Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

‘Ground game’: critical to victory

campaign_groundgame_getty

Political pundits and media commentators I guess have become enamored of football terminology to describe political campaigns.

They keep referring to the “ground game.”

A report from The Hill tells us that Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s ground game is far superior to Republican Donald Trump’s game.

It means, I guess, that the Clintonistas are better — politically speaking — at blocking and tackling than the Trumpkins.

http://thehill.com/campaign/302231-clinton-holds-huge-ground-game-advantage-over-team-trump

This is a critical element in the campaign that has been evident for months. Clinton’s precinct-by-precinct, state-by-state apparatus has been in full mojo since before the party’s nominating conventions. They have ramped up considerably in these final days before the end of balloting.

As The Hill reports: “’Campaigns are won on the ground which is why we invested early to organize and register voters in this historic election,’ said Lily Adams, a spokeswoman for Clinton’s campaign.

“By contrast, Trump’s campaign, the Republican National Committee and state parties employ just 1,409 staffers in 16 states. Lindsay Walters, an RNC spokeswoman, said the RNC has paid staffers in 24 states across the country.”

That compares to the Clinton staffing level of 5,138 staffers in 15 battleground states.

What are they doing? They’re telephoning voters. They are registering new voters. They’re setting up get-out-the-vote drives, arranging for transportation for shut-ins to vote.

The Trumpkins are showing “little interest in investing in a ground operation,” according to The Hill.

Since I’m no longer predicting outcomes, I’ll just conclude that if the “ground game” is as critical as the pundits, pollsters and pols say it is, then Clinton is going to cruise on Nov. 8 to a historic election victory.

However …

As I’ve noted before — throughout this campaign — nothing about it is normal. The Clintonistas had better take nothing at all for granted as they head for the finish line.

Donald Trump, after all, wasn’t even supposed to win the Republican nomination for president of the United States … for crying out loud.

Don’t mess with Texas polling places

screen_shot_russian_consulate_in_houston_jpg_800x1000_q100

A motto designed to call attention to littering in Texas long ago took on new life as a macho mantra: Don’t mess with Texas.

Well, I guess I ought to apply the perverted definition of that motto here.

Don’t mess with Texas polling officials and places. This warning goes to the Russian government, which has declared its desire to “monitor” the U.S. presidential election that will occur on Nov. 8.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/10/21/texas-russian-official-dont-tread-our-polling-plac/

The state’s top elections official, Secretary of State Carlos Cascos, has declined the Russian request to place observers at polling places in Texas.

Good call, Mr. Secretary.

As the Texas Tribune reported: “Please note that only persons authorized by law may be inside of a polling location during voting. All other persons are not authorized and would be committing a class C misdemeanor crime by entering,” Cascos wrote last month in a letter to Alexander K. Zakharov, the Russian consul general in Houston. “We are unable to accommodate your request to visit a polling station.”

Frankly, I consider the Russian request to be the height — or perhaps the depth — of hubris.

Has the Kremlin bought into Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump’s allegation that the vote-counting will be “rigged” to produce Hillary Rodham Clinton’s election as the next president?

Indeed, U.S. intelligence officials across the board have stated their belief that Russia has been orchestrating the WikiLeaks barrage of e-mails that have sought to damage Clinton’s campaign.

So, they want to take a peek at our electoral process?

Give me a break, man!

The Russians should tend to their own issues. What’s more, imagine the Kremlin’s response if American officials sought permission to look over the Russians’ shoulders.

What about those menfolk, Rep. Babin?

U.S. Rep. Brian Babin, an East Texas Republican, told Alan Colmes that sometimes “a lady needs to be told” if she’s being nasty.

That was Babin’s way of defending fellow Republican Donald Trump’s comment that Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton is a “nasty woman.”

I didn’t hear the entire interview. But my question is a simple one:

“Uh, Rep. Babin, do you have the same view of men who get nasty?”

920x920

http://www.chron.com/news/politics/election/article/Sometimes-a-lady-needs-to-be-told-when-she-s-10027627.php

Trump treads on dangerous ground

rs_1024x759-160725193248-1024-michelle-obama-mv-72516

Donald J. Trump is daring to go where no politician should go.

He is now taking aim at the first lady of the United States. Yes, that lady. Michelle Obama, the one who has been skewering the Republican presidential nominee — without ever mentioning his name.

I normally might issue a word of caution to Trump. I won’t do so here … although perhaps you might think I just did.

Since I do not want Trump to win this election, then I might be inclined to say, “You go, Donald!”

Trump criticizes the first lady at considerable peril to his already-seemingly doomed presidential campaign. He’s managed to self-immolate himself with hideous remarks about women, about Hispanics, handicapped individuals, a notable Vietnam War prisoner/hero … you name ’em, Trump has denigrated ’em.

The campaign — thank almighty God in heaven! — is winding down. My sense is that Trump is going out in a blaze of non-glory. Attacking the first lady of the United States, who has emerged as Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s most effective surrogate, is sounding for all the world like the last gasp of a miserable presidential campaign.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-goes-after-michelle-obama-all-she-wants-to-do-is-campaign/ar-AAjeQsC?li=BBnb7Kz

 

Declaring war on the democratic process

democracy

It’s rare in the extreme to see and hear a candidate for high public office do what Donald J. Trump has done.

The Republican nominee for president of the United States not only is campaigning against his Democratic foe, Hillary Rodham Clinton, he’s also declaring war against the political system that is likely to elect her to the highest office in the land.

As many of us have noted so often during this election year, in any other election cycle, such a preposterous campaign tactic would be an immediate disqualifier.

Not with Trump, the huckster extraordinaire.

This clown in chief has managed to cast aspersions on the very system of electing people to high public office. I do not believe he’ll be able to win the election. However, he has fired up the base of his once-great party to the point that nearly half of his fellow Republicans believe that a Clinton victory will be the result of a “rigged” election.

This is scary stuff, folks.

Some of them are talking about open rebellion if/when Clinton wins. What’s worse is that Trump is fueling that hideous narrative by suggesting he won’t honor the results if/when Clinton gets elected.

The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank writes that Clinton’s strategy now is to not only defeat Trump, but to “humiliate” him by pressing hard in normally GOP states such as Utah, Arizona and, yes, Texas.

Historians are going to think long and hard when they write about the implications of this election. Clinton and Trump both describe it as the most  consequential election in generations. I agree with that, but perhaps not for the stated reasons they believe.

The consequence quite likely may lie in what it means moving past Election Day — and whether Donald Trump’s declaration of war against democracy itself will result in a further undermining of our electoral system.

Charity event proves candidates’ mutual loathing

You need not look any further to determine  whether the two major-party candidates for president of the United States — Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump — truly detest each other.

They showed it Thursday night at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Dinner in New York City.

It’s an event aimed at raising money for work done by the Catholic Church. The headliners are the two candidates for president. History holds that they poke good-natured fun at each other and at themselves.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-clinton-trade-biting-jokes-at-al-smith-dinner-after-fiery-debate/ar-AAjcEG4?li=BBnb7Kz

Barack Obama and Mitt Romney did it beautifully four years ago, as did Obama and John McCain four years before that. YouTube is full of hilarious comedic riffs from both events.

Last night was a different story — entirely.

For the first time in anyone’s memory, Trump actually got booed for some of the things he said about Clinton. Did anyone actually think he would exhibit a hint of self-deprecation, that he would turn the tables on himself? You know the answer to that one.

Clinton was little better during her time at the mic. She did manage to jab at herself … but seriously?

There was true loathing on display.

What I believe we have witnessed in this campaign has been a ratcheting up of what’s been called the “politics of personal destruction.”

It’s gotten so bitter, so angry, so vindictive that the major-party nominees for the presidency cannot set aside — even for a couple of hours — their seeming hatred for each other.

The Smith dinner is supposed to demonstrate one of the rare qualities of American political life, about how politicians can set aside their differences if only for an evening. Instead, it showed us just how angry we have become.

It saddens me.

 

 

 

‘Such a nasty woman’

aajcgbc

I guess that’s how you summarize Donald J. Trump’s view of the candidate who’s about to defeat him in one of the most miserable presidential campaigns in most folks’ memory.

“Such a nasty woman,” he said while Hillary Rodham Clinton was explaining her proposed tax policy.

It was a revealing moment in a debate full of them.

Trump had just said that “no one has more respect for women” than he does, eliciting laughter from some in the audience attending the third presidential debate.

Then came the “nasty woman” rejoinder.

Sigh …

Trump said he’ll accept the results of the election “if I win.” Then he took some of that back, saying he would accept the result — no matter who wins — barring any questionable returns.

My strong hunch, though, is that a lot of women heard what he said out loud to the first female major-party presidential nominee and will not like it.

I sense that a landslide may be in the making.

Abortion enters the presidential debate

Chalkboard - Abortion

Of all the ridiculous assertions Donald J. Trump has made during his time as the Republican presidential nominee, perhaps the most ghoulish came out of his mouth during his final debate with Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.

He asserted that Clinton would favor allowing a woman to terminate a pregnancy literally on the eve of giving birth to her child.

Trump sought to label Clinton some who could support a doctor “ripping the baby out” of the womb two or three days before birth.

Clinton’s response was to challenge the manner in which Trump described what occurs when a woman decides to end a pregnancy, referring to it as a scare tactic.

Frankly, I also was horrified at how Trump described it.

I get that abortion is one of those topics no one likes talking about. It lies at the heart of the “most painful decision” a woman has to make, as Clinton answered.

She continued to hold to her view that government should not force a woman to do something that could jeopardize her own health, such as deliver a child.

However, I do not ever recall Clinton asserting anything of the sort that Trump described during his anti-abortion rant.

A discussion on this subject does require, it seems to me, an element of civility. Yes, I know that many people consider abortion to be among the most uncivilized acts that human beings commit.

For the purposes of a political discussion? Let’s dispense with the demagoguery.

Trump tears at the American democratic fabric

alice_gore

Donald J. Trump’s refusal to agree to accept the results of the election in the event he loses — which now seems more probable than ever — raises historic concerns about where we might be headed once all the ballots are counted.

The Republican presidential nominee would not commit to accepting the outcome while responding to a question from debate moderator Chris Wallace. He’ll “look at it” when the moment comes, Trump said.

Trump is now on the cusp of losing the presidency to Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton. We’ve had a long and well-established — and wisely admired — tradition in this country of losing presidential candidates accepting these results with grace and class.

Peaceful transition of presidential power begins right there.

Trump won’t promise to do that.

Oh, I can hear my friends on the right now griping about the “precedent” set in 2000 when Democratic nominee Al Gore refused to concede the election to Texas Gov. George W. Bush.

The immediate aftermath of that vote count was swathed in tension and controversy. The results from Florida weren’t yet known. That state’s electoral votes would be decisive in determining the next president. Gore conceded, then took it back once it became evident that another authority needed to step in; that would be the U.S. Supreme Court.

Well, the court ruled 5-4 that the Florida ballot recount should stop and that Bush would finish with 537 more votes in that state than Gore. Bush won the state — and was elected president.

What did Gore do? He conceded again — for the final time — and in the process brought some humor into the event by agreeing that “this time” he wouldn’t take it back.

He offered his full support to the new president.

So, let’s get off this idiotic notion that Al Gore did what Trump might do on Election Night.

Donald Trump is hinting that he might not accept the results no matter how wide the margin. In the process, Trump is feeding a dangerous — and demonstrably false — narrative about “rigged” and “phony” election results.

Trump feeds conspiracy narrative

donald-trump-flickr-cc

Donald J. Trump more than likely elicited cheers across the nation in the living rooms of those who believe as he does about the integrity of the national electoral process.

He did so by feeding into that hideous narrative — which he has initiated — that the presidential election is rigged against him.

Fox News’s Chris Wallace, the moderator of tonight’s third and final debate between Trump and Hillary Rodham Clinton, asked him straight away: Will you accept the results of the election if voters choose Hillary Clinton?

His answer was just short of a direct “no!” He said he’ll look at it at the time. Trump, the Republican nominee, effectively admitted on national television that he doesn’t trust the system and he won’t commit to honoring the results and continuing this nation’s long tradition of promoting peaceful transition of power from one president to the next one.

My major takeaway from the debate tonight was that the GOP nominee demonstrated — yet again! — just how unfit he is for the office he is seeking.

Donald Trump is pandering to the ill-founded fears of those who have swallowed the bait he has tossed them that the system, the media, the powers that be all are conspiring to defeat him and to elect Hillary Clinton.

As the legendary TV character Army Col. Sherman T. Potter would say: mule muffins!