Home » Those “moderate” Democrats

Comments

Those “moderate” Democrats — 45 Comments

  1. Trump’s people better monitor the absurd, radical left-wing things these “moderate” Democrat candidates are saying now during the primaries and in their debates and then throw them back in their faces when the media attempts to mold whoever emerges from the field as a “centrist” in an attempt to win over white women’s votes (the only demographic that is truly up for grabs). To win the primaries, the Dem candidates are jockeying to be more left-wing than the rest, but will immediately clam up for the general election.

  2. I’m not so sure the Dems have an equation that works. I think the dynamics are:
    1. Bernie wins the nomination, blowout win for Trump possibly, as people actually believe Sanders means all the things he says, which will scare the majority of voters and the monied powers that be.
    2. Mayor Pete nominated, bigger blowout by Trump. Bernie Bros stay home, Blacks and Hispanics at best stay home, at worst (for Dems) move in relatively big numbers to Trump, say 15-20%.
    3. Amy K nominated, Bernie Bros stay home, minorities unenthusiastic.Trump wins bigger than 2016.
    4. Pocahontas nominated—-just kidding.
    5. Biden nominated, unlikely at this point, but another blowout for Trump. Bernie Bros stay home, substantive corruption data emerge re the Bidens, lousy campaigner etc etc.
    6. Bloomberg buys the nomination, closer but Trump still wins. Closer because Bloomberg seems reasonable to those who don’t know what an arrogant autocrat he is, but still a win for Trump who will bring all that out, as Bloomberg really does think he’s the smartest, most virtuous person in the room. His temperament will betray him head on head with Trump. He really is a nasty guy. Plus see above re Bernie Bros and minorities.

    In short, they have to choose which of their fragmented base they are willing to give up in finalizing their candidate choice: Pick “Not Bernie” and lose the most energized portion of their base plus in most instances alienating or demotivating their minority factions.
    Pick Bernie and the Dem capitalists run for the hills, with the angry/ignorant youth vote too small to carry the day.

    I would be surprised if there isn’t a brokered convention. Then a “not running now” person might emerge. Please let that be Hilary. Just so I can vote against her again.

  3. I know I keep saying the same thing and others disparage it: but it’s a long time until November and never underestimate the opponent.

    Is physicsguy complaining that others are slapping his wrist or that they are not listening to him when he slaps theirs?

    We are mostly expressing opinions here. Me too. I sure hope no one takes my comments as absolute facts or what I imagine to be absolute facts — unless I am explicitly clear I am attempting to communicate facts.

    Commenters here are generally a smart group of people. I think everyone knows that it’s a long way to November and a lot could change between now and then. Do we really need to insert that bit of boilerplate each time we express our current optimism (or pessimism) about the election?

  4. Neither Pete nor Amy are at all “moderate” in their views. Both promise “Medicare for All”, both have voiced their support for open borders.

  5. The Trump turnout in New Hampshire is a sign that surprises this fall are unlikely.

    Take a look at turn out. More than twice the turnout for other incumbents the past 30 years and no population growth, I have read, to explain it. Over at Ricochet, one of the NeverTrumpers thought it was encouraging that Weld got 10%. No delegates.

  6. My wife and I are starting to look into moving to Hungary / Romania. We will implement these plans should Trump lose.

  7. huxley:

    My guess is that physicsguy wasn’t really addressing anything in particular or anyone in particular, just the general drift online on the right that Trump has it all sewn up.

  8. No, I don’t underestimate the intensity of Trump hatred out there, but I think that on the other hand Trump’s approval ratings are depressed by voters who will not admit that they support him. (They were called “shy Trump supporters” in 2016–and they may well have been the difference in the election that pollsters didn’t pick up.)

    And I also realize that Democrat candidates have historically run to the left in the primaries and then tacked to the center for the general election. But I can’t recall them ever have run this far to the left. Even though the media will provide cover, I don’t see how whoever is the nominee will be able to successfully disavow the far-left positions he or she has all taken in the primaries.

  9. Bernie’s unusual inasmuch as he has a long history with third party operations, uses labels ordinarily considered the kiss-of-death in American politics, and was an avid consumer of Trotskyist literature into middle age.

