Where Do The Dems Go From Here?

Barack Obama seems to be the fecal version of King Midas. Arguably, everything he touches turns to dung.

The world at large was made worse by Obama. The Middle East has always been chaotic but the proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia has claimed about a million lives and shows no sign of slowing down.

America is much worse off post-Obama. $10 trillion of additional debt that will take decades to repay. Good insurance policies were driven off by bad ones. Pension disasters loom. He left our military in a state of decline. He sowed the seeds of rancor and vitriol and social discord.

Like radioactive waste, the closer you get to BO, the worse the damage. The news media took big hits to their credibility in the Obama years. Their loyalty came at a steep price.

The biggest loser in the Obama years is the Democrat Party. Obama was given a donkey utopia. In 8 years he managed to jettison over 1,000 offices including both houses of Congress, and numerous state legislatures and governorships. The damage is not generally acknowledged, but it is real.

The Dems will continue to use voter fraud as their bread and butter. Reforms might already be underway, but do not underestimate the Jacksonians' duplicity and resilience and resourcefulness. Where there is a will to cheat, the Dems will find a way.

The Party of the Klan still has a stranglehold on the news media.They elected a nobody to the White House in 2008 and they have made sure that we know almost nothing about this shadowy figure ten years later. That is clout! No, the Cooperistas are not what they were last decade, but they can still ruin a Roy Moore if they have to. Don't count out the dinosaurs just yet.

The future impact of voter fraud and media corruption is hard to calculate. But even with both weapons on overdrive, the Dems lost badly in 2016. Discounting the one singular sensation that is Donald Trump, we remind the reader that 2016 was yet one more decisive Demo bloodbath. Across the country they managed to shed even more seats as they even lost both houses in blue blue Minnesota and the governor's seat in even bluer Vermont. Clearly, a new strategy is in order. Let us examine some possibilities.

1. The Charlie Crist Strategy:

A Demo/RINO/Anti-Trumpo coalition now pervades newsrooms and could provide the blueprint for the Democratic Party's future. Much has been made of the D-Team's depleted bench. Why not recruit from disaffected Republicans?

Charlie Crist is Exhibit A. He was a "moderate" Republican governor who predictabally supported John McCain early on. Then there was this Tea Party movement and Crist fell out of favor. He ran for the Senate in 2010 but was upended by a new kid on the block named Marco Rubio.

Undeterred, Crist would release a book entitled "The Party's Over: How the Extreme Right Hijacked the GOP and I Became a Democrat" in 2014. Later that year, he challenged and almost defeated the Florida incumbent governor, Rick Scott.

In 2016, the inextinguishable Crist bucked a Republican wave and won the 13th Congressional District of Florida for the Democrats, defeating Republican incumbent, David Jolly.

If Crist can mount a comeback, how about Jeb Bush? The Bushes run as Republicans but govern like Democrats. They would have been loved and revered by the news media had they had a giant D after their names. Always the black sheep of the ruling class, the Bush clan yearn to be loved like the Kennedys and respected like the Rockefellers. But, there is that pesky Republican moniker that ruins everything.

Donald Trump might have spit in Jeb'b's punch bowl in 2016 but he could have opened a portal for Jeb to enter the Democratic Party. RINO's like John Kasich might follow suit. We might see Jeff Flake come out of retirement. Pundits like Glenn Beck and William Kristol might also wage comebacks in the climate of radical nothingness.

Bush/Booker 2020! Unify America! Let us not rule out the possibility just yet.

2. The Celebrity Uber Alles Strategy:

Maybe the Dems would project a clearer image if they did not try to be all things to all people. Maybe they should dispense with any pretense of populism and embrace their elitist instincts. "We are the party of the rich and famous and the people who suck up to us!"

And so, they spread out across Flyoverya, leaving behind--at least to the degree to satisfy resident status at their new homes--the utopic confines of New York and California. Billionaires and celebrities would challenge Republican incumbents in Congress, the Senate and the governor's mansions.

A Tom Steyer moves to sunny Arizona and runs for Senator. Bruce Springsteen buys a second home in Pennsylvania to defeat Pat Toomey in 2022. Chris Cuomo challenges for the Georgia Senate seat in 2020. Mark Zuckerberg could carpetbag a Senate seat in North Carolina and lay the groundwork for his presidential run. Ben Affleck gropes his way across the Golden State to challenge Kevin McCarthy or Duncan D. Hunter on their home turf.

The barriers are obvious. Wisconsin might be too cold for George Clooney. Michigan might be too dangerous for Jay-Z. And what if Mr. Z actually won the governor's office? He would be on a leash until he could get himself appointed Ambassador to Cuba. Matt Damon might not want to settle for a Congressional seat. Oprah might not want to part with her hard-earned dollars to buy a seat in Obscuria. Some candidates might even lose.

