Turning Bad News Into Good -- The Mainstream Media Strikes Again

Did you hear the big news?  The State Department has stopped its investigation into the use by Hillary Clinton of a private unsecured email system while she was secretary of state.  I've now seen at least seven articles reporting this news flash.  So the investigation into Hillary is ending, or is it.

Here's the reality of the situation:  the State Department took this action in order not to interfere with the ongoing criminal investigation by the FBI into Hillary Clinton and violations of the Espionage Act by her email games.  When the FBI gets deep into a criminal probe, other federal agencies back off so that they do not prejudice the government's criminal prosecution in any future trials.  In other words, when the State Department stopped its own probe of the situation, it was actually a sign that we are closer than ever to a criminal indictment of Hillary Clinton.

Isn't it funny that this part of the story was either not mentioned in the mainstream media or buried in deep in the text of the story?  Actually, it's not funny at all; it's just sad.

Obama's Nuclear Summit

This past week, president Obama held a nuclear summit in Washington.  The group was supposed to discuss and take steps to control the spread of nuclear weapons.  I don't know if they actually discussed that subject, but they certainly took no steps that might control such weapons.  Indeed, if you think about it, Obama's efforts to control the spread of nukes have been futile at best and counter-productive at worst.

1.  The big story, of course, is Iran.  The Iranians were subjected to sanctions that were actually hurting the Iranian economy.  The mullahs never stopped enriching uranium to weapons grade, however.  Indeed, that enriched uranium has no use other than as an ingredient in nuclear weapons.  Steps could have been taken over the years that would have ended the Iranian program, but that would have required action by the USA to take out the Iranian installations or some cooperative effort of that sort with other countries like Saudi Arabia, Israel, the UK etc.  Obama had no stomach for that.  Instead, we got the Iranian nuclear deal.  That gave Iran 150 billion dollars and the blessing to continue to enrich uranium.  In ten years, all meaningful limitations are gone, so Iran will be able to have nukes at that point. 

At the summit, Obama reported on what a major "success" he had with the Iran deal.  Obama's success likely guarantees a future nuclear war involving Iran.

2.  The next item that should have been discussed at the summit is the Russian nuclear arsenal.  Russia has now enlarged that arsenal in violation of the arms control treaty it negotiated with Obama.  The Russians have seen how Obama reacts to such moves.  He will first deny that there has been a violation.  Next there will be concessions.  Finally he will reach a new agreement that allows higher numbers of Russian nukes, and maybe he will give some cash to the Russians to boot.

3.  Then there's the problem of North Korea.  They did mention the NKs at the summit.  Nothing was done, however, to limit the actions of the nut job who runs that country.

The truth is that the nuclear summit was just for show.  Obama wants to be seen as working on arms control.  He doesn't care, however, to actually accomplish anything.

Trump Still Gets It Wrong On Abortion

Is Donald Trump pro-life or pro-choice?  That ought not be a difficult question.  Trump says he's pro-life although he used to be pro-choice.  Then a few days ago, Trump told Chris Matthews on MSNBC that if abortion were illegal, then women getting abortions should be punished.  That ridiculous statement has never been the position of either the pro-life or pro-choice movements.  Trump managed to offend both sides with that statement.  He quickly walked it back.

Now, Trump has done it again.  He taped an appearance for the CBS Sunday morning show.  In that interview Trump was asked about his abortion remarks.  Obviously, that question could not have come as a surprise after the firestorm that followed his earlier comments.  Here, however, is a quote of what Trump told his interviewer on CBS:

“The laws are set now on abortion and that’s the way they’re going to remain until they’re changed.”

Huh?  What does that mean?  Trump told his interviewer and the CBS audience moments later:

"But right now, the laws are set….At this moment, the laws are set. And I think we have to leave it that way.”

Trump then went on to say that his statement about punishing the mother if abortion were illegal is an old conservative position. 

Unbelievable!  Trump says that he is pro-life, but he wants to leave the abortion laws unchanged.  Does Trump even understand what it means to be pro-life?  Here's a hint Donald, it means that you don't want abortion to be legal except in some very specific and rare situations.  Leaving the law unchanged means that abortion remains legal and easy.

And for Trump to falsely state that his earlier mistake is an old conservative position is truly disgusting.  Why not just say you made a mistake, Donald?  Why must you falsely blame pro-life voters for your outrageous statements?

We may be watching Trump actually melt down.  It's been predicted repeatedly, but this may finally be the real deal.

The Bizarro World Of Hillary Clinton

It's hard to comprehend sometimes the absolutely delusional outlook of Hillary Clinton.  Lately, Hillary has made clear that she blames Bernie Sanders for running a negative campaign, something that Sanders said he would not do.  The problem, of course, is that Sanders is not going negative; he's just contrasting his positions with Hillary's and stating the truth.  Only in Clinton World would that sort of campaign be called negative.  Sure, Bernie is criticizing Hillary's positions and actions, but that's not a negative campaign.  When Trump called Marco Rubio "Little Marco", that was negative.  When Trump calls Cruz "Lyin Ted", that's negative.  When Bernie says that Hillary took millions of dollars from Wall Street for a few speeches and that he would not do that, it's just the truth.

Yesterday, a woman at a campaign event for Hillary asked her if she would stop taking cash from the big oil companies.  Hillary's response was to get angry and snap that she was tired of the Sanders' campaign "spreading lies" about her.  But it's not a lie.  Take a look at the list of donors who gave millions to the Clinton Foundation.  Even Hillary then did a typical Clinton move.  She said that she did not take cash from oil companies but only from employees of oil companies.  So if the CEO of EXXON gives Hillary $250,000 for her SuperPAC, she thinks that's not taking cash from big oil.  Yeah, right!

Also yesterday, Clinton anonymous spokesmen complained that someone who spoke at a Sanders rally in New York mentioned that Hillary was facing an upcoming interview by the FBI in the criminal investigation of he conduct regarding emails.  Somehow, that's negative campaigning.  No, it's actually just the truth.  Hillary is on the road to being indicted.  Again, that's not negative; it's the truth.

Can we really afford another delusional president?

Is Trump Going To Win the Nomination?

With all the non-stop blather about the presidential races, very little attention has been given to whether or not Donald Trump will actually win the nomination.  It's worth taking a look at the current situation.

First of all, any candidate needs the votes of a majority (1237) delegates at the GOP convention to win the nomination.  As of today, Trump has already won the votes of 736, so he needs another 501.  there are 18 states that have yet to hold primaries or caucuses.  These break down into four categories.

1.  One state will select delegates that will be uncommitted.  To get delegates there, Trump will need to convince the individual delegate.

2.  Five states with 159 delegates (Delaware 16, Nebraska 36, Montana 27, New Jersey 51 and South Dakota 29) are winner take all.  Of these, Cruz is likely to win in Nebraska, Montana and South Dakota (92); Trump should win New Jersey (51) and Delaware is uncertain.  Trump should get either 51 or 67 delegates here.

3.  Seven states with 238 delegates are proportional.  These include NY (95), CT (28), RI (19), WA (44), OR (28), and NM (24).  Trump should do well in NY, CT and RI.  Cruz should win in OR, WA and NM.  Trump could get about 130 delegates here. 

4.  Five states with 380 delegates are winner take most.  The rules in each of these five states vary but in general delegates go to the winner of congressional districts and statewide.  These states are PA (71), CA (172), WI (42), MD (38), and IN (57).  Cruz should win in Wisconsin.  The others are uncertain.  If Trump gets half the delegates of the uncertain states, he would come up with about 175.

Putting the 372 delegates from the remaining primaries/caucuses with the 736 already won gives Trump 1108.  That’s 129 fewer than needed.  But that is not the end of the exercise.

There are 31 delegates yet to be chosen and bound in the states that have already voted.  These delegates are not bound to any candidate.  There are also 112 delegates who are chosen but not bound to any candidate.  Of these 112, Trump has gotten the support of 2 delegates, Cruz has 11 and Kasich has 1.  These 2 Trump delegates are included in the numbers above.  There remain another 98 who can select a candidate.  Then there are 171 Rubio delegates and 10 for other candidates like Carson who also dropped out.  Rubio is “holding” his delegates, but he may not be able to do so at the convention.  This leaves a pool of another 310 delegates that could select Trump.  If he gets just one third of them, he hits 1211 which is just 26 short of the number he needs.  At that point, the pressure for delegates to switch will be intense.

What this analysis shows is that the nomination will be won or lost by Trump in three states:  California, Pennsylvania and Indiana.  If Cruz can surprise in California and Pennsylvania and win two thirds of the delegates (which he would surely get if he wins by 5% or more), he can likely deny Trump a first ballot win.  Indiana is not as important, but a sweep there by Cruz could help swing the outcome.

There is one further issue that will affect the outcome on the first ballot:  some of the delegates may ignore state law and vote for a candidate other than the one that they are required to select.  This happens at every convention, but it never affects the outcome so it is ignore.  For example, in the 2012 convention, delegates from Iowa voted for Ron Paul even though Paul did poorly in the Iowa caucus.  If 50 delegates decide that they won’t vote for Trump, it could deny him a first ballot victory.  State law may require delegates to vote in a particular way, but there is no penalty for violating that law.  In the past, the convention has accepted the votes of the delegates as cast no matter what the laws of their home states required.

If Trump fails to win on the first ballot, then his chances for victory are ended.  About 1300 delegates are only bound by the results of the primary on the first ballot.   Delegates are selected by party conventions for the most part and the delegates are long time party workers and supporters.  The delegates are bound by primary results but that does not mean that the delegates truly support the nominee to whom they are pledged.  Because of this methodology, Trump has many votes from delegates who would prefer someone else.  If Trump gets 1150 votes on the first ballot, that total would decline by at least 250 on the second ballot.  By the third ballot, nearly all the delegates are no long bound.

 

The Delegate - Convention Nonsense

Does a candidate need to win a majority of delegates to the convention to be the party nominee?  The answer to that question has always been YES.  It's a basic tenet of each of the political parties that only a majority wins the nomination.  Despite that, this year Donald Trump is out there claiming that he should get the nomination if he has the most delegates even if his number is less than half.  In fact, Trump says that it would be unfair were he not to get the nomination if he has the most delegates.

Let's be blunt:  Trump's position is total BS.  There's never been a convention where a candidate won with less than a majority.  Every candidate knew that upon entering the race.  Every candidate still knows that. 

Trump points to a Bloomberg poll that found that nearly two thirds of voters said that the candidate with the most delegates ought to get the nomination.  That poll, however, did not ask if a candidate who is unable to get a majority of the votes should be the nominee; it was vague on that point.  That makes the poll worthless.

Donald Trump decided to run his campaign outside the normal channels in Republican politics.  Trump does not have (or at least he did not have) consultants and advisors who were familiar with the rules that govern delegate selection and the conduct of the convention.  Trump campaigned with big events and free television rather than with paid media and retail politics.  That course has worked quite well for Trump, but it  now seems to be hitting a wall.  The small Trump campaign just does not seem to have the heft necessary to organize and claim the delegates at the convention.  That campaign organization (or lack of it) was Trump's choice.  He certainly could have built a larger and more skilled organization.  If he now fails to win at the convention because of his chosen campaign strategy, that is NOT unfair.  Indeed, nothing could be fairer.  Trump took a chance on trying something new.  If he cannot succeed, he only has himself to blame.

What Strange News -- Russia is Violating Nuclear Arms Treaty

As president Obama's term comes to an end, we are witnessing just how little other countries think of him.  They all watched Obama reach a laughable deal with Iran on its nuclear program.  The goal was to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons.  Obama agreed to a deal that guarantees Iran nuclear weapons in ten years and pays the Iranians $150 billion immediately to boot.  Iran followed receipt of the cash with a series of missile tests that had been banned by the UN but which the nuclear agreement made possible by changing the prohibition to a request.  And all the other countries understand that the Iranian deal came about because Obama was desperate to get an agreement, any agreement.  It did not matter what the agreement said, just that it took place.  It was something else Obama could check off his list.

The world had also watched Obama draw a red line in Syria with chemical weapons and then erase that line when the Assad regime crossed it.  Obama also backed down in the face of Russian aggression against Ukraine in Crimea and the eastern region of that country.  They saw Obama get pushed by events into announcing the goal to destroy ISIS and then watched as Obama used only a feeble force to honor his pledge.  It's clear to all that Obama just wants to avoid any big problems in his remaining time in office.

That's why it's no surprise that we learned today that Russia has broken the Nuclear Arms Treaty.  Just a few years ago, Obama signed this treaty with Russia.  It limited deliverable nuclear weapons on both sides to 1550.  That was the number that Russia had at the time, but it was less than the USA had.  As a result, Russia had to make no changes in its arsenal, but the USA had to remove weapons from deployment.  Now, just a short time later, the Russians are in the process of increasing the deployment of weapons of this sort.  Russia is adding MIRV warheads to some of its missiles and it is now well over the limits set by the treaty.  There is no American response to this violation.

Without a doubt, Russian president Vladimir Putin understands that Obama will just back down in the face of this treaty violation.  Maybe Obama will send John Kerry to discuss the situation; maybe not.  One thing is certain, however:  there will be no real response from the USA.  Obama has to be the weakest president of the modern era.  Even Jimmy Carter was a tower of strength and resolve compared to the current man of mush.