The Decline of the DNC II

[selmaborntidefan]

"It is not a criminal violation to enter the country illegally. It's not a criminal!"
Jasmine Crockett, Democrat, Texas

The party of the college graduates is now telling me:
- we have a President who doesn't know what sexual relations are
- we have a SCOTUS judge who doesn't know what a woman is
- we have a Representative from Texas who doesn't know breaking the law is breaking the law

(And folks, you can minimize, or you can rationalize, or you can try to 'explain what she meant', but if you're explaining, you're losing).

They lost on prices and the border but as I said back in November - they will learn absolutely nothing, but they'll get rewarded for it unless they overplay their hands against the White House Doofus spawned from an orangutang (with apologies to Bill Maher for stealing and cleaning up his line).

 

[CrimsonJazz]

“It is not a criminal violation to enter the country illegally… It’s not a crime.” - Rep Jasmine Crockett

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1898569579292426454

Soooo, totally not a crime to do something illegally. Right, got it.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

“It is not a criminal violation to enter the country illegally… It’s not a crime.” - Rep Jasmine Crockett

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1898569579292426454

Soooo, totally not a crime to do something illegally. Right, got it.

This reminds me of the late Brother Dave Gardner.

"Drinking is NOW legal in Mississippi. Oh, who are we kidding? ANYTHING is legal in Mississippi - if you can get away with it!"

 

[JDCrimson]

This is a big nothing burger the SCOTUS has established our current and past Presidents can do illegal things and they will not result in criminal charges against them. So yes it is not a crime to do something illegal. I will now return to my after-lunch nap...

“It is not a criminal violation to enter the country illegally… It’s not a crime.” - Rep Jasmine Crockett

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1898569579292426454

Soooo, totally not a crime to do something illegally. Right, got it.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

This is a big nothing burger the SCOTUS has established our current and past Presidents can do illegal things and they will not result in criminal charges against them. So yes it is not a crime to do something illegal. I will now return to my after-lunch nap...

Thing is - that's not "exactly" what they said. Unfortunately - even though I oppose "legislation from the bench" whether right or left....they're going to wind up having to do so or the anarchy will finish us.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Btw - let me add something else here: the notion of Stephen A. Smith as any sort of candidate for the White House much less someone Democrats think will win or even SHOULD win is just the latest sign of "we don't take this seriously." Smith HIMSELF has called this ridiculous.

But now let me add some basic logic to the equation:

if Democrats REALLY think a contributing factor to Harris losing was racism, WHY WOULD YOU THEN NOMINATE A BLACK CANDIDATE ANYWAY?????

Look, this country is now paying for the Republican Party not taking the nomination process seriously in 2016. We don't need another TikTok video celebrity in the White House. Good Lord, we deserve to go down this way.

 

[DzynKingRTR]

This reminds me of the late Brother Dave Gardner.

"Drinking is NOW legal in Mississippi. Oh, who are we kidding? ANYTHING is legal in Mississippi - if you can get away with it!"

it is not illegal for me to take all of your money. I am pretty sure I can walk into any bank and take all the money

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I know that there's a - imho stupid - meme or bumper sticker or whatever out there about how "liberalism is a mental disorder," which I find wrong on so many levels. But there are times that in practice, Democratic Party politics reflect a RELIGIOUS FERVOR that rivals anything you'll find in evangelicalism of the last half century.

"We should have stood for the boy with cancer": 5 Democratic lawmakers criticize their party’s response to Trump speech.

It's good that a few of the lawmakers are admitting, "Hey, we botched this."
But the question I have is whether this is going to be botched AGAIN.

Think about this: as has been noted on TF, very few people even watch these speeches nowadays (the days of "we only have 3 channels and the President is on" are long gone). It's mostly the partisans. But even the nonpartisans heard the story, "Democrats are so mad at Trump, they took it out on a kid with cancer!"

