Monday, January 21, 2019

MIDTERM LOSSES WERE A BLESSING IN DISGUISE

                  


The hubris, actually that’s not fair, rather the ruddy glow of the embers of enthusiasm from the unexpected Trump win and the retention of majorities in both houses of Congress in 2016 led many Republicans to believe that not only would the GOP hold the House but even increase their majority.
With the unerring wisdom of hindsight the clear lesson of history, that in almost every case the congressional midterms go against the party in power, should have been the expectation of the party faithful. 

It appears that all punditry and prognostication could have been dispensed with if everyone had followed Real Clear Politics Sean Trende’s analysis, again based on history “If President Trump is not at 50% for the midterms then the GOP will be in a world of hurt”

If the party faithful had faced this reality then Republicans actually increasing their senate majority, another rare instance, would have been seen as the triumph it was (and which President Trump rightly hailed.)
FDR lost 71 House seats in his second term Clinton 52 in his first and Obama (“we were shellacked”) 63.

 The average midterms losses since 1934 being 33, so Trumps  40, a number of which in California were lost to the local GOP simply being outmanoeuvred on election day vote collecting, doesn’t fit in the “shellacked” category especially with the gain of senate seats only having happened five times previously since FDR.

That cooler, more experienced GOP heads knew this, most likely guided by internal polling, and placed their resources correctly (for the senate races) was seen with President stumping against vulnerable red state and swing state Democrats (Indiana/North Dakota/Florida/Montana) while trying to shore up vulnerable Republicans. This strategy paid off with a net gain of two senate seats.

Of course losing control of the House is not a blessing but since it was historically inevitable has any good come from it? Yes, most certainly.


The Democratic party swung sharply to the left after 2016 as would be expected and in their enthusiasm brought in a number of inexperienced publicity seeking radicals who have, through their often bizarre utterances, dubious anti-Semitic connections  and statements and potty mouthed “The Democrats’ new street fighters “attacks, taken a large degree of the media spotlight off the new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and any hint of a legislative program.

If this continues unabated, and Pelosi seems to have no control over this radical posturing set, which is cheered on by similarly na├»ve “progressives’ and the MSM which uses the newcomers for clickbait, then there is a major challenge for whomever the 2020 nominees is.

 If the Dem’s choose an overt leftist like Sanders or Harris then the GOP has a made to measure message “would you trust the country to high tax, anti-capitalist, radical Islam aligned radicals and undo all the hard won gains in employment and industrial growth?

 If by 2020 major peace overtures in Korea have borne fruit and the “trade wars” are settled and disengagement from the endless Middle East wars have seen American troops return home then it is hard to believe the voters would opt to negate all of that for a radical administration.

Conversely if a centrist candidate is the nominee the question is how much will the progressive tail wag the dog? These questions have significant bearing on the House elections for 2020.

Even with an “unprecedented turnout of over 50% for a midterms” 36 sitting Republican Congressmen not seeking re-election, massive Democratic enthusiasm and a relentlessly opposed to Trump media the GOP needs to win 19 seats back to regain control of the House.

An analysis of the Democratic Party wins in 2018 shows two were won by less than 1% nine by less than 2% and three by under 3% two by under 4% and four by under 5%. Given the expected 2016 size Republican turnout in 2020 it is clear that the return of the House to GOP control is more than feasible. 

Such feasibility is substantially enhanced if the Democratic “class of 2018” continues to flaunt their progressive attitudes and policies at the same level as now which, given the nature of the newcomers seems likely.





Tuesday, January 15, 2019

SANDERS 2020 NOMINATION WOULD BE A DISASTER FOR THE GOP




Senator Bernie Sanders becoming the Dem’s 2020 candidate would indeed be a disaster for the GOP-in 2024. In 2024 the Republicans would facing the seeming iron rule, since 1952, of presidential elections-that a two term administration of either party has little chance of the successor candidate being elected.

On the other hand most first term presidents, or their successors in office e.g. Kennedy/Johnson Harding/Coolidge being one administration, get re-elected

In the twelve presidential administrations from 1920 only three presidents, Hoover, Carter, GWH Bush were not re-elected and not surprisingly all were done in by poor to disastrous economies. The Roosevelt/Truman
Democratic administrations ran to five victories in a row.

With those historical precedents in mind the odds are that President Trump will be receive a second term. If the economy continues to improve and the unprecedented benefits as regards employment for Blacks (with whom Sanders did poorly) and Hispanics continues its current pace then Trump would be positioned for a landslide win.

In such circumstances the opposing party gives vent to its most radical or out of touch elements and nominates a Goldwater a McGovern a Mondale and suffers a massive electoral college rejection-Mondale’s being the worst only carrying his home state of Minnesota and D.C.

Sanders, with his army of “Bernie Bros.” mass support among the progressive wing of the Dem’s ticks every box in the crusade type candidacy. It is challenging to see the American electorate at a time of near full employment electing what would be perceived as a tax raising socialist and conveyor of who knows what new list of politically correct social restructuring.

The prospect of a Sanders candidacy is very real. He has not yet made any moves in that direction but to discount such a possibility would be foolish. Nathan Robinson at the leftist ‘The Guardian’ hails Sanders as “the most progressive choice for president.”

Notably, according to the Daily Beast’s  Michael Tomasky a high profile Sanders partisan David Sirota has attacked “Beto” O’Rourke, a younger potential rival for the progressive left’s hearts while Tomasky, a Hillary supporter has attacked Sanders. David Brook at NBC’s “Think” goes further and attacks Sanders fans as potential “poisoners”-game on.

 More importantly Sanders leads by a large margin in polls of progressives and in second place to former VP Joe Biden in various wider polls of prospective nominees. He has his mass of supporters to reignite, and the second time around as a known factor to the left, would make that a simple task as would the raising of substantial funding.

While a Sanders candidacy would be welcomed by Republicans the reality is a more traditional Democratic candidate would, historically at least, also lose to Trump which scenario bodes poorly for the GOP in 2024.

If Sanders were to run and lose the natural result would be the Democratic  party, with the radicals humbled, would turn to a centrist candidate which would make the job of the successor to Trump very difficult against the “third term” hoodoo.

Conversely, if Sanders were again denied the nomination after a vigorous campaign with mass rallies attended by hordes of youthful leftists and their Hollywood supporters once again, the pressure for a similar candidate in 2024 would be unstoppable.

President GWH Bush broke the third term jinx by having the good fortune to run against an utterly hopeless incompetent in Mike Dukakis who blew an 18 point poll lead. Whoever the GOP’s successor to Trump is she or he can only hope that Sanders is denied the 2020 nomination and a similar radical is the Dem’s choice in 2024



Sunday, January 13, 2019

Democratic Clown Bus Now At 31 (28 Active) As Tom Steyer Declares






As the number of declared Dem candidates continues/drops out I will update the page.

Cut and past link to all candidates history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries#Individuals_who_have_a_scheduled_announcement











































































Monday, January 7, 2019

WHERE THE LIB'S CULTURE WARS ARE AT 2019






A quick recap of the current state of play in the liberal’s social agenda.  Homosexuality was decriminalized along with sodomy in 2003, same-sex Civil Unions followed suit in 2000 and then same-sex marriage in 2015
.
Abortion was decriminalized in 1973 and American abortion laws are considered “among the most permissive in the world.” Pending a Supreme Court decision transgendered people can serve in the military. It would appear that, barring one or two further Trump appointed Supreme Court justices, all is rosy in liberaland, with one serene Gay person tweeting “I am more involved with planting roses along my white picket fence than having any concern about Gay rights now.”

The position of feminism is, I have no qualms whatsoever in stating, so complex with such a massive numbers of variants, as shown by a simple Google of “Feminism” which commences with “Cultural, Ecofeminism, Mainstream, French, Liberal, Libertarian, Multiracial, Poststructural” and it is beyond the scope of this article, or anyone except the most intrepid to navigate through such a vast field. Perhaps it is sufficient to say that such diversity in itself represents a liberal achievement.

The liberal feminist challenge has come from a perhaps unexpected quarter where transgendered males are cleaning up in women’s sports especially weightlifting and rugby and, as illustrated a testosterone heavy female “transitioning” to male appears to be doing as well as might be expected against oestrogen disadvantaged females.

While athletes and parents have been complaining about this apparent sporting imbalance it appears to have gone unaddressed by feminists of any wave but pressure will surely make it a matter of notice. Not least because also unaddressed is the problem of inequality in sport In general. Why for example, are there only mixed doubles in tennis?

 For true equality doubles could include two females against two males, or an NFL championship featuring the top men’s team against the top female’s team. For liberals it must be surmised that there should simply not be such outdated concepts as “male” or “female” sports or teams and all such should be composed of fifty percent of each gender or gender belief.

However there are some further, current, aspects of these and other liberal cultural desiderata, that appear to have matters still unfulfilled for some while creating a challenging dichotomy for others. If the above social changes are applauded by liberals what social constraints do currently meet with their approval? This is where the dichotomy appears.

“Where there is love there should be marriage” this driving message for same-sex marriage appears not to apply to Gay same-sex polygamy nor heterosexual polygamy. The apparent lack of logic seems quite striking as how much more love must there be between a man and say six men or a woman with six men or six women?

Pederasty appears to have a cast of liberal opprobrium but the “love” message seems to apply even here with “NAMBLA” The North American Man/Boy Love Association have battled for decades to have this aspect of love legalized. It appears that Man/Girl love is a step too far, currently, for even the most activist of liberals but who knows what the future holds.

It might be thought that bestiality or “Zoosexual Activity” would be beyond the attention of even the most progressive but to the contrary it is making strides in that most liberal of countries, Trudeau’s Canada where the Supreme Court ruled that “only penetrative sexual acts with animals is illegal while not sanctioning “other beastly activities.” 

With further good news for those so inclined they have ruled that ownership of “zoophilic pornography” can be enjoyed at leisure without any legal problems. For Americans, American Samoa, The Marianas and Guam give unfettered (or fettered if preferred, I don’t know if “mutual agreement applies’) access. It is Legal for civilians at the U.S.A’s Guantanamo Naval Base but servicemen there have been banned from such perceived pleasures only since 2016.

Rape, surely, has universal condemnation from liberals but even here there are qualifications. As set out in The Federalist  “You can still assault women and be a good feminist” Rebecca Schoenkopf Editor of that most leftist progressive journal “Wonkette” advised  “To sum up, I think Bill Clinton could very well have raped Juanita Broaddrick,” she writes. “It doesn’t make him an evil man, or irredeemable (I’m Catholic; we’re all forgiven, if we’re sorry, and Broaddrick says Bill Clinton personally called her up to apologize). It doesn’t even necessarily make him a bad feminist — you know, later, once he stops doing that.” It could be inferred that rape by a liberal is, with qualifications, OK.

The Supreme Court ruling on abortion has not satisfied some liberals who want no restrictions whatsoever whether a foetus is viable or not. The now Alabama Senator Democrat Doug Jones advised I am not in favour of anything that impinges on a woman’s right and freedom to choose…[I] become a pro-lifer after the child is born.”

It appears that for liberals while there is much to be celebrated there appears to be much work to be done and complete and settled positions to be taken on outstanding social issues e.g. Sharia law, female genital mutilation as cultural expression (good?) Male genital mutilation (circumcision) as cultural expression (bad?)  Before liberal America is firmly and irrevocably in place.