Posted on 02/10/2020 9:03:06 AM PST by EyesOfTX
I know, I know, but don’t laugh. – The Democrat Party has a long history of seeing surprise candidates emerge out of the New Hampshire primary. What’s interesting about this history is that the “surprise” has often not come with who won the primary, but in a candidate who finished as a surprisingly strong also-ran.
In 1972, Edmund Muskie won the primary as he was predicted to do, but it was radical-leftist candidate George McGovern who stole the thunder coming out of the Granite State, finishing in a surprisingly strong second place with over 37% of the vote. McGovern rode the momentum of that strong second place showing all the way to the nomination, culminating his year with an historic landslide loss to Richard Nixon.
In 1976, Jimmy Carter defied the pre-primary polls, narrowly defeating both Mo Udall and Birch Bayh to become the clear front-runner in the race for the nomination.
Colorado Senator Gary Hart shocked the pundits with a big win in New Hampshire over Walter Mondale in 1984. But it was the second-place finisher who ended up winning the nomination and the right to be the Democrats’ sacrificial lamb against Ronald Reagan.
Senator Paul Tsongas entered the 1992 New Hampshire primary with a strong polling lead over a crowded field, and to no one’s surprise, ended up winning. But it was Bill Clinton who stole the show, coming in second after having been basically written-off by all the “smart people” in Washington following a virtual no-show in the Iowa Caucuses. In his speech that evening, Clinton declared himself to be the “comeback kid,” and a fawning national press corps fell in love with him. The race for the nomination essentially ended that night.
Many will not remember that the Pantsuit Princess actually made a comeback of her own in New Hampshire in 2008, narrowly winning the primary following a poor showing in Iowa of her own. But despite losing, Barack Obama His Own Self stole the show with a powerful speech, and the same corrupt media that had jumped on the Clinton team in 1992 immediately signed up to play a similar role on Team Obama.
The Commie won big in New Hampshire in 2016, capturing 60% of the vote to 37% for the Fainting Felon. But by then the Clinton camp owned the DNC lock, stock and barrel, and succeeded in rigging the process against Sanders for the rest of the way.
So, who’s going to be the surprise of this year’s primary? It could very well be Amy Klobuchar, Senator from [checks notes] Minnesota. No one really took a Klobuchar candidacy seriously when she decided to enter the race over a year ago, and who knows – maybe last week’s 13%, 5th place finish in Iowa will turn out to have been her high water mark in the race.
But I keep getting this pesky feeling that she might surprise us.
Klobuchar has had a hard time raising money; she isn’t a flashy person who gets attention by shouting or cussing or making outrageous statements like so many of her competitors do; and she carries with her the baggage of a reputation as being one of the most abusive bosses on Capitol Hill. This is not an admirable person, but hey, she’s a Democrat so that doesn’t matter.
But she has basically become this race’s tortoise, plugging slowly but steadily behind a field of hares, slowly gaining ground on the field as they go off on their tirades and tangents. The photo that accompanies this piece captures the essence of her candidacy perfectly, standing there calmly, with a disapproving look on her face, in the midst of a pack of braying jackasses. It reminds me of the look my dear mother used to get when she would catch me and my brothers fighting in the back yard.
That photo is from last Friday’s debate, during which Klobuchar, by all accounts, had a pretty strong showing. I wouldn’t know, because I just cannot bring myself to waste 2-3 hours watching those things. But that seems to be the consensus.
Klobuchar has also been drawing some pretty strong crowds this week in New Hampshire, at least “strong” in the context of this Democrat race, where getting a high school gymnasium half-filled with voters and staff constitutes a “strong” turnout.
Klobuchar’s other main asset as a candidate is the storm that constantly brews around her in the form of the three braying jackasses in that photo, along with Preacher Pete and Faucahontas. Think about it: Klobuchar is the only candidate among those six who has not had a nickname bestowed upon her by President Donald Trump.
Finally, there is Klobuchar’s reputation as being a “moderate” among this field of leftist lunatics. As Joe Biden and his “electability” image rapidly implode, all of his voters are going to be looking to land somewhere. It seems to be that Klobuchar fills that bill better than any of the other candidates on the New Hampshire ballot, which does not include billionaire Mike Bloomberg.
All of these factors are combining to give me a sneaking suspicion that, when the dust settles late Tuesday evening, Amy Klobuchar might well be this year’s “surprise” coming out of New Hampshire. She isn’t going to win – The Commie almost certainly will do that unless the DNC can figure out a way to defraud the vote as it did in Iowa – but given the shifting dynamics in the field this week, it is conceivable she might receive more votes than Quid Pro Joe and/or Fauxcahontas.
Finishing ahead of either of those two would qualify Klobuchar as a “surprise.” Beating both of them would constitute a shock to the Democrat system. Either place would rocket her up to the top of speculation about being a running mate for the eventual nominee.
Tomorrow will be very, very interesting.
That is all.
FWIW some of the individual caucus votes that were stolen from Bernie were said to have been given to Amy—as well as to Mayo Cheat too, of course.
A younger healthier variant of the mean girl Hillary Rodham, but without Bill to add charm
Wuff. Greta, 10 years from now.
Talk about MGTOW.
It would be good to see four or five candidates in double digits the rest of the way. The more unsettled the race is by convention time, the better.
I live in Minnesota. I am so incredibly sick of Amy and her “reputation” as the reasonable mom next store who also just happens to be a US Senator.
The media here in Minnesota has painted Amy’s toenails for years now, eating up everything she says and does and furthering her phone reputation as a “moderate”.
Trust me, there’s nothing moderate about her voting record and nothing about her personality that indicates she’s a nice person.
Minnesotans love to vote on name ID. Amy benefitted from having the same last name as her dad, a very well-known columnist for the StarTribune newspaper. If her name had been anything but Klobuchar, she’d be some junior partner at a downtown Minneapolis law firm.
radical-leftist candidate George McGovern
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Compared to today’s crop, McGovern looks downright centrist.
I saw her in the latest debate.
My very reliable “sociopath meter” bounced off the charts with a “hit”.
I was thinking about this today. It kinda makes sense. I mean who the hell else????
Biden is in a tail spin, Mayor McPeteCheese is dead with 2% of black support and the fact that he has a fricken husband, and the DNC sabotaging Sanders...
...who the hell else?? seriously. Pochahontas is about as popular as a wool sweater in June.
What a glorious disaster to watch all of this.
Check her ties to the Pohlads.
I can’t imagine my POTUS ever having the first name of “Amy”.
Nope. She has no charisma. She reminds people of the woman boss on their first job at the Dairy Queen.
Here comes KlobberKnockers!
I think she has an opening to get in contention. Could box out Bloomberg..
At least McGovern served in WW2 flying 35 missions as a B-24 pilot.
Of course, they can’t come up with a single thing.
“Could box out Bloomberg..”
:)
Democrats of yore, even the ones we thought were too far left, still loved this country, many of them served.
Today’s Democrats hate America and Americans.
So Amy benefited from using her maiden name in politics. If she had run under her husband’s name (Bessler), would she have done as well as Hillary running as a Rodham instead of as a Clinton?
“Compared to today’s crop, McGovern looks downright centrist.”
Look up “McGovern Campaign 1972” and compare his platform to the views of Buttigieg, Warren or Klobuchar. Remarkably similar, IMO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.