BloggeRhythms

Michael Goodwin titled his column @nypost.com, today: “Hillary Clinton is unraveling quickly.”

From the heading of the piece, and the first few paragraphs, it was quite clear that Mr. Goodwin was trying to critique Bill Clinton’s wife campaign to date, and then provide constructive criticism to aid and assist her. However, in doing so he also, likely inadvertently, explained how and why Trump will probably best her, providing she ultimately wins her party’s nomination.   

Mr. Goodwin writes: “All stand ready to help sponsor a dignified funeral, but that won’t be necessary. Their reports of the Republican Party’s death are premature. Very premature. 

“A new Quinnipiac poll tells the inconvenient truth. Trump and Hillary Clinton are tied in each of the three key swing states of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida.” 

And then, Mr. Goodwin gets to the heart of Trump’s appeal, explaining what traditionalists have missed completely in their attempts to deal with the nonconforming upstart who’s usurped their party and platform right out from under them, as follows: 

“By all means, endorsements are generally a good thing for candidates, and party unity is usually regarded as an essential starting point. But the claim that Trump must finally conform to all the traditional norms repeats the false assumptions that led the media and most Republicans to miss Trump’s astonishing appeal in the first place. 

“He is a phenomenon, much as Barack Obama was in 2008, and he could do to Clinton what Obama did to her then. Obama was fresh, and she was tired. Now Trump is fresh, and Clinton is even more tired.” 

Mr. Goodwin then lists the issues most associated with Trump; immigration, terrorism, trade and jobs, all of which dominated the GOP primary’s. Which led to his question of what the last year would have looked like without Trump. “Who would have set the GOP agenda, what issues would have led the way, and how would voters have responded? Would turnout have hit record levels when so many Republican voters feel betrayed by their own party leaders? 

Mr. Goodwin concludes: “Trump stirred the drink from day one and the ability to set the terms of the contest is usually the hallmark of a winning campaign. That’s what he’s done so far, and that’s what he’ll try to do in the fall.” 

Getting back to his subject of Bill’s wife’s needs for the future, Mr. Goodwin opines: “[She] can’t let him succeed, and instead must put him on defense with nonstop attacks on his character and lack of government experience. She’s already doing that, but is paying a price with his fierce counter-punching. 

“Her big advantage is the Electoral College, and she will try to shut him down by relentlessly playing the women’s and racial cards. And it’s certain Trump will hand her gaffe gifts and display an embarrassing lack of detailed knowledge. 

Then, after all that, Mr. Goodwin closes his column by writing: “We know all that already, yet still they are tied in the states that matter most. She may win and he may lose, but neither The New York Times nor Mitt Romney will make a whit of difference.” 

And, in a nutshell, that’s what Trump has done. Because, whether it’s The New York Times, Mitt Romney, the entire Republican party, Democrats too, and/or independents as well, traditions gone out the window. None of them know what Trump will really do in the future. And, since he doesn't either, he’s extremely difficult to campaign against.  

Staying on the subject of Trump, in an extensive interview with the Associated Press yesterday he said he does not intend to release his tax returns before the November election. He also ruled out accepting public money to finance his campaign.  

He cited an ongoing audit of his finances as the reason he does not expect to release his returns before November, but said he will release them after the audit is completed. 

"There's nothing to learn from them," he said, adding that he doesn’t think the voters are interested. 

As far as voters not being “interested” is concerned, however, two reader’s comments seem to indicate otherwise. 

ellacc wrote: “Romney was on to something. Trump could release previous years.” 

birthersaredumb followed up with: “Much of his claimed wealth is tied up in his valuation of his name as a trademark asset but it may reveal he's not as wealthy as he brags.” 

Thus, while Trump may choose by design, or out of arrogance, to take the offhanded approach that voters have no interest in his financial affairs, that doesn’t seem to be the case, as evidenced by reader’s responses. And if those reader’s are correct in their assumptions of subterfuge, that could come back to haunt him in the future far more than biting the bullet would now. 

Then a friend sent the following:

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife, where another one got chalked up for her in the "Lost" column yesterday. She got blown out blown out in the West Virginia Democrat Primary, losing to Sanders 51% to 36%.
 

At the same time, Vice President Joe Biden told Margaret Chadbourn @abcnews.go.com/politics: He “would have been the best president” if he had mounted a successful campaign in the 2016 election, but that forgoing the race was the right decision for his family. 

“Speaking with “Good Morning America” co-anchor Robin Roberts in an exclusive interview that aired today, Biden said he had planned to run but changed course only after his eldest son Beau died last May.” 

While Biden hasn’t endorsed either Democrat candidate he said he thinks Clinton will be the nominee, saying “I feel confident that Hillary will be the nominee, and I feel confident she’ll be the next president." 

But, evidently, he still doesn’t feel strongly enough to put his full support behind her. 

While Biden stated that Bill’s wife wasn’t the best his party had to offer in presidential candidates, Peter Nicholas and Byron Tau @wsj.com wrote that: “Bernie Sanders defeated front-runner Hillary Clinton in West Virginia on Tuesday, regaining momentum and leaving some of Mrs. Clinton’s backers uneasy that her path to the Democratic presidential nomination figures to be rocky to the end. 

“I’m always uncomfortable when she loses,” said New Hampshire state Sen. Lou D’Allesandro, a Clinton supporter. “Every time [Mr. Sanders] presents himself and presents his story, more people start talking about him. And that goes on and on.” 

“But polls suggest Mr. Sanders could notch wins next week in Oregon and Kentucky, demonstrating that a sizable wing of the party remains attracted to his populist message and isn’t yet ready to coalesce behind Mrs. Clinton. 

“Victories also tend to fuel Mr. Sanders’s fundraising, giving him more money to air TV ads and prolong the fight.” 

Making matters worse for Bill’s wife, some underlying data from Kyle Olson @theamericanmirror.com, shows that she’s doing worse this time around then when the POTUS came out of nowhere to bury her in 2008.   

In West Virginia she trounced Obama, 66.9% to 25.7% (John Edwards received 7.3%). But that was then and this is now where, in the raw vote total she received 240,890 votes in 2008, but yesterday netted 84,176 votes, according to NBC — a 65% decline. 

Additional data shows the landscape shifting under Clinton’s feet. “According to data obtained at the polls yesterday, 33% of Democrats say they will vote for Donald Trump in November. Only 44% of Dems say they’ll vote Clinton. Twenty-one percent say they’ll support neither.” 

Which means, that just like last time around, the more familiar voters become with her, the less they like her. Much like her marriage has gone. Bringing up the continuing 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