Sunday, June 14, 2015

The Democrats Have the Worst Presidential Candidates in America

It’s fashionable for the media to mock the “clown car” of the Republican presidential primary field.

And it’s true that the Republican Party is burdened with a surplus of overqualified candidates with name recognition; successful governors, smart young senators and even a celebrated surgeon and CEO.

Meanwhile the Democratic Party’s “inevitable” candidate is inevitably generating financial scandals faster than her husband generated his inevitable sex scandals.

Competing against her is Senator Bernie Sanders who is currently discussing 90 percent tax rates and why he believes women want to be raped. His winning campaign slogan is “You don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants when children are hungry in this country.”

You also don’t need a choice of 23 highly qualified conservative free market candidates when you can choose between Hillary Clinton and a senile Socialist from Vermont visiting late night talk shows to discuss his rape fantasies. Either Hillary Clinton will take all your money or Bernie Sanders will take all your money and then take away your underarm spray deodorants for the sake of all the hungry children.

And you’re lucky if that’s all he does.

The Republican primary field may be laissez faire overcrowded, but the Democratic primary field celebrates a centrally planned economy in which there is only one mandated winner; Hillary.

The Democratic Party is like shopping at a Soviet supermarket. There isn’t anything to buy and what little there is, is so terrible that you would rather go hungry than take it home.

If a creepy old Socialist and the Clinton Crime Family don’t suit you, what about a former mayor of Baltimore? Martin O’Malley is polling badly in his own state and his biggest career accomplishment was cleaning up Baltimore. Since Baltimore is now run by roving street gangs killing each other on alternate blocks, that’s not the best possible resume for a presidential candidate. Unfortunately the only other thing that O’Malley is famous for is taxing the rain as governor.

He can either run as the former mayor of the city that the country is watching tear itself apart on television or he can run as the tax-happy politician who will tax even more things than Bernie Sanders. Voters can choose between a wealthy Socialist whose net worth is ten times that of the ordinary American, but thinks ordinary people are too rich because they can afford underarm deodorant.

Or they can cast their vote for a man who will tax water falling from the sky.

If you don’t like those choices, Lincoln Chafee, who has been a Republican, an Independent and now a Democrat, has entered the race with a vow to switch the country over to the metric system.

Chafee, inspired by his time in Canada, called for “a bold embrace of internationalism” by going metric. He also promised that the chaos, waste, expense and accidents involved in switching the country to a new measurement system would “help our economy”.

He also implied that it would atone for the Iraq War.

The ghost of Saddam Hussein still haunting his palaces would probably prefer a more devastating revenge, but his mustachioed spirit will have to settle for Chafee confusing shoppers in aisle 9.

If you still need a scorecard, Bernie Sanders will take away your underarm deodorant and possibly molest you. Martin O’Malley will tax any rain that falls on you and Lincoln Chafee will make shopping at the supermarket more expensive and confusing as an apology to the world for overthrowing Saddam.

Communist Yugoslavia had more inspiring elections. North Korea’s dictator hates ordinary people less than the 2016 Democrats running in a race to see which of them can deprive you of more things for the greater good. This isn’t a clown car. It’s a burning Yugo filled with the acid dreams of decaying leftists.

Hillary Clinton couldn’t have come up with a better argument for winning the Democratic primaries if she had handpicked each and every one of the three losers and lunatics running against her.

And it wouldn’t be too surprising if she had.

Every corrupt revelation about the Clinton Crime Family can be countered by pointing to the rest of the primary field. Hillary can just go on sitting out the primaries while Bernie Sanders unintentionally campaigns for her by explaining how he would like to rape the voters economically and physically.

Of course that’s not the picture on any television set tuned to the channels of the mainstream media.

There Bernie Sanders is a principled public servant who occasionally writes eccentric things about wanting to rape women and while his ideas about 90 percent tax rates may not be workable yet, they show how much integrity he has. Lincoln Chafee is yet another principled public servant even if, like Charlie Crist, he has trouble settling on a single set of principles. Martin O’Malley only taxed the rain because he cares about the environment and Hillary Clinton isn’t responsible for anything that her foundation or email server does. And even if she is, she isn’t because what difference does it make?

Meanwhile the Republican primary field of successful governors, doctors, CEOs and senators is a pack of laughable contemptible cretins who don’t deserve half the respect of Senator Rape, Governor Kilometer and Mayor Mob. Not to mention Secretary of State Benghazi.

The Republican field is not only more diverse with Ben Carson, an African-American neurosurgeon, Bobby Jindal, the Indian-American governor of Louisiana, and Carly Fiorina, the former CEO of HP, it’s unequivocally more serious. Its top candidates across the political spectrum are discussing serious issues and making important policy proposals. Its governors are reformers who tackled big problems in their states.

Meanwhile the Democrats have Hillary Clinton who spent her time as Secretary of State partying and doing favors for major donors while Americans died. They have Bernie Sanders who thinks that the problem is that Americans can afford different brands of deodorant while he wallows in his own Socialist stink. They almost have Elizabeth Warren, who lacks the courage to actually come out and run against Hillary, but whose supporters in the media keep trying to kneecap her like Tonya Harding’s boyfriend.

The media mocks the Republican presidential field as a clown car while the Democrat field is a bankrupt Socialist banana republic consisting of cranks, thieves, failures and lunatics.

It doesn’t look like America. Instead it looks like a Marx Brothers take on Cuba.

While the Republican field brings fresh ideas and personalities, the Democrats have dusted off a collection of unappealing politicians whom even their own voters can’t get enthusiastic about.

Hillary Clinton is the frontrunner despite polling underwater in likability. Even Marylanders don’t want Martin O’Malley to be president. And Bernie Sanders will be lucky to carry Vermont and Berkeley.

If I were a Democrat, I would be ashamed of belonging to a party incapable of fielding anything better than a bunch of crazy corrupt hacks who can’t even be bothered to come up with a credible platform that doesn’t involve the metric system or stealing all the deodorant.

Or in Hillary’s case, promising anything to anyone who will give her enough money. The Democratic Party has fielded the worst slate of presidential candidates in the country. Maybe even the world. Its only possible support comes from voters who hate America, rain, ounces and deodorant.


Anonymous said...

Considering how much the left is actively undermining her, I seriously doubt they intend Hillary to win the White House. If they supported her, they would act far differently, wouldn't they? She is by no means a certainty. I think they're pushing that idea in order to deceive us.

I believe the Democrats intend to use some pretext or other to keep Obama in the White House: Obama is not going anywhere in 2016. After so many decades of struggle, the communists will not simply relinquish power in an election.

Our very last chance to unseat the left was in 2012, which Obama managed to win only by fraud. The 2016 presidential election is an illusion.

mindRider said...

Changing America to the metric system is not that bad an idea, even good old England changed over to this easy and logical manner of measurements.

Anonymous said...

The problem isn’t who or what the parties are running. It’s the dumbed down voters who would push the button for Hillary even if she passed away in her sleep and they had her stuffed. They know she isn’t the best candidate so they put up some really not good clowns for contrast. And the distracted voters, who are really more interested in what celebs are wearing to award shows, are clueless that this country is now in the hands of fools and have been conditioned to believe it’s her turn anyway. Who cares that she is a crook and not in the least qualified; she is owed.

allamerican1952 said...

Hadn't quite thought of either party this way: Dems putting up straw men to make Shrilliary look more alive and viable, while the Repub slate does look pretty damn good as described, comparatively speaking.

But alas, I still believe the whole game is rigged and it doesn't matter one iota what anyone votes as the fix is in. It is what it is and the only remedy is what Thomas Jefferson prescribed " ... refreshing the Tree of Liberty ... " from time to time.

Anonymous said...

Cast a stone. NO solutions.

Anonymous said...

The conventional wisdom is that American elections are won by campaining close to the center. Having Bernie Sanders in the race makes Hillary, O'Malley and Waren look like they are closer to the center.

Anonymous said...

