Posted on 10/21/2016 1:36:15 PM PDT by GilGil
“Something is going to happen here, I just sense it,” he concluded. Either “Hillary will glide into the White House, or we’re headed for one of the greatest shocks in American politics. I think it’s a very close call. I think the shock potential is enormous.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Not what I wanted to hear from Mr. Gaddell. :(
Democrat lies are all over the place.
Especially in the Fourth Estate or out of the mouth of the Obamanation.
Just don’t understand how Caddell can be considered a demoncrap. He’s one of the very few people I actual enjoy listening to.
In other words Caddell knows the polls are Bing manufactured, and he knows they’re not based on reality.
The host of the show overlooked an obvious point and failed to question the guy accordingly:
How can the polls be accurate if there isn't even any consistency from one poll to the next? Not only can't they all be right, but by definition MOST OF THEM MUST BE WRONG!
Pat Caddell is right about the shock potential.
Every one is expecting a Hillary coronation.
That a woman who has been politically active, her entire adult life, among a people with the most successful history of economic achievement over their first century and a quarter, of any people on earth, under a Constitutional Government designed to protect that people from a bureaucratic pestilence, which has been the bane of most nations; that such a woman has so missed the essential point of the American achievement, is staggering in its implications.
Mrs. Clinton claimed that a Clinton Government would rebuild the "Middle Class." Was she totally unaware that the American Middle Class clearly built itself? That the American Middle Class resulted from naturally energized individuals, aspiring to achieve the good life, who risked everything to first clear a wilderness, work hard, generation to generation, to save & accumulate the attributes of the good life; with the result that by 1913--the year that a graduated income tax first became Constitutional, this Settler built Federation of newly settled States, had already surpassed every one of the great powers of Europe in industrial strength.
To "rebuild" the "Middle Class," Mrs. Clinton vowed to make the most successful Americans--those who had achieved the most--pay increased taxes; she called it "paying their 'fair' share." But it was clearly to be a tax on success--a tax to fund a raft of new programs (a cancer or pestilence of an expanded bureaucracy). She was obviously indifferent to the fact that the biggest impediment to any poor person with ambition, actually launching a small business to improve his status, is an almost incomprehensible explosion in bureaucratic regulations, most of which premised on the same flawed understanding of how people actually advance, which Mrs. Clinton displayed, on the 19th.
Americans used to learn by experience. What were the experience based lessons of what transpired from the drafting of our written Constitution in 1787, until the passage of the income tax amendment in 1913? Are they instructive or not, for what actually works for human advancement?
The Constitution prior to 1913, absolutely interdicted a tax driven war on the accumulation of individual wealth. Article I, Section 9, which Mrs. Clinton should have remembered from Law School, provided that no direct tax on individual Americans could be applied in any way but pro-capita. (That is Warren Buffet would pay the same tax--not the same percentage tax--but the same tax as Joe the Plumber. The Founders had no desire to limit individual success. They sought only to encourage it.
Under there experience based philosophy, there were almost certainly not even 1% of the bureaucratic regulations, with which Americans seeking to improve their lot, must face today. In place of today's pursuit of grievances, real or imagined, there was universal admiration for the high achievers! And the growth rate of a people freed to achieve, was the economic phenomenon of human history.
We do not pretend to know whether it was in her indoctrination by Marxist Pied Pipers, in her late teens, or pure confusion in whatever she is struggling with today. But Mrs. Clinton is utterly clueless on how a dynamic economy works; as she is utterly unaware of the dynamic, interactive factors, that drive or stagnate any human aspiration or achievement. What is absolutely clear, even if one ignores her lack of a moral compass in her political dealings; the woman is absolutely unqualified to be President of the United States.
This is one more reason why we must win this election for Donald Trump.
William Flax
[This may be reproduced, if in full context, with or without attribution.]
Go trump,
Caddell is a democrat pollster/consultant and has been for years...he’s a pretty straight shooter though so that fact is not obvious.
Broken polling would be a godsend to American elections. Without the ability to target vulnerabilities, vote manipulation would become impossibly expensive.
I don’t see any indication of that scenario. The polls will almost certainly tighten for one thing unless something huge comes out on Trump.
He’s the first person I heard mention O’Keefe’s first video. Imagine a Dem bringing up the truth.
So we know the tracking polls that have Trump leading.
There are several national polls with Clinton up. Two of them, Reuters and YouGov have Dem +14 and Dem +18 samples.
How can any reasonable person say that Clinton is winning when she has a 4 point lead in these?
Additionally, the Arizona poll has something like Dem+30 or so and it has her up 5.
I know the whole unskewing of the polls was questioned in 2012 but this is ridiculous.
Wait!
How can this be?
Hilliary! has it in the bag—Voting is just a formality.
What Caddell is doing here is covering his but.
He is featuring the shock value but can’t say it outright or he will never get another media gig.
Hillary Clinton is going to get a lot of votes from Republicans -- especially women who are incapable of thinking clearly.
Conversely, Donald Trump is going to get a lot of votes from Democrats -- especially middle-class and lower-class white men. I also think he's going to do surprisingly well among black and Hispanic men who would never vote for a psychotic, screeching banshee like Hillary.
Maybe, but Caddell predicted Romney would win 337-201 in the Electoral College. So, as I stated, no warm fuzzy to be taken from his message. I sometimes believe Pat says things he hopes happens.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.