The two political “virtual” nominating parties and conventions have come and gone. President Trump, in an odd turn of events, received a two-to-four-point bump in the polls at the end of the Democrat Convention. While it is too early yet to see if he will get another bump of the same size as his bump from the Democrat convention, many think it very likely. In any case, most of these event-related bumps go away after the event that generated them fades from memory. Let’s take a look at some of the issues that were covered or brought to light at the two conventions.
When we think about the way things are proceeding, it’s always good to have a frame of reference. It has been said by political observers that Joe Biden was chosen as the nominee by the party bigwigs because they expected to lose this election. They didn’t want to damage any of their young and rising stars with a loss, so they chose Joe Biden for the loss. Joe’s career is nearly over. It can be said inside the party that as a result of his years of loyalty he was given a chance at the big job, thereby they hope to engender loyalty to the Democrat Party. This writer also believes that theory. No one who thought there was a serious chance of winning this election would have chosen Joe for the top spot on the ticket. But if you already think you are going to lose, he’s not a bad choice. And remember, too, that the Democrats have their donors to think of. Putting a Pete “Boot-a-judge” up there to lose might damage Pete without significantly improving the party’s chance of winning this election. And Kamala Harris has shown us in the primaries where she had to bow out before the voting started. Her numbers were so bad, that she is not a winning candidate. But she checks off several constituent groups that were clamoring to be heard. So, all around, this ticket met the task of this moment. Run a good hard race, and try to throw as much doubt as possible on the outcome as a trial run for the next race when no one will be running as an incumbent.
A lot of pundits commented on the ending speech of this convention as being “lackluster.” And it is very true that President Trump scaled back significantly on his ability to provide off-the-cuff humor and commentary. But nothing or course is left to chance on an important night such as this. I believe our president scaled back his bombastic commentary in favor of a more measured tone. He was acting, as he would say, “presidential.” And I believe that is because the tremendous violence the Democrats are fomenting all across the country is finally starting to have an effect. And it is not the effect Democrats were looking for. These rowdy and violent crowds have a familiar look to them. They don’t look that much different than the normal rent-a-mob crowds the Democrats used in the last presidential bid. I believe the Trump campaign is noticing a sudden pickup in suburban moms’ interest in voting for President Trump.
The Democrats have tried to make the Republicans look like a lot of different bad things, but they have never been able to make the idea Republicans are violent stick. And now when they see this extreme violence against Republican supporters - black and white, gay and straight, old and young - they are beginning to fear for public safety. Their renewed interest in voting for Trump is the reason for Trump’s softer tone. And I believe he will be successful in his appeals to these groups. Rand Paul and his wife Kelly looked very much like the housewife and husband going to an event, only to be set upon and threatened with their very lives. A black congressman and his wife were assaulted and insulted. Two gay men were assaulted and called insulting gay names. This kind of violence, coming as it does on top of the weeks of violence we have seen, ties the violence to the Democrats and makes the Dems look like a dangerous crowd to put in power. I feel sure the president will seize this moment to solidify that feeling! He is already pursuing the “law and order candidate” title.
Trump’s convention was designed to show that ordinary people from all walks of life have been the focus to President Trump’s legislative agenda. And even though his virus response may not have been perfect, Nancy Pelosi, Bill De Blasio, Joe Biden, and other Democrats have blunted much of their criticism through their own remarks. Biden said Trump’s closing of the flights from China, for example, was motivated by his “xenophobia.” (Xenophobia: fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign.) It is a little late to now try and criticize Trump’s efforts to handle the virus as less than perfect, given his own responses. Of course, that hasn’t stopped him from trying, but most of us remember Biden’s own remarks, and I feel sure Trump will have that response in some political ad so everyone will get their memory refreshed!
I will wrap up with a memory refresher for us all. Remember Bob Creamer? Official records reveal Bob Creamer, the man exposed as being behind a tactic called “bird-dogging” in which homeless people, the elderly, and mentally ill individuals are paid to start violence at Trump rallies, has been to the White House many times since 2009. A good portion of those meetings involved face-to-face time with President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama. Between 11/21/2009 and 6/24/2016, Robert Creamer appears to have visited the White House 342 times, 340 times as ‘Robert Creamer’ and twice as ‘Bob Creamer.’ 47 of those visits were direct visits with Obama. Several of those visits included Michelle Obama. In the video where Democratic operatives talk about how to conduct mass voter fraud, Scott Foval describes Creamer in the videos as the ‘black hat’ guy who has taught him so much. Creamer also shows up on another video that covers inciting violence at Trump rallies. Creamer states on video that Clinton is aware of his work, and that his firm, Democracy Partners, has a daily telephone call with the Clinton campaign to coordinate. This comes from “The Political Insider” an online magazine. But it could have been any source from the many returned on my search. Apparently, Mr. Creamer, or someone like him, is back on the job. Do we really want these people in charge of our country? If we ever voted them in, could we ever again vote them out?
Until next week…