Posted on 07/03/2020 6:19:51 AM PDT by Kaslin
Sorry, Joe. It’s too little, too late.
At one of his strikingly rare press availabilities in Delaware, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden did his best to stage his own “Sister Souljah Moment.”
For those too young to remember, a hip-hop artist and political activist going by the moniker “Sister Souljah” handed a young Bill Clinton a political lifeline in 1992. As racially-charged riots raged in Los Angeles, incumbent President George H.W. Bush promptly deployed the National Guard and rode a wave of good press for getting the violence and looting under control. By contrast, Bill Clinton looked weak and perhaps even complicit in the disorder.
Then Sister Souljah gave Clinton an opening. “I mean, if black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people? … why not kill a white person?” she mused in a characteristically ridiculous Washington Post interview.
Clinton played it perfectly, condemning Sister Souljah and taking Jesse Jackson to task for inviting her to a conference. He managed to look responsible and independent without too harshly alienating the activist left, selecting something that clearly crossed the line and coming down hard on it. Clinton, of course, went on to win the ‘92 election.
Although rhetoric like Sister Souljah’s has gone from controversial to mundane in the years since Clinton won the ‘92 election, Biden is trying to replicate Clinton’s feat.
At a campaign event in Delaware, weeks after the widespread riots he refused to condemn, and in the midst of a movement committed to the wholesale destruction of American history, Joe Biden thinks he has finally found his Sister Souljah Moment. As “protesters” rampage around America, tearing down statues of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, and with his own party openly talking about doing the same thing and calling a Fourth of July party at Mount Rushmore a “rally glorifying white supremacy,” Biden finally decided that perhaps he should say something.
Apparently, Biden doesn’t actually support tearing down the Founding Fathers. He might even be willing to preserve memorials to Christopher Columbus, the discoverer of the New World. But even then, he couldn’t bring himself to actually condemn the people yanking down statues. It’s all part of “responding to systemic racism in America,” you see. He could only bring himself far enough to blurt out, “The idea of comparing whether or not George Washington owned slaves or Thomas Jefferson owned slaves and somebody who was in rebellion, committing treason, trying to take down a union to keep slavery — I think there’s a distinction there.”
Thanks, Joe — what we really needed at this moment was a tepid, wishy-washy rebuke of the violent extremists waging open war against our nation’s history and fundamental values.
Unlike Clinton’s seemingly-heartfelt condemnation of Sister Souljah, Biden’s extraordinarily mild criticism of the extremists who are trying to tear America apart does nothing but reinforce Biden’s inability to rein in the anti-American insanity that is now the driving force within the Democratic Party.
Biden’s failed Sister Souljah moment will do nothing but reassure the anarchists that they may do as they please because no one in the Democratic Party is going to do much to stop them.
Sister Souljah gave Clinton the ‘sitting on the fence’ vote...
I doubt after 4 losses in row the rats would renominate a loser (Neil Kinnock didn’t get another chance) with penis issues even if he “won the popular vote”, he’d have stiffer competition than he faced in 1992 when only had to contend with an ersatz frontrunner in Tsongas and a late bid by Moonbeam.
I also so see no reason why 1994 wouldn’t have been another 1990, I don’t see much room for big rat gains or Bush being that unpopular.
It helps that no one has heard of those guys, even President Pierce, the poor old drunk bastard, lol.
Van Buren? LOL no an anti-slavery rat nominee would not be possible, even if they didn’t have a 2/3s rule. I can’t see them doing better than “pro-choice” Cass or Douglas.
Any rat split would have resulted in President Winfield Scott, who at 6 foot 5 would have been our tallest President.
I forgot you might be considering normies (non-electoral history nerds) in your reply. ;-D
“NJ and IL have voted the same way...”
And we’re both are known for super corrupt rats and RINOs, peas (piss) in a pod (pot), us and NJ. ;-d I was trying to figure out how NJ should be chopped up in the grand state redistricting.
How solid are you on Louisiana for Clinton?
Read this article which destroys the “Perot gave us Clinton myth”:
“The Man Who Supposedly Cost George H. W. Bush the Presidency”
http://www.pollingreport.com/hibbitts1202.htm
Exactly. Total popular vote:
1988 91.6 million
1992 104.4 million
1996 96.2 million.
The Perot circus was responsible for the huge jump in 1992, and by 1996, the magic had faded.
For the record, when I analyzed the 1992 elections 20 years ago and found that the likeliest result had Perot not been in the ballot would be 283 EVs for Clinton and 255 EVs for Bush (but with a decent chance that Bush also would carry CT and IA and get to 270 EVs), I found that the likeliest result also was that Bush would have won a plurality of the popular vote. Had Bush won CT and IA as well, one would have to assume that Bush would have won the national popular vote by an even bigger plurality (or perhaps even a majority). So I think that it would be quite unlikely for Clinton to have won the 1992 national popular vote yet not been elected president.
That being said, had Clinton fallen short in 1992, I doubt that he would have been given another chance. He would have lost a race that the Democrats thought that they would win, and the modern Democratic Party would not give such a loser another shot. Think about it: Democrats were not clamoring for Gore in 2004, much less for Hillary in 2020.
One thing I remember clear as a bell was the enthusiasm factor. Bush, Sr. just seemed to lose complete interest in running to win. It was inept from start to finish, a total clusterf*ck. Bubba was at least running to win and had the enthusiasm Bush, Sr. decidedly lacked (not that I had any intention of voting for him).
At one point when I thought Bush wouldn’t lose reelection, I flirted with voting for Col. Bo Gritz. I never supported him running in 1988, favoring Bob Dole instead. I think had Dole run and won in 1988, it’s almost a given he’d have been reelected. Although he came up short in 1996 (though still did better than Bush, Sr. in ‘92), as the incumbent, I believe he would’ve gone for the jugular. He certainly did in 1974 against Dr. Bill Roy, his abortionist opponent and Congressman (that he was losing to initially in the Watergate madness).
As for Gore, I think had he decided to run again in 2004, he’d have easily prevailed in getting the nomination (and claiming that he had “won” the 2000 race). He may have ended up being more formidable than Lurch, who performed better than he should’ve. The same might’ve been so for Hillary, however if Biden had also remained in the race, the likelihood they would’ve split the establishment vote and given the nomination to Bernie was also quite high.
Clinton beat Bush by 45.58% to 40.97% in LA in 1992. With Perot getting only 11.81% of the vote, there is no way that his dropping out and not being on the ballot would have given Bush the votes that he needed to beat Clinton. My assumption is that, in 1992, Bush could net not more than 25%-33% of the Perot vote (since Clinton would get a not insignificant chunk of that, plus many Perot voters would stay home); for Bush to beat Clinton in LA, he would need to net over 39% of the Perot vote, which I deem inconceivable.
As for how to gerrymander NJ to produce a GOP state, I would attach the heavily RAT areas (but not the GOP or marginal areas) in Hudson, Essex, Union, Bergen, Passaic and NE Middlesex counties to the new State of New York (which would include only Manhattan, the Bronx, most of Queens and Brooklyn, western Nassau, and Democrat areas in Westchester and Rockland from the current NY), attach the heavily RAT areas (but not the GOP or marginal areas) in Camden, Burlington, Mercer, Somerset and western Middlesex counties to the new State of Philadelphia (which would include Philly, southern Bucks County and RAT parts of Montgomery, Delaware and Chester counties from PA, plus New Castle County from DE), and add Staten Island and the GOP parts of Brooklyn, Queens and Long Island to what’s left of NJ to form the new State of New Jersey. The new NJ would look terrible on the map, but would have a solid GOP majority.
There are serious problems and debatable points with that article, the cheap shots at Rush Limbaugh aside. They rely way too much on the same notorious anti-GOP polling data that the media uses. That’s the same nonsense going back to claims of a Carter victory in 1980, a Mondale landslide in 1984, a Dukakis romp in 1988 and so on and so forth.
Though as I pointed out in a prior post that Bush, Sr. did run a thoroughly awful and incompetent reelection campaign, Perot was responsible for inflicting mortal damage. He turned out to be a phony from the get-go. As soon as he obtained a lead in the polls (pushing Bubba into 3rd), he dropped out at once. He got back in later on, if only to assure Bubba the Rapist would win.
It was ludicrous to presume (as the article author did) that Bubba would get some commanding mid-50s% victory absent Perot. That was never going to happen. He wasn’t ever that popular. Nobody since LBJ managed to get that kind of % for a Dem candidate for President. No Democrat since after 1964 has. Bubba couldn’t even break 50%, even against Bob Dole and Perot in ‘96. Zero, at his best, and against two ringers in a row, got a lackluster 52.9% and 51% in ‘08 and ‘12.
No, I think Bubba had an absolute high-water mark of 49% tops. Absent Perot getting in at all, Bush Sr. would’ve gotten anywhere from 46-51%. The question is whether in a one-on-one election IF he could’ve pushed past Bubba.
As an aside, if you look at the election figures from 1988 and 1992, you can see that Perot took most of the entire % drop between Bush’s ‘88 performance and ‘92. Bubba didn’t even get what Dukakis got in 1988 (presumably that modest difference were Dems who broke for Perot).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
