You’re not in good hands with Amy

I put up a post yesterday on where presidential politics in the United States is heading and today I find John Hinderaker at Powerline saying virtually the same right here. I refer to his post, not for confirmation, but for his insights into Amy Klobuchar who would be the least familiar of the frontrunners of the moment.

That leaves Amy Klobuchar, who disappointed in Iowa but came on strong in New Hampshire. It is always dangerous to predict based on a process of elimination, but I think the nomination is now Amy’s to lose. (Heh.) She is smart enough and far left enough, while at the same time preserving the aura of moderation that made her popular in Minnesota. She has some problems, of course. So far, she has demonstrated little ability to appeal to minority voters, and, never having been close to the front of the pack, she has not yet been subjected to much criticism. Suffice it to say that weaknesses will begin to emerge.

Still, I think Klobuchar is now the Democrats’ most likely presidential nominee. Some Democrats still hold out hope of a deus ex machina like Michelle Obama entering the race. It isn’t going to happen. The good news is that I don’t see any way Amy Klobuchar (or any other Democrat in the race) can beat President Trump.

THERE MAY BE EVEN LESS TO HER THAN YOU MIGHT EVER HAVE THOUGHT:

I put up a post yesterday on where presidential politics in the United States is heading and today I find John Hinderaker at Powerline saying virtually the same right here. I refer to his post, not for confirmation, but for his insights into Amy Klobuchar who would be the least familiar of the frontrunners of the moment.

That leaves Amy Klobuchar, who disappointed in Iowa but came on strong in New Hampshire. It is always dangerous to predict based on a process of elimination, but I think the nomination is now Amy’s to lose. (Heh.) She is smart enough and far left enough, while at the same time preserving the aura of moderation that made her popular in Minnesota. She has some problems, of course. So far, she has demonstrated little ability to appeal to minority voters, and, never having been close to the front of the pack, she has not yet been subjected to much criticism. Suffice it to say that weaknesses will begin to emerge.

Still, I think Klobuchar is now the Democrats’ most likely presidential nominee. Some Democrats still hold out hope of a deus ex machina like Michelle Obama entering the race. It isn’t going to happen. The good news is that I don’t see any way Amy Klobuchar (or any other Democrat in the race) can beat President Trump.

I’ll just add this in regard to Bernie: GALLUP POLL: US voters not likely to consider voting for Socialist for president. That is, of course, unless they disguise it, which all of the Democrats do.

THERE MAY BE A LOT LESS TO HER THAN YOU MIGHT EVER HAVE THOUGHT: It’s wasn’t funny in the first place and was never worth repeating even once. This is someone you could get very tired of very fast. [With thanks to lotocoti in the comments.]

Nine months is a very long time in politics

There are still many weeks to come before November. And there is still the House. And then there is still the Senate. And then there are the unknown unknowns.

Meanwhile:


NEW HAMPSHIRE BERNS!
BUT PETE STILL LEADS IN DELEGATES

Sanders cannot get much past 25%, and as the numbers thin out, he will drop back into the pack. Meanwhile, the winnowing process moves forward with “Pete” now about to get some serious momentum. And so will Amy Klobuchar. That they are completely unfit for a presidential role has nothing to do with anything; neither was Obama, an absolute non-entity, politically a cypher but a cypher who could be elected because he provided intersectionality. Biden was chosen because he was a known moron who wouldn’t upstage the candidate, although still smart enough to outclass Paul Ryan during the Vice-Presidents’ debate.

And would you like to know something about “Pete”: Pete Buttigieg’s father was a Marxist professor who lauded the Communist Manifesto.

The father of Democratic presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg was a Marxist professor who spoke fondly of the Communist Manifesto and dedicated a significant portion of his academic career to the work of Italian Communist Party founder Antonio Gramsci, an associate of Vladimir Lenin….

He was an adviser to Rethinking Marxism, an academic journal that published articles “that seek to discuss, elaborate, and/or extend Marxian theory,” and a member of the editorial collective of Boundary 2, a journal of postmodern theory, literature, and culture. He spoke at many Rethinking Marxism conferences and other gatherings of prominent Marxists.

In a 2000 paper for Rethinking Marxism critical of the approach of Human Rights Watch, Buttigieg, along with two other authors, refers to “the Marxist project to which we subscribe.”

In 1998, he wrote in an article for the Chronicle of Higher Education about an event in New York City celebrating the 150th anniversary of the Manifesto. He also participated in the event.

“If The Communist Manifesto was meant to liberate the proletariat, the Manifesto itself in recent years needed liberating from Marxism’s narrow post-Cold War orthodoxies and exclusive cadres. It has been freed,” he wrote.

Does the apple ever fall far from the tree? Sometimes, but I wouldn’t count on it.

Nor would I rule out Mitt Romney finding his way onto the ticket either.