The election results pose some significant challenges for the GOP since the Trump revolution may not have been as far-reaching as many would like to believe.
Donald Trump did not make significant gains nationally, earning only a few more votes than the Republican candidates in the past three campaigns, as Mark Levin has pointed out.
According to Cook Political Report’s latest tally, which is continuously being updated, Trump earned about 62 million votes.
That’s about the same as George Bush received in 2004 and Mitt Romney got in 2012. Even John McCain got 60 million votes in 2008.
In 2008, for example, more than 129 million went to the polls, giving Barack Obama nearly 69.5 million votes and a landslide in the Electoral College. In 2012, more than 129 million went to the polls, providing Obama with more than 65 million.
Hillary Clinton will fall short of Obama’s popular vote in the last election, but not by much. All told, the number of people voting also will fall short of the last campaign.
As the results indicate, Trump did well in the 13 swing states needed to win. According to Cook, Trump got 22.1 million votes in the swing states, while Clinton received 21.2 million. That is a shift of 5.5 percent over 2012, but the razor-thin victories in Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan underline a continuing need to work hard over the next four years to keep these states in the GOP column.
It was unclear how many conservatives voted for Trump, although exit polls showed overwhelmingly that people wanted a change from Obama. Forty-six percent of voters said they wanted policies enacted by the next president to be “more conservative” than Obama’s policies, according to ABC News’s election exit polling.
I voted reluctantly for Trump. I credit Trump for bringing more conservatives into his administration so far, which may solidify the GOP’s appeal on the right. The key test to expand the GOP base will be his success in building a more robust economy.
Trump’s election surprised most people. But it’s important to realize that it was not a revolution. It will take a lot of hard work to keep the GOP in power when 2018 and 2020 roll around.
Christopher Harper is a recovering journalist who worked for The Associated Press, Newsweek, ABC News and The Washington Times and teaches media law.
Anyone who thinks Pennsylvania is a safe state for Hillary Clinton is dead wrong.
Even though the Keystone State hasn’t gone for a Republican presidential candidate since 1988, Donald Trump knows that winning Pennsylvania is critical to his bid for the White House. That’s why he and his surrogates have spent a great deal of time here.
This state, where I have lived since 2005, is a complicated one. The two main cities—Pittsburgh in the west and Philadelphia to the east—vote overwhelming Democrat. In fact, Mitt Romney failed to get a single vote in a number of Philly precincts in 2012, leading many to suspect voter fraud.
The rest of the state votes overwhelmingly GOP. The governorship tends to shift between the two parties; the current officer holder is a wacko lefty and, alas, not up for reelection. The legislature stands firmly in the hands of the GOP. It tends to be more liberal than most GOP strongholds, but the legislature usually stops most of the silly Democrat plans. Half of the state Senate’s 50 seats are on the ballot this year, and if Republicans can pick up three of them, they would control a veto-proof majority.
The congressional delegation tilts overwhelmingly Republican. The U.S. Senate is split, with one Democrat and one Republican.
Voters will replace a disgraced attorney general, a Democrat who was convicted of perjury; and a Philadelphia congressman, a Democrat convicted of corruption.
The prospects for the GOP, including Trump, look relatively good despite the predictions from the media and their polls. Since November 2015, the Pennsylvania GOP has registered 243,139 new Republican voters. That includes nearly 100,000 people who switched from the Democrat side.
Atlantic magazine published a detailed examination of lifelong Pennsylvania Democrats staunchly supporting Trump:
Paul Sracic, a Youngstown State University political scientist, said he believes there are two categories of voters rallying to support Trump. “First, there are people who don’t normally vote,” he said. “Nearly half the voting-age population was either not registered to vote, or was registered and decided not to vote in 2012. And if even 10 percent of that group was to show up and vote this year, it could easily change the outcome in the important swing states.”
Trump may be helped by these trends, but incumbent Republican Pat Toomey may not be. That’s mainly because he has failed to endorse Trump.
Toomey is running evenly with Katie McGinty, a Democrat who has never held political office but has worked as a political insider in Washington and Pennsylvania. McGinty came in fourth in the Democrat primary for governor in 2014. Her only credentials are heading environmental wacko posts under Barack Obama and working as a lobbyist for wacko environmentalists.
Toomey’s gamble staying away from Trump may, in fact, be a bad move if the less-than-colorful GOP senator loses.
It will be an interesting ride tonight, with the real possibility that Trump could pull off a victory in Pennsylvania even though the GOP may lose a Senate seat.
Christopher Harper is a recovering journalist who worked for The Associated Press, Newsweek, ABC News and The Washington Times and teaches media law.
As allegedly the most qualified individual ever to run for the White House, Hillary Clinton has chosen to hide one of her longest gigs from her curriculum vitae: her 15 years as an attorney at Rose Law First in Little Rock, Arkansas.
While she touts her much shorter terms as a U.S. senator and U.S. secretary of state, Clinton rarely focuses on her time as a lawyer.
That’s with good reason because her job at Rose Law underlines her duplicity.
The Wall Street Journal recently ran an article outlining her “achievements” at Rose Law.
“Instead of defending poor people and righting wrongs, we found ourselves squarely on the side of corporate greed against the little people,” her colleague, Webb Hubbell, wrote.
The Journal noted: “Mrs. Clinton’s years at the firm included some controversy. For one, the roots of the Whitewater affair reach back to her years at Rose when her husband was serving as Arkansas governor. The firm and Mrs. Clinton represented a failed savings-and-loan association run by James McDougal, the Clintons’ partner in the Whitewater real-estate investment, in a matter before state regulators. Whitewater dogged the Clintons throughout Bill Clinton’s presidency, though neither of them was ever charged.”
Many of the Rose firm’s clients were big companies, including three of the state’s largest: Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Tyson Foods Inc. and Stephens, Inc., a brokerage firm.
She also supplemented her income by serving on corporate boards, including Wal-Mart and TCBY Enterprises, the yogurt franchise, both Rose clients.
When her husband ran for president in 1992, her work sparked questions about whether she had benefited from state business handled by her firm. “For goodness’ sake, you can’t be a lawyer if you don’t represent banks,” Hillary said at the time. [Emphasis added].
At the firm, lawyers were split over Mrs. Clinton’s value as a partner. The Journal wrote: “Other colleagues resented Mrs. Clinton’s outside interests and how they limited her billable hours. In addition to time away campaigning for her husband, who was on the ballot every two years….”
In her 2003 book, Mrs. Clinton wrote only briefly about her work at Rose. The Journal noted that an indication of her outlook favoring the wealthy over the poor occurred early on in her career at Rose. In November 1976, the activist group Acorn [yes, the infamous Acorn of the James O’Keefe videos] had succeeded in getting an initiative on the state ballot to lower electricity rates for low-income users and increase them for businesses.
The Rose team’s argument, credited mainly to Hillary, was that the lower rates for the poor were unconstitutional.
As people vote for the next president, they should consider an important part of Hillary’s past, which she apparently wants no one to see. Sound familiar?
Christopher Harper, a recovering journalist with The Associated Press, Newsweek, ABC News and The Washington Times, teaches media law.
Those who are complaining about Trump today have no basis for their moral outrage. That’s because their secular amoral worldview rejects any basis for that moral judgment. Any argument they make against the “immorality” of Trump is stolen, or at least borrowed for expediency, from a religious worldview they have soundly rejected.
The fact of the matter is that Judeo-Christian ethics have been driven from our culture and declared a dinosaur from an ancient past. Right and wrong, virtue, morality, goodness—these have been rejected in pop culture, our education system, the media, and politics. We have been told repeatedly that character doesn’t matter because everyone’s values are different. All that matters is an ideological agenda and the power that goes with it.
All the same people in the media and political class today who are condemning Trump don’t give a wit about what he said on that tape. It’s all smoke and mirrors with them. Given the rampant immorality in D.C. and throughout the political media, they’re hardly shocked by the businessman’s comments.
They don’t believe in absolute morality anyway. And even if they do have some semblance of conscience, they don’t think it matters what happens in private. All that matters is pushing their liberal agenda. If it takes being hypocritical about Trump, then so be it.
Did you hear about the release of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s returns on from 2007 through 2014 on Friday afternoon?
If you didn’t–well, that was the goal of the Clinton camp. Both political parties do it–disclosing possibly bad news on a Friday afternoon just as reporters are leaving work for the weekend. It’s called a Friday news dump–or a document dump. And since August is a popular vacation month–some of those members of the media will be on the beach instead of at the computer this week. When these reporters return to work–whether it’s Monday or next Monday–they might dismiss the Clinton revelations as old news and neglect to report on it at all
What can we learn from the Clinton returns? Well, they are rich. There is nothing wrong with that–I want to be rich. The once and possibly future first family collected $139 million between ’07 and ’14. But in the last two years–after Hillary resigned as secretary of state, the Clintons collected $23 million in speaking fees in 2013 and $20 million last year. Many of those speeches were given to corporate and special interest groups–who of course may be seeking favored status from a President Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2017.
That’s a big problem because nearly all Americans can’t buy access to a president.
Thirty-five percent of the Clinton income went to federal income taxes–which is something we’ll be hearing a lot about from HRC. But don’t expect Hillary to brag about her family’s charitable giving–which was almost $15 million in the last eight years. Ninety-nine percent of those donations went to the Clinton Foundation–which is in actuatlity a slush fund and a jobs bank for Clinton cronies.
