Monday, 12 September 2016

The fall of Hillary Clinton


Democrats wonder and worry: Why isn’t Clinton far ahead of Trump?

was the Washington Post headline on Friday.

Mrs Clinton had not given a press conference 
until last week for 270 days, and when she did it was not noteworthy. In that time she had made some very dull speeches and disappeared for days between appearances. Most of those 'appearances' were behind closed doors, raising funds from rich Democrats. When she finally let the press into her latest fundraiser, for homosexuals, it proved her undoing.
“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the 'basket of deplorables'. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it.”
It raised loud laughter, but it wasn't funny and she isn't laughing now.

2016 will be remembered for a lot of things but, apart from anything else, it was the year when the electors started to get blamed by the politicians and political activists for

letting them down. The electors who voted for Brexit were roundly condemned by the left as racist, xenophobic and influenced by the tabloids, or in other words stupid. Mrs Clinton is saying the same thing. This hasn't happened before.

Here is the transcript of her speech to put the paragraph in context. If you ask me, it makes matters worse.

Donald Trump said, reasonably,

“Hillary Clinton is an insider supported by powerful insiders attacking Americans who have absolutely no political power.”
She apologised, though she very clearly meant what she said. But a number of journalists wrote to say that she was right. Tens of millions of electors do hold racist, sexist, homophobic views. Some writers adduced polling data.

Can the electors be the bad guys?

If so, what should be done about these people?

Political reeducation in the style of North Vietnam is not possible, but the liberal elite hope Third World immigration will solve the problem. Paul Krugman and many others have made it clear that they can't wait for rural white Americans to lose the power they at present have.

Then, as we were starting to digest this, yesterday she collapsed at the commemoration of the 15th anniversary of September 11th. She was lifted into her car and sped away. 

The stories about her health that had been ignored are now the main news item.

The symbolism was powerful - a frail though power-hungry old woman collapses at the commemoration of the gravest attack on the USA since Pearl Harbor.

After some hours, we learnt she has pneumonia. But pneumonia can accompany other conditions, including the Parkinson's Disease that some doctors claim she has.

She's always been a terrible candidate, who doesn't like elections or electors. A terrible politician too. Now I think Trump has his great chance.

Asked about his opponent's health Trump enjoyed saying he had nothing to say, except

"I hope she gets well soon."
Trump, I felt, was not telling the truth this time. But perhaps he is - if she leaves the race Joe Biden will walk it.

Meanwhile Trump and Clinton tie in the latest RCP poll Florida, a yuge swing to him. I presume polling took place before her (physical) collapse but don't know. 

Napoleon asked of his generals that they be lucky. Hillary, like George W. Bush, is not. Donald Trump seems to be very lucky, so far. 

And Trump at least amuses us, while Hillary depresses us unutterably.

I see all the big and terrifying defects of Donald Trump. I do. He may well be a charlatan, though he is a sort of political genius, but he might be the man for the hour. But at least President Trump would alter the zeitgeist, which has led Europe to be invaded by potentially endless people from Africa and Asia fleeing poverty.

The next four years will bring very grave geopolitical crises, involving Muslim extremists and even more mass migrations. We shall all regret it if Hillary is leader of the free world for the next four years, if she lives that long, a leader with no political skills, whose career was handed to her because of her husband and whose priorities are women's rights and climate change.


  1. I've got $100 says she wins, and it isn't close. Straight-up bet; loser donates the money to a charity of the winner's choice, posts a receipt as proof.

    come, take my money.

    Doug M.

    1. I think she is still favourite. As I said in my last post, 2016 is seeing a people's revolt against liberalism. I doubt it has very much chance even if Trump wins, but we'll see.

  2. The polls are up and down, but at best Trump only pulls even with Clinton, whose lead has lately ranged from -1 to +7 or so. A Brexit-style surprise, where the side subject to elite stigma outperforms the polls is plausible: if not now, when? Also, some 30% are currently undecided, committed to other candidates, or not intending to vote, which has to compound the uncertainty.

    If I were betting, I'd put money on Trump at 3:1 odds, but not 2:1 odds.

    1. I agree. I am becoming very depressed at thought of that woman as US President.

  3. Merkel (and those enlightened Europeans) calling Brits racist if they don't think their borders should be open to Muslim immigrants was probably the main factor in the Brexit vote.

    In the same fashion, the Democrats calling almost all police / most white men / many white people / half of Trump voters / most republicans etc. racist is the driving force behind Trump's ascension because one cannot defend themselves against an accusation of racism. This is what fills people with rage, not the economy or not fulfilling conservative promises.

