Armageddon

by Dick Morris

  When their ancestors came to America, they felt they left behind a culture of government dependence, large debts, and irresponsible giveaways by politicians seeking votes. But now they report seeing these things right here in America. These American-born Latinos worry that the experiences their forebears had in Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and other countries from which they fled in search of a better life is being replicated here in the USA.

  Indeed, a survey by Rafael Giménez, former Public Opinion coordinator for the office of the Presidency in Mexico, tends to confirm the idea that Latinos in the United States are deeply concerned about the welfare-state orientation of the Democratic Party. Giménez interviewed a national sample of 1,100 US citizens of Latino origin using telephone, cell phone, and many in-person interviews between January 15 and February 15, 2013. Giménez elicited broad support when he asked participants if they agreed or disagreed with the following statement:

  Democrats are closer to the leaders we had in Latin America, always giving handouts to get votes. If we let them have their way, we will end up being like the countries our families came from, not like the America of great opportunities we all came to.

  The results were as follows: agree: 59%; disagree: 34%. These fears—that America is going the way of the mismanaged countries they left—will make Latinos increasingly look to Donald Trump and away from Hillary Clinton.

  By 78%–16%, US Latinos agreed that “Latino immigrants must not go the way some have gone into high unemployment, crime, drugs, and welfare. They must be more like the hard working immigrants who came here and worked their way up without depending on the government.”

  When Giménez asked his Latino sample which party most shares this sentiment, they chose the Republicans, by a margin of 45%–29%. The survey also found that US Latino voters feel Republicans are more likely than Democrats

  • to “work hard to reduce the incidence of teen pregnancy” (45%–31%)

  • to agree that “the family fabric in America is being ripped apart. Parents are too permissive. There is too much divorce, too many unwed mothers, and too many children who don’t listen to their parents” (49%–32%)

  • to avoid “ruining the United States” with too much debt (39%–37%)

  • to “strengthen churches so they can help the poor and teach values of faith and family” (52%–31%)

  Latino voters agree that “too many people depend on the government and its handouts. That way of thinking is very bad and leads to lifetimes of unemployment, poverty, and crime” (89%–7%). And by 45–37, they believe the Republican Party is more likely to share their view than Democrats are.27

  McLaughlin’s survey found that Latino voters in the United States described themselves as pro-life by 67%–25%, about 30 points to the right of Americans generally.

  Donald Trump must seek to rekindle in the United States the same debate that polarizes people in Mexico: Whether to create a welfare state or one that is governed by traditional values. After all, the ancestors of America’s Latinos voted with their feet to leave nations organized around giveaways and handouts. They are sure to be vigilant in avoiding the same pitfalls here that ruined their native countries.

  Polling shows that social problems, particularly those that concern their families and child-rearing have especial salience among Latino voters. Latina mothers are especially worried about the collapse of authority and discipline among their children and the declining importance of religion in their lives. Trump must address these issues and refuse to confine the debate among Latinos to the immigration issue.

  Young Voters Don’t Like Hillary

  Young voters are Hillary’s single biggest problem.

  The vote of people under 35 was a key element in Obama’s victories in 2008 and 2012. In 2012, Obama lost among voters over the age of 40 by five points. 52% voted for Romney and only 47% backed Obama. His victory was entirely due to his gigantic margin among younger voters, whom he carried by 20 points, 58%–38%.

  But it is young voters who animated Bernie Sanders’ challenge to Hillary’s nomination. A FoxNews poll in April of 2016 found that voters under 45 backed Sanders by 65%–30%.28 The younger they were, the more these Democrats voted for Sanders and against Hillary in the primary. The Washington Post reported that “in Iowa and Nevada, voters under 30 went 6 to 1 for Sanders. In New Hampshire, 5 to 1.”29

  Hillary is not unique in her problems with young voters. Between 2014 and 2015, Obama’s job approval has dropped from 52% to 41% according to a survey by the Harvard Institute of Politics. Of the young voters Harvard surveyed, 55% said they voted for Obama in 2012, but only 46% said they would vote for him again.30

  Among young white and Hispanic voters, Obama and the Democrats are in even worse shape. The Harvard Poll found that “though Obama maintains a 78% approval rating among young African Americans, his favorability among young Hispanics has plummeted. Obama commanded an 81% approval rating in the young Hispanic demographic in 2009. Today, that number is 49%. His approval is also down among young white Americans. In 2006 and 2008, a majority of young white millennials supported Democrats. Now the percentage of young white Americans who support President Obama is only 31%.”31

  Obama isn’t on the 2016 ballot, but his Party is, and younger voters are taking out their disapproval of him on Hillary.

  Part of what is driving younger voters in their growing disapproval of Democrats is a rapid drop in the popularity of Obamacare. The Harvard Poll found that 57% of young voters disapproved of Obamacare, with 40% saying it will worsen the quality of their care, and a majority believing it will drive up costs.32 Since Obamacare is a program designed to tax young people to subsidize the medical care of their elders, its unpopularity is likely to remain and even grow.

  Obamacare negatives are Hillary negatives because of her record of having proposed a similar program in 1993. The Republicans need to run a targeted campaign against Hillary among younger voters.

  In a curious sense, this task is easier among people who have only limited experience with Mrs. Clinton. Voters over 35 are a bit jaded when it comes to Hillary. They have watched scandal after scandal reaching back all the way to Whitewater, each sapping whatever residual credibility she had with them. But to those under 35, all the Hillary scandals are new. These voters, after all, were under 15 years of age when the Lewinsky scandal unfolded and were way too young to have followed Hillary’s misadventures over the years.

  Trump must slam Hillary on the credibility issue. Her lies and distortions are so well documented and extensively filmed that they will make excellent fodder for negative campaign ads. Whether it is Hillary erroneously saying that she was under fire in Bosnia (she was greeted by a child bearing flowers on a red carpet) or that she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary (who climbed Mt. Everest four years after her birth) or that she was instrumental in the Irish peace process (a memory nobody else confirms) or that she left the White House “dead broke” (despite an $11 million book deal) or that she used a private e-mail server for convenience, all these stories make great ammunition.

  Time has always been Hillary’s biggest ally. People forget scandals and they fade from the front pages as the news cycle moves on. But now time is her enemy since these scandals are all new, exciting, and interesting to young voters who have never heard them before.

  Go after the Black Vote: Hillary Is Not Obama

  Woody Allen famously said, “Eighty percent of success is showing up.”33

  But will black voters show up for Hillary in the same record-setting numbers as they did for Obama?

  Barack Obama, running as the first African American to seek the presidency as the nominee of a major party, carried the black vote by 95%–4% in 2008 and by 93%–6% in 2012. In each contest, blacks cast a record 13% of the total vote.

  This huge African-American turnout is not typical of American elections. In 2000 blacks cast 10% of the vote and in 2004, they accounted for 11%. Since African-Americans have not increased their share
of the nation’s population in the last two censuses, there is no reason why black turnout should continue at record levels.

  If African American turnout dropped from 13% to 11%, Hillary would lose about two points in her race against Trump—about half of Obama’s margin against Romney.

  The handoff between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton need not be seamless. The Trump campaign affords us an opportunity to show how Democrats will always side with the municipal unions against the black community. Whether the issue is school choice, sanitation services, health care, or law enforcement, city government officials depend on unions to get elected and take the black vote for granted. On each of these issues, Democrats have had to choose between the consumers of the city services (such as children in school or patients in city clinics and hospitals) and the providers of the service (the teachers and health care unions). Since these politicians have always been able to count on a bloc vote from African Americans, they have little incentive to cater to them and, since their campaigns are financed by municipal unions, a great deal of incentive to side with the service providers.

  Republicans need to make it clear that we seek and want the black vote and, now that Obama is not on the ballot, do not believe that they will vote for Hillary as a knee jerk reaction. The African American community is particularly unhappy with how white liberals govern their cities. Their resentment usually spills over in mayoral elections that pit a white liberal (e.g., Emanuel in Chicago, de Blasio in New York) against an African American candidate. The black urban voter resents being taken for granted by his white liberal elected official. These Democratic office holders treat blacks as if they were a golf handicap, a lead with which they start the race and which they never have to earn.

  Trump should select key issues (like school choice) where he can side with the black community against City Hall.

  As noted, there is strong African American support for school choice. In Philadelphia, 58,000 children attend charter schools and another 40,000 are said to be on waiting lists. The majority of these children are nonwhite. The charter school space is so limited in Philadelphia that the city runs a lottery each year to decide who gets in. Tens of thousands of families are turned away and are disappointed. The teachers’ union does all it can to limit and cut the charter school program. By decisively siding with parents and backing expansion of charter schools, Trump can show that he puts the people ahead of those who are supposed to serve them.

  Even on the issue of police brutality, there is running room for Donald Trump.

  Big city mayors—Democrats all—are wont to sweep reports of police brutality under the rug, particularly at election time. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel actually refused to release a video showing a Chicago officer shooting a 17-year-old who was obviously posing no threat. Emanuel, locked in a tight runoff race with an African American candidate, held onto the video to avoid embarrassment—and to hang onto his share of the black vote.

  Knowing that her popularity among African Americans, while broad, is still thin, Hillary will try to get a large turnout in the community by portraying Trump as their enemy and trying to draw racial issues against him. Trump must avoid this characterization and show how he is fighting for the community against City Hall, where necessary, it is unlikely that Hillary can raise the fear level to the point where it generates a large black turnout.

  It isn’t that Trump needs to carry the black vote. He just has to stop Hillary from scaring African-Americans to death over the prospect of his victory so they do not come out to vote.

  CHAPTER 6

  Can Donald Trump Win?

  Can He Win the Popular Vote?

  You bet he can. To see how, lets reverse engineer Obama’s victory over Romney. Obama beat Romney by 5 million votes in 2012.

  White Voters

  Trump increased turnout in Republican primaries by a projected total of 14 million votes. How many of those are people who did not vote in 2012 but participated in the 2016 primary? Exit polls didn’t ask.

  But we know that turnout among white registered voters fell by 3.1% (or 6.3 million voters) from a high in 2004 to 2012. With Trump’s drawing power, it is not unreasonable to posit that the white vote will rise by ten million from 2012 to 2016. If Trump carries it by the same margin Romney did (61-39) it will give him 1.2 million more votes than Romney got in 2012.

  Trump up 1.2 million

  Black Voters

  There is no reason to suppose that black turnout for Hillary will equal that for Obama. In 2004, African-Americans cast 11% of the national vote. In 2012, with no increase in their share of the national population, blacks cast 13% of the vote. If they fell back to their historic level of 11%, it would deny Hillary 2.5 million votes that Obama got.

  Hillary down 2.5 million

  Young Voters

  Those under 30 voted for Obama by a margin of 8 million total votes, backing the Democrats 60-37. Hillary has shown great weakness among young voters, losing them to Bernie Sanders in the primaries by huge margins. If we assume that among white under 30s, Obama won by 5 million votes, Hillary’s unpopularity among younger voters should show up by cutting her margin by at least two million.

  Hillary down 2 million

  When we combine a Hillary loss of 2 million young voters and 2.5 million blacks with a Trump gain of 1.2 million white voters, we see a reversal of the 2012 verdict. While Obama beat Romney by 5 million votes, Trump would defeat Hillary by 700,000.

  And in the Electoral College?

  Some say that the electoral map is so tilted in favor of the Democratic Party that a Republican cannot win. While this statement is not true, a Republican does have a difficult task ahead to climb to a majority of the electoral vote.

  The key to winning the Electoral College is a Virginia-plus strategy. Here’s the math: Romney won 206 electoral votes in 2012, short of the 270 votes needed to win. To get the remaining 64 votes, the Republicans would first need to carry the two states where Obama’s margin of victory over Romney was the smallest—where the election was closest—Ohio (18 electoral votes) and Florida (29). Obama beat Romney in the national popular vote by 51.1–47.2, a margin of 4.1%. Of all the states Obama carried, he had the smallest margin in Florida (0.9%) and in Ohio (3.0%).

  If we lose the popular vote by anything like Romney’s 4.1%, we will lose both states—and the election. But if we can tie or pass Obama’s 2012 vote share, we should have no problem carrying them. That would give us 47 of the 64 electoral votes we needs to win. To pick up the remaining 17 votes is more complicated. A Republican would need to carry some of the following states:

  Swing States

  State Electoral vote Obama margin (%)

  VA

  13

  3.9

  CO

  8

  5.4

  PA

  20

  5.4

  NH

  4

  5.6

  IA

  6

  5.8

  NV

  6

  6.7

  WI

  10

  6.9

  Of these states, Virginia seems the closest within reach. And that’s the key. If we can win Ohio, Florida, and Virginia, we will have 266 electoral votes, just four short of victory. We could pick those votes by winning any one of the remaining six toss-up states (Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Hampshire, Iowa, Nevada, and Wisconsin).

  And we probably can do it. Ed Gillespie, Republican, came within less than one point of winning the Virginia senate seat in 2014. Colorado and Iowa are also moving our way. Both elected new Republican senators in 2014, and in Colorado, we even overthrew a Democratic incumbent. Pennsylvania and New Hampshire already have Republican senators, and in Pennsylvania, the GOP controls both houses of the legislature. Any one of them would suffice to win.

  The 2016 election will, of course, revolve around not just the issues but the candidates as well. In Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democrats have nominated one of the mo
st unpopular, compromised candidates in recent years. The list of her negatives is so long as to be daunting and her record is so filled with evidence of corruption, incompetence, deceit, prevarication, inconsistency, self-dealing, and cover-ups as to make her practically unelectable.

  Conclusion

  To defeat Hillary, we need to use every weapon in our arsenal. We need to use the right jab—to animate our base and get them out to vote. Then we must throw the left hook—to attract the Bernie Sanders voters by appealing to their essential populism. And throughout, we must keep Hillary under pressure and on the defensive by revisiting the various scandals, lies, flip-flops, and failures in her record.

  We know that Hillary makes mistakes under pressure. We’ve seen it. Confronted with her past, she resorts to lies, evasions, and distortions. When she gets caught in these misstatements, she lies again and again and again. Keep pressing her and she will keep making mistakes. So we need to keep pressing her. And isn’t Donald Trump just the man to do it? By constantly calling her “corrupt Hillary,” he hammers away at her scandals and her lies, evasions, and misstatements.

  Won’t Hillary’s handlers prepare her for these attacks, scripting her replies? They won’t. Hillary’s handlers are usually terrified of their candidate. They can’t sit down with her and discuss how she handled Bill’s sexually predatory conduct. Nor can they ask her about e-mails, or Benghazi, or her theft of the White House china, or the pardons her brothers secured in return for fees, or the quid pro quo she dished out to those who paid Bill for speeches. If they dared to ask—or even raise these topics—she’d take their heads off (and they would never be seen in her campaign again).