Tag: 2022 elections

No Red Wave

Why the Republicans are losing elections. It’s very simple, the party is full of techno-phobic people.

In a nation of 350 million people. The Republican Party pushes for paper ballots and hand counting of votes. And the Leftist controlled Democratic Party is only happy to help keep this antiquated system going. Because it makes it very easy to cheat and inject fake ballots.

This is not the only place that the Republican Party rejects technology. This is also very evident in Social Media as well. Instead of embracing this 21st century communications tool. They ignored it and allowed the Left to embrace and then control it. And now complain about that control.

And what does the Republican Party do instead? They have bus tours for candidates. Does anyone even go to these? Certainly not the younger voters. Social Media is where they can be found and that only has the message from the Left.

Thus, there was no red wave in the 2022 elections. They message never went beyond the choir that was singing it.

Scenes From a Midterm – 2022 Edition

After what seemed to be an eternity, the 2022 midterm elections have come and gone. Joe Biden saw his shadow, which means only six more weeks until the 2024 Presidential elections get underway.

Since everyone else is offering their hot, warm, tepid, and cold takes on the midterm elections, I figure I’d throw my two cents in there because I’m an unoriginal bastard. Anyway, here’s what I saw.

Neither major party seemed motivated to win. Oh, sure, Democrats and Republicans gave the impression they were in it to win it, but the feeling I got was they didn’t have their hearts (or their donors’ hearts) in it this year. When you look back at the political ads, and I did because I have no real life, they were…lazy. Republicans talked about the Biden economy and wanting to fight inflation (without any clear plans on how to do it aside from “cutting spending”) and Democrats talked about abortion, health care, and education (without any clear plans on what to do with them aside from “Republicans bad”). Oh, I heard so many uses of the word “extreme” I could have sworn we fell through a wormhole and landed back in the 1990s. Way to get out the vote, kids!

Nevada and Arizona still can’t get their shit together. As of this blog post (please check local listings for temporal references near you), both Nevada and Arizona are still counting ballots. Given the elderly population in Arizona, I can understand delays, but I refuse to believe a state where gambling and prostitution are cottage industries are having this much trouble with numbers. Something is up, and I think it’s time we take a long hard look at what these states are doing and figure out how they’re fucking up this bad.

Both major parties came out as winners, kinda. Sure, Republicans seem to have control of the House of Representatives, barring Nevada and Arizona taking over any other states’ recounts, so that’s a win for the GOP. Democrats will retain control of the Senate and didn’t lose as many House seats as recent history would have us expect, so that’s a win for the Dems. Whether you’re a “red tsunami” or “Vote Blue No Matter Who” backer, you have to feel a little disappointed your team underperformed in the clutch.

Joe Biden’s argument for reelection begins in January 2023. With the legislative branch split, the likelihood of gridlock is greater than the rate of inflation. Which is bad why exactly? Oh, wait, I’m going off topic. Anyway, if Joe Biden wants to make the case for reelection in 2 years (and if he’s even on the ticket then), a divided Congress is an opportunity to actually prove he can reach across the aisle. You know, as he claimed he could do when he ran in 2020? If he can do that, Republicans are going to have a rougher time running against him. And speaking of Republicans…

The GOP is Ron DeSantis’s party now, not Donald Trump’s. When you look at the numbers, most of the candidates Trump endorsed won election (with a couple of notable exceptions that we’ll be talking about later). Beyond that, though, there is a chunk of the Republican Party who would love to get past Trump, and the man who can do just that is Ron DeSantis. His 2024 Presidential aspirations may still be up in the air, but DeSantis has solidified his position as Trump’s heir apparent, but with fewer Twitter tirades and stupid policy and staffing decisions. How do I know? Because the Left has focused their venom on DeSantis more than Trump in recent weeks. Leftists see DeSantis as a threat, which he is, so they’re trying to undercut him as much as they can. You know, like they did with Trump in 2016. How’d that work out for ya?

The Left still obsessively hates Trump. Aside from the repetitive squawking points I mentioned earlier, I noticed a lot of campaign ads for Democrat candidates invoked Donald Trump’s name as a means to paint their opponents as evil mean nasty poopyheads. Here’s a news flash: Trump wasn’t on the ballot anywhere, but he took up so much space in Leftists’ minds he’s opening up a new Trump Casino. Even though they’re adding Ron DeSantis as a target, the Left is still full-blown Brokeback Mountain with Trump.

The Right still can’t get out of its own way. Even though the “red tsunami” was more of a light sprinkle, there was a lot of dumbfuckery afoot that hurt the party as a whole. I mean, a Trump-backed candidate lost to a stroke victim who has more hoodies than Kevin Smith. How does that happen? Herschel Walker didn’t exactly lose, but he’s heading for a runoff against Raphael Warnock, who could have been defeated with a stronger candidate. And if what I’ve been hearing is true, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell spent tons of money on non-Trump candidates while leaving some Republican candidates out in the cold. I can understand party leaders (and McConnell for that matter) wanting to get past Trump, but the kind of strategy employed in 2022 shows me the Republicans keep stepping on their own dicks and have no intention of stopping, even if it means losing winnable elections.

Beto O’Rourke and Stacey Abrams are still losers. ‘Nuff said.

And with that, there’s nothing more to be said!



The Most Important Election…Part 25

In case you haven’t heard, the midterm elections are THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION IN OUR HISTORY! And you can tell I’m serious because I typed it caps, italics, and bold. But you don’t have to take it from me. Leftists have been hyping this election cycle more than Don King, or Don Lemon for that matter.

From suggesting this year’s elections may be the last free and fair ones in America to being the last chance to remove the Trump influence from the country, the Left can’t be accused of underselling how important they think this election cycle is. After all, democracy is on the ballot, right? If Republicans win, women will lose the right to choose what to do with their bodies, Joe Biden will face impeachment, and blacks will be put back in chains.

Oh, wait. That last one was something Joe Biden said in 2012.

Anyway, the Left has done a great job in building up the midterms, but there’s one tiny problem: they’re not the most important election in our lifetimes. In fact, it’s going to be like any other election in our lifetimes. There will be winners and losers, close calls and blowouts, and just as much division as we had before Election Day. It’ll just be a new bunch of idiots to fuck things up.

And the thing is I’ve heard this song and dance before. It always seems as though one major party or the other trots out the same “most important election of our lifetimes” bullshit when they’re about to get bitch-slapped by the voting public. It’s a cynical way to drum up last-minute support. If you can whip potential voters into a fear-fueled frenzy that if the other party wins a portal to Hell will open up, it might be enough to get them to show up and vote. And with midterm voter turnout being significantly lower than during Presidential election years, every vote counts, so the fear gets turned up to 12 (because turning it up to 11 just isn’t good enough).

And people wonder why I’m so cynical about politicians.

It’s funny to me that the same ideology that gave us “Hope and Change” in 2008 is giving us “No Hope and Don’t Change” not even a generation later. To put it bluntly, I think Donald Trump really fucked up the Left by not being Hillary Clinton’s bitch like they thought he would be. (However, they did get Hillary being a bitch, so I guess they kinda got what they wanted?)

Thus, the 2020 Presidential election was “the most important election in our history.” The Left had to defeat Donald Trump to avoid sliding into a fascist totalitarian regime that denied science and would be the laughing stock of the world. Good thing we voted Trump out of office so none of that could happen, right?

For the Leftists reading this, that was sarcasm.

But I’m not being sarcastic when I say the Left and the Right need to lay off the “most important election in our lifetime” bullshit. If you want to get people to vote for your candidates, give us a reason to vote for them, not vote against the opposition.