Please spread the news about the Hillary document dump. She doesn’t want other people to know.
So the IRS lost two years worth of Lois Lerner’s emails? Huh.
And they are saying that it’s a hard disc error? Hmm.
And there are no servers with these emails on them? Imagine that.
And the House Ways and Means Committee Chairman has asked the…wait for it…the Department of Justice to investigate these “missing” emails? I’m sure that Attorney General Eric Holder will get right on that.
I remember when Former President Clinton’s National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger, absent-mindedly walked out o the National Archives with classified documents which had fallen into his socks. Then, one day, as he was walking around the house with the documents in hand, he tripped and dropped the documents. They, unfortunately fell into the blades of the scissors which were lying on the floor and they were turned into ribbons.
For his “unfortunate mishap,” Berger received a misdemeanor verdict of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material, was fined $50,000, placed on probation for two years and stripped of his security clearance for three years—and received no jail time. That was in 2005.
I’m guessing that one of the Clintons wrote a check to Mr. Berger. Services rendered and all that.
There was some outcry online for a bit, but it died down and the Left took note. So did I.
Back then, it seemed to me that this brazen incident of theft and destruction of classified documents—and its outcome–was some sort of test. The Left wanted to see what it would be able to get away with, and it did indeed see. Berger basically got away with his heist and it was the proverbially harbinger of things to come.
As a result, and with the inauguration of President Obama in 2009, the Left and its primary host, the Democrat Party, have upped the ante: more theft, more egregious law-breaking and each time, the stakes become larger. The secondary host—mainstream media outlets like the New York Times–does its part by failing to report these crimes.
The perennial question remains: what are you, the People, going to do about it?
UPDATED: The harbinger may have happened a bit earlier than I thought.
President Bill Clinton’s recent endorsements in a handful of House primaries have conjured up memories of the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, as he has sought to reward his wife’s supporters and candidates with loyalties to the couple.
Hey I’m sure Obama is going to help his supporters too, when the general election comes around he will stay as far away as possible
I’m sure Huntsman will love the former president backing him up just before the next debate:
“If you’re an American, the best thing you can do is to make it politically unacceptable for people to engage in denial” about climate change, the former president said on the first day of the Clinton Global Initiative’s seventh annual meeting in New York City.
“I mean, it makes us — we look like a joke, right? You can’t win the nomination of one of the major parties in the country if you admit that the scientists are right? That disqualifies you from doing it? You could really help us there,” Clinton added.
Of course I don’t know if Clinton has heard of Ivar Giaever, but it wouldn’t matter if he did, he hasn’t changed. He still has great political skills and remains an unusually good liar.
Let’s stipulate the following right at the beginning.
1. We are in a fight, I hope we win.
2. Gaddafi being removed is a good thing.
3. Libyans have the right to determine their own fate.
All of that being said I must confess each day brings a new surprise to me.
I was surprised when Gaddafi was smart enough to offer a ceasefire outside of Benghazi, but I was even more surprised when he decided to flaunt. Honoring it would have put the allies in a difficult position, Gaddafi must have decided he could get by on bluff, bad move.
The willingness of the French to do close support against Armor surprised me. If the Libyan armor is struck on a regular basis this is going to stop any offensives in its tracks.
I’m wondering how long the Tomahawk strikes was planned, I suspect there have been existing contingency plans for such a strike.
Since a lot of Gaddafi’s fighters are from Niger I wonder how that will effect that country’s reaction to all of this, what will it mean?
Hugo Chavez was loudly supporting Gaddafi, He Castro and Morals of Bolivia are not amused:
“We know what’s going to happen: bombs, bombs, war, more suffering for the people, more death,” Chavez said in a televised speech in Caracas.
The socialist leader has been joined by Latin American allies including Castro and Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega in strongly opposing U.S. and NATO military involvement in Libya, and in suggesting that reports of atrocities by Gadhafi’s troops were overblown or unproven.
In a column published in Cuba’s state media Saturday, Castro asked why the U.N. Security Council exists, and said NATO wields such a colossal military force that it “serves only to show the waste and chaos generated by capitalism.”
Speaking in Bolivia, President Evo Morales condemned the military intervention and said the strategy of some powerful countries has been to “invent a problem, and the problem is wanting to take control of oil.”
Birds of a feather and all that.
Politically the attacks by Michael Moore, Louis Farrahkan and Andrew Sullivan are going to help rather than hurt Obama in the long run.
It is actually funny watching the mainstream left twist itself into pretzels to support this war.
In 2001, the usual suspects had scheduled a Sept. 29 protest (“S29″) against the IMF and World Bank, which were scheduled to meet in D.C. that weekend. But after 9/11 the IMF/World Bank meetings were canceled, and so the “anti-globalization” rally instead became the first major anti-war protest of the Bush era.
Even more interesting, you might recall that the left always stressed that it was the Saudi’s that provided hijackers on 9/11 yet we are hitting Iraq. Now we see this from of all places the Huff Po:
According to a cache of al Qaeda documents captured in 2007 by U.S. special operations commandos in Sinjar, Iraq, hundreds of foreign fighters, many of them untrained young Islamic volunteers, poured into Iraq in 2006 and 2007. The documents, called the Sinjar documents, were collected, translated and analyzed at the West Point Counter Terrorism Center. Almost one in five foreign fighters arriving in Iraq came from eastern Libya, from the towns of Surt, Misurata and Darnah.
On a per capita basis, that’s more than twice as many than came from any other Arabic-speaking country, amounting to what the counter terrorism center called a Libyan “surge” of young men eager to kill Americans.
During 2006 and 2007, a total of 1,468 Americans were killed in combat and 12,524 were badly wounded, according to Pentagon records.
This division in our leadership could not have been more evident today watching Obama speak from Brazil followed by Clinton’s Paris conference. Obama was a blip, his vaunted verbal facility from the ’08 presidential election now seeming a distant memory from a particularly bland and pompous advertising campaign. Meanwhile, Clinton handled her press conference like a true statesman, fielding questions exactly with ready answers. She had thought things through and it showed. The woman had not been off playing golf or taking samba lessons in Corcovado. She obviously skipped the March Madness, as well, for more significant matters.
The protesters, some shouting anti-war slogans and singing “We Shall Not Be Moved,” were arrested Saturday after ignoring orders to move away from the gates of the White House. The demonstrators cheered loudly as Daniel Ellsberg, the former military analyst who in 1971 leaked the Pentagon’s secret history of the Vietnam War that was later published in major newspapers, was arrested and led away by police.
Libya is now Vietnam? How about that.
Pam Geller reminds us of this quite from a certain Chicago Reverend:
Obama’s spirtual svengali, former Nation of Islam adherent Jerry Wright’s longtime close association with Farrakhan is well known. In April 2008, when he appeared at the National Press Club in order to address the controversy that had engulfed the Obama campaign because of his incendiary anti-American remarks from the pulpit, his security detail was made of members of the Nation of Islam. He and Farrakhan even once traveled to Libya to confer with Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi – as Wright recalled during the 2008 campaign: “When [Obama’s] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli to visit [Gaddafi] with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell.”
But Clinton not only couldn’t bring herself to criticize it, she also attacked Petraeus’ honesty: “The reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief,” she huffed to the general Tuesday.
And she slammed him (and Ambassador Ryan Crocker) as “de facto spokesmen for a failed policy,” pointedly refusing to criticize the ad – which called him an outright liar who’d “betray” his nation.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pushed back against the US military’s blunt warning that the battle against insurgents in Afghanistan would likely be lost within a year without more US troops.
Clinton’s comments in an interview with PBS television late Monday came amid reports that the Pentagon has asked General Stanley McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, to delay a request for more troops.
Clinton expressed “respect” for McChrystal’s assessment that the United States would likely lose the war in Afghanistan within a year without more US forces.
“But I can only tell you there are other assessments from very expert military analysts who have worked in counter-insurgencies that are the exact opposite,”
Well at least she said it with a bit less venom.
Let’s hope this president gives Mrs. Clinton opinion the same weight that it was given the last time.
What is this thing with generals? Next thing you know she will be going after General Hospital.
There’s this anonymous quote from one observer: “He can send more troops and it will be a disaster and he will destroy the Democratic party. Or he can send no more troops and it will be a disaster and the Republicans will say he lost the war.” Isn’t this extraordinary? Obama will roil the Democratic party by sending more troops to fight the war that Democrats have said for years is the “necessary war” (in Obama’s words), the central war in the fight against terror, etc., etc. It’s hard to imagine a starker demonstration of bad faith on an important issue of national security.
No sign of the idea of WINNING the “formerly necessary war“! Maybe they didn’t mean it. It was so bad like that on Morning Joe where they were saying the problem was the people stuck on the idea of winning I had to change the channel.
That’s liberals for you. Pass Obamacare and put the cost on our children and grandchildren, Concede defeat and pass the danger and the risks on to our children and grandchildren.
It is for this reason more than any other that Glenn Beck is all wet when it comes to McCain v Obama. He might have been poor on domestic issues but he damn well wouldn’t sell out the country when it comes to the war. We wouldn’t have to worry about defense being ignored period.