What We've Learned At The DNC So Far

What a fascinating and educational convention this has been so far for the Democrats in Philly.  Here are some of the things we have learned about the Democrats already this week, and it's only Wednesday:

• We've learned that commiting fraud is a literal badge of honor to the Democratic Party.  How else to explain prime time speaking slots for the likes of Fake Indian Elizabeth Warren;  Lena Dunham, who falsly accused a college contemporary of raping her; the giving of a cushy job to Debbie Wasserman Schultz after it was revealed she rigged the primary process in Hillary's favor; and don't even get me started on Bill Clinton - we'll be here all day if I go down that road;
• Then again, they just nominated the Most Corrupt Woman in America to be the Party's presidential nominee, so none of that should surprise us;
• We've learned that Black Lives Matter to Democrats but Blue Lives don't;
• We've learned that Democrats need the words of the Pledge of Allegiance displayed to them on a JumboTron, and that they will only grudgingly display the American Flag at their national convention when shamed into doing so;
• We've learned the global jihad being mounted by radical Islam doesn't even enter the mental radar of the average Democrat, as 61 speakers on Monday never made any mention at all of ISIS;
• We've learned that Democrats are fully in favor of building walls - they just want to build them to deny access to American citizens rather than foreign invaders;
• We've learned that Paul Simon is aging as poorly as Bill Clinton, and that Howard Dean is apparently not aging at all;
• And we've learned that there is no legitimacy in any sense to the Democratic presidential nominating process, and that Bernie Sanders is who we always really knew he was:  Just another sellout politician.

We've learned all of that, and there are still two more nights of this nonsense to go.

Tonight's DNC Agenda (Not Really)

DNC Agenda
Tuesday, July 26, 2016


6:30 - Convention gaveled to order by whomever happens to be Interim DNC Chair at the time

6:35 - God Damn America Invocation by Rev. Jeremiah Wright

6:45 - 7:00 - Anyone holding a Bernie Sanders sign will be transferred to a re-education camp outside of Chicago.  (Hillary has had enough of this crap, people.)

7:05 - 7:30 - Sarah Silverman and Paul Simon make a joint apology to the Convention for their respective performances on Monday night.

7:35 - 8:15 - Hillary Clinton makes a surprise appearance for an impromptu coughing fit.

8:20 - 8:30 - Music by Milli Vanilli

8:35 - 9:00 - Speech by Joe Biden focused on the takeover of our nation's 7-11s by "these people from India".

9:05 - 9:15 - INTERMISSION - (official DNC narrative memo will be handed out to reporters from CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, the New York Times and the Washington Post at this time.)

9:20 - 10:00 - Remarks from Bill Clinton

10:05 - 10:15 - Benediction by Tom Cruise

10:20 - Convention gaveled to a close by whomever has been appointed as Interim DNC Chair since 6:30.

CLOSE

The Terrible Choice Ahead

Quinnipiac came out with what Matt Drudge in his own inimitable manner called a "SHOCK POLL" in screaming headlines this morning.  The poll was a "shock" because it shows the presidential race a dead heat, with Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump by just 42% to 40%.

Presumably the other 18% were gagging too hard to answer the question properly, because the poll's other results show that the majority of the voting public absolutely hates, detests and is horrified at the choice before them in this election.  To which I can only respond, well, guess what?  The public is who made this choice in the first place.

Let us never forget that, regardless of how "rigged" the nominating processes of each party are, ultimately it was the voters in the various state primaries and caucuses who ended up choosing these two specific presumptive nominees.  Yes, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the evil minions at the Democratic National Committee did everything they could to tilt their contest in the favor of Mrs. Clinton, and yes, her opponents ranged from the stark, raving crazy Bernie Sanders to a circus clownish ex-governor from Rhode Island, with only the terminally tedious Martin O'Malley in between, but still, there was a choice, and the Democrat voters chose The Most Corrupt Woman In America to be their party's standard bearer in the November election.

Assuming, of course, she isn't indicted prior to the convention.  But Democrat voters were well aware of that possibility, and chose her anyway.

The decision by GOP voters to leave their party's presidential hopes in the hands of a man who often wanders off into side-shows that do untold damage to his electability was also a conscious, very intentional choice that reflects the abject failure of the party's leadership in Washington to do anything effective to slow the Obama agenda in the last 8 years.  It was very clear that Trump was an undisciplined political wild card as far back as the first primary debate that was held in August of last year.  But GOP primary voters didn't care - they wanted something different, and boy has Trump delivered that.

