Trump on Having to Work with Ryan If Elected: ‘Maybe He’ll Be in Different Position’

Sabato’s Map Shifts: How Far Ahead is Hillary Clinton in Latest Prediction?

Trump Campaign Fires Va. Co-Chair for Protest Against ‘Establishment Pukes’

FAIR AND BALANCED… Don’t miss the final presidential debate, moderated by Fox News’ Chris Wallace, on Wednesday, October 19th at 9:00pm ET on Fox News Channel!

New revelations from the latest WikiLeaks dump has key Hillary Clinton aides and allies taking heat after they are caught attacking two major faith groups–evangelicals and Catholics– in email correspondence.

The 2011 email chains are between Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri, Campaign Chairman John Podesta and John Halpin from the Center for American Progress, Trace Gallagher reported.

Halpin characterizes some members of the Catholic church as being engaged in an “amazing bastardization of the faith.”

Halpin continues, criticizing 21st Century Fox Chairman Rupert Murdoch, CEO of Fox News, and NewsCorp Chairman Robert Thomson for raising their children Catholic, Gallagher reported:

“They must be attracted to the systemic thought and severely backward gender relations,” he writes.

Podesta, a Catholic, does not directly respond in the correspondence.

“I imagine they think it the is the most socially acceptable, politically conservative religion–their rich friends wouldn’t understand if they became evangelicals” Palmieri says of the two men.



Obama revives his ‘cling to guns or religion’ analysis — for Donald Trump supporters

December 21, 2015
The Washington Post

In April 2008, then-senator Barack Obama, a relative upstart Democrat from Illinois, was locked in a presidential primary with then-senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.). Pennsylvania’s important primary was less than two weeks away, making Pennsylvania the temporary center of the political universe.

Then, the candidate whom some reporters were already describing as almost preternaturally aware of the American voter psyche made what just about everyone considers a mistake. At a San Francisco-area fundraiser, Obama took a shot at explaining the mostly white voters in those hard-scrabble and once-booming Pennsylvania industrial towns. He was speaking to a largely wealthy and well-educated California audience, and these Pennsylvanians were people that, in the minds of many liberals living along the nation’s coasts, seemed to be voting against their own personal interests.

They seemed angry and politically confused, casting their votes with some regularity for conservatives who support, without modification, the trade deals, labor practices and shrinking wages that were making these voters’ lives so hard. These are the people the 2004 book “What’s the Matter with Kansas” was talking about. An unpaid “citizen-journalist” and Obama supporter following and writing about the Obama campaign for the Huffington Post — at her own expense — was at the fundraiser and, to her credit, reported precisely what Obama had said:

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Bam. Obama had made not only the rookie political mistake of appearing to diminish or disparage Americans’ affection for guns and God; he had also displayed the temerity to talk about a group of Americans accustomed to viewing themselves simply as “regular Americans” or the American norm — not as if they were just one important segment of a rapidly changing American mosaic.

He had described these white, working-class Americans who do not have college degrees or access to the ever-expanding universe of tech- and thought-centered jobs as understandably frightened, struggling and politically misguided — or perhaps anesthetized into believing that more guns and more God would solve their problems.

The oil industry is pioneering new helping hands in robots and drones.


Needless to say, Clinton pounced, calling Obama an “elitist.” Soon, Obama was, according to the Clinton camp, a candidate who didn’t understand and couldn’t lay claim to the votes of “working, hard-working Americans, white Americans.” Therefore, she was the better bet.

We all know how that turned out.

So here we are, seven years later, and a now President Obama has said some things about this same set of voters — white Americans, and specifically men with limited education who once had near-exclusive access to industrial jobs that paid family-sustaining wages — and the Republican candidate who so many of them seem to support, Donald Trump.

Here’s a portion of what Obama told NPR News in the interview airing Monday:

I do think that when you combine that demographic change with all the economic stresses that people have been going through because of the financial crisis, because of technology, because of globalization, the fact that wages and incomes have been flatlining for some time, and that particularly blue-collar men have had a lot of trouble in this new economy, where they are no longer getting the same bargain that they got when they were going to a factory and able to support their families on a single paycheck.

You combine those things, and it means that there is going to be potential anger, frustration, fear. Some of it justified, but just misdirected. I think somebody like Mr. Trump is taking advantage of that. That’s what he’s exploiting during the course of his campaign.

Sound at all familiar? It should. Obama just made largely the same, perhaps less-volcanically phrased argument that he did all the way back in 2008 about the psyche of economically struggling, largely white voters. He shared his ideas on what brings these voters political comfort but perhaps not the real solutions that they seek. Just read the two statements again.

And then there’s this: There is objective evidence that the president is in large part correct.

Trump is, indisputably, the Republican front-runner and has been for several months. He’s held forth at the top of the very large Republican primary presidential contest well past the point that many an experienced political reporter, prognosticator or consultant loyal to other candidates have predicted. He’s managed to say things in public that for other candidates would be deadly and to draw crowds to his campaign events that really are remarkable in size — if sometimes troubling in their, shall we say, intensity.

But what we must say here is this:

A very big and very substantial share of Trump’s support — the people putting him at the top of almost every poll — are white, male voters who do not have a college degree. We double-checked on Monday. When The Washington Post’s polling team looked closely at the combined results of the November and December Washington Post-ABC News polls, they found that, while 35 percent of Republican-leaning voters described themselves as Trump supporters,  those figures were even higher among white Americans who do not have a college degree — and particularly white men. In fact, 47 percent of white men in this group said they are Trump voters, compared to 32 percent of white men with college degrees.

What we are telling you is not, as too many Trump supporters all too often assume, that Trump voters are to be discounted as intellectually inferior. Educational attainment in the United States is rarely a pure reflection of ability or intelligence. After the free K-12 years, how much education Americans obtain is often much more a reflection of opportunity and personal circumstance and what kind of high school they attended. But educational attainment in the new technology- and thought-driven economy is a strong indicator of what types of jobs pay, security and stability that workers and anyone who depends on them can access. Even the best K-12 public schools — the ones most likely to prepare a kid for college then help them get into the kind of school where most students actually graduate – overwhelmingly serve white, middle- and upper-middle-class children of people with college degrees.

Education is in this way a real indicator of what American voters are experiencing in their everyday lives, what they think should rank among the country’s political priorities, what they fear for themselves and their children and what may sound like feasible solutions to their problems.

And that’s the most neutral and empathetic description of what’s driving Trump voters. There are — without a doubt — uglier and more sinister things that can be found in the hearts and minds that show up en masse to Trump rallies too. Trump tells these people that the country can and will be great again if certain people are booted out of the country or blocked from coming in and even physically attacked. (Remember when Trump said maybe a Black Lives Matter protester “should have been roughed up?”)

Is it really a wonder that some Trump supporters sucker punch, spit, hit, kick and spit upon protesters who don’t share their views? He’s a master at what he does: manipulate legitimate frustration and anxiety for political gain. Or, at least that’s how the president put it Monday.