The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewMike Whitney Archive
What Did the Democrats Learn from the 2016 Election? Nothing
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The Democrats refuse to accept any responsibility for the 2016 election. They won’t admit they fielded the worst candidate in party history or that they blew a huge lead in the polls or that their uninspired elitist campaign paved the way for a Trump victory. According to them, none of these things made any difference at all. According to them, it’s all Russia’s fault.

This is the same buck-passing song and dance we’ve heard from the Dems for the last two years. Russia, Russia, Russia. “Don’t blame us, blame Putin. Putin did it!” And these are the people who want to govern the country?

Give me a break.

The Democrats have swept the facts about the election under the rug hoping that no one remembers what actually happened. They never admit that fewer blacks voted for Clinton than voted for Obama. They never admit that fewer Hispanics voted for Clinton than voted for Obama. They never admit that a significant number of people who voted for Obama either voted for Trump or didn’t vote at all. They never admit that in the “nearly 700 counties in the United States that voted twice for Barack Obama, one-third of them flipped to Trump in 2016…or that almost one in four of President Obama’s 2012 white working-class supporters defected from the Democrats in 2016.” (Chicago Tribune) And, they never admit that James Comey’s announcement that the FBI was reopening the investigation of Hillary Clinton 11 days before the balloting, put Hillary into a steep nosedive from which she never recovered. (Re: The Comey Effect– Hillary even acknowledged that Comey’s announcement cost her the election, but she quickly did a 180 after she realized that the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the DOJ and the entire National Security State wanted her to go along with their goofy plan to blame “evil” Putin for the debacle. Which, of course, she did.

But what does this tell us about the Democrats going forward, after all, we don’t see any sign of self-reflection, contrition or even redirection. All we see is scapegoating and denial.

It’s like the results of the two congressional investigations and the exhaustive two-year Mueller probe never even happened. It’s like the party leaders are so blinded by their own boneheaded arrogance, they can’t see what’s right under their noses, that the game is over, that everyone knows there was no cooperation, no coordination and no collusion. The whole thing was a fraud from the get go. That’s what all the reports say at least, but don’t tell that to the Democrat leaders who still have their hands clasped firmly over their ears. They don’t want to hear the truth, they don’t want to move on or reevaluate the party strategy or platform, and they certainly don’t want to reconnect with the blue collar working people in the center of the country who used to vote Democrat until the party started looking down their noses at them and waving them away like a gaggle of lepers. They think everything is hunky-dory right now. Why change? Why support progressive policies when public relations will do just fine? Why push for good-paying jobs when you can fire up the base with hotbutton identity issues and shrieks of racism? Why talk about plunging living standards, towering student debt and widening inequality when the public’s attention can easily be diverted to the latest Trump gaffe on Twitter or the latest METOO horror story or the cockamamie Kavanaugh hearing? Why build a party on principle, equality and conviction when its just as easy to pull the wool over people’s eyes and then brush them aside after the votes are counted?

Instead of self reflection and a commitment to change, all we see is more of the same. The Dems have switched from the Mueller report to Trump’s tax returns without missing a beat. In just two years, the party has transformed itself from a credible political organization to a permanent inquisition spearheaded by the likes of Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell and Jerry Nadler, as dreary a trio as was ever assembled in our long and checkered political history.

Is this the face of the new Democratic party? Are people really going to flock to the polls and vote Democrat in 2020 because they admire or identify with the likes of Adam Schiff, a man who can look calmly into the camera lens while he twists the truth into pretzel-like contortions?

People like Schiff aren’t interested in governing, they’re only interested in carrying out their own vicious vendettas. They’re not leaders, they’re political assassins.

Is that unfair? Am I being too harsh on the Democrat leaders? Has there been a change of heart or a course correction I didn’t notice? Has there been any effort to reach out to the working people living in Red State America, to address their issues and look for remedies to their problems like to the offshoring of businesses, the outsourcing of jobs, and the growing opiate epidemic??

No! There hasn’t been any outreach at all. Nothing. And the only time the scheming Dems talked about health care was 3 weeks before the midterms when they needed a little oomph to get their people to the polls. But as soon as the votes were counted, they dropped the topic like a hot potato and went back to pestering Trump over his fictitious connections with Russia. It’s shocking.

Face it: The Democrats aren’t going to change. They got a good thing going right now and they’re not going to mess with it. They already have Wall Street, Silicone Valley, most of the weapons manufacturers, and all the major media in their hip pocket, so what do they have to worry about? Nothing. All they have to do is keep the pressure on Trump until the economy tanks, then trot out Michelle Obama at the eleventh hour and, presto, they’ll be back in the oval office once again. That’s the plan, at least, and that’s why Michelle has been cozying up to all the Hollywood bigshots while she delivers her Book Tour stump speech to sell-out crowds across the country. She’s broadening her base and honing her speaking skills for the big campaign kickoff extravaganza sometime in the Fall when she will assume the role of frontrunner from the day she throws her hat in the ring. It’s all part of a script that was written long ago.

The Democrat leaders are going to use the same template for Michelle that they used for Barack. They’re going to create an inspirational, but vacuous leader who will faithfully execute Wall Street’s diktat, who will faithfully prosecute the empire’s wars, and who will faithfully shift more of the nation’s wealth to the voracious 1 percent. That’s what the Dems have up their sleeve, another slap in the face for working people.

Don’t underestimate how cynical these people really are.

Hide 14 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Far more Blacks turned out for Obama than for Hillary, while far more white Democrats turned out for Trump in 2016 than for Republicans in the mid-term election. Fewer white Democrats turned out to vote post-tax-cut-for-the-corporate-employers-of-the-foreign-nationals-who-are-streaming-into-the-USA-legally-in-even-greater-numbers. Fewer white Democrats turned out post-failure-to-stop-illegal-immigration-and-to-reduce-mass-scale-legal-immigration-as-promised.

    While Republicans are counting on the 2% increase in Hispanic & Black Republican voters in 2016 to push them to victory in 2020, ninety-five million US citizens ages 16 to 65 are still out of the labor force. Most Hispanics and Blacks are continuing to vote for Dems, and many cross-over voters are staying home despite the president’s constant bragging about an economy where the average employed person is a part-time worker with low wages that have not risen perceptively in 40 years.

    And no, a 6% average wage upturn does not count when rent has increased by 72% since 1995. Except for the crony parents in above-firing absenteeism-friendly jobs, most workers have seen zero wage uphikes and even fewer increases in work hours and job security. Most of the crony parents, too, just have the job security that corrupt back-watching and open discrimination provides for moms in voted-best-for-moms jobs, not significantly increased wages.

    They are working few hours due to automation and due to the “job sharing” system of unofficial part-time work for married moms with a second income that covers housing and other major expenses, willing to work cheaply in exchange for libertine absenteeism privileges for moms. The welfare-eligible single moms, with their up to \$6,431 in child tax credit cash, must work part time to stay under the earned-income limits for multiple monthly welfare programs unless they are working temp jobs, surrendering the welfare during months when their earned income goes over the programs’ limits. It’s a great economy—great! Politicians think voters are too stupid to understand, not quite.

  2. Given the ongoing demographic changes in the U.S., Democrats may simply not have to care about appealing to white working class voters. Despite being a very weak candidate, Hillary Clinton came close to winning in 2016, and actually received more popular votes than did Donald Trump. With main stream media coverage that is 24/7 hostile to Trump, almost any Democrat this side of Lucifer should be able to gain 270 electoral votes.

    I’ve also wondered if Michelle Obama could be put forth as the 2020 Democratic presidential candidate. I just can’t imagine what the other Democratic contenders would say again her. Her biggest drawback, I suspect, is that she doesn’t really want to campaign (fairly grueling) or govern (more difficult than it might at first appear, once cracks start appearing in the coalition of the fringes). If, however, she can be convinced that she can: (1) coast to the nomination; (2) campaign relatively little in the general election (how would Donald Trump criticize her?); and (3) govern as a figurehead, she might agree.

    • Replies: @nsa
    , @Fidelios Automata
  3. Bernie, Biden and Beto. Apologizing for their skin color. Vote for me because I suck! I don’t think it’s gonna work.

  4. nsa says:
    @Diversity Heretic

    “With mainstream media that is 24/7 hostile to Trump”.
    Pure BS. Trumpstein gives the vile jooies whatever they want and in return he gets great coverage from the JudenPresse, JudenTV, and JudenNet. It’s an avalanche of Trump tweeted this and Trump did that every day, day in and day out…..with the basic theme being those commie fag cunt nigger beaner Ds are being very mean to our iconoclastic President. It’s not easy to create a presidential image for a fat aging satyr with the mind of an eighth grader, but the jooies have managed the trick.
    Trumpstein gives the self-serving conniving jews a war with Iran and they will find a way to get him reelected.

  5. Biff says:

    From what I can understand is that in 2019 there is more “democracy” in China than there is in the United States, or what you could call “democratic input/output in the relationship between the people and their government”.

    Phony elections in the U.S., that are more of a personality contest than anything else, will get you celebrities and movie stars(Ronald Reagan) elected rather than the bankers that own them, for the latter doesn’t like the obvious attention you get when you actually own the world.

    • Replies: @TTSSYF
  6. TTSSYF says:

    Ronald Reagan was a successful two-term governor of California and former president of the Screen Actors Guild. He was not merely a “celebrity and movie star.” Isn’t it good that, unlike Biden and others, he actually worked in some line of business other than government (or law) before running for President? He was not elected because he was a celebrity. He was elected because he was a superior candidate and expressed what the majority of people believed (he was referred to as “the Great Communicator for a reason).

    • Replies: @Biff
  7. Not a lot to disagree with in this article — pretty basic: like asserting “shit stinks”.
    The “Michelle to the rescue” claims are worth keeping in mind (well worth a bet if the odds are good).
    My hoped for outcome for 2020 ? Not one single voter turns out to vote. Now that would be a “result” !

  8. Biff says:

    Like the rest, Reagan was banker owned:

  9. “All they have to do is keep the pressure on Trump until the economy tanks, then trot out Michelle Obama at the eleventh hour and, presto, they’ll be back in the oval office once again.”

    Michelle is marginally more likeable than Hillary, but I’d like to think it sticks in the craw of many voters that the principle qualification of the lady candidate on offer is that she was married to a popular President, and that is pretty much it. At least Madame Clinton could point to a long, colourful legal career and a stint in the Senate (the modern day equivalent to Caligula’s horse?), while all Michelle can point to is a series of patronage jobs and affirmative-action advances that made life far easier for her than for the inarguably corrupt Madam Clinton, who had to at least do a little thinking and work to get to where she was.

  10. @Diversity Heretic

    The fact that she lost to the boorish and widely-reviled Trump shows just how unappealing she is and how angry the middle-class electorate was.

  11. Anonymous [AKA "Howard Brazee"] says:

    A big reason Trump won is that a sufficient number of voters believe that Washingon is owned by Big Money. Trump claimed that he was too rich to be bought (of course he lied), and people wanted to believe him.

    Democrats aren’t running to change that system. Democrats are running on how bad Trump and the Republicans are. That isn’t enough.

    Congress defines what they get as not bribes. The people disagree.

    You can’t get rich in politics unless you’re a crook. — Harry S Truman.

  12. NYMOM says:

    I think the Democrats learned not to depend upon polls and the media to get their candidates elected…going forward they are in the process of ramping up the voter fraud through various mechanisms such as gerry mandering: Case in point: AOC won in a very gerry mandered district of NYC. The Democrats took a piece of a middle class section of Queens and merged it unto the Bronx to negate the Queens middle class vote. On top of that, we have now learned that AOC doesn’t even live in the Bronx district she was supposed to represent…

    The plot sickens…

    Now we also found out the Dems have started something new: going door to door and having the people who live there sign absentee ballots which the Dems mail in later as needed to give their candidates a needed edge. That’s why so many Republicans lost elections days after we thought they had won…all these last minute absentee ballots turning up that the courts, of course, would insist have to be counted…

    They are coming up with many other tricks as well.

    That’s the lesson they’ve learned from this last Presidential election…

    • Replies: @Digital Samizdat
  13. @NYMOM

    Are you seriously suggesting that a Republican would’ve had a chance in the Bronx had the Dems not gerrymandered the district? Or do you really think the Dem establishment was doing all this just to benefit AOC and screw over their long-time favorite, Joe Crowley? Either way, doesn’t make much sense.

  14. Altai says:

    The issue is, when Trump and Bernie are gone, what’s next? Reform from inside or outside the parties or a total implosion of the system?

    The political realignment may be too slow and may be insufficient to construct something workable.

    The problem is old school leftists who typically grew up in homogeneous societies think it’s a ‘trick’ by capital to import foreigners and pit them against the indigenous to displace class politics. But really it just represents a preferred priority. No good having equality or anything else if the price is ethnic displacement.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply -

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Mike Whitney Comments via RSS