atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,

#5377: It sure was the wrong time to try THAT strategy.

Hillary's campaign apparently thought we'd be disgusted by Trump and not vote for him. Coming on the heels of eight years of Obama and typical leftist politics? Ha!

That strategy might have worked if the economy was screaming along at full employment and the fed had to raise interest rates 20% to keep inflation under control, people could buy gas for $1 a gallon and their health insurance wasn't costing them half their paychecks; but after eight years of elitist disdain for "flyover country", 50% annual price increases for "health care", massive increases in regulation, and continuous hammering with "racist!", people are kind of fed up with progressives and want someone "deplorable" for a change.

Besides: when someone runs as an actual right-winger, they win elections. Republicans who run left reliably lose elections.
The Clinton strategy was all about manipulating the Republicans to nominate the worst candidate Clinton called for forcing "all Republican candidates to lock themselves into extreme conservative positions that will hurt them in a general election."
What this did was, in fact, make it easy for a true alpha male like Trump to stand up and say, "Vote for me, because I'm not a complete pussy." It would do that any time; but in the ninth year of the Greater Depression, making it easier for a right-wing candidate to get ahead of the pack of moderate squishies is a dumb idea if you're a Democrat.

Meanwhile, Karl Denninger makes the point that--eight years go, when Obama won--the streets did not fill up with riots made up of people who refuse to accept the outcome of an election. What the Democrats invariably accuse the right wing of doing, they themselves do, which is a perfect example of the fact that progressives always project their worst selves onto others.
Most of the land mass of this nation is owned and resided upon by people who are in "red" (that is, the winner this time) areas of the country. With the exception of certain urban centers and right along the Mexican/Texas border there are very few "solid" blue areas.

Those urban centers consume roughly 90% of the energy and food in this country yet they comprise 5-10% of the land mass. The "red" areas produce 95% of the food and energy this nation consumes and occupies 90-95% of the land mass.

Do you really think that doing something like eliminating the last pieces of the structure our founding fathers put in place to prevent tyranny of the majority from being able to take hold is a good idea?
If the urban elites want to go to war with the folks in "flyover country" they might be able to have their armies shoot everyone who resists, but who will supply the food and energy to the cities?

* * *

I need to go back to bed. After getting five hours of sleep last night, and dragging myself through nine hours of work today, I barely managed to get home before collapsing. Slept until Mrs. Fungus got home, then got up and did a little cleaning. Frozen pizza for dinner, all I have energy to cook; and in a little bit I must go back to bed. *sigh*

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.