Early Voting Could Cause A Problem With Any Trump Pivot

By William Teach August 16, 2016 – 7:04 am

Of course, this all assumes that there will be any pivot or attempt to create an actual presidential campaign anytime prior to election day

(NY Times) Advisers to Donald J. Trump keep reassuring Republicans that there is still plenty of time to rescue his candidacy — nearly three months to counter Hillary Clinton’s vast operation in swing states and get Mr. Trump on message.

The Trump team had better check the calendar.

Voting actually starts in less than six weeks, on Sept. 23 in Minnesota and South Dakota, the first of some 35 states and the District of Columbia that allow people to cast ballots at polling sites or by email before Nov. 8. Iowa is expected to have ballots ready by the end of September, as are Illinois and two other states.

The electoral battlegrounds of Arizona and Ohio are to begin voting on Oct. 12, nearly four weeks before Election Day. And North Carolina and Florida will be underway before Halloween.

In 2012, 23% of the electorate cast their votes via going to polling places early or mailing their ballot in. This shortens the time a candidate has to tell people why they should earn the vote.

With Mrs. Clinton spending aggressively to try to dominate the early vote, Mr. Trump, who has repeatedly created distractions for himself in the past two weeks, is in jeopardy not just of being outmaneuvered but also of running out of chances to improve perceptions of him enough to win over undecided voters.

The time to turn it around is getting very short.

If Mrs. Clinton swamps Mr. Trump in the early vote in some swing states, she can move staff and money to the most competitive places — like Florida, North Carolina and Ohio, judging from recent polls — while he scrambles to battle on multiple fronts.

Look, I know many are tired of hearing and reading negative Trump stories, but this is a situation wholly of his own making.

Mr. Trump is lagging far behind. Unlike Mrs. Clinton, he has not been running television ads, which are crucial for engaging early voters, and he has state organizers of varying experience levels and scattershot ground troops in most places. His campaign is leaning on the Republican National Committee to open state offices to help with early voting. Both Mr. Romney and the 2008 Republican nominee, Senator John McCain, had more aggressive operations at this point.

Going out and making speeches which spend a lot of time slamming the media and Republicans, with some Clinton bashing scattered here and there, while essentially throwing red meat to his peeps, all while forgetting that he needs to expand the tent, well, this exposes some serious problems. Trump has stated he’s not interested in get out the vote measures. There are no TV ads. Very limited campaign apparatus. Limited campaign offices. He’s making speeches in deep blue states which have zero chance. And the tent is shrinking, not growing.

Meanwhile, despite Hillary being a horrid, horrid candidate, she has the experience of going through 3 national campaigns, as well as runs for the Senate. She has the full backing of the DNC. No matter what you say about her, she knows what she is doing. There seems to be a plan. There’s a ground game. And she is wisely engaging in the old saying “Never interfere with your enemy when he is making a mistake.” As a Republican candidate, anything Trump does or says will be magnified tremendously by the media. Regardless of whether it’s fair or not, it’s the way it is. And time is running very short for Trump to make anything happen. There should have been a pivot immediately after the GOP convention. If he won’t act presidential during a general election campaign, people are going to think that he’d be worse as president.

Team Trump should be looking at this NY Times article and saying “holy cow, they’re right. We need to get it in gear!” Instead, they’ll look at this as an attack and dismiss it.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Early Voting Could Cause A Problem With Any Trump Pivot »

Posted in Donald Trump, Elections | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Hugh Hewitt Gives It The Old College Try Regarding Trump And The Courts

By William Teach August 15, 2016 – 6:51 pm

I long ago noted that about the only reason I could think of to check the box for Trump as a vote against Hillary is the courts, from the Supreme Court and down. That said, sometimes a candidate is just so utterly awful that one can’t in good conscience vote for that person. However, here’s Hewitt giving it another shot

Once more into the Supreme Court breach

Third time’s a charm.

Or not.

Over the last two weeks I have tried to use this space to persuade #NeverTrumpers that their opposition to Donald Trump, no matter how deeply principled on their part, should yield to the manifest damage that would be done to the rule of law in the United States by even one, much less two or more, appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, should she become President Hillary Clinton.

No need to repeat the arguments. Read them here and here. But one last objection to the “vote Trump to save the Supreme Court” argument needs revisiting because it remains standing in some places, and my colleague in the talk radio world Ben Shapiro gave voice to it again last week in a short but sharp exchange we had on air.