So now that the decisions the voters have made are before them, and it is clear that there is most likely no turning back from this precipice, you have a big case of buyer's remorse settling in.  Many Democrat voters are no doubt standing back and thinking 'geez, if we'd have just nominated someone who isn't a career criminal, beating Trump would have been a cakewalk', just as many GOP voters are no doubt thinking 'geez, can  we give Marco Rubio a do over?'.  Well, no, you can't.

Here's the truth:  All the Republicans needed to do to easily defeat The Most Corrupt Woman In America was nominate someone who could run a disciplined, professional campaign.  All the Democrats needed to do to easily defeat Trump was to NOT nominate The Most Corrupt Woman In America.

Here's where we stand:  Trump still has an opportunity to discipline himself and let Paul Manafort run a professional campaign for him.  If that happens, he'll win.  If it doesn't, he won't.

The Democrats, meanwhile, are stuck with Hillary, barring a sudden, extremely unlikely burst of professional integrity at the Justice Department.  She is who she is, and there's no going back from that.

The fact that she is stuck in such a close race with Trump, after the horrid month Trump has had in June, is an overwhelmingly bad sign for the Democrats.

Regardless of how this election comes out, never forget that the voting public has only itself to blame, because they had the opportunity to vote for someone else.

Trump's Wasted Week that Was - Or Was it?

During the second half of March, Donald Trump pretty much unarguably had the worst two weeks any presidential candidate in modern times has ever had.  He was completely off-message, focused on the wrong things, constantly under fire from the mainstream [fake] news media, and just generally looked lost.  The "Trump is Hitler", "Trump is a racist", "Trump is a misogynist" memes were ubiquitous on all the talking head shows and across all social media.

The result of those two weeks came with a big-time loss to Ted Cruz in the Wisconsin primary.  This led all the "smart" people in Washington - like Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer and George Will and all the pinheads who write for The National Review these days - to declare Trump dead as a doornail, proclaiming with certainty that Trump could never, never, ever even hope to get to the 1237 delegate needed to win the nomination, and that the GOP would end up having a brokered convention out of which Ted Cruz would emerge victorious.

Remember all of that?  If you don't, go back and do a little review, 'cuz that's exactly what happened during that period of time.

So what happened next?  What happened next was Ted Cruz never won another contested primary.  What happened next was Ted Cruz and the crazy party guest who just won't leave, John Kasich, finally dropped out of the race following Trump's huge win in the Indiana primary.  What happened next was Trump ran his delegate total all the way to 1542 as of this writing, with still more on the way.  What happened next was Bill Kristol made a clown of himself by pushing some blogger no one had ever heard of as his own stellar independent candidate.  What happened next was Trump already consolidating support in the GOP to the same level Mitt Romney managed to put together in the 2012 race.  What happened next was Trump taking a temporary polling lead over Hillary Clinton, something none of the "smart" people thought could ever happen in a million years.

That's what happened next, all of it after Trump had experienced the most god-awful two week period in the history of American politics in March.

And now we sit here at the end of another lost week for Donald Trump.  He was focused on the wrong things, completely off-message, creating controversy where none needed to exist, pounded 24 hours a day by the [fake] news media, needlessly giving rise again to the "Trump is a racist" meme.  His lead over Hillary is now a thing of the past, his campaign is supposedly out of money, and his millions of dollars worth of free weekly airtime on the 24 hour cable networks has all but disappeared.

So now what's happening?  Why, all the same "smart" people who declared him dead in early April are now declaring him dead in early June.  Bill Kristol and his gang of #NeverTrump circus clowns are busy huddling with Mitt Romney concocting yet another scheme to steal the nomination from Trump at the convention in July.  Normal people who see Hillary Clinton as the personification of evil in our time and want desperately to support Trump as the only viable alternative to four or eight years of resident evil in the White House are walking around with their heads down, despairing that Trump is blowing this thing.

That's what's happening now.  Everything is right back where it was in early April.

Given what has happened during the course of this campaign season to this point, what do you think is the most likely thing to start happening next?

Get your heads up, Trump fans.  It's a long way to November.

Right About Trump, Wrong About Bernie

Honestly, I ought to know better than to try to predict what any Democrat/Socialist/Commie candidate like Bernie Sanders will do.  Monday, I predicted he would probably abandon the race after a loss to Hillary Clinton in California ensured he has no means of actually becoming the Democratic Party's presidential nominee.

Obviously, he didn't do that, although we did see a report this morning that he's jettisoned about 75% of his campaign staff and is beginning to wind things down.  I made the terrible mistake of assuming the man might show a little class in defeat, forgetting that he's a commie, and thus has no class at all.

Ah, well, live and learn.

On the other side of the ledger, Donald Trump firmly and irrevocably clinched the GOP nomination, for better or worse, running his total of committed delegates up over 1400, far more than the 1237 he will need to prevail at the convention on the first ballot.  Those of you who have been reading first my Facebook feed and later this blog know I've been predicting this would be the case since December for three main reasons:

• Trump understands the crucial role that communications and persuasion play in a political campaign far better than any of the actual politicians who ran for the office this go-round;
• Trump understands how concerned most of the U.S. population is with the unfettered refusal of the Obama administration to enforce our country's immigration laws and has owned that issue throughout the campaign; and
• Trump was the clear leader in the polls in December, and the GOP has always, in every election cycle since 1952, ended up nominating the candidate who led in the national polling data in December.

So, despite all of the hyper-emotional rhetoric and goofy schemes that came out of the #neverTrump crowd, despite all of the efforts of Trump's 16 primary opponents, despite all of the myriad efforts by the establishment news media to kill his candidacy, this day when Trump irrevocably clinches the party's nomination has been a foregone conclusion since about December 15.

Below I have cut and pasted a piece I posted to my Facebook page on January 13 of this year.  While I failed then to foresee the refusal of John Kasich to give up the ghost when it was obvious he had no chance at all, it turned out to otherwise be a pretty accurate projection of how the race would ultimately go.

========================================================

Doing the Math on the GOP Race

I see a lot of discussion among the DC punditry and around the Interwebs about the theory that, once Iowa and New Hampshire have come and gone, the GOP Establishment will consolidate around a single candidate and that person will then be highly competitive with Trump for the nomination. Let's take a look at the current numbers, using the RealClearPolitics average of recent public polls, and see how the math works:

Current National RCP Average:

Trump 35
Cruz 19
Rubio 11
Carson 8
Bush 5
Christie 3
Fiorina 3
Huckabee 2
Kasich 2
Paul 2

So, between Trump/Cruz/Carson, you have - honestly amazingly - the magic 62% of GOP voters supporting a non-establishment candidate. (The support for those three candidates has for the last four months totaled up to within a percentage point or two of that 62% number in almost every poll take – it’s astonishingly consistent, and frankly spooky.) Add in Fiorina, Huckabee and Paul, none of whom are establishment favorites, and you are at 69%. The total for the other, establishment candidates comes to 21%. 10% remain undecided.

Let's say that, after New Hampshire, Christie and Kasich get out because they didn't do well (Jeb! will stick it out through March or until his super pac runs out of money). And let's give 100% of their votes to Rubio. That gets Rubio to all of 16%.

Let's also say that, after NH, Carson, Fiorina, Huckabee and Paul all finally get out. Let's be generous and split their votes 1/3 each between Trump, Cruz and Rubio, basically 4% each.

Now, after all of that, you have:

Trump 39
Cruz 23
Rubio 20
Bush 5

So you get to the end of March, and Bush is finally, at long last, out of money and has to do what he needed to do in December. If you give every single one of his votes to Rubio, you now have:

Trump 39
Cruz 23
Rubio 25

The math simply never works for Rubio, barring some magical event that causes Trump to finally fade.

The truth is - and I pointed this out a couple of times back in October and November - that the Party leadership needed to go to Jeb! over the Christmas holiday season and convince him to get out then. Even that timing was extremely late for it to make enough of a difference.

Barring some miracle finish in NH by one of the establishment guys who are engaged in their own circular firing squad right now in that state, this is over. And, to be fair, such miracles have happened in New Hampshire at times in the past.

But barring that, this is a Trump/Cruz race.

Weekend at Trump, Hillary and Bernie's

Some thoughts on the events of the weekend....

• The Commie (Sanders) swore to one of his California audiences on Saturday that he plans to continue to "fight" (isn't it great how all liberal politicians "fight" all the time?  It's like they all think they could go eight rounds with Ali) "all the way through the convention".
  
  What this actually means is that he's getting ready to concede the nomination to Hillary Clinton if he loses California on Tuesday, and end his campaign.  If you remember back to the day before the Indiana GOP primary, Ted Cruz also swore to stay in the race "all the way to Cleveland" to an audience of supporters.  By 8:00 Central Time the next night, after a crushing loss to Donald Trump, his campaign was over.
  
  If California goes for Hillary, the Commie is toast.  Best bet of the week.

• Donald Trump has a legitimate concern about the impartiality of the judge in his Trump University case, but doesn't appear capable of appropriately expressing it.  Instead of focusing on the judge's "Mexican" heritage (he was born and raised in Indiana), Trump should be talking about Judge Gonzalo Curiel's membership in a radical organization called "La Raza Lawyers of San Diego", a race-based group that is so racist that its name - La Raza - literally translates to "The Race".
  
  Given Trump's support for a border wall and other strategies to secure the U.S. border with Mexico, he has every reason to be concerned about having this case heard by this specific judge.  Unfortunately, the judge's obviously biased conduct of the case only serves to reinforce that reality.
  
  Trump's unfortunate focus on the judge's "heritage" is entirely wrong-headed.  A focus on his associations and membership in a race-based organization like La Raza is entirely appropriate.

• Many of our fake "news" outlets this morning are focusing on the fact that The Most Corrupt Woman in America, in an interview with George Stephanopoulous yesterday, would not affirmatively state that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution confers a right to keep and bear arms to American citizens.  Instead, she would only talk about the "right" of the government to regulate firearms ownership.
  
  To me, this focus is kind of a big yawner. After all, all Hillary was doing was expressing the commonly-held belief by pretty much all of today's "progressives" that individual Americans don't have rights, but the government does.  That is the basic, fundamental, driving principle behind American progressivism today.  Tell us something we don't know already.
  
  My big question about that particular interview is why in the hell is ABC still allowing George Stephanopoulous, who served as senior advisor to Bill Clinton, has contributed more than $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation, and is really nothing more than a lifelong Clinton toady, to interview Hillary Clinton under the pretense of objectivity? 
  
  Even more to the point, why does anyone still watch that crap?  I mean, am I the only one who understands that every question and answer in that "interview" has been vetted and rehearsed beforehand?  This is not "news", it is theatre.  No different than Broadway, though not  nearly as entertaining.

•  Matt Damon took some shots at Donald Trump during a commencement speech at MIT on Saturday. Some of the lines were pretty funny.  Good for him.
  
  My only question is, what is it in the makeup of most actors that compels them to start taking themselves seriously once they have achieved major fame?  We see this happen over and over and over again:  Actors who begin their careers focused on making great films or TV shows, perfecting their craft to the point at which they become fabulously wealthy and start winning awards, who then decide that winning those awards somehow makes them smart people who should then start dictating to the "little people" out in flyover country how they ought to behave.
  
  Rob Reiner, having won an Emmy for All in the Family, has been out there telling us all how to act for 40 years now.  Ted Dansen was great in Cheers, and then spent most of the '90s making all manner of environmental pronouncements that turned out to be false.  Susan Sarandon has been doing it for 25 years or so.  Barbara Streisand has been babbling non-stop for 30.  George Clooney, Leonardo DiCaprio, the list can go on and on and on.
  
  What is it in their makeup that makes such people believe that, because they can act or sing or dance, that means that the "little people" should suddenly look up to them as authority figures?  Even more to the point:  What is is in the make up of so many "little people" that they possess so little self-esteem that they actually do listen and give these pompous Hollywood asses a platform from which to pontificate?
  
  Truly one of life's great mysteries.

Trump vs. Lapdog Media - a Day in Review, 5.31.2016

Let's quickly review the events of the day:

1. Donald Trump holds a free-wheeling, hour long press conference during which he details where the $6 million raised for veterans has been contributed or is about to be donated, excoriates the press in general for being inherently biased and dishonest - both of which accusations are 100% correct - and singles out one ABC reporter as being a "sleaze".  Also true.
   
2. Bernie Sanders calls a "press conference" about healthcare.  He speaks for ten minutes, takes no questions at all, and no one in the lapdog press corps covering his campaign objects.
3. Hillary Clinton studiously avoids having any meaningful, un-planned, un-staged interaction with the lapdog press corps covering her campaign for about the 180th consecutive day, and no one in the media will object.
4. Finally, at 12:50 p.m., CST today, I went over to the landing page for the very liberal Politico.com, and inventoried the various headlines there.  There were at that time 25 headlines in all, and the word "Trump" appeared in 17 of them, including 9 of the first 10 in order.

This is how Donald Trump has dominated this election season to this point, and how he will continue to dominate it through Election Day.  And neither the Clinton Campaign nor her lapdog press agents in the mainstream news media have the slightest clue what to do about it.

Scattershooting While Wondering if There is a Way to Stop the Kardashians From Reproducing…

Trump and the Governor

Donald Trump goes to New Mexico and gratuitously insults Governor Susanna Martinez, and everyone thinks his campaign is suddenly doomed.  It’s not.  We’ve seen this film before, and it always ultimately fades away.

Want proof?  Marco Rubio announced yesterday that he would be happy to speak on Trump’s behalf at the GOP convention.  A few hours later, Trump was urging Marco to change his mind and go ahead and run for re-election to his Florida Senate seat.

Huh?  Wasn’t it just a couple of months ago that Rubio was doing his best imitation of Don Rickles, hurling insult after insult on the debate stage and for a week after?  And wasn’t Trump responding to 

“Little Marco” with his own imitation of Triumph the Insult Dog?

Why yes, yes it was.

This is How The World Turns in this year’s GOP presidential campaign.  Get used to it, because it’s going to keep happening, and it’s all going to turn out ok.

The Trump/Sanders Debate Proposal

Oh, please God, let this happen.  This would be the political event of the century.  They should put it on pay-per-view.  Seriously – what better way to raise money for charity than charging $50 bucks a head to watch the thing and steering the proceeds to the charities of the candidates’ choice?

A friend expressed exasperation yesterday at the idea, saying it would turn the campaign “into a circus”.  Huh?  What campaign have you been watching, buddy?  This has been an unending three-ring circus since last July.

In Ring Number One, you have Hillary Clinton, the life-long criminal who without any question whatsoever allowed classified U.S. secrets to be shared with hackers and foreign governments over her illegal email server while she served as Secretary of State.  This is now not just an allegation – it is a clearly documented fact, and yet, the Democrat Party appears set to put her forth as its nominee for the Presidency.  Imagine how much damage she can do to national security in that office.

Isn’t that circus enough for you?

In Ring Number Two, you have The Commie.  Seriously, an avowed Marxist, Bernie Sanders, has now won 11 of the last 14 contested states on the Democratic side.  So the Democrat Party voters can’t decide between a criminal and a commie. 

Isn’t that Circus enough for you?

And in Ring Number Three, you have Donald Trump, who can’t decide if he’s running against the Democrats or any Republican who happens to pop up on his radar screen.  Donald Trump, who won every single debate against the 17 other Republicans arrayed against him despite having the detailed policy knowledge of the average hammerhead shark.  And the personality of one, come to think of it.

Isn’t that circus enough for you?

And you’re worried about a debate between the Commie and the Hammerhead making it even more of a circus?  C’mon, where’s your sense of fun?

In all seriousness, this is a can’t lose situation for Trump, and a can’t win situation for Hillary.

For Trump, Sanders is already now seen as anxiously responding to his suggestion, desperate to find a way to work it out.  If it gets worked out, all Trump would have to do in the debate would be to keep asking the Commie how he plans to pay for all of his idiotic proposals.  It would be the easiest debate in the history of mankind.

If the thing can’t be pulled off, Trump still looks like the bold candidate for proposing it in the first place.  If the reason it can’t be pulled off is because none of the networks are willing to let much or all of the proceeds/ad revenues go to charity, then Trump gets the win of making his enemies in the networks look like a bunch of money-grubbing sleazeballs, which most of them actually are.

No matter what happens, it all makes Hillary look like the odd-woman out, marginalizing her even more than she already has been over the last couple of months as the final round of primaries approach.  And if the debate actually happens, both candidates would have a prime opportunity to go after her with impunity.

Mid-day yesterday, one of Trump’s staffers indicated he was “just kidding” when he tossed the idea out there on Wednesday’s Jimmy Kimmel Show.  But late Thursday night, representatives of both campaigns said negotiations were ongoing.

As he always does, Trump has, with a single throwaway line in an interview, dominated a news cycle for the next 24 hours, and set up a process during which he has no chance to lose and several ways to win from a public perception standpoint.

If he would focus on this kind of thing, instead of tossing out gratuitous insults at his fellow Republicans, he would be literally unbeatable.

