Friday, November 22, 2019

Are the Dems Sleepwalking Off a Cliff?

Friends, my latest article considers the dynamics in the Democratic primary race, and why the timidity of the Democratic candidates may be their party's collective undoing.  See if you agree with my logic...  Enjoy!

Are the Dems Sleepwalking Towards a Brokered Convention?

Wednesday night's subdued Democratic presidential debate confirmed that no candidate is on a clear trajectory to the nomination. What is truly shocking, however, is that none of the top contenders seem to believe that the Democratic nomination is even worth breaking a sweat, or throwing a punch, over. They are politely asking for the support of the voters, yes, but if the answer is “No, thanks” or “Meh,” they are taking it in stride. 

Witness the fact that, aside from Corey Booker's “I thought you might have been high” dig at Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris's vicious but electorally pointless broadside aimed at Tulsi Gabbard, none of the “big guns” could bestir themselves to fire a shot. How such a flock of sheep is supposed to defeat the ultimate alpha male, Donald Trump, is beyond me.

A more interesting question in the medium term, however, is whether any of the Democrats currently (or, in the case of Mike Bloomberg, prospectively) running can defeat the rest of the field. The unsettled and inconsistent nature of the public polling in this cycle — which has alternately given the edge to Biden, Warren, Sanders, or Buttigieg, and occasionally to all or none of the above — has left the pundits and most voters scratching their heads. The candidates' wariness about attacking one another's records and policy proposals, and the dearth of negative ads run so far, has only reinforced the perception of an electoral stalemate.

It is worth recalling that the delegate allotment rules in 2020 on the Democratic side are broadly proportional. That is, any candidate who reaches a 15% threshold of support in a given state, or in a state legislative or Congressional district, will receive a proportionate share of the delegates. The only way for one of these Democratic candidates to receive his or her party's nomination on the first ballot at the Democratic National Convention, therefore, is to scale up his or her support between now and March (when the lion's share of the delegates will be awarded) to greater than 50%. At the moment, that seems unlikely to occur. For a moderate to triumph, either Biden or Buttigieg would need to get out of the way. For a progressive to triumph, the same could be said of Warren and Sanders. The likelihood of a brokered convention, therefore, where no one wins the nomination on the first ballot, is high and increasing.

What happens then? Under the current set of rules, the Democrats' 758 “automatic delegates” — once known as “superdelegates” — only get to vote starting on the second ballot. That means that party bigwigs like Governors, Congressmen, and Senators would suddenly comprise 16% of the total pool of delegates. Could they throw the nomination to an establishment candidate like Biden? Perhaps, but many other scenarios would become plausible. A long, bloody floor fight could emerge between moderates and liberals. The party could embrace a “dark horse” candidate like Hillary Clinton to foster unity. The party could even fracture ideologically and produce an official candidate and an unofficial, independent challenger — a Pope and an anti-Pope, if you will, as in the Middle Ages. The potential for mischief, betrayal, and self-sabotage is limitless.

Democrats and liberals, who watch much more CNN and MSNBC than is good for them, have a tendency to scoff at the idea that Donald Trump could win reelection in 2020. After all, no one who appears at their sophisticated dinner parties inside the Beltway likes him! Based on that unofficial poll, his goose is cooked.

These Democrats and liberals should get out more. America is a country in which the fundamental strength of the two main parties is in something very close to equilibrium. This simple fact, combined with the Democrats' listlessness, ideological incompatibilities, self-satisfaction, and complacency, makes it not only possible, but likely, that Donald Trump will be residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for many years to come.

Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred and blogs at: He appears weekly on the Newsmaker Show on WLEA 1480.

And here it is at Daily Caller: 

In other news, ponder the revelations in this well-written article, which suggests that President Trump's concerns about Ukrainian corruption and interference in U.S. elections are well-founded.  Will there be a Senate trial of President Trump?  If so, we could see some startling twists and turns!  The Bidens, as well as the Obama administration, could effectively be put on trial as well.


  1. AH, a brokered Convention, this was mentioned by Dr. O. yesterday and he fully believes, as well, that the election will be 269-269 tie and the House will vote for the democrat. I told him he was nuts, LOL. A tie has never happened, never ever as I reminded him. He said and I quote, "Watch Linda!" Ok then, back to some sort of reality. Reality isn't looking to good for the dems, of course that is just my opinion. They are just going more off the deep end.

