Advertisements

The Key to Predicting the Democrat Race: Learning the Real Lessons of History

Today’s Campaign Update
(Because The Campaign Never Ends)

It’s very predictable that Jeff Greenfield can’t predict anything accurately. – Dinosaur DC Swamp creature Jeff Greenfield had a typically vapid piece in Politico on Sunday that sums up the sorry  state of media punditry in the nation’s capital quite nicely. It’s a piece filled to the gills with the tiresome nostrums and shibboleths adhered to by the DC pundit class, and thus exactly what we would expect to see published in Politico.

Greenfield, who bills himself as “a five-time Emmy-winning network television analyst and author,” has been completely wrong about everything since the day in June, 2015 when Donald Trump and Melania rode down the escalator at Trump Tower to announce his candidacy. Frustrated by his own foolish consistency, Greenfield assumes that, because he is an awarded “expert,” everyone else must be wrong as well. Thus the title of his piece, “Why You’re Wrong About the Democratic Primary.”

The thesis of Greenfield’s piece is itself highly predictable, and not just because of its headline. It’s also utterly predictable that a guy who is always wrong – like Greenfield – would pen a piece claiming everyone else is just like he is. After all, didn’t every “expert” predict about 500 times between May, 2015 and May 2016 that Trump’s campaign was dead, and that some random event represented the “beginning of the end for Donald Trump” like Greenfield did?

Didn’t every “expert”, inside-the-beltway pundit predict that Hillary Clinton would best Trump by a landslide? Didn’t every “expert” in our fake national news media predict about 300 times between Robert Mueller’s appointment as Special Counsel in May, 2017 and the issuance of his report in March, 2019 that “Robert Mueller has got the goods on Trump?”

Well…yeah. Yeah, they all did predict all of those things. Greenfield even admits as much waaaaaayyyy down at the bottom of his piece where, after writing 800 words of drivel about how the “lessons of history” tell us that nothing about this current nomination battle is in any way predictable, he says:

In 2016, Donald Trump, a candidate with no political experience and no measurable support from his party’s establishment, never trailed in the polls and was never seriously threatened during his campaign for the nomination. Based on the lessons of history, Trump’s inevitable fall was confidently predicted by journalists and insiders, even as he racked up primary victories and delegates.

So, if Greenfield is talking exclusively about inside-the-beltway DC media “expert” pundits, then his piece would be accurate. But if – as the headline appears to imply – he’s also talking about seasoned observers who have never lived inside-the-beltway bubble and who understand how the 99% of the country outside of the nation’s capital works, then Greenfield is massively wrong.

The problem with DC pundits is not that they rely on the lessons of history, but that they don’t understand what those lessons of history happen to be. I was telling my clients in December of 2015 that Donald Trump was almost 100% certain to be the eventual GOP nominee due to one simple lesson of history about the GOP, which is that, since the advent of polling just after World War II, that party has always, without fail, ended up nominating the candidate who led in the polls in the December prior to the election. DC pundits were uniformly shocked as a class that that immutable lesson of history continued to hold true in 2016.

In May, 2016, I told a gathering of about 30 corporate CEOs and other senior executives that Donald Trump would probably win the general election due to another simple lesson of history, which is that every presidential election is determined by the overriding national public mood, i.e., is the public interested in change or is it wanting to preserve the status quo? The public in 2016, after 8 long years of oppressive, economy-dampening regulation by the Obama thugs, was definitely in a mood for change, even the radical change being offered by Donald Trump.

This was at a time when Greenfield and his fellow media “experts” were myopically predicting a Clinton landslide based on an array of polls they all knew were flawed at best and intentionally faked at worst.

But back to the Democrat nomination race. We can’t sit here today and confidently predict who the nominee will be – Greenfield is right about that. In fact, because of the proportional system of awarding delegates the Dems have adopted for the election cycle, we may not be able to do that until next year’s convention rolls around.

But there are all sorts of things that are very easy to accurately predict about this race at this point in time, most of them based on “lessons of history” that Greenfield and other media “experts” seem incapable of grasping.

Here’s a lesson of history: No candidate who lacks a compelling basis for entering the race in the first place is going to become the eventual nominee. See Gillibrand, Kirsten as a prime example. That desperate, humiliating video we saw of her pandering in an Iowa gay bar on Saturday was pretty much an inevitable outcome for a candidate who has literally no reason to be in this race to begin with. This same lesson applies to other mystery candidates like Bill DeBlasio, John Delaney and Steve Bullock (who is the Governor of Montana, for those 99% of you who have never heard of him). All these people and several others who have no compelling reason to run might as well go home now.

Here’s another lesson of history: Failure to strike while the political iron is hot can be fatal. See O’Rourke, Irish Bob as this year’s best example. The fake news media was in love with “Beto” and desperately wanted him to get into the race last December, January at the latest. I wrote way back in January that Irish Bob was missing his moment, but did he listen? Nooooooo. Irish Bob piddled around for another two months before finally coming out as a candidate, and by then his date to the media prom had been taken by Mayor Pete. Now, Texas Dems, seeing O’Rourke’s candidacy dead in the water, are desperate for him to come back to Texas and challenge John Cornyn for the U.S. senate seat.

How about this lesson of history: Age matters, and it matters a ton for some of these people. Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders are simply too old to be president of the United States. Neither will be the party’s nominee. Mayor Pete is simply too young. He won’t be the nominee, either, although he will be able to compete in the primaries and carry enough delegates into next year’s convention to be a bit of a power broker if no clear nominee emerges from the primary elections.

One final lesson of history: The nominee will always be someone who is in step with the party’s voter base. We have to caveat this one this time due to the proportional awarding of delegates, which creates an unusually-high potential for a brokered convention where you might see a compromise candidate like the Pantsuit Princess or Michelle Obama or even Oprah Winfrey emerge. But the candidate who will emerge from the primary elections with the most accumulated delegates will be the person who can most authentically play the party’s identity politics game, enthusiastically support the party’s lurch to outright infanticide, and keep the party’s irrational social media mob ginned up. This very dynamic is why you are seeing Elizabeth Warren’s polling numbers firming up slowly as the race goes on.

In addition to being too old, Biden simply has no ability to satisfy this final lesson. He won’t be the nominee. If he is, then we would be looking at a Trump landslide of 1984 proportions, as a discouraged and dissatisfied Democrat voter base stays home in droves on Election Day.

Jeff Greenfield and the other DC media “experts” think I’m wrong about all of this. What do you think?

That is all.

Follow me on Twitter at @GDBlackmon

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “The Key to Predicting the Democrat Race: Learning the Real Lessons of History

  1. Reply
    Ricky D Church - June 10, 2019

    I think that is about right. I had initially thought Harris would have a shot at it but she has such a nasty was about her that even the Black community is reluctant to support her.

    1. Reply
      MrToad - June 10, 2019

      If no one separates themselves from the pack and she doesn’t implode, Kamala has a built in advantage. Everyone will be playing catch up after the California primary they just moved to March.

      Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a bill to move California’s primary elections in 2020 to the beginning of March, three months ahead of when they were held in 2016.

      https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/09/28/554147818/california-moves-up-2020-primary-elections-to-march

      1. Reply
        David Blackmon - June 10, 2019

        That’s true, but remember, anyone getting at least 15% gets a proportional share of the delegates. KH might – MIGHT – get 40-45% in CA, and that leaves a bunch of delegates to be split among other solid contenders. So, it’s an advantage, but not as big as it would be in a winner-take-all secenario.

  2. Reply
    Gregg - June 10, 2019

    Great Post Dave!

    No one is going to convince me that the this new Dem nomination process is fair and on the up and up. Soros and the usual suspects are supporting, if not outright funding, all of these “candidates” specifically to gum up the works and force a brokered convention; thereby denying the PEOPLE from choosing their nominee and placing an establishment favorite to become the nominee.

    The only way I would be convinced that this is a fair and transparent democratic process, and not fixed, is for the DNC to only allow only the current candidates who are participating in the primaries to be selected to become the nominee. Otherwise this is just a distraction to make the ordinary citizen believe they have a voice when in fact, such a scenario will prove that do not – no wonder primary elections have such a low voter turn out!

    Ultimately the party bosses will choose the ultimate loser to President Trump. That APPOINTED candidate will lose if the 2020 election in a fair election.

    The real problem the party bosses have by selecting THEIR candidate is that the enthusiasm will be muted like what happened in 2016 when the Commie was screwed.

    The Dems have built a party base on a house of cards with a bunch of cultivated angry ignorant/stupid loudmouth children and disparate and incompatible minority groups (the only unifier is that Trump/GOP/America Sucks). Such a coalition will ultimately collapse under its’ own weight of hatred causing a Trump/GOP landslide if there are any thinking/caring people left in America.

  3. Reply
    Speedy - June 10, 2019

    As always DB great post! I do have to say I need to have a dictionary open for some of the words you use, but that’s a good thing. Keep up the great work here as well as Forbes.com.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to top
%d bloggers like this: