RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/james-carville-warns-dems-against-ignoring-voters-with-distracting-rhetoric-on-open-borders-they-dont-care/

Longtime political strategist James Carville slammed the 2020 Democrats for tacking “off the damn radar screen” on issues, including “talking about open borders and decriminalizing illegal immigration,” and warned those still in the primary that such progressive advocacy “is not how you win a national election.”

Carville appeared on MSNBC in the wake of the Iowa caucuses debacle, saying Tuesday that “there’s only one moral imperative in this country right now, and that is to beat Donald Trump.”

“We don’t win elections because we talk about stuff that is not relevant,” he argued, and challenged Democrats to rise to the occasion.In an interview with Vox published Friday, Carville elaborated, and highlighted Democrats’ willingness to “get distracted” over far-left issues.

“We have candidates on the debate stage talking about open borders and decriminalizing illegal immigration. They’re talking about doing away with nuclear energy and fracking,” Carville stated. “You’ve got Bernie Sanders talking about letting criminals and terrorists vote from jail cells. It doesn’t matter what you think about any of that, or if there are good arguments — talking about that is not how you win a national election. It’s not how you become a majoritarian party.”

Carville then explained his alternative as a “coherent, meaningful message that is relevant to people’s lives.” He implied that many of the talking points being peddled in the primary were largely promoted by Republicans to make the candidates “be sucked into every rabbit hole.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/02/pete-buttigieg-uncanny-candidate/

He may not be a robot, but there’s something uncanny about this candidate.

It has to be said: There is something plain amazing about Pete Buttigieg’s run for the presidency. His last election was for mayor of a very small city. No offense to South Bend, Ind., but being the nation’s 308th largest city is not something to brag about. In his last election before the Iowa caucus Buttigieg  won the support of less than 9,000 people. Pete Buttigieg did this by outlasting, out-fundraising, and out-debating former governors and a California senator, and lapping billionaire entrepreneurs. He beat a national front-runner and essentially tied the runner-up to the 2016 Democratic nomination. From unknown to serious contender for the presidency in less than a year: This is real Mr. Smith stuff, a tribute to the everyman nature of democracy.

To repeat myself, this is amazing, amazing stuff.

But also, it’s really creepy.

Right?

A few nights ago, the Iowa meltdown was just starting to dawn on us. Officially the Iowa Democrats were telling us that they had verified precisely zero percent of the votes.

And while we pondered that fact, this man, “Mayor Pete” emerged on cable news to dispel the utter confusion and uncertainty and declare himself the victor, based on his own tabulation. Think about that for a minute.

This is a man from nowhere who seems to have spent a great deal of time in the last few years managing his own Wikipedia page. His popularity is widely attributed to the work of a single media genius, Lis Smith. And as he was declaring himself the winner, a flurry of reports were being filed that there were some questionable financial connections between the developer of the Iowa vote-counting app and the Pete Buttigieg campaign.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/07/us/politics/democratic-debate-recap.html?emc=edit_na_20200207&ref=cta&nl=breaking-news&campaign_id=60&instance_id=0&segment_id=21094&user_id=2dfc89bd6c52e6103e5ac62f916a8f0d&regi_id=2636639

In the most contentious debate so far, Joseph R. Biden Jr. challenged Bernie Sanders over gun regulation, and Amy Klobuchar accused Pete Buttigieg of presenting himself as a “cool newcomer.”

The two victors in the Iowa caucuses, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and former Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., came under sharp and sustained criticism in a Democratic presidential debate on Friday, as their rivals tried to stop their momentum by assailing Mr. Sanders for his left-wing ideas and past opposition to gun control while targeting Mr. Buttigieg over his thin résumé and ties to big donors.

In the most contentious debate so far, taking place four days before the New Hampshire primary, the runners-up in Iowa charged at Mr. Sanders and Mr. Buttigieg, who appeared in the best position among the top candidates to win New Hampshire and perhaps take command of the race.

But their opponents, several of whom have significant advantages of their own, showed that they would not give way without a fight: Mr. Buttigieg especially came in for bruising treatment, drawing tough challenges from every other candidate onstage, including over his criminal-justice record as mayor and his failure so far to appeal to black and Latino voters.

Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., seeking to recover from his limp finish in Iowa, raised the issue of Mr. Buttigieg’s lack of support among minorities in the opening moments of the debate, saying Mr. Buttigieg had not shown he could “get a broad scope of support.” He repeatedly alluded throughout the evening to his own base among African-Americans, especially in South Carolina, whose primary is this month and is considered a political firewall if his flagging campaign does not recover before then.But Mr. Buttigieg was not Mr. Biden’s only target: He also warned that nominating Mr. Sanders would taint down-ballot Democratic candidates with the label of socialism, and, in his most blunt attack so far on Mr. Sanders, Mr. Biden rebuked him for having opposed gun control legislation in the 1990s. Mr. Sanders, who has long since disavowed that stance, called it a function of representing “a very, very rural state.”

https://patriotpost.us/articles/68373-democrats-panic-after-iowa-2020-02-05

With the Democrats’ Iowa caucuses fiasco dragging on into its third day — no official winner has yet been announced — there are clear indications that party leaders are panicking. Longtime Democrat strategist and former Bill Clinton campaign manager James Carville wondered why Tom Perez was still leading the Democratic National Committee. “The polling averages have not been very good the last 10 days and I’ve some pretty good polls that show enthusiasm among Democrats is not as high as we might like it,” Carville observed. “This is not going particularly well so far. And why is Tom Perez still the chairman of the Democratic National Committee? I have no idea. This party needs to wake up.” He later added, “I know these donors and they’re not going to give a popsicle to the DNC right now. I can promise you that.”

Carville isn’t the only high-profile Democrat sounding the alarm. David Axelrod, former senior advisor to Barack Obama, bemoaned, “However bad the handling the count has been, the Iowa’s Democratic Party’s handling of the messaging around it has been an abject disaster. It should be taught in classrooms as an example of what not to do in a crisis.”

Then there’s the growing specter of election malfeasance, which will only further complicate the DNC’s future efforts of getting its base to coalesce around the party’s eventual nominee, let alone gin up voter enthusiasm.

Speaking of coalescing, the divide within the party between hard-left socialists and non-socialists has Carville even more concerned. “I mean, I’m 75 years old. Why am I here doing this? Because I am scared to death, that’s why,” he complained. It’s more than an image problem, Carville argues. “All the Sanders people were taking pictures wishing Jeremy Corbyn the best. … The press corps went AOC crazy. … We got to decide what we want to be. Do we want to be an ideological cult or do we want to have a majoritarian instinct to be a majority party? … The urban core is not going to get it done. What we need is power. You understand? That’s what this is about. Without power, you have nothing. You just have talking points.”

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/02/sotu_trumps_boom_means_kaboom_for_dem_hopes.html

Trump has poached all the Democrat’s core constituencies.  He has outperformed them in their self-assigned territory.  He is going right at their core strength, the black voting bloc.

In President Trump’s beautiful words, he has created a ‘blue-collar boom.’

This boom means ka-boom to Democrat chances of holding on to the working-class vote.  Ka-boom to Democrat chances of keeping 95% of blacks in lockstep voting for their failed policies.  Ka-boom to the lies that Republicans are racists who only care about rich white people.

Trump’s approach to the economy is not the dry old Republican message that tax cuts boost investment.  Trump puts people first, always.  It is the not the message of a politician, staying in the safe zone of what everyone always does and says.  It is the message of a businessman and warrior, with the courage to defy conventional thinking on trade, manufacturing and domestic energy.

YouTube screen grab

Trump’s message is full of heart for ordinary people.  It is signature Trump: “Our agenda is relentlessly pro-worker, pro-family, pro-growth, and, most of all, pro-American.”  

Trump’s economy eats the Democrats’ lunch.  Trump has poached all the Democrat’s core constituencies.  He has outperformed them in their self-assigned territory.  He is going right at their core strength, the black voting bloc.  He is winning people over on the on merits. 

President Trump’s SOTUS theatrics are so effective because they are not merely theatrics.  He is bringing home the bacon.  It’s not boasting when you are reporting on what you have actually achieved. 

The first segment of the SOTUS, the list of economic achievements, was a “Wow!”

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/trump-critics-denounce-pro-trump-blacks-as-sellouts-while-criticizing-trump-for-not-having-more-sellouts/

The Donald Trump White House put out a photograph of the president’s task force on the coronavirus. CNN promptly showed its displeasure, not with the task force’s effort, but with its racial composition. There was insufficient “diversity” in the photo.

In a piece called “Coronavirus Task Force Another Example of Trump Administration’s Lack of Diversity,” CNN national political writer Brandon Tensley wrote: “Who are these experts? They’re largely the same sorts of white men (and a couple women on the sidelines) who’ve dominated the Trump administration from the very beginning.

“By contrast, former President Barack Obama’s circle of advisers in the face of the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa was hardly so monochromatic. Neither was it so abysmal in terms of gender diversity. (Of course, to contextualize, Obama’s administration, on the whole, was far more diverse than Trump’s.)

“And yet, as unsurprising as the diversity issue in the Trump era has become, it’s still worth pointing out from time to time, especially as the country approaches the 2020 presidential election in earnest.

“That’s partly because the recent photos of ‘the best experts’ telegraph the kinds of people the administration deems worthy of holding power — and even being in close proximity to it.”

That’s a mouthful.

http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/wp-admin/post-new.php

Democrats’ impeachment effort was never about removing President Donald Trump from office. If it had been, it would not have been rushed through the House of Representatives without a proper predicate or investigation.

No reasonable person expected the Republican-controlled Senate to remove a sitting president for anything Rep. Adam Schiff repeatedly alleged, no matter how unfairly he characterized Trump’s thoughts, words, or actions.

Impeachment was about satisfying the corporate media and Democratic base that had demanded it for years. And since removal was never a realistic outcome, it was about harming Trump in an election year.

By that standard, it could not have gone worse. Here are three ways that Pelosi’s gambit backfired bigly.

1. Donald Trump’s Numbers Went Up, Not Down

The latest Gallup poll of registered voters shows that Trump’s approval rating is the highest it’s been since his inauguration — 49 percent. That number went up from 39 percent in October, which was during the House’s impeachment process, such as it was.

During that same time, approval of the Democratic Party fell from 48 percent to 45 percent and approval of the Republican Party shot up from 43 percent to 51 percent. That’s the first time the GOP has had majority approval since 2005. The party also has a rare partisan-ID advantage.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/02/05/what_bloombergs_money_can_buy__142322.html

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s big-spending foray into the presidential race is getting noticed by millions of Americans. You can’t miss his seemingly ubiquitous television advertising, especially in states unaccustomed to seeing campaign commercials in primary season.

But a tiny, yet knowing, subsection of the public was captivated for an entirely different reason just days before Bloomberg spent $10 million to advertise during the Super Bowl. His year-end campaign finance report showed a free-spending organization that was met with a mix of disbelief and jealousy by political operatives throughout the country.

Most seasoned campaign workers and consultants can regale you with tales of boot-strapped campaigns, the proverbial uphill-both-ways-to-school story. Tales of campaign workers sleeping in the office and living off donated candy and booze are the stuff of lore.

While it may sound quaint in an era of super PACs and self-funders, the vast majority of campaigns today are still largely run on shoestring budgets. Ten grand for sushi you say? How about 10 bucks for pizza and we all chip in for the beer? An apartment in Midtown? How do you feel about staying in the basement of the candidate’s house? 

Don’t get me wrong — this is not passing judgment on a candidate or anyone working for wealthy candidates willing to spend their own money to get elected. As someone who toiled on several political campaigns, I’ve had the good fortune of experiencing both the well-funded and the not-so-well-funded.