What Bernie and The Donald Portend

Guest Post by Patrick J. Buchanan

Three weeks out from the Iowa caucuses, and clarity emerges.

Hillary Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee, is in trouble.

Polls show her slightly ahead of socialist Bernie Sanders in Iowa, but narrowly behind in New Hampshire. And the weekend brought new revelations about yet more classified and secret documents sent over her private email server when she was secretary of state.

Between now and November, she will be traversing a minefield, with detonations to be decided upon by FBI investigators who may not cherish Clinton and might like to appear in the history books.

Clinton’s charge about Donald Trump’s alleged “penchant for sexism” brought a counterstrike – her being the “enabler” of Bill Clinton’s long career as a sexual predator – that rendered her mute.

But with Hillary Clinton having raised the subject, it is almost certain to be reintroduced in the fall, if she is the nominee.

Then there is the newly recognized reality that Clinton, who ran a terrific comeback race against Barack Obama in 2008, is not the candidate she was. Nor is Bill the imposing surrogate he once was.

Both are eight years older, and show it. “Low energy” nails it.

Lastly, Hillary Clinton now has a record to defend as secretary of state, a four-year term in which it is hard to see, looking back, a success.

Moreover, a defeat by Sanders in Iowa or New Hampshire could prove unraveling, with the press herd tapping out early obits.

New Hampshire has consequences.

A Granite State defeat by Sen. Estes Kefauver ended Harry Truman’s bid for re-election in 1952. Lyndon Johnson’s narrow write-in victory over Sen. Eugene McCarthy, 49-42, brought Bobby Kennedy into the race – and LBJ’s withdrawal two weeks later.

George H. W. Bush’s unimpressive New Hampshire win in 1992 brought Ross Perot in as a third-party candidate two days later, and Bob Dole’s loss in 1996 portended defeat in the general election.

But if a cloud is forming over the Clinton campaign, the sun continues to shine on The Donald.

Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, America’s independent news network.

Last July, in a column, “Could Trump Win?” this writer argued that if Trump held his then 20 percent share, he would make the final four and almost surely be in the finals in the GOP nomination race.

Now, in every national and state poll save Iowa, Trump runs first with more than 30 percent, sometimes touching 40. And, save in New Hampshire, Sen. Ted Cruz runs second to Trump.

What does the surge for socialist Sanders and the Republican base’s backing of the outsiders Trump and Cruz and collective recoil from the Republican establishment candidates tell us?

“The times they are a changing,” sang Bob Dylan in 1964.

Dylan was right about the social, cultural and moral revolution that would hit with Category 5 force when the boomers arrived on campuses that same year.

A concomitant conservative revolution would dethrone the GOP establishment of Govs. Nelson Rockefeller, George Romney and William Scranton in 1964, and nominate Barry Goldwater.

Will the Clintons ever be held accountable? Help make sure they are by supporting the Hillary Clinton Investigative Justice Project, an effort targeting the racketeering enterprise known as the Clinton Family Foundation

Something like that is afoot again. Only, this time, the GOP has a far better shot of capturing the White House than in 1964 or, indeed, than it appeared to have at this point in 1980, The Year of Reagan.

In June 1964, Goldwater, about to be nominated, was 59 points behind LBJ, 77-18, in the Gallup Poll. On Sept. 1, he was still 36 points behind, 65-29. In mid-October, Barry was still 36 points behind, when some of us concluded that Mr. Conservative just might not make it.

Yet, in January and February of 1980, Ronald Reagan, during the Iowa Caucuses and New Hampshire Primary, never got closer than 25 points behind President Jimmy Carter, who led Reagan, on March 1, 58-33. Yet, that November, 1980, Reagan won a 44-state landslide.

Today, according to a new Fox Poll, Trump would beat Clinton by 3 points in the general election, if held now. Another poll shows Trump pulling 20 percent of the Democratic vote.

What this suggests is that nominating Trump is by no means a guarantee of GOP defeat. But beyond politics, what do the successes of Sanders, Trump and Cruz portend?

Well, Sanders and Trump both opposed the war in Iraq that the Bush Republicans and Clinton Democrats supported.

Both Sanders and Trump oppose NAFTA and MFN for China and the free-trade deals that Clinton Democrats and Bush Republicans backed, which have cost us thousands of lost factories, millions of lost jobs and four decades of lost wage increases for Middle America.

Trump has taken the toughest line on the invasion across the U.S.-Mexican border and against Muslim refugees entering unvetted.

Immigration, securing the border, fair trade – Trump’s issues are the issues of 2016.

If a Trump-Clinton race came down to the Keystone State of Pennsylvania, and Trump was for backing our men in blue, gun rights, securing America’s borders, no more NAFTAs and a foreign policy that defends America first, who would you bet on?

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
33 Comments
flash
flash
January 12, 2016 7:00 am

“The times they are a changing,”

Just yesterday, on talk radio, I heard Trump blasting the warmongering influence of the globalist banking cartel and the dire need to reign them in. Was he channeling Ron Paul or merely spewing what he thinks his base wants to hear? Regardless, no other POTUS candidate in history has broken the taboo barriers of public discussion and spoken so openly about immigration, trade, sovereignty and entitlements and got more than a smidgeon of the fringe voter support. We’re definitely sailing new seas now.

As the Christian “controlled opposition” Joo sang, “The times they are a changing,” ..no doubt about it.

bubbah
bubbah
January 12, 2016 7:08 am

At least is appears that the majority of the people are truly fed up, not just giving lip service to “independence” but then steadfastedly supporting their TEAM.

PA definitely got destroyed by NAFTA, but you still have the cesspool of Philly to contend with. Hardcore democrats that blindly vote their party line still have large numbers. The rest of the state may very well shift though if Clinton is on the ticket.

Even thought I don’t like Trump or Sanders, I do like the fact that they at least appear to be getting serious consideration. Anything that disrupts the bread n’ circuses smoking mirrors sounds good to me. Trump has laid down some battle lines that are going to garnish some votes despite the MSM’s ridicule of him. The average person is not a big fan of larger numbers of muslims, more foreign labor to pull down wages, nor more people that attempt to mitigate “rights” and make innane comments on guns when they clearly no nothing about guns, nor truly respect “rights”. Rights that can be taken away top down, aren’t rights at all. The serfs have lots of problems to contend with, less and less hope for their children. Lack of potable water, our one huge phosphorous mine being set to be tapped out by the end of next decade (industrial farming meet weak roots in desertified “soil”). Despite all the window dressing food/water will be bigger and bigger issues once again, as they were during most periods of human history.

SpecOpsAlpha
SpecOpsAlpha
January 12, 2016 7:50 am

As an aside: one reason Rome fell is because the men in the field saw the people at the top as a bunch of ‘stay at homes’ spending their time ‘partying’. What are the people at the top now like? Do they spit on fine men, firing them and putting in toadies? (The answer is: yes) Do they rant on and on about the religion of Peace being peaceful while good men die? (Yes.) Do they see LEOs, many of whom being ex-military, being charged and convicted for trying to ride herd on demented violent thugs? (Yes.)

Time for our government to return to why it fucking exists in the first place.

card802
card802
January 12, 2016 7:56 am

clinton is a criminal dried up lesbian bitch.

Bernie is an economic idiot, wants to stifle productivity even more by increasing regulations and taxes, raise national debt so he can give more free shit to our poor who are richer than Europe’s middle class, but he hates wall street, anti war and pro gun rights.

Our two choices thrown up by democrats…..

Trump is going to make America great again.

IndenturedServant
IndenturedServant
January 12, 2016 8:08 am

I wish I was about 25 years older!

I just love the idea that billionaires can buy the most powerful office in the world now. (at least publicly) Don’t forget that corporations are people too. As surely as polygamy or bestiality will be the next deviancy du jour, President Monsanto is no doubt in the offing!

flash
flash
January 12, 2016 8:18 am

the eye of the storm…

[imgcomment image[/img]

bb
bb
January 12, 2016 8:35 am

Trump /Cruz is the ticket. If they don’t stop this Damn third world invasion ( both legal and illegal ) then all is lost.Diversity in where nations come to die.It’s not ignorance that causes ethnic discord but contact with other cultures that are opposed and hostile to each other.Unnatural diversity is what is killing Europe. The elites cannot be this Damn stupid. This is intentional destruction of western civilization.

Anonymous
Anonymous
January 12, 2016 8:49 am

A vote for anyone other than Trump is a vote to keep going the same way we are now without so much as a realistic effort to change it.

