The vines and roots of the African-American spring continue to grow and spread. How much? Now there's black disillusionment with Barack Obama. And that's not good news for You Know Who:
Nightclubs were registering voters. Churches held fish fries after loading buses that ferried parishioners to the polls. A truck hoisted a big sign that said “Obama.” And residents waited in long lines at precincts across the community.
But as Motley and some friends sought shade recently under a mulberry tree and looked across the landscape of empty lots and abandoned houses that has persisted here, they wondered whether they would ever bother voting again.
“What was the point?” asked Motley, twenty-three, a grocery store clerk. “We made history, but I don’t see change.” …[emphasis added]
The One doesn't have to care about any of this, whether he pulls his coup de tat next year or golf-carts off into retirement 590 days from now. But every other Democrat everywhere had to have crapped their pants simultaneously at the moment of Mr. Motley's lament, even if they didn't know why at the time. If black America is losing faith in their god, if they are realizing and starting to say out loud that he's got clay feet the size of airport runways, if they are no longer building shrines to his bronzed divots, then the Democrats are F-U-you-know-the-rest bleeped, for 2016 and perhaps many cycles to come.
Why? This is why:
“At least with Obama, he gave pride to our young men and was a good role model,” said Daniel “Happy Jack” Cobb Jr., seventy-three, the owner of Happy Jack’s Grocery and Market on Jacksonville’s north side. “Hillary needs to prove to us that she’s genuine and really true. And I’m not even sure that would help. We’ve been snakebitten too many times before.” [emphases added]
Hillary doesn't remember which part(s?) of her are genuine or true. She's never had to care which parts of her are genuine or true, so how would she know? Oh, sure, she probably remembers that she was an orthodox Marxist-Alinskyist at one time (kind of like when the Starchild tells his old high school sweetheart in 2010: The Year We Make Contact that, "I remember Dave Bowman"), and certainly she still retains those instincts. But after all these decades with her husband in La Clinton Nostra, she's simply been too tainted by his greed and corruption and too bedazzled by his effortless, hypnotic confabulations, the former mixed with her cosmic sense of entitlement and the latter intermingled with her comparable ego convincing her that she can pilot that starship known as the Clinton coalition as effortlessly as he to attain the office she's always felt has been hers, whether she occupied it or not.
When the truth is, she can't pilot her own walker.
And she's going to reassemble the Obama coalition? Based on genuineness and authenticity? A white woman firing up blacks? A seventy-year-old woman electrifying young voters? An heiress with a net worth in nine figures energizing the Nutroots?
I don't disagree with Captain Ed that that blacks will still, in the end, vote predominantly for Mrs. Clinton. But how many? Certainly not enough to generate, "Nightclubs....register[ing] voters, churches h[olding] fish fries after loading buses that ferried parishioners to the polls, trucks hoist[ing] big sign[s] that sa[y] “Hillary!”, and residents wait[ing] in long lines at precincts across the community". Ditto young voters, and the rest of the Obama coalition.
To employ a comparative template, here are the national partisan vote numbers from 2008 to the present:
2008 president: Obama 52.9%, McCain 45.7%
2008 Congress: Democrats 53.2%, Republicans 42.6%
2010 Congress: Republicans 51.7%, Democrats 44.9%
2012 president: Obama 51.1%, Romney 47.2%
2012 Congress: Democrats 48.8%, Republicans 47.6%
2014 Congress: Republicans 51.2%, Democrats 45.5%
Democrats suffered a 17.4-point drop in the national congressional vote from 2008, when Obama topped the ballot, to 2010, when he didn't, and thus was not motivating his "coalition". That same drop from 2012 to 2014 was 6.9%. That averages out to a 12.15% decline that could be dubbed "the Obama effect".
Now the presidential popular vote is, admittedly, not the same as the national aggregate congressional vote, and of course the former still goes through the Electoral College. But if you average Obama's two victory margins (+5.55%) and apply the Obama effect, that's a 6.6% Democrat deficit, which would be well-nigh impossible for Mrs. Clinton to overcome even with the Dems' supposed "built in Electoral College advantages".
Would she get any "historic effect" from being the first female major party presidential candidate? Maybe a little, but (1) I think the feminist version of "historicity" would be far more muted, (2) Obama has generally played out that card already, and (3) all of the old harridan's scandal and phoniness baggage will more than offset any such gains she might score with LIVs and NIVs. And she won't have all those extra minorities and "youts" to fall back on, as her ex-boss did in 2012 when even his tally dropped by three million votes.
Assuming the GOP can pull its head out of its hindquarters, break the "establishment" deathgrip on the party's nominating process, and put up Scott Walker as its standard-bearer, Hillary Clinton will lose by the biggest margin since 1988, and maybe even 1984. And since she has no (official) executive experience, she doesn't even benefit from the gubernatorial superiority factor, so even Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio or Rand Paul would stand a good chance of knocking her off.
Just one more reason why Democrats are already panicking, whether they're admitting it yet or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment