Share This Article with a Friend!

Assault on America, Day 468: Bernie’s campaign bit the dust, but will Democrats carry it on?

Bernie and Joe
Bernie Sanders’ candidacy is dead; long live Bernie Sanders’ movement in the Democrat party!

The news crawled over the wires last Wednesday that the two-time liberal party presidential race runner-up and Vermont senator had ended his quest for the Democrat nomination. Can’t say if anyone of importance even noticed, because no mourning was apparent to the naked eye. Just about everyone, including the punditry, had left “The Bern’s” candidacy for lifeless weeks ago, instead preferring to try and prop up Joe Biden’s “bunker” broadcasts amidst a period of social distancing and political irrelevance.

Bernie the socialist true-believer gave it a good run, but there was simply no way the Democrat establishment would risk a repeat of 2016, when party voters divided over power and direction and Hillary Clinton lost what every liberal assumed was a sure bet (that being the general election).

All things considered, Sanders went out with a whimper, which is surprising seeing as his fiery take-no-prisoners campaign style (drawing thousands to his speeches) and his followers’ singular devotion to his cryptic cause was anything but passive. Bernie survived a heart attack last October and persistent strikes from every other Democrat candidate to throw a good scare into the Democrat brain trust two months ago. Similar to the current panic over the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) coronavirus, the elites freaked out and put Joe Biden’s campaign on life support (a ventilator?) just in time to triumph in the South Carolina primary.

Congressman Jim Clyburn’s endorsement served as a virtual dose of hydroxychloroquine to the gravely ill Biden effort, and the rest is history. Now it’s official -- ‘ol back slappin, hair sniffin’, child repellin’, #MeToo denyin’, lie tellin’, nude swimmin’, fib formulatin’ Grampa Joe will take on President Donald Trump in November’s balloting.

With Bernie Sanders formally calling it quits, attention in Democrat-land immediately shifted to who Biden should choose as his running mate. It’s not that anyone’s paying any mind to Joe or his campaign these days, but the media needs something to report other than the latest COVID-19 stats. Somewhat astoundingly (to this observer at least), the name of Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren is being bandied about as a good potential match for establishment Joe.

A bad idea? You decide. Joseph Simonson wrote at The Washington Examiner, “Some Democratic strategists, aided by liberal opinion writers, say a Biden-Warren ticket would unify the party. Yet others say Biden, who was Obama's two-term vice president, would have good reason to bypass Warren for the understudy role, based on her abysmal primary performance...

“Nonelectoral reasons may also spell trouble for those who wish to see Warren in the White House in 2021. The two have a longstanding history of policy disagreements that have spilled over to personal attacks. In 2005, the two sparred over a bankruptcy bill before the Senate that made it harder for average people to declare bankruptcy in the United States. That law's repeal became a leading component of Warren's platform during her presidential campaign...

“Warren has also yet to endorse Biden for the nomination, something virtually every other major candidate has done so far. That move has led some Democratic strategists to wonder about whether Warren has her sights on something bigger: 2024.”

Speculation is fun, isn’t it? There’s little doubt Biden is giving the drudgery of finding the perfect running mate a lot of consideration, but other than the dozen or so women (no men, right!) purportedly under consideration, including Warren, no one else gives a hoot about the dilemma. Everyone knows Grampa Joe’s previously declared he’ll choose a mature biological female as his number two, an early nod to those who demand “gender equity” or want assurance of “ticket balance” or whatever.

Contrary to many reports, here’s thinking Biden’s already eliminated “Pocahontas” from his short-list, since she wouldn’t make sense for a lot of reasons. First and foremost, she’s old (well, not compared to Joe, but Liz turns 71 on June 22nd). There are plenty of obviously troubling things about Biden, but even his staunchest supporters concede the age thing will be a major stumbling block for him. Choosing a fellow septuagenarian, even if she seems much younger than him and in possession of all her faculties, isn’t going to help the nominee. He needs fresher (at least middle-aged) blood.

Second, “Pocahontas” hails from a region that’s already in the bag for Biden, so adding a Bay State gal won’t earn him any additional geographical love. And it’s not like Warren is overly popular in her home environs either, having finished a distant third in Massachusetts’ Super Tuesday primary. As has been written a number of times, the more people are exposed to the screechy ultra-liberal fem, the less they like her. Liz’s own constituents would rather Biden pick someone else.

Third, contrary to claims, Warren wouldn’t unite far-left Democrats with the so-called “centrist” establishment Biden wing. Sanders’ exit from the race disappointed those hankering to force socialism on America, and though “Pocahontas” is accepted as similarly and equally nutty as her good pal Bernie, it doesn’t mean “The Bern’s” rabid supporters would instantly take a liking to Grampa Joe because Warren’s standing next to him at campaign rallies.

We shouldn’t forget a lot of Sanders people are upset and disturbed that “Pocahontas” didn’t leave the race (creating a head-to-head matchup between Biden and Sanders when it mattered) after her drubbing in the early states. The writing was clearly on the wall after New Hampshire, where Liz finished a distant fourth (with less than ten percent, and Grampa Joe in fifth behind her!) despite being a “favorite daughter” right next door to the Granite State.

All along, Warren was notably vying with Sanders for Democrat kook affection, and though she never came close to challenging Bernie for supremacy, she was sucking votes he otherwise might have earned opposite Joe Biden. The “Bernie bros” appreciated their candidate’s unwillingness to compromise his beliefs and Warren simply didn’t have the same type of street cred with the burn-it-down change agents. She wouldn’t add much to Biden’s ticket. Think the young college aged Bernie backers would get amped over “Pocahontas” and Joe? Nope!

Fourth, Democrats are obsessed with a person’s demographic characteristics rather than what he or she believes. “Pocahontas” may claim Native American ancestry yet she’s white as a banshee (and goes around making shrill ghostly noises, too!). How likely would it be that Democrat race hustlers would forgive the woman for milking affirmative action policies to get hired as a professor by Harvard?

Warren has so much personal baggage she would need a handler just to travel between campaign stops. If you’re a Democrat, would you really want her fielding questions about her background? How would she stack up against the ultra-gentlemanly Mike Pence?

Lastly (there are more, but you get the picture), “Pocahontas” is annoying. Whereas Biden’s greatest perceived strength is his moderation (we all know he’s not “moderate” in any sense of the word) and ability to get along with everyone and “get stuff done” because he’s a great guy and Republicans will just turn over the keys to the treasury to him because they like him so much. Biden massages kids’ shoulders, right?

The same affection doesn’t apply to Warren, who offers no pretense as to her contempt for President Donald Trump and his backers. So what if western Pennsylvania and eastern Ohio are populated with white working class folks who depend on jobs in the energy industry? Heck, “Pocahontas” is a lot more wacko on “climate change” than genial Joe, which means she’d push the man for fracking bans and anything else that would inflict pain on people who pull fossil fuels out of the ground.

Simply stated, Warren isn’t likable. If it wasn’t obvious prior to the Democrat primaries, it’s more than evident afterwards. People are repelled by her phony granny-glasses appearance and bird-of-prey nasty stares. Remember what she did to poor Michael Bloomberg? If Biden adds her to the ticket “Little Mike” might tuck his hundreds of millions back in his pocket instead of well-stocking the party cash stores. “Pocahontas” destroyed him within the span of five minutes in his first debate performance.

Of course, all of this was before the coronavirus pandemic and its worldwide domination. The Chinese-originated virus has killed tens of thousands, but it wasn’t responsible for ending Bernie’s candidacy.

It's also arguable the virus “killed” much of the Democrat issue platform. Gone is greater societal concern over “climate change”, abortion on demand, pampering illegal aliens, science based morality, transgender bathrooms and acceptance into the military, racism, slavery reparations, universal college tuition, universal childcare, fracking bans and big government everything.

If it was difficult before, it’ll be nearly impossible now for Democrats to make the case for their agenda. With so much time, energy and resources devoted to saving the lives of the most vulnerable (from the virus), are people likely to be as passionate about abortion and its life-ending destruction? Will fence-sitters (if there are any left) be open to accepting more government regulation in the economy after their lives have been put on hold via federal and state edict?

Do you think anyone’s prepared to appropriate billions to compensate slavery descendants for an institution that was abolished over 155 years ago?

Assuming all of these Democrat positions were vitally important (according to them) prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, why would they be less relevant now? Only the most devoted liberals care about that “stuff” any longer. Most everyone else is worried sick over how to pay rent and provide food they earn through paychecks and fruitful labor.

Democrat hypocrisy is on the wane. Kurt Schlichter wrote at Townhall, “We had a good run for a few years, but our elite got even softer and stupider. They imagined that the world was a safe, secure place where nothing bad ever happened, and that the paradise they inherited – our trash elite has built nothing itself except teetering towers of pronoun protocols – could handle anything, including our elite’s stupidest, most destructive SJW indulgences. And our society, built and maintained by better men and women, could handle it. It was strong enough to carry the burden of childish social justice stupidity, right up until some guy in Wuhan licked a pangolin and, well, you know the rest.

“Political correctness and its associated disorders are a luxury we can’t afford in this new, serious, adult world. Good riddance.”

Well put. While it’s not possible to predict exactly what culture will look like post-coronavirus, it's almost certain to be more fact-based and results-oriented rather than accommodating the “feelings” of the most sensitive and easily offended. After what we’ve gone through the past couple months, won’t Americans be repelled by people such as Maxine Waters and their demands to “get in the faces” of conservatives and Trump supporters?

Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi are up to their old tricks again, but would the public have the stomach for another lengthy -- and boring -- set of “hearings” on administration behavior? Politics isn’t a popular pastime these days. The 2020 election will likely see many of the worst offenders paying the electoral price.

Bernie Sanders’ exit from the 2020 Democrat primary race didn’t engender much comment, nor should it have. Joe Biden’s got his hands full trying to pick a running mate who satisfies the many factions of Democrats, but his real challenge is getting the American public invested in the party agenda again. After coronavirus, it won’t happen.

Share this