly representing the best interests of the proletariat, they only used the proletariat to achieve ideological goals under a highly educated and privileged political elite. The liberal Democratic establishment always viewed African Americans as political fodder in their power struggles with the political right, guaranteeing them an almost unanimous voting block during election seasons.

By recently meeting with a group of African American ministers in New York City, Donald Trump demonstrated that he understands the political uproar that is currently ripping through traditional political relationships in Black communities all over the nation. Witnessing Black demonstrators in Chicago demanding the resignation of Obama’s prior Chief of Staff as mayor of Chicago is telling. Like everybody else, looking for a better future under true leadership, the African American community is ripe for the political picking by a Republican candidate who is convincing in persuading them that she/he offers new opportunities that will finally improve Black lives in America.

No Republican candidate is better suited to deliver this message than Donald Trump.

As we already noted in our last posting, barring completely self-destructive behavior by Trump or suicidal actions by the Republican establishment, it may be time to consider a Trump presidency a reasonable likelihood. As we also indirectly noted in our last posting, he would be well-advised to choose a female running mate. Considering Trump’s relative lack of foreign policy experience, we are increasingly betting on a Trump/Fiorina ticket. America could do worse than that!

Does Obama Want to be a Martyr in His War Against the West?

Canary in the mine: Obama martyr

Martyrdom is the selfless commitment to a cause, leading to one’s own demise. It has remained an essential concept in practically all religions. For example, in recent weeks, Catholic authorities repeatedly referred to the “martyrdom” of Christians in the Middle East at the hands of ISIS; and Islam, more than any other religion, still preaches the glory of martyrdom in expectation of a better afterworld.

Continue Reading

Midterms 2014: Why The Republican Party Has Yet to Prove Itself

So, it has happened! Republicans captured the Senate, secured governorships in states that nobody ever imagined could turn red and further expanded the majority in the House. Obama, to quote a New York Times headline “vowed to cooperate within limits,” and the new Senate Majority leader, Senator Mitch McConnell, also promised a “spirit of compromise.”

All of this, of course, sounds promising, but when something sounds too good to be true, it usually is!

Continue Reading