Share This Article with a Friend!

Assault on America, Day 392: Hold your Iowa bets, every horse in the 2020 Dem field is a nag

Iowa Polls Sanders Surge
“Klo-bu-char! Klo-bu-char! KLOOOOO-BOOOO-CHARRRR!!!!”

People must be scratching their heads wondering what I’m referring to, never having heard anything close to this enthusiastic repetitive chanting involving the little-known (outside of her own sphere, at least) Minnesota senator (her first name is Amy, in case you were wondering). Just a few days away from next Monday’s Iowa caucuses, Klobuchar is stuck in Washington this week sitting in judgment during President Trump’s impeachment (farce) trial.

She’s already said, many times, that Trump should be removed. So much for impartiality.

Nonetheless, some suggest an Iowa surprise could be in the making, with Klobuchar set to stun the talking heads and polls -- and defy common sense -- by coming from nowhere to compete for one of the proverbial three tickets out of the first-to-vote state. Timothy P. Carney wrote at The Washington Examiner, “[O]n my recent trips to Iowa, I found basically every Democrat I spoke to loved Klobuchar. (That said, I didn't visit any Bernie Sanders outposts.) A Monmouth poll from earlier this month showed Klobuchar with the lowest unfavorable of all the candidates. A December CNN focus group found widespread praise for Klobuchar's debate performance...

“The Iowa voters I spoke with consistently said they liked Klobuchar, but weren’t seriously considering caucusing for her because she was so low in the polls — she consistently posted single digits in Iowa and low single digits elsewhere. This is exactly what I heard about Barack Obama about two months before the caucuses in 2008 — I like him, but he can't win. We all heard about Rick Santorum a few weeks before the GOP caucuses in 2012…

“Again, until we see another poll with her in double digits and out of fifth place, it would be premature to predict a Klobucharge, but it wouldn’t shock me a bit.”

Well, there are a number of subtle meanings to “shock”. Technically speaking, a “shock” “is the uncomfortable feeling you get when an electric current passes through your body. If you stick your finger in an outlet, you'll get an unpleasant shock. A shock can be a jarring surprise, like the shock of getting fired.... or, an unpleasant or disappointing surprise.”

If Klobuchar were to have a good showing next Monday, it probably wouldn’t send an electric current through anyone’s body or come as an unpleasant or disappointing surprise (unless you’re familiar with her awful personality and don’t buy into the woman’s carefully crafted “moderate” image, which her staffers would beg to disagree with). Iowa is renowned for producing last minute candidate charges from pols who were previously viewed as deadwood in an otherwise vivacious organic forest, but the chances of it happening with Amy this year are pretty slim.

It's easy to see how observers like Carney wouldn’t be “shocked” to see Klobuchar pull an eleventh hour surge. Similarly, I wouldn’t be “shocked” to see Andrew Yang or Tulsi Gabbard do well in Iowa either because both candidates represent something new and different when compared with the warmed-over septuagenarian soup that Iowans have been served on a moldy Democrat platter for months now. Sen. Amy isn’t even sixty yet (she’s 59 and will hit 60 in late May), so she doesn’t exactly fit this year’s Democrat template either, though looking closer at her and her platform -- there’s really not enough of a distinction to forecast a last minute Klobuchar storm in Tornado Alley.

Klobuchar’s best (and only?) argument appears to be that she’s one, not Trump; two, she’s not Biden; three, she’s not Bernie, four, she’s not Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren and five, she’s not “Mayor Pete” Buttigieg, the gay former head guy of a medium-sized midwestern city several hundred miles from the Iowa border. Elections are often won or lost by a candidate’s ability -- or inability -- to define an opponent, but Amy suffers from a decided lack of personal definition herself. Ask a voter what Klobuchar is all about and you’ll likely get a confused look translating to, “Who’s that?” and/or “Oh, is that the Democrat lady with the bob hairdo who shakes so badly during the debates?”

People who know Klobuchar well aren’t sure about the presidential candidate’s “I’m a normal working class gal from Minnesota” depiction of herself. From a Politico article a year ago, “The run-up to Klobuchar’s expected presidential campaign launch on Sunday was sidetracked by former aides, speaking anonymously for fear of retribution, who described a toxic office environment including demeaning emails, thrown office supplies and requests for staff to perform personal chores for the senator. It’s a sharp departure from the public brand that Klobuchar has built to get to this moment: a pragmatic, aw-shucks Minnesotan who gets things done and wins her state by landslide margins.”

The fact Klobuchar wins in Minnesota -- via landslides or ignorance -- isn’t really relevant, is it? Heck, the Gopher State sent Al Franken to the senate twice until he voluntarily removed himself after being exposed as a rear-end (and other parts) groping pervert who played on his reputation as a comedian to victimize and offend people yet still stay in office. Minnesota’s quirky relationship with its own Democrat party (which instate is called the Democrat-Farm-Labor Party) means you can get semi-normal (but still pretty liberal) centrist candidates such as pro-gun, anti-abortion former Rep. Tim Penny or dedicated ultra-leftist burn-it-all-down freaks like Keith Ellison and Ilhan Omar… and Franken.