So if you want to try to change our direction -the direction, not just the speed – vote for Trump.

If you’re happy with the way tings are and want to see them keep going that way, vote for anyone else (it really doesn’t matter who, just at what speed is all that would be different).

Trump may mot be able to change things (but I’ll bet he’ll at least start a realistic and effective movement to do it), but every other candidate from both sides will work to protect the status quo even as they are pretending otherwise.

TC
TC
January 12, 2016 8:51 am

@bb – 0% chance Trump would pick Cruz as a running mate with the eligibility questions looming over him.

card802
card802
January 12, 2016 8:59 am

Trump-Rubio or Trump-Paul?

Looks like Rand is out of the next gop debate.

ILuvCO2
ILuvCO2
January 12, 2016 9:24 am

‘Trump-Rubio or Trump-Paul?’

Why in the world would Trump pick Rubio? He would be as bad as Angela Merkel is for Germany. The more immigration, the harder his little pecker gets. A Rubio presidency would put the last nail in the coffin of the middle class.

Anonymous
Anonymous
January 12, 2016 9:51 am

TC,

Unless it’s settled by the Court or other legal authority before then.

There’s really nothing in the books defining exactly what a “natural born citizen” is.

Sensetti
Sensetti
January 12, 2016 10:05 am

I was one of the early supporters to jump on the Trump train and took heat here for doing so. And for the longest time couldn’t understand why Trump was not getting over whelming support here on this platform. But now it certainly does my heart good to see many getting on board.

Trump will pick a woman as VP and most likely Nikki Haley from SC. He’s polling poorly with women and will need to turn that around to win in the General election. No way in hell he’d pick Rand, he’s polling at 2% and falling. 2% is good if you’re a glass of milk but it’s horrendous if you’re a Presidential candidate. He also will not pick Cruz having raised the Natural Born citizen issue, I see Attorney General as a potential spot for Cruz. Rubio, Trump is going to deport his goofy ass along with Jeb. If I was Trump I’d tattoo “I hate Mexican’s” across their foreheads and then drop those two pricks on the other side of the Great Wall Mexico paid for on our southern border!

TC
TC
January 12, 2016 10:13 am

@Anon – go read the ruling in USSC Minor v Happersett and get back to me on the lack of a definition. Everyone understood what it meant, and understood it well up until 2007 apparently.

As far as Trump’s running mate, I suspect he’ll go outside the box. I’m thinking Bill Ransick … talk about getting the chick vote.

TC
TC
January 12, 2016 10:14 am

Sorry, misspelled it: Bill Rancic

Anonymous
Anonymous
January 12, 2016 10:36 am

TC,

The ruling does not give specific definition of “natural born citizen” it just rules that the plaintiff in the complaint is a citizen but has no right to vote since the State has the right to deny her voting and does so by law.

It was a suit brought more in the push for women’s suffrage than anything else since she -Minor- was being denied registration to vote by the State of Missouri based on their limitation “Every male citizen of the United States shall be entitled to vote.” .

It only deals with citizenship in relation to voting laws, what fully constitutes a natural born citizen is not a part of it.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162

Anonymous
Anonymous
January 12, 2016 10:49 am

Sensitti -Trump will pick a woman as VP and most likely Nikki Haley from SC.

If he does, he’s lost my vote.She is a left-leaning dot-head, pro amnesty Cuck establishment cunt who has no respect for the history and heritage of the southern people.

If he must choose a woman, what better choice than one currently outside the political establishment?

[imgcomment image:large[/img]

TPC
TPC
January 12, 2016 10:56 am

Every major government program needs a massive overhaul, Trump or Cruz, Sanders or Clinton – it hardly matters. We are still fucked, it will just take a little longer with anyone other than Bush or Clinton.

David
David
January 12, 2016 10:57 am

I like that Sanders is pushing Hillary among democratic primary voters, it takes off the mask of the democratic base and exposes them as the greedy for other people’s money, economic illiterates they are. No more masquerading as pro various rights other than the right to get stuff for free.

It also shows how effective the press and academia have been in moving the culture of the country to one of serfdom in just a few short years in order to further the goal of big government and central planning. Imagine how hard the cronies and big donors to the DNC are laughing.

Sensetti
Sensetti
January 12, 2016 11:01 am

Omg I would love Ann C, but I know women hate her. Anon on second thought you are right! Trump should pick a successful woman from the Business World with very words on public record to be attacked on! But I’ll bet Money he picks a woman. That’s right Nikki pulled the flag down. Correct? We’ll set her on the other side of the wall as well.

Sensetti
Sensetti
January 12, 2016 11:08 am

One things for sure Trump will pick whoever is going to help him get the women’s vote……..I’ve got it..He needs to find a really successful Latino business woman and run her as VP. Now there’s a home run!!

Bea Lever
Bea Lever
January 12, 2016 11:31 am

A VP with tits………….. now there is a puppet we can believe in. Biden can’t even claim a dick much less anything on her level.

Monger
Monger
January 12, 2016 12:35 pm

But he said he was confident that the “overwhelming majority” of Americans were not looking for “simplistic solutions and scapegoating.”

Thought that’s how Obama got into office. “Hope and Change” ” bitter clingers” ? god what a scumbag of a president.

Suzanna
Suzanna
January 12, 2016 12:39 pm

The cynic in me thinks the Trump run is a psyop to give the

conservatives something to distract them, and chew on.

How low have I fallen?

TC
TC
January 12, 2016 1:06 pm

Anon, it doesn’t get any more clear than this… (USSC Minor) but maybe you went to public school?
“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

Anonymous
Anonymous
January 12, 2016 2:01 pm

TC, I think you should take at least a Paralegal course before you attempt to explain law.

You quote is not exclusionary or definitive, it states some cases but does not limit all cases, circumstance or situations to what it states.

Under your interpretation, no one born in the United States from noon citizen parents can claim to be a natural born citizen and even that status for their children would be questionable. Further, a child born in the United States but having only one citizen parent wouldn’t be defined as a natural born citizen, or maybe even a citizen, either.

The Constitution does not define natural born citizen, and Congress has never addressed the issue to define it either.

It is a matter that needs to have a specific legal and unchallenged definition, Cruz should use the Court (or Congress) to push for this.

Westcoaster
Westcoaster
January 12, 2016 2:57 pm

While Trump says he was “against” the wars in Iraq, Sanders voted against both. Actions speak louder than words, and since Trump is all about ” the art of the deal”, who’s to say we could trust him in any way shape or form? He might be like Obama, saying “Hope & Change” and meaing “Hopeless in chains”.
Trump has also expressed his thoughts regarding Snowden. He thinks Snowden is a traitor and should be hanged. Sanders has expressed the polar opposite.
Since Hillery will most like be indicted for her crimes, (and I would vote 3rd party if it were Hillery vs Trump), I think given his words and his deeds the obvious choice is Sanders.

M.I.A.
M.I.A.
January 12, 2016 4:20 pm

Some info on Halley

[imgcomment image[/img]

Every year, the president of the United States comes to the House of Representatives, stands behind the speaker’s rostrum, and delivers his State of the Union address — and every year, the opposing party selects one of its rising stars to appear on live TV immediately afterward and respond.

The point of these responses is to make your party look good and the president look bad. But this year’s response may be different.

That’s because the GOP has picked South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley to deliver it. There’s no doubt that Haley will criticize Barack Obama’s policies, just as she’s been doing since she first took office in 2011.

But she seems to have been selected to make someone other than the president look bad as well: her own party’s indomitable frontrunner, Donald J. Trump.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/nikki-haley-is-the-opposite-1341329225973814.html

TC
TC
January 12, 2016 5:24 pm

@Anon – so you think anchor babies are Natural Born Citizens? Why then did we need the 14th Amendment? For that matter, why isn’t “Natural Born Citizen” found anywhere in the 14th? Why did the author of the 14th Amendment state on the floor of congress multiple times that NBC requires birth on American soil to citizens? People who emigrate here and become naturalized can then rear children on American soil, who are then NBC.

Overthecliff
Overthecliff
January 12, 2016 7:44 pm

Admin really knows how to pick candidates.

Mark
Mark
January 12, 2016 9:09 pm

Some things that Trump will mention that will irritate the media.

Clinton as secreartary of state. Lydia Isis. Iraqu Isis. Syria Isis. Afaganistan Taliban. Egypt would be Muslim Brotherhood if not for Egyptian Military defying Hussein Obama.

Oh, and let’s bring in Donald’s kids and Chelsea.

What exactly did Chelsea do for all that money from CNBC?