Connect with us

Democrats

None of the Democratic candidates have mass appeal

Published

on

None of the Democratic candidates have mass appeal

The Democrats have a problem. They don’t have a candidate who has the mass appeal of President Trump or President Obama, both of whom flourish in popularity even as detractors despise them vehemently. The left will vote for Democrats and the right will vote for Republicans, but in the murky middle the decision is often made to vote for the person who is most appealing regardless of policies or talents.

Joe Biden is seen as a gaffe-machine who is too old, too white, and too “hands-on” with the people he meets. Elizabeth Warren is Bernie Sanders (or visa versa) and both of them are basically communists. Kamala Harris is so unlikable, it’s possible she could lose the early California primary despite representing California in the Senate. Pete Buttigieg is somewhat likable until you get to hear him speak long enough, at which point he somehow comes off as pretentious and falsely humble at the same time. The rest have very little chance of making enough of an impact to compete.

Some might say, “But President Trump’s disapproval rating shows he doesn’t have mass appeal!” We have to understand what mass appeal really is before we can address this hypothetical rebuke. Mass appeal doesn’t mean mass support. nor does it mean universal appeal. Mass appeal refers to a combination of the number of people who like someone and the passion of those who fall into that category. Most people don’t listen to Taylor Swift, but nobody would deny she has mass appeal because a ton of people do like her music and those who do are often rabid fans.

Based on this definition, we can say that Warren and Sanders combined have mass appeal, but they also have a dangerous quality about them. They’re socialists, and therefore they turn off a large chunk of the population instantly. Their appeal is similar to UFC’s. Many people love UFC and are rabid fans, but a large slice of Americans are instantly opposed to the violence entailed.

Contrary to what media pundits and far-left activists believe, the actual number of people who hate President Trump is relatively low. It’s higher than President Obama, but not by much. Many people may not like President Trump personally, and a larger number may be unwilling to acknowledge they like him publicly, but at the end of the day people really do ask the question President Reagan once posed, “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?”

More people are working. Wages are higher. Poverty is at its lowest point since before the economic crash. People are buying, traveling, and achieving their dreams. These things will play heavily in the election as long as they continue until then.

By no means am I suggesting the election is in the bag for President Trump. As he often points out, the media is against him and they’re doing everything they can to convince people they aren’t really better off than they were. They’re trying to scare up a recession. They blame every instance of racism on the administration. They shame minorities who like how things have been going the last three years.

This all brings us back to the original premise: No Democratic candidate has mass appeal. It’s the same problem Hillary Clinton had. Outside of her base, Democrats were lukewarm towards her and Independents saw her as acceptable at best. She won the popular vote based mostly on the coastal states being blue, but the passion wasn’t there. It wasn’t enough to appeal to a majority of states, which is necessary to win an election.

For all of President Trump’s bad press and poor polls, the passion within his base is contagious. If the Democrats can’t find a candidate with the appeal of President Obama, their chances of sneaking out a victory are very low.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Democrats

How the left is redefining ‘quid pro quo’ to make it seem ominous

Published

on

How the left is redefining quid pro quo to make it seem ominous

Did you know you engage in “quid pro quo” every day? As you drive away from Starbucks with a latte in hand, you’re leaving the scene of your latest quid pro quo. When you tell your kids you will ground them if they don’t do their homework, you’re committing quid pro quo. When cover someone’s shift at work so they’ll work for you Saturday night, that’s blatant quid pro quo.

Literally, it’s Latin for “something for something.” It’s an exchange. You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours. It’s part of literally every negotiation between any two countries ever. Without quid pro quo, there would be no treaties, no trade agreements, and wars would always go on indefinitely. It’s not a bad thing.

When something inappropriate is offered as part of quid pro quo dealings, that’s when politicians get into trouble. Accepting gifts from lobbyists in exchange for favorable votes is an example of illegal quid pro quo. Or, as House Democrats are trying to prove, if a President holds back aid to a foreign government unless they investigate a political foe so dirt can be found on them for an upcoming election, that is bad quid pro quo.

Yesterday, acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney famously told the press to “get over it” when it comes to quid pro quo. His words were careless, not because they weren’t true but because in the current political atmosphere, his acknowledgement there was quid pro quo over the ongoing 2016 election corruption investigation muddies the waters. Democrats and the media have painted the common action of quid pro quo between two governments as negative by conflating their impeachment inquiry topic – Ukraine investigating the Bidens – with the other aspect of the phone call between President Trump and President Zelensky, the CrowdStrike’s involvement with the DNC hack in 2016.

The first is truly impeachable. The second is part of everyday business between two countries. Mulvaney admitted to the second, which is neither illegal nor impeachable. But the media pounced by conflating the two.

Democrats and mainstream media are trying to redefine quid pro quo as a negative thing worthy of impeachment. They’re doing this by confusing the language behind the action with the topic of the impeachment inquiry. Unfortunately, they’re doing this to an American public that is easy to confuse and easier to distract.

We’re witnessing a disingenuous attempt to make Americans believe quid pro quo in and of itself is bad. This is ludicrous, or course, but they’ll do or say anything to make President Trump look bad.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Democrats

The 5 biggest lies from the Democrat debate

Published

on

The 5 biggest lies from the Democrat debate

Liz Wheeler and her production team took on a very difficult task. They sifted through over three hours from the Democratic debate this week in an effort to try to identify the five biggest lies told on stage that night. We should applaud their Herculean efforts; it must have been like trying to determine which types of vegetables taste the worst when they’re spoiled. There aren’t enough Pinocchio images on the internet to cover all of the lies told at the debate.

Undaunted, the team at One America News show Tipping Point took on the challenge and came up with a list of five infuriating lies told on the debate stage Tuesday night.

  1. Elizabeth Warren’s big lie came through omission as she refused to answer the yes-or-no question about raising middle class taxes. This was around the 500th time she’s done this (we lost count at 342), choosing to redirect her answer to focus on “costs” rather than taxes.
  2. Cory Booker, Julian Castro, and Kamala Harris claimed abortion is a constitutional right. It is not. Even the majority brief from the Supreme Court admitted this in their ruling on Roe v. Wade.
  3. Beto O’Rourke pretended like his proposal for confiscation of “assault rifles” would not mean law enforcement will come to people’s homes to collect their firearms. His claim that law-abiding citizens will comply is not only false, it’s also a scary prospect. If law abiding citizens are the only ones forced to comply, what about criminals? They aren’t known for abiding by laws, especially ones that prevent them from committing their crimes.
  4. Elizabeth Warren made it on the list a second time with her claim that the wealth tax would pay for a myriad of socialist policies she intends to implement. This would be true if it weren’t for math. Unfortunately for her (and everyone else if she gets elected), the wealthy simply don’t have enough money to tax in a way that would pay for her plans. Moreover, every time a wealth tax has been tried elsewhere, it has failed miserably. But hey, at least she takes a lot of selfies.
  5. Impeachment. This is the ongoing lie of the day for both media and Democrats. All 12 candidates on stage supported impeachment (though Tulsi Gabbard was clear she only supported it if the House Democrats made a proper case for it), but only Bernie Sanders actually gave a reason why. Even his singular reasoning was false, though.

I’ll add another for the list – Kamala Harris kept saying, “When I’m President…” This is a big lie. It’s doubtful she even believes it herself judging by the direction she’s been heading in the polls.

There were enough lies told in the last Democratic debate to fill three hours of television, which is exactly what CNN did. Thanks to Liz Warren and the folks at One America News, we now know the five biggest one.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Democrats

Will Texas become a blue state?

Published

on

Will Texas become a blue state

If you listen to mainstream media, you’ve probably heard multiple times over the last few months that Texas may turn blue in the next election. That’s been a drumbeat by the left for a while as an influx of people escaping California and the rising Hispanic population is supposed to mean more Democrats in the Lone Star State.

The first piece of their puzzle is true. As Californians realize their state’s policies and cost of living are untenable, more of them turn to Texas where they bring their generally progressive views. But assuming that Hispanics are going to vote Democrat is false. Studies and polls show an increased preference for Republican policies, including the border and illegal immigration policies that are allegedly turning Hispanics off.

Laura Ingraham tackled the topic last night after the President had a massive rally in Dallas. She and her panel made important points that make sense as the idea of Texas turning blue seems more like a leftist pipe dream than a real risk.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending