Russia Redux

After Trump won in 2016, the Democrats and their media enablers went into a death spiral trying to find how that happened. What they came up was alleged Russian interference in the election. How else to explain how Queen Hillary was defeated?

All of this led to the Mueller investigation, which after two years and many millions of taxpayer dollars wasted produced…crickets. No evidence of any connection between Trump (or his campaign) and Russia. No evidence, beyond some Facebook posts, that Russian agents had any impact whatsoever.

But the Dems are yet again bleating “Russia, Russia, Russia.” As in, Russia, in the person of Vladimir Putin, is, yet again, going to, through some as-yet unspecified magic, get Donald Trump reelected.

It’s certainly possible that Putin would prefer Trump to be reelected. I don’t think that is true, but, hey, everyone’s got an opinion… As for Russia’s ability to get anyone elected, even Red Bernie (still one of Lenin’s “useful idiots”), the evidence suggests that it is close to impossible for any entity to hack a sufficient number of states’ internal voting. The key word is “internal,” as in, each state has, in essence, an air gap between its voting and those of other states.

Did Russia try to influence the 2016 election? I’m certain they did try. Did it make a difference? I’m certain it did not then and most likely will not in 2020.

My conclusion on the Democrats and their media enablers is that they are fools to actually believe what they claim. I don’t think they are fools (mostly), and that leaves the only logical conclusion: they are dishonest and know what they are peddling are lies.

Tanned, rested and ready?

That would be Hillary Clinton, who might just be amenable to being on the 2020 Democrat ticket.

The source? The Drudge Report, which I call the Dredge Report. As in, it dredges up some interesting and foul stuff. But, who knows? Maybe this time it’s real. As reported in the Washington Examiner,

The top right-leaning news aggregator, citing sources close to the Bloomberg team, reported on Saturday that the former New York mayor is contemplating Clinton as a vice presidential running mate after his campaign’s polling found the combination would go over well with voters.

Two points, after stating that I believe that anything reported on Drudge is suspect.

First, while we may detest Hillary (include me in this), more than half of the voters liked her more than Trump in 2016.

Second, I don’t know but strongly suspect that the Clintons still have some sway with sane DNC wallahs. Who, given the possibility that Hillary might be on their ticket, may be more inclined to tip the scales for Bloomberg come the convention.

Let’s just say that those who are power brokers in the Democratic Party must be dismayed at the far leftward tilt among the current crop of candidates. Not including Joe Biden, who appears to be well beyond his sell-by date.

A brokered convention would be very popcorn worthy. Or, as a conservative, I say, bring it on, and let’s go with Conan the Barbarian on what is best in life: To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women.” 

Once in love with Amy…

…always in love with Amy. Old song, best sung by Frank Sinatra (as so many were). Amy, in this case, being Amy Klobuchar, now doing better in the Democratic primary. Better; not leading, but…

She has been sold as being “Minnesota nice.” With allegations of abuse of her Senate tarnishing that claim. Allegations are easy to make, and I’ve no inside information. But what I’ve seen of her in debates shows me that she is reasonably close to being an actual and capable “moderate.”

Unlike some others I could name but would rather not soil my blog by mentioning. For certain she is a liberal but she is far from Commie Bernie Sanders brand of crazy. Doesn’t appear that way, so far.

Should Amy K. be the nominee, I’m sure Trump will find some malevolent and creative things to call her. He’s good at that sort of thing. But I’m guessing that a) they won’t stick, and b) they’ll boomerang because it will make Trump look like a middle school bully. Goodbye suburban housewife vote.

Me, I’m rooting for Bernie to garner enough delegates to give the DNC heart palpitations as they try to “fix” the nomination (is Hillary tanned, ready, and rested?).

Dems, listen to the Ragin’ Cajun if you know what’s good for you. Amy K. might be the antidote to the Woke Olympics that is the Dem primary so far.

Lefty in moderate’s clothing

That’s Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who, in a weak Democratic field, appears to be surging. Why, he won 17 votes or something in the botched Iowa caucuses last week. And, who knows, in today’s first primary in New Hampshire, he may even share the win with three or four others.

The odd thing? Buttigieg is cast as a “moderate” by many in the media. But the positions he espouses are anything but moderate. He’s just one of the lefty gang running for the Dem nomination.

Yesterday’s Washington Times gave a rundown of some of the bigger issues that Mayor Pete is for: abortion on demand, anytime during the pregnancy. Socialized medicine, gussied up as “Medicare for all who want it.”

Buttigieg’s resume is, well, short. He was the mayor of a small city in Indiana. Where, despite what the Democrat-for-President press would tell you, he was not a resounding success. Especially among the black voters that any Democratic candidate must have in their corner to win the general election.

William McGurn, in today’s Wall Street Journal, sheds some light on Buttigieg’s problems with blacks, even in (relatively) tranquil and safe South Bend.

Finally, unspoken (as yet) by Democratic Party elders (there are still some sane ones around, like James Carville) is the nagging question: will Americans, at large, vote for an openly gay candidate, who would have a “First Husband” in the White House? My guess is not.

Fake poll?

We are 15 months away from the next presidential election. It just seems like we’re constantly in a fever pitch about the 2020 cage match between The Donald and one of the many Democrats vying to run.

Trump is famous (infamous?) for deriding any polling that shows him losing anything, let alone to some of the Democrat characters now running. In the 2016 cycle he called them “fake news” or “fake polls.”

The Donald is still at it, calling recent polling showing him losing bigly as being “fake polls.”

What may be exceptionally galling to Trump is that the most prominent recent polling was conducted by Fox. The executive summary:

The survey asks: “If the 2020 presidential election were held today, how would you vote if the candidates were…”

Joe Biden (50%), Donald Trump (38%)

Bernie Sanders (48%), Donald Trump (39%)

Kamala Harris (45%), Donald Trump (39%)

Elizabeth Warren (46%), Donald Trump (39%).

So I guess that Trump’s fragile ego will insist that Fox News, which was a great help to him in 2015-16, is now part of the “fake news, enemy of the people” cadre of Never Trumpers.

But, as Trump will be among the first to insist, polling had Hillary winning in 2016 (mandatory exclamation marks for everything Trump says or tweets inserted here).

Therefore, his thought and argument goes, they are still wrong and he will win in 2020. Perhaps.

The polling was one sample, and we all should be aware that what counts is not the total numbers across the nation who voted for Trump or the Democrat. What counts is what states they live in.

In 2016 Trump lost the popular vote, and barely won the only vote that counts, the Electoral College tally. It is also probable that in 2016 the Green Party’s candidate for president, Jill Stein likely cost Hillary Clinton the electoral votes of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Which put Trump over the top.

As Trump usually says when he doesn’t know, “we’ll see what happens.” Which is why we don’t use polling, except at the voting booth, to determine our president.