We Badger state voters have responded to a Marquette University poll conducted by Charles Franklin and the results astounded me. Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump by 15% among “likely voters” in Wisconsin. A 15 point lead is, as The Donald would say, huuuge! When you see that lead depicted like this, it seems even greater: Trump trailed Hillary 37% to 52%.
I had gotten to the point of accepting this would be my opportunity to vote for the lesser evils, as regular readers will recall. I actually felt that might well be the dominant theme in our state given what I expected would be a backlash against Hillary Clinton and all she has stood for in her past.
BUT, Hillary seems to be the cat with nine lives, at least nine lives. Her history is scattered with dubious occurrences, and questionable decisions made. She has had a problem with the ‘truth’, and concocts her own version of things and then hammers that version until the mainstream media has rolled over once again. And, that mainstream media is highly consistent and has been since her days in Arkansas with things like the Rose Law firm files mysteriously reappearing, the quick trading fortune of ten times her $10,000 investment in cattle futures in some three weeks on her first foray into that marketplace.
Assuming this poll is accurate and assuming we aren’t the only state in the union where this kind of polling could be expected, we can begin to speculate on just how a Hillary Clinton presidency would shape up. In my world, that comes together as an ugly picture, indeed. The history of this couple and their daughter is replete with example upon example of questionable activities. The wealth that has made its way to the Clintons both directly, and laundered through the Clinton Foundation conduit basically for the rental of the Clinton name and little if anything else, is nothing short of what most of us would declare is astronomical. In addition, we might also use the descriptive word ‘unbelievable’ since this is the stuff of fairy tales.
The idea that oil rich rulers in the Middle East would reap some benefit from donations to the Clinton Foundation gives one pause when we understand that these donations had to have been seen by the oligarchs as being worth something in exchange. In all likelihood, these large financial gifts were seen as bearing fruit when Hillary assumed the throne in the White House or they would not have occurred. Yet, the questions raised so far by the media in this regard have not been heard (since the mainstream media has chosen to avoid the potential embarrassment to the Clintons).
Hillary Clinton in the White House will prove out my theory that Democrats too often vote for the party without regard to what the candidate is or isn’t. It is, of course, possible that this label could be applied to the other major party, as well. The possible distinction is that it is difficult for me to imagine that the Republicans would put someone with Hillary’s baggage on their ticket…and then there was Trump.
This election may well be the one that causes many of us to forget political party affiliations once and for all. I am not a member of any political party, but, as a conservative, I have never been tempted to vote for the Democrat presidential candidate during my lifetime as an eligible voter.
I simply find myself coming back to the only phrase that seems to cover this situation:
This is the classic definition of casting a vote for the lesser of evils…and it is awfully difficult to determine which of the two qualifies under that definition. Weren’t there better options? Is this as good as we get in our wonderful country these days?