The problem here is that when it comes to Trump, we just do not know. He might attempt to appoint someone as hardcore leftist as his sister. As Patterico notes, would Mitch McConnell really block Trump if this happened?

Really, though, if this is all you can offer as a way of supporting Trump, it’s damned thin. Besides, here’s a fun way to get around a SCOTUS packed with liberals: increase the size of the court. Appoint conservatives. Think that can’t be done? The Constitution makes no mention as to how many justices shall sit on the Court. Regardless, if Hewitt can only offer this, I’ll stick with the Hamilton Rule

If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures.

Besides, why is Trump and his team not making this case? Why are they not attempting to solicit the votes of people who normally vote Republican?

Read: Hugh Hewitt Gives It The Old College Try Regarding Trump And The Courts »

Posted in Donald Trump | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach August 15, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a sea made angry by carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Maggie’s Farm, with a post on a swimmer being inconvenienced.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Say, Is There A Cure For The “Climate Flu”?

By William Teach August 15, 2016 – 12:20 pm

I knew you needed some climainsanity for a good laugh. Or to make Jack Sparrow faces

Or that face your dog makes when you actually ate the last bit of hamburger, like “dude, WTF?” Whichever. Be prepared, as Jo Nova highlights this lately wackadoodleness from the Cult of Climastrology

Doctor Nanny State is here to save us from “Climate Flu”

Analogies don’t get more dead than this one. Whole sentences have been killed in the quest for a soothing salad. The poor souls at Reneweconomy …

A Valiant Eco-Worrier, Evan Stamatiou, imagines climate change as an influenza pandemic.

If you imagine climate change as a flu that the world is coming down with, then you could probably say that the physical symptoms are only just starting to be felt.

On the other hand, thinks Jo, if you imagine climate change as like the tide, then you don’t bother trying to stop it.

On the third hand (which is really my foot) I don’t imagine anything. Instead I hop along to a tide gauge and check the data.  At 1mm a year, this is a flu that will hit in 3016. Panic in 500 years then.

….interventions to fight the symptoms of ‘Climate Flu’ still touch on a raw nerve for so many today.

No  sir. “Interventions” to fight Climate Flu don’t touch any raw nerves at all. Skeptics couldn’t care less if someone wants to hand-wash their hair shirt and drive a hybrid. What touches a nerve are the way people with imaginary illnesses want to force everyone else to buy a hair shirt and wear it.

Make sure to read the rest.  I’ll mention this part of the originating article

Given the current predicament, one might conclude that the task is beyond the Government. And yet if the Government genuinely wants to fight Climate Flu and at the same time stimulate the economy and reduce debt, then it should be thrilled to hear of some promising results from a little-known herbal drug.

It’s been around for donkey’s years but rarely grows in Australia. Don’t ask me what it’s marketed as, but its binomial name is bipartisan politicus.

Bipartisan politicus apparently acts to simultaneously reduce debt and stimulate the economy by attacking waste and dysfunction created in toxic political environments (think Australia’s energy market). It also prevents ‘pop-up’ government schemes and programs from being designed and implemented – only then to be binned, thereby saving the Government countless more millions.

Regardless of the silliness of the bipartisan schtick, the overall idea is that government must solve all ills. The poor global economy is mentioned as being a hindrance to solving Hotcoldwetdry, as government flounders around trying to implement this policy and that one, all mostly failing. At the end of the day, this is all about growing government in size and power and taxation.

Read: Say, Is There A Cure For The “Climate Flu”? »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Is ‘Climate Change’ More Polarizing Politically Than Abortion?

By William Teach August 15, 2016 – 8:23 am

When it comes to abortion on demand, we can all surely agree that it is an utterly polarizing policy. With Democrats, it is a litmus test. You seemingly cannot be a Democratic elected politician without being ready to forcibly enforce the notion that abortion should be legal in all manners and forms at all times. It is the #1 idol for Democrats to worship. They won’t even allow for abortion facilities to have the same medical standards as veterinarian clinic. Now, though, anthropogenic climate change is supposedly more polarizing

(AP) Tempers are rising in America, along with the temperatures.

Two decades ago, the issue of climate change wasn’t as contentious. The leading U.S. Senate proponent of taking action on global warming was Republican John McCain. George W. Bush wasn’t as zealous on the issue as his Democratic opponent for president in 2000, Al Gore, but he, too, talked of regulating carbon dioxide.

Then the Earth got even hotter , repeatedly breaking temperature records. But instead of drawing closer together, politicians polarized.

Democrats (and scientists) became more convinced that global warming was a real, man-made threat . But Republicans and Tea Party activists became more convinced that it was – to quote the repeated tweets of presidential nominee Donald Trump – a “hoax.” A Republican senator tossed a snowball on the Senate floor for his proof.

Obviously, this AP “article” is written by an uber Warmist. You’ve seen the name Seth Borenstein before. He’s one of the chief cheerleaders for the AP and Washington Post. The big difference here is that Skeptics were willing to look at the evidence, the science, the facts, and realized that there isn’t any, or at least enough, evidence of anthropogenic causation to implement massive tax schemes and economy damaging policies while also increasing the size and power of the central government over the economy, private entities, and citizen’s lives.

On the flip side, Warmists couldn’t care less about evidence, facts, or science, because this is all about increased taxation and government size and scope. All on Other People, of course. Warmists want all the supposed benefits and redistribution to come their own way will Other People pay the price for the Warmist’s beliefs.

But nothing beats climate change for divisiveness.

“It’s more politically polarizing than abortion,” says Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. “It’s more politically polarizing than gay marriage.”

Leiserowitz says 17 percent of Americans, the fastest-growing group, are alarmed by climate change and want action now, based on surveys by Yale and George Mason University.

Another 28 percent are concerned, thinking it’s a man-made threat, but somewhat distant in time and place. Twenty-seven percent are cautious, still on the fence, and 11 percent are doubtful. An often-vocal 10 percent are dismissive, rejecting the concept of warming and the science. And about 7 percent are disengaged, not even paying attention because they’ve got more pressing needs.

Of course, when stacked up on a list of Things That Matter To Americans, ‘climate change’ tends to come in last or next to last. No one really cares. And, of course, the article forgot to mention an statistics or polling that would show that climate change is more polarizing than abortion on demand.

But, that’s not the point. Read the rest of the article and you’ll see that the point her is to prop up the Cult of Climastrology, saying that if you refuse to believe that mankind is mostly/solely responsible for the small increase in global temperatures you don’t believe in science. It’s all standard Warmists claptrap, long on yammering and short on actual scientific evidence.

Overwhelmingly, scientists who study the issue say it is man-made and a real problem. Using basic physics and chemistry and computer simulations, scientists have repeatedly calculated how much extra warming is coming from natural forces and how much comes from humans. The scientists and their peer-reviewed research blame human activity, for the most part.

Dozens of scientific measurements show Earth is warming. Since 1997, the world has warmed by 0.44 degrees (0.25 degrees Celsius) and 51 monthly or annual global heat records were broken, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Arctic sea ice, ice sheets and glaciers are melting faster. The seas have risen and hot water has been killing coral in record numbers. Scientists have connected man-made climate change to extreme weather, including deadly heat waves, droughts and flood-inducing downpours. Allergies, asthma and pest-borne diseases are worsening public health problems, with experts blaming climate change.

None of those prove anthropogenic causation. And that is what the debate is about. Causation. Just saying “man is at fault, now sit down, shut up, and give us your money and liberty (while we refuse to practice what we preach)” is not science. Computer models and doomsaying are not proof. Hysterical articles saying that climate change is more polarizing than abortion is not proof.

Read: Is ‘Climate Change’ More Polarizing Politically Than Abortion? »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 18 Comments | Trackback URL

What Could Go Wrong With The Clinton Campaign?

By William Teach August 15, 2016 – 7:45 am

We’re less than 90 days out from the general election featuring two horrible, terrible, loathed candidates. Donald Trump is doing his darned best to, if not implode, make sure that the tent of support not only doesn’t expand, but shrinks. The Hill’s Niall Stanage offers up 5 things that could trip her up

Hillary Clinton shouldn’t start preparing her inaugural address just yet.

There are plenty of things that could trip up her campaign between now and Election Day, even if polls increasingly suggest she is on track to beat Donald Trump in a landslide.

Clinton has a significant advantage in recent polls both nationally and across battleground states. New polls from NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist on Friday put her in a dominant position in states that would be close in a normal election year. In Virginia and Colorado, for instance, Clinton led by 13 and 14 points, respectively.
But those polls came after a brutal stretch for Trump, and the race could tighten significantly heading into the fall.

