DEMOCRATS' WORST NIGHTMARE

[Published in Newsmax] 

Prior to President Joe Biden ending his 2024 re-election campaign, the Democrats worst nightmare was reliving their chaotic 1968 Chicago Convention.  Removing their perceived impediment for a November victory may force them to relive their chaotic 1924 New York Convention.

Biden’s departure unleashes countless questions.  Did he get bought off?  If so, by who and for how much?  Will there be a reckoning for all those in government and the media who lied about Biden’s condition?  If Biden is losing as a candidate, how cynical and anti-democratic is it to ignore the will of 14.4 million primary voters? If Biden is losing his mind, should he remain the President?

When the Democrats convene in New York on August 19, their 1968 Convention riots and chaos hangs over them. President Lyndon Johnson (LBJ) dropped out of his re-election campaign after narrowly winning the New Hampshire primary against Minnesota Senate Eugene McCarthy (49%-42%).  Senator Robert F. Kennedy (RFK) announced his candidacy on March 16.  LBJ was being hammered by CBS News Anchor, Walter Cronkite, for mishandling the Vietnam War.  President Johnson understood the walls were closing in and only his departure would allow his wing of the Party to prevail.

On March 31, 1968, Johnson withdrew his candidacy.  Less than a month later, on April 27, his Vice President, Hubert Humphrey announced he was running.  After RFK’s assassination, the schism among the Democrats was irreconcilable. Tumult on the Convention floor was echoed in riots on the streets. Southern Democrats broke off to support Alabama Governor George Wallace’s Third-Party candidacy.  The internal strife among Democrats opened the door for Republican Richard Nixon to gain the Presidency.

The 1924 Democratic Convention was far worse than 1968.

When Democrats convened on June 24,1924 at Madison Square Garden in New York City they were in total disarray.

New York Governor, Al Smith, led among mainstream Democrats.  Some delegates were still loyal to failed 1920 candidate James Cox.  Unfortunately, the “progressive” and southern delegates were vehemently anti-Catholic and would do anything to stop Catholic Smith.  They rallied around former Wilson Treasury Secretary William McAdoo.  McAdoo was a true southerner, born in Georgia during the Civil War.  Rumors that McAdoo was a member of the Ku Klux Klan were bolstered by a huge Klan presence in New York.

Sensing opportunity in the three-way race, 28 other candidates entered the convention with pledged delegates.  The first ballot had McAdoo with a strong lead: 431.5 delegates to Smith’s 241.  Cox was a distant third with 59 delegates.  The other candidates were in single digits.

The Convention deadlocked.  Tempers flared.  The tumult on the Convention floor was echoed in the KKK’s mass demonstrations on behalf of McAdoo on the streets around the hall with what has become known as the “Klanbake”. 

More ballots followed with little movement.  It would take 103 ballots through July 9 before the exhausted delegates chose former West Virginia Congressman John W. Davis as their nominee.  It was the longest convention in American history. 

The Democrats couldn’t recover in time for the general election.  President Calvin Coolidge was elected with 382 electoral votes from 35 states.  Davis carried 12 states with 136 electoral votes.  Progressive Third-Party candidate, Senator Robert La Follette, carried his home state of Wisconsin with 13 electoral votes.

Democrats may be facing a similar fate if they cannot rally around Vice President Kamala Harris.

Democrats’ 2024 factions are as irreconcilable as those of 1968 and 1924.  They are only held together by their hatred of Trump. Radical leftists, under their “Progressive” banner, are already falling in line behind Harris.  Others within the Party point to horrendous polling on their policies and the terrible Biden-Harris record.  They also remember that Harris dropped out of the 2020 race in December 2019 because she polled less than one percent among Democrats.  Harris’s unprofessional image, word salads, and droves of staffers leaving her dysfunctional operation weigh against her viability.

Election variables are shifting every day, and even every hour.  What is certain is that Democrats are heading for a tumultuous time in New York City, unless they opt for anointing Harris. Democrats may pay the ultimate price in November in the way they stave-off chaos in August.

Democrats Concede 2020 Presidential Election

[Guest Contributor - Donald G. Mutersbaugh Sr.]

“Dewey Defeats Truman” was the banner headline on the Chicago Daily Tribune November 3, 1948. I am guessing that the above headline probably seemed as strange. But it’s true! The Democrat Party has all but overtly given up the 2020 presidential election.

