Rules of the game
A primer for Democrats who are new to football and clueless about elections
Mr. Democrat, if I understand your situation correctly, you want to watch the upcoming Super Bowl game, but you are a novice to football. You want to understand the rules of the game before you sit down to watch it. Very well, let me spell it out to you in a nutshell. Let me explain the rules of football by comparing them to the rules of Presidential election contests. So put down your glass of wine, turn off NPR and listen up.
American football:
American football is a team game. One team competes with another team on a big field.
The objective of both teams is to win the game.
Which team wins the game?
The team with the most points on the board when the game ends.
If your team ends the game with fewer points than the opposing team, it has lost the game.
Get it?
It doesn’t matter that your team gained more net yards. Or that it possessed the ball for more minutes than the other team. Or that your quarterback completed a higher percentage of pass attempts than did the opposing quarterback. Or that he threw fewer interceptions. Or that he threw more touchdown passes than his counterpart. His team lost the game because it put up fewer points on the board than the opposing team. That’s it. Are we clear?
US Presidential elections:
Two or more candidates compete for office. Only one can win.
Which of the two or more candidates win the election?
The candidate who gets more electoral votes. Repeat: ELECTORAL VOTES
If the Democratic Party candidate gains fewer electoral votes than his or her opponent(s), the Democratic Party Presidential candidate loses the election.
Are you with me?
It doesn’t matter that your candidate achieved a higher popular vote. It is not about the popular vote. The popular vote is irrelevant. It is about electoral votes. Both parties know that from the outset. So leave your sour grapes in the fridge.
Now, you might think that these rules are unfair. You might think that total yards or total votes would be a more accurate and fair metric to determine winners or losers in football or Presidential elections . But if the objective of each team in a football game was to gain more net yards, the game would be played differently. Each team would employ a different strategy.
Under current rules, for example, If your team is ahead by 7 points with 5 minutes left on the clock, and the opposing team has a first down on its own 20 yard line, your team’s coach would provide more downfield coverage to ensure that the other team could not complete a long pass. He would be prepared to give up short yardage so as to “eat up the clock”. He doesn’t care that the opposing team might rack up more total yards in the process. He doesn’t care about those stats. The only stat he cares about are the stats on the scoreboard. Are we getting through to you now? Has that basic fact entered your brain yet?
It has? OK, good
By the same token, if there was no electoral college in American Presidential elections, Presidential candidates would campaign differently. They would focus their attention on states, counties and cities that are densely populated. They would bypass hinterland states with smaller populations. Those communities would be largely ignored. And so would their concerns.
If elections were decided by popular vote, there would be more regional alienation and calls for secession. The United States once went through a Civil War that resulted in the death of four percent of its population. Sensible Americans want to avoid that prospect at all costs. That is why there is a Senate where each state large or small in population or area gets two Senators. No more, no less. Notice that most European countries with a lower house elected by popular vote (aka “proportional representation”) also have an upper chamber that is elected in the same fashion as our American senators. They do this to thwart separatist sentiment.
Now we come to the point.
Democrats, HEAR THIS:
If ‘Dementia Joe’ wins the popular vote but Trump wins the election by picking up more electoral votes, QUIT WHINING. You knew going in that those were the rules of the game. Your candidate had the option of spending more time in less populated hinterland states, but he didn’t do that. Why?
Two possibilities.
- He was stupid or
- He, like most Democrats, have a contempt for rural folk, for ordinary, down to earth, blue collar people and farmers. They label them as a basket of deplorables. Ignorant bible clutching, gun toting Walmart shoppers who just love Country music. Oddly, these Democrats are the people who lecture us about racial stereotyping. But they have no problem stereotyping white working class Americans.
The most virulent disease in America is not racism, but classism.
As long as Democratic Party elite and their base carry that prejudice, more and more blue collar voters will switch to the Republican Party, as they have in droves.
How can these bigoted Democrats bring those voters back? It’s quite simple, really.
They can prioritize the welfare of AMERICAN citizens over the welfare of people who are not.
For starters, they can seal the borders and reduce the incoming flow of cheap labor which undercuts the wages and working conditions of American workers and destroys the social safety net upon which they depend. Take a look at Chicago and New York today and you’ll see what open borders does. That is what America will look like in the near future if the bigoted snobs and insane radicals in the Democratic Party remain in control. When Democratic Mayors of “sanctuary cities” ring the alarm bells, as they have been doing, it should be a wake up call for Democrat voters everywhere. Or one would hope.
Instead of throwing billions of dollars down a bottomless pit in Ukraine, they can spend that money on securing the border. They can avoid abandoning hundreds of millions of dollars of military equipment to the enemy. They can defund DEI and deploy the freed up money to the training of lower income people so that they can win jobs by MERIT……and so on.
Tim Murray February 3, 2024
PS I know that you are disappointed that I didn’t take the bait by claiming that Biden didn’t win the popular vote in 2020 because the election was rigged. You were ready to discredit me for repeating what you regard as an absurd accusation, which the courts have summarily rejected.
Well, let me tell you that I do believe that the election was rigged. But not for the reason you think I do. It was not about ballot box improprieties or voting machines. It was about censorship. About denying voters information which would surely have changed their votes. When Democrats in focus groups were exposed to the facts concerning Hunter Biden’s lap top, a decisive number of them indicated that had they know about those facts before voting day, they would have switched their votes to Trump. Trump would have won the election handedly.
The reality is that by controlling information governments, in collusion with Big Tech, are able to swing elections and influence the medical choices people make, as they did during the Covid period. If opposing sides of a medical issue, for example, are unable to debate on an even playing field, citizens cannot make informed decisions regarding insufficiently tested “vaccines”. Their compliance therefore cannot be regarded as voluntary, under the terms of the Nuremburg Code.
“Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.”― Pravin Lal
