No matter how desperate you feel, the answer is no, Charles Koch did NOT “endorse” Hillary Clinton. He simply noted two things that most of us have known all along. One is that Hillary Clinton was the likely winner of the Democratic nomination. Despite “the media” desperately hoping for and trying to create a horse race on the Democratic side, it has never really been that close. Sorry, but it’s true. He is also acknowledging that the current GOP presidential race is nothing short of pathetic, with nothing to offer for anyone, and that would include the Kochs.
See, here’s the thing, folks; most voters and political supporters, including the Koch Brothers, look for competence on some level. In their case, they’re looking for someone who is competent and who they can control, but competence has to be a factor. What the hell good is getting someone elected to the presidency, or Congress, or even governor or a state legislator, if they’re such screw-ups, they can’t get re-elected, or they screw everything up for anyone else who will do the Kochs’ bidding in the future?
Look at Jebbie! for a clue. The Bush name is screwed forever because they stole two elections for Georgie and because he was enormously incompetent as president. What Charles Koch sees in Donald Drumpf and Ted Cruz are two people representing their beloved Republican Party who will end up screwing things up over the long term. Drumpf won’t do the Kochs’ bidding because he does what he wants without even considering anyone else and while Cruz might do the Kochs’ bidding, he is so untrustworthy that he probably won’t be able to surround himself with competent people.
The only thing Dubya had going for him was that he could hire his Daddy’s right wing buddies. Cruz has no one. Either one would be a disaster as president, and the fact that Charles Koch understands this doesn’t point to a conspiracy in which he’s decided to support Hillary Clinton. I mean, he has been an active member of the “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy” from its “Arkansas Project” days, so he can’t possibly be “endorsing” Hillary; at best, he’s likely to think she’d be the most satisfying target in 2020, after the GOP has had four years to regroup. There is nothing the right wing loves more than Clinton-bashing, except maybe bashing “the black guy” in the White House.
That’s the problem with conspiracy theories; they are very rarely proven true and most sound ridiculous to people who actually think about things. They are a distraction and little more; a sign of desperation, not a sign of deep thought. In my entire life, I only bought into one conspiracy theory, and that was the Kennedy Assassination. However, even that one has been dispelled in recent years, as I learned more about it. These days (and by these days, I mean, over the last 25 years or so), I am perfectly fine with saying “I don’t know and we will never know.” That’s a great answer, actually, because it’s true. We will never actually know what happened, because it was 52+ years ago and whatever happened is lost to us.
While this primary season has been less contentious than the one in 2008 (yes, I know, the Bernie Stans make it seem worse, but the last one featured Bill Clinton whitesplaining Barack Obama to black voters, which was beyond odd, so it really isn’t), the conspiracy theories are piling up and they show increasing desperation. These are some of my favorites:
- The Exit Polls – This one is one of the best ever because is assumes a couple of things that are ridiculous. One; there isn’t a single exit poll out there. Quite literally, just about every news organization does its own exit polling, so there are hundreds of these polls available, including many that you will never see. Campaigns and parties also do their own exit polling, none of which you will ever see. Also, exit polls have significant biases. HUGE biases, in fact. I know some of you imagine that pollsters stand outside precincts and ask questions of everyone as they emerge, but they don’t. They use “tried and true” polling methods (that was sarcasm), so they pick and choose respondents based on who they imagine is a “typical voter.” They pretty much always over sample young voters, who actually rarely vote. In other words, folks, the real reason vote counts don’t match exit polls is not likely because Democrats cheated in Hillary’s favor. More likely, it’s because the exit pollsters over sampled young voters, which is a tendency. As I have said repeatedly, every year progressives count on young voters to put their favorites over the top, and every year, they let us down. It’s been that way since 1972, which was the first election in which 18-20-year-olds could vote and it will likely always be that way.
- Closed Primaries – This is another interesting one, especially since all primaries were closed until the last 10-15 years. For example, there was a lot of bitching about New York, and there will likely be a lot of bitching about today’s primaries, since most of those are closed, but in reality, this is the Democratic Party choosing its candidate, which means it’s not actually an “election” in the strictest sense. In my opinion, all primaries should be closed because the other party shouldn’t be able to screw with the Democratic selection process. Should the system be as draconian as New York’s, where party changes must be done six months early? No, but closed primaries are a great idea. Every state in which I registered to vote has been closed at the time, and right there on the registration form, it told me I could not participate in a primary if I registered Independent, so don’t act like nobody knew. And let’s be real; you don’t get to complain about closed primaries at the same time you accept the caucus process, which is seriously un-democratic.
- Democrats control the voting process and cheat – This is another chestnut. What makes it exceptionally curious is that it’s often perpetrated by the same people who complain because taxpayers have to pay for primaries that they, as registered “independents” can’t vote in. Make up your mind. On the one hand, some of you claim that the DNC is in the bag for Hillary and is working against Bernie and yet, when he wins caucuses, which are easily the best opportunity possible for the DNC to organize in Hillary’s favor, you take those wins and even brag about them. No one is cheating against Bernie; he’s losing because he’s getting far fewer votes. She has received more than 57% of all votes cast, while he’s just about 41%. He’s only won a couple of primaries outside of his home states of Vermont and New Hampshire; almost every delegate he has is from a caucus. Bernie’s winning caucuses for the same reason he draws larger crowds; his followers are like Deadheads, who used to follow the Grateful Dead around everywhere to see as many concerts as possible. They are loyal as hell and, in their self-administered bubble, they seem like a larger number of people than they are, whereas, in the grand scheme of things, most concertgoers see other bands. By every metric, Bernie is losing. He’s never polled closer than about 8-10 points in national polling averages. He has received nearly 3 million fewer votes. He would now need to get 75% or more of the vote in all remaining states to match Clinton in pledged delegates, and unless he beats her in votes and pledged delegates, his dream of getting super delegates to move to support him will remain a fantasy. He’s losing because the democratic process doesn’t favor him. It’s really that simple.
- “Red States” Don’t Count – This one is my least favorite, for a number of reasons, primarily because it’s insulting. Do you know why Hillary Clinton won states in the South? It’s because there are a lot of Democrats in those states, most of whom are People of Color, women and the elderly, all of whom make up the Democratic base and who prefer her. Therefore, when Bernie Stans and even Bernie himself dismiss “the Confederacy,” there is no way to take the insult out of that. There are a lot of blue people in some red states, and they deserve as much say in the nominating process as anyone. Not only that, but most of the red states Hillary won are very possible for Democrats to win in the fall, with just a little effort. North Carolina is actually purple, and Louisiana seems to be fed up with Republicans running their state into the ground and are increasingly turning to Democrats to save them. Texas is actually very close to turning blue, and it’s estimated that they will be permanently blue within the next 10-15 years, thanks to their burgeoning Latino population. You know, it’s funny; California used to be reddish, electing Republicans to statewide offices for years and the main reason they are now solidly Blue is because of the increasingly large and active Latino population. Likewise, New Mexico is increasingly purple and Arizona is on the verge. And yet, to listen to some “progressive political junkies,” Texas and the rest of the South is a lost cause. Meanwhile, they don’t seem to have a problem with the red states Bernie won, like Utah, Kansas and Nebraska, all of which are roughly 100% white and about 65-70% Republican.
It’s time to end the conspiracy theories. Bernie Sanders is losing the Democratic nomination because he’s received fewer votes and less support. No one is trying to screw him or you or anyone. It’s called democracy; if you don’t like it, I’m sorry. Imagine how I feel; I supported O’Malley.