Still, given the electoral map, Trump probably needs some larger development to change the trajectory of the race. Here are five scenarios that could improve Trump’s chances.

Interestingly, there is one huge one missing from the list. Let’s look at this first

  • A debate disaster
  • A hacking embarrassment
  • Clinton voters stay home
  • Clinton Foundation revelations
  • A terrorist attack

Now, looking at these, it is quite possible that Trump pulls the same type of schtick that he used during the primaries and completely gets her off her game, much as he did to other Republicans. What if he gets her mad and throwing out personal attacks? What if he sends her into coughing fits? Gets her red in the face? The optics would not be good for Team Hillary.

As far as Clinton voters staying home, well, that’s more about Democrat voters staying home. Things like poll support, campaign rally support, social media support, etc, do not necessarily translate into people coming out to vote. There doesn’t seem to be a lot of passion for Hillary as president. We’ll see if this translates into votes staying home.

And they could end up not voting for her. They won’t vote for Trump, that’s for sure. But, might things like her pay-for-play Clinton Foundation schemes cause problems? How about all the money she’s taken from private colleges, which Progressives loathe? Or from countries with horrible human rights records, especially when it comes to gays and women? Might the notion that pretty much all her charitable giving went to her own foundation show her as a charlatan, especially when the Clinton Foundation only spent 10% on actual charity? These are the things that could keep lots of progressives, along with the people who aren’t passionate about politics, home.

A terrorist attack could have an influence, especially if it is a big one by Islamic terrorists, especially since she downplays the threat.

Now, the hacking is mentioned. But this was only in terms of the DNC email hacks. The most dangerous one is whether Wikileaks and Julian Assange, or some other entity, have the emails from her server. Assange has promised a release that could put her in jail. Does he or someone else have that kind of material, or are they blowing smoke? We can brain-storm what it could be all day, but, if there’s something out there, it could keep lots of people at home.

There could be a 7th, that Trump has some special plan to hit her hard after Labor Day in a manner that would reduce her support. Who knows? We’ll see.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: What Could Go Wrong With The Clinton Campaign? »

Posted in Elections, Hillary Clinton | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach August 14, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a world turned to desert because Other People won’t buy local, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Blazing Cat Fur, with a post on poo flinging Hillary supporters.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

By William Teach August 14, 2016 – 9:30 am

Arthur Sarnoff Patriotic Pinup

Happy Sunday! A gorgeous day in America, where our Olympians are kicking butt. As expected. This pinup is by Arthur Sarnoff, with a wee bit of help.

What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. Independent Sentinel notes a Somali woman winning in Minnesota, but, the media forgot to mention something
  2. Wizbang covers Hillary voters holding their noses
  3. Weasel Zippers covers the media forgetting to mention the anti-Israel attitudes at the Olympics
  4. The Quiet Towers has a response to Trump’s fundraising letter
  5. The Lonely Conservative asks “what do you expect?”
  6. The Liberty Zone wonders if Hannity is Fox’s dumbest anchor
  7. The Daley Gator notes that first they came for our speech
  8. Powerline wonders if Trumpism will survive the Trump defeat
  9. Pamela Geller covers the continuing rape epidemic in Sweden from Muslim migrants
  10. Neo-neocon has the Trump question du jour
  11. Moonbattery notes the media eroding resistance to pedophilia
  12. The Right Scoop covers rioting in Milwaukee over a police shooting
  13. Legal Insurrection notes that charity really does begin at home for the Clintons
  14. Jihad Watch covers banning the Burkinis
  15. And last, but not least, House of Eratosthenes discusses what Conservatives must do

As always, the full set of pinups can be seen in the Patriotic Pinup category, or over at my Gallery page. While we are on pinups, since it is that time of year, have you gotten your “Pinups for Vets” calendar yet? And don’t forget to check out what I declare to be our War on Women Rule 5 and linky luv posts and things that interest me

Don’t forget to check out all the other great material all the linked blogs have!

Anyone else have a link or hotty-fest going on? Let me know so I can add you to the list. (BTW, since someone asked, the reason I leave links for the previous week up (or you might see a *) is because they are place holders for later in the day or for next weeks. Easier than rewriting all the time. Also, the listing order has to do with how they are added over time, not how good a post is. I just copy and paste from the previous week, then edit. If you see one of the *’s, go ahead and check out the blog anyhow, see if there is an update. I cannot update with my Android during the day.

Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »

Posted in Patriotic Pinup | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Great News: Trump’s Really Not Running Against Clinton

By William Teach August 14, 2016 – 8:03 am

Can you guess who Trump says he’s running against in this election cycle? Since the headline already says it is not Hillary, you probably guessed “Republicans,”, which sure seems the case since he and his followers spend a lot of time going after Republican voters and elected officials. Nope

(The Hill) Donald Trump said Saturday that his true opponent in the general election is the media.

“I’m not running against crooked Hillary, I’m running against the crooked media,” Trump said at a rally in Fairfield, Conn. “That’s what I’m running against, I’m not running against crooked Hillary.”

Trump has repeatedly lashed out at media that he calls “dishonest” over the course of his campaign.

Earlier Saturday, he bashed the New York Times after a report came out in which sources characterized Trump as “sullen” and struggling to recover in light of lagging poll numbers.

He renewed those attacks on the Times at the rally Saturday, saying he’s considering revoking their credentials to cover his rallies.

“I’ll tell you in particular lately we have a newspaper that’s failing badly, its losing a lot of money, its gonna be out of business very soon: the New York Times,” he said.

How soon till we get a meme from Trump supporters that refusing to vote for Trump is a vote for the media? He’s spent a lot of time bashing the media, which has made many very upset. And, let’s face it, the media does support Democrats at roughly a 90% rate. Regardless, this seems rather freeing, since, if I refuse to give my vote to Trump, while also not checking the box for Hillary, the meme about electing Hillary would be moot. I’m electing the media! Which is not actually on the ballot.

This is apparently a case of Trump just being himself. Which may have worked well during the primaries, but won’t work a lick during the general. Of course, during the primaries, he created such division among Republican voters that there are tons who will refuse to vote for him, and that’s on Trump and his supporters.

Interestingly, the “always correct” model predicts a Trump win

Using several standards to make his prediction, Alan Abramowitz’s “Time for Change” model done for the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics “Crystal Ball” shows Trump winning 51.4 percent to 48.6 percent for Hillary Clinton.

“Based on a predicted vote share of 48.6 percent for the incumbent party, these results indicate that Trump should be a clear but not overwhelming favorite to defeat Clinton: There should be about a 66 percent chance of a Republican victory,” Abramowitz added.

Many Trump supporters are crowing about this poll. Of course, many, including Excitable Jim Hoft, conveniently ignore the rest

However, in an unusual move, Abramowitz is throwing his own model under the bus and suggesting that Clinton will win because Trump is so different from past presidential candidates and has such high unfavorability ratings that his election forecast basics can’t be trusted.

“Based on the results of other recent presidential elections, however, as well as Trump’s extraordinary unpopularity, it appears very likely that the Republican vote share will fall several points below what would be expected if the GOP had nominated a mainstream candidate and that candidate had run a reasonably competent campaign. Therefore, despite the prediction of the Time for Change model, Clinton should probably be considered a strong favorite to win the 2016 presidential election as suggested by the results of recent national and state polls,” he concluded on the Crystal Ball site.

We’re talking electoral vote blowout under the bus. Because, Trump is running a campaign

  • with no spending on ads less than 90 days from the election
  • he has virtually no ground campaign
  • he has almost no campaign headquarters (I called the NC number on Friday and Saturday, no answer)
  • he’s spending time in deep blue states instead of swing states
  • he’s turning GOP states blue
  • he’s averse to doing any get out the vote programs
  • he spends a lot of time bashing Republicans
  • he’s apparently running against the media, not Hillary

You know, there are some #NeverTrump folks in deep blue states like NY and California who don’t feel bad in the least about not voting for the Republican candidate, because they know their vote is meaningless in those states. I’m starting to feel the same way in North Carolina. Trump is finding ways to push people away. Most of his campaign events seem to be all about placating his base. These are insider rallies. And the results will be disastrous in November.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Great News: Trump’s Really Not Running Against Clinton »

Posted in Donald Trump, Elections | 28 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach August 13, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…are horrid climate un-friendly dogs causing rivers to flood and dry up, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Patterico’s Pontifications, with a post on a student punished for an All Lives Matter Thoughtcrime.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove