Chris Wallace, moderator of the third presidential debate of 2016, asked Donald Trump if he would accept the results of the election. Trump replied, “I will look at it at the time… I’ll keep you in suspense!” A bit playful, tongue-in-cheek, perhaps to pique the Democrats and their cheerleaders—and their quislings eagerly took the bait. The off-the-cuff remark was a marvel of political theatre the likes of which hadn’t been seen in a long while.
The elitist “tolerantly intolerables,” a.k.a. liberals, looked down on their fellow Americans – the “deplorables.” The Trumpster had become their king, destined for the political trash heap along with other inglorious losers. But bobblehead Hillary, unable to restrain herself, jumped in with a shimmy and both feet, along with her loyal contingent of certifiable “presstitutes” and “propagandistas,” and the ink flowed like a river. Confidently she screeched, “That’s horrifying!…Some people are sore losers!” selfrighteously babbling on in her inimitable Clintonese. “Let’s be clear about what he’s saying and what that means! … He’s denigrating — he’s talking down our democracy. I, for one, am appalled [appalled as much as when she lied to the mother of the Navy SEAL murdered in Benghazi?] that someone who is the nominee of one of our two major parties would take that kind of position.” The girl just had no sense of humor. Poor Bill. She became just another unhinged of the chattering classes. Trump knew how to get her going—and he did.
In political theatre, enter stage left, the “failing” New York Times, quote: “Every losing presidential candidate in modern times has accepted the will of the voters even in extraordinarily close races such as when John F. Kennedy narrowly defeated Richard M. Nixon in 1960 and George W. Bush beat Al Gore in Florida to win the presidency in 2000.” One can only be amused at the over-the-top arrogance of the Gray Lady. So self-assured. But where, oh where was squealing Hillary on election night? Oops—I don’t want to get ahead of myself. Piling on, Jeremy Diamond of CNN called Trump’s statement that – oh my goodness – he’ll accept the election results if he wins, “a caveat that threatens to cast unprecedented doubt on the legitimacy of the electoral process.” Once they get a line, they stick with it. Orchestrated, perhaps. Now let’s sing together. How about the unprecedented doubt cast on the legitimacy of Team Hillary after her campaign manager John Podesta’s emails were Wikileaked! Or after the shenanigans they pulled on poor, bumbling Bernie! Or Donna Brazile feeding the questions to Hillary before a Clinton-Sanders debate! Continuing down the campaign trail in her red, white and blue pantsuits and unable to control herself, Clinton reiterated (tripling down for anyone who missed the first 10 times): “To say you won’t respect the result of the election, that is a direct threat to our democracy. The peaceful transfer of power is one of the things that make America, America!” Where was she on election night?
Remember, Trump never said he wouldn’t accept the results; he said he would answer the question (whether he would accept the results) after the election. Basically he was saying, Let’s see what happens. But talk about pulling the Democrats’ chain! It was beautiful. Libs know no shame. The unhinging of the Hillaryites was fun to watch. And make no mistake – it had Trump’s core supporters (and probably some undecideds) rolling in laughter. Since they had no substantive issues other than four more years of the last eight years, this distraction was the best they could come up with, clearly showing once again how vacuous the Democratic candidate and her campaign truly were.
I mean seriously. She had to resort to underhanded tricks just to beat “Santa Claus” Sanders. Issues be gone, you just can’t make this garbage up, as the “presstitutes” stumbled over themselves creating their “fake news” and Hillary her “fake outrage.” Wow – the idiocy of the statement that it would be a “direct threat to our democracy”! An actual direct threat to democracy might be Anthony Weiner posting national security secrets along with his private parts while Huma absentmindedly leaves a security laptop on the front seat of her car. In their bumbling incompetence, Hillary’s private server in her basement couldn’t keep their secrets secret.
But the real fun was the salivating pollsters and the slobbering, self-assured CNN commentators John King and Wolfman Blitzer. Were they the fakers – or were they being faked out by living in their own echo chamber? “There Really Was a Liberal Media Bubble” read the headline of Boy Wonder Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight blog after the election obituary on March 10, 2017. Groupthink didn’t take the time to think outside their echo chamber. On November 8, Election Day, the Times, in its “Upshot” section written by Josh Katz, flashed the headline, “Hillary Clinton has an 85% chance to win.” Poor Donald. On the morning of Election Day, the brilliant (or not so brilliant) Natty-boy Silver wrote a bit more conservatively, giving Hillary only a 71.4% chance of winning, and predicting, with Joy to the World, that the Trumpster would be soundly trounced. The libs were giddy in self-confident expectation!
In the Times’ “Upshot” section a few days earlier, Nate Cohn had reported that the early voting tracker in North Carolina, “the most important state in the election,” had Clinton ahead by 5.7 points. Just gotta love the decimals to add to the accuracy quotient. “Mrs. Clinton had a big 53-33 lead among those voters who said they were less than ‘almost certain’ to vote. … It’s also a state where the election is well underway,” Cohn continued. “Nearly two million voters – perhaps 40 percent of the electorate – have already cast ballots, and the data from early voting suggests that she has banked a considerable lead. … She has a comfortable lead in the surveys taken after the third presidential debate, with Upshot/Siena, NBC/Marist, Quinnipiac, Monmouth and Elon polls showing her ahead by an average of four points.” Smacking his lips in expectation of a Clinton slaughter was “stammering” Lawrence O’Donnell on MSNBC (for anyone who even knows the station exists), and the thrill was already running up Chris “Mad Dog” Matthews’ leg. It was all over but the counting. Hillary the Dragonslayer, with fireworks at the ready, was about to shatter the glass ceiling as the first woman president!
Again in Nate Cohn’s “Upshot” column, the headline read, “Clinton Has Solid Lead in Electoral College.” – A lovefest for, of all things, no less than the good old Electoral College. No talk about the popular vote. Wasn’t important. The election was based on the Electoral College and the Dems were lovin’ it. In the last days of the campaign, the Trumpster, in “panic mode,” was going to Florida, North Carolina, Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, and the blue wall states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and even Minnesota. “It’s an impressive travel schedule.” Especially for someone the mainstream media had already pegged as a loser.
Before the votes were cast, pollsters and pundits predicted that it would be hard for Trump to reach 200 electoral votes, while Hillary could easily reach over 350. Gotta love that Electoral College, with New York and California in the bag. According to the polls the weekend before the election, Hillary was up in Wisconsin by 6.5 percent. She was up in Michigan by 3.4 percent. She was up in Pennsylvania by 4 percent and up in North Carolina by 5.7 percent. Who cared about those leaked emails of John Podesta! Who cared if the leaks were from the Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians or the Samoans! Who cared about that server in her basement, or three dead Americans and one dead U.S. ambassador in Benghazi! Happy days were almost here again! The breakable glass ceiling was in place. The fireworks were at the ready. Newsweek magazine had already printed the story, its front cover picturing a full-toothed-upperssmiling Madam President with her big diamond wedding ring glaringly displayed. “HILLARY CLINTON’S HISTORIC JOURNEY TO THE WHITE HOUSE.” At least they got it partly right. – It would be “historic.” Seriously, who cared whether the boorish Trumpster would concede! Newsweek magazine had spoken! Hot off the press, copies were about to be distributed! The “presstitutes” were poised at their laptops, fingers itching to tally the final victory numbers.
After all, as the gracious liberal talking heads reminded everyone ad nauseam and in unison, the Trumpster was just a “misogynistic, Islamophobic, xenophobic, crude,” anti-establishment speed bump for elitist liberals who hung together with their parroted hyperbole. Slip on those party shoes. The election was teed up. The polling places were open for the dance to begin. Music, please. Electoral College, we love you! Trump’s political weaknesses were almost too easy to exploit no matter how fervently the “deplorables” had cheered him at their rallies. When Jonathan Gruber said “you have to depend on the stupidity of the American people,” Hillary and Podesta snickered that he was right. But they, the liberal elitists, had trampled on the American public once too often.
If President Bush thought going into Baghdad was “shock and awe,” by the evening of November 8, 2016, Election Day, it was Hillary and her Democratic Party that felt the shock and awe of the American electorate. As one state after another was called for the Trumpster, the blue wall of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin was about to turn bright red. Oh, those polls! In Wisconsin, where Hillary was up by 6.5 points according to the polls, she lost by 7. In Michigan, where she was up by 3.4 points, she lost by 5. In Pennsylvania, where she was up by 4 points, she lost by 5. And in North Carolina, where according to the polls she was up by 5.7 points, she lost by 3.6. When it was projected that Trump would barely break 200 electoral votes, he had amassed 306. And by ten o’clock New York time, a shocked and clearly shaken John Podesta came out to an empty podium and told Hillary’s loyal band of supporters expecting a night of partying and celebration, “Please go home. We’ll have more to say in the morning.” And “appalled” Hillary was nowhere to be seen or heard, as the “peaceful transition of power” was not going to be so peaceful.
All those obscenely fat speaking fees for her “pearls of wisdom” and the Clinton Global Initiative to line her pockets—vanished. All the emails and scandal. All those outright lies and her 26 convenient memory lapses during her congressional testimony. The re-trashing of Monica. The hearings on Benghazi. “What difference does it make?” The wiping of the server. (Do you mean… with a cloth?) Remember the line that not accepting the election results is “a direct assault on our democracy”? That was probably the most horrifying night of Hillary’s life – betrayed by the Electoral College she had so revered. When all the votes were counted, “mirror, mirror on the wall” told her she was not the fairest of them all. And all she could do was squeal about winning the popular vote. Eventually, shaken and not stirred, she did concede, blaming her loss and dazzling display of incompetence on the Russians.
Sadly, the night of November 8, 2016 would not be the end, but just the beginning. “Let’s be clear about what the Democrats are saying. … They are talking down our democracy … and the peaceful transition of government.” It was time for liberals to unleash their goose-step and riot in the streets of America, with vulgar “rape Melania” posters and Trump portrayed as a Nazi. Not really too original, but sadly, to be expected. The Democrats were not in the mood to make America great again. Amid flagburning, property destruction and emulating third world riots, the flag-waving, church-going “deplorables” had won – and just in time to select and confirm a Supreme Court justice—hopefully, the first of several. Months after Trump’s inauguration, the sweetness of his victory lingers.
Shabbat Shalom, 04/28/2017 Jack “Yehoshua” Berger
* * Back issues are archived at The Times of Israel.com