Connect with us

Democrats

Which Democrats are easiest for President Trump to defeat?

Published

on

Which Democrats should Republicans root for to be the 2020 nominee

Democrats and Republicans think differently. It’s not just about policy. It’s about the strategies they utilize to achieve their goals. Republicans generally root against anything or anyone they believe is a threat, and with the growing ranks of Democratic candidates for president representing tremendous threats to the American way of life, it’s natural for Republicans to want to root against all of them.

Perhaps it’s time for Republicans to pull from the Democrats’ playbook when it comes to the primaries. Instead of rooting against everyone, Republicans should identify the real threats to President Trump and start rooting for the Democrats who will be easier to beat. This should apply to conservative media as well. We won’t see leftist mainstream media doing this, and while there may be some applied strategy at Fox News, their main goal will continue to be railing against everyone.

We saw the Democrats’ strategy in play during the 2016 election. They universally decided candidate Trump would be the easiest for Hillary Clinton to beat, so through the GOP primary they did everything they could to prop him up. This was a tremendous miscalculation, of course, but they were able to effectively eliminate Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio by painting them as evil early on. Some will recall that not all press about candidate Trump was positive during the primaries, but compared to the coverage he received after he secured the nomination, it was like night and day.

Instead of attacking everyone, Republicans on social media and conservative media should focus on the biggest threats to President Trump. Who are they? Let’s list the current and potential future Democratic candidates based on their likeliness to threaten President Trump in 2020. This is a dynamic situation, of course, so I’ll edit the list as candidates become more or less likely to be threats.

Threat Level: Zero

Here are the candidates who have no chance of winning the nomination, let alone challenging Trump even if they did get nominated. We only included the ones who may actually make it to the first set of primaries and caucuses. There are dozens of declared or potential candidates who aren’t going to get that far:

  • Eric Swalwell
  • Terry McAuliffe
  • Stacey Abrams
  • Pete Buttigieg
  • John Delaney
  • Michael Bennet

Threat Level: Low

As crazy as the nomination process is, there’s always a chance that someone can make the news and start getting serious consideration for the nomination. These people are those who today seem to have very little chance but with a little spark, they might be able to light a fire. Nevertheless, they wouldn’t be a threat to President Trump if they were given the nod:

  • Tulsi Gabbard
  • Bill de Blasio
  • Eric Holder
  • John Hickenlooper
  • Kirsten Gillibrand

Threat Level: Moderate

Now we’re getting into the people who could challenge for the nomination and also give the President a bit of a challenge in the right circumstances. Some of this list should be propped up by Republicans as they emerge into prominence because if they can be used to stop a stronger candidate, so be it. Better to take on another weak candidate than the stronger ones in the next section of this list:

  • Michael Bloomberg – Some would say the billionaire belongs higher on the list, but he just doesn’t seem to have the will to want to run a long campaign. If he were a decade younger, perhaps, but he’ll be almost 78-years-old by the time the first caucus rolls around.
  • Amy Klobuchar – She, too, could be higher on the list because she’s a midwest candidate with a reputation for toughness and some in the media already falling for her. Nevertheless, she’s still a dark horse at this point.
  • Cory Booker – Try as he might, Spartacus can’t seem to shake his credibility issues. He seems like someone who has to try really hard to pretend like he’s just one of the guys. It’s disingenuous and voters are going to see through it.
  • Julian Castro – It may be an election cycle too early for the young rising star to make an impact in the election. His name recognition outside of Texas is minimal despite a relatively long career in the public eye.
  • Elizabeth Warren – She’s just a joke. On paper, she’s a strong candidate, but it’s getting too hard to take her seriously as she seems to be the less-likable female version of Bernie Sanders.
  • Sherrod Brown – If the party starts getting scared about far-left radicals dominating the primaries, they may turn to the more moderate Brown to save the party. If they turn quickly enough, he could move up on the list, but for now he’s still buried as a non-factor.

Support conservatism. Support real news. Support NOQ Report.

Threat Level: High

If the President can prevent any of these candidates from getting the nomination, that would be the best case scenario. They all have strengths that could be used to their advantage against the President in the general election, which is why they’re on this list:

  • Kamala Harris – She has California on her side, and with the largest state in the land securing an early primary, it may be difficult to dismiss her even if she doesn’t fair well in the earlier states. Her leftist bonafides are questionable, which will be what her competitors latch onto during the primary season. If they can paint her as a moderate in progressive clothing, it may be enough to stop her. Otherwise, she’s the type of candidate that President Trump doesn’t want to face in the general election because she represents every demographic that’s opposed to him – young, female, and a minority.
  • Bernie Sanders – Never underestimate the Senator’s appeal, especially to Independents that learn to trust him like a grandfather. He may be the person to either secure the nomination for the socialists, or who can anoint a new replacement to take up his mantle. Expect Harris and Beto O’Rourke (and every other socialist-leaning candidate) to want Sanders out early and ready to endorse them.
  • Beto O’Rourke – Next to Harris, O’Rourke offers the second best contrast to Trump. His policies seem to be mercurial, which may endear him to the base or may alienate him from the pack, depending on how he’s received by the press. But his greatest weapon is likability. Unlike Harris who often loses people when she speaks, O’Rourke seems to energize the people even more with his words. He’s the closest to a young Barack Obama on this list and has the fundraising skills to match.
  • Joe Biden – If reason wins out in the party, this is Biden’s nomination if he wants it. The way things seem now, reason isn’t winning. Hyper-leftism seems to be the way of the Democratic Party going forward unless Biden decides to run, secures the nomination, and brings order to the chaos of his party. Of course, if he gets the nomination and loses to President Trump, it will be the end of the Democratic establishment forever. They will go so far to the left that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez may be the new normal in the Democratic Party.

The dust is still settling. The time to act isn’t here just yet, but the time to prepare is now. Republicans need to pick their targets wisely and guide the Democratic nomination in the right direction. President Trump’s reelection chances go up dramatically against certain candidates. We need to help these candidates win their nomination.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Facebook Comments
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Democrats

AOC says 2/3rds of Democrats have ‘social intelligence of a sea sponge’ for believing her 12-year apocalyptic claims

Published

on

AOC says 23rds of Democrats have social intelligence of a sea sponge for believing her 12-year apoca

On May 12, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said anyone who took her literally about the world ending in 12 years over climate change would “have to have the social intelligence of a sea sponge.” A new survey by Rasmussen indicates most Democrats have such social intelligence. They took her literally, and therefore they all possess sea-sponge-intellects, according to their young cult leader.

67% of Democrats believe the United States has only 12 years to aggressively fight climate change or else there will be disastrous and irreparable damage to the country and the world.

This is the problem with radical progressive politicians like AOC. She mixes hyperbole with her actual feelings and doesn’t give indications as to when she’s being literal and when she’s using “dry humor + sarcasm.” But if you listen to one of the many instances where she makes the claim about 12-years-until-apocalypse, she seems deadly serious.

She’s not the biggest problem, though. The real problems are the millions of sheep who follow here without question, who believe everything she says and support everything she does. The left often argues that President Trump’s most passionate followers are like a cult, but even the President’s supporters aren’t as dedicated when it comes to taking him literally as AOC’s cult following is with her claims. The response to Trump’s actions and statements are supported but measured. Moreover, I’ve seen (and participated in) plenty of pushback against some of his policies from tariffs to firearm restrictions to dealing with North Korea.

We hear fairly regularly about pushback from prominent conservatives, and oftentimes the President takes this pushback into account when making decisions. But with AOC, the only occasional pushback comes from the Democratic establishment as Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi or other old school Democrats jab at AOC a bit. Otherwise, she’s unabated in her rhetoric and unchecked in her actions.

Here’s the sad part. If you were to tell AOC’s followers they were sea sponges for taking her literally, they’d scream at you. But if you showed them that SHE called them sea sponges, they’d nod and say, “Oh, if AOC said it, I must be a sea sponge.”

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Democrats

Lindsey Graham makes two great points about the Democrats’ impeachment hysteria

Published

on

Lindsey Graham makes two great points about the Democrats impeachment hysteria

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) went on Fox News with Sean Hannity today to discuss how many Democratic lawmakers and candidates for president have gone into full-blown impeachment hysteria. He made a pair of excellent points.

First, he noted that the Democrats are doing so at their own peril. It’s difficult for them to justify pushing forward following failed investigations and realizations that their narrative about President Trump colluding with the Russians was patently false. The American people have and well continue to see through their attacks as nothing more than unhinged anti-Trump rhetoric designed to distract voters from their own shortcomings. Nevertheless, they’re forced into this line of thinking by the hyper-leftist base that is essentially telling them to take the impeachment way or the highway.

But he noted something else equally important. He said, “The public’s going to kick the Democrats out of power and they’re going to reelect the President if he stays focused on doing the job for the American people.” [emphasis mine]

This is extremely important to understand because the President is known as a fighter. Ever since Attorney General William Barr released his summary of the Mueller Report, the President has Tweeted and talked about it almost non-stop. As recently as this morning, he focused again on the Democrats coming after him.

Graham is correct. If the President keeps doing what he’s been doing in the Oval Office and refrains from being drawn into the Democrats’ petty battles with him, the people will appreciate it. If he goes low with them, there could be challenges.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Conservatism

The complete fraud that is National Socialist Healthcare

Published

on

By

The complete fraud that is National Socialist Healthcare

The home state of Mr. ‘Medifail for All’ tried National Socialist healthcare and it didn’t work. What is the point of ever trying it again?

One would think that the operation of a socialist health care system in the home of Bernie ‘Medifail for all’ Sanders would be touted until the bovines hit the barn. Well, one would be wrong in that assumption since it never worked as advertised.

The Washington Post recently profiled the rise and spectacular fall of ‘Green Mountain Care’ from the fantastic promises at its inception to its inevitable crash as is the case with every socialist system. The Vermont rendition of single payer – a state version of National Socialist Healthcare – came onto the scene with great promise and fanfare. The problem is that states are forbidden to counterfeit [oops! ‘print’] currency, so they quickly ran out of other people’s money and the whole rotten edifice collapsed.

