Please don't blame Robby Mook.
The Clintons and their long-time supporters lost this. Freakin' Al From and his damnable Democratic Leadership Council1 lost this.2
Although only 36, Mook is a successful campaign veteran.3 Baby Boom Democrats like the Clintons, Mark Shields, Bob Shrum, et al. very much need a fresher perspective to attract Millennial Boomers.TM Nonetheless, I very much doubt that Mook ever got to override or overrule Bill and Hillary Clinton and other denizens of Hillaryland who helped elect Bill President of the United States back in the day. (Well, not Ross Perot, who most likely helped Bill most, Rachel Maddow's analysis notwithstanding, but Clintonites like Penn, Carville, MacAuliffe, etc.)
As we know all too well, Third Way fiscal policies are (too) akin to those of Republicans and Democrats therefore depend upon culture wars/identity politics--women, racial and ethnic minorities and members of the LGBT community. They don't depend upon them exclusively, but they absolutely do depend upon them greatly. Although I am very much for differentiating fiscal policies, I am fine with identity politics--unless used divisively. The Clintons seem more than willing to use identity politics to divide Americans, if the Clintons believe so doing will serve them (the Clintons).
IMO, identity politics in all the Clinton campaigns originated with Bill Clinton, the guy who grew up as a W.A.S.P. surrounded by Jim Crow, and as the protégé of a Senator who filibustered the Civil Rights Act. Hillary, who has not led on any issue, seems to follow his, um, thinking. What does that have to do with Mook? For Democratic politicians, the Clintons both have an especially wretched record on equal rights for gays, that being one of two most intractable issues for the far religious right.
The other intractable issue for the far right, of course, is reproductive rights. Women, while also a historically repressed group, represent many more votes than do members of the GLBT community. For that matter, all women represent more votes than any other demographic, including all men. Also, many more people, including devoutly religious Republican people, practice birth control and have abortions, perhaps even while advocating against both. Do I believe the Clintons are just that calculated about votes? Damned "straight," I do.
As it stands, President Clinton got Congress to pass his creation, the disaster known as DADT, and signed the unconstitutional DOMA, with great political calculation in both instances. Although her logic will forever escape me, then Senator Hillary stood on the floor of the Senate and opposed equal marriage because of how hard she supposedly fought for her marriage. She did not come out for equal marriage until frickin' 2013, when the SCOTUS was about declare it a Constitutional right. (Wouldn't surprise me in the least if some law clerk or other worker in the SCOTUS leaked the direction in which the Court was going.)
That said, members of the LGBT community vote. If you think the votes of the LGBT community are too few for Democrats who have wronged them to be concerned about, remember two things: (1) Supporters of LGBT rights are not only people with those orientations, but also all their hetero supporters, including, I hope, every Leftist "commoner;" and (2) Getting elected and re-elected has devolved to razor-thin margins, or worse: Bush the Lesser got re-elected with 50.73% of the popular vote 3 and claimed to have "capuhtull." And look what recently happened to The Hillary.
Not only do members of the LGBT community vote, but they donate, fundraise, bundle and volunteer and have good lobbyists, like the Human Rights Campaign (the other HRC). Log Cabin Repubicans aside, members of the LGBT community tend to do all those things in a major way for Democrats because their very lives literally may depend on it. Thus, I don't think it coincidental that observing the gay parents of some of Sasha and Malia's friends (eye roll) got President Obama to return to his 1994 stance favoring equal marriage, just as he was gearing up to run for re-election.
IOW, the Clinton campaign had a big bridge to build to one of the constituencies on which Democrats now depend. IMO, Mook was part of that bridge. I am not saying he was not qualified. He is. However, having observed the Clintons and having read Game Change, as much as people may want to pretend Hillary only follows the orders of her campaign managers and strategists, in reality, negative politics and, in particular, negative identity politics pervaded her campaigns, even though staff changed. That's no coincidence. And, according to Game Change, Bill Clinton advocates negative campaigning.
1 At this point, the overly literal (of whom I am one, sadly) point out that the DLC no longer exists because its corporate existence was legally dissolved some years ago. That's similar to asserting that Christianity no longer exists because Jesus Christ died some years ago. The DLC was not merely a corporate minute book, but a political philosopy. You don't end a political philosophy by filing corporate dissolution papers with the Office of the Secretary of State.
2 http://caucus99percent.com/content/its-not-rocket-science
3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004
Comments
the party needs to be truly post-Clinton
Mook is not that much at fault but the polling mistakes and the flipping of formerly Obama districts that made the GOP victory margin in the EC show the lack of tactical expertise. The party needs to fully get past all vestiges of DLC/Third Way Clintonism, since we could argue that Shrum's losing effect lasted for much more than eight years (think of the persistence of Ed Rendell)
@eState4Column5
That would be ideal, but extremely difficult.
I don't blame Mook for the flipping of Obama districts. Look at the likeability of Obama 2008 then versus Hillary 2016. Look the Obama/Biden versus McCain/Palin and the state of the economy in 2008. And Obama/Biden ran after 8 years of Bush the Lesser. So many differences, really, other than Axelrod vs. Mook. Even Obama/Biden 2012 didn't carry all the states and districts carried by Obama/Biden 2008. And incumbents who run rarely lose a re-election battle. Where I may fault Mook somewhat is not focusing enough on the electoral vote. Then again, I don't know if that's true. I am only working backwards from the result. It did look like an electoral landslide for Hillary at one point.
On the post-Clinton Party. That would be a post DLC/Third Way/New Democrat Party. And that will be tough.
Although the Party always had its conservative wing, the Party officially began turning Third Way in the 1980s, when From was grooming people like Bubba, Hillary, Warner, Gore, Robb, Lieberman, et al. When they framed Bill's re-election as the first time a Democratic POTUS got re-elected since FDR,* Democratic politicians started converting faster than Niagara falls. Carter, whom I happen to believe was, for better or worse, our last principled POTUS, was no flaming fiscal liberal. Neither was JFK. Basically, in modern times, our fiscally liberal Presidents were FDR, Truman and LBJ--and I believe FDR and LBJ saw themselves averting a possibly violent uprising.
Also, all Democratic think tanks that I know of are New Democrat/Third Way, etc. I don't see all of them admitting they were wrong, even to themselves, and pivoting on a dime.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
*Framing is everything.
O.K., framing is not everything, but it's a lot.
New Democrats, like the Republicans they tend to emulate, seem to me to be better at framing than people who aspire to finding truth. Yes, it's true that Clinton was the first Democratic POTUS who got re-elected since FDR. However, it is also true that the only Democratic Presidents who ran for re-election after FDR were Carter and Clinton; and Carter's administration was cursed by the hostages and waiting in line to gas up cars. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/cart... Also, Reagan was one of the most unusual Presidential candidates in US history.
Anyway, because of the framing of the Presidential election of 1996 and other Presidential elections to aid the New Democrats, many politicians believe that the only electable Democrats are New Democrats (who feint liberal publicly, when expedient). Of course, being elected is a politician's goal; and being elected POTUS is the goal of many a politician (and others, apparently). Besides, it's tough for them to give up their political upbringing and the cash that New Democrats and Republicans get. http://caucus99percent.com/content/its-not-rocket-science
What's a Millennial Boomer?
Yes, Third Way Dems loves them their corporate cash and won't give it up. So, progressives are in a pickle (Green pickle) with one hand tied behind their backs and are about to go over the falls. In order to credit negative campaigning, you have to go back to Lee Atwater and his Southern Strategy. It was a Republican, not Democratic strategy, and it helped them get and retain white voters post LBJ and the Civil Rights Act. Bill just stole the concept (sound familiar?) and used the divide-and-conquer specter of a boogyman to cobble together enough Dem voters to win elections. I don't get your intention with this essay, unless you are pointing out how stubbornly Dems are clinging to what worked for them in the past.
Well, I may be a Boomer Millennial
oly because I have two Millennial offspring, who seem much more staid than I. But yes, I think the essay was about the Party apparatchiks being in a mudhole.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
I like your twist on Millennial Boomer.
Millennial Boomer is,
I think, a term I invented this am. (Hence the TM. Millennials are now the largest demographic. The last time that happened, the group was called Baby Boomers. So, I simply swapped out "Baby" for "Millennial."
I am not sure on what you base the assumption that Bill Clinton stole from Atwater, other than they both used racism. Atwater certainly was not the first to do that.
My intention in this essay is right in the title: Hillary's loss was not Mook's fault. "Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar." http://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/08/12/just-a-cigar/ Some blame Mook, but I disagree. Being (1) younger; (2) a member of the LGBT community and (3) a seasoned campaigner with a successful track record, he was an asset to her campaign in a number of ways. IMO, the Clintons lost this because they are who are they are and they do what they do.
However, I will make a confession: The essay is not as developed as it might have been. I apparently clicked "publish" when I meant to click "save." IOW, it is an unfinished first draft and maybe not even an entire first draft. I would have unpublished, but, by the time I noticed it was published, someone had commented.
Post-war boomers were
the result of couples getting busy after being separated for a year or two (or three). The population then being around 140 million people. Millenials, born some 40 years later, when rhe population was double, some 280 million, were more the result of natural population growth. There may be more of them, but it's no boom. Still, I would keep the name.
the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.
Also the Echo Boomers.
The surge created when the boomers were 20-35 years old.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Mook is irrelevant
Hillary Clinton is just somehow naturally off-putting. One can spot those that are trying too hard.
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
I agree in part.
Hillary does seem to be naturally off putting, at least, as a candidate. People have remarked how personable she is in other contexts, but, inasmuch as I know only her public persona, I can't assess those claims. I could have gotten past her being naturally offputting if she hadn't also done such awful things and/or if she had a record of positive accomplishments. And I think Mook was an asset. It's just that the campaign buck stopped with the Clintons, with all their privilege, sense of entitlement, hubris, inflated notion of their own attributes, bad judgment and propensity of negative campaigning and negative identity politics.
Also, Trump at least campaigned on making America great again. I have no idea what he meant by that and am no fan of American Exceptionalism, whether in him or in Obama and Hillary. However, the vision for America that Hillary conveyed was her own desire to be its President.
I'm sure that some
do find her personable. As to why, who knows? I'm guessing that those who find her somehow charming are those that want a woman for president at any cost. The heart wants what the heart wants. My personal distaste for who she is began with her efforts to create a health care plan. She struck me as an opportunist using her husband's position as a launch pad for her to achieve recognition. What she gained was notoriety. And from there the story goes on as you have noted.
American exceptionalism? What is that really? To me it is something that was born of the post WWII zeitgeist when the U.S. could declare a global interest rate with the wave of a finger. America had proved that it could rise to the occasion. Much of that was true. Innovation, manufacturing, agriculture -- beyond the pale. And later, the civil rights movement contributed to America being of a beacon of hope. All of that has been gone for a long, long time. Too bad 'bout the cold war and the failure to heed Eisenhower's warning.
Make America Great Again. Silly but effective. Implying that America as failed due to having a democrat in office for eight years and a black man no less! What was America thinking? But Donald J. Drumpf is here to save the day! God, I feel safer and more prosperous already! I think I'll go out and apply for some more credit cards.
Mook will be alright if Hillary doesn't have him offed. According to a CNN leak, immediately after the election results, Hillary threw a tantrum and physically injured both Mook and Podesta. Just rumors, but somehow....
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
I didn't interpret Trump as referring to Obama, but you could
easily be right about that. I saw it as "the giant sucking sound" of jobs leaving the country that Perot identified.'' I don't know if Hillary is speedy enough to clock anyone agile enough to get out of the way. Although....according the Secret Service agent who wrote a book, she apparently threw a lamp at Bubba during their White House years, giving him a black eye. That's pretty good aim, for throwing a lamp.
I just threw that out there
about Obama but I think it's safe to say his followers would read that into it.
Sorry, but I can't help but chuckle when I picture ol' Bill being domestically abused by Hillary. Welcome to another episode of White House Trailer Park. Hillary will be sporting a beer stained wife beater shirt.
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
You're probably right.
You're probably right.
"Naturally off-putting."
Ad copy for a Clinton beauty products line?
Well, he is a loser.
And the Podesta emails I read show he's a dim bulb in his own right.
I guess so, because when it comes down to brass tacks...
sometimes a Mook is just a mook...
Apparently Merriam-Webster knows the guy...
mook
noun \ˈmük\
Popularity: Bottom 40% of words
Definition of mook
slang
: a foolish, insignificant, or contemptible person
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
I know, right? If I were gay, I would have supported the guy
who marched, grinning from ear to ear, in a gay pride parade 35 years ago, not the gal who defended DOMA right up until the SCOTUS was about to declare it unconstitutional--with a Republican, Irish Catholic 77 year old writing the majority opinion, no less.
But, what do I know? As sojourns observed upthread, ala Woody Allen, the heart wants what it wants.
Foolish identity politics
is destroying the Democratic party. They are so ultra-concerned with ones intersectionality pedigree that they can't see what's looming. It's hit them now, so where do they go? They retreat further into identity politics, of course. They'll be irrelevant for just as long as they do.
I gather from that that America's default value now is fascism. If the left is pre-occupied and irrelevant, there is no other option available. That's every bit strange, tragic and interesting.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
The Identity politics and political correctness bull crap..
were the biggest roadblocks on the "Left" that delayed my transition from Conservative to to Progressive by I would wager at least a solid decade.
I would most likely have been a LOT more receptive to the arguments of progressives earlier if they would not have been accompanied by all the other well know baggage.
Coming from conservative social circles and still being in both, I can tell you that while anecdotal, my evidence is overwhelming that those two things are the biggest points of conflict with those on the right that I know...
Most of those that I know are not passionate about banning abortion, they are not staunchly anti-gay marriage either and I only know a single one of them under the age of 70 that is even slightly near being a misogynist (but after hearing stories from mutual friends about his ex-wife I can almost understand how he got to where he is even if I disagree with him).
But being broad brushed as Racist, misogynistic homophobes etc. and so on for decades has caused them to have a deep animosity towards the left which makes it easier for them to ignore and dismiss the lefts arguments because, "Well, they are obviously full of shit about this, lying about that, and constantly saying this other thing so why the hell would I believe them? And even if I did I sure as shit wouldn't want them as an ally!" mindset is then fostered.
It's very little different in many ways than the animosity that this primary season has exacerbated between Progressives and the DNC Centrists. (The only difference being we are right and they are wrong.
)
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
I agree, name-calling and -ist labeling gets a negative outcome.
No lessons learned by assuming the diagnosis and saying it. I had a friend who was a self-professed gun nut. I never did anything but smile and nod or ask a question about his basement target range or loading shells. I never went shooting over there, either. He was a sweet, scared diabetic who has since lost part of one leg. Karma? I lost contact when his wife sold their house and shoved him into a nursing home.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
The Dems are funded by a corral of billionaires
Not Bernie, clearly, but the DWS faction. They only have two choices, as a non-right party, and those are to either a) support the working class, as a true left-wing party, or b) to play identity politics, and discuss "empowerment" with every conceivable splinter group, to the exclusion of the former. Due to their funding strategy, only option B is viable.
It won't fly in 2018 though. In fact, they will be demolished.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
Labeling people misogynist, racist and homophobic is
objectionable?
Who is going to break this to the Clintons?
The sad thing is, they fit those descriptions themselves. They're just more hypocritical about it than Republicans who admit they're Republicans.
In my opinion, neither the left nor the right will get anywhere unless and until they unite, at least around issues in which they have common intererests.
The interests of Democratic politicians lie in identity politics
and in dividing Americans. (Of course, the interests of the Republican Party lie in the same general categories.)
Since the Democratic Party decided to court lobbyists and other big donors, rather than depend up union donations, its stand as been, "We are the (somewhat) less bigoted party." Besides, while both parties need some Hispanic votes to win the Presidency and probably, in many states, Senate seats, Democrats simply cannot win with the black vote and probably a large chunk of the women's vote.
Only now that they are weaker on local, state and federal levels than they have ever been in modern times, will they even pretend to feint left because they can't go further right and still be elected anywhere. (After the 2010 and 2014 midterms, when losses were historic, Reps Capuano and Lynch of Massachusetts mildly suggested that Democrats should consider a a different direction. For that, they actually got excoriated elsewhere by centrist posters. I guess doubling down on losing is "pragmatic," while suggestion the Party consider not digging deeper into the already deep hole it was in was yapping about a unicorn pony.
They say it is, and that should settle it.
I don't blame Robby Mook for Hillary's loss
I do blame him for all the times he got on tv and looked like a fool trying to defend her.
That is the only way a career Democratic strategist can
pay rent and put food on the table. And any Democratic strategist, even one who wasn't on her payroll (if any), would have wanted her to win.
In total fairness and disclosure, while I am not a strategist, I have worked for clients who have been under fire. At some point, you start feeling as though your own life is on the line, only it's not even that rational. You just viscerally want to protect them, to the point where you have to start reminding yourself about right and wrong. At least, that was my experience, but many relatives, and even some psychics, have said that I am overly empathetic.
Once you join a team, things change.
That was the point of Stanley Milgram's classic- "Obedience to Authority"(IMO)
point is that your experience ,though perhaps more intense than norm, is the way human psychology makes group work possible. Very dangerous to us, in Milgram's opinon.
Super book. He just wrote up his experiment. think it took him 10 years.
This is the famous "good German " experiment at Yale in late 50's.
Great social science. no bs.
Thanks for this, irishking.
I am familiar with the term "good German," but not with the experiment. I need to look into it.
sure.
It was early 60's, but he did work for 10 years on the project. Apparently was stuff in the can left undone.
He did other important work- seems to have been one of those guys.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
that was not easy money.
It would not have been easy money for me, but I
would not have taken the job.
One friendly disagreement
identity politics is by definition divisive - and ineffective. it encourages enemies, alienates potential allies, and insults the oppressed.
On to Biden since 1973
I have no problem with disagreement.
It doesn't even have to be friendly, as long as not rude. But, as my blog entry said, I don't think identity politics in Hillary's campaigns are Mook's fault. And I certainly don't defend identity politics. So, I am not sure what you are disagreeing with.
just semantics
I jave no problem with supporting an oppressed group, which is what I assume you mean by identity politics. But my definition of the term is a cynical attempt to encourage that divisiveness and ultimately that oppression for personal gain.
In my experience the first person to use identity politics was Nelson Rockefeller while governor of New York. He raised taxes (on those who couldn't afford to avoid them) to pay for, not housing and schools and jobs, but housing projects and general assistance (and prisons) When the right complains that "welfare" (identity politics by my definition) creates nothing but dependency and crime they are right, they just don't see (or express) the intentionality.
On to Biden since 1973
I still don't know what you read in my blog entry that you
disagree with. Do you mind quoting the language from the blog entry?
But no, supporting a group is not how I used the term "identity politics." When I use that term to mean something positive, I usually specify that. I think it can be positive. Different groups have different needs and nothing is wrong with recognizing that and addressing them. However, Hillary has used identity politics very negatively, both in 2008 and 2016.
I apologize.
I was not disagreeing with you, just your choice of words. You are exactly right, I just don't call that identity politics. I call that doing the right thing. What Hillary did I call identity politics - you call it being divisive.
On to Biden since 1973
Huh? No apologies necessary, but you seem to be ignoring
what my posts say. For the record, this is what my OP said about identity politics:
I never said anything that anyone could reasonably construed to mean that I think doing good things is divisive. Aside from asking you to quote actual language from my diary that you had an issue with, this is what my prior post to you said:
I don't know how anyone can describe running racist or anti-Semitic campaigns against Obama and Sanders or pandering for votes with things like "My abuela" as "doing the right thing." Therefore I assume that is not what you mean. However, I still don't know what you do mean. At this point, I'll leave it at hoping we communicate better next time.
robby mook?
you mean smiley mcbullshit? yeah, he's not the sole cause but he sure as hell didn't help things. at all.
all of them are to blame. every single one of the surrogates and supporters have decidedly orange hands at this point, and what they don't need is "jobs in politics". every single one of these assholes needs to be working in a dish pit.