It was a matter of "we can do the decent thing" or "we can make sure the whole world knows how much we loathe Trump", and every single member of the party opted for loathing over loving, if I may be simplistic here. It's good that some members of the party are seeing it - too late to correct the occurrence already - but this is where modern politics (and yes, this IS both parties) is robotic, reactive, and out of fear of getting primaried.

Yes, Trump was using the military and the kid as a prop.
But yes - the instinct to stand up is one that should have been followed, too.

This is so close to the typical Christian excuse of "I can't do X because church Sunday", ignoring the fact there's a story in the NT about that very thing - and how you DO GOOD even on the Sabbath. (Please nobody come back at me with "but the Sabbath was Saturday" - you get my point).

 

[Huckleberry]

https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/11/politics/government-funding-bill-house-vote

House passes funding bill ahead of Friday shutdown deadline in win for Republicans

Speaker Mike Johnson on Tuesday succeeded in a high-stakes House vote to pass President Donald Trump’s plan to fund the government into the fall, overcoming far-right opposition as the GOP scrambles to avert a government shutdown Friday at midnight.

The 217-213 vote to approve Republicans’ stopgap bill now amplifies pressure on Senate Democrats to decide whether to back the measure — or trigger a spending showdown with Trump and risk a potential shutdown.




The Democrats better not take the gutless route and allow this nonsense to pass. It's silly to worry about public perception regarding a shutdown now. Take a stand for something!

 

[selmaborntidefan]

The Democrats better not take the gutless route and allow this nonsense to pass. It's silly to worry about public perception regarding a shutdown now. Take a stand for something!

In all honesty, nobody is ever going to blame the Democrats for a government shutdown. As Dick Armey told Newt Gingrich, when he warned him to not to do it, "The voters see them as the party of Big Government. Not for one second will they believe that the Democrats want to shut it down."

And Armey was correct, of course.

Fetterman is firing off his typical Roman candles and has said he won't support a shutdown, and there's a Democratic representative in Maine in a Trump leaning district (who is himself a moderate) who was the one D House member to support the GOP; smart politics says he's probably okay on that with his constituents, so I fully expect the raging call for him to be primaried given our political situation.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I didn't want to start a new thread, but I didn't know where to put this.

However - I disagree with the CW here:

New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen won’t seek reelection in 2026 | CNN Politics

I don't think this makes the job of the Democrats any more difficult; it's not going to be easy because of the states on the ballot for Senate races in 2026. But Trump lost New Hampshire by 7 points, after losing by about a half point in 2016 and then by five in 2020. I'm not saying it's impossible for the GOP to win - and in all honesty, someone besides Shaheen is going to have a tougher campaign - but I don't think this is near the cause for alarm in 2026 it's being made out to be, either.

New Hampshire is probably the most unique state politically that exists. It is the one state where there are enough voters who - in the same mind - want zero (or close to zero) restrictions on firearms but also want mandated universal healthcare. There are other states where people hold those views, but New Hampshire is small enough for that to make a difference depending upon which itch they can be made to scratch.

 

[AWRTR]

I didn't want to start a new thread, but I didn't know where to put this.

However - I disagree with the CW here:

New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen won’t seek reelection in 2026 | CNN Politics

I don't think this makes the job of the Democrats any more difficult; it's not going to be easy because of the states on the ballot for Senate races in 2026. But Trump lost New Hampshire by 7 points, after losing by about a half point in 2016 and then by five in 2020. I'm not saying it's impossible for the GOP to win - and in all honesty, someone besides Shaheen is going to have a tougher campaign - but I don't think this is near the cause for alarm in 2026 it's being made out to be, either.

New Hampshire is probably the most unique state politically that exists. It is the one state where there are enough voters who - in the same mind - want zero (or close to zero) restrictions on firearms but also want mandated universal healthcare. There are other states where people hold those views, but New Hampshire is small enough for that to make a difference depending upon which itch they can be made to scratch.

It will all depend on who the parties nominate. If one of them nominates a more reasonable candidate and not an ideologue on either fringe they will likely win unless the economy is in the toilet. If the economy is in the toilet the Dems will win the seat by a comfortable margin. The Republicans have raided insane asylums in some of their nomination processes. Run candidates that fit the district or the state. Susan Collins is a great example on the Republican side and Fetterman is a good example on the Dem side.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

It will all depend on who the parties nominate. If one of them nominates a more reasonable candidate and not an ideologue on either fringe they will likely win unless the economy is in the toilet. If the economy is in the toilet the Dems will win the seat by a comfortable margin. The Republicans have raided insane asylums in some of their nomination processes. Run candidates that fit the district or the state. Susan Collins is a great example on the Republican side and Fetterman is a good example on the Dem side.

The Democrats would REALLY be in trouble if the Republican Party didn't nominate some flat out kooks or support an incorrigible felon.

Georgia 1 - Trump cost Perdue the seat with his demands to not vote by mail
Georgia 2 - they've lost this TWICE, for the reason of Georgia 1 and Herschel Walker
Pennsylvania - Dr Oz
Arizona - Blake Masters
Arizona 2 - Kari Lake

The Republican Party COULD today have FIFTY-EIGHT Senate seats - if they would stop listening to Donald Trump's advice on nominations (and if the partisans who nominate the candidates at the party level were offset by, say, NORMAL folks).

I feel like Coach Bryant's musing about college football games when I look at politics with the change to, "Nobody wins an election, someone loses it."

 

[Huckleberry]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1899915063802101990

Schumer: Republicans do not have the votes in the Senate to invoke cloture on the House CR. Our caucus is unified on a clean April 11th CR..



Good! Now let's see if the Democrats stick to their guns.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Meanwhile in Michigan.........former South Bend Mayor and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg has announced he will NOT run for the Senate seat in Michigan - a sign pundits are taking as proof he's all-in on running for President.

In essence, Mayor Pete is running for President, but can't win Michigan, which likely makes him the Democratic front-runner.

Just remember - they'll nominate this guy and if he loses, they will say it's proof of how homophobic this entire country is AFTER the fact. It's ALWAYS AFTER they lose, and they never lose because they got rejected at the polls, they always lose because of racism or sexism or something besides "we chose to take the other girl to the prom instead of you."

 

[Bamaro]

Meanwhile in Michigan.........former South Bend Mayor and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg has announced he will NOT run for the Senate seat in Michigan - a sign pundits are taking as proof he's all-in on running for President.

In essence, Mayor Pete is running for President, but can't win Michigan, which likely makes him the Democratic front-runner.

Just remember - they'll nominate this guy and if he loses, they will say it's proof of how homophobic this entire country is AFTER the fact. It's ALWAYS AFTER they lose, and they never lose because they got rejected at the polls, they always lose because of racism or sexism or something besides "we chose to take the other girl to the prom instead of you."

Buttigieg is another Dem who will have very little chance for president for the obvious reason.
Please dont shoot the messenger.

 

[Crimson1967]

Run for the Senate in a state he doesn’t live in? Who does he think he is, Tommy Tuberville?

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Run for the Senate in a state he doesn’t live in? Who does he think he is, Tommy Tuberville?

Given Tubs will never run for president and Mayor Pete was planning to just bide his time in the Senate seat of a large state he never lived in, the more accurate avatar would be Hillary Clinton.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Buttigieg is another Dem who will have very little chance for president for the obvious reason.
Please dont shoot the messenger.

True.

He's thoroughly unqualified for the job, and it doesn't have anything at all to do with whom he shares a bed. A mayor of a city of about 100K people for eight years and a Cabinet position in a failed administration?

I know what you mean, of course, but that "asset" is the only reason he's even the cause celebre he is.

Truly amazing how now all of a sudden, "mayor of a small city" is considered seasoning to be President.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Good! Now let's see if the Democrats stick to their guns.

Gee, if only he'd succeeded in abolishing that filibuster he's now hypocritically using.....

For the record, I'm actually with the Democrats on this one.
Let the GOP own it - and bury them in the quicksand of their own making.