Let’s examine the facts and see why this conclusion is probable. First the candidates. Joe Biden will be out of the race in the very near future. It is only a matter of time before all of his problems sink him. Between his gaffes and other issues while he was the Vice President, his son, Hunter, will probably provide the ignominious ending to a political career that should’ve ended years ago. 

And Bernie? Beyond his advanced age, he is like a mediocre boxer entering the ring with one arm tied behind his back. People will not ignore the fact that he has health issues – including “chest pains” – even before he assumes the position of President! “He has continued to raise substantial amounts of money [however] from his dedicated supporters — on Tuesday, his campaign celebrated an impressive third-quarter fund-raising haul of $25.3 million — and has remained among the top three contenders in the primary. But he has been unable to expand his base beyond those enthusiasts. In recent weeks, he shook up his staff in Iowa and New Hampshire, the first two nominating states, in an effort to jump-start his candidacy as Ms. Warren passed him in some polls….

“In recent weeks, he has struggled with hoarseness, which forced him to cancel several events last month, but he then returned to the campaign trail. In March, he hit his head on the edge of a glass shower door, requiring seven stitches.” https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/us/politics/bernie-sanders-health.html

Elizabeth Warren seems to be getting traction. But every time she opens her mouth to deliver some sort of pithy anecdote, a falsehood rolls out of her mouth. “Elizabeth Warren is telling a lie about herself. Again. The media are covering for her. Again.

“It is by now well established that Elizabeth Warren is a serial liar. She lied about her parents having to elope because of racism against her mother, who was white. She lied about being the first nursing mother to take the bar exam in New Jersey (which doesn’t keep such records). She lied about being a “single mom” when she met her second and present husband (she was still married, and had not yet filed for divorce). She lied about the death of Michael Brown, which was not a murder. Only recently, after more than 30 years, has she stopped lying about being a Cherokee and a woman of color.

“Lately Warren has been telling a story about how a boss supposedly fired her from a teaching gig after discerning at a glance that she was pregnant. Her own previous telling was otherwise: She walked away from that job.” https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/media-cover-for-elizabeth-warren-lies-again/

I’m only presenting the top three candidates because after that – there is no hope. All of the other candidates have already demonstrated they would not be able to handle the duties of President of the United States – and the American voters understand that. Do not believe the polls because the media have skewed all possible angles of this election to accentuate the positives of any Democrat candidate to make them a better candidate than President Trump. The problem is that the extreme right and the extreme left get most of the headlines because the media reports on them as if they represent all of the moderates who may simply lean slightly to the left or slightly to the right. This means that elections are won in the middle and currently not enough Democrats recognize it. If you are a registered Democrat and you always have been, but you are considering voting for Trump – well, that really sums up the trouble that party is in now. Also, don’t forget about the silent majority.

Going beyond the candidate will be the problem of the platform that any Democrat candidate will have to support (one or more of the following): Socialism (in general), Laxer Abortion Laws and Infanticide, Raise Income Taxes, Increase Social Security Payouts, Open Borders, Defund Military, Confiscate Guns, Eliminate Usage of Fossil Fuels, Defend/Support Illegal Aliens, Suppress Free Speech, Reparations for Slavery, Abolish Electoral College, Free College/Forgive College Loan Debt, Universal Child Care, Ban Fracking/Offshore Drilling, Increase the Estate Tax, Implement a Wealth Tax, Raise Minimum Wage, Rejoin Iran Nuclear Deal, Support DC and Puerto Rico Statehoods, Contraceptive Mandate, Increase Funding of  Planned Parenthood, Repeal Hyde Amendment, End Capital Punishment, Never Implement Voter ID, Pack the Supreme Court, Housing Give-away, Medicare for All, Weaken the Economy, and the Green New Deal. Most Americans don't want any these changes – especially once they understand them and how they will be financed.

Finally, “According to Moody’s Analytics, Trump is headed toward another four years in the White House. And, if the numbers are right, it won’t even be close….

“Under the current Moody’s Analytics baseline economic outlook, which does not forecast any recession, the 2020 election looks like Trump’s to lose,” the authors wrote. “Democrats can still win if they are able to turn out the vote at record levels, but, under normal turnout conditions, the president is projected to win.” https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-in-a-landslide-this-historically-accurate-model-predicts-exactly-that-2019-10-15?siteid=yhoof2&yptr=yahoo

Granted the “Moody’s Analytics” is a pocketbook analysis: If the economy is strong, Trump Wins; if it is a recession, Trump may lose. But as the article points out, it has only been incorrect once since 1980 – and that was with Trump! 

So, what is a Democrat to do? Wait and see. Between now and February 2020 there may be some last-minute changes – like Hillary Clinton joining the fray and running for President. Another possibility: Michelle Obama. While she has professed no interest in running for President, there are many people who have encouraged her and believe she could win.

Other people believe Trump would shred her. I personally believe that she will reenter politics at some point. Right now, I think that the Democrat Party is trying to groom her for a Presidential run in 2024.

The bottom line: The Democrat party does not have a viable candidate – and they know it! I believe President Trump will be reelected – and there will be no need for a recount!

Donald G. Mutersbaugh, Sr. earned his Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Maryland and his Master of Business Administration degree from Mary Washington College. He is the former Associate Administrator of Information Resources for the U.S House of Representatives under Speaker Newt Gingrich.

The Great Republican Hope: Political Hysteresis

[Guest Contributor - Donald G. Mutersbaugh, Sr.]

I am writing this blog to offer optimistic thinking to the Republican Party: maybe there is a chance of winning the 2016 presidential election – but not necessarily because of anything that the Republicans may do. It has occurred to me that over the years the baton for the office of President has been passed back and forth between the Republican and Democratic parties. I was curious as to what the relationship was between the years. The more studious historians will, of course, have many explanations of why elections are won and lost: employment or unemployment; interest rates; tax policies; disposable income and voting one's “wallet”; monetary policies; balance of trade; deficit reduction; quantitative easing; wars; the list goes on and on. And I agree with them: there have got to be logical, motivating factors that drive people to the polls to vote for one candidate or the other. But I also thought about the cyclical swings: today a Republican, tomorrow a Democrat. This mood of the country – the zeitgeist – manifests itself in the actual electoral outcome.

When I started to write this blog, my intuitive feeling was that there has to be a political cycle that causes these swings; the questions are what is this cycle and is it predictable? I have decided to call this behavior Political Hysteresis: the tendency of an electoral outcome to vary about the central tendency of moderation based upon past and current candidates for the office of President. Granted, it is the candidate’s position and the Party's platform that drive the election. However, I would like to propose a simpler reason: hysteresis. “Hysteresis is the dependence of a system not only on its current environment but also on its past environment….To predict its future development, either its internal state or its history must be known.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hystersis]

What if we look at the history of Presidential elections to try to determine if there is a central tendency throughout time? I found the perfect analogy under the Control System definition of hysteresis to explain how this might apply to the election cycles; think like a thermostat and a heating system. The analogy is the following. The election is the thermostat. The unit “on” is the Republican Party (conservative) candidate; the unit “off” is the Democratic Party (liberal) candidate. The actual temperature is the electorate. And the value the thermostat is set at is the mood of the country. The temperature rises (conservative), the unit shuts down; the temperature cools (liberal), the unit turns on. But the question – which is really food for thought since this is not a scientific presentation – is: using political hysteresis, who's going to win the election in 2016?

I would like to share some of the results of my analysis. Using the 156 years from 1861 (the beginning of the Republican Party) to 2017, the average years between officeholders is 5.8 for Republicans and 8.7 for Democrats. Allowing for terms with the assassinations that occurred during this time, the total number of terms is 45: 27 were Republican and 18 were Democrat. Republicans were in control 60% of the time, and Democrats were in control 40% time.

If you start in 1861 and add the average of 5.8 years to the beginning year of office, you can correctly predict the Republican in office subsequently 25 times, or 56%; using 8.7 years, you can correctly predict the Democrat in office subsequently 16 times, or 36%. If you add the average of 5.8 years to the ending year of office, you can correctly predict the Republican in office subsequently 24 times, or 53%; using 8.7 years, you can correctly predict the Democrat in office subsequently 16 times, or 36%. (Note: these tables are not shown.).
But consider the following:

Republicans have an average of 12 years of continuous term control; Democrats average 8 years (black is a correct prediction; red is an incorrect prediction).

However, if you start in 1861 and use these averages (i.e., 12 and 8) president by president, then a Republican will win the White House in 2017 (predicted terms): 1873, 1897, 1909, 1921, 1945, 1957, 1993, 2005, 2017. By adding 12 years to the beginning date of 1861, this methodology has correctly predicted (over the years) a Republican win 77% of the time; the Democratic prediction has been less accurate at 47% (data not shown).

The lessons to be learned: 1) Barring voter registration fraud, stuffing the ballot box, and the Republicans managing to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, political hysteresis smiles favorably upon a Republican Party win in 2017. 2) It appears that voters generally prefer a Republican as President; they just need a Democrat once in a while to remind them why….