Well, the Democrat/press “August strategy” had an unexpected downside.
The strategy was this: Take a series of pro-Clinton polls, coming out of the Democrats’ “convention bounce.” (The NBC/Wall Street Journal polls -- loaded with pro-Democrat “battleground states” surveys -- were particularly crooked.) Then use those polls (generally based on “registered voters,” rather than “likely voters”) for an all-August narrative that Republican triumph is hopeless, and that Republican candidates must destroy their national ticket in order to achieve salvation.
The strategy failed because, while some GOP dimwits danced to the Left’s tune, things didn’t fall apart for Donald Trump.
And, when Clinton’s “bounce” inevitably came down, it became difficult for the press to explain why this didn’t mean that Hillary’s career was swirling down the toilet bowl.
Now Trump is running TV spots. Polls are moving from “registered voters” to “likely voters.” And this fall’s events -- e-mail disclosures, terrorism, Obamacare collapse, WikiLeaks, and the 4% pro-GOP Electoral College glitch -- will all work against the Democrats.
So what can be done to turn a razor-thin race into a more favorable outcome? I recommend two things:
(1) TACK AN INDEPENDENT COUNSEL FOR THE CLINTON FOUNDATION ONTO THE CONTINUING RESOLUTION
Amend the continuing resolution to contain an independent counsel to investigate the Clinton Foundation. For procedural reasons, it would be better to do this in the House “chairman’s mark.” But it is possible at any stage of the legislative process.
The press will try to make the fall election cycle about its Jesuitical misreading of the latest Trump pronouncement. But it will be unable to ignore an effort to investigate the criminal misconduct of Hillary Clinton.
But, you say, Obama will veto the CR and blame Republicans for “shutting down the government.” And it will be a repeat of the 2014 GOP electoral disaster.
Recommended
Huh?
You mean, the “disaster” where Republicans picked up nine Senate seats and control of the Senate? And where Republicans picked up more House seats than they had controlled in over 80 years? And control of almost 2/3 of the governorship and 68 state legislatures?
That disaster?
And what if Obama does veto the CR? Let him. Every day spent talking about this is a reminder that political hack Loretta Lynch vetoed the FBI’s request to investigate the Clinton Foundation.
The McConnell/Ryan “Bipartisan Era of Good Feelings” has given Barack Obama a 53% approval rating. This is not a good thing for Republicans, and Obama will spend the next two months using that favorability to destroy the GOP.
It doesn’t matter if the American people hate Congress. They always do, and it doesn’t make a difference in individual races. But, if the American people hate Obama, that translates into defeat for Hillary Clinton -- and Democrats in down-ballot races as well.
Oh, and, incidentally, for Sane Republicans like McConnell who fell over themselves to get Loretta Lynch confirmed ------ How’s that working out for you?
(2) OPPOSE A “SLIME DUCK” SESSION UNLESS CONSIDERATION OF (1) MERRCIK GARLAND, (2) TPP, (3) THE ANTI-GUN SENTENCING BILL, AND (4) THE ANTI-GUN TERRORISM BILL ARE BARRED
Mitch McConnell has promised that Merrick Garland will not come up in the “slime duck.” Make him stick to it. Garland is no moderate, unless you consider, the quid pro quo simultaneous obliteration of the Second AND Fourth Amendments to be an act of moderation.
Hillary Clinton has promised that TPP will not come up after the election. Call her bluff NOW. With Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker publicly predicting ratification in slime-duck, you can damage Clinton in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, and North Carolina by forcing her to denounce Fritzker.
It is now clear that the raison d’etre of the “bipartisan” sentencing bill is to create millions of new Clinton voters. Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe made that obvious when he began his crusade to turn 209,000 Virginia murderers, rapists, and drug traffickers into Hillary-voters.
If this weren’t enough, the bill which supposedly repeals mandatory minimums creates a new mandatory minimum five year prison sentence for gunnies who post “how-to” information on guns on the Internet (section 108 of S. 2123.) It does that because of State Department arms-trade regulations (ITAR) which deem that Internet communications are sent to every terrorist who is also on the Internet.
Now, the State Department has, without complying with the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), issued “guidance” which states that ITAR effectively outlaws gunsmithing.
Whoopsie!!!!
Finally, there is Paul Ryan’s terrorism/gun control bill which was hatched to reward Democrats for turning the House into a kindergarten -- shortly before going on recess.
The notion of trying to fool the American people by springing these items in November and December -- when it’s too late for them to do anything about it -- is truly execrable. But a small cadre of Republicans in the Senate and House can preclude these things, if they act early in September and oppose unanimous consent agreements necessary to arrange for a “slime duck” session where they can be considered.
And, incidentally, it might also help if the Republican leadership guaranteed us that amnesty will not be the first item on their 2017 agenda. And that they would not rubber-stamp Leftist Supreme Court nominees in the same way they did Loretta Lynch.
Why, you ask, does this have any relevance for the elections?
The answer is that conservatives in places like New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, particularly the “Second Amendment people,” are now asking themselves whether RINO’s like Pat Toomey and Kelly Ayotte are going to stab them in the back if they allow them to be reelected.
And, if they reach that conclusion and throw the election, as they did with the Scott Brown/Jeanne Shaheen race, the balance in the Senate could easily be tipped in the Democrat’s favor.
So, Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan: Show us that leaving you in charge would be better than a four-year battle with Chuck Schumer. Not long ago, this would have been a crazy question. But, after two years of “bipartisanship” under Republican control (following four yeard of relative gridlock under the Democrats), perhaps it is less so.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member