Hillary Embraced All Things Obama To Win The Nomination, But Now She Is Stuck With His Lackluster Economy.
Ed Rogers in today’s Washington Post – A slew of bad economic headlines last week made it official: The Obama economy has failed.
As noted in the Wall Street Journal, “Even seven years after the recession ended . . .
In terms of average annual growth, the pace of this expansion has been by far the weakest of any since 1949.”
The economy has grown at an annual rate of only 2.1 percent since the recession ended in June 2009, compared with annual growth of 4.3 percent during the economic expansion from 1982 to 1990.
So what does this mean for Hillary Clinton? Let’s remember, economic circumstances produce political consequences. They are the issues that drive votes.
Gallup found that 60 percent of Americans think economic conditions in this country are “getting worse.”
The typical American might not be able to quote statistics about how if the labor force participation rate were the same today as it was when Obama took office, the unemployment rate would be 9.2 percent instead of 4.9 percent.
They can’t rattle off statistics about the decline in median household income under President Obama, but they can tell you firsthand about small businesses that have closed in their communities, friends who can’t find work, and their own financial struggles.
And nothing they hear from Clinton makes them believe things are going to get better.
Clinton was forced to embrace all things Obama to win the Democratic nomination, so she is stuck with his economy. I can’t imagine a worse scenario for a Democrat less than four months before any election, especially as economic growth remains so weak.
If the state of the economy controls the outcome of the election, Clinton could have a big problem on her hands.
The future of our nation is at stake. There is already one Supreme Court vacancy that will be filled by the next President. The world continues to become a more and more dangerous place thanks to the failed foreign policies of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Our national economy continues to struggle. We need real change to fix the problems facing our nation.
Attorney General Loretta Lynch tells us that her meeting with Bill Clinton aboard a private jet on the Phoenix airport’s tarmac was “primarily social”—you know, just the two Democrats swapping stories about their grandkids and whatnot.
The nation’s top law enforcement official and the former president and husband of the presumptive nominee, who is under federal investigation, had a talk. Rather than conceding that such a private encounter is at the very least a conflict of interest, Democrats preemptively complained about the “optics.” Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), for instance, told CNN Lynch “should have steered clear” and that the meeting “sends the wrong signal.”
Nothing stirs the passions of Democrats these days quite like the prospect of gutting the Constitution. In an unprecedented act of pretend political bravery, House members held a catered sit-in, demanding that Republicans allow a vote to strip away protections of Second, Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the Constitution. It was quite the scene.
There were the selfie-happy Democrats singing “We Shall Overcome” while demanding passage of a bill that those right-wing nut jobs over at the American Civil Liberties Union have “strongly” argued would undermine civil liberties. As of this writing, no participant has been beaten down by the cops or thrown into a dank cell, although iPhones were probably getting perilously low on juice for those who’d forgotten their chargers.
There is now more than a theoretical chance that Hillary Clinton may not be the Democratic nominee for president.
How could that happen, given that her nomination has been considered a sure thing by virtually everyone in the media and in the party itself? Consider the possibilities.
The inevitability behind Mrs. Clinton’s nomination will be in large measure eviscerated if she loses the June 7 California primary to Bernie Sanders. That could well happen.
A recent PPIC poll shows Mrs. Clinton with a 2% lead over Mr. Sanders, and a Fox News survey found the same result. Even a narrow win would give him 250 pledged delegates or more—a significant boost. California is clearly trending to Mr. Sanders, and the experience in recent open primaries has been that the Vermont senator tends to underperform in pre-election surveys and over-perform on primary and caucus days, thanks to the participation of new registrants and young voters.