BloggeRhythms

Today, as usual, whatever else may be going on in the world, the upcoming presidential election is the focus of what seems to be the entire media. 

As far as the topic’s concerned, two things stand out clearly. The first is that, the MSM continues to do all in its power to support Bill Clinton’s wife, claiming the race has already been won by her. And then point two. As a practical matter, that same MSM doesn’t know what it’s talking about.

According to the RealClearPolitics average this morning, “While Clinton led Trump by an average of 7.6 percentage points one month ago, her advantage is now down to a meager 1.8 percent.”

Despite the definitive trend toward Trump: “Election handicappers are taking a wait-and-see approach before declaring a fundamental shift in the race, believing it’s still likelier that Clinton will win enough battleground states to take the White House. 

“Forecasting models from the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics and Frontloading HQ still show Clinton with a significant Electoral College advantage. 

“U.Va.’s model has Clinton running the table on the battleground states to win 348 electoral votes, which would be slightly better than Obama’s showing against Republican Mitt Romney in 2012.” 

At the same time: “FiveThirtyEight’s forecasting model, run by data guru Nate Silver, finds Clinton’s likelihood of victory has plummeted from nearly 90 percent in August to 61 percent. 

“In the FiveThirtyEight forecast, Clinton ekes out a popular vote victory by 2.3 points and earns 290 electoral votes, compared to 246 for Trump. That’s a deficit that can be closed by moving two battleground states from Clinton’s column into Trump’s.  

“I still think Clinton has a slight advantage,” said GOP pollster David Winston. “But it has definitely tightened up; this race is extremely volatile.” 

And then, after presenting the aforementioned evidence from two of the nation’s premier pollsters, the article continues: “Pollsters don’t know whether minority voters and college-educated whites will turn out for Clinton because they fear a Trump presidency. They doubt the third-party candidates will pull their current level of support, but are unsure if those voters will stay home or move to a major party candidate. And they don’t know if Trump’s enthusiasm advantage is enough to overcome the Democratic turnout machine. 

“It’s hard to know what the polls mean right now because the vast majority are motivated to vote against the other candidate,” Murray said. “We’ve never had a situation like this. It’s unprecedented. You can’t compare it to anything in modern times.” 

And therefore, when all is said and done, these highly regarded pollsters know absolutely nothing about how the election will turn out. And neither does anyone else. 

Nonetheless, if one takes a step back and looks at other indications regarding possible outcomes, some interesting input comes from  Edward Luce @ft.com, in his column: “Trump support surges in Pennsylvania towns”

Mr. Luce writes: “In spite of being a largely Democratic town, most of its non-Hispanic inhabitants will vote for Mr Trump in November. They are expected to turn out in far higher numbers than the more numerous Dominicans. There is scant evidence of Hillary Clinton’s fabled get out the vote operation in Hazleton’s Latino neighbourhoods. 

“If that holds true across non-urban Pennsylvania, Mrs Clinton could be in trouble. The state has voted for the Democrat in every presidential election since 1988. Towns such as Lancaster, which is now 40 per cent Hispanic, and Allentown, which has seen an equally breathtaking metamorphosis, are also seeing a surge of pro-Trump support. His campaign seems to have more energy on its side. Mrs Clinton is supposed to have the organisation. “I don’t see much evidence of the Clinton campaign in Hazleton,” says Jeff Cusat, the city’s Republican mayor.” 

Then in addition to the undercurrents of a surge toward Trump in major battle ground states, on an international scale, there’s growing confirmation that Trump’s on the right track as far as immigration’s concerned. 

Kim Hjelmgaard writes today @usatoday.com: “Chancellor Angela Merkel's ruling party could face new losses in local elections here Sunday from an upstart anti-immigration party that has grown in popularity as an opponent to the German leaders' open-door policy for migrants. 

“In recent state elections, the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party has made enough gains to sow doubt over Merkel's ability to win a fourth term in next year's national elections.

“With its strident opposition to immigration, Islam and the European Union, the AfD looks to make fresh gains in Germany's capital, which usually leans to the left politically. 

“Merkel, whose approval ratings are at a five-year low, has struggled to overcome mounting German angst over her decision to take in more than 1 million migrants fleeing war and poverty in the Middle East, Africa and Asia.” 

“The AfD was founded three years ago in protest over Germany's participation in bailouts for indebted countries that use the euro currency, such as Greece and Spain. It's more recent populist anti-immigration message mirrors other once-fringe right-wing political parties across Europe that are gaining in popularity, such as Austria's People's Party, the United Kingdom Independence Party and France's National Front.” 

So, here we have crystal clear evidence that populations across the globe are sick and tired of falling victim to outsiders who flood their nations, refuse to assimilate and cost them dearly economically. Which implies that, much like Germany, it’s highly likely that Americans are going to show their distaste and frustrations at the voting booths in November. Regardless of what any pollsters guesses indicate presently.  

Which brings us to today’s update o Bill Clinton’s wife. 

In an item @FoxNews.com, its reported: “Clinton went on the attack Thursday night at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute over Trump’s refusal to say whether Obama was born in the U.S. 

"He was asked one more time where was President Obama born and he still wouldn't say Hawaii. He still wouldn't say America," Clinton said. "This man wants to be our next president? When will he stop this ugliness, this bigotry?” 

“Trump fueled the “birther” movement in the days when Obama took office. In August 2012 — more than a year after the president released the document in April 2011 — Trump was pushing the issue on Twitter.” 

In reality, this reportage should make Trump a very happy candidate. Because if this is all that his opponent can come up with at this late stage of the race, her campaign has absolutely nothing viable to offer. 

And that makes absolute sense because, whether its the economy, jobs, illegal immigration, the Middle-East, overall foreign policy, the health care tax, the climate hoax, the federal deficit or gun ownership, she’s on the wrong side of all of them for most of the voting public.

Which may be why, although she targeted raising a billion dollars as her objective to support her campaign, she’s presently far short of that goal. 

According to the fundraising results posted on her website this morning she’s raised “$435.3M,” less than half of her target. 

And then, in what may be an indication of shortsightedness the site boasts: “Clinton and supporters have raised the most in the race, $307.7M more than Trump and supporters, who have raised the second most.” 

Thus, while trying to brag about perceived popularity as evidenced by money raised, Trump still leads her in significant polls across the spectrum. Which means that, despite how much she’s raised from her base of wealthy contributors, it really hasn’t helped overcome her general dislikability. 

In fact, considering how much she’s raised, one could call her polling results “deplorable.”

 

Bringing up the ongoing question once more: Joe Biden, Jerry Brown, and Starbucks chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz; are you guys reading this?   

 

That's it for today folks.   

Adios