And while you’re at it, field some candidates that are worth a damn. I find it hard to believe the best candidates Pennsylvania Democrats and Republicans could field are a stroke victim with clear cognitive issues and a doctor made famous thanks to a connection to Oprah Winfrey. If ever there was an argument to be made for allowing third parties equal footing in elections, this is it.

So, whatever your reason for voting this year (and in the future), go out and vote, not because you want to make history or because you’re afraid of the future under an opposing party’s rule, but because you want to do your civic duty.

By writing in the names of cartoon characters when the choices you’re given suck more than a lot lizard trying to make bail money.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

If you’re like me (and if you are, I’m sorry), you’re getting sick of political ads polluting the airwaves right now. It seems any infraction from an overdue library book in third grade to supporting extreme positions like expecting teachers not to indoctrinate their students into believing they’re transgendered when they still get nap time gets turned into a massive scandal designed to make voters not like a particular candidate. And sometimes these attacks play fast and loose with the facts.

And by sometimes, I mean more frequently than Lindsey Lohan goes back to rehab.

Recently, the Left has rolled out a phrase to describe Republican and conservative candidates who have questions about the 2020 Presidential election went down: election deniers. Although this seems like a silly accusation, the Left is pretty serious about making it stick to as many Republican candidates and their supporters as possible. Which, of course, means it caught my attention.

election deniers

What the Left thinks it means – crazy conspiracy theorists, usually Trump Republicans, who believe the 2020 Presidential election wasn’t legitimate

What it really means – a phrase used to disparage Republicans and conservatives for not accepting the Leftist spin on the 2020 Presidential election

There are two camps with regards to the 2020 Presidential election: those who believe it was the most secure election in our history, and those who have been paying attention. To put it as diplomatically as I can, the election itself was a shitshow of Golgothan proportions. While under the auspices of an election (something Leftists swore up and down Donald Trump would never allow as he installed himself as Big Head Honcho For Life) held during a pandemic, there was some shady shit going on by both teams…I mean parties.

Although the Leftist line has gone from “there wasn’t any systemic voter fraud” to “there was some, but it’s not significant,” they maintain anyone who questions the legitimacy of the 2020 Presidential election is a loony. Pardon my pedantry for a moment, but wouldn’t the fact there was voter fraud undermine the notion the 2020 election was hunky-dory? Whether it was significant enough to affect the outcome of the election is immaterial because it’s not the scope that matters in the end. Well, except if you’re a proctologist performing a colonoscopy, that is.

I will admit much of the election denial right now is coming from the Right, particularly those on the Trump Train. But I also remember waaaaaaaaay back in 2016 when Leftists were engaged in a little election denial of their own, including current White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre. Granted, she is an idiot, but surely that was an isolated incident, right?

Not. So. Much.

In fact, Leftists and Democrats have a long list of election denials themselves dating back to the 2000 election. To this day, I’m worried there is a male porn star named Hanging Chad out there still getting work, but that’s not important right now.

And let’s not overlook (as if that’s humanly possible) the most prominent election denier the Left has, Stacey Abrams. After being defeated by her Republican opponent for Governor of Georgia, she not only denied she lost, but turned it into a political action movement, a book deal, a cameo on an episode of “Star Trek: Discovery,” and more magazine covers and puff pieces than Michelle Obama. And all that while being Governor of Georgia, no less! Oh wait…

So, Leftists are hypocrites when it comes to election denial, which is no surprise to anyone with Interwebs access and a memory longer than a TikTok video. This leads us to the question of why they’ve switched opinions and now think denying election results is bad. Well, it comes down to power, which is the coin of the Leftist realm. Well, that and incredibly shitty takes on how to fix the problems they cause. When the Left is on the outside looking in, it’s okay to question even the most lopsided Republican victories because, according to the Left, Republicans can’t win elections without cheating. However, when the Left is in power, questioning the elections is tantamount to treason or, even worse, wearing white after Labor Day.

Even if it can be established there were some irregularities in the vote count.

If the Left’s turn of a phrase reminds you of something, it should, since it’s the same language they use when discussing global climate change/climate disruption/climate catastrophes/whatever the Left is calling it this nanosecond. The idea behind it is to suggest anyone who disagrees with the “facts” (i.e. what the Left wants us to believe) is disreputable and denies reality. Yet, these same Leftists who claim to have the facts on their side go out of their ways to suppress any information that runs counter to their conclusions. They’ve gone so far as to ratchet up the rhetoric to 11 (because it’s one higher) by calling them science deniers. Not only are you denying climate change, but you are denying science as a whole. Who could listen to crackpots like that?

Me, for one. I am by nature curious and I want to gather as much information as I can before rendering a decision. Through that, I’ve learned to pick out questionable information and information sources when they don’t make sense. And calling someone a “denier” when there’s a vested interest in doing so is a big red flag.

With the 2020 elections, both sides have a vested interest in either confirming or rejecting the outcome, so it’s a wash. But right now there’s only one side making a case that has identifiable and verifiable flaws from the jump, and, spoiler alert, it’s the side who spent every year since 2016 saying the election results were rigged and doing everything they can to turn the Presidential election into a popular vote contest. If there are any Leftists reading this (or having it be read to you because of all the big words being used) who are confused about who these people are, look in the mirror.

The larger point, however, is the “word magic” being used to get people to squelch any concerns they have about the 2020 election by appealing to popularity and authority. Eagle-eyed readers will remember these are logical fallacies designed to give the impression of being correct without having to go through that pesky task of presenting facts. After all, the Socialist Socialite told us it was better to be morally right than factually correct, and who are we to disagree with her?

That, kids, is an example of what I’m talking about with appeals to authority and popularity. We are being told to ignore our gut instincts if we think something’s not kosher because it will lead to ridicule and disgrace (often hurled in our direction by those telling us to ignore our instincts). Maybe it’s me, but the surest way to make me more skeptical is to tell me not to pay attention to the man behind the curtain. The fact Leftists are working so hard to avoid addressing at least some of the questions surrounding Joe Biden’s victory tells me they know they’re bullshitting us.

But to be fair, they’ve had a lot on their plates investigating Donald Trump for having Russian dressing on a salad he ate in 1998. But once they’re done with that, I’m sure they’ll have time for answer the questions. Granted, it will be 2638, and that’s only if the investigation into Trump laughing at a Yakov Smirnoff set wraps up early.

In the meantime, the best way to address the Left painting anyone as an election denier can be summarized in two words: So what? This question is one the Left can’t answer without looking like authoritarian assholes or dishonest assholes. Or assholes in general, but the point’s the same. They don’t know why anyone would disagree with them and they’re not interested in finding out, but they’re heavily invested in making sure no one questions them.

But their tactics only work if you are scared of the consequences. If you gave your last fuck at the office and have no intention of getting more, you remove the fear and subsequently the power the Left wants you to believe they have. And if you want to have more fun, tell them you self-identify as something and their questioning is harassment and, thus, violence. And make them use your pronouns!

No matter what the Left tries to tell you, there are some loose ends related to the 2020 Presidential election that haven’t been tied up yet. As Americans, we can and should ask questions until we get answers that make sense or are persuasive enough to make us look at the situation differently. Even if we don’t like the answers we ultimately get, knowledge is about the journey and not the destination. And maybe even the friends we made along the way.

Except Jeff. He’s an asshole.



Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Every election cycle has its share of controversies and the 2022 midterm elections are no different. In the race for an open Senate seat in Pennsylvania, we have Republican Dr. Mehmet “Dr. Oz” Oz and Democrat John “I’m Not a Doctor, But I Play One in My Parents’ Basement” Fetterman. Now, I don’t have a dog in this race (mainly because a) I don’t live in Pennsylvania, and b) I don’t care for either candidate), but there was something interesting that came up after a recent interview with Fetterman.

An NBC reporter had a one-on-one interview with Fetterman and video footage showed the candidate having clear problems answering questions. Not like the usual politician, mind you. Actual problems understanding and responding to questions. Granted, Fetterman had a stroke which affected his hearing and speech, so this isn’t unusual. However, the Left found a way to attack the reporter and the interview as “ableist” because both made Fetterman look incapable to handle the rigors of being a Senator. In Fetterman’s defense, I’ve had more rigorous naps than what a Senator has to deal with, but I wanted to touch on the ableist topic for a bit, if for no other reason than to expose some of the hidden truths behind the Left’s outrage in this case.

ableism

What the Left thinks it means – discriminating in favor of people who appear to be more capable at the expense of those who are less so

What it really means – another way for Leftists to generate resentment for conditions that may not be controllable

Human beings can be incredibly superficial, as anyone who has followed the fashion, cosmetics, and plastic surgery professions can attest. It’s easy to overlook the potential contributions someone with disabilities can make if we just look at the surface. It’s a matter of finding where they can have the best impact. In a scientific lecture, I would listen to Dr. Stephen Hawking in a heartbeat, but I wouldn’t want him to play center for the Los Angeles Lakers, mainly because, well, he’s dead. Then again, given the Lakers’ recent post-season history, it might be an improvement.

Leftists typically don’t think much beyond the surface level of such a population because to do so would mean they would have to consider a smarter, more inclusive approach. Instead, it’s one-size-fits-all! If you’re black, Hispanic, gay, lesbian, female, disabled/handicapped, or whatever else, you’re automatically oppressed! And if you happen to be a black Hispanic gay lesbian female disabled/handicapped person, you could be the next White House Press Secretary under Joe Biden.

Meanwhile, the “oppressors” (i.e. the “ableists”) are stuck in a Faustian deal when interacting with those who have disabilities. For as selfish and superficial as people can be, there are still quite a few of us out there with genuine concern and compassion. Although we may just want to help, we sometimes overcorrect and wind up treating the handicapped as the incapable, which makes us look ableist. And if we don’t even make an overture to help, we’re branded as ableist anyway because, according to the Left, we’re horrified by those different than us.

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

Of course, I’ll be damned if I let Leftists define what I am. (See what I did there?) The fact the Left has taken up this cause at this point for a Senate candidate, while not doing the same for a Republican candidate who had a stroke, says a lot about them, and not a lot of it good. I’m sure they’ll try to pass it off as a change of heart, raised consciousness, or trying to make it sound like it’s no big deal, blaming the reporter for the furor over the story, or comparing him to the aforementioned Dr. Hawking. You know, the usual post-fuck-up protocol for Leftists.

In the meantime, the matter of ableism is still on the table. Although I will concede there are people who will treat people with disabilities as though they were less than human, most people fall into the category is “we have no fucking clue of what to do, so it’s gonna be awkward.” We’re just trying to figure it out without offending anyone. Of course, with Leftists involved, that’s impossible because they’re always offended at something. And when they get offended, they get pissed off and willing to cut a bitch on your behalf.

Which, if you really think about it (and I have because there’s nothing good on TV), is actually diminishing the people Leftists believe they’re supporting. Which, if you really think about it (and I have because there’s still nothing good on TV), is pretty much on-brand for the Left. They need there to be victims so they have someone to fight for, thus fulfilling their psychological needs. As far as the people they’re fighting for are concerned, fuck ’em! It’s the Leftists’ feelings and goals that really matter!

And it’s this attitude that drives the entire ableism idea. You’re not trying to fix anything; you’re just trying to find a way to make yourselves feel less awkward about people with disabilities. Instead of treating each person like a human being, Leftists have to see the handicapped as broken, mainly because Leftists tend to be broken people themselves. And Leftists believe only they can fix anything just by caring enough.

That’s why I never hire Leftist plumbers.