Why Vermont’s single-payer effort failed and what Democrats can learn from it
Three and a half years after then-Gov. Peter Shumlin of Vermont signed into law a vision for the nation’s first single-payer health system, his small team was still struggling to find a way to pay for it.

Two days later, on Dec. 17, 2014, Shumlin, a Democrat who had swept into office promising a health-care system that left no one uninsured, announced he was giving up.

The trajectory of Green Mountain Care, as Vermont’s health system was to be known — from the euphoric spring of 2011 to its crash landing in late 2014 — offers sobering lessons for the current crop of Democrats running for president, including Vermont’s own Sen. Bernie Sanders (I), most of whom embrace Medicare-for-all or other aspirations for universal insurance coverage.

[Our Emphasis]
Oddly enough, the local socialist Senator rarely mentions this when trying to sell everyone else on this statist snake oil. Those with a modicum of intelligence tend to learn from the colossal mistakes of others, implementing what works while rejecting that which does not. Then there are those on the Left who insanely insist on repeating those mistakes, hoping for a counterintuitive outcome.

This is no academic exercise, born of the Platonic dialogs from 2,400 years ago on the ‘Ideal state’. This is a deadly serious matter with millions of people’s lives at stake. Not to mention that as reported by the Associated-Press that ‘Medicare for all’ was projected to cost $32.6 trillion.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Sen. Bernie Sanders’ “Medicare for all” plan would boost government health spending by $32.6 trillion over 10 years, requiring historic tax hikes, says a study released Monday by a university-based libertarian policy center.

That’s trillion with a “T.”

Optimal conditions – and single payer still failed

One couldn’t ask for better conditions for this failed experiment in state socialist health care. The same report from the Washington post on this failed experiment noted that:

It has some of the nation’s healthiest residents, with some of the lowest rates of uninsured. It is small and homogeneous. It shares a border with Canada, putting an existing single-payer system within sight. And it has just one main insurer, the nonprofit Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont, repeatedly ranked the most efficient Blue Cross Blue Shield plan in the nation.

It was supposed to lower costs, insure more people while eliminating waste, fraud and abuse [Stop us if you’ve heard this joke before]. Unsurprisingly, it failed to do this. Nevertheless, the hometown senator of this communist catastrophe still touts the same ‘features’ in trying to sell his $32.6 trillion pipe dream.

Unfortunately for the purveyors of these plans presumably fueled by pixie dust and allusions to brand new ‘rights’ conjured up out of thin air the author of the piece failed to offer a solution aside from ‘controlling costs’ [read: death panels] or counterfeiting.. er.. ‘printing’ more money to endlessly throw into the bottomless pit that is the government.

It ran into all manner of problems, including what to do with people coming in over the border for all the free goodies [Stop us if you’ve also heard this one before]. Ever increasing tax rates hobbling the economy, ending with the fact that the costs of a bloated bureaucracy would mean less coverage that what the people already had.

Ironically enough, when the whole system died an inglorious death, Bernie Sanders was in Iowa testing the presidential waters, never mentioning the failure of single payer in his home state, the very idea that he incessantly touts. Why bother with facts and logic when one can just invoke counterfeit civil rights, paid for with other people’s money?

Meanwhile, the ‘objective’ media cheerleads for socialistic slavery

Still, this hasn’t stopped the ever ‘objective’ national socialist media from writing ‘News’ stories on the subject, such as this sickening saccharine piece from the Associated-Press ‘Medicare for All’s’ rich benefits ‘leapfrog’ other nations.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Generous benefits. No copays. No need for private policies. The “Medicare for All” plan advocated by leading 2020 Democrats appears more lavish than what’s offered in other advanced countries, compounding the cost but also potentially broadening its popular appeal.

Reading that infomercial for socialism, one can almost imagine the rise of a superhero in the guise of a later-day superman. The virtual embodiment of every wonderful feature of ‘Medifail for all’ vanquishing every cost overrun, taking down the ever evil private health insurance monster, providing free healthcare for all while dispensing Mocha Lattes on the side.

Faster than a speeding cost overrun. More powerful than free enterprise. Able to heap benefits to all in a single bound.

Look! Up in the sky! It’s a bird. It’s a plane It’s Single payer socialism! Here to save the day…. Until it implodes the economy.

After which, no one is helped.  How is that compassion?

Single payer can never work

Sadly, the author of the Washington post piece failed to cite how to get the bloated edifice off the ground. This is because there is no way to get it to fly.

The proper way to address this problem is to try a different direction, away from authoritarian socialism and towards economic Liberty. Conjuring up new civil rights does little to pay for all the freebies. As way experienced with a single payer experiment under ideal conditions, the end result was worse than what already existed.

There is no point in trying something that is doomed to failure, single payer [or whatever it’s called] can never work as advertised.

The Takeaway

It should be obvious that a governmental solution to the problem does not exist. Thus, it only makes sense to try a different approach. This won’t empower the Socialist-Left, but they claim to only have everyone’s best interests at heart. Let them show that is the case with a system based on economic Liberty instead of socialistic slavery.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending