Chelsea Clinton and the Democrats' Dullard Dynasty

As the pendulum swings against the GOP, an exhausted opposition looks to nothingburgers like Chelsea Clinton.


Fundamentals suggest that this should be a golden moment for the Democratic Party. The first special congressional elections since President Donald Trump settled into the Oval Office have provided an evidentiary taste: In Kansas on April 11, Republican Ron Estes won by seven percentage points in a district Trump carried by 27. In Georgia on April 18, Democratic newcomer Jon Ossoff stomped his nearest Republican rival, Karen Handel, 48.1–19.8 percent, in a district Trump won by a single percentage point. That race now graduates to a June 20 runoff, which is projected to be close, but Ossoff has already overperformed expectations.

The generic congressional ballot average—that is, who voters favor between a standard-issue Republican or a typical Democrat—was as of mid-April underwater for the GOP by six percentage points. If that number holds, it will mark the worst recorded January-to-June showing in the year before a midterm election for the party that controls the House of Representatives. Republicans previously polled at minus-four points in 2005 (a year before losing the House) and in 1997 (a year before Democrats gained five seats in a historic reversal of the presidential "six-year itch").

Within his first three months in office, Trump already surpassed the lowest-ever Gallup numbers of predecessors Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Gerald Ford, John F. Kennedy, and Dwight Eisenhower. At their 90-day marks, all presidents from Dwight Eisenhower onward had an average approval rating of at least 55 percent; Trump's was a sickly 41 percent.

But it's the nature of contemporary American politics to confuse the routine swing of the two-party pendulum with a historic shift in national sentiment. Amazon.com's subsection for books on politics is a graveyard of such premature end-zone dancing, from 2002's The Emerging Democratic Majority by John Judis and Ruy Teixeira, published just months before George W. Bush became the first-ever Republican president to see his party gain in both houses during a midterm, to Hugh Hewitt's Painting the Map Red: The Fight to Create a Permanent Republican Majority, which preceded the Democrats retaking Congress in 2006 for the first time in 12 years.

The donkeys may be picking themselves up off the mat, but don't confuse that for voter enthusiasm. Political self-identification as measured by Gallup was stuck down at 30 percent for Democrats (and 26 percent for Republicans) as of March; the party has failed to attract even one-third of Americans to its label for four long years now.

Why the reticence? For one of the main reasons, just consult any recent edition of The Hill. There, since the beginning of the year, the Washington, D.C., political newspaper has published scores of items noodling on the relentlessly banal musings of a person who has never held a job remotely near government: Chelsea Clinton.

There was "Chelsea Clinton fuels speculation of political run," "Chelsea Clinton plans new children's book," and—God help us—"Chelsea Clinton knocks ObamaCare replacement plan."

While providing the former first daughter generous helpings of airtime to promote her young adult rah-rah book It's Your World: Get Informed, Get Inspired & Get Going!, news anchors such as CBS' Gayle King have all but begged Clinton to run not just for elected office but for president. Like, three years from now. ("I'm definitely not the right person to run to defeat [Trump] in 2020," Clinton replied. "So right now, the answer is no.")

This 100 percent top-down campaign to whip up enthusiasm for Clinton 3.0 reached a low point with a Los Angeles Times op-ed by Ann Friedman featuring the gag-me headline, "Just like her mother, Chelsea Clinton never gets a break." Yes, the poor dear had to scratch and claw for every penny of the $600,000 annual NBC News salary she received to produce an estimated 58 minutes of programming between 2011 and 2014.

Like former first lady Michelle Obama, whose name has also been whispered fervently by would-be queenmakers, Chelsea Clinton could exist as a hypothetical candidate only in a party that has run out of both ideas and talent. Surely there are more interesting politicians in this country of 320 million than rich, platitude-spewing amateurs with drearily famous last names.

NEXT: Brickbat: When Push Comes to Shove

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Surely there are more interesting politicians in this country of 320 million than rich, platitude-spewing amateurs with drearily famous last names.

    Dwayne Johnson?

    1. I don’t know. The last time we had a Johnson in office it didn’t turn out too well…

      1. America just needs a bigger Johnson.

        1. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

          This is what I do… http://www.webcash10.com

      2. The last time we had a Johnson in office it didn’t turn out too well

        You are referring to Bill Clinton, yes?

  2. The article assumes that people vote based mostly on party labels. That’s silly. Americana are mostly independents and will vote for the candidate they like our stay home.

    1. Are you familiar with the signs of a stroke?

      1. Are you familiar with reality? You should try looking it up some time: the plurality of Americans are independents, and the plurality don’t vote for either candidate.

        1. I think Steve-O was referring to the two typos in a post that was otherwise meaningless.

          1. Wow, your comment wasn’t there when I started replying, else I wouldn’t’ve. They’re getting way behind showing up.

        2. I think Steve-O meant your Typ-Os.

        3. The plurality of Americans say they are independents, but they vote 95 percent for Republicans and Democrats.

          1. ^ yep

            1. Define “voting for.”

              A whole bunch of people who voted R weren’t voting for Trump as much as they were voting against Clinton.

              I remember voting for candidates. I remember voting against candidates. This time it was “Which one are you least afraid of?”

          2. Probably not really true.

            In 2016, there were 200 million registered voters. Trump and Clinton combined received 130 million votes. So that’s 70 million registered voters who did not vote. Chances are most of them are registered as independent or think of themselves as independent – and that’s kinda close to the best estimates of the percentage of voters who call themselves independent (35% or so).

            Certainly those who think of themselves as R or D will ALWAYS vote for whatever piece of camel dung the D’s and R’s nominate. Independents are increasingly staying home.

            1. At minimum, that is true in my city/county as well. Clinton’s vote total equalled D registration. Trump’s was a bit less than R registration. I’s didn’t vote (mostly) or went third party.

        4. As the comments below explain, I was referring to a post that began intelligibly and trailed off into gibberish due to typos, hilariously resembling a stroke. Strokes are so funny. As for the substance of your thought, I really have no opinion.

    2. How does one explain those who vote straight party tickets, one wonders? Using the plurality of people who didn’t vote at all is perhaps indicative of something else; specifically that most people are under the assumption their vote doesn’t matter. The fact that any political scientist you care to talk to will say that those people are correct is perhaps a fly in your ointment.

      The only vote that matters is the bloc vote.

      1. Only the bloc vote? Wot about the what vote?

      2. Someone clever and independent could undermine that bloc vote. Those who don’t vote are in fact expressing a preference – ie they don’t have a strong preference for the other names specified. Those votes should be recorded as a vote for random selection (sortition/lottery – just like Athens had). ie pick a random name from the list – and that’s the winner. Only works for statewide or district-based elections – not national – but that would completely change politics/elections and obliterate big money influence.

      3. I’m what is commonly referred to as a Crank. I think we might tempt some of the people who didn’t vote out if we offered an option of “Throw both of these jerks off the Washington Monument, and start over.”

        You know, in line with Mencken’s idea of keeping perpetual losers from clogging up the system by doing so to the loser at the hight of the inauguration.

  3. From what I’ve overheard coming from people who still believe in their political betters, at least lefty ones, Chelsea elicits precisely zero enthusiasm. Michelle Obama, on the other hand, has them swooning.

    I guess it’s based on her concern about what children eat. I must be particularly hard-hearted, since I don’t much care what children eat except for my own when very young.

    But that aligns with my pathology, I suppose: I believe that it is the job of parents to think about what their individual children eat. It is no one’s job to worry about what other people’s children are eating assuming they are not orphans. But I’m weird, I know…

    1. I’d say they view Michelle Obama as a “classy ,sassy. big black momma who gonna whoop dem damn Repbicans and break her foot off in der ass!”

      1. If she dresses like Aunt Jemima and carries around a wooden spoon I think she’s a shoe-in for the office.

        The first Cooking President.

        ‘I made you all some fine pancakes!’

        ‘Yes, Ms. President (she divorced Barry), but this is a conference on North Korea, what do you think?’

        ‘I think that young man needs more….syrup on them pancakes! It’s made with buckwheat!’

        /journalists spit out pancakes.

      2. They’ve seen too many ‘Madea’ movies. No one’s like that in real life.

    2. “It is no one’s job to worry about what other people’s children are eating especially if they are orphans”

      There, FIFY

      1. “It is no one’s job to worry about what other people’s children are eating especially if they are orphans”

    3. Also, Michelle Obama is a twofer: both a woman, and black. So if you don’t enthusiastically wish for her to be president, it’s ironclad proof that you’re both a misogynist and a racist. And a poopyhead!

      1. And a sneaky way to get the Light Bringer back on the throne.

    4. Michelle Obama, on the other hand, has them swooning.

      It’s the intersectionality: dark skin, female, rabid leftist, an anger problem, poor academic performance (just read her thesis), and apparently fluid gender identity, all rolled into one! That’s the kind of candidate a progressive loves!

      1. God, what a train wreck THAT campaign would be!

    5. NPR has started talking up Kamala Harris. I don’t think Michelle O. wants the job, but Harris does. Badly.

      1. She has the ambition and the will to dominate. Also she check marks all the necessary boxes for team blue candidacy. Coming soon to a nation near you!

        1. If cali passes its single payer bill and is collapses, that could do a number on her credibility come 2020

  4. Dammit, Matt. It’s too early in the morning to be subjected to Chelsea’s face!

    1. Yes, Matt. In the future please post a warning of graphic content in advance of throwing up a picture of Chelsea Clinton.

      1. “Throwing up a picture of Chelsea Clinton” is appropriate phrasing.

        1. I just threw up a picture of Chelsea Clinton in my mouth a little.

    2. God, that poor kid. She looks more like her phantasmagorically unattractive mother every year. Maybe she’s a clone. No, come to think of it, she has her father’s teeth. If she had the common sense God gave a turnip she would go into some heavily disqualifying field, like Porn, and then retire quietly, get a new face, and get restraining orders on her repulsive parents.

  5. “Democratic newcomer Jon Ossoff stomped his nearest Republican rival, Karen Handel, 48.1?19.8 percent, in a district Trump won by a single percentage point. That race now graduates to a June 20 runoff, which is projected to be close, but Ossoff has already overperformed expectations.
    Will you people get your facts straight and stop trying to make Ossoff like he has any chance of winning in Georgia.
    Ossoff was the main Democrat of 5 running against 11 Republicans and 2 independents.
    Georgia special election
    Ossoff (D): 92,673 votes
    Handel (R): 38, 071 votes
    Gray (R): 20,802 votes
    Hill (R): 16,870 votes
    Moody (R): 17,028
    Wilson (R): 1,820
    Abroms (R): 1,639
    96,230 votes to 92,673. So Ossoff ended up losing overall by 51.9% of the vote. Ossoff was the clear choice for Democrats and clearly Republican split their votes to pick from different candidates. Ossoff will lose in the special election runoff between Handel and Ossoff.

    1. It’s all in how you spin it, You know, lairs figure, figures lie…

    2. The Ossoff ‘victory’ is interesting because it triggered another race that went the same way.

      Judson Hill decided to try for Congress–that triggered a special election for his seat in the state senate.

      In that election, Christine Triebsch, another Democrat, was the ‘victor’–though the final totals also triggered the runoff. Not surprising when you consider that there were 5 Republicans running against 3 Democrats–almost the exact same split as the Congressional race, and, again like the Congressional race, only one Democrat got any solid support.

      But unlike the Congressional race, the state senate run off has already happened. And what was the result?

      The Republican won–57%-43%


      So then the first bit of this piece should read–

      Fundamentals suggest that this should remain an horrific moment for the Democratic Party. The first special congressional elections since President Donald Trump settled into the Oval Office have only extended GOP victories…..

      Fixed that for ya.

      1. Does anyone hear about the Kansas 4th Congressional district election anymore?

        No, because Estes (R) won. This was also a “close race”. As you pointed out, the media is spinning these special elections and getting away with it.

        The media tried to say Democrats winning this race was a signal of bad things for Trump.
        NPR propaganda
        So, a Republican winning are not a signal of good things for Trump?

        1. When they win at a much, much smaller margin than expected, yes. Because the point is to look at the 2018 election.

          1. What are the numbers in relation to other special elections?

            They seem determined to compare these special elections to the numbers in general elections.

            When you compare them to other special elections a very different pattern emerges.

            And it’s REALLY bad for Democrats.

            People try to run, the DNC picks the ‘favorite’–and then ignores or works against everyone else.

            On the GOP side the electorate is invigorated–you can run and win even if the RNC hates you. The party belongs more to the members than to the politicos.

            1. Ossoff is the only gold haired boy the DNC has picked. Every one else got most of their funding via self promotion and small individual donations from out of state. I think that is one of the concerns the Republicans.

              While POTUS was not the RNC’s choice, and in this regards you are correct about the membership, all special elections have gone the traditional route: The RNC spends as little as possible and counts on elected officials to show up and convince their base to go out and vote. The Georgia and Montana are/were true battlegrounds (although I think Ossoff lost it on the “who will you vote for”) in which if the Democrat won, it would not mean much. The Kansas seat was different.

              I think both sides are bought and paid for (and cheaply), and the fix is to either change the current electoral voting system the so that districts be counted individually instead of state blocks or dropping the system altogether.

              1. I live in Georgia, so I don’t know much about Montana politics. Gianforte was involved in an altercation with a reporter and still won that special election.

                Georgia is not a battleground state. The media would like it to be. True, there are a lot of lefties moving here but they are limited to only a few districts. Atlanta runs blue. Overall, Georgia has mostly Republican politicians in office or RINOs who are Democrats that know that Democrats don’t really win in Georgia.

                The media tried to make out that republicans were scared that Ossoff would win. Republicans are not scared of that and do not spend much money to beat Ossoff. Meanwhile Democrat hacks like Pelosi are funneling big money for Ossoff.

          2. When they win at a much, much smaller margin than expected, yes. Because the point is to look at the 2018 election

            “They may have lost, but at least they covered the spread!”

            A loser who covers the spread is still a loser.

  6. It will be interesting to see how the first midterm elections under the Trump administration go. Historically Republicans kick the shit out of Dems in off-year election cycles.

    It will be interesting to see if that holds, particularly if the R’s keep dithering on healthcare and tax reform.

    1. Historically Republicans kick the shit out of Dems in off-year election cycles.

      Ahem, 2006 would like a word with you…
      But yes, they do tend to perform better in the off-years, so they’ll have had to piss off their base to lose in 2018. The Dems are resting on laurels they don’t have, considering that in 2016 the House Rs over-performed Trump (63.1M votes vs 62.9M) while the House Ds underperformed Hillary Clinton (61.7M vs 65.8M). If there is greater enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton than your party at large, you’re not going to have an easy mid-term.

      1. It’s the party that’s not in the White House that tends to do better in the off-years. It’s not endemic to either one.

  7. They should go back to running a random black guy. Worked great for them last time.

  8. I’m definitely not the right person to run

    Huh, so Chelsea has SOME self-awareness, if only she had stopped there.

  9. If only the right Kennedy would come along, we could all return to [our favorite episodes of] Camelot.

    1. I’d vote for Lisa Kennedy.

      1. I can’t seem to get past the eye wear. It just sort of takes over.

        1. Plus she’d never let America get a word in edgewise.

      2. Another Kennedy in the White House?

    2. Back when I lived in Mass. in the early 90s, there was a Kennedy (NOT of THE Kennedys) running for some low-level local office as a republican and he won, presumably all because of the name.

  10. Poor Chelsea. She has Hillary’s charisma, Bill’s sense of self-control, and Web Hubbell’s good looks.

    Are we sure she exists and isn’t just some twitterbot? Seems it would be pretty trivial to program something to spit out “sassy” tweets like: “No. Just no.” and “Rape is bad, mmmmmkay?”

    It would be fun to see her actually run for office, and witness the moment when “well, she has famous parents and she is good at signaling that she has the correct opinions” meets the reality of running a campaign for an actual public office, where she might have to answer questions that weren’t submitted for approval in advance, or be interrupted, or have to speak on a topic other than “girls are great, but we need to support them and tell them how great they are, lest the misogyny of this world drag them down, the same way it has held me back all my life!”

    1. There are plenty of places [like NY] where the electorate would put her in office without so much as a reflexive thought. That is where she will start. She was born to public office, and will likely die there 60 years from now.

      1. You are a serious downer on my morning, because you may well be right.

        1. Except that nationally, Chelsea has no appeal. Hillary proved that point. NY accepted her BS to become a Senator and then when she tried to win nationally, she got slapped down.

          1. True, but she will rise as far as old Peter Principle and the “stupid American electorate” will let her.

      2. Yes, but it isn’t 2000 anymore. The name “Clinton” now carries at least as much baggage as it does cache. They can try to poison the well and push someone out of the way of a NY House or Senate seat, but Team Blue isn’t guaranteed to lie back and take it anymore. Some Bernie style primary challenger on the left would have a field day with the clip of Chelsea sitting in her $10 million Manhattan apartment with the 250-foot-long hallways and explaining to us how she tried really, really hard but she just can’t make herself care about money.

        She’s lived a life of privilege and luxury and is so sheltered that she doesn’t even realize it. Throwing her into the circus of retail politics, which her parents have ironically shielded her from, won’t be pretty.

        1. I don’t think the Democratic Party is catering to American workers much anymore. Immigrants, yes.

          So, showing Chelsea as a rich elite is in tune with what people watch on crap tv.

          1. So, showing Chelsea as a rich elite is in tune with what people watch on crap tv.

            I’ve said this before, but Chelsea is the Paris Hilton of the Democrat party. She’s famous for her name, not for anything she’s actually done, with the same lack of self-awareness.

    2. Chelsea on terrorist attacks: That’s not right!
      Chelsea on the economy: It needs to be more fair!
      Chelsea on cooking: The secret to cooking is using salt!
      Chelsea on kids: They eventually grow up!
      Chelsea on illegal immigration: Make the illegal part legal!
      Chelsea on money: More please!

    3. where she might have to answer questions that weren’t submitted for approval in advance

      And when does that ever happen to a Democrat running in a US election?

      Hillary’s problem was that she couldn’t avoid making a fool of herself with questions submitted for approval in advance.

  11. What the Dems aren’t getting is that they have to provide an alternative.

    “Generic Democrat” probably polls well. When you look at the assorted lunatics who would win primaries to run, the numbers will crash through the floor.

    As bad as Trump’s numbers are and as angry as Dems are that Hillary didn’t win…few would seriously argue that Trump would lose NOW if they ran again.

    It’s because the Dems have a “We don’t have a better candidate” problem.

    Have they run “close” in special elections? Yes. They’ve spent a killing and run close.

    …but they’ve lost. Repeatedly. Spending a ton of money when your party isn’t flush with cash and losing is pretty bad.

    1. The special elections are a tool to gain cash for the DNC.

      There was not chance of a Democrat winning those special elections but if the media claims that they are close, stupid Democrat supporters send in cash. Because some more cash always helps- NOT!

      For Georgia, Ossoff is a carpetbagger and Southerns don’t like them carpetbaggers.

      1. Looking at their fund raising reports, it doesn’t seem to helping the Dems.

      2. Yet he’s making it it close. If they hate them carpetbaggers why is doing well?

        1. As I said, he garnered nearly all the Democrat vote. The Republican vote was split between 11 Republicans and 2 independents.

          I would be willing to bet that some Republicans did not vote yet and will vote when its just Handel and Ossoff. If the race was that close, the old people would come out in droves to defeat a carpetbagger.

          Another reason is that a lot of Democrats have moved to this area. Overall Georgia goes Republican except for Atlanta.

          Ossoff is trying to portray himself as a fiscally responsible progressive. Haha. That is funny stuff right there.

          1. Ah.

            Yes, I see his commercials. It’s quite comical to see a progressive suddenly care about taxpayers.

            1. Well, he cares about them NOW.

              If he wins, the day after the election, his concern will be far more muted.

    2. The Clintons have poisoned the well to prevent any challenge arising to Hillary’s turn for so long now that there is nothing alive down there to come up. “Shattered” talks about how Hillary rated every Democratic member of congress for their personal loyalty to her, and if they scored too low then they sent Bill out to campaign against the traitor in the Blue primaries.

      After over a decade of this, and after a lifetime of Hillary rewarding loyalty over competence, they are left with no rising stars. Who are the fresh, young voices they send out to fire up the kids today? Bernie Sanders, Lizzie Warren, Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer. Ask anyone just why it is that one of these antiquarian mediocrities is in a position of power, and it is always the same answer: “Well, they are good at taking in campaign donations”. It’s the Clinton’s party and everyone else just lives in it.

  12. “So right now, the answer is no.”

    Right now it’s no. Maybe later.

    God help these United States.

  13. Chelsea/Michelle 2020, 2024 AND 2028!

    1. Double women candidates! How could anyone vote against them? Unless you hate women.

      1. You know this will be a talking point if/when they do run.

        1. Voters do what they are told. It’s gonna be hilarious and nauseating at the same time when tow women are running against each other.

          I wish kim would lob one of those missiles right into Washington DC

  14. What this country needs is a whore mongering serial rapist for President. Never mind we already tried that. Might as well elect his offspring. Oh that is right he is sterile. Quess the Democrats will have to settle foe Pocahontas.

  15. Chelsea Clinton: All the beauty of Amy Carter with the charisma of Tricia Nixon. What’s not to like?

    1. What do you get when you cross a sleazy lawyer and a crooked politician?

      1. I’m betting her husband could also be a nice pi?ata to smack around.

        “Chelsea, you couldn’t care about money you claimed…yet you married a spectacularly terrible hedge fund manager. Why?”

      2. A political dynasty that strides across decades?

      3. Which one was which?

  16. I got to admit, I’m happy the left is starting to try and push Chelsea into the limelight. She is the absolute worst candidate they could pick. Michelle Obama could get people to swoon all over her by portraying herself as a female version of her husband, but Chelsea? She’s just one more sad grab for power from a family that knows nothing else. The dem base barely tolerated her mother. They’d have a hard time getting excited for her.

    1. She is the absolute worst candidate they could pick.

      No-that honor belongs to her mom.

  17. If the last election proved anything its that voters are sick and tired of the fucking Clintons.

    1. And Bushes

      1. I’m sick and tired of Clinton bushes.
        Bill is criminal scum but he actually was a better president than Bush and Obama and likely Trump. He actually did a few things to reduce the size of government for a short while.

        He also saw to it that a lot of people’s land out west was essentially taken from them so scum bag nonetheless.

  18. I don’t think Michelle or Chelsea are very smart at all and it would show over the course of their runs. They aren’t particularly charismatic independent of their names either. For as evil and out-of-touch as Hillary was, I’d never call her dumb, and she was devoid of charisma but knew how to hit all of the generic politician bits as well as anyone

  19. If Chelsea wins a nomination I will readily (and sadly) announce the death of the Democratic Party. I hope she’s aware enough to not even run, and my best guess is that even if she does she gets about as much traction as Jeb did.

    If she actually wins though….holy fucking shit. We’re all screwed. Between Republican behavior during the Trump administration and Chelsea Clinton winning the nomination for President, there will be incontrovertible proof of what I’ve long suspected: the Republicans are conniving and evil, and the Democrats are laughably, hilarious, incompetent.

    1. It should be obvious by now, after Clinton, Bush II, Obama, and now Trump. That it really doesn’t matter who the president is, since he or she really isn’t the one running the show. Chelsea will have her very own team of handlers to make all the decisions, she just has to smile and look pretty while apologizing for the latest school or wedding to get blown up by a drone.

      1. “Chelsea will have her very own team of handlers ”

        Great, the only thing worse than a Clinton administration: being ruled by a Chelsea Handler.

        “she just has to smile and look pretty”

        You had ONE job, and you couldn’t even do that right!!!

      2. Who the president is matters a lot more than that, but less than it does in popular imagination.

    2. Unsurprisingly you confuse the party of stupid and the party of evil.

      1. It’s an easy mistake to make, especially since the Stupid Party and the Evil Party switch every few cycles.

      2. Ah yes, we’ve reached the level of partisan bickering where we can argue over which side is incompetent and which side is evil. It’s (somehow?) better to just be stupid, so each of us will be attempting to stake the claim that our side is merely incapable, while the other has ill-intentions.

        Nope. I’m not doing that. I love a good political dust-up, but I have not reached that level of desperation.

  20. The trend lately is for prez candidates to come out of nowhere. Bush Jr. was the last “my turn” president?the GOP used to go for them a lot for nominations?& since then it’s been Obama (short time in state legislature & US sen.) & Trump (formerly made lots of political noise, but not seen as politician). That would mean whomever people are talking about now has no chance.

    1. Socialism is evergreen. There will always be new faces.

      1. “There will always be new faces”

        Boots gotta stomp!!


  21. There are Democrats who want Chelsea to run? Do they WANT a permanent Trump presidency? Because that’s the first step in getting one.

  22. The extent of media encouraging dynastic politics is disturbing. It feels like the culture is tired of the responsibilties of being a republic.

  23. Running for president is like fronting Milli Vanilli — you don’t need talent, just a good backup band and song/speech writers.

    I wouldn’t call Chelsea Clinton a dullard (she’s smart) or a nothingburger (she’s got the Clinton crime family name and backing). But usually they would at least try to get her a couple years in the Senate from a thoroughly blue state first.

  24. Bill Clinton may be the most skilled politician of his generation, but even he doesn’t have enough charisma for three people.

  25. I think progressives, who control the Dem Party while probably representing less than 1/3 of all Dems, will put their gal Elizabeth Warren through as the Party’s nominee. That is good. After Warren, anarchy can’t be far behind.

  26. Open Carry. Everywhere you go. If threatened, open fire. Enough of the Leftist scum and their bullshit. Two to the chest, one to the head. If you’re not man enough to defend yourself, you DESERVE to be raped and killed by Muslims and their scum Leftist allies.

  27. Eh, both parties do this, and I don’t see how a solid blue district going to a princess makes much difference, so long as she is not promoted. Admittedly, Hillary had much more going for her when she became a senator – and in the grand scheme of things, she seemed to perform that job well. That said, I am a “yellow-dog” Democrat, and I’d sooner vote for Chelsea Manning.

  28. Republicans are being elected faster than Democrats can shoot them.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.