As you know, Donald Trump has officially clinched the GOP presidential nomination. Things aren't looking as hopeful for the presumed Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton. Her email scandal won't go away. Nor should it! Not to mention, despite the rise of Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary, the DNC is not quite "feeling the Bern." Who will the Democrats turn to if Hillary has to rock an orange jump suit for retirement? Vice President Biden? Maybe. What about Faux-cohontas, Elizabeth Warren herself?
You've got to give it to the senator from Massachusetts; she has what Hillary doesn't – appeal. The reason Trump and Sanders have been so successful in the primaries is because voters are craving authenticity, perceived or real. Beyond authenticity, Warren has an uncanny ability to define her opponent, just like Trump.
Left-wing website Slate.com recently published a column entitled "Elizabeth Warren Knows How to Attack Trump. Why Doesn't Hillary?" The simple answer is because Hillary is out of touch with her base, which is decidedly left of center. Additionally, Hillary is just an awful candidate. She can't speak off of the cuff. She can't make a convincing argument that champions her radical progressive worldview. And, although the Clinton campaign knows they need to settle on a "master narrative" that defines Trump, according to Slate, they simply haven't figured out how to do so effectively. But guess who can? That's right, the one and only Faux-cohontas herself, Elizabeth Warren. Apparently, lying about her Indian heritage to be able to receive grants to help pay for her education at America's best universities paid off. Unlike Hillary, Sen. Warren has been able to frame the real estate mogul as an opportunist who takes advantage of the "little guy," while on the stump as a surrogate for the former secretary of state.
Advertisement - story continues below
The lefties at Slate admit Donald Trump has so many negative attributes to choose from, it's been difficult for the Clinton campaign to settle on just one. Here are a few they came up with: "opportunist, plutocrat, racist demagogue, sexist pig, business fraud, narcissist, clown who is completely unfit for the presidency both in terms of knowledge and temperament, and [email protected]#hole." With the exception of "business fraud," and even that narrative is dependent upon delivery, I predict none of these will stick.
Could Hillary's real issue be that she hasn't yet decided on a singular narrative about herself and therefore it's harder to contrast her vision for America with Trump's? Slate certainly believes so, and I agree. What do Trump supporters believe about Trump? Essentially, they believe he's going to keep us safe and help create jobs. If I were to ask the same question of Hillary supporters, I suspect they would be hard-pressed to identify a single defining issue about her campaign.
Elizabeth Warren, on the other hand, whether you agree or not, believes the crap she spews, just like Bernie Sanders. Therefore, she defines her message with pinpoint accuracy, because she knows who she is and the "why" of her existence. At a gala this past Tuesday Warren said about Trump: "Donald Trump was drooling over the idea of a housing meltdown because he could buy more property on the cheap." Imagine Warren further narrowing that message to all of the blue-collar workers that lost their homes during the housing bubble. Do you think that would have an impact on Donald Trump's chances of winning the presidency? Of course.
If Hillary Clinton is unable to close the deal against Bernie Sanders soon, made more difficult with her escalating email scandal, don't be surprised if we start hearing more than just ramblings about a "blue collar Joe Biden," or Elizabeth Warren run. Hillary is awful! Bernie Sanders knows it, and the entire Democratic National Committee knows it. If Clinton knows what's best for her, she'd announce Warren as her VP pick today.
Advertisement - story continues below
Media wishing to interview Carl Jackson, please contact [email protected].