Tag: democrats

House Democrats concede 2016 election!

Mind you, they did so in code: “Following a string of recent mass shootings, Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) is looking to renew the assault weapons ban that was originally signed by former President Bill Clinton but expired more than a decade ago.” …90 co-sponsors, which is roughly half the current Democratic House caucus. Six years ago, it would have been about a third of the Democratic House caucus, but then the Democrats started doing stupid [expletive deleted] like this. On the other hand, the Democrats that remain are probably safe enough doing stunts like this. And on the gripping hand… this is no way to get a Congressional majority back, fellows.

:pause:

So, thanks?

Via @instapundit, who likewise is pleased to see his enemies make a mistake.

Democrats wondering why the voters won’t eat the Democratic talking points.

I love reading stuff like this.  No, really, I do. It’s always reassuring when my political opponents are so determined to ignore their real, structural problems:

Democrats “were not connecting with voters” in recent elections, a party report concluded Tuesday, a trend driven home by the party’s surprising loss of the Kentucky governor’s office this month.

“We lack a clear message about what unites and animates us as Democrats,” the Democratic Victory Task Force said.

Continue reading Democrats wondering why the voters won’t eat the Democratic talking points.

The NYT laments the loss of a whole Democratic politicians’ generation.

Oh, my, but this is almost painful to read:

“In terms of governors, legislators and constitutional officers, the bench has been eviscerated during [President Barack Obama’s] tenure,” said [ousted Kentucky State Auditor Adam] Edelen, 40, who says it would be “too difficult” for him to beat [Senator Rand] Paul and plans to go back to the private sector. He called the loss of Democratic talent across the country “regrettable” and said, “It will have very long-term consequences.”

Almost.  What’s particularly entertaining about this particular article is that the Democrats in it all seem really, really enthusiastic about blaming it all on Barack Obama. Excuse me: “blaming us awful Republicans who blame Obama.” Seriously, though; there’s pretty much zero self-reflection there that possibly, just possibly, the reason that people voted for Democrats in 2006 and 2008 but not in 2010 or 2014 is because in 2006 and 2008 Democratic politicians avoided sounding like hyper-progressive partisan lunatics.

Or, more accurately: that in 2010 and 2014 nobody really believed the Democrats when they tried to sound normal.  Heck, even in 2012 the damage was less than you’d expect. In some places, the downticket races didn’t even slightly shift in the Democrats favor…

How much long-term damage has Roe v. Wade done to Democratic politicians? As in, literally?

(H/T: Instapundit) Do you know what word is missing from this half-screed, half-lament by the New York Times?

As Republicans never tire of pointing out, the Democratic candidates for president are old.

[snip]

Where are the national Democratic politicians in their 40s and 50s? At 52, Martin O’Malley, the former Maryland governor, is this year’s lone exception. Does it say something about the party, or about the generation, that other than President Obama (born at the tail end of the baby boom), national candidates from this age group are rare?

Continue reading How much long-term damage has Roe v. Wade done to Democratic politicians? As in, literally?

Quote of the Day, Slate Abruptly Realizes That Democrats Will Lose Next Year edition.

Slate can’t quite come out and say so, but that’s one heck of an ‘if,’ there:

It’s hard to overstate just how much is on the line for the Democratic Party in getting its “Rising American Electorate” numbers up. It was enthusiasm and turnout among these groups that pushed President Obama to two Electoral College victories—and, in turn, reoriented the Democratic Party to cater to these demographics, who then didn’t show up in nearly as strong numbers when Obama wasn’t on the ballot. The Big Question of 2016 Politics, ever since it became clear that Clinton would pursue a strategy tailored to retaining the Obama coalition, has been whether Clinton could turn out these groups in similar numbers. If she can’t, then the 2016 election will look less like the 2008 and 2012 ones and more like the 2010 and 2014 ones. Meaning: the Democratic Party will be almost completely wiped out of American political leadership above the municipal level.

I add the last line not because I think that the GOP is going to get that lucky – more’s the pity; metaphorically burning the Democratic party down its metaphorical roots might actually get all the Angry Left rot metaphorically purged from it – but because I think that my readers deserve a treat.  And a reminder: whatever our problems are, they pale in comparison to the Democrats’.  I mean, at least we’re not required to ignore objective reality itself during this cycle…

Illinois lottery paying out big… in IOUs.

Got tipped to this by @Snitfit: how is this even possible?

You can play the lottery in Illinois these days, but you just can’t win much. The cash-strapped state said on Thursday that it can’t pay out anything over $600 for the time being. For a ticket worth more than that, winners get an IOU that won’t be paid off until the state government resolves its long-running budget crisis.

Continue reading Illinois lottery paying out big… in IOUs.

DNC Chair tries to explain the singular lack of diversity in the Party of Diversity.

“DNC chief defends party’s diversity.” What an entertaining title, particularly since it hints at the possibility that a Democratic representative had to spend some quality squirming time trying to explain why Tuesday’s debate stage was pretty heavy in the Dude contingent and downright blanketed with Old and White. Let’s see, shall we?

Oh, my, yes.  This is going to be what everybody takes from this interview: “[Debbie Wasserman Schultz] said the Democratic presidential field is not representative of the overall diversity of the party.”  But what you should take from this interview is that Jorge Ramos – the guy from Fusion who interviewed Schultz – started off by asking a pointed question about Hillary Clinton’s emails, then followed up by suggesting that the Democrats are terrified of Donald Trump. There wasn’t a friendly question in that interview (not hostile, either, but definitely not friendly)  I’ll say this for Hispanic activists: even the ones who aren’t on my side seem to have figured out that going down the same road that African-American activists did with regard to Democrats will do nothing for Hispanics in the long run.

Via Instapundit.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

PS: Seriously, the last question was worth the price of admission: (I paraphrase) “Hey, Debbie, should we have more than six debates?” …Three, maybe four seconds of dead air before the spinning started. Not enough for a dumpster fire picture, but you’d think that the head of the DNC would be prepared for that comment.

Why no progressive inquisitors at the Democratic debate?

Via @AdamBaldwin by this tweet by Joan Walsh… and it has a question that has some veritable teeth to it. No, really. This is a great question, and I wish that I had thought of it first:

Continue reading Why no progressive inquisitors at the Democratic debate?