We English are still using the old systems a lot of the time. My grandchildren can use both as can most of us. Depends on the circumstances. For instance today I was working on a steam locomotive using metric and imperial .Drove home in my car (miles and gallons) .Bought stuff in the supermarket in imperial and metric.
This is normal for us now. The old measurments will be a lon long time a dying.
Dave S

Dave said...

Democracy should be called mediocracy, because a solid majority of voters believe whatever flim-flam they see on TV (and those who think they're too smart for TV read Time or the NYT instead.) Our Founding Fathers gave us the First Amendment, but they also limited the franchise to property-owning, tax-paying white men over age 21, who are less easily gulled. Putin never had to steal an election in Russia; he locked in 70% of the vote just by taking over the TV networks!

TV-watchers are allowed to vote in R primaries, and are especially inclined to do so if Hillary's already locked up the D nomination. So the media gets to choose *both* presidential nominees.

Anonymous said...

"Democracy should be called mediocracy" - that's actually a best case scenario.
Lately in US it looks more and more like idiocracy. I'ts not going to end well.

Princeton 1967 said...

I fear that election 2016, like most every other recent national election, will find its victor to be that candidate who has the most temporally correct formulary of funding, advertising, capricious good fortune and media fealty.

Anonymous said...

How many metric system countries have put men of the moon? ;)

Marylou said...

"The Democratic Party is like shopping at a Soviet supermarket. There isn’t anything to buy and what little there is, is so terrible that you would rather go hungry than take it home."

Haha! That's the best line I've read in a long time! It's going right into my quote collection. (But, then, I think by now you have your own section in there, anyway!)

Y. Ben-David said...

When I was growing up, we had a series of "Golden Book" for children on various subjects like science and history. I vividly recall the one on history describing the fall of the Roman Empire. It said that at the end "no one wanted to be emperor". At the time, I couldn't understand that because I thought there would be no lack of people who wanted the glory and power of the job. However, looking at the deterioration of those running for President in recent decades, I now understand....most good people don't want the headache of running for office for two years, raising billions of dollars by kowtowing to a bunch of wealthy, egotistical potentates and having the media scrutinize every parking ticket or off-the-cuff remark you might have made 30 years ago.
I am afraid I am not as optimistic about the Republican field as others here are. Senators Rubio and Cruz are very intelligent, but they simply don't have enough experience....recall that last first-term senator that became President....Obama.
Ben Carson has a lot of good ideas but it is imperative that a President have a lot of political experience. He just doesn't have any. Jimmy Carter had some experience as a one-term governor of a small state, but he was clueless when he got to the White House. The lady CEO who is running also has to realize that running a company is not the same as running a state or a country.

The fact is that the majority of potential voters are allied with the ideology of the Democratic party, as Mitt Romney pointed out in a gaffe before the last election. If they are able to "generate the excitement" like they did the last two times and get the normally apathetic black, Hispanic and white poor to vote, they can't lose. The Republicans SHOULD have won the last time but they didn't so the Republicans have an uphill fight to get into the White House and demographic trends are against them. For instance the Hispanic population is growing rapidly in Texas so it will eventually morph from a conservative Ted-Cruz-friendly state into another "progressive" version of California or New York.
It is true the Republicans control most of the statehouses and Governorships in addition to both Houses of Congress due to the fact that a large part of the Democratic majority is sitting out those elections, but the Republicans have failed to turn things around against the "progressive" totalitarian onslaught, so I am not optimistic about the 2016 elections. If Hillary gets the nomination. the "excitement" of having the first woman in the White House will return and I don't see how she can lose.

Anonymous said...

Great article, as usual.

We know who, and where the candidates are, and yes, our field vastly outperforms their field, but WHAT ARE WE DOING TO CHANGE THE PEOPLE?

Keli Ata said...

Your title says it all Daniel. Well done as always.

Anonymous said...

Where did Hilly get the moo moo? Omar the tent maker?

Northern Observer said...

I don't know how can look at what is happening in Kansas or North Carolina and advocate for the Republican Party with a straight face. The struggle against Islam transcends your tax rate preferences, until conservative commentators accept this the Islam issue will suffer.

Anonymous said...

This article is poorly written. Taking jabs at the left with great personal bias. There is more stimulating dialogue in the comments section.

william hull said...

Anonymous said..."Cast a stone. No solutions." I beg to differ. He offers the brilliant field the republicans put forward as distinct from the democrats. Hopefully readers from the left will get it, but probably not. It's too logical for leftists to get.

Y. Ben-David said...

Just heard about Jeb's announcement. If he is the strongest candidate the Republicans can come up with, they are in bad shape. His advantages are "name recognition", a powerful family-lead political machine, big money and a proven ability to play dirty pool. However, I don't believe he would be able to beat Hillary because of the "Tom Dewey Syndrome". Dewey lead Truman in every single poll before the 1948 election so he decided on a play-it-safe strategy....don't take controversial positions. say you accept the Democrat's New Deal programs but you will run them more efficiently and maintain a relatively low profile. He lost by a large margin. Mitt Romney and John McCain also ran as "moderate Republicans' and Romney simply promoted himself as a better manager than Obama, and he avoided attacking him on things like his relationship with Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayres. He also lost by a large margin.
Jeb is now pushing the same 'moderate" line, so I don't see how he can stand a chance. Jeb is also trying to get the Hispanic vote but it won't work. Yes, there is a minority of conservative Hispanics that believe in family values but this is a minority. Hispanics have a single-mother birthrate over 50% and they are dependent on a big-government welfare system so most will vote Democrat if they decide to turn out to vote.
I have always thought Bobby Jindal has the background to make it to the top....a non-WASP success story, child of immigrants and a clear values system, but he never seems to be able to take off. I wonder why?

fsy said...

This is a good opportunity for me to promote my proposed one-line Constitutional Amendment:

"The office of President of the United States is hereby abolished"

The bizarre personality cult that surrounds this position and that turns the Presidential elections into the kind of unreal fantasy world that this article describes is enough reason to eliminate it permanently. What would replace it? Who knows, but it couldn't possibly be any worse.

Perhaps in the early years of the Republic, the Presidency was something close to what it was meant to be, a job where one man 'presided' over the operations of the Federal Government without trying to rule or even 'govern' as an individual. I'm afraid that by the time of Lincoln, it had already deteriorated into personal rule, and it has only gotten worse since then.

Since a commenter mentioned Jimmy Carter, it's worth noting that on paper, he seemed to be a good approximation to the kind of person conservatives would consider qualified for the job. He had a serious engineering education, military service, business experience and also experience as a governor. He seemed to be a decent and religious man. Nonetheless, his personality coupled with the problems of the Presidency itself led to disaster (which the American people were still sane enough to repudiate after one term, unlike their state in 2012.)

If this amendment gets through, we can start to think about what to do about the Supreme Court.

Ron said...

The English system exists for a reason. An inch is the width of your thumb, a foot your forearm. The metric system exists for an industrialized society

However a digital society can easily calculate what is needed in the English system as easily as in the metric

TL/DR. If it ain't broke don't fix it

Anonymous said...

Leftism is a kind of mental arthritis with their constant derivation to failed policies. No surprise here, you derive a constant and get a zero.

Anonymous said...

Ron - Scientists generally prefer the metric system as it's easier to work with very large numbers. Whereas tradesmen and masons seem to favour the Imperial system.

Anonymous said...

I really hope whoever gets elected does switch teh country to the metric system. Its about time. Lets join the civilized world already.

Anonymous said...

Gee whats easier to use, calculates w/o fractions and is used by the vast majority of the world..

12in=1ft, 3ft=1yd 5280ft=1mi etc etc


10mm=1cm , 100cm=1m, 1000m=km

same for volume. Imperial system is a vestigal organ that shouldve been replaced centuries ago.

Anonymous said...

Fuck your metric system and it's international whatever. And while we're at it, kiss my rebel ass. You fuckers take the easy way... "oh, it's based on easy things like base ten and my fingers and...." whatever. Sit on your couch in mom's basement and play Nintendo... men have work to do, get out of the way.

Post a Comment