The Celebrity Uber Alles Strategy might work but it might be as difficult as herding cats plus the felines' agents, entourage, and their "people." But it could happen.

3. The Political Gypsy Strategy:

Again, we have to put aside the subject of voter fraud. Let us just briefly assume that the 2016 tallies are correct and Hillary won the popular vote. If that is the case, all the Dems need to do is redistribute their flock to battleground states. If done with precision, the Dems could capture the White House, both houses of  Congress as well as most state houses.

First, we should discuss the legality, logistics and expense of relocating vast numbers of people. It would be illegal, of course, to pay citizens to vote in a certain way. It would not be illegal to hire them as employees of the Democratic Party and put them to work, registering voters for 40 hours a week. Think Occupy Wall Street with clipboards.

Yes, but wouldn't the employment of hundreds of thousands of people be difficult for anyone, much less a political party that is hovering close to broke? Consider the blockchain. The Dems could issue their own cryptocurrency or currencies. Don't dismiss this tactic just yet. The blockchain will change everything. Everything!

To win the presidency, the Dems need 37 more electoral votes than they collected in 2016.

Michigan, with its 17 electoral points, was decided by 13,080 votes.

Pennsylvania, with its 21 electoral points, was decided by 68,236 votes.

North Carolina, with its 15 electoral points, was decided by 177, 009 votes.

Arizona, with its 10 electoral points, was decided by 91, 682 votes.

Note: This 4-state strategy only concerns itself with capturing the White House. To win other elections as well, would involve more sophistication.

Those above states were selected for the close results in 2016 as well as their geography. They are spread out far enough to not compete with one another for migrant voters.

In a presidential election, the Dems would share some of their excess voters in places like New York, Illinois and Maryland without losing elections in those states.

In a presidential election (it might be different if close Senate, Congressional or gubernatorial elections were being held in the home states) the Dems might consider temporarily abandoning their red state homes to work for their presidential choice in one of the four identified battleground states.

District of Columbia has over 600,000 residents and they vote overwhelmingly Democrat. They could lend a few voters to say, nearby Pennsylvania.

Puerto Rico has 3.6 million people and they mostly vote Democrat. They could contribute mightily to the vote totals in any of the four designated battleground states.

The four-state strategy might work something like this: Pennsylvania would be flooded with excess voters from New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island and other Northeast states not named Maine or New Hampshire. Delaware and Maryland might also provide some driftwood as might the DC Reservoir.

The Dems would concede the South except for Virginia, which they already hold, and North Carolina. (Maryland is technically a southern state but it is really just a suburb of DC.) Troglodytes and cellar dwellers and SJW's from Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, etc., could migrate to North Carolina to tip the scales for the Hope and Change Party.

Michigan could play host to Chicago radicals as well as bums from Indianapolis and Cleveland. The Wolverine State might be a tough sell for anyone but they only need 13,081 more voters. DC? Puerto Rico? If only for a few months?

Arizona is vulnerable to Blue capture. California could spare about a million or so voters but it might be wiser if they relocated them to red Congressional districts in their home state. Washington and Oregon might fortify Nevada or Colorado, or possible enjoy the cactus state for a season. Texas and Utah are going to go red, so the Antifa and other Democrats from those places might consider the Grand Canyon State for a change of scenery. Ditto North Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas...Only 91,683 needed.

So far, we have only discussed presidential elections. Mississippi holds state elections the year before presidential elections. If Dems master the blockchain, they could easily conquer the Magnolia State.

New Jersey and Virginia hold state elections the year after presidential elections. Last year, both states went blue but that could change. Why would the Dems play it safe?

The other 47 states hold state elections in even-numbered years, either presidential, off-year, or both. The Dems could corral their snowflakes so that they participate in elections in four different states in four different years. Might be more glamorous than living in Mom's basement.

The Democrats might adopt one or all of the above strategies. Time will tell. In the meantime, what are the Dems up to?

An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history.

If the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely predicted, candidates drawn from the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as half of the new Democratic members of Congress. They will hold the balance of power in the lower chamber of Congress.

Both push and pull are at work here. Democratic Party leaders are actively recruiting candidates with a military or intelligence background for competitive seats where there is the best chance of ousting an incumbent Republican or filling a vacancy, frequently clearing the field for a favored “star” recruit.

Complete story at World Socialist Web Site:

That's right! The Dems are recruiting from the deep state. This certainly confirms the validity of Q Anon. For the uniformed, Q Anon advances the idea that we are in the midst of a proxy civil war fought between CIA and Military Intelligence. I think I already used the term resourceful to describe the Democrats, didn't I?

I thought the blue wave was about as likely as the Hillary Landslide we heard so much about. Maybe the Demoncrats will surprise us in 2018 after all.

If we can just get Obama to get involved. Maybe he still has that fecal touch.