Former Vice President Joe Biden, 77, is now the youngest male candidate in the Democrats’ presidential primary after former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg dropped out of the race Sunday. As of last week, Buttigieg, 38, was the field’s youngest candidate. He would have been 39 years and one day old upon taking up the White House had he won the general election. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), the presumed frontrunner, is the oldest at 78 years old, followed by former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, who is only eight months younger than the Vermont senator. Sanders will be 79 if he wins the White House. At 73 years old, President Donald Trump is younger than Biden by four years. On Inauguration Day, the president became the oldest to assume office at 70 years and 220 days. John F. Kennedy was the youngest elected president at 43 years and 236 days. In contrast, the field’s woman candidates are all younger than Biden. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) is the youngest at 38, while Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) is 59 years old. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is the oldest at 70 years old. She would be 71 years and 212 days old if inaugurated after a successful campaign.
Some interesting, and yet relevant, stats. In a recent poll, those asked said that candidates whose age was over 75 was a cause for concern. That should be a red flag to both Joe Biden, and especially Bernie who in addition had a recent heart attack. Bernie may be doing very well with his rabid base in this primary season. But, the general election is a whole other matter. And, in the age and health category, Trump clearly has the advantage. Biden is only 4 years older, but boy does he act old, and his chronic verbal gaffes… Let’s just say… Trump would destroy him on the debate stage.
Failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton received over 800,000 illegal votes from noncitizens of the United States, according to academic research. A study by political scientist Jesse Richman from Old Dominion University in Virginia found that 6.4 percent of the 20 million noncitizens who reside in the United States voted in November’s presidential election. He then extrapolated these results into support for each presidential candidate, estimating that Clinton would have received 81 percent support from noncitizens, therefore receiving an extra 834,000 votes. The number of 834,000 is significant enough to have tipped some of the closest races in Clinton’s favor, including New Hampshire, Nevada, and Maine, all of which Clinton won by margins of under 3 percent. It would also have reduced Clinton’s margin of victory in the popular vote, which she won by 2.8 million by dominating cosmopolitan centers such as New York and California. On Wednesday, President Donald Trump said he would be opening up a “major investigation into voter fraud,” promising to “strengthen up voting procedures.”
Great! It’s about time! Voter ID should be a no-brainer. That, and making sure that voter rolls are clear of people who are dead, no longer living in a given precinct…and so on. This research substantiates Trump’s position that a significant number of illegals DID, in fact vote last November…and had a significant impact. It only makes sense that a thorough investigation be done to get all the facts, and make the necessary adjustments/fixes to prevent this from happening again.
President Obama’s farewell address to the nation was longer than the good-bye speeches of Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush combined. Clinton spoke for 7 minutes, 25 seconds; Reagan spoke for 20 minutes, 42 seconds; and George W. Bush spoke for 13 minutes, 7 seconds. Obama spoke for 51 minutes, 10 seconds, nearly 10 minutes longer than the other three put together. Obama also broke from the tradition of delivering his final speech from the White House. Clinton and Reagan both spoke from the Oval Office, and George W. Bush spoke in front of a small audience in the White House East Room; the Obama administration distributed public tickets for his speech at the McCormick Place convention center in Chicago. Obama spoke to a crowd of 18,000.
Thankfully I wasn’t able to watch this nauseating, self-righteous, self-serving, narcissistic, ego-building session last night. Reading the transcript was vomit-worthy enough. He actually had the audacity to suggest that race relations have improved in America since he became President 8 years ago. Wow.. That takes denial to a whole new level. Just 9 more days, folks..
Many in the national media are certain that hacked emails hurt Hillary Clinton’s chances in the election, but their reports and columns rarely cite any of the emails’ contents that would have presumably affected the outcome. Members of the press have made a new push to assert that Russian hacking had an effect on the election, especially after last week’s unclassified report that said Russia did try to help President-elect Trump, and hurt Hillary Clinton. That report made no finding of how effective Russia was, but many in the press are deciding nonetheless that the effort had a huge impact. “While Russian hacks ‘were not involved in vote tallying,’ the publishing of pilfered emails … altered the zeitgeist, poisoned the political environment and shifted public opinion, all of which redounded to Trump’s benefit,” liberal New York Times columnist Charles Blow wrote on Monday, citing the intelligence report. The night before, Blow’s colleague Jim Rutenberg, who writes a column on media, said the “spilled secrets” in the emails were “damaging” to the Clinton campaign. He noted that the email revelations saw the resignation of Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and led CNN to terminate its contract with Democratic strategist Donna Brazile. But neither Blow nor Rutenberg explained why the emails were damaging nor did they cite examples as to what was in them. The emails — first the DNC ones hacked and published last July, followed by those of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta’s in August — contained no explosive revelations, though they did show DNC officials preferring Clinton to Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary. They also showed Clinton aides questioning some of their candidates’ decisions. Another email showed Podesta referring to former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and former Transportation and Energy Secretary Federico Pena, both of whom are of Latin descent, as “needy Latinos.” (At the time of that email’s publication, neither the Times nor the Washington Post covered it.) But news reports and journalists are asserting that the emails, at least in some capacity, cost Clinton the election. “Was it the Russians who turned Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania truly red?” said Times columnist Maureen Dowd on Saturday, referring to the formerly blue states that Trump won on Election Day. The Trump team has maintained that its victory is legitimate and that it was not helped or guaranteed by foreign intervention. That assessment hasn’t been challenged by the intelligence community, at least not in the public version of its report. The report did say Russia’s intent was to aid Trump and harm Clinton, but it also said intelligence officials “did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election.” Still, in an interview Sunday on CNN, anchor Jake Tapper, without discussing the contents of the emails, asked Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway, “How can you say that the hacking had no impact on the election when Mr. Trump [during the campaign] kept invoking WikiLeaks which was printing, publishing things that the Russians had hacked?” An article Friday in the Times called the intelligence report “a damning and surprisingly detailed account of Russia’s efforts to undermine the American electoral system,” but did not mention the contents of the emails. The Washington Post’s write up of the intelligence report referred to the emails as having “embarrassed Democrats and kept voter attention on Clinton’s email controversy.” But again, that story listed no “embarrassing” details that might have swayed voters away from Clinton. Similarly, a USA Today report in December referred to the emails as “a trove of sensitive communications” but did not say what made them sensitive. One hurdle for the press as it tries to claim the emails were decisive were prior assessments from the media that downplayed the emails. Before the intelligence findings last week, some news outlets had actually diminished the importance of the email hackings. In October, Times columnist James Poniewozik dismissed the contents of them. “Just because it’s hacked doesn’t mean it’s important,” he wrote, adding that, “Where there’s a smoking gun, there isn’t always fire.” And PolitiFact, on Dec. 1, in a since updated article, said, “Based on the evidence, it seems highly unlikely that actions by the Russian government contributed in any decisive way to Trump’s win over Clinton.”
Of course it didn’t. And, the Dir. of National Intelligence said as much. Yes, the Russian government engaged in cyberwarfare, and yes tried to engage in information and disinformation campaigns, including the recent presidential election. That’s hardly new. We do the same thing. Heck, Obama tried to (and illegally, I might add) undermine the election in Israel, so as to unseat Bibi Netanyahu. Where was the media outrage about that? Look, it’s all bs; smoke and mirrors. Hillary lost because she was a horrible candidate, that was seen by the overwhelming majority of Americans as someone who was not trustworthy. If anything, all the hacked emails did was reinforce the attitudes and decisions that voters already had. It IS interesting that the dominantly liberal mainstream media has failed to substantiate its assertion that that these emails were the cause for Hillary’s loss in November….but, it’s not surprising.