BloggeRhythms

Events in other nations around the globe are now providing some insight as to what to expect here at the polls next November. Because, no matter what pundits, pollsters or “expert” analysts claim, individuals themselves decide whom to vote for. 

Jack Doyle, Political Correspondent @dailymail.co.uk via Drudge, reports: “German voters turned to the far right in droves yesterday in a damning verdict on Angela Merkel’s open door border policy.” 

Formed just three years ago, the anti-immigrant AfD (Alternative for Germany) party surged in popularity “following Mrs. Merkel’s decision to roll out the red carpet for more than a million migrants.”  

Analysts said that in a regional poll, Mrs. Merkel’s ruling Christian Democrats lost two out of three states, a ‘worst case scenario’ for the embattled chancellor ahead of a general election next year. 

This is now seen as a “virtual referendum on Germany’s refugee policy.” And also “an indictment of the failure of Europe’s ruling classes to acknowledge the public’s fears about migration.” 

“Mrs. Merkel’s welcome for arrivals from Syria, other parts of the Middle East and North Africa, has caused chaos across the continent. 

“Last night Mrs Petry, who chairs AfD, said: ‘We are seeing above all in these elections that voters are turning away in large numbers from the big established parties and voting for our party.” 

At the same time, Natalia Ramos and Sebastian Smith of AFP in Rio De Janeiro via news.yahoo.com, report: “More than three million Brazilians, according to police, demonstrated across Latin America's biggest nation to demand the ouster of embattled President Dilma Rousseff. 

Rousseff presides “over a stinging recession, with the economy shrinking 3.8 percent last year and the country losing its investment grade credit ratings.” 

“Brazil sought to pressure Congress into accelerating impeachment proceedings against the leftist leader, blamed for a massive corruption scandal and the worst economic recession in a quarter century.” 

Other occurrences in Brazil sound quite similar to events taking place here in the U.S., such as: “Divisions intensifying across the country, there had been fears of violence.” 

Police figures indicate turnouts exceeded anything seen in the past -- amounting to a humiliating vote of no-confidence in Rousseff's administration. The biggest anti-government protest last year, in March, included an estimated 1.7 million people across Brazil, with a million in Sao Paulo alone. Some 1.2 million people attended another six months later. 

So, if nothing else, these situations in Germany and Brazil indicate that the opposing candidates really don’t matter very much at all. What’s transpiring is a voter revolt against socialist/leftist policy, regardless of who’s responsible for the damage caused by the unworkable philosophy.  

Which goes a long way to explain the Trump phenomenon. Because it could have been anyone making anti-government speeches. Yet, so long as they sounded like any kind of alternative at all, they could have come from Curly, Moe or Larry getting the same support as Trump from a frustrated electorate. 

And then, a friend sent the following example of presidential logic. If the facts don’t support the premise, simply change the facts. 

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

Jeff Greenfield @politico.com, headed his article today: “What’s wrong with Hillary.” In answering his own question, Mr. Greenfield explained that younger Democrats, including women, were being lost by “landslide proportions.” However, his lengthy explanation also illustrated that, much like last time around around, there’s something about her that permits others to overtake her. Even such as an unknown Illinois Senator or perhaps, an ancient socialist from Vermont.  

Mr. Greenfield writes: “When Hillary Clinton began her second run for the White House, it must have seemed that the road ahead would rise up to meet her. This time, there would be no political phenomenon in her way—no younger, more charismatic figure who would strip Clinton of the mantle of “change.” All that stood between her and the nomination were a 74-year old socialist from Vermont and the obscure former governor of a state whose previous best-known politician was Spiro Agnew. Back then, if you had told Clinton’s campaign that she would be outraised by that Vermont socialist, that she would be losing younger Democrats, including young women, by landslide proportions, and that she would be facing a months-long slog through every primary—you would have been accused of smoking some of that now-legal-in-Colorado product.” 

And then, as Mr. Greenfield begins to dig into the reasons that tides seem to somehow turn against Bill’s wife’s expected easy victory’s, the illustrations he offers clearly demonstrating two things: continually proving herself untrustworthy while frequently vacillating for self-serving purposes. 

Mr. Greenfield offers “other factors that make Hillary Clinton look more vulnerable than venerable, and that should give her party cause to pause. Consider the much-chewed-over finding that nearly six in 10 Americans do not consider Clinton honest and trustworthy. In last Wednesday’s debate, panelist Karen Tumulty cut through Clinton’s first explanation—it’s all that right-wing Fox News noise—to note that these doubts were held by the broader public, and by many in her own party.” 

When asked by Tumulty: “Is there anything in your own actions and the decisions that you yourself have made that would foster this kind of mistrust?” Clinton’s answer demonstrated both, arrogance and dishonesty, to the extent that it was demeaning to any intelligent listener. She replied: “I do take responsibility. ... I am not a natural politician, in case you haven't noticed, like my husband or President Obama. So I have a view that I just have to do the best I can, get the results I can, make a difference in people's lives.” 

In this case, Bill’s wife would have people believe that after having spent the majority of her career in nothing but politics, she’s not a “natural” politician. However, she might have been closer to the truth if she’d adjusted her answer slightly to reply she’s not a “good” politician.

And then, Mr. Greenfield gets to a key point underlining the fact that there’s something about Bills wife that over time and exposure, consistently turns voters off, as follows: “A look at Clinton’s political career provides a tougher explanation. Those younger voters who doubt her trustworthiness likely have no memory, or even casual acquaintance with, a 25-year history that includes cattle-futures trading, law firm billing records, muddled sniper fire recollections and the countless other charges of widely varying credibility aimed at her. They may even have suspended judgment about whether her e-mail use was a matter of bad judgment or worse.”  

Thus, it likely isn’t even her politics, personal history or platform that alienates voters over time. It’s “her” that most don’t like. Which means that if she stays consistent in trying to change to become more acceptable, it’s going to require another 25 years to prove it to the public. 

Bringing up the ongoing question: Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this?

    

That’s it for today folks.  

    

Adios