Patterico's Pontifications

2/2/2016

What’s the Deal with the Dems?

Filed under: General — JVW @ 12:56 pm



[guest post by JVW]

In the aftermath of last night’s close call in the Democrat’s Iowa caucus, commentators seem to be divided on what the results portend for the party. A quick round-up is as follows:

Paul Mirengoff at Powerline says that the result is bad for Senator Bernard Sanders (I-VT) as he needed a clear-cut win in order to cut into the formidable polling lead of First Lady/Senator/Secretary Hillary! Rodham National Security Clinton: “Going into tonight, I thought that Bernie Sanders needed to win the Iowa caucus to sustain his long shot campaign against Hillary Clinton (absent FBI/DOJ action against Hillary). After all, Iowa is tailor-made for a Sanders-style insurgent. If Sanders couldn’t win there, where (other than in his home territory) could he win?”

Mark Steyn headlines his piece “Second Degree Bern” and agrees with Mirengoff that while Sanders inflicted some damage, he needed an outright win: “. . . given the demographic difficulties he faces in South Carolina and beyond, Sanders needed to inflict actual defeat on Hillary. He needed headlines saying: ‘BERNIE WINS!’ And he didn’t get that. She certainly felt the Bern, but it wasn’t a third-degree Bern.”

Over at National Review Online, Jim Geraghty finds the result to be a complete disaster for the Once-and-Future-Inevitable Next President of the United States: “Don’t let any Hillary fan tell you this wasn’t a collapse. She was ahead by 12 in mid-January. She came out last night for a not-quite-victory, not-quite concession speech decked out in blood red and glaring angrily and hard in her tone.”

Agreeing with Geraghty is Mollie Hemingway at The Federalist: “Her ‘victory’ speech was the most depressing of the night. The body language on the stage said it all. Clinton’s daughter Chelsea gave her a comforting — almost pitying — hug. Clinton’s husband Bill looked sad and had trouble keeping his mouth from sagging. The crowd was dejected. Clinton herself was tense, yelling at voters in seeming anger. She’s just a terrifically bad candidate who will also lose in New Hampshire.”

Don’t be fooled, writes Jonathan Tobin at Commentary, Clinton’s path to the nomination is still open: “Sanders will likely win in New Hampshire, but his inability to edge out the former First Lady in the first-in-the-nation caucus robbed him of any chance of creating a narrative in which Clinton’s hold on the nomination had cracked. Though the Vermont senator will likely hang around in the race for as long as he can, he has little hope of winning many states after next week.”

Neil Stevens over at Red State insists that last night’s results settled the Dem nominee once and for all: “Hillary Clinton: She survived. That’s all she needed. [. . .] Bernie Sanders: This was one of his most favorable states. He failed. He’s done, he just doesn’t know it yet.”

Moving away from conservative media and over to our libertarian friends at Reason, Ed Krayewski, who yesterday pointed out that 43 percent of Democrats in Iowa are self-described socialists, finds Sanders’ performance a bit underwhelming: “Between the large pool of friendly voters and the fervor of Sanders supporters, if the democratic socialist can’t win in what’s effectively a two-person race in Iowa, it’s unlikely he’ll do better anywhere else.”

At CNN, the lamentably stupid Sally Kohn insists that both Clinton and Sanders came out looking okey-dokey: “The unkempt progressive once thought to only be competitive in the Northeast is now in a neck-and-neck race with the Democratic establishment candidate in the heartland of America. That isn’t just a victory for Sanders. That’s a victory for anyone who believes in democracy.”

Kohn’s less daffy colleague, Maeve Reston, opines that the results spell a bad night for Hillary!: “Clinton found herself once again struggling to prove what is supposed to be the selling point of her campaign: dominance and electability. Instead, even if she eeks out a win late tonight by a fraction of a percentage point, the Iowa caucuses looked like a defeat for the former Secretary of State. Once again, she has been knocked back on her heels by a challenger who her campaign did not take seriously until late in the race.”

Doug Schoen over at Fox is of the opinion that Clinton’s lead with black voters is too much for Sanders to overcome: “South Carolina and the Super Tuesday states are very different demographically and politically. Furthermore, some of Clinton’s best numbers come from her support with minorities. Just days ago, 28 black ministers endorsed her and she leads Sanders 63 percent to 20 percent [among blacks] and is up 54 percent to 33 percent with Latino voters.”

Checking in with the far left, John Nichols of The Nation believes that irrespective of who gets the delegates, it’s Sanders’ ideas that have won: “No matter what the final count, the real victory for Sanders came before the caucuses convened. He had already so transformed the contest that Clinton was forced to run a different race than she had intended.”

At Mother Jones, David Corn is looking past the Clinton-Sanders contest to see progressivism on the rise in the party, and believing that as long as Sanders can stay at roughly 40 percent in the polls the Democrats will continue to drift to the left: “Forget about Iowa for a moment—especially now that this unrepresentative event is done—and look at the average of the national polls in the Democratic race. Clinton leads Sanders, 52 to 37 percent. Sanders’ take is darn close to that 40 percent mark long associated with the progressive wing. Sanders surpassed that level in Iowa, and he’s likely to do so in New Hampshire, where three recent polls have put his lead over Clinton between 20 percent and 31 percent. Yet in the long run, can he continue to stay above 40 percent—particularly when the contest shifts to states with more diverse electorates (meaning more black and Latino voters) and states where voters are less familiar with this self-proclaimed socialist?”

So there you have it. Last night’s result on the Democrats’ side shows that Hillary! has the nomination nailed down yet is in deep trouble, that Bernie is finished as a candidate yet will continue to play spoiler, and that minorities who are supposed to be the progressive bulwark of the party will stop the socialist candidate in his tracks and hand the nomination over to the woman who turned her support of big banks and the military industrial complex into $250,000 appearances at corporate retreats full of millionaires who are apparently wrecking the economy for the rest of us and $150,000 speaking fees at college campuses which are populated by young progressives who overwhelmingly love the aging white male candidate. Your Democrat Party in a nutshell, folks.

– JVW

72 Responses to “What’s the Deal with the Dems?”

  1. Another Joe Biden-Elizabeth Warren “friendly get-together” in 5. . . 4. . . 3. . . .

    JVW (d60453)

  2. Maeve Reston may be less daffy than Kohn, but maybe not less stupid… “eeks out a win” vice “ekes out?” Even this comment spell-checker seems to know better…

    BornRed (a7aaa6)

  3. BornRed, I think you were also born obnoxious.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  4. BornRed, maybe Maeve saw a mouse right as she was typing the comment? There’s my sexist contribution for today.

    JVW (d60453)

  5. happyfeet is a dummy, total failure. Pathetic!

    The Donald (24d2a7)

  6. Greetings:

    It looks to me like the Dems are offering the ideology of the ’60s versus the ideology of the ’30s.

    11B40 (6abb5c)

  7. that is a complete misnomer

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  8. Hillary has the Dem nomination unless, during the waiting period before the DNC can complete her coronation, she’s indicted.

    Whether she’s indicted depends — and has continuously depended — on Obama.

    I believe if Obama were going to permit her to be indicted, he’s already have done that so that he could pick someone else (probably Biden, maybe Warren) his successor. Since he hasn’t, that means he’s picked her.

    Therefore: Hillary will be the Democratic nominee.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  9. Wait though, Beldar, what if Obama doesn’t want Hillary to win but absolutely can’t stomach the idea of Sanders as President? (I mean, Obama probably wants to get rich too in his post-White House life.) What if the long game is to make sure that Hillary amasses enough delegates to win, then let her be indicted so that the Democrat convention is thrown wide open and a Biden/Warren ticket can pick up her support? Doesn’t that seem to be the smarter strategy, or is there something I am missing?

    JVW (d60453)

  10. At CNN, the lamentably stupid Sally Kohn insists that both Clinton and Sanders came out looking okey-dokey:

    Blind-and-deaf liberals like Kohn aren’t stupid as much as they’re corrupt from A to Z, in more ways than one. They’re the types who’ll say [insert name of ruthless, dishonest, diabolical public figure here] at least kept the trains running on time […or at least provided free healthcare][…or at least was concerned about the proletariat].

    The inner-workings of the minds of such people are both frightening and absurd.

    Mark (f713e4)

  11. Clinton has the help of mitch to kill the offensive.
    http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/267825-mcconnell-wary-of-divisive-2016-fights

    mg (31009b)

  12. #9 JVW, that’s a reasonable hypothetical…an indictment later in the year, enabling Biden and Warren to pick up the baton from that point forward.

    Because it seems like Biden wants to be President, but at his age, and with the recent passing of his son, he made the decision that he lacks the energy and resolve to do a year-long, day-in, day-out campaign in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, yada, yada, yada.
    But if he only has to begin campaigning this forthcoming summer, then maybe that’s something that he and the Fake Indian (Warren) can do. Warren’s no spring chicken, either.

    It seems like Obama would have put a complete stop to the leaks about Hillary’s emails if he really didn’t want that stuff to become public. I say that because he’s put the clamps down on investigations into Fast and Furious, the IRS, NSA, VA, et al.

    I conclude if all this damaging info has come out about Hillary, it’s because Obama didn’t stop it. As Joe Klein has documented, there’s white-hot burning hatred between the Obamas and the Clintons. It sounds like the Clintons were willing to at least FAKE putting it behind them if not just because they hope to be the successors to Obama, but I think Barack was so angered by all the behind-the-scenes smack talk that Bill Clinton has been saying about him for the past 7-8 years, that I don’t know if Barack can put it to rest. We’ll see.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  13. 1. Why do we let them call this “progressivism”? It’s Marxism. Call it that. A lot.

    2. For Hillary to be unable to drum up enough enthusiasm to hold off a crazy old Marxist in a state full of Kulacks is embarrassing in the extreme.

    3. Ask any Democrat you know how the Hillary! fever thing is working out.

    Hillary, barring some legal disaster, will recover. She has all those SEC primary states where the African-American vote is all hers. IF THEY BOTHER TO VOTE. Her real problem here, and in November, is that there’s not a lot of fire in the belly at the grassroots. Only a Trump candidacy would offer the clear-and-present-danger that she’d need to motivate the troops.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  14. What endorsements could Sanders pick up that would help him in the African-American community?

    1. Obama — Ain’t gonna happen. I get the sense that the two of them don’t really like each other. Sanders probably thinks Obama is a phony sell-out to Wall Street, and Obama probably thinks Sanders is an aging flaky white beatnik who couldn’t even steer a resolution in favor of motherhood through Congress. (They are both correct.)

    2. Sharpton — Way too much of a whore to associate himself with Sanders, when everybody knows the big bucks can more easily be extorted from the Clinton Machine.

    3. Jackson — Does anyone really care what he thinks anymore? Can a 74-year-old race hustler lend street cred to a 74-year-old Marxist?

    4. Jay-Z/Beyonce — This would be interesting, but they both are fantastically wealthy and still in their earning prime, so they are probably more comfortable with Clinton than with Mr. Share the Wealth (and this time I mean it!).

    5. Black Hollywood — Please, they can’t even manage to get themselves nominated for an Academy Award.

    JVW (d60453)

  15. @ JVW (#9): Obama could still destroy Hillary, but it’s too late for him to do so in a way that won’t effectively hand the Democratic nomination to Sanders. Obama controls the DOJ, but he doesn’t control Bernie’s wild-eyed supporters. They are uncontrollable, and Bernie doesn’t control them either. Obama or Sanders can summon them, but they’re the Occupy Wall Street crowd and they’re essentially — in a triumph of progressive cognitive dissonance — anarcho-statists (“I’m going to tear down society and then me and the other cool kids are gonna use government bayonets to rule the resulting chaos”) in the mode of the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution. Even if Clinton were indicted and even if she then voluntarily withdrew from the campaign, things have progressed too far now for Obama to be able to snatch the nomination from Sanders and hand it to, say, Biden or Warren. For this to work, he’d have to also destroy Sanders simultaneously, e.g., by getting DOJ to indict him, too.

    The only theory under which it would make sense for Obama to permit Hillary to be indicted now is the one which runs this way: Obama’s already convinced that no Democrat can possibly win in 2016, and that he’s absolutely, positively, going to be succeeded by a Republican. “Après moi, le déluge.” If he’s reached that conclusion, and he believes that his party has no chance in 2016 anyway, he might have delayed indicting Hillary this long just so that he could enjoy a bigger bonfire.

    I can’t rule out that theory, but it seems to me increasingly improbable.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  16. perhaps but the denunciation of the administration in that press conference was too proforma, like the mirristas in the allende regime, they vanguard can be ahead of the administration,

    narciso (732bc0)

  17. You would think that Obama’s ego would be way too big to actually believe that his party couldn’t possibly elect someone to replace him. After all, to hear him tell it, he rescued us from the brink of disaster and now has us on the path to a permanent progressive paradise. Obama’s frustrations must be that Sanders (and, to an increasingly lesser degree, Clinton) are daring to suggest that Obama’s policies need to be updated and maybe even corrected.

    I guess the question on whether or not Biden or Warren could swoop in and win over the party hinges upon two different key ideas:

    1) How much enmity has developed between Clinton and Sanders campaigns? Do Hillary!’s people think that Bernard is a decent second choice, or are they so mad at him for upsetting the coronation that they would find an anybody-but-Bernie alternative?

    2) Similarly, how many of Sanders’ supporters are hardcore Bernie nuts versus how many of them are Democrats who can’t stand Clinton, or who wish that a more charismatic progressive like Warren had gotten in to the race? It seemed, for instance, that New England hard lefties were hankering for Elizabeth long before they settled for Bernie. If she came in to replace Hillary!, would some of Sanders’ less rabid fans ditch him for her, just like many of Eugene McCarthy’s supporters bolted once Robert Kennedy entered the race back in 1968?

    I would sure love to find out the answers to those scenarios.

    JVW (d60453)

  18. well among the young, there is the first category, probably some older cohort, who still want the ’68 flashback,

    narciso (732bc0)

  19. Taking the country down the terlet is progress? Don’t color me brown, color me unimpressed.

    Colonel Haiku (029078)

  20. Hillary squandered a 41% lead and came within a few coin flips of getting schlonged by a crazy old socialist. She was the biggest looser last night. Bernie’s likely to take New Hampshire and if Hillary doesn’t come back strong in South Carolina (fat chance) she’s on the ropes if not out on her feet.

    ropelight (8aa46a)

  21. Beldar–

    If Hillary has a pile of delegates and Sanders is an also-ran when she’s indicted (say around May), why can’t the Dems go to the convention without a nominee? Let them fight it out there like they did in 1968, or the GOP did in 1976.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  22. ropelight, why won’t Clinton come back strong in SC? She’s up by 30 points. Blacks won’t vote for Bernie.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  23. “She was the biggest loser last night.”

    I know someone who came awfully close to claiming that mantle…

    Colonel Haiku (029078)

  24. yes, so I’ve surmised, but Red queen committed the resources, and she got squat for her efforts,

    narciso (732bc0)

  25. We are seeing the initial stages of the Fall of the House of Clinton. A shaky, old, mouth-breather perv “husband”… a spoiled, Eleanor Roosevelt lookalike daughter and a world-class pathologically lying harridan wannabe presidential candidate who should be fighting to stay out of prison, not running for nomination.

    Colonel Haiku (029078)

  26. Who cares about Democrat prospectives? One is an incompetent felon, the other a lesser evil, a communist. Mark my words, the FBI director will likely resign if Hillary not indicted, Bernie is a tool of USACP, easily countered due his long history of being absolutely unAmerican.

    pieter (ec44a2)

  27. Just to refresh memories, the party in power for an eight-year run who encounters a recession during the run up to re-election fails, reliably.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-28/ignore-stocks-real-crisis-far-bigger-and-far-worse

    A quick review of today’s financials should tell even dear reader that the bottom of this collapse will be sounded with out success thru Nov. and into 2017.

    We are well and thoroughly hosed and 2009 was just practice vs. scrubs.

    DNF (755a85)

  28. Who honestly believes that a Democrat can win this cycle for President? This is the most flawed cast of candidates put forth by the DNC, ever…same gang that tried to gives us Edwards and Dean.

    pieter (ec44a2)

  29. will Soros ‘take down the temple’ as he did in 2008, an incredible circumstance that had never happened before in recent history,

    narciso (732bc0)

  30. 29. Draft Bite Me and bring in the clowns.

    DNF (755a85)

  31. Ace points out, persuasively, that the big winner was GOPe and their darling Roobs.

    Despite my lights, third place could just win the nomination at convention.

    DNF (755a85)

  32. The real fight is not the general election, but our own primary. If Trump wins the nomination, he will be our President. (shudder)

    Our struggle is not in November, but now. Some of you appear clueless…waiting for the obvious Democrat proffered by the other party, when we are about to nominate the ultimate Manchurian(D) candidate.

    God help our cause…we have met the enemy and he is us.

    pieter (ec44a2)

  33. Photo worth a moment of reflection:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-02/zombies

    DNF (755a85)

  34. 32. Again a Cruz or a Trump controls their destiny if and only if they win 60% of the delegates assigned by voter tallies.

    The RNC has reserved 40% of the delegates and will likely be the pachyderm in the room.

    DNF (755a85)

  35. perhaps pieter, i’m for cruz, I don’t find gratuitous bear baiting that exhilerating, and I have a home town admiration for rubio, despite his subsequent footfalls,

    narciso (732bc0)

  36. narc, well said. Rubio is another Romney, if the nominee, Republicans are likely to stay home being uninspired and let down again by the party. It really comes down to Trump and Cruz, both responsible for giving voice and hope to a greater electorate.

    Limbaugh supports Rubio as a great hope and solid conservative…try convincing a Trump supporters that a Gang of Eight member reflects their wants.

    pieter (ec44a2)

  37. My God, DNF, that photo says it all. We are screwed.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  38. Bradbury had the shells, as his reason for the Fahrenheit flambe, an Iphone without the details,

    narciso (732bc0)

  39. Pieter, I admire you for your ability to differentiate the commie Hillary! from the commie Bernie by nuance. You are a most generous person. As for me the fact that our country has a political party that would actually put up an ancient commie and a grifter commie as candidates indicates we are entering the Post Pax Americana phase of the Fall of Western Civilization.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  40. The only difference between having your nose stuck in a newspaper, magazine or book, and having your nose stuck in a phone or tablet, is that fewer trees have died. A lot fewer. I’d need a large suitcase to carry around all the books I have on my Samsung Note at any one time. And we old fogies can adjust the font size for easier reading. Or have the machine read it to us.

    As for the quality of the content, there’s a lot of trash in print too. Or do you think the print versions of People, NYT or LAT, to name three, make for better reading than the electronic versions?

    nk (dbc370)

  41. I believe the inference there was they are texting each other and playing games, nk, not reading Tolstoy.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  42. I know some take issue with mercer’s investment,

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/02/02/top-german-journalist-admits-live-on-air-national-news-agenda-set-by-government/

    but as compared to the dog trainer or the bezos post,

    narciso (732bc0)

  43. Wait’ll Hillary! or Bernie install The Fairness Doctrine. Like Time stated: We are all Socialists Now.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  44. I believe the inference there was they are texting each other and playing games, nk, not reading Tolstoy.

    Tolstoy? Does he blog at Huffington Post or Slate? I can never remember which.

    JVW (d60453)

  45. lol, JVW.

    felipe (56556d)

  46. most likely think regress,

    narciso (732bc0)

  47. Welcome to the monkey house.

    mojo (a3d457)

  48. Rev, concur. Both are criminal in ideology and deed. One’s an outright felon the other the ultimate slacker. I won’t live to see the Visigoths burn Rome, just move into the suburbs and demand welfare.

    Another generation’s good fight, if we’re lucky.

    pieter (ec44a2)

  49. #40 nk, I’ve always read Playboy for the pictures.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  50. Drudge leaders are Trump saying “he will beat the sh!t out of enemies” of the US, which is not a terrible sentiment…and the other hoping Carson will sue Cruz’s ass off, that Cruz is a liar for saying he supports universal healthcare (remarkably he stated that Cruz is as honest as a New York real estate developer).

    When will the media and electorate immanentatize his destined eschaton?

    pieter (ec44a2)

  51. vote alfalfa
    and circle the porcelain bowl

    mg (31009b)

  52. Schumers hand picked diaper dandy, alfalfa.
    gang of 8 will get you hate.

    mg (31009b)

  53. well who are they going to pick, mailman’s son, jeb, you do the best with the hand you are dealt,

    narciso (732bc0)

  54. The question is – How many conservatives stay home with a democrat like alfalfa as the nominee?
    My guess- millions.

    mg (31009b)

  55. Adios

    mg (31009b)

  56. mg, if you stepped into a time machine and traveled back to 1964, I bet you’d be calling Barry Goldwater a RINO. (LOL)

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  57. that would seem dubious, of course the party establishment, the reason why parkinson came up with the eleventh commandment, took goldwater’s vote against the civil rights act, as license to call him a racist, what does that sound like?

    narciso (732bc0)

  58. this is the matter with the party,

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/02/2922483/

    trump isn’t the problem, now you are going to need his voters, as 2012, should have taught an important lesson,

    narciso (732bc0)

  59. c.s.
    eff you and the donkey you rode in on.

    mg (31009b)

  60. mg, come on, man, I’m just funnin’ with you. But seriously, was Goldwater sufficiently conservative in your eyes?

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  61. Mr. Goldwater has nothing to do with the liberalism of schumer, rubio, i mean alfalfa, and the rest of the go along to get along losers.
    Gang of 8 deserves my hate.
    Cruz/West

    mg (31009b)

  62. I’m with MG. If y’all want my support, nominate a great candidate. One so good I forget all about Romney and Mccain… rather than am reminded of them.

    Rubio is the establishment guy. nominating him sends two messages: that the gang of 8 stuff is acceptable behavior for future presidential aspirants to copy, and that the GOP is the establishment’s party.

    I’m just not going to vote for him.

    Many will say he’s a really sweet kid and a terrific candidate. Then he should be fine without my support. Maybe Chuck Schumer will vote for him in my place.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  63. Alfalfa would probably nominate schumer to the supreme court. Or worse.
    Hello- this is about the supremes, g.d.it.

    mg (31009b)

  64. Dustin – Wish I could be as calm as you.
    Enjoying your posts the last couple weeks, as always.

    mg (31009b)

  65. Thanks man. First vacation in years, much needed and appreciated. Took a nice trip, but now I’ve fallen into an old habit of reading political blogs in between silly projects around the house.

    My old blue heeler used to hit the sleep button on my computer to get me to take her on a walk, and has relearned the old trick. When your dog is jealous of a computer it’s a sign.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  66. Much has been written about the unreliability of polls in recent years. Less written about, but just as important, is the unreliability of election-related political commentary. I’m talking about alternate-universe kinds of stuff. Over the past few months, cartoonist Scott Adams (Dilbert) is one of the very few observers who has had a clue about the most important development in conservative politics: the rise of Trump. Your list, JVW, is a veritable who’s who of the misguided. That’s why “Always trust content from Patterico” is such a delightful running gag – because the rest of the conservative web is anything but trustworthy.

    I’m no liberal, but with the exception of Hemingway, the liberals on your list are the most cogent.

    ThOR (a52560)

  67. Dustin-Walter my one year old Chessy takes his nose and pushes me to the door. And right now at three a.m. the coyotes are howling and he wants out!!!

    mg (31009b)

  68. This clown is a marco 8 degenerate-
    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/02/in_defense_of_the_gop_establishment.html
    Love the comments

    mg (31009b)

  69. Hillary angry….never. If she was angry, instead of shouting (aka, speaking with authority), she’d be throwing things.

    askeptic (efcf22)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3775 secs.