Being a Minnesota Democrat these days isn’t what it was twenty or thirty years ago. Many of the state’s sane Democrat voters are following the examples of their brethren in other neighboring territories to join Donald Trump and the GOP. Minnesota hasn’t gone for a Republican in forever -- it didn’t even choose Reagan in ’84, the only state in the entire country to go with favorite son Walter Mondale -- but Trump came close to prevailing there four years ago. The final tally showed a 1.5 percent Clinton win by a margin of 45,000 votes (what’s the Somali refugee population in the Twin Cities?).

Trump’s campaign people view Minnesota as a prime pickup opportunity this year, with good reason.

Facts show Klobuchar is a Minnesota liberal closer in ideological bent to the Ellison/Omar side than she is to a “moderate” orientation. Her voting record is most decidedly liberal. The American Conservative Union (which rates all congressmen and senators) places her lifetime voting record at 4.7%, which is only .1% higher than Kamala Harris’s and trails that of Bernie Sanders (who proudly boasts a 6.8% ACU lifetime rating!). Amy can run but she can’t hide from the truth, which definitely would come out if she somehow ends up the Democrats’ nominee.

Regardless, why wouldn’t Klobuchar “shock” the political world next Monday? The most logical explanation is she isn’t anything like the candidates who actually accomplished the “shocks” in recent decades. Carney likened her to Barack Obama in 2008 because Iowans universally took to “The One” but didn’t start attaching themselves to his “Hope and Change” campaign until he appeared viable. This comparison fails for a couple reasons.

First, Klobuchar’s skin tone doesn’t set her apart like Obama’s did. Everyone knows Democrats obsess over the demographic/racial/gender attributes of their candidates. In ’08, for example, party voters had a choice between the first major party black candidate and/or the first major party woman hopeful (yes, it was Hillary Clinton). In that year they also could’ve elected the first Hispanic national nominee -- New Mexico’s Bill Richardson -- but the African-American draw along with Obama’s natural gift for oratory was too attractive for liberals to bypass.

(As a curious side note, John Edwards finished second to Obama in the Iowa caucuses that year, which makes sense, because the phony “Breck Girl” North Carolinian philanderer was kind of feminine, wasn’t he? The result also served to knock Hillary offer her invincible pedestal. And the rest is history!)

Second, Klobuchar won’t duplicate Senator Rick Santorum’s out-of-nowhere win in the 2012 GOP caucuses because the dynamics of her own race are different than the Pennsylvanian’s. Eight years ago, conservatives and Republicans spent months -- and went through several political “romances” -- trying to settle on a main alternative to Mitt Romney. Santorum came from way behind within a short period of time in Iowa because one, Romney was awful, and two, all of the other GOP candidates weren’t perfect fits for the non-establishmentarian option.

In contrast, 2020’s Democrat field provides leftists and left-of-center liberals several halfway decent choices -- all superior to no-name Amy from the northern provinces. Biden is the consummate establishment candidate with a resume to match. Together with his unmerited “moderate” label, he’s unlikely to leak votes from those desperately searching for a sure-thing challenger to Trump. Likewise, the activist left has Bernie Sanders (and to a lesser extent, “Pocahontas” Warren), who has the reputation and outspoken personality that change-agents demand from their dictator-in-the-making… I mean leader.

Would the “Bernie Bros” ever see a possible second hope in Amy Klobuchar? Not a chance on God’s green climate change riddled earth. They’re crackpots. If you don’t believe it, ask James O’Keefe.

So, yes, it would be “shocking” to see Klobuchar come from way back to do well in Iowa. And even if she did, how would Amy compete with the fundraising prowess of those ahead of her?

Sanders produced some truly impressive campaign cash numbers in the past quarter. And it doesn’t appear as though his momentum is slowing. Should a likely Bernie Sanders Iowa win worry conservatives? The Editors of The Washington Examiner think so, writing, “As we have written before, a Sanders presidency is no joke — it would be deeply dangerous. Were the United States, the beacon of freedom around the world, to elect an avowed socialist to serve as president, it would be a monumental event in history. Even if his legislative proposals were blocked by Congress, he would be able to wield the power of the vast regulatory state. Even more worrisome, the man who as a mayor showed such poor judgment as to support the authoritarian communist Sandinistas against the U.S., would be at the helm of foreign policy.

“Instead of looking at the opposing party’s primary through the lens of ‘Who would be easiest to beat?,’ conservative voters should consider the question of who in the other party they believe would be the least bad as president. At the very minimum, they should remember that anybody who becomes the Democratic nominee is one step closer to the White House.”

It's an interesting dilemma which both parties’ voters go through every time there isn’t an incumbent president to support. No one is “rooting” for Sanders, but it’s also true that ALL of the Democrats would be incredibly poor chief executives, though someone like the aforementioned Yang and Gabbard provide the impression they’d at least sit across the table and listen to an occasional alternative viewpoint on issues.

Bernie Sanders would be dreadful as president. But would he be more appalling than Biden, Warren, Buttigieg or Klobuchar (see the ACU ratings above)? At best, there’re slight differences between all of them. Anyone want to bring back the “moderate” Obama? The chances of an Iowa “shocker” probably aren’t good this year -- but every one of the Democrats is truly alarming.

Share this