On the day voting happens in Vermont, we still don’t have the final vote totals from Iowa. That’s because the Sanders campaign and Buttigieg campaign have each asked for partial recanvasses of the results. At this rate, we might have Iowa’s totals verified before the Convention in Milwaukee. I’m not betting the ranch on that but it might happen.

With that crisis still unresolved, Democrats are facing a somewhat similar crisis in Nevada:

Frustrated. Concerned. Nervous. Those are some of the words aides are using to describe the mood within some of the top Democratic presidential campaigns in Nevada with only five days until early voting is set to begin for the state’s first in the West presidential caucus and still no details on how exactly it’s supposed to work.
Campaigns here in the Silver State have been told that the Nevada State Democratic Party won’t be using the same app and vendor that were in part responsible for bungling the results of Iowa’s caucus last week, that the party won’t be using any app at all, and that what the party does plan to use is best described as a “tool” or “calculator.” Beyond that, aides aren’t really sure what’s in store for the state’s Feb. 22 Democratic caucus.

Have Democrats run anything beyond a lemonade stand? Here in Minnesota, examples of DFL competence in running things are rarities. MNLARS will (hopefully) be a distant memory soon after being a nightmare for 2+ years. MNsure was a disaster for a year. The Minnesota Human Services fiascoes happened over a period of years before being discovered. People remember the disaster that Healthcare.gov was.

“It’s a little bit of a damper for our volunteers who are more hesitant to step up and say, ‘Yes, I will confirm I will be precinct leadership on Feb. 22,’ when they don’t feel entirely certain about what’s going to happen,” one aide said. “Never mind the campaign, but with four days until early voting begins, the people who are going to participate feel like they need to have a credible explanation of how the early voting and caucus process are going to work.”

Here we go again? Only a Democrat could turn simple arithmetic into this convoluted mess. This isn’t how this should work. The only top-tier Democrats who’ve run anything are Pete Buttigieg and Mike Bloomberg. Everyone else is a senator. They talk for a living.

Both mayors are far outside the mainstream on the issues, which is why few people outside the Democratic Party take either of them seriously. Meanwhile, the nation keeps humming along under President Trump’s leadership. He’s actually run something and holds mainstream views. The economy is strong. We’re safer than we were under President Obama. Emergencies are handled efficiently.

That’s quite the contrast from the Party that can’t even do basic math, aka the Democrats. Bernie hasn’t run anything. Ditto with Biden, Klobuchar, Warren or what’s his name that still hasn’t dropped out (Michael Bennet).

Things are running well. People are making money. Income inequality is shrinking. People’s 401(k)s are getting healthier. If it isn’t broke, don’t tinker with it. That’s what Democrats did with the Iowa Caucuses. How’d that turn out? This is how that worked:

The KISS method (Keep It Simple Stupid) still works best. I’m a huge fan of trailing edge technology. I love things that work and that have worked for years. There’s nothing wrong with the Iowa Caucuses that a little uncomplicating can’t fix.

On a national scale, the lesson to be learned is that Democrats don’t run things. It isn’t part of their DNA. Bill Clinton is the lone exception. Berniecrats think that he’s too conservative. I guess they didn’t like the prosperity.

4 Responses to “Democrats don’t run things”

  • eric z says:

    Caucusing seems to be on the wane. Plus side – it is harder to buy a caucus than a primary. Minus side – it is awkward and favors inner party operatives and their often stultified posturing. Both parties have that split.

    If having primaries with spending limits – get rid of Citizens United, then we’d have the best of both options. Now Bloomberg will prove or disprove that billionaires do not have to buy elections for others and can just get rid of the middlemen and buy them for themselves. We’ll see.

    Gary – Perhaps you’ve written something Bloomberg plagiarized. You should check it out. After all, he’s a Republican as you are.

  • Gary Gross says:

    No he isn’t. Are Democrats in the habit of letting Republicans be their nominee? Even when he registered as a Republican, it was only to avoid the Democrat primary. Originally, Bloomberg was a registered Democrat.

  • Chad Q says:

    All the proof in the world that the democrats shouldn’t be in charge of anything and yet there are idiots in New Hampshire who say they’d vote for a gopher before Trump.

  • Gretchen L Leisen says:

    My memory of Michael Bloomberg is that he was a Democrat who ran for Mayor of NYC as a Republican because the Democrats had an overwhelming number of candidates – so it was a prudential choice to avoid the messiness of the Democrat primaries. Bloomberg won the election and followed Giuliani’s law enforcement policies which served Bloomberg very well. He was easily re-elected to a second term. Then Mike decided that he would like to run for a third term, but the law did not allow it, so he managed to get the city to change the rules so he could run for a third term. By that time Mike decided that he did not want to be called a Republican, so he changed his party designation to Independent when he ran for a third term. Finally, after he completed 12 years as mayor of NYC, he retired and changed back to his original party affiliation – Democrat.

Leave a Reply