HOW THE DEMS BURNED $40 MIL TO LOSE 4
ELECTIONS AND SCAM SUPPORTERS, $30 million for
1%.Daniel Greenfield,
6/23/17
“It’s a bellwether for
what the Democratic Party is going to be about,” Democratic National Committee
boss Tom Perez boasted. That was back in March
and the Dems had just begun their frantic spending spree in Georgia’s Sixth. By
the time it was over, Jon Ossoff, an awkward immature hipster who didn’t even
live in the district, had raised $23.6 million and the Democratic Congressional
Campaign Committee had burned through another $5 million. Other groups threw in
around $2.6 million to achieve absolutely nothing.
$31 million had been
spent and wasted on history’s most expensive congressional election. And the
Dem experts congratulated themselves that they had lost by a smaller margin
than in the past.
They had spent $30
million more than in their first special election in Kansas to gain a whole 1%.
Just as after their previous special election defeats, the charts and graphs
came out comparing their performance to those of previous elections. Never mind
that turnout differs dramatically during presidential and special elections. Or
that spending $31 million to lose by 6 percent is a disaster. What the Democrat
Party really was going to be about was setting piles of money on fire.
In Montana, a quixotic
bid by Rob Quist had garnered $5 million in donations and another $1 million in
outside spending. Even after a stunt by a Guardian reporter caused the
Republican candidate to lose many of his newspaper endorsements, Quist barely
ended up with 44 percent.
The special election
frenzy began in Kansas when the left decided that Rep. Mike Pompeo’s open seat
might be winnable. After Trump’s victory, angry Dems decided to pour money into
the campaign. Democrat James Thompson raised around $832,000, but Republican
Ron Estes won by 7 percent. Or single digits. And the gold rush was on. The
special election margin was compared to Trump’s margin of victory. The entrails
and tea leaves were read. And the consultants declared it a referendum on
Trump.
Millions from blue
states flowed into special elections in red states to prove that Trump had lost
public support. The deeper theory behind this spending spree was that setbacks
in safe districts would lead the GOP to abandon Trump. And that played into
feverish conspiracy theories about the 25th Amendment or Senate
Republicans turning on Trump in time for impeachment that had gone mainstream
on the left. But after losing 45 to
52 in Kansas for well under a million, they spent $6 million to lose 50 to 44
in Montana and $31 million to lose 47 to 53 in Georgia.
An extra $5 million or
$31 million had just bought them another 1 percent in Montana or Georgia. Dems have consistently
managed to lose these special elections by around 7 percent. All that varied
was how many millions they spent to lose by 7 percent.
The 7 percent solution
was the sucker bet. It was the cocaine that the left began injecting to cope
with the psychological pain of Hillary’s defeat. 7 percent was seductive: a
single digit number that could be shifted with the right amount of money. It
hovered on the horizon like a mirage in the desert. But no matter how much
money they spent, the seats they were trying to buy remained out of reach. Behind
the wasted tsunami of cash, lurked greed and some elaborate social engineering.
The Democratic National
Committee is badly short of cash. The special elections were its best hope of reviving
its fundraising. Unfortunately its fundraising totals continued to fall
instead. The DNC didn’t really believe that it could win the special elections,
but it needed elections to spur fundraising.
Most of Ossoff’s big
haul came through ActBlue. The left-wing fundraising setup has been a cash
bonanza for candidates. Almost $7 million poured into Ossoff’s war chest in one
month through ActBlue. There were multiple fundraisers for Ossoff through
ActBlue with various forms of legitimacy. Even Alan Grayson, the bizarrely
sleazy ex-Florida congressman, got into the act by fundraising for Ossoff on ActBlue and then informing
donors, “Your contribution will benefit Alan Grayson.”
Quist raised millions
for his doomed race in Montana through ActBlue. The ActBlue setup made it easy
to nationalize races. It was part of why Ossoff had hauled in more money from
California than from Georgia. And it has been a fantastic engine for parting
lefty fools from their money. The “grassroots” fundraising benefits the same old
Dem campaign infrastructure.
Ossoff spent $11 million
of his haul on ads. Much of his campaign cash flowed to Canal Partners Media,
Mothership Strategies and Mission Control Inc. Over $5 million went through these
firms and others just during the opening round of the election. That gave
him something in common with Quist’s campaign where at least $1.2 million went through Canal and $286K to Mothership.
During the Dem
primaries, Canal Partners Media was accused of setting up “Old Towne Media” as a front to
hide its relationship with Bernie Sanders. The Canal front billed the Sanders
campaign over $82 million. Meanwhile the real Canal was placing a “dark money” ad in support of Bernie Sanders. Canal
has complicated ties to Bernie Sanders’ wife who had been accused of profiting
from media ad buys. Behind Quist and Ossoff
was the same old Democrat infrastructure. Behind the illusion of grassroots
campaigns and small donors was the same old machine.
The special elections
scam was set up to funnel money from angry lefties to the infrastructure. Some
$40 million was burned through on a dead end program. But it went to all the
right people on the left.
Ossoff’s campaign was
the final leg of the scam. He was the least promising candidate of all the Dems
in all the red state special elections. But his backers weren’t really trying
to win in Georgia, but to raise money in California and then take it back to
Washington D.C. And Ossoff was perfectly suited for that. That’s why the most
money was raised and spent on his campaign.
Like Bernie Sanders, he
was never really supposed to win. He was sucker bait. And the suckers bit hard
enough to make a special election in a conservative district the most expensive
House race in history.
Ossoff was a great way
for Washington D.C. campaign pros to extract money from Bay Area lefties. His
campaign had nine times more individual donations from California than from
Georgia. He had almost four times more donations from nine Bay Area counties than all of Georgia.
The Dems lost and
they’re laughing all the way to the bank. There was much fussing
in the Bay Area over snarky Republican ads in the race taking potshots at them.
If they had any sense, they would be far more offended by the greedy contempt
of their political allies.
The Democrats have gone
far to the left partly because of a profitable machine for transmuting the left’s
worst instincts into money. The Washington Post scored record
profits by tempting lefties with fake news promises of impeachment. The
special elections scam offered lefties the seductive idea that throwing away
millions on a doomed cause would somehow reverse Trump’s victory. Hey, it
worked for Jill Stein, didn’t it?
Angry, emotional people
do stupid things. Like wear pink hats and shout in public about their private
parts, subscribe to the Washington Post because they think it
can deliver Watergate on demand or plow millions into backing an annoying
hipster with no credentials in Newt Gingrich’s old district.
Jon Ossoff’s slogan was
“Make Trump Furious”. He failed even at that. But it isn’t Trump’s fury his
backers were interested in. Instead they succeeded in cashing in on the angry
stupid rage of the left.
Daniel
Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an
investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic
terrorism.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/267076/how-dems-burned-40-mil-lose-4-elections-and-scam-daniel-greenfield
No comments:
Post a Comment