Trump: South Carolina And Beyond

I am not sure I will classify the Trump victory in South Carolina as necessarily a commanding lead. But the fact remains that Trump's win was by a margin of 10% over the second place winner Marco Rubio, and of course one of Trump's biggest critics, Jeb Bush, is no longer in the race. We have the Nevada primary coming up this coming Tuesday, and of course the big tell, Super Tuesday, is on March 1st. Something tells me that even if Trump doesn't win in Nevada, although he is predicted to win—again by a double digit margin—I think he will do very well when all of the numbers are in on Super Tuesday. And of course the field is going to narrow after Nevada's Tuesday primary, and by the time we get to the final call after Super Tuesday I think we'll be down to three candidates.

Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz. If Kasich's numbers don't add up in Nevada I think he'll drop out. So, perhaps, will Ben Carson.

In my opinion it is still too early to necessarily predicate on the idea that The Donald is an unstoppable force. But if we are looking at just the margins over the course of the campaigns, Trump at least appears to be the presumed nominee. The thought that crosses my mind is how can Trump have his Howard Dean moment in this race? He's said some fairly nasty things, and he said some things in the CBS debate just before the South Carolina primary that not only did not resonate with me, it rubbed a lot of voters the wrong way.

Yet he still won, and it wasn't really all that close actually.

If Donald J. Trump takes home the prize on Super Tuesday I think we can safely assume the republican voters in the caucuses have chosen who they want to see run against whoever is going to be the nominee on the democratic side—who I still think will be Hillary Clinton when all is said and done, and I am fine with that.

When I talk to most of my fellow republicans and conservatives of course I am chastised every which way but Sunday when I mention that I actually am rooting for Trump. Why do I like the guy?

•  He holds nothing back and takes no prisoners.
• He is the ONLY guy I think will actually address immigration reform even if I do not think he will be successful in having Mexico pay for the wall.
• He is the ONLY guy who I think understands fundamentally that trade is good, free market capitalism is good, but that we also have a rigged system that has stacked the deck in favor of OTHER nations while leaving American workers behind.
• Therefore Donald Trump is the ONLY one who is actually going to begin the process of renegotiating trade deals and ultimately to bring back jobs to American workers who badly need better than Walmart jobs to feed their families and pursue the dying American dream.
• He is deeply concerned about the advancement of ISIS, the instability in the Middle East, and takes seriously the very real threat of terrorism in the Homeland.

On the last point, I think all of the candidates left in the race have serious concerns about terrorism as well, and aside from Bush

who I thought was extremely weak on the subject, I think all three top tier candidates—Trump, Rubio, and Cruz—would all take steps to curb the threat from Islamic Jihadists. Trump may take the strongest stance however, and with that said, I do think that while Trump has good intentions, on this issue at least, he is going to have to surround himself with the best military and foreign relations people to get his head wrapped around a strategy that will work, that will circumvent unintended consequences, and that will not cause more damage in an already sticky situation.

The one thing that does sort of twist the knife if you'll let me put it that way is that while Trump is getting all the attention on the republican side, the fact remains that where Trump has missed the mark is on substance. He's missed the how's and the why's and how come's. And I think in a general election this detail is extremely important. When Trump gets to the big stage alongside Hillary Clinton who, love her or hate her, has command of her policy, and is well spoken, Trump cannot rely on personal attacks to get the attention of the American people. He has to shred every single idea and statement that Hillary puts forth. He has to command every single issue. He needs to explain in detail why his policies would work, and why he thinks Hillary's would fail. He has to be tough on Barack Obama and his failed policies, which of course Hillary will tout as grand successes, but not just by saying the president was weak or incompetent, but by explaining in detail why he believes the president's policies were bad, how they affected the American people, and if continued how they will continue to affect the American people.

Substance, at the end of the day, is the one thing Trump has lacked throughout the campaign, and the only thing that gives me pause when deciding whether or not even I—a Trump supporter—can ultimately pull the trigger if I were to vote today. Can Donald Trump have a moment like he had with Jeb Bush in the CBS debate where he called former president Bush a liar in a debate with Clinton? I don't think so. I don't think that kind of an exchange would go over very well at all. Although, I do think he can be tough on the issue of Benghazi—but again the approach as to how you do this needs to be careful and calculated. It can't just be name calling and flame throwing. That won't work in a general election.

