SAN ANTONIO, October 3, 2014 — The Democratic Party does not win national and state-wide elections because it stands on noble principles that most Americans share. It stands for nothing. The stands it adopts are driven by the polls, on every issue, particularly during election years.
Democrats win elections because the party is a conglomerate of different grievance groups, each of which the Democrats have promised certain benefits. These groups include unions, African Americans, hispanics, the LGBT community, environmentalists, members of academia, Muslims, and the anti-war crowd — which seems to be in hibernation, at least until another Republican president takes office.
Americans who strongly identify with these groups religiously vote Democrat. Therefore when election time comes around, the Party ignores these groups to focus on what the polls show is most popular with the American people, especially with the one single group that is the most unreliable of all the grievance groups that make up the Democratic base: single women.
To show how critical the single women vote is to Democrat victories, the Washington Post recently published an article that included insight from election experts who claimed that even a one-point difference in the single women turnout could mean the difference between Democrats winning or losing control of the Senate.
The following current events demonstrate that the only thing necessary to predict Democratic behavior during election seasons is to follow the polls and determine what Democrats believe will motivate single women to vote.
The delay of Obama’s illegal amnesty for 5-6 million illegals until after the elections.
Hispanic grievance groups like La Raza and United We Dream met with President Obama many times to help shape the next round of the illegal amnesty that he was and still is, planning to unilaterally and unconstitutionally grant to millions of illegal immigrants. Obama repeatedly promised these groups that he would announce these executive actions prior to the November elections.
However, that was until his previous round of illegal executive amnesty, the Deferred Action for Children’s Act (DACA), caused tens of thousands of unaccompanied children to show up at our border and brought this crisis to the forefront of American politics. DACA was such a miserable failure, and support for another round of illegal amnesty fell so low among the American people that vulnerable Senate Democrats have begged Obama to delay his second round of illegal amnesty.
Despite severe disappointment among the hispanic grievance groups, Obama has agreed to wait. As CNN recently reported, Cristina Jimenez of United We Dream said, “The President’s latest broken promise is another slap to the face of the Latino and immigrant community.” Jimenez obviously does not understand the modern Democrat party’s election year politics.
ISIS and Obama’s Iraq War
The timing of ISIS’s emergence as a serious danger to the homeland has been problematic for Obama. However, he handled it as any modern Democrat politician would: He disavowed every one of his previous positions, violated the express language of the Constitution to save Congressional Democrats from being held accountable by their constituents, and announced a plan that will inevitably fail. It will, however, appease the American public, at least until Nov. 5, 2014, the day after the midterm elections.
When ISIS emerged as a real threat, Obama had two considerations in reacting to it, this being an election year: to make sure that congressional Democrats do not have to vote on any military action to avoid being held accountable by their constituents; and, to do just enough of what the American people want to appease us until after the midterm elections.
Obama’s ultimate decision to launch a bombing campaign against ISIS could easily have been predicted by simply watching the polls of the American people. CNN reports that 73 percent of Americans back airstrikes against ISIS, yet fewer than 40 percent believe we should put American boots on the ground in Iraq and Syria.
In reaction, Obama has announced a sustained bombing campaign against ISIS but has, contrary to the advice of the military and intelligence communities, stated that under no circumstances will America ever send in ground troops. This unequivocal statement of our future intentions to the world and our enemies may seem idiotic, but it is an election year, so all that matters to Obama and the Democrats is what polls say.
War on the NFL
The Obama Administration, the Democrats and their cohorts in the media have all placed heavy focus on the relatively few NFL players who have run into trouble with the law for spousal and child abuse issues. Although distraction from Obama’s awful policies and the chaos they have caused at home and abroad partially explain why Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson have dominated the news for the last few weeks, the main reason comes back to motivating single women to vote.
On September 19, President Obama coincidentally announced the creation of his “It’s On Us” campaign to fight abuse against women. In his star-studded kick-off event at the Whitehouse, Obama said: “As far as we’ve come, from sports leagues to pop culture to politics, our society still does not sufficiently value women. The issue of violence against women is now in the news every day.”
On the same day that he announced his new initiative, Hillary Clinton, speaking at an event for Democrat women, also got in on the anti-NFL game. After announcing that Bill Clinton signed into law the Violence Against Women Act, she said, “It was a great victory. But celebration of this anniversary was tempered by troubling news on many fronts, from the outrages of the NFL, to more assaults against women in uniform and at college.”
The rate of arrests for abuse — both sexual and general — in the NFL is lower than it has ever been, and the rate of sexual assault in the general population has fallen 64 percent since 1995, but these facts don’t fit the Democrats’ narrative, so they will be ignored by the media. Instead, the focus on the relatively few arrests for abuse in the NFL will continue to dominate the airwaves, at least until after the election.
Obama is currently in complete hibernation in hopes that he won’t have to answer questions about the purely political Iraq War that he has just started. However, when he does choose to speak or act between now and the election, his behavior will be easily predictable by watching the polls and considering what may increase turnout of single women in November.