Trump is Elvis, Hillary is New Coke, and Bernie is the Backup QB

So, I was in a meeting earlier this week when the subject of discussion turned to analogies for the remaining political candidates.   This is a good discussion, because to a large extent it explains where we are in this race.

I’ve already written about my analogy for Bernie Sanders:  he’s the backup quarterback.  Right now, he’s the most popular of the three remaining major party candidates, according to the national polling data, just as the backup QB is always the most popular player on a football team with an under-performing starter.

But, like the backup QB, Bernie is popular because he has been largely unexamined.  He has essentially no chance to win, so neither the media nor the voters have spent much time analyzing what it really means to be a socialist.  Just as the fans inevitably cringe and stop cheering so loudly as soon as a backup QB gets on the field and demonstrates why he wasn’t the starter to begin with, so would the voters cringe were Bernie to actually become the nominee and they were forced to face the reality of exactly who he is.

My favorite analogy for Hillary Clinton is that she is just like “New Coke”.  You millennials won’t be familiar with this, but you can Google it for yourselves rather than have me explain was New Coke was.  Those of you who were cogent human beings in the early 1980s will remember the introduction of New Coke by the Coca Cola Bottling Company.  New Coke had a slightly different taste than Coca Cola, and it has this behemoth organization behind it spending tens of millions of dollars trying to convince the consuming public that they should love it and indeed be very excited about it.

The problem was, the more any normal human being tasted New Coke, the less they liked it.  This is Hillary Clinton in a nutshell.

Like New Coke, Hillary has this gigantic organization behind her spending tens of millions of dollars every week in an attempt to convince the voting public that they should love her and indeed be very excited about the opportunity to enjoy four years of her in the White House.  The problem with Hillary is, the more any normal human being becomes exposed to her, the less they like her.

Most politicians crave public and media attention and grow more popular with increasing exposure to both.  Hillary Clinton is exactly the opposite:  the more media and public attention she gets, the less popular she becomes.  This is nothing new – it has always been the case with her.

This is why the Democrat National Committee did everything it could to ensure Ms. Clinton would not have to endure any sort of truly contested race for the nomination.  They all knew it was vitally important to keep Hillary out of the public eye as much as possible throughout the campaign.   

Because the “idea” of Hillary – the U.S. is long overdue for its first female president, after all - is an idea that appeals to millions of Americans.  But the reality of Hillary, her unlikable personality, her fealty to all manner of far-leftwing causes, her obvious, blatant criminal activities over the last 35 years, and all the other baggage she brings along with her (including a big ol’ bag named Bill) is amazingly unappealing.

New Coke ultimately failed and disappeared from the shelves simply because the public, having been exposed to the reality of it, simply did not like it.  The same is likely to become true for Hillary.

Many people like to draw an analogy between Donald Trump and Ronald Reagan, but I don’t like that one.  While it is true that the circumstances of their respective races are similar in some ways, the two could not be more un-alike from a personal standpoint.

No, my favorite analogy for Trump is that he is a lot like Elvis Presley was in 1956.  When he appeared shaking his hips and singing this new-fangled rock ‘n roll music on the Ed Sullivan Show in September of that year, Elvis was a shock to the national system.  Many people in “proper” society thought he should be banned and his music should be banned with him.  Some even believed he was the anti-Christ (I’m not kidding). 

But Elvis had the exact opposite progression with the public that New Coke had:  the more he was exposed to the public, the less shocking he became as the public became acclimated to this new form of music and performance artist.  Within a year, lots of rock musicians were shaking their hips on Ed Sullivan, and teenagers were shaking their own hips on Saturdays on American Bandstand.  By then, no one thought Elvis was the anti-Christ, and no one feared the world was going to come to an end, and indeed, many of those teenagers’ parents were playing his albums in their living rooms.

This kind of progression, from an initial shock to the societal system to a gradual but steady acceptance and ultimate endorsement, is exactly what we have seen and continue to see where Trump is concerned.  True, the lunatic Glen Beck still thinks Trump is the anti-Christ, but no one else does.  Just three months ago, comparisons of Trump to Hitler were ubiquitous in the traditional and social media.  Think: when was the last time you saw that comparison made?

The hair is a lot different and you wouldn’t want to listen to him sing “Jailhouse Rock”, but Trump is Elvis, Hillary’s New Coke, and Bernie is and will always remain the backup QB.