Democrats Supporting Trump's Revenge Tour

M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Field Marshall
Promoting extremists in the other party on the theory that the extremists are weaker candidates is the least principled (and flat out dumb) political strategy I've ever heard.

Democrats helped John Gibbs defeat Pete Meijer in the Michigan republican primary. Gibbs's only qualification is that he really likes to s*ck off Trump. I'm actually hoping that the little Democratic weasels who boosted Trump's candidates in the primaries lose in the general elections. People with no principles do not deserve to be in public office.

>>>In an op-ed that Meijer published the day before the primary, in Common Sense, Bari Weiss’s newsletter, he lashed out at Democrats who talked about the existential threat to democracy posed by election deniers, then boosted Gibbs’s campaign. Meijer is right to be angry. He also noted that his contest wasn’t the only one in which Democratic Party entities or candidates had spent money in an attempt to secure the Republican nomination for a truly extreme candidate. . . .

The saddest aspect of Meijer’s comments is how bitter he sounds. “I’m sick and tired of hearing the sanctimonious bullshit about the Democrats being the pro-democracy party,” he told Politico.<<<


If you think this is a smart strategy, I remind you of Hillary Clinton's moronic strategy to promote Trump in the 2016 Republican primary on the theory that he was a weak candidate:

>>>What was not often acknowledged in Trump's heated race against Democrat Hillary Clinton, however, was how her campaign fueled his rise to power.

An email recently released by the whistleblowing organization WikiLeaks shows how the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party bear direct responsibility for propelling the bigoted billionaire to the White House.

In its self-described "pied piper" strategy, the Clinton campaign proposed intentionally cultivating extreme right-wing presidential candidates, hoping to turn them into the new "mainstream of the Republican Party" in order to try to increase Clinton's chances of winning.

The Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee called for using far-right candidates "as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right." Clinton's camp insisted that Trump and other extremists should be "elevated" to "leaders of the pack" and media outlets should be told to "take them seriously."

The strategy backfired — royally.<<<

 
D

Danzilla31

Audioholic Spartan
Honestly democrats don't have to fuel anything. Just let Trump do what he does. Trump is easily his own worst enemy. Let him run around long enough and it's pretty obvious he'll give the democrats plenty to run they're platforms off of
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
Was drumphy really representative of GOP ideals (pretty bad for the GOP if so). Drumphy and his whole family need to be prosecuted for fraud at least :)
 
ryanosaur

ryanosaur

Audioholic Warlord
Agreed, @Mr._Clark . This concept of propping up the most extreme candidates is a dangerous and foolish ploy.

The strategists that came up with this should be sacked. The money (and energy)should be spent seeking stronger candidates and getting them elected.
 
D

Danzilla31

Audioholic Spartan
Was drumphy really representative of GOP ideals (pretty bad for the GOP if so). Drumphy and his whole family need to be prosecuted for fraud at least :)
No the drumph came out of nowhere. Most of us had decided Hillary had this in the bag. Hopefully the yesr 2020 would be the year. The next thing you know we got stuck with him winning. Which has been a true conservatives nightmare ever since. Having dems prop up Trump not only backfired for you it sucked for us too. I can't wait till he's no longer eligible after 2024
 
ryanosaur

ryanosaur

Audioholic Warlord
I think Trump decided he would run once Obama joked about Trump at the correspondents dinner.

The thing is that the problem on the right were extant. Somehow, Trump decided to go hard right and blow that part up. And he did.
Bigly.
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Samurai
Agreed, @Mr._Clark . This concept of propping up the most extreme candidates is a dangerous and foolish ploy.

The strategists that came up with this should be sacked. The money (and energy)should be spent seeking stronger candidates and getting them elected.
I think it's because they don't have stronger candidates. I know I "rolled the dice" on Joe.
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Samurai
I think Trump decided he would run once Obama joked about Trump at the correspondents dinner.

The thing is that the problem on the right were extant. Somehow, Trump decided to go hard right and blow that part up. And he did.
Bigly.
Trump has had this weird envy (or is it jealousy?) of Obama for sometime now. You're probably right. It was personal for Trump.

Hillary gaffed because she was overconfident and underestimated Trump. He out worked her on the campaign trail. Plus his hate speak became the opposite: attractive. Add to that Hillary wasn't particularly attractive to Democrats. Then there was WikiLeaks stuff with Benghazi and the deleted emails. I'm not sure? One of the driving forces behind that info was Hannity so.....kind of in that period of the Obama birther stuff which didn't pan out.
 
ryanosaur

ryanosaur

Audioholic Warlord
I think it's because they don't have stronger candidates. I know I "rolled the dice" on Joe.
I think both Hilary and Joe were basically assured getting the nod as long as they didn’t c0ck it up along the path.
Let’s face it. Neither were the best candidates.

I think Hilary could have been a good president (not would, but the potential was there). However, and this was the Biggy: too many people don’t like her. Both Dem and Rep. Joe is the same.
It’s just this time we chose the giant douche instead of the turd sandwich twice in a row.
Sadly, I think Kamala will forever be in the position that Hilary was. Capable, perhaps, but not liked enough.
Bernie is too far gone as well.
The smaller fish don’t have the recognition.

I think Gavin will run in 28.

I’d like to see Corey Booker stand up again. He could be a very good option if he doesn’t prog out too much.
 
ryanosaur

ryanosaur

Audioholic Warlord
Trump has had this weird envy (or is it jealousy?) of Obama for sometime now. You're probably right. It was personal for Trump.

Hillary gaffed because she was overconfident and underestimated Trump. He out worked her on the campaign trail. Plus his hate speak became the opposite: attractive. Add to that Hillary wasn't particularly attractive to Democrats. Then there was WikiLeaks stuff with Benghazi and the deleted emails. I'm not sure? One of the driving forces behind that info was Hannity so.....kind of in that period of the Obama birther stuff which didn't pan out.
Another part is that I think we are generally over dynasty politics.
Nobody wants another Bush. Same with Clinton.
Dog help us all if a lil trump runs next time round. :eek:
 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Slumlord
Agreed, @Mr._Clark . This concept of propping up the most extreme candidates is a dangerous and foolish ploy.

The strategists that came up with this should be sacked. The money (and energy)should be spent seeking stronger candidates and getting them elected.
Strong candidates rarely want the job, politically/financially ambitious do.
 
panteragstk

panteragstk

Audioholic Spartan
I think both Hilary and Joe were basically assured getting the nod as long as they didn’t c0ck it up along the path.
Let’s face it. Neither were the best candidates.

I think Hilary could have been a good president (not would, but the potential was there). However, and this was the Biggy: too many people don’t like her. Both Dem and Rep. Joe is the same.
It’s just this time we chose the giant douche instead of the turd sandwich twice in a row.
Sadly, I think Kamala will forever be in the position that Hilary was. Capable, perhaps, but not liked enough.
Bernie is too far gone as well.
The smaller fish don’t have the recognition.

I think Gavin will run in 28.

I’d like to see Corey Booker stand up again. He could be a very good option if he doesn’t prog out too much.
Really Joe was the only real choice for the dems against Trump. Who's going to beat an old white man, but an older, whiter man? It worked.

It still really annoys me that our government seems to be a retirement home for entirely too many people.
 
ryanosaur

ryanosaur

Audioholic Warlord
Really Joe was the only real choice for the dems against Trump. Who's going to beat an old white man, but an older, whiter man? It worked.

It still really annoys me that our government seems to be a retirement home for entirely too many people.
This is something I've talked about before. We The People have rubber-stamped a de facto rulership class by continually voting for the same people.
I do know that it's more complicated than that. I get it.
But we have to change ourselves in order to change government. We keep trying to change govt without making any changes ourselves.

Kansas is the first time I've seen such a strong reaction. Maybe something will come of that. :rolleyes:
 
MaxInValrico

MaxInValrico

Full Audioholic
Promoting extremists in the other party on the theory that the extremists are weaker candidates is the least principled (and flat out dumb) political strategy I've ever heard.

Democrats helped John Gibbs defeat Pete Meijer in the Michigan republican primary. Gibbs's only qualification is that he really likes to s*ck off Trump. I'm actually hoping that the little Democratic weasels who boosted Trump's candidates in the primaries lose in the general elections. People with no principles do not deserve to be in public office.

>>>In an op-ed that Meijer published the day before the primary, in Common Sense, Bari Weiss’s newsletter, he lashed out at Democrats who talked about the existential threat to democracy posed by election deniers, then boosted Gibbs’s campaign. Meijer is right to be angry. He also noted that his contest wasn’t the only one in which Democratic Party entities or candidates had spent money in an attempt to secure the Republican nomination for a truly extreme candidate. . . .

The saddest aspect of Meijer’s comments is how bitter he sounds. “I’m sick and tired of hearing the sanctimonious bullshit about the Democrats being the pro-democracy party,” he told Politico.<<<


If you think this is a smart strategy, I remind you of Hillary Clinton's moronic strategy to promote Trump in the 2016 Republican primary on the theory that he was a weak candidate:

>>>What was not often acknowledged in Trump's heated race against Democrat Hillary Clinton, however, was how her campaign fueled his rise to power.

An email recently released by the whistleblowing organization WikiLeaks shows how the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party bear direct responsibility for propelling the bigoted billionaire to the White House.

In its self-described "pied piper" strategy, the Clinton campaign proposed intentionally cultivating extreme right-wing presidential candidates, hoping to turn them into the new "mainstream of the Republican Party" in order to try to increase Clinton's chances of winning.

The Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee called for using far-right candidates "as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right." Clinton's camp insisted that Trump and other extremists should be "elevated" to "leaders of the pack" and media outlets should be told to "take them seriously."

The strategy backfired — royally.<<<

Primaries are private elections. Politics makes interesting bedfellows
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top