    The mainstream (left) media is in a frenzy of making up its own stories and fails to see that calling millions of people racist, calling the national anthem and the flag people have saluted all their lives racist is simply wrong and risks backfiring in a huge way.

    Whoever wins, this unhinged name calling by Obama and the Democrats is creating a huge problem. Once you called someone racist openly there is no way back to being in the same tribe. It is a symbolic excommunication giving these people nothing to lose in political terms.

    1. What babble. To refrain from calling a racist a racist will not change his vote. Is it not PC to refrain from calling a spade a spade? I thought this was what Trump supporters stood for... oh yes, unless they are at the receiving end of criticism. Thins skinned like their leader, no?

    2. This whole racism issue is a fabrication. Very few people are racist. 80% of left wing media content is about racism and you may think it is a big issue. How come it was not so 3 years ago? Was it all happening and no one talked about it? I don't believe so because my bullshit meter tells me that if this were a significant societal problem in US or Europe I would see it with my own eyes at least once. They way I see it for example when I am in Romania where I notice racist attitudes towards Roma almost on a daily basis when I am there. Outside Romania I have yet to witness a racist event or meet anyone who witnessed a racist event and can describe it clearly to me in person. I've witnessed one antisemitic event with Italians. I was complimented on my white skin by a Czech but I don't count that.

      Calling millions of people you don't know racist does not help anything other that your feeling of superiority and Trump.

    3. Have you ever heard of David Duke? Trump claimed not to at one point.

    4. David Duke is not 50,000,000 people.

      All those women who's votes Hillary needs have husbands, fathers and sons that have now been put in the "angry white man" category and accused of being racist. What do you think they'll do?

      Also - you are a racist. I know you are deep in your heart. Just do an experiment on yourself an try to defend yourself now (say "I am not a racist because...") and let's see how convincing you sound and how you feel in the process.

      And my question was - have you ever seen with your own eyes, in your day to day life, an event in which someone committed a racist act in the US or Europe? Can you pls. describe it?

    5. You are sadly driven by anecdote. I don't know where you live (or if you have a name) but I can say that I have never been a member of the Ferguson police department, nor have I attended a trump rally, nor for that matter was I ever abused as a child by a Catholic priest. But if you insist on closing your eyes to systematic facts, then we have nothing to discuss. I suppose you also consider global warming a hoax. And that all government statistics pointing to a moderately improving economy a fabrication and part of a conspiracy. Sadly there are a disappointing number of people out there who have grown up on the Fox "news" narrative and are, as some put it, post-factual. It really doesn't matter what the facts are, only opinion, feelings and ideology. This is a dangerous way to go. Even right wingers like George Will recognize it. And in answer to your comment about me being racist, well yes i am probably prejudiced, but i am at least conscious of it and trying to find ways to mitigate it, rather than joining the verbal lynch mob that Trump encourages.

    6. I don't think Trump is deliberately encouraging racism but he is encouraging nativism and anti-internationalism. And this of course does encourage the racists to hope their moment is come at last. I think Americans should stop obsessing about the threadbare subject of racism and that is what the Trump supporters hope too. I recommend this article on exactly this point by Christopher Caldwell.

    7. You are prejudiced Mr. Marc Canizzo. You write that since we disagree that racism is the widespread societal problem it is made up to be, it must mean I am also a climate change & catholic priest abuse denier remote controlled by Fox News.

      I am a Democrat disappointed by the shameful play of the race card by Obama. Fabricating this divisive story is bad enough in normal times but in the current circumstances it may hand the presidency to Trump (who are the "new" Trump voters?) which is a 50/50 flip of the coin with one side disaster.

      Then you'll be able to feel superior and say I told you so, while the world is going down the drain.

      Meek admittance of "prejudice" does not give you license to accuse others of racism, especially millions of people you don't know.

      I would also be curious what did you actually do to consider yourself prejudiced. Did you not hire or promote someone because of the color of their skin? Did you humiliate someone? Did you not shake someone's hand? What exactly did you do?

      My guess is that you actually did not do anything, nor did you ever see anyone doing anything racist. But you (my turn to call you mentally colonized) have probably swallowed that rotten baloney sandwich that racism and prejudice is about feelings not doing or saying something. As you can never be sure of the absolute purity of your feelings, you have to constantly make amends and self flagellate to show your faith.

      Good for you to do all that but don't call names and spit on the people who don't as that is the real prejudice and very similar to the one you think belongs to the other tribe.

    8. Anonymous you are very good - please leave a name next time. Of course the importance of racism is hugely exaggerated. I am disappointed that Marc considers climate change a worry.

    9. My gosh, Mr.Anonymous, you need to calm down a bit. This conversation has gone completely off the rails and if i offended you, then I regret doing so. My point was simple, but not clearly conveyed: I don't think that most Trump supporters are racist, but that is not the issue. All I thought I was saying is that there are racists (or at least self-avowed supremacists) among his supporters and Trump does little to dissuade them. One can passively play the "race card" when scraping the gutter for a few marginal votes. There is a legacy of racial prejudice in the United States which I think is relevant to our discussion, but I hear what you say and I don't want to overstate the case. And I certainly am in no position to guess at your other beliefs on important issues. (Perhaps you can help me in leading Paul to consider scientific matters beyond the Daily Sun.) As a Catholic, I will ponder your words on self-flagellation. My guess is that you are a therapist of some sort? Peace.

    10. Mr. Gladstone used to flagellate himself as did many saints. I get my views on climate change from Lord Lawson, Lord Monckton, Christopher Booker and James Delingpole and from the news in general. I am genuinely surprised that some people still take it seriously. There are different ways of measuring global warming but the surface of the earth has not heated for 18 years. The RSS satellite dataset showed no global warming at all for 224 months from May 1997 to December 2015.
      And then there's the Mediaeval Warm Period.
      Another reason to hope the Democrats lose.

    11. Fascinating. I will get back to you on that. In the meantime, returning to the main theme, here is an article for your paper bin:

  4. This hasn't happened before.

    Hardly. Google O's bitter clinger speech 2008. There's plenty of evidence that O hates the american electorate as well as holding us in contempt.

    I predict H is elected and dead 6 mos later. If she can't handle the stress of campaigning, she won't handle the stress of the office. Look at some pics of Lincoln and Carter at the start and ends of their presidencies.

    1. Jimmy Carter? a brain cancer survivor who is still putting roofs on houses at the age of 91?

      I think you're confusing him with Reagan.

      Doug M.

    2. Nancy, according to the Daily Telegraph obituary, was the most powerful First Lady ever. If she was running the world 1987-89 she did a great job. But Mrs. Wilson was far more powerful. Still, no-one suggested a political career for Nancy and I am surprised Hillary was given a Senate seat and subsequent career, just for being Bill's wife.

  5. Hillary Clinton said:
    "And it’s a special commitment that I feel to continuing to fight alongside the LGBT community. Because this is one of the continuing struggles." [...]
    "We still have a lot of work to do. And if you think of the work we have to do in our own country, it pales in comparison to the word we have to do around the world."
    Scary stuff...
    from the 'basket of deplorables' speech.

  6. Indeed. I've no idea about Biden, but agree on the rest.

    I was thinking about the desire of the elites to import largely unskilled workers from the Third World, and the question of what on earth they hope to gain. I was saying on somebody's else's Facebook thread that I've seen it argued that the importation of Hispanic workers is an attempt to displace urban blacks, who are regarded as largely unemployable - the same argument, of course, that applies to the (largely white) underclass in the UK.

    What I didn't say there was that several generations of meritocracy and assortative mating in western countries may have produced a situation where there really is stratification by intelligence, in a broad sense that translates into employability. I come from the working class, and I know that the older generation had a wide ability range - many who could have continued with academic education left school at 12 or 14 because their families couldn't afford to let them stay on, or didn't see any point in it. (Some, of course, could rise through the ranks in industry or commerce, having started on the factory floor.) I'm not sure this is the case any longer, though alcohol and drug abuse, and single parenthood also contribute to the general impression of fecklessness. (This has implications also for universities and future grammar schools, who will have to search desperately for the elusive 'bright kids on free school meals' to make up the quotas they need to meet social engineering targets.)

    However, to return to my point, I wonder if the attraction of Mexicans, Syrians, etc. is that they come from societies not yet stratified by meritocracy? They would thus represent a pool of mixed ability, with some potential talent, as opposed to the available pool of non-talent.

    The notorious 'alt right' also has things to say about average IQ, which would suggest that immigration from sub-Saharan Africa is going to serve nobody, but I won't open that can of worms.



    1. Are you paraphrasing Charles Murray / Richard Herrnstein?

      They are the ones that proposed the idea of the universal education system as a massive breeding program you talk about. They also say that the IQ reservoir is virtually infinite - the opposite of what you say - but also that if only say 10% of high IQ people are fished out of their environments, promoted through the education system and mated, the stratifying results can be massive and scary in a few generations. The so called elites instinctively abandoned mating money to titles long ago and are now with the program, busy mating IQ to IQ.

      Regarding such calculations about immigrant IQ I don't think any one has such long term social engineering plans except in science fiction movies.