    In addition, in the last 60 years, a number of presidential candidates have been smeared by opponents or by the media over their military service record. It’s almost invariably something done by partisan Democrats. There have been in that time only two actual draft dodgers who have been consequential presidential candidates: Bill Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

    That having been said, the main difference between Sanders and rest are Bernie’s purely personal qualities (advanced age, a lack of personal accomplishment before entering electoral politics, ba*tard children) and certain points of emphasis. The grotesque identity politics abroad in the Democratic Party is tacked on rather than built into his shtick. OTOH, fulminating at the wealthy is very much built into it.

    All of the Democrats will appoint horrible people to the federal courts, lard up the IRS and the security state apparatus with abusive partisan Democrats, allow mass importation of illegal aliens, institute a de facto amnesty or play lawfare games which will provide a conduit for horrible federal judges to institute a de jure one, do nothing about routinized electoral fraud, wage war on all state-level efforts to clean up the voter rolls, make use of the Department of Education to harass their declared social enemies on college campuses, make use of such federal levers as they can to ensure that the political opposition is driven off college campuses and subject to antifa assaults on the street while at the same time harassing local law enforcement which seeks to control real crime. Another object will be federal legislation which will generate more official harassment of cultural minorities like evangelicals.

  10. Thank you Mike K! I read the same thing, plus 20% of Trumps audience in NH was Democrat. However, the Republicans should not get complacent.

    As a life long Democrat who became an Independent after the last election; Mayor Pete makes my skin crawl. He was trying to channel Obama after NH. He is no Obama.

  11. “I don’t see how whoever is the nominee will be able to successfully disavow the far-left positions he or she has all taken in the primaries.” [TMigratorious @ 3:40 above]

    I can’t see how the Trump campaign will allow them to disavow their far-left positions.

    I was going to write that I don’t see how Democrats can win (not intending to be cocky) because they are only running on anti-Trump (anti-success?) and implementing out-of-touch social programs (Medicare for all, free college education, forgiveness of student debt, etc.). None of them are running on the basis that: “Trump has done a good job with the economy, but we can build on that and improve it” (IMO they pretty much know their administration wouldn’t).

    In reading the comments above, it seems as though most comments above imply exactly this point.

    Expanding on T Migratorious’ comment about shy Trump voters, a client of mine is a lifelong, steel-working, JFK, split-ticket voting, Democrat and s/he felt the need to share with me that s/he will, for the first time ever, be voting a straight Republican ticket this year because of the raw deal that the Democrats have foisted upon Trump. Like Mike K above, I suspect that there are many. many more voters just like this out there. (From this thread to God’s ears).

  12. I read this earlier at Issues and Insights. It describes some of Trump’s personal acts of charity. I think this is what his followers see in him, but this kind of info needs to get out:

    https://issuesinsights.com/2020/02/12/the-facts-about-trump-that-are-deadly-for-democrats/

    I also listened to an interview on Epoch Times with Ben Carson, where he describes a program they started for people who are aged out of foster care that helps them find a place to live and get started building their lives. This also sounds like something Trump would care about. Can you imagine the Jane Fondas of the left even knowing such people exist? They virtue signal by pushing for more welfare payments.

  13. Huxley, Neo has the correct interpretation of what I am saying….nothing personal to anyone here. And yes, I do insert some boilerplate as I think there’s some undue optimism here and in general on the right.

    Klobuchar: note how yesterday she is now claiming how “moderate” she is, and how courageous for being the only candidate to not endorse a democratic socialist in the debate. She is definitely playing for the moderate D vote. If she can claim the Biden, Gabbard, Steyer, Yang, and Bennett votes she can easily move into 2nd place. She just then needs to take Buttigieg down. Like I said before, Trump needs to give her a nickname. Apply some Alinsky to her.

  14. . . . Even though the media will provide cover, . . .

    While I do not know to a certainty, i.e. cannot prove the following to my own satisfaction, I suspect that there is a fundamental problem with the fragment proposition quoted above — namely, the viewers or readers to whom the media have heretofore propagandized are no longer viewing or reading the media’s crapola. Ain’t nobody (massive) paying attention the way they used to. Trust is out the window. People just aren’t buying the way they used to. And perhaps worse for the Democrat media operatives, those missing viewers/readers are now browsing for information elsewhere and finding it in places and with opinions the Democrat media cannot abide. Just a thought.

  15. Nothing is certain in American politics. Personally, I agree 100% with Bill’s assessment above.

    My guess is that until about 8:30pm ( local Chicago time – adjust as necessary ) most people, even ardent pro-Trumpers thought Hillary would win the election. I know I did.

    President Trump seems very likely to be re-elected. But strange political things happen here in America.

    As in 2016.

  16. MEO: I have considered eastern Europe as potentially the only remaining not-insane place in the world where Anglosphere refugees would not be blatantly out of place, but how’s the corruption situation in those regions? Are there forums where US expats congregate?

  17. expat,

    Funny you should mention Jane Fonda. Did you see her tweet (see Ed Driscoll’s post today over at Instapundit—-1:45 pm)?

    The quote:

    “At Oscars wearing Pomellato jewelry because it only uses responsible, ethically harvested gold and sustainable diamonds.” The common touch!

    (BTW sustainable diamonds?)

  18. Yep, I see both Buttigieg and Klobuchar as “stealth” candidates. I hope that Trumps campaign manager is keeping a share eye out on those two. Remember that BO did the same thing – I’m a moderate – but he wasn’t. A long way to go to Nov.

  19. I simply don’t believe there is anything like a “moderate” democrat candidate left. They’re all deranged extremists who are conniving to hide what they actually believe from the electorate as a whole, who would scream and run the other way if they understood how hostile these people are to America and the people who live here.

    Their problem with Sanders seems to be that he isn’t lying adeptly enough to keep the secret from the rubes, thus potentially causing them to recoil in horror and perhaps vote for Orangemanbad.

    Their more serious problem is that in Trump they have an actual opponent who is competent enough to fight back, unlike prior Republicans.

    Yeah, they’re screwed.

  20. T,
    I read that.I didn’t know gold was harvested. I thought it was mined. I guess you have to take your diamonds off before you get in the shower so they don’t melt.

    BTW, the ratings for the Oscars were lower than ever. I guess people are sick of being talked down to by their betters.

  21. Good Old “Lock Him Up Amy K” has one incredible strong point and that is that she is a woman. A lot of women were so very ready to see Hillary get elected because she, in spite of all of her negatives, was a woman. Once the field gets down to one candidate after the election if that candidate is a woman all of the celebrity lefties will line up to march along with her. I hope I am wrong about this.

  22. xennady,

    Trump’s super power seems to be to force his opponents to reveal themselves as they really are. IMO he has done a good job at this and I don’t think that between that and with his election team willing to fight back that there is any room for a Democrat nominee to hide as a so-called moderate. At least not in this election cycle.

    The house elections are a different story, since many of those districts are gerrymandered into safe Dem or Republican districts.

  23. expat,

    What? You mean gold ISN’T harvested from the golden barrel cactus or fetched by a golden retriever? Silly me.

  24. And just in from Ace of Spades HQ (ace,mu,nu):

    Pelosi: I’ve Got a Smart New Strategy For Taking Out Trump. We’re Going to Fight On the Terrain Where He’s the Weakest — The Economy
    —Ace

    Actually, they’re testing out two different messages, each of which completely contradicts the other:

    1, The economy is, despite your lyin’ eyes, terrible.

    2, The economy is great and it’s all because of Obama.

    Even Democrats should be able to grasp that those two claims cannot be claimed at the same time.

    But they’re trying anyway

  25. I’ve seen that “this is really Obama’s economy” line a number of times already. They’re counting on the electorate being stupid.

  26. The other thing about Klobuchar is that she’s running as a “Minnesota nice” moderate. Reports are that she isn’t “nice” with staff. Unlike Hillary, who had a group of long-time committed loyalists around her, there will be another uproar about staff with Klobuchar, and she won’t skate away from it like Hillary. Think of the recent story about Warren’s staff in Nevada.

  27. “Even Democrats….”

    Um, sorry, no, NOT even Democrats.

    If it hurts Trump, they’ll believe it.
    Because they want to believe it.
    Because they’ve been conditioned to believe it.
    It’s been drummed into them and they perhaps even need to believe it.
    (The devil doesn’t exist? OK, let’s create one.)

    And they’ll believe it even if in the process they themselves get hurt, badly hurt. (They’ll see themselves as unselfish heroes or at the very least as the ultimate utilitarians.)

    So that any suffering will be grim but determined, difficult but uplifting—spiritual, cleansing—and so will have been worth it. For the wall-to-wall demonization of the man and his supporters has been so comprehensive, so successful, so enticingly malicious that I’m not even sure that at this point the demonizers are aware of what they’re doing. The point is that Trump must be driven from office by any means necessary. The point is to hate.

    So that holding two contradictory beliefs at one time without missing a beat is no sweat. This is precisely the “doublethink” that Orwell explained to us in “1984”. (That is, those of us who were paying attention.)

    Most in the West thought Orwell was exaggerating, that what he described wasn’t realistic, couldn’t be true. Dripped with poetic license.

    But Soviet citizens who came across the book (most likely as samizdat) were amazed to discover that someone outside the Iron Curtain could so accurately capture the debasement, the perversity, the daily mental torture that they were forced to undergo; so clearly describe how they were forced to live and what they had to do to survive. Who understood their ongoing nightmare and anguish.

    It used to be that “1984” was clearly understood to be a warning. Depressingly, the events of the past three years indicate that wide swaths of the country have embraced precisely that which Orwell was so vehemently warning against.

    And—fittingly—they’ve embraced it “for the greater good” (while quoting Orwell and using him as a cudgel to be wielded against their political opponents).

    It would be very hard to get more Orwellian than that…

  28. T Migratorious on February 12, 2020 at 3:40 pm said:
    … Even though the media will provide cover, I don’t see how whoever is the nominee will be able to successfully disavow the far-left positions he or she has all taken in the primaries.
    * * *
    At the moment, Bloomberg is being forced to disavow his previous “far right” positions. That’s quite a pincer movement.

    Most of the election territory has been covered above (excellent summary of the State of the Disunion), but I want to explore something which involves the media cover.

    Back last fall, I was moaning that all Trump had to do on that phone call to Ukraine was NOT mention Biden by name, and then there was no real handle for the Democrats’ impeachment process.

    BUT — what if that call-out was a feature, not a bug?

    Democrats after Mueller’s flame-out were starting to control the narrative again and shut out any mention of his achievements, while focusing attention on their own candidates.
    President Trump might have looked around for something to move the camera back to himself (not that it is really ever off him, but it only leads if it bleeds).
    Knowing there really was no there there; that the meaning of is, sometimes is just is; that there were no guns smoking on the mantelpiece; and that the Senate had the votes for acquittal absent any real evidence of something that hadn’t happened — maybe, just maybe, he decided to scatter gas on the derelict house and light a match.

    The Democrats couldn’t even handle being the fire brigade successfully.

    Big gamble, but that’s what Trump has always done.

  29. expat on February 12, 2020 at 4:02 pm said:
    I read this earlier at Issues and Insights. It describes some of Trump’s personal acts of charity. I think this is what his followers see in him, but this kind of info needs to get out:

    https://issuesinsights.com/2020/02/12/the-facts-about-trump-that-are-deadly-for-democrats/
    * * *
    Those kind of stories were already coming out in 2016, and maybe Trump didn’t play them up because he is genuinely humble about that, or didn’t think people would believe they were authentic — I know some didn’t.

    The lack of blowing one’s own charitable horn also affected the candidacy of the Ice Prince formerly known as Governor.

    I have noticed that the people who do blow a trumpet while dispersing alms in the marketplace have a noticeably scant aid-to-overhead ratio.
    Oddly, a lot of them seem to be on the left side of the aisle.

  30. From expat’s link:

    These examples, which have been independently verified, were first compiled along with others at Townhall by Liz Crokin. As an entertainment journalist, Crokin “had the opportunity to cover Trump for over a decade,” and in all of those years, she “never heard anything negative about the man until he announced he was running for president.”

    “Trump’s kindness knows no bounds and his generosity has and continues to touch the lives of people from every sex, race and religion,” she wrote. “When Trump sees someone in need, he wants to help.”

    Of course Trump’s acts of kindness, wildly inconsistent with his public persona, aren’t predictive of a successful presidency. But they don’t fit the outlandish caricatures sketched out by his opponents, and are therefore dangerous to their agenda.

    Trump’s personal generosity is also the complete opposite of the Democratic Party’s campaign to replace private benevolence with government programs funded by collectivist methods. Any hint of wealthy Americans voluntarily helping others has to be buried, as they are the host organisms in a parasitic arrangement. The Democrats’ political future depends on keeping voters as far away from facts as possible.

