Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the DNC category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘DNC’ Category

Minnesota came close to having unified Republican government in 2010, when Republicans swept into control of the State House and Senate while losing the governor’s race in a recount. With Republicans controlling the Senate and not up for election in 2018, Republicans can focus on strengthening their majority in the Minnesota House and electing a Republican governor. The DFL is in real trouble in the legislature. According to the article, “the Democratic National Committee announced in May it would give a $100,000 grant to the Minnesota Democratic Farmer Labor party for outreach to rural voters.”

That’s pretty laughable. The DFL has been well-funded for years, with DFL trust fund babies (Think Alita Messenger) writing big checks to the DFL. The DFL shouldn’t need outside help to connect with rural voters. I can save the DNC that $100,000. The problem isn’t that the DFL hasn’t reached out to rural Minnesota. It’s that those DFLers are attached to a cancer originating from Minneapolis and St. Paul. The DFL won’t like hearing this but it’s the truth: The Republican Party of Minnesota is the new home to farmers, miners and construction workers.

Skipping the convention is a sign Pawlenty has trouble with the modern GOP, said David Turner, spokesman for the Democratic Governors Association, who compared the Minnesota contest to the 2017 Virginia governor’s race—which was expected to be close but turned into a big victory for centrist Democrat Ralph Northam over moderate Republican Ed Gillespie.

“What we’ve seen in 2017 and 2018 is a high level of enthusiasm among Democratic voters,” Turner told Fox News. “Pawlenty is eerily similar to Ed Gillespie in Virginia. Both had harshly criticized President Trump in the past and lobbied for Wall Street. Now, Pawlenty is coming back to Minnesota and—like Gillespie—doesn’t know how to deal with the current Trump Republican party.”

The chance to elect, for the first time in Minnesota history, a unified Republican Party government is all the motivation Republicans will need this fall. The opportunity to fix the problems Dayton created but didn’t fix is great motivation. The opportunity to trash Minnesota’s socialist economic policies will be a great motivator, too.

I’d be in denial if I said that there aren’t some people who question Pawlenty. They definitely exist. That being said, he’s a reliable chief executive who is light years more trustworthy than Gov. Bobblehead, aka Gov. Dayton. A Pawlenty-Daudt-Gazelka trio of leaders would be able to get lots of good things done.

As for the DFL gubernatorial candidates, each have serious flaws. The first test for a candidate is picking a running mate. Rebecca Otto failed that test by making an identity politics choice. The first thing a running mate has to be is capable of running the state if, God forbid, something happens to the governor.

Here’s the opening sentence in the article:

DFL gubernatorial candidate Rebecca Otto has chosen Zarina Baber as her running mate, creating the possibility that if elected, Baber would be the first Muslim woman to hold statewide office in the United States.

Picking a nobody with no government experience is foolish. It’s impossible to take this pick as serious. This is purely an identity politics pick.

As for Tim Walz, his biggest flaws are that he’s got the worst of both worlds. He really isn’t a Twin Cities kind of guy but he doesn’t fit well with rural Minnesota, either. He once represented rural Minnesota but he lost that by playing politics with the NRA. When he pandered after Parkland, people saw that his values are ‘flexible’. That won’t fly during the age of Trump.

Erin Murphy’s biggest flaw is her being a true believer. She’s a single-payer advocate:

I am a supporter of single-payer and a co-author on John Marty’s Minnesota Health Plan. A full single-payer solution isn’t possible without federal participation, but we can build the infrastructure here in Minnesota and lead the nation.

Single-payer health care will never be the law of the land. This is totally foolish. If she wants to play to her base to win the endorsement, that’s fine. She’d better know, though, that it’ll cost her bigtime in the general election.

As for the Republicans’ majority in the House, the DFL can forget about flipping it. They voted for creating the hated buffer strips that are costing farmers tons of money. The DFL sat silent about the rebuild of the Line 3 Pipeline, which would’ve helped stabilize, if not decrease farmers’ property taxes. The DFL voted against the Republicans’ tax cuts in 2017, which has limited farmers’ property taxes.

It isn’t a matter of outreach. It’s a matter of voting for terrible policies. No amount of outreach will make amends for terrible policies.

Caitlin Huey-Burns’ article suffers from a credibility problem. Let’s be clear. Caitlin Huey-Burns doesn’t have a credibility crisis. It’s that Democrats have a credibility crisis.

Burns’ article opens by saying “As part of their midterm pitch to voters, congressional Democrats are unveiling a series of policy proposals Monday aimed at cleaning up a ‘culture of corruption’ in Washington. In other words: Drain the swamp. The party says it isn’t stealing the slogan and sentiment that helped propel Donald Trump to the White House. Instead, Democrats are returning to an anti-corruption message that helped win back the House of Representatives in 2006 against the backdrop of scandals involving lobbyist Jack Abramoff and lawmakers Tom DeLay and Mark Foley. A decade later, Trump seized on a similar theme, directing voter ire at Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton along with lawmakers of both parties in the nation’s capital. And now, with Michael Cohen, Scott Pruitt and others in Trump’s orbit under scrutiny, Democrats believe they have a compelling case to make against the current administration and Republicans in Congress.”

First, this won’t take the place of an optimistic economic message. Next, it’s important to notice this doesn’t have that much impact on voters. I haven’t seen a poll on this recently but I suspect that people are more worried that Jim Comey, Loretta Lynch and Robert Mueller are the least trustworthy people in DC. While I’m at it, I’d better include James Clapper and John Brennan aren’t high on the public’s credibility and integrity ratings.

The Democrats’ strategy will fail. This memo proves how misguided Democrats are:

“The American people are sick of getting a raw deal from Washington and they’re tired of broken promises to ‘drain the swamp,'” reads a memo from Democratic leaders outlining various government reform proposals. “It’s an endless cycle taken to a completely unprecedented level under President Trump, demonstrating a blatant disregard for the laws and norms in place to prevent public corruption.”

Informed voters have noticed that big government is pretty corrupt, too. It isn’t like people think John Brennan and Jim Clapper are saints. It isn’t like people suddenly think the FBI is the honorable agency it once was. It isn’t like the people haven’t formed the opinion that Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch and Jim Comey didn’t politicize the DOJ and the FBI. After watching this video, why would anyone think that the FBI wasn’t corrupted during the Obama administration?

There’s no chance Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer will “drain the swamp.” They both live in mansions in the fanciest neighborhoods of the Swamp. Now I’m supposed to believe that they’re intent on draining the Swamp? I might’ve been born at night but it wasn’t last night.

For the past 6-9 months, we’ve heard predictions that Democrats would retake the majority in the House and possibly in the Senate, too. According to James Freeman’s latest column, that’s looking less likely.

According to Freeman’s column, “Mr. Trump remains underwater on the general question of his handling of the presidency, with a majority in virtually every poll expressing disapproval. But he is showing increasing strength on the issue of the economy, which just happens to be the issue that frequently decides elections. This week, the Economist/YouGov survey shows him ten points above water, with 49% approving of his handling of the economy compared to only 39% who disapprove.”

As more people notice bigger monthly paychecks and as people feel the effects of cheaper electric bills, Trump’s approval rating will strengthen. That’s just the tip of the iceberg, though. The latest Star Tribune-Minnesota Poll isn’t great news for the DFL:

Minnesotans are more narrowly divided on whether they are likely to vote for a Democrat or a Republican in November’s congressional elections than the rest of the country. A new Star Tribune Minnesota Poll found that 47 percent are now inclined to vote for a Democrat, while 45 percent said they’ll probably vote for a Republican — a statistical tie given the poll’s 3.5 percentage point margin of error.

That’s great news for the MnGOP. This will help them hold the seats they currently have while giving them a shot at flipping Tim Walz’s seat in Southern Minnesota.

I’d be surprised if Democrats weren’t counting on flipping MN-3 and MN-2 while holding MN-1. If the DCCC’s dream isn’t realized, that’s a major blow to them retaking the House.

Why should 2018 be any different? When lawmakers enacted the Reagan tax cuts in 1981, Republicans blundered by agreeing to delay the implementation of many provisions. Without the immediate pro-growth boost, the U.S. economy shrank by nearly 2% in 1982 and voters registered their displeasure.

This notion that the party that holds the White House loses seats is statistically accurate but it isn’t automatic. Patterns are patterns until they aren’t anymore.

Ninety-five percent of Democrats and the same percentage of Republicans said they’re inclined to vote for candidates from their own parties. Among independents, 43 percent said they lean Democratic and an identical percentage said they’re more likely to vote for Republicans.

Based on the fact that the Minnesota Poll consistently oversamples Democrats, I’d argue that the DFL ought to be worried. This isn’t good news for the DFL.

If the economy keeps improving nationally, that will help Republicans across the nation. Additionally, the RNC has pulverized the DNC in terms of fundraising and organizing:

Perez started off his tenure with some lofty goals and inspiring promises. In addition to funding the Democrats’ national efforts for the midterms, the new chairman recognized that their state-level organization was in disrepair. He pledged an additional ten million dollar fund specifically allocated for state parties to rebuild and staff up for the 2018 battles. Thus far, however, Vice reports that it simply hasn’t happened. In fact, not only have they not sent ten million dollars to the state parties, they don’t even have ten million on hand.

It’s still a long ways off and momentum can shift at least 20 times between now and Election Day. Still, the fundraising numbers and the popularity of the Trump/GOP tax cuts are things Republicans can feel good about heading into 2018.

Finally, the Schumer Shutdown is hurting Democrats. While they’re fighting for illegal immigrants, Republicans are blistering them with criticisms. This video is mild compared to some of the McConnell speeches:

This is the most recent year that Democrats insist that they’ll retake the House. While it’s their best opportunity to retake it, that isn’t the same as saying they’re guaranteed to win.

Salena Zito’s column asks a brilliant question. First, she made the observation that “Few focused on who wasn’t there and why they weren’t. Once again, the pundits were missing the little nuances of how much American politics really has changed, and what that may mean for future results. Once again, the pundits were missing the little nuances of how much American politics really has changed, and what that may mean for future results. Importantly, three people in states that went heavily for Trump in 2016, Indiana’s Sen. Joe Donnelly, West Virginia’s Sen. Joe Manchin, and Missouri’s Sen. Claire McCaskill, were all absent. Two less vulnerable incumbent Democrats Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Pennsylvania’s Sen. Bob Casey were also not there.”

Then she made a statement that said “They have made the bet to pick their donors in California and New York over their voters back home.” Democrats don’t have a message but they’re well-financed. Republicans stumbled early but they’ve put together a solid list of accomplishments. Meanwhile, the RNC has been kicking the DNC’s behind in fundraising ever since Ronna McDaniel took over.

None of these so-called ‘moderate’ Democrats voted for the Trump/GOP tax cuts. Then they weren’t anywhere to be found to negotiate a DACA fix. That begs this question: what identifies them as moderates?

If anyone of those senators get caught near Trump, all of those donors would ditch them in a minute. They’re basically asking McCaskill and Manchin and Donnelly to do an act of levitation. Win without doing the things your voters would like you to do.

The question is will the voters hold them accountable? They’re gambling they won’t be held accountable. They’re gambling that Trump is so polarizing that there are no Trump voters available to them on a positive scale. They’re thinking they’re going to have to obliterate their opponent, tear their opponent to shreds.

Yet think about the margins here. Trump won Indiana and Missouri by more than 18 points. He won North Dakota and West Virginia by 30-some points. He won Ohio by 9 points. It’s not like you only need a few Trump voters to stay home, they would need a lot of them, like a third of them, to stay home. And that is just not going to happen.

A quick look around the room speaks volumes:

Heitkamp, Manchin, Donnelly, McCaskill and Brown better hope that voters didn’t notice that they didn’t support any part of President Trump’s agenda. If they notice, that fivesome is history.

Michigan’s Sen. Debbie Stabenow’s statement about the tax cuts in Michigan is the perfect example of that risk. When tax reform passed late last year, Stabenow issued a statement that read:

“I’ve said from the beginning that we need tax reform that makes the tax system simpler, puts more money in your pocket, closes tax loopholes that send jobs overseas and supports small businesses and farms across Michigan. Unfortunately that isn’t at all what this republican bill does.”

Ten days later, Fiat Chrysler announced that they would invest more than $1 billion to modernize the company’s Warren Truck Plant in Detroit, adding 2,500 jobs and moving production of its Ram trucks from Mexico. They also announced they would be giving $2,000 bonuses to their hourly U.S. workers. The company credited the moves to the new tax law.

The Democrats have been on the wrong side of the tax cuts from the start. As these bonuses, pay raises and other positive announcements get factored in, how will Democrats defend their unanimous vote against the Trump/GOP tax cuts?

The pundits talk about how the President’s party usually does poorly in a new president’s first term. I certainly cant dispute that that’s the history. What’s disputable, though, is that that pattern will apply this time. I see information that indicates it might not.

Now that Democrats, including DNC Chair Thomas Perez and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, have stopped supporting Al Franken, the next question is when Franken will resign. Initially, MPR reported that he’d resign Thursday. Since that initial reporting, though, the Franken people have disputed that report in a tweet, saying “No final decision has been made and the senator is still talking with his family.”

Franken’s staff can say whatever they want but the truth is that he’s history. At this point, politically speaking, he’s a dead man walking. It’s just a matter of time until he resigns.

Sen. Schumer issued a statement, saying “Senator Franken should resign. I consider Senator Franken a dear friend and greatly respect his accomplishments, but he has a higher obligation to his constituents and the Senate, and he should step down immediately.”

Meanwhile, Amy Klobuchar issued this odd statement via Twitter, saying “Sexual harassment is unacceptable. This morning I spoke with Senator Franken and, as you know, he will be making an announcement about his future tomorrow morning. I am confident he will make the right decision.”

This tweet captures the Democrats’ sincerity perfectly:

It took SEVEN accusers – SEVEN – for these “champions of women’s rights” to demand an apparent serial sexual harasser to step down.

SEVEN.

She followed that up with this tweet:

“Zero Tolerance” apparently means “when you reach a watershed of six people accusing someone of groping them.”

When Politico published excerpts of Donna Brazile’s book, they set off a media firestorm. That firestorm required pushback by the Clinton-Media Complex. Glenn Greenwald’s article highlights the Clintons’ dishonest tactics in fighting against the truth by writing about 4 viral falsehoods.

The first viral falsehood is “The Clinton/DNC agreement cited by Brazile only applied to the General Election, not the primary.” Greenwald’s article exposed that by saying “The following day, NBC published an article by Alex Seitz-Wald that recited and endorsed the Clinton camp’s primary defense: that Brazile was wrong because the agreement in question (a copy of which they provided to Seitz-Wald) applied ‘only to preparations for the general election,’ and had nothing to do with the primary season.” Greenwald then wrote “The problem with this claim is that it is blatantly and obviously false. All one has to do to know this is read the agreement. Unlike the journalists spreading this DNC defense, Campaign Legal Defense’s Brendan Fischer bothered to read it, and immediately saw, and documented, how obviously false this claim is.”

Hillary’s media, like her, can’t be trusted. They’re as willing to ignore the truth as she’s been all her life. Hillary’s vast right wing conspiracy still rates as her biggest fabrication but it isn’t her only fabrication. Another attack made against Brazile is equally dishonest:

Viral Falsehood #3: Brazile stupidly thought she could unilaterally remove Clinton as the nominee.
Yesterday, the Washington Post published an article reporting on various claims made in Brazile’s new book. The headline, which was widely tweeted, made it seem as though Brazile delusionally believed she had a power which, obviously, she did not in fact possess: “Donna Brazile: I considered replacing Clinton with Biden as 2016 Democratic nominee.”

This fabrication was killed by reporting the facts:

But the entire attack on Brazile was false. She did not claim, at least according to the Post article being cited, that she had the power to unilaterally remove Clinton. The original Post article, buried deep down in the article, well after the headline, made clear that she was referencing a complicated process in the DNC charter that allowed for removal of a nominee who had become incapacitated.

This isn’t my attempt to rehabilitate Ms. Brazile’s reputation. I wrote this post to highlight how corrupt she is. This post’s goal is to highlight how dishonest the Clinton media is. Greenwald’s closing paragraph is good advice:

It can certainly be menacing for Russian bots to disseminate divisive messaging on Twitter. But it’s at least equally menacing if journalists with the loudest claim to authoritative credibility are using that platform constantly to entrench falsehoods in the public’s mind.

Amen to that.

Technorati: , , , ,

This op-ed is this morning’s water cooler conversation in DC. That’s because Donna Brazile wrote it to criticize Hillary Clinton and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. Ms. Brazile even took a swipe at President Obama, saying “My predecessor, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had not been the most active chair in fundraising at a time when President Barack Obama’s neglect had left the party in significant debt.” But that’s just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

The op-ed continues, saying “The Saturday morning after the convention in July, I called Gary Gensler, the chief financial officer of Hillary’s campaign. He wasted no words. He told me the Democratic Party was broke and $2 million in debt. ‘What?’ I screamed. ‘I am an officer of the party and they’ve been telling us everything is fine and they were raising money with no problems.’ That wasn’t true, he said. Officials from Hillary’s campaign had taken a look at the DNC’s books. Obama left the party $24 million in debt—$15 million in bank debt and more than $8 million owed to vendors after the 2012 campaign and had been paying that off very slowly. Obama’s campaign was not scheduled to pay it off until 2016.”

That isn’t the worst of it. Here’s some additional important details:

On the phone Gary told me the DNC had needed a $2 million loan, which the campaign had arranged. “No! That can’t be true!” I said. “The party cannot take out a loan without the unanimous agreement of all of the officers. Gary, how did they do this without me knowing?” I asked. “I don’t know how Debbie relates to the officers,” Gary said. He described the party as fully under the control of Hillary’s campaign, which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the Bernie camp. The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearing house. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for contributions to state parties and a party’s national committee.

Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the thirty-two states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.

I can’t understand why Ms. Brazile is surprised. I published this post last October. According to an article in UK Daily Mail, “The Democratic National Committee is ‘clearing a path’ for Hillary Clinton to be its presidential nominee because its upper power echelons are populated with women, according to a female committee member who was in Las Vegas for Tuesday’s primary debate. Speaking on the condition that she isn’t identified, she told Daily Mail Online that the party is in the tank for Clinton, and the women who run the organization decided it ‘early on.'”

The woman that helped rig the Democratic Party’s nomination in favor of her friend is surprised that her friend is controlling the DNC? Isn’t that rich? Who’s the culprit? Is this woman the culprit?

If not her, who?

Her?

Personally, I’d choose ‘All of the above.’

Byron York’s article might be the most politically devastating article written recently. In his article, York wrote “Investigators looking into the so-called ‘Trump dossier’ were not surprised when news broke Tuesday night that the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC, working through the Democrats’ law firm, Perkins Coie, financed the ‘salacious and unverified’ compilation of allegations of Trump collusion with Russia in the 2016 presidential campaign. (The ‘salacious and unverified’ description comes from former FBI Director James Comey.)”

As explosive as that is, it pales in comparison to the next part of York’s story, which says “Sometime in October 2016, that is, at the height of the presidential campaign, Christopher Steele, the foreign agent hired by Fusion GPS to compile the Trump dossier, approached the FBI with information he had gleaned during the project. According to a February report in the Washington Post, Steele ‘reached an agreement with the FBI a few weeks before the election for the bureau to pay him to continue his work.’ It was an astonishing turn: the nation’s top federal law enforcement agency agreeing to fund an ongoing opposition research project being conducted by one of the candidates in the midst of a presidential election. ‘The idea that the FBI and associates of the Clinton campaign would pay Mr. Steele to investigate the Republican nominee for president in the run-up to the election raises further questions about the FBI’s independence from politics, as well as the Obama administration’s use of law enforcement and intelligence agencies for political ends,’ wrote Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.”

Then there’s this:

The deal began in the spring of 2016, when Elias was approached by Fusion GPS, and lasted until right before Election Day. When Fusion approached Elias, it had already been doing research work on Trump for an unnamed client during the Republican primary. But the dossier itself was funded entirely by Democrats, using Elias as a middle-man. After the DNC and the Clinton campaign started paying, Fusion GPS hired former British spy Christopher Steele to do the dirt-digging. His work later resulted in the dossier.

If this story had a title, that title might be ‘As the bubble bursts.’ Another title might be ‘Multiple seismic events recorded at DNC.’

Easiest prediction of the day: things will get much worse for the DNC before they get better. Brit Hume sums that line of thought up perfectly during this interview:

This is the best that the DNC could come up with:

To read Politico’s article on the DNC, you’d think they’re in a world of hurt. That’s the only logical conclusion to be reached after reading “The Democratic National Committee is reeling, facing a turnaround that’s proving a much bigger lift than anyone expected as it struggles to raise enough money to cover its basic promises. Many donors are refusing to write checks. And on-the-ground operatives worry they won’t have the resources to build the infrastructure they need to compete effectively in next year’s midterms and in the run-up to 2020.”

It’s tough to read quotes that attempt to paint over the DNC’s difficulties. According to the article, “Donors, small and large, are so over the party,’ said Nebraska party chair Jane Kleeb, summing up the problem facing DNC chairman Tom Perez and his counterparts in the states. Kleeb, who is working on grassroots fundraising efforts for the committee, said she believes the money will come eventually.” That sounds like spin to me. What has Kleeb seen that makes her think that donor enthusiasm will increase? Or is that statement wishful thinking? It’s most likely wishful thinking.

Much of the immediate anxiety centers on the State Party Innovation Fund, a planned $10.5 million competitive grant program that DNC leadership has made available to interested state parties over the next year. The money is meant to pay for organizing, ground operations and other mechanics seen as essential to countering Republican National Committee investments that helped elect Donald Trump and a slew of other Republican candidates in 2016, leapfrogging Democrats in the process.

Desperation is setting in. This video highlights the outlandish statements Perez is becoming famous for:

In Las Vegas, Minnesota party chairman Ken Martin, the president of the Association of State Democratic Chairs, went out of his way while speaking to a gathering of state party executive directors to assure them the grant program was on schedule, since the money will be doled out over the course of a year and so doesn’t have to be raised yet, said one Democrat in the room.

All the wishful thinking in the world won’t solve the DNC’s problems. While it’s a stretch to think the DNC is listening to its death knell, it isn’t a stretch to think that they’re in trouble.

A generation ago, the Democratic Party was a legitimate political party. It isn’t anymore. Today’s Democrats have gone so far around the bend that even lifelong Democrats have started backpedalling … fast. Jim Geraghty’s column illustrates just how foolish the Democratic Party is. What caught my attention is the paragraph that says “The Democratic party’s leaders haven’t changed their methods, either. They denounced Trump and his ‘Deplorables’ and the rest of the Republican party in the most furious terms in 2016, but that didn’t produce the results they wanted. In 2017, Democrats decided to just keep on doing that, but with more profanity.”

Later, Geraghty wrote “After 2016, one might have expected Democrats to reconsider their full embrace of identity politics. Instead they’ve doubled down. Instead of examining why so many voters in so many states rejected their arguments and philosophies, many within the academy and universities greeted 2017 by insisting even more adamantly that freedom of speech is dangerous and that you should be threatened or violently assaulted if you express a view they disagree with. Instead of giving the lecturing speeches at awards shows a break, Hollywood celebrities are becoming even more politically outspoken and strident, and even more openly contemptuous of roughly half their audience.”

Rational people wouldn’t think that Sending rioters to a congressman’s front steps isn’t a way to prove you’re rational, either:

These tactics might help fire up the Democratic Party’s bi-coastal base but they won’t help flip any of the districts or states that they’ll need to retake the House, Senate or the White House. Republicans will increase their margin in the Senate, thereby marginalizing John McCain, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Rand Paul. Republicans will maintain their House majority, too. Most importantly, they’ll have net gains in terms of governorships, state legislators and total control of state governments.

This isn’t because Republicans are doing a great job. I’ve repeatedly said that they aren’t. It’s because Democrats are doing a great job frightening people, either with violence or unaffordable ideas like Medicare for All.

Next November, Democrats will gather somewhere to question what went wrong … again. The Media Wing of the Democratic Party won’t accept the fact that they’re hurting the Democratic Party. The Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party won’t figure it out that their policies don’t appeal to many people. Instead, they’ll think that the enthusiasm that their supporters show are proof that they’re on the right track. They’ll be wrong … again.