So all said I give Trump great props for a job well done up to this point, and frankly because of the bullet point issues I am concerned about personally, would love to see him go all the way and get these important things done like nobody else can or will. But as we draw nearer to the strong likelihood that he actually wins the nomination, he really needs to begin the process now of filling in the blanks, and giving us more than what he has given us in the past—he needs to give us the how's and why's and how come's we've been dying to hear.

Because one thing is certain. Hillary will explain her stuff, and whether it is right or wrong, if Trump can't explain his, hers just sounds more thought out and sometimes reality is not what counts. Perspective is everything, and if Trump is perceived as one who doesn't know his way around things, it will cost him the election without a doubt.

The Dynamics in 2016 May Be Why Trump Wins

The other day I spoke a little bit about history having a tendency to follow the future when it comes to elections and politics in general, and how I felt that due to some historical and current data it strongly suggests that Hillary Clinton cannot win the upcoming presidential election. I stand by the arguments I made for my case on that. But there is something else that we know about history when it comes to primaries and who ultimately winds up winning nominations; The front runners rarely become the nominee.

I also talked a bit about some changing demographics and dynamics in this election cycle which could have at least some influence on things. For much the same reasons I believe those changing demographics and dynamics hurt Hillary's chances, I think they bolster Trump's.

For all intents and purposes you could say that Hillary Clinton has been the front runner for her party's nomination for at least the past four years and running. Despite her obvious troubles I don't see anyone emerging in the democratic party who stands a chance of unseating her strong lead within her party.

Hillary Clinton will be the democratic nominee for president without a doubt.

I am beginning to think that when it comes to who the republican nominee will be, it will be Donald Trump. He is going to manage to buck the trend that suggests that someone would ultimately otherwise knock him out of first place. And again, it is that changing demographic and dynamic that will help him maintain his lead. One of the brilliant things Trump has managed to do throughout his campaign, and continues to do to this day, is run against even his own party. He's running as much as an independent as he is running as a republican, and this just happens to be resonating with the electorate—and handily. I think Donald Trump, in many ways, is also managing to do something that any other republican candidate would be hard pressed to do and that is to capture at least a portion of the liberal voting public's interest. I actually believe that Trump can win the majority of the swing vote and take up enough of the democratic vote and ultimately win the White House.

Whether or not you totally agree with the movement of the 99%, and certainly everyone can agree that Donald Trump is certainly not in that majority, the movement did strongly suggest at least the idea that the citizens were becoming more and more dissatisfied with the way of the world. Granted, this anger was directed toward the fat cats. The rich and the powerful. But I think it was also a protest against an establishment that they (the 99% people) felt gave license to the rise of the rich and paved the way for a growing gap between the rich and the poor. Or in this case, the 1% and the rest of us. Trump may well be a part of that 1% the 99%ers hate so much, but he is not a part of the establishment.

Trump may not be for a $15 an hour minimum wage, but he is for restoring the kinds of jobs in the country that will provide a better chance for better wages, and moreover, more opportunities for the average citizen to get a good job that pays well and provides for their families and their basic needs. Even the 99%ers argued that the evildoers of the corporations raped and pilfered not only by becoming rich off the people (their claim, not mine), but they also did it by sending good paying jobs away to places like Mexico and China.

Donald Trump has said he wants to fix that.

Whether it is by design or by default, it seems that Trump is speaking to the masses. He's bucking all of the trends. He takes no prisoners. He draws a hard line in the sand. He has also managed to draw a good many people into the realm of politics who would not otherwise be so inclined. Perhaps it is still too early to draw such conclusions, but with the times being what they are and mindsets in places we haven't seen in our past, there is enough here to strongly suggest politics are out (leaving Hillary out), and anti-establishment in, meaning Trump may enjoy a rather surprise victory. Trump's success may well come partly from a combination of rules, history, and timing. If the dynamics were not what they are, Hillary could certainly have bucked history. Those dynamics are key to understanding exactly why the historical trend may perpetuate even with very different aspects as to why they will, and why perhaps they would not have.

