The Lemming Democrats

Since Hillary was handed her ass in the 2016 election the Dems have spent more time trying to analyze what happened than trying to find ways to win elections.  It is not the same thing.

Lemmings?  Yep those furry little critters that when herded toward a cliff…if one jumps off the rest will follow…perfect example of the Dems.

Why do they keep marching off the same cliff?

Again and again, Democrats expect demographics to hand them unearned election victories. Vapid centrist campaigns assume that coalitions of minorities and educated white professionals will rally around candidates just because there’s a D next to their names. Strategists target upscale suburban women—the proverbial soccer moms—as the key swing voters, and they lose elections that should have been won.

Source: The Lemming Democrats | Dissent Magazine

I wish that Dems would get over this loss…..they offered the voter a candidate that was short on policies and long on slogans…..think I am mistakened?

Hillary Clinton’s campaign ran TV ads that had less to do with policy than any other presidential candidate in the past four presidential races, according to a new study published on Monday by the Wesleyan Media Project.

Clinton’s team spent a whopping $1 billion on the election in all — about twice what Donald Trump’s campaign spent. Clinton spent $72 million on television ads in the final weeks alone.

But only 25 percent of advertising supporting her campaign went after Trump on policy grounds, the researchers found. By comparison, every other presidential candidate going back to at least 2000 devoted more than 40 percent of his or her advertising to policy-based attacks. None spent nearly as much time going after an opponent’s personality as Clinton’s ads did.

Source: Study: Hillary Clinton’s TV ads were almost entirely policy-free – Vox

The past election was a choice between two shitty candidates……… and the shittiest won….


19 thoughts on “The Lemming Democrats

  1. You had me agreeing with you up until the final statement. I’m at least willing to see if his way is going to be the shittiest, just another way of doing the same political jargon or if it works. Let’s give him a chance before we condemn.

      1. It’s only an excuse to those who wish to change reality … which isn’t about to happen …He is president and he will be president until he finishes his term, or gets impeached, and under those circumstances he is there to stay — No excuse about it! Reality!

  2. Both candidates were unsavory for their own reasons. Electoral College picked the current President as it has picked every single President for 240 years. We, the people, do not choose our President, technically speaking.

    1. The invisible power cabal chooses the presidents and makes the people think they have done something with their votes which is nothing but an illusion designed to give the rabble their bread and circus to keep them pacified and in line and subservient.

  3. Oh wow–yes, please, dems, learn from your friggin’ mistakes already and move on. Hell, Dump’s already working on his 2020 election and he’s been in less than 2 months. There’s a lot of work ahead for dems. I agree with Bill Maher and Dan Carlin on one major thing–the dems who hold the highest positions need to let go and let some younger blood make decisions. Republicans seemed to always be the party of “older folks”, but look at the leadership of the dems? theyve been in 30+ years for the most part. There’s a huge generational gap between older dems an the ones who’d usually vote more liberal. Hello, tap into that, dammit!

  4. Strategists on both sides are going to pull apart this last election forever; it is damn unique when compared with U.S. history. Trump dictated the tone of that entire election process, like it or not. It was total shock & awe to our collective sensibilities so it was very easy for the Dems to focus on the idiocy of the man as being incapable of holding the office and less about a debate on political policy differences. In the end it was NOT a loss because the Dems didn’t focus on policy; she represented “more Obama” and had the political baggage of the emails and Benghazi.
    But here’s my thing… I generally prefer to presume that people in politics (or even people in general) are “trying” to do good; I NEVER focus on the untenable concept that politicians are all crooked simply by nature of their profession; I leave that up to the guttural poor-me,hate-the-world ultra-right. If politicians are being accused of “bad” things I usually fall back on common sense, the results of formal investigations, and motivation for the apparent misdeed(s).
    Now, in all my protestations about Trump being in a totally wrong position and should be removed, that’s all about his mental and personality traits. I have absolutely no question regarding his patriotism as an American nor any question that he wants to do “bad”; he has all the money and power anyone could want. So, his motivation for that stuff is likely not an issue in his goals. It’s his personal incompetence and complete political inexperience I question.
    Regarding Hillary, I encourage any readers to read my post on the other blog that explains the email thing for me…

    Benghazi stands on the existing formal investigations. The Clinton Foundation? Nothing there either, although it makes for good populist suspicion. Again, motivation… Money? Power? Influence? Do the Clintons really illustrate that they need all that? She’s got a bit of a smug image and that bothers people for sure. Most of the hate directed toward her was because of her politics being an extension of Obama… which we now know has done far better for America than Trump will likely ever do.

    For as intellectual as people like to think they are when measuring up candidates, most of us will select based on…. “There’s just something I don’t like about him/her.” That’s all about image. The Dems certainly didn’t win but I don’t think this is an issue of faulty strategy; banging away at Trump’s personal idiocy is a common sense approach. But there certainly was a misstep in not understanding those rural red state voters who wanted the good old days back. Again, I apologize for the length here, chuq. But I guess that’s a reflection on your selection of subject matter. 

    1. No need to apologize…I appreciate a well thought out comment….I always look at policies and issues…may not like the person but if policies are solid in my opinion than I will probably vote for them…chuq

    1. Yes it is….well by me do not care about others…I have the capability of looking at policies and issues and not the person….if one reads my stuff then they will see that I am honest in my assessments….there are too many that turn a blind eye….

  5. It’s his personal incompetence and complete political inexperience I question. — There has never been a president assume the office who has had the competence to do the job. That is something that is learned through exposure and hard experience. There has never been a president who has assumed the office with “Experience” in being president. The “Experience” of being president is accumulated on the job and there is no “Experience” in the world that can adequately prepare any Human being for the rigors of the US presidency. These very factors negate the validity of the entirety of the balance of the argument here.

  6. Umm… so, for the sake of comparison here, Lincoln.. or even Reagan… had as much experience going into the presidency as Trump?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.