BOOM: At Least One Poll Finds Trump Competitive in Swing States
I've been the guy pointing out how terrible Donald Trump's general-election numbers have been, so let me be the first to say, considering where he was, the numbers out today look spectacular. Examine the swing state poll from Quinnipiac: Florida: Clinton at 43 percent, with 42 percent for Trump and Sanders at 44 percent to Trump's 42 percent; Ohio: Trump edges Clinton 43 - 39 percent, while Sanders gets 43 percent to Trump's 41 percent; Pennsylvania: Clinton at 43 percent to Trump's 42 percent, while Sanders leads Trump 47 - 41 percent. "Six months from Election Day, the presidential races between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in the three most crucial states, Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, are too close to call," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac Poll. "At this juncture, Trump is doing better in Pennsylvania than the GOP nominees in 2008 and 2012. And the two candidates are about where their party predecessors were at this point in Ohio and Florida." Some people are contending that the samples for these surveys include too many white voters, and this is, so far, one poll. (There's a rumor going around that the Democratic firm, Public Policy Polling, is going to unveil national polling numbers showing Trump close today.) But if any subsequent surveys show numbers in this ballpark, this becomes a five-alarm fire for Hillary Clinton. Trump is phenomenally unpopular, yes, but Hillary has been, so far, almost as disliked and distrusted. Hillary's approach to Trump so far has been to dismiss him as unthinkable and laughable, that his rhetoric is way out of bounds, that he's a "loose cannon," and so on. It's not that different from Jeb Bush's approach, not wanting to dignify the absurd with a response. When Hillary runs as the anti-Trump, and the likely Republican nominee is behaving at his worst, she's in fine position. But the more she turns into the candidate of the status quo, the worse it will get for her. The Democrats' current accusation that he's "Dangerous Donald" only plays into his anti-status quo brand. Let's Take Back America from the Gridlocked Special-Interest Establishment! Randall Smith, pointing out that words don't mean anything anymore in political rhetoric: If recent elections are any gauge of such matters, on many political issues Americans are 49 percent on one side and 50 percent on the other (with a 3 percent margin of error). So from whom would we be "taking back" the country? Basically from the other 50 percent of Americans. Both halves of the voting public are aggressively trying to "take back the country" from the other half, with the notion of "compromise" anathema to both. The results are fairly predictable: 100 percent of the country is frustrated with the "gridlock in government" that is the natural result of their empty slogans and their failure to realize that the country hasn't been invaded by Russia but is simply engaged in democratic debate between two opposing sides. Some people wish to insist that we're trying to "take back the country" from "the establishment." Who exactly is "the establishment"? Anyone who works in Washington, DC? I know a guy who works as a school teacher in DC. Is he part of the establishment? How about anyone who works for the government in DC? I know a woman who works as a secretary for the FAA. Is she part of "the establishment"? No, the problem isn't just in Washington; it's all those organizations that use their money to influence government! You mean like the Sierra Club, the National Rifle Association, the Heritage Foundation, the Brookings Institution, Google, GM, Ford, the Koch brothers, George Soros . . . need I go on? Money used to influence the government the way I want is money to "take back the country." Money my opponents use to further their agenda becomes part of the hated "establishment." The Civil War over the Meaning of Captain America's New Movie Conservatives seem really, really determined to interpret Captain America: Civil War as a message movie for the Right. Brandon Morse, writing over at RedState: Last night I sat me down with an overpriced Sprite, and a large bag of popcorn in a chair I'm pretty sure was once the seat of a wet dog. I didn't mind any of this, however, as I was about to be treated to a movie featuring my favorite super hero, Captain America. What I saw was nothing short of a wild, anti-authoritarian ride that tickled my Libertarian sensibilities and made me believe that Hollywood isn't so bad after all. Daniel Woltornist, the senior communications manager, national security for the Heritage Foundation, writing over at the Daily Signal: In "Captain America: Civil War," the latest film in the Avengers series, Marvel introduces perhaps the most dangerous [villain] of them all -- the United Nations. While the Avengers are well versed in handling enemies with powers like super strength, shape shifting, and power beams, the United Nation's powers of regulation and sovereignty usurpation represents their toughest foe yet. Here's the gist of the movie -- the free market does something well and the government comes in to "fix" it. And – shockingly -- the government wrecks everything. From where I sit, this is wrong on two fronts. One, there's a danger in projecting our political attitudes and current debates into a story that is ultimately meant to be entertaining. If we grumble that the Left politicizes everything, and demands all fictional storylines stay within the lines of politically correct tropes, then it's not that much less insufferable when we turn around and insist that every movie that portrays good vs. evil is a reaffirmation of the Judeo-Christian worldview. Secondly, if we really look at the story, it's far from clear that the audience is rooting for the right side. SPOILERS AHEAD If Captain America represents "the Right" in this movie, then "the Right" stands for disregarding the law, assaulting police officers, destroying other people's property without consequence, and ultimately selecting our own penance for our crimes against others instead of facing a system of justice, trial by our peers, and public accountability. (I'm not so sure that the Second Amendment would apply to Gamma-radiation driven super-strength, invulnerability, and uncontrollable destructive rages.) Bucky/The Winter Soldier has been killing people for Hydra for a long, long time, even if he was framed for the Geneva bombing. Even if he's been brainwashed to commit all of those violent acts, Bucky doesn't seem brainwashed in his conversation with Captain America in the apartment building in Romania. Then the SWAT team arrives and Bucky promptly beats the heck out of all of them. Captain America seems to be preventing Bucky from using deadly force, and pulling his own punches with the cops, but these police officers are still ordinary human beings, doing their duty to arrest a dangerous fugitive who has super-strength and a bulletproof robotic arm. Unless those are super-healing cops, they're coming out of that fight with broken bones, concussions, and hopefully no cerebral hemorrhages. In other words, non-brainwashed Bucky is guilty of, at minimum, multiple counts of assault on law-enforcement officers. Captain America and Falcon try to help him escape the SWAT team, and then, when he breaks out of the Berlin facility, they catch him but don't turn this dangerous fugitive over to the authorities. At the airport -- where, once again, there's no sign Bucky is brainwashed -- he assaults several Avengers and commits many acts of property damage. (I guess everybody just figures the insurance policy covers superhero battles.) He escapes to Siberia, and then after the climax, he later heads to Wakanda, where he recognizes that he'll be a danger to others as long as he can be activated to kill with the right code words, and he accepts being frozen in suspended animation. Which is not terribly different from the outcome that Tony Stark and the rest of the Avengers wanted . . . except that in this case, Bucky never goes on trial, his victims never get to face him in court, and no one knows he's been brought to justice. ADDENDA: After yesterday's rock-bottom pricing, Heavy Lifting -- cover price, $27.99 -- is now $10.77 on Amazon. Also, enough people bought it yesterday to get it to jump up to 2,188 in Amazon's ranking. Thanks to everyone who purchased one -- it's fine gift for new grads and new dads!  | 
Comments
Post a Comment