Why Hillary Will Not Win The Election

In the stock market we typically follow the philosophy that past history is not necessarily indicative of future results. But a lot of the time when it comes to presidential elections and politics in general, history can be very telling. Even while there are some changing demographics and of course, different dynamics at play with this upcoming election, there is still enough data among the electorate right now that tend to suggest that history may well be very telling as to whether or not Hillary Clinton can seat herself in the Oval Office.

I am taking the position that Hillary Clinton cannot win, although I am also openly saying that it is too early to firmly stake that claim.

Set aside some of the issues of her political tenure that I think should be enough to preclude her from ever holding an elected office or cabinet position of any kind such as Benghazi, or the email scandal. The question becomes whether or not Americans are satisfied with the current state of the Union, and how they feel about the direction the country is headed.

In a recent Monmouth University poll likely voters were asked whether or not they would vote for Obama for a third term if he was able to run, and only 27% of those polled said yes. 43% said they wanted someone else. With Hillary Clinton not having clearly defined how her presidency would be different than Obama's, and how her candidacy is not necessarily a continuation of the same policies of the Obama administration, this puts her almost in lock-step with Obama. If 43% would be unlikely to vote for Obama, how would they then circle back to Clinton, essentially equating to a third Obama term?

I do not believe that voters will.

Let's not forget that many Americans, even those who typically have supported Obama, are also becoming more aware that perhaps the policies of the Obama administration, for all of the hope and change promised, have simply fallen short. The economic numbers have not improved much. The jobs situation has perhaps seen lower unemployment numbers, but there are still many quality of life issues when it comes to what types of jobs are being filled. Even having more people working means nothing if those jobs aren't helping to dramatically improve anyone's bottom lines. And it would appear that foreign policy has been a disaster at best—and the recent events in France won't help Clinton either—and according to other polls Americans are not exactly convinced that the country is safer today, and many are also considering that the next attack on American soil may just be a matter of time.

History shows that it is extremely rare in any event for one party to maintain the White House for 12 years straight. I do not believe that, despite all of the hype surrounding Obama's two-terms, and any excitement for another historical moment in the making if Hillary makes it to the White House, that there is enough there to provide her an opportunity to buck the trend.

And Hillary is also trailing every single one of the republican candidates, and I think that is quite telling considering who she is ultimately up against. The usual players are not the front runners. Who is leading in nearly every single poll?

The non-establishment. Non-politicians. Non-government.

The numbers alone seem to signal if not for a history repeating shift to the republican party as would otherwise be the case, but a strong and growing dissent and resentment toward the status-quo when it comes to the entire landscape of politics. Hillary is clearly completely immersed in this world that a growing number of Americans are simply tired of. As well, it seems to me that even if you take a look at the small list of democratic candidates, and any enthusiasm that may exist in the democratic side going to just one primary candidate, it begs the question; If the democrats, or any democrat in the party, felt strongly that the Obama presidency was a huge success, would there not be more candidates coming front and center to eagerly make an attempt at continuing the legacy? Enthusiasm can sometimes be defined by who shows up to take a shot, and on the democratic side that number is quite small. This becomes even more glaring when you consider the controversies which have surfaced during Clinton's run. Anyone eager to take up any slack in what would be considered a strong and in-the-bag victory would readily step forward and say, "What about me?"

I think the truth is that Hillary Clinton is not the automatic president everyone seemed to want to suggest she was going to be. That becomes even more clear to me now.

It is still too early to tell as I stated before. But what does seem clear to me is that the republicans have the best shot they have had in a long time to secure a victory, and I would not be at all surprised if that victory doesn't even necessarily go to the republican party even if the future president bears an "R" after their name, but to the non-establishment which just happens to be strongest running on the republican tickets.

I simply feel that history will prevail despite the changing demographics and dynamics of this election, and democrats will not enjoy another four years in the White House. That leaves Hillary out almost indefinitely since Bernie Sanders, her strongest opponent, comes nowhere near the numbers of any of the republican candidates. If Donald Trump is a "long shot," Bernie Sanders is a shot in the dark in comparison.

Whoever wins the White House, rest assured it will not be Hillary Clinton.