GIANT ALL-CAPS SIG
I think he did help her campaign, which, after all, was his job
As I posted upthread: "Being (1) younger; (2) a member of the LGBT community and (3) a seasoned campaigner with a successful track record, he was an asset to her campaign in a number of ways. IMO, the Clintons lost this because they are who are they are and they do what they do." However, reasonable people can disagree about that. But, what was any professional Democratic strategist to do, once the Party agreed, all but unanimously, to anoint Hillary, short of changing careers entirely?
And meanwhile Bernie's
campaign took off like a rocket, without the help of professional Democratic strategists, or much in the way of identity politics either.
native
yeah,
doing that gigantic gaping smile thing while lying his ass off on national television might not have been so helpful. lol.
surely many people were swayed by the fact that he was a) younger; b) a member of the LGBT community and c) a seasoned campaigner with a successful track record. unfortunately, being a) younger; b) a member of the LGBT community and c) a seasoned campaigner with a successful track record while spewing bullshit on national tv probably wasn't the best tactical move. go figure.
people can smell mcbullshit.
GIANT ALL-CAPS SIG
Robby Mook definitely deserves some of the blame...
...but, like any campaign (or, business, for that matter), its "culture" is almost always a byproduct of the people at the very top. And, Team Clinton had enough hubris for 20 presidential campaigns!
But, make no mistake about it, there's PLENTY of blame to go around; Mook most definitely included.
Here's a large excerpt from an excellent, must-read piece from Jacobin, from Friday...
Thomas Frank has been writing about this for over a year. But, everyone who was anyone in the Clinton campaign (and, definitely over at Daily Kos for two years, too), simply didn't care to pay attention.
Perhaps even more concise than Tom Frank, here's a few paragraphs from Jacobin on Friday (11/18/16), by NYU Professor Christian Parenti...
The is just an excerpt from a "must-read" story. (Click on the link at the top of the blockquote to check it out.)
"Freedom is something that dies unless it's used." --Hunter S. Thompson
Thank you. I am a firm believer in
Speaking of Harry Truman, why would a Republican or a Democrat want to vote for a fake Republican or a fake Democrat? Hillary's loss is exactly why I posted Harry Truman's great speech in 1(52 to the Americans for Democratic Action.
http://caucus99percent.com/content/harry-truman-may-17-1952-americans-de...
However, I think the political analysts complicate things needlessly to justify their paychecks. We know for a fact (as do they) that most people vote simply by party. Historically, more people have been registered as Democrats than as Republicans. So, a great GOTV operation should do it for Democrats. However, the best GOTV operation consists, not of robo calls or strangers ringing your doorbell. The best GOTV operation consists of a candidate people like and trust who offers voters something they really want. Given that, parsing the reasons for Hillary's loss is not rocket science.
http://caucus99percent.com/content/its-not-rocket-science
Thank you. I am a firm believer in
the concept that the buck stops with the person at the top and the folk saying that "A fish stinks from the head down."
Speaking of Harry Truman, why would a Republican or a Democrat want to vote for a fake Republican or a fake Democrat? Hillary's loss is exactly why I posted Harry Truman's great speech in 1952 to the Americans for Democratic Action.
http://caucus99percent.com/content/harry-truman-may-17-1952-americans-de...
However, I think the political analysts complicate things needlessly to justify their paychecks. We know for a fact (as do they) that most people vote simply by party. Historically, more people have been registered as Democrats than as Republicans. So, a great GOTV operation should do it for Democrats. However, the best GOTV operation consists, not of robo calls or strangers ringing your doorbell. The best GOTV operation consists of a candidate people like and trust who offers voters something they really want. Given that, parsing the reasons for Hillary's loss is not rocket science.
http://caucus99percent.com/content/its-not-rocket-science
Thank you for sharing this with us, an excellent essay that made
some very important points.
Points that will be completely ignored by the DNCer's as their arrogance and hubris will not allow them to ever entertain the thought that they are indeed not "The Smartest People in the room."
Smartest?
They are not even the shiniest peanut in the Turd that is the Democratic Party...
Edited to add that this was supposed to be a response to Bobs post above (although it also applies to the OP). I REALLY need to finish my coffee, lol!
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
LOL! 'll take whatever I can get, even if meant for another!