WARTS: POLITICAL AND OTHERWISE

Negatives are like warts. Some go away on their own, some don't.

The WSJ just released the results of their WSJ/NBC News poll for May 12 and May 16. The gist of  it supposedly compared the popularity of the two presidential front runners, Clinton and Trump, with their so-called core constituents in their own political parties and that of Barack Obama's in 2012.

The first thing you want to know about these meaningless excursions into utter nonsense is these people have way too much time on their hands. And they're probably overpaid in the process.

The second thing is Clinton and Trump are most likely running against each other. The third thing there is a large block of folks going to vote for one or the other in this election who could care less about either party, If we had to guess Trump will get more of these votes than Clinton. Some might call them independents. Others might just call them believers in the Second Amendment.

The implication here seems to be neither of these two candidates is greatly popular with the American public. We needed a silly poll to conclude that? MSM's been tell us for months, starting first with the often described dangerous, shoot from the hip Trump and now lately with Ms Baggage.

This once eminent newspaper opens with this gem:

By now, it is broadly accepted that both Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump generate a lot of negative vibes among voters. Less appreciated perhaps is how broadly those bad vibes are, and how much they extend into segments of the electorate that normally would be more enthused.

Obviously, what--at least among some of the Trump voters-- many are trying to bypass is that segment of the electorate--most likely core party wonks--who would normally be more enthused. They are the problem. The problem this writer and his talking political heads never get.

We could go on, but here's the link. Look at it for yourself. They apparently removed the written versin that we quoted from the Weekend Edition. This is nothing against the writer. He's just being himself, amiable at being dull, writing as if he and his colleagues have their finger on the electoral pulse of things. They don't. And given their condescending attitudes they most likely never will. They are about as estranged from understanding the average voter as one of these candidates is from telling the truth.

Now when it comes to warts, if Trump wins we think his warts will fade away on their own. With Clinton, well, we're not so sure.

 wsj.com/video/clinton-trump-polling-poorly-with-key-demographics