One of the most intriguing but rarely polls in the 2016 election cycle is the daily tracking poll at The L.A. Times. Trump often leads in that poll, and within the data there’s an interesting finding. We should be talking about it. So should Trump. And it begs a question.
How would Mrs. Clinton’s political debts impact the US middle class if she should become the second in her bloodline to take the White House?
The nugget has to do with supporters. According to the L.A. Times, “Trump has a lead among middle income voters.”
The L.A. Times poll has a top rating from a widely known expert on polling.
Consider another item of interest about Mrs. Clinton from leftist newspaper The Washington Post:
“Even as her advisers fretted about the perception that she was too cozy with wealthy interests, they agreed to let lobbyists bundle checks for her campaign, including those representing some foreign governments, the emails show. Top aides wooed major donors for super PACs, taking advantage of the leeway that campaigns have to legally collaborate with the groups on fundraising.”
According to WaPo, home of the ‘Journolist’ scandal during the 2008 cycle, Mrs. Clinton far outpaces GOP nominee Donald Trump when it comes to the very wealthy.
Consider Mrs. Clinton’s temperament, a topic she has routinely raised about Trump.
In 2014 left of center Time magazine reported on Mrs. Clinton’s ‘enemies’ list:
“Almost six years later most Clinton aides can still rattle off the names of traitors and the favors that had been done for them, then provide details of just how each of the guilty had gone on to betray the Clintons—as if it all had happened just a few hours before, write the authors, reporters Jonathan Allen of Politico and Amie Parnes of The Hill. ‘The data project ensured that the acts of the sinners and saints would never be forgotten.’”
That particular list targeted Democrats who supported Barack Obama over Clinton in the 2008 cycle.
It stands to reason Mrs. Clinton would not stop with Democrats. Once an individual takes the White House, the federal bureaucracy can easily be wielded as a weapon. Obama has been no exception to that paradigm, targeting companies like Gibson Guitars in one of the most horrendous and unethical shakedowns in US history, and targeting conservative groups who oppose the irresponsible spending Washington is guilty of as well as constant attacks on those who disagree with socialist policies.
Powerful donors like those supporting Mrs. Clinton do not contribute funds out of the goodness of their hearts. They contribute funds in order to have influence over policy. Although the former secretary of state rants about the influence of money on US politics, in truth, she is the consummate hypocrite. As WaPo noted:
“The top five donors together contributed one out of every $17 for her 2016 run: hedge fund manager S. Donald Sussman ($20.6 million); Chicago venture capitalist J.B. Pritzker and his wife, M.K. ($16.7 million); Univision chairman Haim Saban and his wife, Cheryl ($11.9 million); hedge fund titan George Soros ($9.9 million); and SlimFast founder S. Daniel Abraham ($9.7 million).”
At the end of the day, should Mrs. Clinton and her hedge funders prevail on November 8, she will owe them. Meanwhile, the middle class will, in my opinion, be left out in the cold regardless of what she promises the public. After all, her record on truth-telling is as murky as swamp water.
Should another Clinton take the White House, expect the US middle class to continue to erode. Her political debts are at odds with everyday Americans who fund the government working so diligently against them.
The Clintons’ corruption is a matter of public record. As Bob Woodward, left of center WaPo staffer who helped break the Watergate scandal told Fox News’ Chris Wallace:
“But the mixing of speech fees, the Clinton Foundation, and actions by the State Department, which she ran, are all intertwined and it’s corrupt. You know, I mean, you can’t just say it’s unsavory. But there’s no formal investigation going on now, and there are outs that they have.”
In 2009 Mrs. Clinton said, “We (the United States) tax everything that moves and doesn’t move.”
The first Clinton to take the White House followed a pattern similar to Mrs. Clinton’s current campaign, obsessing about the “rich” paying “their fair share.”
How did that work out?
Investors Business Daily offers a stroll down Clinton memory lane. Bear in mind Mrs. Clinton has promised to put her husband in charge of the economy:
“Anyone who thinks Hillary will live up to her promise should look at what her husband was saying 24 years ago. Like Hillary today, Bill said he’d “make the rich pay their fair share,” meaning those making more than $200,000 a year. Middle class families would get a tax cut.
Just weeks after setting foot in the White House, Bill abandoned that pledge. In a Feb. 15, 1992, Oval Office address, Clinton said: “We just have to face the fact that to make the changes our country needs, more Americans must contribute today so that all Americans can do better tomorrow.”
(Commentary by Kay B. Day/Oct. 24, 2016)
If you can possibly offer a small tip to help us keep operating, we would much appreciate it. We don’t place ads that track you, and we are currently near a point where we will have to stop publishing without support.