Beliefnet
At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

A lot of crowing today on the part of Democrats. I get it. They had a decent night and they need to take what they can get given how badly Donaldus Maximus has been thrashing them for the last couple of years. But now I’m going to have burst their bubble–it’s the least that I can do given how they’ve refused for two years to accept the outcome of the last election:

First, there was no “blue wave.” Some are trying to spin it this way. Less dishonest Democrats, like Jake Tapper, say, and Ed Rogers, of the Washington Post, admit to knowing otherwise. The Fake News media, with their fake pollsters, spent the better part of this past year sparing no occasion to convince voters that a “Blue Wave” was inescapable. Make no mistakes: By “Blue Wave,” they meant a total sweep by Democrats of both chambers of Congress.

This didn’t happen.

Second, Democrats won a historically average number of House seats, enough to secure them control, while Donaldus Maximus defied the historical odds by actually gaining Senate seats. There have only been five times in more than a century that any President has managed to do this during a midterm election.

This means that the Republicans now have more control in the Senate than they had before Tuesday night.

Third, every candidate for whom Trump campaigned won.

Fourth, those candidates who distanced themselves from the President, particularly those who are NeverTrump, lost.

Fifth, the “progressive” rock stars, those for whose victory Hollywood, Oprah Winfrey, and Barack Obama gave all—Stacey Abrams, Andrew Gillum, Bill Nelson, and Beto O’Rourke—lost.   Trump rallied voters for the opponents of these Democrat aspirants, and, once again, as in 2016, he prevailed.

Sixth, those Republicans who now constitute the minority of the House, as well as those who comprise the even larger majority of the Senate, are more solidly behind the President now than were their predecessors, the Flakes, the McCains, and the Corkers.  Last night’s election solidified GOP unity behind Trump and his agenda.

Seventh, with Nancy Pelosi as the Speaker of the House, the next two years promise to supply a bottomless treasure trove of galvanizing gems for the Republicans and Trump’s reelection campaign.

Given the relentlessness with which the Democratic-controlled media attack the President, the Democrats should have performed better last night. That they captured only an average number of House seats while losing the Senate to the Republicans confirms the observation of Ed Rogers, a Democrat writing today in the Washington Post:

“Democrats may have won the House, but Trump won the election.”

 

There are several reasons for my judgment that it is Republican voters who will awake happily following the primary contests on Tuesday.

(1)The pollsters who have been telling us for months about a “blue wave” have abandoned this line altogether. Considering that the polls, being of a piece with the rest of the media, are in the majority of instances designed and administered by Democrats, the modest advantages that they show for their fellow Democrats should be taken as a hint that they know they are in trouble;

(2)There are a few movements, like the “Walk Away” movement, whose founder is a gay man who is a former Democrat and which has already attracted hundreds of thousands of other former Democrats, that has received little to no coverage by most of the (Democrat-dominated) media. Yet both the rapidly growing size of this phenomenon as well as the media’s resolve to neglect it suggest that it indicates a pattern of increasing disenchantment with the Democratic Party;

(3)The Kavanaugh debacle;

(4)The “caravan” of thousands of undocumented invaders coming from the South that we’re all able to watch in real time;

(5)Leftist violence and intimidation;

(6)Even with over 90% tireless, negative coverage by the Democratic-controlled media, reputable polls have shown Trump’s popularity rating exceeding 50%. This in all likelihood means that it is actually much higher;

(7)Trump’s rallies continue to dwarf in size anything that any politician has managed to achieve. Obama’s crowd numbers are, at best, half that of Trump’s. The enthusiasm for the President is as high—higher—than it’s ever been. No Democrat, including the sainted Obama, generates any enthusiasm among the party’s base, much less a fraction of that which consumesTrump’s constituents;

(8)Because of the nastiness of Trump-haters and the fact that Trump-hatred is all of the rage within the popular culture, many people who sympathize with Trump, or at least who share none of the zealotry of those who would slice their own mothers’ throats to take him down, are not likely to reveal their willingness to vote Republican;

(9)Even among traditional Republican voters, pollsters are now informing us that they are significantly less likely than Democrats to openly share their voting preferences. And when it is considered that “independents” are even less likely than Republicans in this regard, “polls forecasting Democrat victories” should be seen for their questionable character;

(10)Aside from the biases of individual pollsters, there is an intrinsic bias in polling: In two significant respects, they are outdated:

First, unlike in times past, this generation, given the boundless sea of information (and misinformation) flowing from multiple, competing “news” sources that it has at its collective fingertips, is dramatically more skeptical toward those, like the pollsters, who are in any way affiliated with the media.

