A Year After 2016 Election, MSM Admits Trump Would Still Beat Hillary

It’s been a full year, 365 days since the last election. A day that will live in infamy for the Left and a day most Americans will remember as the day we began trying to Make America Great Again.
 
It’s been a full year since the Left has cried themselves to sleep every single night and now, even an MSM source admits that Trump would still beat Hillary Clinton if the elections were held tomorrow.
 
Interestingly enough, that’s less shocking than you would think it is. I’m not talking about what the MSM source says would be the results of the election. I’ve known for a long time now that Trump would always be more popular than Hillary.
 
No, what I’m talking about is the level of surprise I get from seeing an MSM source admit to something like this.
 
One thing I’ve noticed over the past month or so is that, slowly but surely, the MSM is beginning to get some sort of sense for reality. Just last week, I was talking about how the economy was doing so well that even the MSM (CNBC, in particular) had to take notice. I’ve also talked about how a writer for CNN admitted that Jeff Flake’s attempt to take out Trump was doomed from the start.
 
Sure, the MSM has been trying their hardest to continue to be the #1 seller of fake news for the public, but there come points in time that people, even news organizations, have to face reality.
 
A year ago, they had to face the reality that Trump had beaten Hillary Clinton in the election. For months after, they were shouting that Russia had interfered in the election, but realized they had no evidence to support their claim. They’re still trying to run with that story, but at this point, would the Washington Post (the specific MSM source I’ll be talking about) write a story titled: “12 months later, Trump would probably still win the 2016 election”?
 
If they honestly believed Russia had anything to do with the election, they wouldn’t be writing something like this – an admission that Trump would still do better in terms of numbers than Hillary (albeit with reportedly lower numbers).
 
The article begins: “It has been almost exactly one year since President Trump shocked the world by defeating Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. And he might well do it again today.” Keep in mind, this story was written yesterday.
 
But it’s certainly interesting to see a Washington Post writer admit that, if the election were held today, Hillary Clinton would still lose to Donald Trump.
 
Even after the constant bashing, ridiculing, mocking and deceiving that they’ve been doing to Trump, Washington Post has to admit that Hillary would still be seen as the less favored candidate, showing that her numbers are even worse than the day of the election.
 
Now, I’m not exactly surprised by that. The MSM has been exposed as fake news, so not many people believe them. And I’m not exactly surprised to see Hillary’s numbers be even worse than last year’s. What with every single scandal that the Clintons and the Democrat Party have had this year, it’s obvious that people’s views on them have only worsened.
 
According to WaPo: “The Washington Post-ABC News poll asked respondents how they’d vote in a redo of the 2016 election, and, if anything, Clinton seems to have lost more ground than Trump. Among those who voted, 46 percent say they picked Clinton last year and 43 percent picked Trump – a slightly more favorable sample than the 2016 election, in which Clinton won the popular vote by two percentage points. But in a head-to-head rematch, Clinton’s support drops even more than Trump’s does, and they wind up in a 40-40 tie. Given that Trump overperformed in key, blue-leaning swing states, that means he’d probably have won again.”
 
That’s a lot to look over, so let’s break it down.
 
First, there’s the 46-43 difference. Knowing how the MSM tends to run their polls, oversampling Democrats, those numbers are terrible for Hillary and the Democrats. If, after a year of constant bashing and character-assassination attempts, the difference between the two candidates in an MSM poll is still that tight, reality might be worse for them than they realize. The reason Clinton won the popular vote is largely because of California (and voter fraud in Detroit and other Leftist cities, but we’ll ignore that for the time being). Take California out of the equation and Trump annihilates Hillary in popular vote as well. That’s why we have the Electoral College, so that one state doesn’t decide the election for the whole country.
 
Next, the 40-40 tie. Yet another sign as to why the Democrats are in major trouble. The previous numbers were about real voters. About how they had voted in the election. Those are previous numbers. The 40-40 tie makes things worse for the Left because it means that, out of those voters sampled, 40% of them would vote Clinton (meaning that 6% of them wouldn’t vote for her again) and 40% of them would vote Trump (meaning 3% of them wouldn’t vote for him again).
 
Typically, support for the loser of an election tends to slide, but this is simply devastating for the Clintons. Hillary was horrendously unpopular a year ago and her image has only worsened since then.
 
Of course, I won’t be so quick to believe the MSM when they say a decent amount of people would not vote for Trump again. I believe them when they say people wouldn’t vote for Clinton again, but not when they say people wouldn’t vote for Trump again. Why? Because they have no reason to lie about Hillary’s numbers dropping, but they have every reason in the world to say Trump’s numbers are dropping.
 
Other than covering the Russia story, the MSM has spent their time running b.s. polls that have Trump’s approval numbers trying to break the 40% mark. That’s just another part of the effort to smear Trump. Another part of the character-assassination effort. But it’s not working. If it were, THE WASHINGTON POST WOULDN’T WRITE A STORY DEPICTING TRUMP AS THE WINNER!
 
Of course, even the Washington Post writer has to try to take down Trump as well in a story saying he’d win again. According to WaPo: “… even as Trump’s disapproval rating has reached a new high of 59 percent, he has still got enough of a base to win reelection if there was a rematch today. Of course, that’s if he wound up facing the same historically unpopular Democratic nominee that he did in 2016… Trump certainly can’t count on facing another opponent who is so unpopular in 2020… he can still win under the right circumstances. The kind of circumstances he was in a year ago today, for example.”
 
I won’t argue that part of the reason Trump won is because Hillary was a disaster of a candidate. In fact, even I have said that that’s one of the reasons why Trump won. But here’s the thing: that’s not the only reason.
 
If the Democrats’ best hope is to get a candidate that doesn’t majorly suck, they are on the fast track to yet another election loss. How do I know this? Take a look at some of the recent special election results. It’s entirely arguable that nearly every Democrat candidate was better than Hillary Clinton, or at least more likable. And the Republican candidates they faced likely aren’t as popular as Trump is. And yet, the Democrats have lost every significant election this past year.
 
You can clearly see that Democrats have been largely unpopular, even in elections they should’ve easily won. Take Montana for example. Or Georgia.
 
What I’m saying is that a candidate that is more likable than Clinton would do very little for the Democrats. Let’s look at some of the potential prospects for the Democrat Party, shall we?
 
First, there’s Bernie Sanders. Provided he lives for another three years, Bernie would be a decent candidate for the Democrat Party. He’s an open socialist and knows nothing about the economy or much of anything. He’s the prototypical Democrat candidate. He would get the Millennial vote because my generation will likely go down in history as the worst to have ever lived. But I still don’t think he would win against Trump. Why? Because from a conservative’s point of view, he’s even worse than Hillary.
 
Next, there’s Kamala Harris. A rising star in the Democrat Party, but by 2020, it’s likely that Trump supporters will see her as just as unfavorable as Hillary Clinton. Being from a 21st Century California, it’s hard for anyone outside that state to like her. She certainly wouldn’t draw any Trump supporters, because she, too, is just another socialist.
 
I won’t discuss this much further, given my time constraints, but I’ll end things off with this: the Democrat Party is in total disarray. Trump’s support only continues to grow. The Democrat Party will likely lose in 2018 if people vote for conservative challengers to RINO seats, which is a great possibility.
 
Every Democrat effort to stop Trump has been a total failure. And I don’t think going full-on socialist is going to help them just yet. The country is still too conservative and Christian for that. Millennials may be the most ignorant generation to walk the Earth, but there’s still conservatives among them, as you can clearly see given just who is writing these articles.
 
I don’t see the Democrat Party winning again any time soon.
 
1 Corinthians 15:57
“But thanks be to God, who gives us victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”