    Actually, quite a few negative things have always been said about Trump, but I think she is overstating her case to make the point about his (relatively) unheralded, spontaneous acts of personal charity.

  31. Someone (here?) has remarked that Donald J. Trump is the P. T. Barnum of our generation.
    Hard to argue with that.

  32. And yes, I do insert some boilerplate as I think there’s some undue optimism here and in general on the right.

    physicsguy: But why do you say it is undue? The reasons you’ve mentioned are generic: (1) the future is uncertain, (2) Democrats will work hard to win, (3) Democrats hate Trump.

    Those were true in 2016 as well, yet Trump won, admittedly by the skin of his teeth in the Electoral College, but he won. In 2020 Trump is in a far superior position against Democrat opponents who are even less viable than Hillary.

    One can always say, “Don’t get cocky,” as Han Solo said in “Star Wars” and Instapundit endlessly recycles. But other than that generic advice, is there any circumstance in which you would “give in” to optimism with respect to an election some months off?

    I am optimistic about Trump’s reelection in November. I’d like to say that without enumerating all the obvious caveats and disclaimers that about the uncertainty of the future, my lack of infallibility, the inexhaustible energy of Democrats to win etc.

    I’d rather believe I am speaking informally with peers about the world as we see it, as opposed to a group of activists being policed for opinions which may detract from the goals of our Great Movement.

  33. Reports are that she isn’t “nice” with staff.

    Highest turnover in the Senate.

    Supposedly Klobuchar’s father has a history of dipsomania, which may have generated an aversion to the sauce on her part. Hellary has funny William Holden-style accidents. Hillary favors throwing lamps, Klobuchar heavy looseleaf binders. Hillary says ‘f!ck’ a great deal.

  34. Cicero on February 12, 2020 at 6:39 pm said:
    Democrats are liars, and will nominate a liar who will lie and lie and lie.
    * * *
    Who was that centrist moderate again?

    https://libertyunyielding.com/2020/02/12/in-hs-pete-buttigieg-won-an-essay-contest-praising-bernie-sanders-and-socialism/

    Bedford proceeds to chronicle some of the mayor’s more radical positions such as his support for late-term abortion, amnesty for illegal aliens who have not “committed serious crimes,” and abolishing the Electoral College.

    But if there any lingering questions about Mayor Pete’s position along the ideological spectrum, they are answered by an essay he wrote in 2000 that won him first place in a competition sponsored by the JFK Presidential Library and Museum. Buttigieg was in high school at the time.

    We usually talk about giving politicians a “pass” on their opinions in high school and even college, during their formative and experimental years, but that doesn’t mean we have to ignore what they were thinking at the time, when the current evidence indicates they haven’t changed.

  35. The calls to slow down Slow Joe are starting.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/02/11/joe-biden-help-democrats-beat-donald-trump-quit-2020-race-column/4667184002/

    Joe Biden would show selfless patriotism by quitting the 2020 Democratic nomination race
    Why not let the voters decide? Because Biden’s campaign isn’t going to work, and other Democrats need a chance to draw minority and centrist support.
    Peter Funt Opinion contributor Feb 11, 2020

    Funt makes all the arguments against Biden (although adding he did nothing illegal*) that Republicans have been making.
    If Joe did become the candidate, all Trump has to do is put some music and pictures to this op-ed.

    “Although Democrats and journalists strained to make clear that there is no evidence whatsoever of illegal behavior by either Biden, the stain caused by the proceedings is indelible.” – Funt

    The operative word is “strained.”

  36. This is what “moderate” Democrats are okay with.

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/02/new-york-city-thinks-it-has-power-to-tell-businesses-what-they-cant-sell/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=blog-post&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=more-in&utm_term=first

    In a piece published Wednesday, Soave recounts how the agency recently used its power to stop Prada from selling dolls that it had determined were racist caricatures that looked similar to blackface.

    The dolls had first become the subject of controversy back in December 2018, after civil-rights lawyer Chinyere Ezie shared a photo of them on social media. Ezie’s post, in which she stated that she was “shaking with anger” over them, went viral — prompting Prada to apologize and pull the dolls from shelves.

    “The resemblance of the products to blackface was by no means intentional, but we recognize that this does not excuse the damage they have caused,” Prada said in a statement at the time. “We will learn from this and we will do better.”
    Unfortunately for Prada, however, this wasn’t enough. Ezie still filed a complaint. What’s more, the commission sent Prada a “cease and desist,” and it had been investigating the company over the issue for the last year — until the two entities finally reached a deal on it just last week.