      The whole idea is winning the elections today and the immigrants just happen to be the item in contention. This is all a show put on for a few undecided suburban moms from Ohio who will decide the outcome.

      D: We are good and care about people. We should let these people in because they are poor. Anyone who thinks otherwise does not represent us, is a racist, not part of our tribe and needs to be sent into the wilderness.

      R: We are hard working, honest, Christian, family oriented Americans and an unchecked flow of immigrants threatens and dilutes our collective identity. Anyone who thinks otherwise betrays our tribe and needs to be sent into the wilderness.

      Long term the D's have been running circles around the R's in this game of defining the field of play and the issues in contention, designing one two strategies, dual objectives, flank maneuvers. The R's pale response (ie gay rights and abortion) is a pale and clumsy attempt to replicate that. They have been loosing the "culture wars".

      Part of "why Trump" is that by saying "outrageous" things he signaled he positioned himself outside this field that was defined by the D's.

      The D advantage at story making and enveloping comes from the fact that D's are a neo-marxist party and the marxist cult was founded from the beginning on a fake story (the one about the classes and class conflict). If you have onions you sell onions, if you have stories you can only sell them as long as people believe them. D's know that and that's why they close in the ranks and keep to the script.

      R's are a hodge podge alliance of groups that refuse submission to the D's stories. Some of them are still looking for the "truth". That's why they cannot stick to the script and they come across as a crazy mess.

  7. David in Banja Luka13 September 2016 at 12:07

    "The fall of Hillary Clinton" - amusing pun :).

  8. By calling half of them basket cases she called all of them basket cases as there's no way to tell which half is it.

    This reminds me of my father in law, a surgeon somewhere in N. Ireland in the 1970's. In a middle of an operation the other two surgeons started talking about the "dirty Cathlicks" and then, upon realizing he's actually a Catholic, they started coughing, "oh oh we didn't mean you, you're ok chap".

    This is also the Stalinist technique. Once you establish the concept of "enemy of the people" you can then just put that tag on anyone you don't like. Doctors today, Jews tomorrow, engineers the day after etc. You may think you are safe today but...

    1. What cant. Are we to pretend that there are no racists, homphobes and sexists who are attracted to Trump because he appeals to these very prejudices? Sounds PC to me.

    2. Anonymous is right that these words are used for bullying - and the electors should be treated with respect by people suing for their votes, even though all arr miserable sinners. The interesting question is was this a deliberate attempt to scare voters away from trump or a mistake on Mrs Clinton's part? I now suspect the latter. I strongly recommend this wonderful article by Christopher Caldwell in today's Spectator on this subject.

    3. By the way I used to support the Democrats who were concerned to help ordinary people - not to help feminists change society or lobby for homosexual or 'transgender' rights. Nevertheless I am not sure any Democratic president of the 20th century was much good except Truman and - as far as waging war is concerned - FDR and Bill. As for Trump he is not a Republican or a conservative but something new.

    4. Bullying? Oh, we wouldn't want any of that in this election, do we?

    5. Trump, I agree, is a bully and is liked because of it by those who like him.

  9. What an intelligent article. It is true, HRC has branded opposition as racists and ignoramouses - she cannot see the irony of insulting the Trump for being rude about mexican illegals, then proceeding to insult half the white electorate and everyone in blue collar jobs, throwing in to boot all white police, and people who are scared of Islam. How exactly do her spin advisers square that with 'winning' I wonder?


  10. Whenever any left wing party loses an election the electorate is chastised by the media. Helen Szamuely

  11. To quote WH Auden concerning the masses; " Nobody has dared suggested gassing them but someone surely will".
    Stephen Austen

  12. "The electors who voted for Brexit were roundly condemned by the left as racist, xenophobic and influenced by the tabloids, or in other words stupid. Mrs Clinton is saying the same thing. This hasn't happened before."

    Except Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan who basically accused people of being irresponsible moochers bought off by welfare, their operative John Sununu who called Democratic voters "vermin" and the likes of Newt Gingrich going on about secret unpatriotic Muslims and Obamaphones. Nothing new here, unfortunately.

    Trump really understands the internet news cycle and does not hide behind his staff the way Mrs Clinton does. He is out there 24/7 -- that gives him a huge advantage.


  13. Quick note on police shootings and race.

    In 2015 26% of the 990 people shot by police were black (

    Between 2005 and 2014 40% of the 563 people that killed police officers were black (

    Police shooting is a big issue in the US, however these numbers do not seem to suggest it is a race one in spite of the recent media and DOJ/POTUS amplifications.

    This is a real gun control issue.