Please. Stop saying “It’s early yet.”

11
215

Nothing ruins my day quite ike having to look at the vacuous countenance of Glorious Bleater in full rhetorical fight, slobbering his way through some stupid comment or other, his breath sounding like an obscene phone caller while his dentures slip and slide around in his mouth. I see that and I’m ready to run a garden hose from the tailpipe into the car. Good thing we don’t own a car.

But these days, there’s something else that comes pretty damn close. And that’s the sight of a 25-watt-bulb talking head, sitting on a panel of 50-watt-bulb talking heads, pompously explaining to all and sundry who are tuned in that, when it comes to the Democratic presidential primaries, “It’s early yet.” Even if they’re not  slobbering through their dentures, it makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up.

Granted, there’s still just over five long months to go until the first caucus in Iowa in early February, followed a week later by the New Hampshire primary. And as they like to say on stupid daytime game shows, “Anything can happen!”  But is it all that “early” yet? Maybe not, when you consider that most of these candidates have been announced and running since January or February!

Look at it this way. You get up at 6 a.m. and you go to bed at 10 p.m. By 1:00 p.m. you’re up, breakfast is done, the dishes are washed, the beds are made, the kids are off at school, and you’re sitting in the drive thru at Wendy’s, waiting for your double stack, a large fries, and a frosty. Half of the freakin’ day is gone already!

That’s where we are in the Democratic primaries right now. For seven long months these ballot mice have been showing up at your door at dinner time, like Jehovah’s Witnesses, complete with pamphlets, and crashing every event they can find like the janitor showing up at the office Christmas party. They haven’t so much worn out their welcome, as worn through the floor and fallen into the basement. By what possible definition is it still “early yet?”

These national ninnies on cable news love to bring up the “miracle” of Bill Clinton in 1991, when at a similar time, he was running at a measly 3% against incumbent George H.W. Bush and we all know what happened next. But that comparison doesn’t hold as much water as a colander with a crack in it. In 1991, Bill Clinton was a Democratic Don Quixote, riding around on a flea bitten nag, waving a mop handle and getting ready to tilt at Bush’s windmill. No nationally recognized Democrat wanted the job. Bush had an insane popularity rating coming off of the highly successful Gulf War, he was a no brainer for reelection. But then, the economy suddenly started making like a pig nosing for truffles ten months before the election, and the next thing you know, “Bubba” was getting serenaded with Hail to the Chief. In other words, a total fluke.

There is another dynamic that makes this race different. Normally, an incumbent president is incredibly difficult to beat, it has only happened three times in our history. As a result, in a midterm presidential election, you normally do not end up with the “A” team on the ballot for the opposition party. At worst, these candidates are trying to elevate their national image for future political runs in their home state, and at best, they’re using the campaign as a dry run for the next open presidential cycle. In other words, they’re trying to elevate their national name recognition.

But not this time. This time we have not one, but two candidates with almost universal name recognition running on the Democratic ballot. The former vice president to the most popular Democratic president since Bill Clinton, hell, the only Democratic president since Bill Clinton, and the fiery, charismatic socialist who gave Hillary Clinton all she wanted, along with some spare change, in 2016. And, as one would fully expect, they’re running 1-2 in the national polls.

And yet you have Maytag repair men like John Delaney and Tim Ryan running around saying “It’s early yet.” In the last 10 days, I have actually heard both of them say, “The only polls that really matter are in Iowa and New Hampshire.” True, but the problem is that those polls are showing these two idjits running at 1%! Tim Ryan actually said the other day that his campaign was “picking up endorsements from all over the place.” From where, the Silver Creek, Idaho Bridge Club?

So, no. It is no longer “early yet.” These candidates have already been on the stump for seven months now. We’ve already had two full sets of two-night debates, and another on the horizon in two weeks or so Yes, five months is a long time, and yes, “anything can happen.” But when you look at these lowest tier candidates, ask yourself two simple questions. First, could or would these candidates continue to run if they had to spend their own money instead of the hard earned cash of campaign donors? And second, if you were a betting man or woman, would you put your money where your mouth is, and bet the mortgage payment on any of these people to become president? No, I thought not.

Liked it? Take a second to support Joseph "Murfster35" Murphy and PolitiZoom on Patreon!

Leave a Reply

11 Comments on "Please. Stop saying “It’s early yet.”"

avatar
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
p j evans
Member

I don’t know about you, but I’d like to shorten the election “season” to one year, maximum. I’d really like less, but I think we’re stuck with that as the minimum.

Nick Sullivan
Member

Two-year campaigns are just a bit much … just a bit. I remember a few years back a Canadian lamenting the ‘long’ run-up to a national election: six weeks!

anastasjoy
Member

It depends. it’s early to anoint. Joe Biden the nominee and order everyone to “accept” it. It wasn’t too early for Timmy Ryan to drop out of the race the day after he announced.

anastasjoy
Member

I recall the last Canadian election when Trudeau won, there was a lot of bitching and moaning about how long the campaign had been: 90 days.