The Democrats are imploding

It's too soon to predict that the Democrats will go the way of the Whigs, but the oldest political party in the world is tripping over its own doctrines; making a public spectacle of its inability to coherently sponsor debates; riven by ideological fissures that seem to be widening; driving away two bedrock constituencies, the white working class and black voters; and hitching itself to a doomed impeachment effort that could cost it dearly next November.

It's a great time to be alive if you are a Republican!

Consider the forthcoming presidential debates.

Next Thursday's scheduled debate is being boycotted by all its candidates because the food service provider at the host institution, Loyola Marymount University — itself a second choice venue after UCLA was chosen and rejected because of a strike there — is experiencing a strike, and the candidates refuse to cross a picket line.  DNC chair Tom Perez, a former secretary of labor, is leaning hard on the parties to the strike to settle their differences (do you suspect there may be some quid pro quo promises?), so the squabble between the two constituencies of the Democrats, higher education and left wing labor unions, can end.

But solving that issue is child's play compared to the "diversity" issue facing the debate scheduled for next February:

Nine Democratic presidential candidates have called on the Democratic National Committee to relax its debate standards next year, allowing some lower-polling rivals onto the stage.

"While we know this was an unintended consequence of the DNC's actions, many of the candidates excluded due to these thresholds are the ones who have helped make this year's primary field historically diverse," the candidates wrote. "Frankly, that unintended result does not live up to the values of our Democratic Party and it does not serve the best interest of Democratic voters."

The letter was signed by all seven Democrats who qualified for next week's debate in Los Angeles: former vice president Joe Biden; Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), South Bend, Ind. Mayor Pete Buttigieg; Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), investor Tom Steyer; and businessman Andrew Yang.

It was also signed by Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), who organized his fellow candidates, as well as former housing and urban development secretary Julián Castro, who has not appeared in a debate since October. Castro has argued that the debate standards and the structure of the primaries — in which two of the country's whitest states vote first — were leading to a less diverse Democratic contest.

This is hilarious.  I love the idea that the party may find itself openly changing the rules of the game when the racial bean count doesn't meet the ideological demand for "diversity."  And the notion that Jews and homosexuals do not count as "diverse" is the perfect way to demonstrate to the majority of Americans that if they win a fair contest, the prize may be taken away from them solely because of their race if power is handed to the Democrats.  And the spectacle of identifiable affirmative action candidates, who didn't meet the publicly announced criteria for participating, crowding the stage and shortening the sound bites of each participant would inevitably tick off some of the partisans of candidates who made it to the stage fair and square.  It's almost like embroidering a scarlet A (for affirmative action) on their clothing.

Even more entertainingly, the DNC's communications director, Xochitl Hinojosa, is rejecting the proposal and standing firm, defending the integrity of playing by the rules:

... calling it 'insulting' that candidates would suggest that the committee is 'somehow leaving people of color' out of debates[.] ... So, our polling threshold and our thresholds for our debates, to say that they are somehow leaving people of color off this stage is not only wrong, but it's insulting.

She is trashing the entire theory of "disparate impact," which is central to the diversity industry affirmative action suits, as a way of forcing people who don't meet criteria to receive treatment as if they did.  The criteria are presumed racist if the wrong racial mix passes the cutoff.

Meanwhile, an even worse nightmare is unfolding: a progressive splinter ticket running against the Democrats' nominee if the party goes with a "moderate" like Joe Biden.  Emily Zanotti writes in the Daily Wire:

With the possibility of former Vice President Joe Biden earning the 2020 nomination now inching ever closer to reality, key progressive legislators are floating the idea of an "alternative" Democratic ticket that embodies a fully far-left platform, possibly pitting the two extremes of the Democratic Party against each other.

The New York Times claims, Monday, that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) are each others' worst enemy and that, despite their "non-agression" [sic] pact, if one were to be hounded out of the race, the other would pose a clear threat to the "Establishment" Democrats' pick, Biden.

"Since the presidential primary race began, the two senators — who have been friends since Ms. Warren was elected to the Senate in 2012 — have abided by a de facto nonaggression pact, rarely criticizing one another and frequently acting as something of a populist tag team on the debate stage," the Times claims. "Yet with Mr. Sanders enjoying a revival after his heart attack in October and Ms. Warren receding from her summer surge but wielding a formidable political organization in the first nominating states, it's increasingly clear that their biggest obstacle to winning the Democratic nomination is each other." (snip)

So, perhaps the time has come for another idea, some progressive legislators say: a Sanders/Warren ticket. Or a Warren/Sanders ticket.

"The two of them could usher in a progressive era for the next decade," said Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA). Khanna even compared the pair to another all star team, Bill Clinton and Al Gore, who consolidated the mushy middle back in the early 1990s by appealing to middle-of-the-road Democrats together, rather than splitting what was then the core of the party. "They doubled down on a bet for a centrist vision of the party. This would be a bet on a progressive vision for the party."

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) also told the Times that she was thrilled with the idea.

Having already lost enough white working class voters to carry Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin for Trump in 2016, destroying the "blue wall" theory of Electoral College dominance by Democrats and suddenly turning the party against the Constitutional procedures for presidential elections, several recent polls indicate that African American voters are turning toward Trump.  

A growing number of polls show that President Trump is gaining the support of black voters above what any Republican president has ever received. Both Emerson Polling and Rasmussen Reports have it at about 34%, a stunning number.

And a new Zogby Analytics survey found that African American support is at the "highest levels of the year," driven by a strong economy, historically low black unemployment, and Trump's agenda to support minority small businesses, historically black colleges and universities, and passage of criminal justice reform.

"Not surprisingly, all African Americans do not hate Trump!" pollster Jonathan Zogby said in sharing his data with us.

President Trump's continued exhortations to blacks to examine what the Democrats have done to solve their issues for the last 50 years, and quesiton, "What have you got to lose?" seem to be gaining traction. Without overwhelming black support, the Democrats' chances of winning the presidency are nil.

Which brings us to the impeachment railroading of President Trump, which, among other things, may remind African Americans of the treatment Southern blacks experienced at the hands of Democrat segregationists in law enforcement and the judiciary for a century following the Civil War. Impeachment will not succeed in conviction in the Senate, so it is nothing but symbolic posturing. And yet, like lemmings, House Democrats in swing districts that voted for Trump are flocking to support impeachment when they vote on the two articles coming out of the House Judiciary Committee:

More Democrats from competitive House districts said they will back the impeachment of President Trump, putting the effort on track to pass this week despite some fears that their position could put their seats at risk.

The House plans to vote on Wednesday. With Mr. Trump's impeachment looking likely, Democratic leaders are also to soon announce which members had been suggested as impeachment managers—essentially prosecutors—during the Senate trial, which is expected to kick off in January.

Democrats have largely united behind impeachment. By Monday afternoon, at least 17 from the 31 Democratic-held districts that Mr. Trump won in the 2016 presidential race had announced they would support the abuse-of-power and obstruction of Congress charges, according to a Wall Street Journal survey, with two saying they are opposed.

Nancy Pelosi has claimed that she is not whipping votes, but it is not unthinkable that she's put out the word that a no vote means no DNC funds for candidates in the 2020 election.

Obviously, a lot could change in the next 11 months. But right now, the donkeys are maneuvering themselves into a GOP Congress supporting  a reform agenda of President Trump in his second term.

It's too soon to predict that the Democrats will go the way of the Whigs, but the oldest political party in the world is tripping over its own doctrines; making a public spectacle of its inability to coherently sponsor debates; riven by ideological fissures that seem to be widening; driving away two bedrock constituencies, the white working class and black voters; and hitching itself to a doomed impeachment effort that could cost it dearly next November.

It's a great time to be alive if you are a Republican!

Consider the forthcoming presidential debates.

Next Thursday's scheduled debate is being boycotted by all its candidates because the food service provider at the host institution, Loyola Marymount University — itself a second choice venue after UCLA was chosen and rejected because of a strike there — is experiencing a strike, and the candidates refuse to cross a picket line.  DNC chair Tom Perez, a former secretary of labor, is leaning hard on the parties to the strike to settle their differences (do you suspect there may be some quid pro quo promises?), so the squabble between the two constituencies of the Democrats, higher education and left wing labor unions, can end.

But solving that issue is child's play compared to the "diversity" issue facing the debate scheduled for next February:

Nine Democratic presidential candidates have called on the Democratic National Committee to relax its debate standards next year, allowing some lower-polling rivals onto the stage.

"While we know this was an unintended consequence of the DNC's actions, many of the candidates excluded due to these thresholds are the ones who have helped make this year's primary field historically diverse," the candidates wrote. "Frankly, that unintended result does not live up to the values of our Democratic Party and it does not serve the best interest of Democratic voters."

The letter was signed by all seven Democrats who qualified for next week's debate in Los Angeles: former vice president Joe Biden; Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), South Bend, Ind. Mayor Pete Buttigieg; Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), investor Tom Steyer; and businessman Andrew Yang.

It was also signed by Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), who organized his fellow candidates, as well as former housing and urban development secretary Julián Castro, who has not appeared in a debate since October. Castro has argued that the debate standards and the structure of the primaries — in which two of the country's whitest states vote first — were leading to a less diverse Democratic contest.

This is hilarious.  I love the idea that the party may find itself openly changing the rules of the game when the racial bean count doesn't meet the ideological demand for "diversity."  And the notion that Jews and homosexuals do not count as "diverse" is the perfect way to demonstrate to the majority of Americans that if they win a fair contest, the prize may be taken away from them solely because of their race if power is handed to the Democrats.  And the spectacle of identifiable affirmative action candidates, who didn't meet the publicly announced criteria for participating, crowding the stage and shortening the sound bites of each participant would inevitably tick off some of the partisans of candidates who made it to the stage fair and square.  It's almost like embroidering a scarlet A (for affirmative action) on their clothing.

