 |
| Nelson Muntz mocks Dems Congressional losses. |
The Democrats just lost two more Congressional elections, one in Georgia, the other in South Carolina.
In our America, where Dems pretend that a loss isn't a loss - whether it's your young child's Saturday afternoon soccer game where no one keeps score (or at least claims they don't) or whether it's a federal election - they celebrate the loss as a win. Now, who can argue with such higher, institutional, educational myopia from the Dems? We shouldn't. Those of us who are - I'll use the term 'Not Dems' - should support the Dems' win of losses. Does that make sense?
The wording of headlines for these two races are very similar.
For the Georgia race, from al-Reuters: "Republican avoids upset in costly Georgia congressional race."
For the South Carolina race, APee's headline is: "GOP holds on to House seat, but Dems surpass expectation."
It must be painstaking and numbing for the FakeStream™Media going to the lengths they do in order to avoid anything that conveys the words, "Democrat lost."
We've had a handful or so special elections for congressional seats, with each one being identified by Dems as a "referendum"...a "bellwether "... that they believe will reflect on the nation's complete hatred of the Donald Trump presidency and an election that marks an upcoming tidal wave of Dems winning back the House and Senate. Except...the Dem candidate LOST in each of these special elections.
But they didn't lose. For you see, the Dems are making "slow progress", as noted by the widely accepted political scholar
al-Reuters informs us that: "The [Georgia] election will not significantly change the balance of power in Washington, where Republicans control the White House and both chambers of Congress."
So...the Dems shouldn't care much? Are the Dems now writing off congressional districts they feel they don't need to win? If so, then why did they pour so much money into the Georgia race? And you have to wonder why did the DNC invest so heavily in a race where, as Ms. Goldberg pointed out, has been a Republican stronghold for decades? It's typical DNC mentality...undefinable and senseless at the same time
The APee story downplays the South Carolina Dem loss noting, "[the loss] could be in part because the national party largely stayed out of the race."
Let's see now, the Dem in South Carolina lost in part because the national (DNC) party stayed out of the election while the Dem in Georgia lost with the national party heavily involved in that election and pouring gazillions of dollars into a losing race. It is perfect Liberal Illogic at its finest.
It sound[s] like the Dems feel they have such a majority that they can write-off certain districts and yet somehow, come 2018, regain the majority. Well, reality isn't a place where the Dems spend their time.
How does this make the grassroots Democrat voter feel? Well, how would you feel if your national political party leaders, and its media, tell you, "ahhhh, we don't need your district. We can write it off. You don't count or matter."
This is the same strategy used by LOSING Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton; taking Blue states like Wisconsin for granted , not campaigning there...and then LOSING the state.
APee writes: "The Democrat [Archie Parnell] even won one county, Chester, that went for Donald Trump in the fall."
Wow! Isn't that great! He "even" won one county that was Trump county in the November 2016 presidential election.
This must be the "slow progress" strategy embraced by Ms. Goldberg and the DNC.
I'm all for this. I support the Dems and their 'slow progress strategy.' I support them spending absurd amounts of money on races in districts that are, and have been, Republican strongholds.
May the Dems continue writing-off more and more districts. By losing, they're actually winning, and who am I to take this away from them?
- - -
Grammar corrections 6/22/2017
No comments:
Post a Comment