EXTRA, EXTRA! Obama's New Executive Order

Did you not see it? How in the world could you have missed it? President Obama has now seen fit to issue yet another of his executive orders. And this one is real humdinger mind you. The humdinger of humdingers.

What is it, you ask?

It has now been officially declared by executive order by President Obama that the Oval Office will now be the greens of our nations golf courses. Heck, that is where he spends all of his time in any event...and I do mean in any event.

Russia downs planes, attacks innocents in the Ukraine, Americans lie dead in the streets of Benghazi, the IRS targets conservatives, the NSA spies on Fox News (okay, that was unfair...reporters in general, but you know who they were after. Obama dissenters.), and the economy continues to tank, crumble, and implode...

But what a swing this guy's got!

Also signed into law by executive fiat is that Air Force One will now be a golf cart. To hell with needing something to fly to enemy States. Forget needing to get to the problem areas of the country, or important meetings with anyone that matters.

This guy needs to get the next hole, man!

EVEN GOD HIMSELF WOULD NOT BE A SOCIALIST

There was an interesting analogy I heard recently to describe one of the major flaws with the whole concept of socialism, and while I cannot recall who made it, I can recall that I found it to be profoundly accurate.

You work hard in class and you study even harder. You do everything you can to learn the materials, and as a result you receive an 'A.' But Tommy, who sits right beside you isn't such a good student as you, and he doesn't spend the time nor does he have the inclination to work hard. As a result of his lackluster performance Tommy receives a 'D.' Seeing this, the teacher thinks this is unfair, and so she says to you that you must give some of your grade to Tommy to level the playing field. It's only fair, right? Why should Tommy be disadvantaged? And why wouldn't you be willing to give up some of your higher score? After all, a 'B' or a 'C' is still a passing grade, and you've got all those extra points. You can afford to give them up so that Tommy can have his fair share.

It sounds farfetched, I'll give you that. It's not exactly apples to apples either. But the underlying message is the same. Socialism rewards those who do not deserve to be rewarded, and punishes those who do. For all of its good intention toward fairness or to the so-called leveling of the playing field, it also leaves behind no real incentive to try hard at anything. Theoretically speaking, it stands to reason that if America would have begun its economic course based on socialist ideals rather than on capitalist ones, America would be a very different place indeed. It's why we must think very long and hard about what our priorities are before we decide to elect Barack Obama to the White House. It simply can't be that the majority of Americans feel that Tommy should get a higher score at the expense of the honor student's efforts. But that's exactly what Americans will be saying if Obama gets elected.

Look, I agree that everyone indeed deserves a fair opportunity to achieve their every wish and dream. Under a capitalist system that opportunity does exist. It is a fair playing field. But opportunity is not a handout. You have to work for it. You have to be willing to take on risk. You have to act instead of talk. You have to commit as opposed to simply wanting. You have to have the guts to do whatever it takes rather than complain about what you don't have. Capitalism is a system that holds one accountable to themselves for the success or failure they ultimately attain. At the end of the day the ball is in your court. You do with it what you will.

Okay, time for a quick joke:

This guy goes to the altar one day and says to God, "I've read every page of the Bible and read a verse a day. I go to Church every single Sunday, and sometimes I even go on Wednesday. Lord, I do your bidding always, being kind and helpful and nurturing and spreading your good word. All I ask Lord is that you let me win the lottery."

Suddenly the man is awash in a most powerful, warm light, and he hears a commanding voice speak to him. "You will win the lottery, my son," the voice says. The man knew it was God.
And so he went home and waited. The first drawing went by, then the second. There was a third and then a fourth. But the man did not win the lottery as God had promised him.
So the man returned to the altar, clearly angered and confused. "Lord, I just don't get it. I've done your bidding. And I asked to win the lottery. You told me I would indeed win. Yet, Lord, I have won nothing at all."
Again the man was awash in a most powerful, warm light. The voice said to the man standing at the altar, "Buy a lottery ticket!"

That said, it is clear that even God Himself would not be a socialist. He cannot give you anything you cannot, or will not give to yourself. I'm not going to speak for the Big Guy in the Sky, but I think it's evident that He would be voting for John McCain this November 4th.

We all should consider to do the same or the word achievement will sadly become synonymous with the word charity.