Even more entertainingly, the DNC's communications director, Xochitl Hinojosa, is rejecting the proposal and standing firm, defending the integrity of playing by the rules:

... calling it 'insulting' that candidates would suggest that the committee is 'somehow leaving people of color' out of debates[.] ... So, our polling threshold and our thresholds for our debates, to say that they are somehow leaving people of color off this stage is not only wrong, but it's insulting.

She is trashing the entire theory of "disparate impact," which is central to the diversity industry affirmative action suits, as a way of forcing people who don't meet criteria to receive treatment as if they did.  The criteria are presumed racist if the wrong racial mix passes the cutoff.

Meanwhile, an even worse nightmare is unfolding: a progressive splinter ticket running against the Democrats' nominee if the party goes with a "moderate" like Joe Biden.  Emily Zanotti writes in the Daily Wire:

With the possibility of former Vice President Joe Biden earning the 2020 nomination now inching ever closer to reality, key progressive legislators are floating the idea of an "alternative" Democratic ticket that embodies a fully far-left platform, possibly pitting the two extremes of the Democratic Party against each other.

The New York Times claims, Monday, that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) are each others' worst enemy and that, despite their "non-agression" [sic] pact, if one were to be hounded out of the race, the other would pose a clear threat to the "Establishment" Democrats' pick, Biden.

"Since the presidential primary race began, the two senators — who have been friends since Ms. Warren was elected to the Senate in 2012 — have abided by a de facto nonaggression pact, rarely criticizing one another and frequently acting as something of a populist tag team on the debate stage," the Times claims. "Yet with Mr. Sanders enjoying a revival after his heart attack in October and Ms. Warren receding from her summer surge but wielding a formidable political organization in the first nominating states, it's increasingly clear that their biggest obstacle to winning the Democratic nomination is each other." (snip)

So, perhaps the time has come for another idea, some progressive legislators say: a Sanders/Warren ticket. Or a Warren/Sanders ticket.

"The two of them could usher in a progressive era for the next decade," said Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA). Khanna even compared the pair to another all star team, Bill Clinton and Al Gore, who consolidated the mushy middle back in the early 1990s by appealing to middle-of-the-road Democrats together, rather than splitting what was then the core of the party. "They doubled down on a bet for a centrist vision of the party. This would be a bet on a progressive vision for the party."

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) also told the Times that she was thrilled with the idea.

Having already lost enough white working class voters to carry Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin for Trump in 2016, destroying the "blue wall" theory of Electoral College dominance by Democrats and suddenly turning the party against the Constitutional procedures for presidential elections, several recent polls indicate that African American voters are turning toward Trump.  

A growing number of polls show that President Trump is gaining the support of black voters above what any Republican president has ever received. Both Emerson Polling and Rasmussen Reports have it at about 34%, a stunning number.

And a new Zogby Analytics survey found that African American support is at the "highest levels of the year," driven by a strong economy, historically low black unemployment, and Trump's agenda to support minority small businesses, historically black colleges and universities, and passage of criminal justice reform.

"Not surprisingly, all African Americans do not hate Trump!" pollster Jonathan Zogby said in sharing his data with us.

President Trump's continued exhortations to blacks to examine what the Democrats have done to solve their issues for the last 50 years, and quesiton, "What have you got to lose?" seem to be gaining traction. Without overwhelming black support, the Democrats' chances of winning the presidency are nil.

Which brings us to the impeachment railroading of President Trump, which, among other things, may remind African Americans of the treatment Southern blacks experienced at the hands of Democrat segregationists in law enforcement and the judiciary for a century following the Civil War. Impeachment will not succeed in conviction in the Senate, so it is nothing but symbolic posturing. And yet, like lemmings, House Democrats in swing districts that voted for Trump are flocking to support impeachment when they vote on the two articles coming out of the House Judiciary Committee:

More Democrats from competitive House districts said they will back the impeachment of President Trump, putting the effort on track to pass this week despite some fears that their position could put their seats at risk.

The House plans to vote on Wednesday. With Mr. Trump's impeachment looking likely, Democratic leaders are also to soon announce which members had been suggested as impeachment managers—essentially prosecutors—during the Senate trial, which is expected to kick off in January.

Democrats have largely united behind impeachment. By Monday afternoon, at least 17 from the 31 Democratic-held districts that Mr. Trump won in the 2016 presidential race had announced they would support the abuse-of-power and obstruction of Congress charges, according to a Wall Street Journal survey, with two saying they are opposed.

Nancy Pelosi has claimed that she is not whipping votes, but it is not unthinkable that she's put out the word that a no vote means no DNC funds for candidates in the 2020 election.

Obviously, a lot could change in the next 11 months. But right now, the donkeys are maneuvering themselves into a GOP Congress supporting  a reform agenda of President Trump in his second term.