"Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he."
-- Proverbs 29:18, King James Bible (KJV)

Friday, March 04, 2016

Primary Voter Turnout May Suggest That a Donald Trump Win Over Hillary Clinton in the Presidential Election Is Possible

WINNING means being in the right place at the right time.

At the New York Times, Nicholas Confessore points to 3 million FEWER voters  turning out in 2016 than in 2012 in the 15 Democratic Party primaries already concluded and headlines his story as Beneath Hillary Clinton’s Super Tuesday Wins, Signs of Turnout Trouble.

By contrast, the number of votes cast for Donald Trump alone in Nevada was greater than the total voter turnout there 4 years previous.

We have been reading mainstream media commentary about Donald Trump's campaign trail and find that much of what is being written is as much behind actual developments as it was six months ago when we, as political non-partisan centrists -- who in 2008 called Barack Obama's ultimate win early in the primaries -- already wrote in September, 2015 Why Donald Trump Could Win the Presidency: LEADERSHIP and BEING RIGHT ON ECONOMICS.

Many news people, journalists, bloggers and op-eds analyzing the Trump phenomenon still do not get it, much to our astonishment, whereas it seems simple enough to us. People think that if they do not "agree" with Trump or if he exaggerates his statements for emphasis, he must be a bad candidate. They are not listening to the base essence of what he is saying and why he is saying it, much as they ignored Obama in 2008. One should first ask, "Is Trump in the trend of today's political thinking or not?" We think he is.

Calling Trump a bully or a non-Christian inter alia for his stance e.g. on ILLEGAL immigration fails to comprehend the nature of the political "shift" taking place among American voters. We are reminded of the old saw that "a true leader" sees a great mass of humanity thronging in a given direction and puts himself at the head of it. So it may be in the case of Donald Trump.

"Political correctness" in past decades has shifted the focus away from the average working man AND woman toward special groups, such that the well-being of the middle class has been greatly damaged, through no fault of their own, but rather through faulty decisions made by political leaders.

As a result, NORMAL people are ANGRY, and they are angry with the political establishment. Call them the SILENT MAJORITY. It exists.

Trump is not part of that establishment, by his independent nature not. Hillary Clinton is nothing else but establishment and would be helpless without it.

Hillary Clinton's exploits into government and foreign policy have been marked with disastrous failures and bad decisions. Karen Tumulty writes at the Washington Post: "Asked to name something tangible that Clinton has actually accomplished, many voters come up blank." BLANK! Moreover, we are VERY skeptical of someone uttering such delusions of grandeur as this from Hillary: "Whatever world he lives in is not the world I've lived in my whole life and the world that I'm going to govern as president".

We do not see her winning the Presidency, in spite of the wish of many that a woman now be elected President. Maybe a female figure will surface in coming years who can occupy such an office on her own merits and not on the coattails of her former President husband or via the Democratic Party machine.

Trump by contrast is not riding a wave of support FOR or AGAINST an establishment political party. Rather, he is riding the great wave of support of normal people in America voting for THEIR interests.

That army in motion will not be diverted from their path by journalistic ad hominem arguments about the person leading them. Rather, they are cheering their leader on to correct the wrongs that previous establishment leadership has inflicted upon them. As the political race goes on, that amount of crowd support will likely increase, rather than decrease. The throng may grow.

As an example of bad decisions made in the past by past leaders, decisions to which Donald Trump was not a party, we can look to NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, which was signed into law by then President Bill Clinton and "has been a disaster for the working people and the communities in which they live in all three nations."

So wrote Mike Westfall in Maquiladoras–American Industry Creates Modern-Day Mexican Slaves, The Cutting Edge, The Edge of Labor, June 8th, 2009, cited by LawPundit, June 14, 2009 in What is a Maquila or a Maquiladora? Mexican Border Factories Employ Thousands and Account for a Great Share of Mexican Exports but At What Cost?

NAFTA and the errant policies affiliated with it ultimately destroyed millions of American workers' jobs in favor of cheaper Mexican labor, ultimately driving down the wages of all, which itself then led to the influx of millions of illegal Mexican workers into the United States, resulting in the present immigrant situation -- a story which can be studied in detail at The Facts on Immigration Today, at the Center for American Progress, from which we cite as follows:

"The foreign-born population consisted of 40.7 million people in 2012. Broken down by immigration status, the foreign-born population was composed of 18.6 million naturalized U.S. citizens and 22.1 million noncitizens in 2012. Of the noncitizens, approximately 13.3 million were legal permanent residents, 11.3 million were unauthorized migrants, and 1.9 million were on temporary visas....

In 2010, 8.4 million undocumented immigrants were employed in the United States. They represented 5.2 percent of the U.S. labor force, although they comprised only 3.7 percent of the U.S. population....

The fast-paced growth of the Latino electorate and the slow or negative growth among non-Hispanic whites will change the voter makeup in the United States by 2016. Over the next four years, the number of eligible Latino voters nationwide is projected to increase by more than 4 million people to 27.7 million. By 2016, we can expect Texas to have 905,500 new Latino voters, making up 58.1 percent of the net increase in all eligible voters in the state."

Donald Trump did not create this immigration problem or the jobs problem, or the other serious problems that today beset the United States in foreign affairs or domestic law enforcement or a host of other areas, such as the national debt, or the widespread inequality of income and wealth.

These problems have been created by a navel-gazing political establishment more interested in themselves than in the people they represent. Every criticism of Trump from establishment politicians puts more votes into Trump's ballot box. People do not want THEM to win. People want Trump to win.

Indeed, the large-scale erosion of the Republican Party began prior to Donald Trump. It was already visible in the Tea Party splinter group. Philip Bump of The Fix at the Washington Post wrote in Has Donald Trump revived the tea party? Not quite.:

"The Republican Party has had an active rebellion brewing within its ranks since the Tea Party rose to prominence in 2010."

Accordingly, all those writing that Donald Trump is "destroying" the Republican Party should go back and get their history straight. Things were badly askew in the GOP prior to Trump's appearance on the political scene.

If anything, Trump is slowly uniting some of the forces that could not be united by normal political means in the Republican Party, and he is gaining former Democratic Party supporters as well, especially those who view the prospect of Hillary Clinton becoming President of the United States as a recipe for disaster.

Someone who ran her office of Secretary of State via her private closet server at home (can we call this "kitchen diplomacy"?) is unlikely to become more professional or more successful in her responsibilities as President. She was the President's wife. Fine. Good for her. Move on.

There is nothing mysterious about Trump's strong emergence. He is a successful businessman and personality known well throughout the country. He has the strong personality necessary to pull off what others wanted to do, but failed, due to their lacking of personal charisma and strong leadership.

Obviously, Trump also has many weaknesses, but which of the other Presidential candidates do not also have such weaknesses, and, depending on one's point of view, possibly even quite more of them?

We do not doubt that Trump is FOR America and a better world, but he is not confused about WHO he is representing and what that SILENT MAJORITY are actually thinking, and he is SAYING it. That is a recipe for success.