The Democrats’ shallow bench
I seems true that the Democrats have a very shallow bench. But will it matter? After all, there may be enough people so seduced by the left and/or so beholden to big government that they are the proverbial yellow dog Democrats, willing to vote for anyone who bears the stamp.
That would mean that even most knavish/foolish/unappealing of Democratic presidential candidates will have a lock on the election. Or America may turn away:
If we look at all these factors, the common theme is that the Democrats have been undone by their most basic priority. Their lust for aggrandizing more power to government””increasing its scope, its cost, its reach, and its centralization””has undermined their ability to gain and hold the majorities necessary to wield that power. It was more important to them to push through a big new entitlement than to listen to the voters. It was more important for them to recruit what they believed would be a solid far-left bloc of minority constituencies than to show anything but contempt for those backward rednecks in the heartland. It was more important for them to aggrandize the power of a central individual (or couple) than to build a broad nationwide base of leadership. And it is more important for them to be reactionary guardians of the welfare and regulatory state than to contemplate any reform of it.
Call this the Paradox of Power. To the extent Democrats have hollowed out their party, it is because their greed for more government power has undermined their ability to hold on to it.
Boy do I hope that’s true. It really depends on the American public.
[Note: Somewhat related, but somewhat unrelated: there’s Obama’s failure in Asia, something I hadn’t heard much about before.
And Joe Lieberman (‘member him?) reminds us that there actually used to be Democrats who were moderate and relatively reasonable, with a concern for the Constitution. Of course, we know what happened to Joe Lieberman at the hands of his party.]
Neo: “willing to vote for anyone who bears the stamp”
As likely or more likely, roused to vote against anyone who bears the stigma.
I volunteered for Lieberman because of his stance on Iraq and recently wrote him a thank-you letter for the same reason. He responded. A brief response, but appreciated nonetheless.
The Obama administration’s ‘failure in Asia’ is part and parcel of a set of behaviors and policies that have greatly reduced America’s global influence.
The linked article assumes it to be incompetence but given Obama and the left’s agreement with George Soros that “The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States. For my agenda to advance, I need to have America come down in a controlled descent, not a complete crash.”… if these actions and policies were instead intentional, how would they differ from what the Obama administration has done?
This question has been repeatedly asked by many and I have yet to see a reasoned response that answers that question.
I wonder about the bench. You’d think there would be a dozen prospects nosing about, at least up to now.
I wonder if, starting with Craig Livingston (aka “who?”) and his three hundred FBI files, plus whatever else they glommed over two administrations and since, a number of folks have been warned off.
It’s early. Don’t forget how rapidly they can manufacture a narrative.
C’mon, Dems..!! Here’s a Fresh & New idea!! Al Gore…!! Please….Please…..PLEEEAAASSSEEE..!!
Fauxahontas, Bernie Sanders, Al Gore? Bring it!
Jim Webb would worry me…..a lot. But that’s just me.
The Democrat party has entirely focused on providing more succor and illusion to the LIV.
(Lower Income Voter)
No attention has been paid to expanding the fruit supply of the American economic engine.
This type of politics was the undoing of the ancient Romans and Chinese — imploding both societies without any viable external threat.
&&&
Taken far enough, with enough low (economic) performance immigrants, the per capita GDP implodes.
People really do take their genes and culture with them.
So a society composed of White Northern Europeans 50% and Mexican illegal aliens 50% is going to have the economic character of both groups blended together.
The result must be plunging GDP per capita.
&&&&&&
It is mathematically, statistically, wrong to conflate this alien invasion with the flood of Europeans that occurred a century ago.
The numbers are massively different.
The cultures are strikingly different — since La Rasa is entirely against the adoption of English — and most elements of English common law.
Similar to Farrakhan, La Rasa wants a balkanized America wherein the economic goods flow like honey — but they and their cousins don’t have to change their culture — free riding ‘the system’ forever and ever. ( NOI is working to that same script, too.)
&&&&&
Never stated, but entirely relevant: the barrier to entry — the cost of transit — was fantastically higher a century ago. The result was that the dumbest, most crippled, aged, etc. never made the trip.