    The deal, the New York Times reports, includes a promise by Prada to send all of its New York City employees — and its Milan executives — to sensitivity training. Prada has also agreed to allow for external oversight of its business for two years, and to hire a diversity-and-inclusion director (one that has to be approved by the commission) who will be responsible for “reviewing Prada’s designs before they are sold, advertised or promoted in any way in the United States.” If you think that sounds like an absurd task for a single individual, you’re not alone: The Times piece itself notes in parentheses that, considering “the hundreds of products Prada creates every season, this is a pretty extraordinary task.”

    Zero Tolerance: School District Calls Cops on Six-Year-Old with Down Syndrome over Finger-Gun Gesture

    High School Students File Lawsuit to Block Transgender Athletes in Connecticut

    The Wrong Kind of ‘Intellectual Diversity’ at the Fed

    Barr Accepts Invitation to Testify before House Judiciary Committee

    AOC Introduces Bill to Ban Fracking Nationwide

    Warren Calls on Barr to ‘Resign or Face Impeachment’ over Intervention in Roger Stone Case

    Blackburn Proposes Bill to Ban Funding for States that Give Drivers’ Licenses to Illegal Immigrants

    House Intel Committee Republicans Boycott Hearing Due to Schiff’s Refusal to Address FISA Abuses

    What If It’s Bernie?

    What’s Happening with Bernie Happened with Trump

    Downward Go the Democrats

    The Republican Party Is Not Dying

    Diplomacy Alone Won’t End the Iranian Threat

    U.S. Officials Warn that Huawei Can Secretly Access Cell Networks

    Trump Congratulates AG Barr for ‘Taking Charge’ of Roger Stone Case

    More articles
    Previous articles
    ECONOMY & BUSINESS
    New York City Thinks It Has Power to Tell Businesses What They Can’t Sell
    By KATHERINE TIMPF
    February 12, 2020 2:24 PM

    People stand outside a Prada store on 5th Ave. in New York City, November 29, 2013. (Carlo Allegri/Reuters)
    The potential for infringement on individual liberty and free markets is self-explanatory.
    New York City’s Commission on Human Rights apparently believes that it has the right to stop private businesses from selling things that it considers to be offensive — and worse, at least one company isn’t pushing back.

    The commission, by the way, is an oversight agency that’s tasked with making sure that everyone follows the city’s anti-discrimination law — which, as Reason’s Robby Soave notes, is astonishingly broad.

    In a piece published Wednesday, Soave recounts how the agency recently used its power to stop Prada from selling dolls that it had determined were racist caricatures that looked similar to blackface.

    The dolls had first become the subject of controversy back in December 2018, after civil-rights lawyer Chinyere Ezie shared a photo of them on social media. Ezie’s post, in which she stated that she was “shaking with anger” over them, went viral — prompting Prada to apologize and pull the dolls from shelves.

    “The resemblance of the products to blackface was by no means intentional, but we recognize that this does not excuse the damage they have caused,” Prada said in a statement at the time. “We will learn from this and we will do better.”

    Unfortunately for Prada, however, this wasn’t enough. Ezie still filed a complaint. What’s more, the commission sent Prada a “cease and desist,” and it had been investigating the company over the issue for the last year — until the two entities finally reached a deal on it just last week.

    The deal, the New York Times reports, includes a promise by Prada to send all of its New York City employees — and its Milan executives — to sensitivity training. Prada has also agreed to allow for external oversight of its business for two years, and to hire a diversity-and-inclusion director (one that has to be approved by the commission) who will be responsible for “reviewing Prada’s designs before they are sold, advertised or promoted in any way in the United States.” If you think that sounds like an absurd task for a single individual, you’re not alone: The Times piece itself notes in parentheses that, considering “the hundreds of products Prada creates every season, this is a pretty extraordinary task.”

    Now, I’m not going to weigh in whatsoever on whether Prada should have been selling those dolls. Actually, I don’t think that anyone sane could see this story and think that that was what we should be talking about here. The point is that the New York City government should never be able to tell them that they can’t.

  37. There are no moderate Demorats, using the convention usage of the word moderate. A moderate supports abortion, racial preferences, more taxes, more regulations, more gun controls, more illegals, more crime. So when you use the term radical for someone like Bernie what we are talking about is gulag time and eating out of the same garbage can. I realize the low IQ demorat supporters will never admit it just as they shut reality out of their minds till they achieve the perfect Venezuela but thats what we have to deal with. At least 30% of the population would vote Demorat if their candidate was Satan.

    Trump wasn’t my first choice but he is a fighter and no other Republican could have withstood the slime storm the Marxists have hurled at him. No other could have proved to be Superman and stood up for truth, justice and the American way. This is demonstrated by his rallies where Americans realize for the first time since Reagan they have a champion who is one of them.

    Trump will win and it will be a landslide, he’ll take NJ, NH, Minn, VA, AR, NM. Col, and he’ll take the Congress. Because the Dems lied, they lied and kept lying. Worse in states like VA they went full Stalinist guaranteeing a Trump triumph.

    We can expect the usual race baiting, class warfare, lies, and gotchas. Yawn. As if the dems are such choirboys, we now know they are the most corrupt group of people this country has ever known. Even the mob wonders how the Dems did it.

  38. Recently the “NY Times” published an opinion piece lamenting the problem of America’s political center of gravity. Yeats wrote:

    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

    Indeed, as the graph based on their metrics shows, Democrats and Republicans are farther apart than ever. The authors make their biggest complaint about how the Republican Party is further to the right than British Conservatives. Fascism, ho!

    However, they are careful not to note that the Republican curve over time (2000-2016) wobbles a bit but only nets to a small rightward movement.

    But the corresponding Democrat curve takes a wild left turn at 2008 and ends way over to the left, so it is the Democrats who have gutted the center of American politics, not Republicans.

    Which is the takeaway any objective observer would have of American politics. Yet Democrats continually claim it is Republicans who have lurched horrifically to the right and have set the American Reich in motion.

    “What Happened to America’s Political Center of Gravity?”
    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/opinion/sunday/republican-platform-far-right.html

  39. Huxley,

    I think the disagreement we have is the difference between a pessimist and an optimist. I’m naturally a pessimist: plan for the worst and then be pleasantly surprised if things work out. My wife is an optimist. So I know how annoying pessimists are when you are an optimist. I hear about it all the time. 🙂

  40. physicsguy: So are you saying you are always pessimistic and you will always jump in with a pessimistic lecture if someone says something optimistic?

    That seems pretty mechanical. I may tend to optimism but it’s not like I never think of what could go wrong and make my plans for the worst.

    And yeah, it is annoying to have someone chime in like a broken clock with an obvious lecture about stuff I’ve already considered, as though I were incapable of such consideration.

    Sorry to be testy.

  41. Anything can happen between now and November. And all of us are limited to whichever part of the elephant we can feel from our own vantage points. I’m sure the trunk feels much more anti-Trump where Neo lives than the leg or tail feels here in East Tennessee.

    With those caveats and ass-coverings, I think it important to note:

    1. Trump’s approval among GOP voters is better than 90%. For all the bleating and braying of the anti-Trumpers, this is Yuuge. Ever since Bush I, most Republicans have voted for the nominee with little if any enthusiasm. By 2016, huge percentages were so disgusted with the beltway GOP they were in open rebellion. In 2020 however, the enthusiasm among rank and file party members is off the charts by comparison.

    2. Trump’s rock star rallies matter. I continue to be shocked by pundits who ignore their significance. This kind of energy and appeal ain’t normal. The election won’t be business as usual. I have no idea how it translates to votes in November, but it’s not nothing.

    3. Much evidence supports the claim that presidential elections come down to the state of the economy. Trump’s numbers say slam dunk.

    4. Democrats appear to be in disarray. If it continues, experience tells us this will hurt their eventual nominee in November. They also appear to have gone stark raving bonkers. 1972 tells us this is not a good sign for them.

    5. Trump is determined to reach out to minorities and what little polling we have seems to indicate that he has made gains there. About 1/4 of the attendees at his rallies are Dems and Independents. He looks to be forcing a bit of a political re-alignment. This could also be yuuge.

    6. Wild cards that could hurt. The news media has gone full TDS. Hard to tell if that even hurts him any more with independents. Clearly doesn’t hurt him with Republican voters. Democrats who wouldn’t vote for him anyway, now won’t vote for hims

    3.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>