How Stupid Do You Have To Be To Ignore One Of The Most Successful Campaigners We’ve Seen In Our Lifetime?


Now, don’t get me wrong, I don’t like the man.  I didn’t like his policies nor his advocacy.  But, when it came to campaigning and winning elections, the guy knew his stuff. 

So, as the leftards search for answers as to why they lost ………

Early on, Mr. Clinton had pleaded with Robby Mook, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign manager, to do more outreach with working-class white and rural voters. But his advice fell on deaf ears.

They need to look no further than to come to the realization that they’re stupid.  I’m sorry to have to put it so bluntly, but, that’s the only conclusion to come to.  No, I’m not just being insulting or overstating things.  Above is exhibit A.  Robby, have you ever won a presidential election?  No?  Then, maybe, it would work to your advantage to listen to a fellow who won 2 of them. 

The sophisticated data modeling Mr. Mook relied on showed that young, Latino and black voters would turn out as they had hoped. But while they favored Mrs. Clinton overwhelmingly, she could not run up the score with them like Mr. Obama had in 2012.

What delusional pinhead would believe that Black people would show up to vote like they did in 2008?  They voted on the hopey-changey thingy and all they got back for voting for a Black man was Obamacare!!!!  Oh, yes, after 8 dismal years of Zero, the Blacks and Latinos were going to rally around a privileged aged White woman, who believed she should be president because her husband was one.  See!!!! They’re really stupid!

But, it isn’t just the campaign, per se.  Let’s look at exhibit B!!!!!

Donna Brazile, the interim leader of the Democratic National Committee, was giving what one attendee described as “a rip-roaring speech” to about 150 employees, about the need to have hope for wins going forward, when a staffer identified only as Zach stood up with a question.

“Why should we trust you as chair to lead us through this?” he asked, according to two people in the room. “You backed a flawed candidate, and your friend [former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz] plotted through this to support your own gain and yourself.”

Some DNC staffers started to boo and some told him to sit down. Brazile began to answer, but Zach had more to say.

“You are part of the problem,” he continued, blaming Brazile for clearing the path for Trump’s victory by siding with Clinton early on. “You and your friends will die of old age and I’m going to die from climate change. You and your friends let this happen, which is going to cut 40 years off my life expectancy.”


Yes, poor Zach is going to die of climate change.  40 years just gone up in CO2 smoke!  We were going to live to 80, but, now, since Trump will be prez, we’re all going to die at the ripe old age of 40.  Which, coincidentally, was about the age expectancy before the evil industrial revolution. ……. but, I digress.

They lost because they are stupid.  And, because they are stupid, they believe everyone else is as stupid, or more stupid than they are.  Turns out, alarmingly, that just under 1/2 the population is.  Thank God for that horribly complex Electoral College!!!  I’ve tried to explain it to some leftards, but, it seems it’s just too complicated for the stupid, stupid people. 

This entry was posted in Climate, News and politics. Bookmark the permalink.

51 Responses to How Stupid Do You Have To Be To Ignore One Of The Most Successful Campaigners We’ve Seen In Our Lifetime?

  1. TG says:

    Poor Zac. I just pulled out the worlds tiniest violin I been playing it a lot lately watch the Dims and their pet media. Oh I forgot my glycerin fake tear. Ain’t it sweet!

    President Trump your my man!

  2. leftinflagstaff says:

    Well, the EC giveth, it wii taketh away. 😊

  3. DirkH says:

    “They lost because they are stupid. And, because they are stupid, they believe everyone else is as stupid, or more stupid than they are. Turns out, alarmingly, that just under 1/2 the population is. ”

    Yes. I would love to laugh at Americans over this but unfortunately it still looks pretty grim here in Germany as well.
    Juij Bezmenov says it’s all the KGB’s design.

    • suyts says:

      I wrote a couple of posts on the bell curve and it’s relation to human intelligence. It’s easily designed. Half the population has an IQ of 100 and less. Dedicate a few smarter people into cultivating the masses of stupid people ……. while the average smarter people are busying themselves with other things and …… well, we all have what we have today. KGB/CIA? Is there a difference? Do we know that the same people aren’t/weren’t running both?

  4. Latitude says:

    I don’t know about all that…..if the media had covered Clinton half the way they covered Trump…Clinton would have incited riots
    He made some of the most racist cracks I’ve ever heard…and got away with it because the media didn’t cover any of them….
    Problem was, Clinton was the liberal media’s Reagan..and they saw to it that he did no wrong. It was the media that made him a successful campaigner.
    If a republican had polished that “aw shucks” hillbilly good old boy style….they would have eaten him for lunch.

    Trump was even more successful than Clinton, obviously. Both sides were attacking Trump with everything they’ve got…..but Trump did it all on instinct…well that and balls.

    I’m still reeling from what could have happened…..and the miracle of how we somehow avoided it!

    • Latitude says:

      I mean do people even realize Clinton was going to move capital gains out 6 years???

    • suyts says:

      Well, the point is, Bill had the same media Hillary had. He managed to win and pretty decisively, both times. If it were me, I would have listened to what he had to say. In retrospect, Bill was entirely correct. …… Penn, Mich, and Wisconsin …… Hillary would have won if she’d carried those states. …… she lost by 1.2% in Penn, 1% in Wisconsin …. and Michigan is still up in the air. All she had to do was to court just a few from Trump in those places and she wins. But, instead, she neglected the areas Trump won. Her team was stupid.

      • Latitude says: on!

        And thank God for small favors!!!!

      • cdquarles says:

        Bill had help from HR Perot the first time and Bush 41 was not a good campaigner himself. Who did the Rs run against him the second time? Oh, yeah, a war hero; yet he wasn’t a good campaigner, either.

        That said, she was stupid to do what she did, yet that has been her MO for years.

        Had there not been WW2, would FDR have won a third term?

  5. philjourdan says:

    Bill is not the man who won those elections. He has lost too many neurons. However, that does not mean he does not have moments of lucidity.

    Stupid? I am going to turn the axiom on its head. Do not always attribute to stupidity which can just as easily be explained as arrogance. That they are stupid is a given. But they were stupid before. The difference this year is their arrogance. They forgot who the majority (still, but perhaps not much longer) of Americans are – working class folks.

  6. daveburton says:

    You are certainly right that Hillary was a terrible candidate, but so was Trump. Both parties chose poorly. This should have been a Republican landslide year, especially against Clinton/Kaine, the weakest Democratic ticket since McGovern/Eagleton. Instead, we lost seats in Congress, while our nominee repeatedly embarrassed us, and just barely eked out a narrow Presidential victory, thanks to an eleventh hour Democrat scandal, and a timely Obamacare price hike.

    The problem on the GOP side was numbers. We had too many excellent candidates. When many good candidates divide the wise voters, and one loose cannon gets the fringe vote, as happened this year, the loose cannon has an advantage.

    That could be fixed by a primary system in which each voter names his or her 1st, 2nd & 3rd choices, rather than just his 1st choice.

    When tallying the votes, on the first “round” only the 1st choices would count. If one candidate gets a majority, we’re done. But if no candidate gets a majority, then the candidate with the least votes would be dropped from the list, and his voters would go to whomever they selected as their 2nd choices.

    If that wasn’t sufficient to give one candidate a majority, then the process would be repeated: the candidate with the least votes would be dropped, and his voters’ votes would be allocated according to their respective next choices.

    The process would be repeated until one candidate has a majority, or only one candidate remains..

    Such a system would prevent a rogue, loose cannon candidate from having an advantage over candidates who are more representative of the Party’s voters.

    It would also resolve the dilemma commonly faced by Primary voters, between voting for their favorite candidate, and voting for a tolerable candidate who might have the best chance of prevailing. With this system, you’d simply give your favorite candidate your first choice vote, and the candidate who you think has a better chance of winning your 2nd or 3rd choice vote. You could support your favorite candidate, even if he’s an underdog, without worrying about “wasting” your vote.

    This is what is sometimes called an “instant runoff” system. Some years ago NC experimented with an instant runoff, but I don’t recall what race it was for. I think the only problem we had was that it was new, and many people were confused by it.

    • Sweet. I’ll add ‘Fringe’ to my resume. Right after ‘Deplorable’.

    • Scott says:

      …and a timely Obamacare price hike.

      This is something no one seems to discuss. I think this was an important component that people aren’t talking about because Obama is not the main enemy anymore (and the other side doesn’t want to draw attention to it. My guess is that the e-mail scandal actually only changed the vote by a small amount.


      • The cumulative effect of all of it, allowed the fringe to grow too large.

        It’s good to see arrogance cry, no matter which side it comes from.

        • Latitude says:

          Dave’s planet has very low atmospheric pressure….

          Dave, Your so called “too many excellent candidates” lost
          Trump won….get a grip

        • leftinflagstaff says:

          Yep. And to assume any others would have resulted in a landslide, when no one could know how they would have weathered the storm, post-Primary. The attacks from the press, generating enthusiasm, etc. Dave should be thanking ‘the fringe’ (formerly known as the American People) for probably saving the SCOTUS he was so sure was doomed, not long ago.

        • Latitude says:

          amen to that….
          …and fail to recognize why Trump won..and all the others lost

  7. TG says:

    Dave burton.
    Trump was the right man, is the right man and will prove to be the right man. now get of the fence for once in your life and take a risk.
    Or try to read the adventures of Humpty Dumty!