The key to overcoming ableism, or at least what the Leftists feel is ableism, is taking the time to recognize what everyone brings to the table. Sure, you might not want to get in a car with a blind Uber driver, but getting someone to translate Braille? Top of the fucking list. But Leftists are of the attitude that unless you have a blind Uber driver, you’re somehow diminishing the driver’s self-worth, which is bullshit. By trying to shoehorn a person into a position he or she isn’t capable of doing, you’re only hurting the person you’ve attempted to elevate.

Your Honor, I present Exhibits A and B, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

Whomever wins the Senate race in Pennsylvania, the Left will accuse people of ableism. If John Fetterman loses, it’ll be because people didn’t look past his mental lapses to see his potential. If he wins, any criticism of his performance will be chalked up as ableism. It’s a no-win situation, but it’s one that can be overcome by not playing at all. Treat everyone the way you want to be treated and pay attention to the needs and wants of the disabled. At worst, you’ll make a new friend or gain a better understanding of what they go through, which will make future interactions…well, still awkward, but less so. But in embracing the awkwardness, we can do something the Left can never do: get past our prejudices.

Oh, and bathe.


Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

I know the event that inspired this week’s Lexicon occurred last week, but the real impact of it is still being felt this week. Besides, the Lexicon self-identifies as timely, so if you disagree you’re a bigot!

Anyway, President Joe Biden gave an address to the nation last week. To say the optics were a little on the horrible side would be understating it quite a bit. Yet, the speech being called The Red Speech was just the kind of red (speech) meat the Left wanted. Leftists fought for column inches and TV time to praise the speech, even though they pretty much said the same things…

Anyway, let’s take a closer look at The Red Speech.

The Red Speech

What the Left thinks it means – an awesome speech preaching of uniting against the greatest threat to America in history

What it really means – a disjointed speech that only appeals to the Left’s totalitarian nature

So I don’t get accused of taking Biden’s words out of context, here are the text and video of the speech in question. Of course, that won’t stop Leftists from making the accusations because…reasons.

I was going to do a thorough analysis of the speech going over the various elements from the lighting to the location to the verbiage used. Then, I remembered it’s a Joe Biden speech. They typically have the intellectual rigor of a completed Sudoku puzzle. The speech itself isn’t as important as the Left’s reaction to it.

To put it mildly, they loved it so much, they smoked a cigarette (or a joint) or vaped or whatever it is they do afterwards. To them, it was a combination of a call to action, an affirmation of American (i.e. Leftist) values, and a shot over the bow of “MAGA Republicans” letting them know they weren’t going to take it anymore. It was, if you’ll pardon the expression (and even if you don’t), red meat for the Left. I’m not sure how the vegans on the Left felt, though…

Regardless, there were a lot of threads to tie together into one speech. Outside of the Leftist hivemind, the reaction was pretty much universal: the Red Speech sucked ass, and not in the fun way. Not only were the positive elements overpowered by the negative ones, but the visuals and vocal tone didn’t help matters either. It came off as loud, hateful, and generally tone-deaf. So, like an episode of The Young Turks.

You can tell how badly The Red Speech was received by how quickly the Biden Administration walked it back. Literally, within hours of giving it, kids. Now, I’m no Presidential speechwriter, but to me good speeches don’t have to be retracted, respun, and revised less than 24 hours after they were given.

And given President Biden’s track record of being less honest than tobacco companies in the 50s, it’s hard to tell whether the speech or the post-speech spin reflects his true feelings. That allows political opponents to assume the worst and express it, thus making a bad situation even worse for Biden. And guess what? The longer the outrage, real or manufactured, keeps The Red Speech in people’s minds, the more it will impact the midterms. You know, the ones where Democrats are hoping to hold the House and get at least 2 seats in the Senate? Yeah, try being a pro-Biden Democrat running on the “MAGA Republicans are the greatest threat to democracy right now…until they aren’t” message. That prospect is scarier than day-old sushi sold at Food Poisoning Emporium.

What should be even scarier for Leftists is the fact The Red Speech sounded and felt a lot like a speech from Donald Trump. All you would need to do is change a few words. Remember when we were told Joe Biden would be a better President because he wasn’t Trump? Almost two years and several clusterfucks later, the current President is sounding more and more like the former President and the Left doesn’t even see it.

Doubt me? Let’s check.

– The “otherization” of political opponents? Check.
– Blaming these “others” for problems Americans face? Check.
– Appealing to America’s greatness and resilience? Check.
– Promising to take action against those who threaten us? Check.
– Use of patriotic imagery as a backdrop? Check.
– Appeals to our emotions? Check.
– Cheers from audience members? Check.
– Rallying supporters to support party ideals and candidates? Check.

You get the idea. Leftists might not, but you do.

At this point, we should answer the lingering question why the Left slobbered over each other to praise The Red Speech. Aside from being full of the policy positions they love so much, it was also full of a lot of the stuff Leftists have been talking about in private being uttered in public. Normally, this would scare Leftists more than letting Biden go off-script, but in this case it’s exactly what they wanted because it makes those ideas seem plausible, possible, and inevitable. The Left has been talking about the possibility of civil war for a while now, either to criticize the Right or to pump up the Left’s egos to make them think they could win such a war easily. Even the President recently pooh-poohed the idea the Right could successfully beat the US military.

You know, the same MAGA Republicans who almost overthrew the government on January 6th, according to the Left?

I don’t understand the logic, either, kids.

What I do understand, though, is how The Red Speech fits into the Left’s totalitarian nature. They need to be in control of as much of our lives as possible, and post-COVID they’re looking for another hit of that sweet totalitarian shit. What better way to get people to run to the Left for protection than to overstate the threat the MAGA movement is to the country?

I’m not a MAGA guy, but I recognize some common traits in the members of the movement. Aside from being super-pro-Trump, that is. Most of the people being labeled as domestic terrorists by the Left are just regular people who just want to be left alone by government and for America to thrive. If you believe the Left, that’s what they want, too. They just have a different road to achieve it.

That road, of course, being letting them rule over everything and make all the important decisions because they’re so much smarter than we are. (Just ask them.) Since those pesky MAGA Republicans don’t agree with them, the Left has to resort to coercion and even force to get people to agree with them. Hence, the reason the midterms are so important to them and then the 2024 Presidential election.

Which makes The Red Speech seem like a much bigger fuck-up than I initially thought. Once you say the quiet part out loud, you’re kinda stuck with it. You can’t memory wipe the world…or can you?…no, no, you can’t. People are going to remember your words and hold you accountable to/for them.

Including people outside of your ideological sphere.

Conventional political wisdom says you have to try to attract the middle (i.e. the un-or-disenfranchised) to win elections. It’s easy to get voters if they already agree with your ideas, but it takes a bit of effort to expand that base to include people who may only agree with some of your ideas. And the more radical you appear, the less likely these possible voters will vote for you.

After The Red Speech, there are already Democrats trying to keep the stench off them in the hopes of still getting elected. And we’re not talking about no-name Democrats running for dog catcher, either. There are a few big name candidates ranging from Tim Ryan in Ohio to Raphael Warnock in Georgia. Although it can be argued they’re keeping their distance for reasons other than The Red Speech, it cannot be argued the speech itself makes it harder for red state Democrats to appeal to the middle, especially if they agree even a little bit with the MAGA Republicans.

Spoiler Alert, Leftists: It’s not just Republicans who support MAGA. There are more than a few people from your side who are getting turned off by the overheated bullshit and the lack of attention to more “kitchen table” issues that can make or break a candidate’s campaign. But, tell us again how buying an electric car will help when you practically need to take out a fourth mortgage just to get groceries.

The Red Speech won’t go down as one of the best speeches ever, but it certainly has lived down to its potential as one of the most infamous.