    Fiona Hill...she is part of the problem, isn't she? She said during her testimony on Thursday that conspiracy theories linked to billionaire philanthropist George Soros were anti-Semitic, likening them to “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” Umm...just a thought there, grant it, it/ The Protocols is a 'fabrication', however, it is about world domination. Isn't her former boss, George Soros about world domination? I would argue her testimony is full of holes and dare I say "deep state'ish". Scary how these NSC and State Dept. employees honestly believe they control things, perhaps they do (after listening to the hearings, I now believe there is a coup). I find her comments about this topic of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion deeply troubling. Wondering if you had any thoughts about this?

    And, I owe you an apology, I do believe the latest debate did mention the impeachment inquiries. I said they wouldn't dare mention it.

    Here is the link to the comment she made:

  2. Dr. Waddy and Linda: Leftists are practiced, as are the criminals I worked with, in putting their opponents on the defensive. A tactic they use daily, especially the leftists who dominate the media,is to accuse their opposition of something heinous and universally condemned, like the Protocols, in order to put their foes in holes so deep that a climb to parity (achieved hopefully by abject apology) is a reach and victory consequently unlikely. They do this with the term Naziism all the time.

    Soros: he's in his 70's or more and has to remember the Soviet onslaught on his native Hungary in 1956. His support of the ideological counterparts of those who did that murder is execrable; it puts him to shame beyond measure.

  3. Dr. Waddy:I believe it helpful to reassert my view of Russia - Ukraine - (NATO?) - which I think is fundamental to this continuing "collusion" windmill.

    President Hillary Clinton would have pursued an anti Russia foreign policy in order to distract domestic attention from her ASSUREDLY radical domestic agenda (she didn't endure her "husband's" disdainful treatment for nuthin). There is almost no better way to incur Russia's guaranteed wrath(and its certain military consequences; the rugged Russians will be pushed only so far on Ukraine, with which they share profound historical and geographical connections - Hillary, with her white male hating personality and staff support, would have foolishly challenged the white male dominated Russia) than to threaten to enable Ukraine's permanent separation from Russia. Just read Russian history.

    It is reasonable to think then, that Ukraine, which wishes to be free of Great Russia's smothering grasp, would wish for Hillary's empowerment and might even work for it, despite the unlikelyhood of their having any appreciable effect.

  4. Dr. Waddy: I do not mean in the above comment to suggest that you are unread in Russia history.

  5. Linda, first some good news: Dr. O is almost certainly wrong about an electoral college tie resulting in a Democratic win. He must not understand how votes are cast in such a case. This article will explain it:

    Bottom line: an electoral college tie would give the advantage to Republicans. That's unless the evil Dems could convince one GOP elector to flip, of course, which they probably could!

    As for Fiona Hill's comment about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, that's typical leftist drivel. Of course she would want to suggest that any criticism of George Soros is anti-Semitic. Lefties like her presumably believe that everything Republicans and conservatives say or do is racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, AND anti-Semitic (which is a neat trick, being hateful towards Jews AND Muslims, but I digress). I posted an article today that brilliantly analyzed how Hill conflated two different theories of Ukrainian "meddling," when one of them is much stronger than the other. The bigger point, though, seems to me to be this: WHO CARES what Fiona Hill thinks about George Soros or Petro Poroshenko? She's not the President!!! It's the President who gets to make foreign policy, darn it!

    Jack is right, of course: the framing of all questions about Ukrainian meddling and Biden corruption as "conspiracy theories" suits the Dems well, as it shuts down the conversation. Labeling anyone who questions the party line "anti-Semitic" is even more intimidating.

    Jack, I agree that it's a no-brainer that Ukraine would have supported Hillary in 2016. Would they have assumed, as you do, that she would have been anti-Russian? Maybe. I make no such assumption, personally. I think the Russophobia of the Left is mostly for show, and once it ceases to be useful as a club with which to beat Donald Trump they may abandon it altogether. Be that as it may, the only thing the Ukrainians would have needed to know about Hillary is that EVERYONE thought she was going to win. They would have been foolish not to bet on the winning horse...

  6. Dr. Waddy: Makes good sense that for Ukraine, the bottom line was that they were sure she would win.