    • daveburton says:

      Trump was a horrible candidate.

      In Florida, Rubio won by 7.7 percentage points, against a much more appealing candidate than Hillary. Trump won by just 1.2 percentage points.

      That’s in spite of the fact that in the Republican Primary Trump beat Rubio easily. What happened in the Primary was that Cruz & Kasich siphoned off about 24% of the votes, enabling Trump to win a four-way race with a comfortable plurality.

      If Rubio had been the Republican nominee, he’d have won in a landslide.

      In the general election, exit polls showed that, nationwide, about 2/3 of the voters were unhappy with the candidate that they voted for. Compare that with 2008, when less than 1/3 of the voters were unhappy with the candidate that they voted for.

      Trump was a horrible candidate, but the voters decided, by the slenderest of margins, that Hillary was even worse.

    • I was listening to Trump’s acceptance speech on election night. He said we’re going to fix the country’s infrastructure.

      With what shall we pay for fixing the infrastructure dear Liza, dear Liza, with what?
      With money dear Henry, dear Henry, with money.
      Where shall we get this money dear Liza, dear Liza, where?
      Who knows dear Henry, dear Henry, who knows?

      My guess is that they’ll print it, raise taxes, or find new sources–like taxing wealth–dear Henry.


      • leftinflagstaff says:

        Alright, you two convinced me. Let’s not try to find a way to fix it. Or anything else. This victory was horrible.

      • Latitude says:

        Jim, they you will have to blame democrats too….this is universally agreed that it will get 100% bipartisan support…and something Trump can pass and get started immediately

      • Latitude says:

        JIm, you asked how is he going to pay for it.
        I posted the link to how he’s going to pay for it.
        That’s his advisor’s paper, they released that in October.

        The same way it’s always paid for….bonds and private money with tax breaks

      • suyts says:

        Jim, when I hear the word “infrastructure” without a definition of what particular “infrastructure” I automatically assume the speaker is being disingenuous. What infrastructure? Our roads? Our bridges? Our electric grid? Our pipelines? Which is it? It’s an empty political promise. For some reason people like to hear the words “fix the country’s infrastructure”, but, they never ask about what particular infrastructure is in need of repair.

        Seriously, I doubt we need to spend any extra money to do so. But, you have to drain the swamp, first. Is Trump up to the job? Does he even know what the job will entail? I don’t have any idea. It isn’t so much the corrupt politicians that’s the problem, rather, the systemic corruption of our public servants.

        Underneath each political and dept. head is a mass of bureaucrats. They have worked within the system for years. The two DOE’s, the DOT, State, EPA, HHS …… etc, etc……
        In my estimation, the best way for Trump to fix any infrastructure is to let the IGs do their job and to listen and read what they have to say, and act upon it.

        • In my previous experience those who said it had never built anything in their lives, much less made a life of doing so.

        • suyts says:

          Leftin, my point is the word “infrastructure”, by itself, is so ambiguous that it has absolutely no meaning. Sure, Trump has built stuff, and by using the words he chose, he’s saying he’s going to build stuff, which, may or may not be a good thing. But, I guarantee he meant it as a feel-good message meaning nothing. Else, he would have been much more, or, somewhat more specific.

          Can anyone tell me which infrastructure needs rebuilt?

        • philjourdan says:

          Can anyone tell me which infrastructure needs rebuilt?

          Safe spaces for snowflakes.

        • Sure, but details are generally scarce at, what, 2am on election night.

        • DirkH says:

          “Can anyone tell me which infrastructure needs rebuilt?”

          High speed rail.

        • And others, I’m sure. I bet everyone knows a stretch of highway in their area that could use improvement. Unfortunately, the way Flag seems to be growing, it’s gonna need a lot. The real point is, why not let this win, be a win, at least until proven otherwise. Maybe we can save ourselves without war.

        • Latitude says:

          Can anyone tell me which infrastructure needs rebuilt?

          I posted a link up thread….but for some reason no one wants to read it… 😉

        • Sour grapes must blur vision.

        • Latitude says:

          I think it’s just lazy….LOL

      • philjourdan says:

        Start with the billions wasted on AGW.

        • Latitude says:

          Trump says he’s going to stop this climate change spending…
          I read somewhere that the US spends something like $80 billion..with a direct budget of $10 billion a year…but that’s not counting giving money to things like Solandra, and what we give to other countries as reparations, etc too.

          If Trump cuts all that crap out, he’s got more than enough money for infrastructure, the wall..
          …and a new plane or two

  8. Me says:

    😆 looks like she did herself in! LMAO!

  9. Me says:

    I can’t help not laughing! Bwaaaahahahahaha!

  10. Me says:

    She is one creepy person, time for her to take responsibility and be held accountible. She has to be put behind bars for good and throw away the key.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s