Such a statistical partition of a population causes a sever skew in its genetics. You end up with a sub-set that is younger, brighter, healthier, more energetic than what ever population pool they left behind.
THIS is the primary reason why America was such a land of opportunity.
And at the frontier, this subset of the distribution was even more pronounced. Stupidity, sloth and lack of wisdom eliminated oneself from the gene pool — and rather quickly, too. Just ask the Donner party.
De facto open borders — and a welfare state — means that all of the previous performance bias will be erased in less than two generations.
The outside world has an average IQ of 87 — and is approximately 80 times the size of the American nation.
The better part of 80% of those living outside America want to move to be inside America. The only thing holding most back is finances.
When polled, most Europeans want to immigrate to America — even now. That’s every other German, Frenchmen, Italian, Englishman, Pole, Serb, Spaniard,… the works. And they are in the First World.
It must be obvious to even a dunce that nothing like such an influx could be tolerated — if America is to remain America.
In the meantime, permitted epic Mexican flight from that nation into America has entirely removed that sub-set of the Mexican population that would force political changes upon the oligarchy that runs that nation.
Indeed, there is every reason to believe that the elites of that nation are in league with the criminals that are manipulating this situation, after a fashion, slave trading.
The “shallow bench” is one of the biggest reasons I think there is a good possibility Michelle Obama could be nominated. If you take out Hillary it’s look out down below for the Dems and anything can happen.
Jim Webb? It would be much better for the country if he were nominated but there is not a chance now the Dems will nominate a pro-American candidate. The Michael Moore left that runs the party will not allow it. That is exactly why Lieberman, and Zell Miller, were drummed out of the party.
My existential question is “Who wants to live in a country that voted for Barack Hussein Obama twice?” Wasn’t once enough? But, where to go? Suggestions, please.
PatD: Central Switzerland. Heaven.
Pat D., If you have enough money ($3 million or more), New Zealand is nice. It’s very socialistic, but it works pretty well – homogenous population, small, isolated country, and they speak English. Also have a fondness for law and order.
Don’t know what the tab is to immigrate to Switzerland. I’m sure there is a steep price. If you go to the German speaking area, it’s orderly, clean, and the scenery is spectacular.
.
}}} [Note: Somewhat related, but somewhat unrelated: there’s Obama’s failure in Asia, something I hadn’t heard much about before.
If you understand that Obama’s intention is to REDUCE America’s power and stature in the world… well, wow, that’s not a failure at all…
.
blert:
}}} The numbers are massively different.
Allow me to provide you with some highly graphic visuals. The numbers stop with the 2000 census, but one can hardly imagine they’re better. And they only statistically account for illegals.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/03/10/us/20090310-immigration-explorer.html?_r=0
Note that “Bubble size is proportional to population”
1) Click the link
2) Note the slider. Move it back to 1880
3) Note the “all countries” pulldown. Pick a nation. Say “Germany”.
4) Now, slide it forward to show the decade-by-decade progression
5) Now, repeat steps 2-4 with a different nation, say, “Italy”
6) Now repeat 2-4 with MEXICO, and tell me you don’t believe there’s a qualitative difference. If you do, I will call you an IDIOT.
A shame it wasn’t updated with 2010 Census stats.
JJ: “It’s very socialistic, but it works pretty well — homogenous population, small, isolated country, and they speak English. Also have a fondness for law and order.”
Those are more or less the reasons that the military version of socialism is more functional than its civilian counterparts, at least in American society.
Socialism can work. But. The cause and effect of socialism are often reversed by liberals (I mean the genuinely well-meaning ones, not the disguised leftists). Socialism doesn’t create functional society. It’s not a solution to social ills. Rather, functional society allows for socialism if that society has the right mix of social-cultural, demographic, and economic conditions necessary to underpin a functional socialist system.
Mess with the mix and socialism doesn’t work.
Eric: “Rather, functional society allows for socialism if that society has the right mix of social-cultural, demographic, and economic conditions necessary to underpin a functional socialist system.”
Very true.