I Am SICK Of Ds Being Warned That Their Strategies "May Backfire"

[stopbush]

* steals an election, "winning" by the narrowest of margins and it's all about "mandates" and "the American people expressing their confidence in this president."

Ah-nold gets his ass kicked in CA and suddenly the word from DEMs is that the Dems better be careful! Stonewalling Ah-nold may "backfire."

Here's today's weakling, Leon Panetta, expressing just that sentiment:

``Clearly, having scored a major victory, there's going to be a lot of Democrats who smell blood in the water and don't want to give him a chance to save himself,'' said Leon Panetta, who was Bill Clinton's chief of staff.

``When you're the majority party in the Legislature, you have a responsibility to govern as well. If it looks like they're stonewalling the governor, it could backfire on them.''

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/elections/13129838.htm

They just don't get it, do they? These DINOsaurs who are still living in 1991 mode. Ah-nold was soundly defeated because Ds acted like Ds used to act, not because they sought compromise or acted like R-lites. I voted against all of Ah-nold's power-grabbing initiatives because I want my Dem-controlled legislature to act like an opposition party and support the policies that the MAJORITY of Californians want, not to "find common ground" with a pathetic whackjob like Ah-nold. JHTDC!

Guys like Panetta were warning us before Tuesday that mounting an aggressive attack "could backfire." Well, it didn't. It worked. Now that the strategy proved *overwhelmingly successful,* they want us to crawl back in our cribs and act conciliatory or - worse - subservient. Bullshit!

I swear, it drives me crazy! These guys look to snatch defeat from the jaws of every victory, even when the victory is resounding.

Rant over.

[renie408]

1. I am just glad when somebody HAS a strategy. n/t

[Cha]

2. They told the Nurses that

in California, too..

"The Woman Behind Arnold's Defeat"

"Their activism started last November, after Schwarzenegger suspended key portions of the state's nurse-to-patient ratio to help hospital chains. "That really angered us," says DeMoro. But the nurses protested tentatively, almost timidly, until one pivotal day last December.

While the governor addressed a state convention of 10,000 women, a few nurses unfurled a protest banner that read "Hands Off Patient Ratios." Schwarzenegger grinned for the TV cameras, then said: "Pay no attention...to the special interests. I am always kicking their butts."

DeMoro was outraged. "For the Governor to denigrate nurses -- a historically female profession -- while speaking to an audience of women is an affront to women everywhere," she told CNN. Because Schwarzenegger had shut them out of the health-care debate, the nurses decided to take their case to the streets.

We were told to not make waves, that the people of California would turn against us to support their popular governor," DeMoro says. At the time, Schwarzenegger had a 65-percent approval rating, along with fawning cover stories in Fortune and Vanity Fair magazines."


Fascinating..
http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=2b2fda7241241ba88cab43b821c1e251

[MissMarple]

24. Right, it wasn't the Dems who routed Arnold, it was the Nightingales

and their persistent grass roots organizing the the other unions who followed in their footsteps. He threatened to kick the nurses' butts ,he deserved what he got, the big smirking bully.

They put him in one of those flimsy hospital gowns and showed his sorry butt to the world. The "king", indeed, wore no clothes.

[blm]

3. It's not just Clinton's gang talking like this, it's ALL the media pundits

It feels like one ENORMOUS manipulation game perpetrated against Democrats.

[Joe Chi Minh]

11. I agree whole-heartedly. Propaganda, first and last.

LOSERS!

I wonder do they ever specify in what way they might backfire? I can't ever recall them doing so.

[Al-CIAda]

25. Agree as well. Damn the torpedos, full steam ahead!

All the constant hand wringing and trepidation over the criminals who are running rampant is disgusting.

Out of the way you suck-ass LOSERS.

[aquart]

4. and when you hear it, remember that disinformation is their tool.

and they have been known to pay people to spread dissent, doubt, and dispair among us.

the people of this country are waiting, have been waiting, for the democrats to show a spinal column. when they do, the response is thunderous.

the republicans are liars. call them liars. they are traitors. call them traitors. they are greedy pigs with their blood-soaked cloven hooves in the public trough. say so.

[MADem]

5. Leon Panetta gives good advice--he is one smart guy

The way I read his remarks is different from your take. What I see is that he is saying DO NOT GLOAT, do not stop the wheels of government in a Newt-like way, to make a point, do not act like you are screwing with the guy for revenge, or sport, press forward with a positive agenda (and make sure you take some credit for it) and don't kick the guy excessively when he is so clearly down, because all it does is make you look like a mean GOP ass. Grab the agenda, and run with it. If you have to haul a steroid-laden nitwit behind you to do it, then do that, but make sure people can see the furrows in the ground from his being dragged along behind you.

Pragmatic politics. They usually win the day.

Edit/grammar

[stopbush]

8. Respectfully disagreeing, Panetta says that Dems should

give Ah-nold "a chance to redeem himself." That's not about gloating. That's about the fact that you *tried to save Ah-nold the embarrassment* before the election by pointing out to him how useless and wasteful his power grab was. But did Ah-nold listen? No. He went ahead with it anyway, insulting and disparaging our public servants in the process. And now that Ah-nold acted like the insensitive abuser that he is, we're supposed to step back and give him a chance to redeem himself? And this after Ah-nold hasn't shown even a sliver of humility after his defeat? Hell, he's got his spokesmen out there saying that it's full speed ahead on Ah-nold's reckless agenda, only THIS time, he's going to seek common ground with the legislature. Bullshit!

A leopard doesn't change its spots and neither will Ah-nold. This isn't a fucking sporting event where you go at each other like demons and shake hands at the end because it was only a game. Ah-nold may think it's only a game, but for those of us non-millionaires who live here it's not at all a game.

Sorry, I'm ranting again.

[MADem]

14. Well, he said 'save' not redeem

and it was said in the context of the Dems being IN THE MAJORITY and able to push the agenda forward, and in terms of simple governance. If Ahnuld is saved, he can function. Redemption implies being made whole again, and I don't think anyone wants to go there, except maybe Ahnuld himself.

There's nothing wrong with the Dems saying, yes, this was a huge waste of time and money, and as a result we, the state, have less cash to work with, but we will forgive the steroid laden nitwit and "MOVE ON"--for the sake of the state, and only for the sake of the state. We may occasionally remind him of his fuckup, but we won't stop the wheels of government to burn him at the stake--that does not help the citizens at all.

All Panetta is saying is don't crush the guy, for the sake of the ELECTORATE, not for Ah-nuld's sake. Take the long view and the high road. The Dems have all the momentum, now, and they can set the agenda. All they have to do is remind Ahnuld, if he balks, how badly his ideas, which were given a chance, failed. No need to rub it in.

Panetta, as I said above, is one smart, smart guy, and a statesman.

But hey, YMMV.

[stopbush]

19. You're right, Sorry for my typo.

Though now that you've pointed it out, save seems even worse than redeem.

[Joe Chi Minh]

20. Why, for the sake of the electorate, should the people play nice

with dumbo, MADem? Why not crush the girlie guy? Just one reason will do - not one word, discursive enough to make your point. What is the bugbear you are fearful of? The want of a sense of outrage and of a requirement for accountability is a serious moral deficiency, particularly in public life, albeit a besetting sin therein.

Indeed, I have read material here suggesting that, as with the government itself, the manner of dolt's accession to office may have been irregular. It did not seem to be a matter of gratutious speculation, but if someone can throw light on the matter, one way or the other, all to the good.

[MADem]

Dupe, damn mouse

[Joe Chi Minh]

31. You keep on saying that Panetta's a real intellectual hot-shot,

as if we're supposed to take your word for it, but the whole point here is that we are questioning your intellectual capacity and judgement, you know. Nothing personal, simply on the basis of what you are writing here.

I don't know why the back-lash you anticipate the Dems will face by "giving them what for" verbally should exercise you. If they're kiddies' games, why do you want to play nanny? The Dems get forward-lash from the Repugs anyway, and always have done. What's wrong with payback? A cat will cuff its kittens when they misbehave, and the kittens even understand it. You're the one who is too lukewarm to get angry. You wouldn't even make a Republican! At least they have passion and spirit.

In any case, I understood your point to be that the Democrats should accept idiot-features to the point of being civil to him. He's a political aberration created by neocon aberrants. None of them should be in politics.

[MADem]

35. Look, you are not gonna be convinced, you want blood on the floor

My opinion is that the politics of personal destruction card will not play anymore. We've seen its' effects on the national stage, and it translates to state platforms and local races, too. Polls suggest that people are sick of it.

You can point out errors while being civil, in fact, that is the best way to do it. It's a sign of a good education, IMO. I am not saying pretend none of the division happened--what I am saying is don't play the gotcha game. Don't gloat. Don't be snarky. Be honest, upfront, forthright--tell it like it is. The truth is the best weapon, not meanspiritedness.

Take a page from the Harry Reid playbook. He at all times behaves like a gentleman, and he has no trouble getting airtime of late.

[Joe Chi Minh]

38. Wait a minute. Is it hard-headed pragmatism you're advocating?

Or is it treating the media too as decent respectable gentlefolk, whose gracious patronage the Dems should solicit? Because they are gracious respectable people, who know how to behave? You're sending mixed messages.

[MADem]

41. No, I am not talking about the media at all

I am talking about talking OVER THE HEADS of the media directly to the electorate. It is essential that Democrats show themselves to be the mature adults, the leaders, not whiners, not people who will gleefullly play word games or insults, and who put the business of the people first.

If the media tries to frame, do like Harry Reid--REFRAME. If they behave like naughty schoolchildren, play the stern teacher and shut them down. But do it in a dignified fashion.

And if the media act like jerks, call them on it, but again, in a dignified fashion.

[Joe Chi Minh]

43. "He at all times behaves like a gentleman,

and he has no trouble getting airtime of late". Pardon me, but that sounds as if you are implying otherwise.

You seem to be implying that it was because Harry had been speaking to the chamber in a measured and dignified way that they accorded him air-time. Well, that he did, but I hardly think that was why they deigned to give him air-time.

I find some of the invective here a turn-off and some first-rate. But I think the point you may be trying to make is that the role of the prophet and the politician are essentially antithetical (even though truthful politicians will be prophets to that extent).

It is a point I have been trying to get over to John Kerry's critics.
Prophets will roar the truth come hell or high water, and that's that. Take it or leave it! (But you'd better take it...). Politicians need friends, at least helpful acquaintances.

I would just point out to you that you seem to me altogether too keen for the putatively "civilised", but actually deeply barbaric "status quo", to be maintained, and you actually fear not being able to manage the will of the people. You'd prefer that the people continue to live under the heel of the right, be it a Clinton Democrat government or Republican; a move to the left, being simply unacceptable.

For you, the tone of the discourse is a matter of good breeding, courtesy, etiquette, good manneers, etc. To them it is a matter of millions of good United States citizens being rendered destitute or a pay-ceck away from destitution, to satisfy the fathomless greed of the owners of a villainous military-industrial complex.

To me, and I suspect to a substantial majority of US citizens in both parties, it is a matter of honeyed words meaning nothing at the political level, but chicanery. The Old Testament is choc-a-bloc with references to honey-tongued villains. As the Psalmist put it: "No truth can be found in their mouths, their heart is all mischief, their throat a wide-open grave, all honey their speech." And elsewhere, "The traitor has turned against his friends; he has broken his word. His speech is softer than butter, but war is in his heart. His words are smoother than oil, but they are naked swords."

[MADem]

46. Your inference is wrong

And you are either reading too quickly, and missing my points, or you are deliberately dull of comprehension.

Here, in simple, short sentences:

Harry Reid has something to say. His points are strong, and they are valid. He could come out and make his points while calling the GOP a bunch of fucking poopy butts, and all that would do is allow the media to frame the issue as partisan. Partisan issues are always framed as RED VS BLUE, IN VS OUT, and fisticuffs are expected. Lots of heat, NO LIGHT. No real exploration of the ISSUES--instead, it all comes down to PERSONALITY.

Harry does not allow them to do that. He speaks in measured sentences, and when the press tries to frame the issue as partisan, he slaps them hard (in dignified fashion) and continually relates the issues to those of national security, integrity of classified information, the best interests of the American people.

He speaks firmly. He speaks clearly. He speaks in measured, resolute, serious tones. He does NOT call them names, sneer, or get snarky. And for this reason, people LISTEN TO HIM. He is speaking gravely, seriously, ergo, this shit must be GRAVE AND SERIOUS.

Eh, enough--I am being deliberately misconstrued, or baited. Not sure which, not sure why.

[Joe Chi Minh]

49. For crying out loud what is it with you?

Harry Reid is a politician. You want the Dems on the blogs and forums to act and speak like Harry Reid. That is not their job! For crying out loud!

Harry is speaking directly to them. I don't speak to neocons on here or anywhere. Why would they listen to me? They are, effectively by definition, in bad faith. People speak on Dem forums and blogs to each other. If trolls choose to look in well that's up to them. But I can't understand the mentality, except for the operatives.

Let's get down to specifics. As a matter of interest, do you think getting back to kind of Bill Clinton days would be OK. Or do think the party needs to move more purposefully to the left?

[MADem]

26. Because we do not, as a party, play personal destruction politics

I fear nothing, but I do believe in taking the high road.

I've met Panetta--he has one of the best minds I have ever encountered. From the quote provided, what I perceive him to be saying is this: Do not waste time slamming and crowing; move ahead with a legislatively-led agenda to benefit the citizenry; make the gropinator bring up the rear, following the lead of the legislators.

Smartass comments and insults may make us feel good in the short term, but they have a way of being remembered when things go south. Legislators should not engage in that sort of thing. They need to be the adults in charge, clearly, Ahnuld cannot handle the responsibility.

Look, it seems you aren't getting what I am saying. If people do something WRONG, say so. If they do something ILLEGAL, say so. If you DISAGREE, say so. But don't waste time dancing on the asshole's head and saying "Nanny, nanny, bubu!" It is perfectly acceptable to mention, early and often, the waste of government money and how much of it could have been spent on (fill in pork or pet project here). But playing that GOP insult game is just childish (and it is perfectly acceptable to point out that you won't pull that shit, like the GOP does--in fact, it is a good point to make). And eventually, it catches up with you.

[blm]

13. Except that's not the way media is using it. He shouldn't play into

their perceptions using the same language they do when they misrepresnt Dems.

Dems have been pushing sound policy. They do so with no attention paid to their actions. Whenever the GOP screws up big, the first words out of the media is that Dems better be careful.

It's a standard ploy of theirs.

It reminds me of the media saying the Dem convemtion will be all about bashing Bush because Dems offer no ideas of their own, and then Clinton advises DNC not to bash Bush.

It's all manipulation.

[Joe Chi Minh]

23. Remember the difference between the Democratic

Convention and the Republican one.

They had no policies to offer, because by their nature they had to reamin covert; if they told the pople it would have been all over for them - as it was in any case.

Kerry and Edwards, on the other hand, had a whole programme to lay out before the people, and spoke at length about it. And to say that it was inspiring to listen to them would have been uthe understatement of the century. And here you are trying to put the boot on the other foot. The people KNOW the Democrats have nation-saving policies.

[MADem]

28. Panetta is an Italian old school Democrat, from the Monterey area

He founded a public policy institute after his retirement. He takes good care of the farming families out his way. He is not a GOP tool by any stretch.

I thought his advice was good--be proactive, be productive, be the party of ideas. Works for me.

[blm]

32. I always liked Panetta. I know his history. I don't think he personally

is any tool fr anyone, but he hasn't caught on to the way the media is playing these lines.

[Joe Chi Minh]

16. You fail to recognise the mood of the people now, in spite of all

the evidence. Your counsel might indeed have been a counsel of prudence in normal times, and with a half-normal adversary, but neither is the case here. Chamberlain's idea of prudence, I'm afraid.

[MADem]

30. I am no Quisling (and that suggestion was rather unkind)

I just don't think we need to get down in the gutter, or waste our time shitting on an already-failed jerk. When you kick someone, again and again, when they are down, you sometimes see some blowback. The electorate may be sheep, but they sympathize when they see someone getting the shit kicked out of him when he is already passed out on the ropes. In the long term, it is bad form, and bad politics. It is what people do when they have no IDEAS, which is why it is so popular with the GOP.

Right now, Ahnuld is polling in the gutter, his agenda is DEAD, he is a lame duck, has been, blowhard idiot. He by his OWN ACTIONS revealed himself as wanting to the electorate. The legislators can now say, well, you guys voted for him, but never mind, you voted for us, too, and WE WILL LEAD. For the sake of the state, we will lead.

[Joe Chi Minh]

34. Yes, indeed the Dems will lead.

In the long term, the neocons are gone, and replaced by Eisenhower-type Republicans, whose input the country needs. That's my take on the long-term view.

And where you get the idea they need to "take the high road" with people who only respect an equally aggressive adversary, I can't imagine. You're asking them, as the man said, to take a knife to a gun-fight. With you to plead that bizarre case for them, they don't even need to do it themselves. Is it any wonder your sympathies cause puzzlement?

[MADem]

36. Because the people judging the match are not the GOP, they are the

electorate. And finally, they are PAYING ATTENTION.

[Joe Chi Minh]

39. And they are MAD ANGRY!

[kurth]

6. Critics can't even make music by rubbing their back legs together.

- Mel Brooks

[gulliver]

7. We must be careful not to cross the line ...

... the Republicans have drawn for us to stay behind.

[stopbush]

9. Excellent!

[Joe Chi Minh]

10. And pigs could fly....

[mtnsnake]

12. I agree w/you. Yes, Bushco is imploding, but if Dems think they can

simply sit around and not pitch in, they're gravely mistaken. It's a long year, and if Americans don't see Democrats start taking aim soon, they're gonna think Republicans are bad, but Democrats are indifferent. If Democrats think they can just wait until the 2006 campaigns to start in and talk about what happened in the past few years, we'll get blown out of the water again.

It's time for us to pitch in and deliver the knock-out punch, so voters will know where we stand.

[stopbush]

17. In the case of CA, Ah-nold will fight the Dems every step of the

way, no matter what they propose. He is a power freak. The Dems need to get CA back on track because Ah-nold really doesn't give a shit about CA.

I agree with you, the CA Dems need to get THEIR priorities and policies out there now and push as hard as they can. Let Ah-nold be the obstructionist. Californians might have mistakenly voted for what they thought was a moderate, but that doesn't mean they have to accept that they bought an all-day sucker. Maybe they just bought a Dum-Dum.

[sendero]

15. "I hope they don't BASH BUSH at the convention"...

... look how we fell for that nonsense and then when the Republican convention came along it was a 100% Kerry Bash Fest.

I'm sorry, I don't agree with Panetta or anyone who says we should be careful, be cautious, take baby steps.

That's just more of the same, "let's have a gunfight but you bring a knife".

[stopbush]

18. I think * will be so reviled by the convention that Dems should

bash Republicanism as a philosophy...as bad policy. In the words of Cheney, "wrap it all up." Focusing on * will be too narrow an attack, especially as he'll be irrelevant at that point. I have no doubt that the R candidate in 2008 will run as a *Reagan Republican.*

[sendero]

21. I was making..

... a point about the hypocricy (surprise!) of Republicans (and some Dems unfortunately) always telling us to hold back when they never hold back.

In 2004, I think bashing the Republican in general would have worked fine, in 2008 bashing Bush specifically would be great except he's not a candidate :)

[Sparkly]

29. "let's have a gunfight but you bring a knife" -- exactly.

Well said!

[rniel]

22. Exactly Lead, Follow or get the fuck out of the way

so they say...

[Cha]

27. I want to add that guys

like panetta are wusses who need to get outta the way and maria looks particularly strange in that faux victory picture with arh-nold.

[MADem]

33. Panetta is no wuss--he is wise

Shit all over Ahnuld, and you give him justification for any VETO he wants to invoke. Push your own agenda, play positive politics (that does not mean glossing over his errors, just avoiding the snarkiness, insults and horseshit that accompany political victories at times) and FORCE him to sign things he'd prefer to veto.

If he fails to play ball, tag HIM as an obstructionist. That is all I am saying. The way to marginalize him is to be bigger and better in real life than he pretends to be.

[Joe Chi Minh]

37. Now, that's sounds good sense - assuming that the Dems

will need his co-operation. Why you weren't more explicit, I don't know. If indeed that was your whole point.

[MADem]

42. Well, if the guv of most any state wants to screw you, he or she can

The ole veto is there. That is why I said the legislature needs to get out front, push the agenda, frame the issues, get the electorate behind them (in a mature, adult fashion, without name-calling) and that, in essence boxes Arnie in. He is then FORCED to bring up the rear, and sign the legislation--unless he wants to be viewed as being unresponsive to the citizenry.

Beat him up, mock him, and you give him an excuse to veto. Everything they try to do, Gropinator will then frame as a "kick Arnie while he is down" strategy. He'll whine "unfair" (or Un fay-yuh) and mud will fly, and nothing will be accomplished.

I am sure that was Panetta's point, as well.

[Joe Chi Minh]

44. Never mind about the mud flying. There you go again.

You spoil what sounds a good point - I don't know the technicalities so must take your word for it - by warning the Dems against being robustly adversarial, nay, heaven forbid, even belligerent, if the Republicans might take exception to it. That's what is required! That they take INFINITE exception to it. This implicit notion you seem to have, that they can now continue to call all the shots doesn't ring true to me. You know they're a busted flsh, and fear its possible political implications. I think you are fearful of the left. Clintonism is as far left as you would want to go.

[MADem]

45. No, you just do not seem to get my nuance, and I can't do any better

than I am doing trying to explain it. Or you just don't want to hear what I am saying. Dunno.

When people use words like crush 'em, kick 'em when they are down, that by its' very nature implies the same snarky shit we have been hearing from the GOP for way too fucking long. The DemocRAT party, all that stupid, childish shit. The public is sick of it, it is bugging even those who do not pay attention.

I do not object to waging a vigorous battle of ideas, I do not object to challenging them, but do it like Harry Reid does--with a little CLASS.

And where you are going with your ramble on sentence about the busted flush (?), that "they" can call the shots not ringing true to you, I have no idea. THEY in this case are the DEMOCRATS. The CA legislature is DEM OWNED, they have the deck and the conn. And Ahnuld does not have the 'political capital' to oppose them.

Eh, never mind.

[Joe Chi Minh]

47. I haven't checked my post ye, but what the heck are you

talking about AS having a veto for, then? You can't have it both ways! If he can't oppose them, why the pragmatism, in case he vetoes thee Dems?

[MADem]

48. Now you have totally lost me

In short: If the Democratic legislature of CA beats the shit out of Ahnuld, mocks him, destroys him, then he HAS NO MOTIVATION to work with them. He will veto everything and blame them.

Governors can veto anything they want. And sometimes they do it for lousy reasons.

[Joe Chi Minh]

50. But you just said he can't oppose them.

Which is it?

[Joe Chi Minh]

51. I think, and it is my fault, to a certain extent, we are arguing at

cross-purposes. I am thinking of the federal government, where you and Mr Panetta appear to be addressing the situation in AS's state, Ca and some bad-mouthing of AS that has presumably been going on, presumably on blogs and forums. Is that the case? Or are you talking about the politicians there?

[MADem]

53. Yes, the entire thread dealt with the California referendum

Panetta's response dealt with how the legislators should handle the aftermath.

[depakid]

40. These people epitomize why Dems have become irrelevant

in national politics.

The sooner the party wakes up to this fact and marginalizes them- the sooner they'll actually have at least a seat at the table again.

[FredStembottom]

52. I think the dem party has a genuine "5th column" inside it.

Not merely DINOS, I think they are infiltrators. If they aren't, how could I ever tell? With their constant, unstinting 24/7 work to ALWAYS try and stop ANYTHING that WORKS!

:mad:

[rman]

54. It's the RW's response when *their* strategies backfire.

Being deceptive as they are, it is to be expected that some will pose as dems while making such claims.

[UndergroundRadical]

55. It's sad but true

We HAVE to offer a solution. We cannot merely point out the holes in the ship that Karl Rove is desperately trying to put silly puddy onto. We have to create a separate ship that is more sturdy and we have to be a beacon to people who have been let down by this administration.

[Strawman]

56. Too much perception management and strategic gobbledygook

Take a stand on the fucking issues, stick by it and FIGHT hard for it.

[Stevepol]

57. Before chastising Dems, remember Kerry won the election by 5M votes.

I too don't like all this punditry about how the Dems failed in 04 and are failing now in some way or another.

The Dems are doing a great job now, they did a great job in 04 getting the vote out. Except for the voting machines, Kerry would be in the WH it seems to me, having won pretty much of a landslide, very close to one anyway.

I also don't think people should accuse the American people of stupidity. As a great post said some time ago, "The American people aren't stupid; they're just disenfranchised right now."

I think Dem power is growing all across the board and once fair vote counting is restored or something resembling it, there will be Dem majorities in both houses and a Dem in the WH. That would already be the case but for corrupt vote counting and blatant fraud in FL and OH.