Second, since the rise of the cellphone, the attempt on the part of pollsters to do what they have always done and reach voters by phone has proven to be a formidable task indeed.

In other words, there is perhaps today a larger chasm separating the appearances conveyed by polls, on the one hand, and, on the other, the real world than there has ever been.

There is but one more reason for my confidence in a Red victory:

Donald Trump.

Both the President’s enemies as well as many of his supporters still have not grasped the significance of his victory two years ago.  Their prognostications continue to reflect a mindset of an earlier era, a pre-Trump era, and they still refuse to accept that Trump is as world-historic a figure as they come.

Both Republican and Democratic commentators (and pollsters) have not figured out—doubtless, many don’t want to figure this out—that their old templates, scripts, models, and even the whole Republican/Democrat paradigm central to their worldview have been relegated by Trump to the same place to which he dispatched the Obamas, the Clintons, the Bushes, and the entire GAME (Government-Academia-Media-Entertainment complex): the trash heap of history.

If Republicans and those who Trump has made into Republican voters get to the polling stations tomorrow, the GOP will win handily.

 

 

Official Conservatadom, i.e. Big Conservatism, or the Big Con, is doing what it does best and playing directly into the hands of their (nominal) opponents.

As high-profile Democrats, one after the other, receive “suspicious packages” and makeshift bombs, Republican politicians and their apologists in the media do what they do best by going on the defensive, loudly denouncing the political violence while accepting lock, stock, and barrel the idea that the Democrats truly are in the crosshairs of some deranged right-leaning zealot.

It’s at moments like these that we’re reminded of the virtual uselessness to the right, and usefulness to the left, of the Big Con. The latter, as if on cue, takes its eye off of those issues that place the Democrats at a decisive electoral disadvantage in order to eagerly purvey a narrative, a narrative birthed by the Democrats that depicts them as victims of right-wing crazies.

And those in the Big Con do this with less than two weeks to go before an election over which they’ve been obsessing for the last several months.

Many of the peddlers of Big Conservative media have, correctly, followed the President’s lead and taken to calling their (ostensible) counterparts in the leftist press “Fake News.” Yet they too are guilty of promoting the same, for if they were genuinely concerned about journalism, then they would express at least some measure of skepticism toward the reports of these bomb threats.

Instead, they are, as per usual, more concerned about convincing leftists and Democrats that they will all too happily endorse whatever line the Dems decide will dominate the (fake) news.

I wonder why they are “mostly unarmed.”

The National Guard has about 2,100 troops working along the U.S.-Mexico border as a caravan of thousands of migrants approach from Central America in a direct challenge to President Donald Trump’s immigration policies.

On Monday, Trump lashed out at the caravan, calling it an “assault on our country” and vowing to send as many additional troops as necessary to the border to stop them, according to USA Today.

The now estimated 7,000 migrants have reached southern Mexico. They are traveling mostly by foot on a route that originated with about 200 initial migrants seeking to escape gang violence in Honduras.

In April, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis authorized that as many as 4,000 troops could be sent to the border pending approval of participating state governors. The memo allowed for the cost of the deployment to be reimbursed through federal funds, but also limited the National Guard’s role, prohibiting guard forces from interacting with any of the migrants or taking on a law enforcement role.

If the United States military cannot protect America from this wave of invaders, then the military cannot protect America from anyone.  If the military cannot secure America’s borders, then the troops can’t secure the borders of foreign countries either. To claim otherwise is akin to claiming that while a man can’t prevent intruders from entering his home, he can be expected to protect his property by stopping intruders from intruding on other people’s property.