BloggeRhythms

For what seems like an eternity by now, myriad pundits attempt to outdo each other every day. Presenting information, data and supposition in support of which candidate, and major party, will claim the White House in November. 

However, information that’s been gathering for some time now may have already sealed the fate of Democrat hopefuls, regardless of which one eventually gains the presidential nomination.   

Patti Domm @cnbc.com, wrote yesterday: “Some economists now see first-quarter growth as negligible, and it could easily turn out to be negative. 

“Economists shaved already weak growth forecasts by a few more tenths Friday, after wholesale inventories fell 0.5 percent month over month in February, much more than the anticipated 0.1 percent decline. January was also revised down by 0.4 percent. 

“The closely watched Atlanta Fed GDPNow model now shows first-quarter growth tracking at 0.1 percent, compared to a 0.4 percent estimate earlier in the week. JPMorgan economists now forecast the economy only expanded by 0.2 percent in the first quarter, from 0.7 percent. 

“Barclays economists shaved tracking GDP growth for the first quarter to 0.3 percent from 0.4 percent.” 

What’s critical here, politically speaking, is that there’s no doubt that the giveaway mentality of Democrat politicians carry’s great appeal for the downtrodden, paperless and hopeless, regardless of the reasons for the dismay of those afflicted. Which today, amounts to a significant portion of the population.     

 

However, there’s also a growing realization on the part of the working public that’s seen their job opportunities lost to illegal’s in the marketplace, working hours cut to accommodate other's healthcare problems, inflated costs for fuel, food and other necessities brought on due to highly questionable climatic assumptions, and an economic outlook that can only get far worse if the campaign promises of either Democrat candidate are anywhere near factual.  

  

So, instead of focusing on extremely theoretical probabilities of how  particular Democrats or Republicans will do in the coming election, pundits will look far wiser and prescient if they acknowledge now, that Democrat hopes are actually hovering somewhere near zero. 

Regardless of how strongly their fervent base of believers choose to distort the reality, aided by highly biased media friends.  

On the Republican side, Chris Stirewalt @FoxNews.com on Friday wrote: “Trump veterans’ charities still waiting for money - More than two months after Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump claimed to have raised $6 million for veterans’ charities at a fundraiser held on the eve of the Iowa caucuses, most of the organizations targeted to receive the money have gotten less than half of that amount… Fox Business Network first reported in late February that only a fraction of the pledged donations had made their way to the veterans groups.”

Add this item to the many others that seem to continually contradict Trump’s utilization of his “wealth” as confirmation of his self-determined superior capabilities, and you have another reason to be skeptical. Surrounded by bankruptcies, major business failures, and now the possible overstatement of funds raised for charitable purposes, provide cause for consideration of the validity of any of his undocumented claims of superior financial acuity. 

And then, also from Mr. Stirewalt, the Weekly Standard’s Steve Hayes “points out why a Trump shift towards policy isn’t the correct course of action for the Republican front-runner: A campaign that shifts to policy will invite focus on the many areas where Trump has supported policies anathema to GOP primary voters and will allow his opponents to highlight his dramatic reversals on issues that, for many conservatives, are matters of conscience or conviction. But more problematic for Trump is the fact that on most matters of policy, he has no idea what he's talking about.”

Coming on the heels of negative commentary's from the likes of highly respected intellectuals, such as Ari Fleischer and George Will, it looks like Trump has a very, very long way to go to overcome their feeling of open distrustfulness. 

On the other side, a Facebook friend posted a perfect Sanders or Clinton campaign poster, whichever grabs it first:

Bringing us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.

Yesterday, Eun Kyung Kim @today.com, wrote about Bill’s wife’s presenting her views of the email probe in a sit-down interview with Matt Lauer that aired Friday. 

“While speaking with Lauer in a New York diner, Clinton addressed the email controversy that continues to hover over her campaign. She dismissed the idea that many Republican leaders are hoping that it will ultimately be her downfall and send her to prison. 

"I know that they live in that world of fantasy and hope because they've got a mess on their hands on the Republican side. That is not going to happen. 

"There is not even the remotest chance that is going to happen. But look, they've been after me, as I say, for 25 years. And they have said things about me repeatedly that have been proven to be not only false but kind of ridiculous," she said. 

"The Republicans' fondest wishes will not be fulfilled."

While Bill’s wife’s response contained nothing that wouldn't be expected from anyone under investigation by the FBI, the comment made by a reader, CG03220, put the situation in a far more probable context, as follows:

“Not even the 'remotest' chance, Hill? The FBI does not commence criminal investigations simply for its own amusement, but on the basis that reasonable suspicion of a crime exists in which YOU happen to be the target of criminal suspicion, which is why you have yet to be called for 'interview'; targets are NEVER contacted until ALL investigation has been completed. The last person interviewed is the target; that would be YOU Hillary. So, as for delusion, NO rational individual would dismiss an FBI criminal probe of them as not presenting the 'remotest' chance of resulting in charges, for which you would be arrested, booked, fingerprinted and arraigned. I am waiting to hear your unequivocal pledge, though, that when the FBI DOES call you for 'interview,' you will swear NOT to refuse the interview or invoke 5th amendment privileges (and we will hear about it if you do). By the way, you do look good in orange.”

Now, obviously, one has no way of knowing who reader CG03220 is, yet he certainly writes as someone sounding like he knows what he’s talking about. Perhaps he’s with the FBI himself. And, only the final outcome will confirm or refute his thoughts. 

However, what’s also telling in its own way, is that 122 other reader comments followed the article, just about every one of them negative towards Bill’s wife. And, what’s even more indicative of possibly brewing problems, is that you’d expect Today’s readers and audience to be blindly faithful to any Clinton. Nonetheless, they simply aren't.   

Bringing up the recurring question once again: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this?   

That’s it for today folks.      

Adios