All errors should be reported to DonSurber@gmail.com

Wednesday, March 20, 2019

Democrats are looking for a McGovern

President Donald John Trump's excitement about the upcoming presidential election is not bravado. Democrats sense what Republicans sensed in 2007.

Defeat.

The president told Breitbart News, "We went to Alabama, and from the airplane to the site where the tornado was there were people lined up five deep — you see it, you were there with us? Did you see the pictures? I mean, like, thousands and thousands of people from the plane all the way out to the site — like it was a Fifth Avenue parade. But just to finish, when I was campaigning, I said I was going to do this, I was going to do that, I was going to do things. Now I’ve done them."

He has: tax reform, a booming economy, ending the Obamacare mandate, mass judicial appointments of conservatives, reduction of regulations, VA reform, health reform, an one I don't particularly like, criminal justice reform.

We are getting free trade agreements that work two ways. NATO allies are keeping their promises. North Korea is denuking. No country has denuked before.

Democrats have thrown everything at him including the kitchen sink, the neighbor's kitchen sink, and the entire kitchen sink factory.

His job approval rate keeps bobbing along. They need deplorable people in MAGA hats to abandon him.

Hahaha.

Get bent.

Which leads us to the Democrat Party nomination. It is the Old Maid card as it was in 1952, 1956, 1972, 1984, and 1988.

Republicans won big in each race because they had big men running: Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan. OK, Reagan was not on the ballot in 1988 but the election was a referendum on him.

Look who Democrats ran: Adlai Stevenson twice, McGovern in 1972, and Mondale and Dukakis.

All were big-time bleeding heart liberals who embarrassed that wing of the party.

The fellows who got elected were more centrist: Kennedy in 1960, Carter in 1976, and Clinton in 1992.

In 2008, that pattern of tossing liberals to the wolves while winning with centrists ended in 2008 when liberals outfoxed the Clinton Dynasty and won the nomination with Barack Hussein Obama who hid his liberalism well.

As President Trump's re-election begins to look inevitable, look for Democrats to lean left.

24 comments:

  1. I can hardly wait for them to start promising all the freebies and programs they'll be rolling out, for your own good of course. And if you have to pay more in taxes, have fewer jobs and a much weaker economy that's just the cost of voting in democrats.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Actually, Libya's Ghaddafi gave up his nuclear program but we ended up causing his death so Kim might have some trepidation that the same might happen to him

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point. But he had not developed a nuke, which is what I meant.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, I thought of Qaddafi too.
      But, while he gave up his nuclear program, he did not, arguably, "denuke" per Don's wording.
      He had the program but did not get to the point of owning nuclear bombs.
      JimNorCal

      Delete
    3. The country you're looking for here is South Africa.

      Delete
    4. Actually, South Africa de-nuked in the early 1990s.

      Delete
    5. If they, south africa, had not, there would be a half-life dead zone where that region is, tribal compulsions being what they are thereabouts.

      Delete
    6. Let's not overlook what happened to Ukraine when they agreed to give up their nukes because both the U.S. and Russia said that they would protect them.

      Delete
    7. Yep.

      They did not get to start a nuclear war, for one thing not to overlook.

      Delete
    8. South Africa gave up its nukes in 1993, which they had developed on their own. Three former Soviet states inherited nukes when the USSR collapsed: Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan, but gave them up soon after, after being promised protection. That promise was never kept.

      Delete
    9. To have a nuke and to use it.

      To have a nuke and to not use it.

      To have only a nuke.

      The potency of a nuke is not to be found in having one. Or even a few.

      Thus, no nuke(s) is better than one nuke, kr a few nukes.

      Potency resides in having so many nukes that make using one equal using all.

      Other than this, only sitting on a pile of self destruction, waiting for the errant fart to set it off.

      Delete
  3. The democrat "contenders" are clamoring for the Electoral College to be eliminated and the total national popular vote to decide who is elected as President.

    This proposed change should be given a trial run.

    Thus, the democrats should determine their candidate for President by using precisely the method they clamor for being used in the actual national election.

    The democrat primary for their candidate for the Presidency should be a nation wide totaling of votes, with the democrat candidate having the most votes being annointed as the democrat candidate for President.

    In the name of all that the democrats claim they hold dear, this must be so.

    The democrat definition of democracy demands this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point. But then again, they don't care. Democracy is not a principle to them, only a pathway to power. They don't really believe in it at all. Just look at the way they govern, and get what they want. Beaten at the ballot box? Get a bribed crooked judge with skin in the game to make your law for you, or get your law made through "administrative law courts", or via regulations by unaccountable bureaucrats. "Democracy" is merely a rhetorical tool.

      Delete
    2. Well, T-Doc, it's not a rhetorical tool if the voters who vote democrat vote it to not be merely a rhetorical tool.

      Thus, IF the voters who vote democrat demand that the democrat party determine it's democrat party presidential candidate by the democrat candidate for the national office of President who gets the most votes in the democrat party primary nationwide, what can the democrat party do? What will the democrat party do?

      In fact, were the democrat voters to act in their version of MAGA, the votes of the people trump the schemings of the democrat political overlords, what might happen?

      More popcorn, please?

      Delete
    3. I think the last election went a long way to prove that the Democrat party is not democratic. So I also don't see the dem voters changing the way the party works.

      By the way, the Republican Party is not democratic, either, but at least they aren't hypocritical about it by their choice of name.

      Delete
    4. Oh hell YES! At every opportunity each of the dem candidates should be challenged with the question of why they aren't DEMANDING a national popular vote system for the dem primaries.
      It could be done tomorrow. No legislation needed. Sow. Reap.

      Delete
    5. Now, T-Doc, how are the democrat voting voters gonna feel the realities of the democrat political party, whose candidates they vote for, if they, the democrat voting voters, are not offered the idea of the opportunity to prove that their chosen political party, the democrat party, is truly the party of the will of the majority of the democrat voting voters?

      Are you suggesting that the democrat voting voters do not desire to prove their own political party is superior in this manner, superior in valuing the will of the majority of democrat voting voters, by enthusiastically embracing the most clearly democratic means of selecting the democrat party candidate for President?

      I do believe that the democrat voting voters would want to chime in on this issue.

      Seeing as the democrat political party politicians have been stridently proclaiming their support of the standard of nationwide popular vote total being the only democracy pure standard possible.

      Thus, why would the democrat poltical party not support their own publicly proclaimed position, by providing it to their own democrat voting voters in the fast approaching democrat political party primary for the elected office of our nation's Executive Branch, the Presidency?

      The democrat political party should, in all fairness, be called upon, by the democrat voting voters, to live to it's publicly stated standards.

      Delete
    6. I didn't say it wasn't a good idea. Actually, I hope someone gets Trump to tweet about it.

      Delete
    7. Now, dammit, T-Doc!!!!

      Does he have to do every fucking thing?

      Twiiter, facebook (gag), instagram (4 the memes, baby!!!), the democrat blogs' comments (yes, disgusting, but wet work always is....), fuck, a tweet elegantly composed is likely to trend!!!!!

      Shit!!!! Fucking get 'er going!!!

      Our MAGA President is not the only MAGA minded person in existence!!!!

      Delete
  4. Sounds like a great plan. Maybe Louis Farrakhan will decide to run.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Nixon got re-elected, but he was much less the crook than Trump.

    Perhaps Trump should fight more twitter battles with dead people? That's the classlessness that only his 35% can appreciate, and all other Americans should find disgusting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, let's get those other 65% of classy voters to demand that the democrat political party choose it's candidate for the democrat party's choice of president by total national popular vote. Not state by state democrat party delegates, nor democrat party super delegates, which is how the democrat party chose clinton, but by the very method the democrat political current candidates are demanding.

      Why, the lovely democrat city of chicago does it this way!!!!!

      Why not the national democrat political party?

      C'mon, you rascal, you!!!!

      Make it happen!!!!

      After all, democracy depends upon you!!!!

      Delete
  6. Bill Clinton is a liberal but saw that to get elected he had to be a moderate. He helped to found the Democrat Leadership Council (DLC) wghich was business-friendly. The far left hated it.

    Clinton was pro-death penalty, and took a night off from campaigning to witness the execution of cop-killer Ricky Lee Rector. He said he supported abortion that was "safe, legal, and rare."

    Clinton would probably have been a one-term wonder if Newt and the "Republican Revolution" hadn't won big in 1994. Clinton spent his last six years offsetting (but not opposing) the GOP. That is how we got welfare reform.

    ReplyDelete
  7. While most of the Dems probably realize Trump will win, no matter who is chosen, they all want be the Dem nominee now, so they'll experienced in 2024. Since there is so little policy, or differences, they're all just doing a big screen test.

    ReplyDelete