Liberals’ Nov. 4 implosion |
Featured Commentary

Liberals’ Nov. 4 implosion

By now you know Republicans beat Democrats Tuesday at almost every level of government and will take control of the U.S. Senate. There are a number of reasons why this happened; ObamaCare, ISIS, illegal immigration, Democrat incompetence, bad economic conditions, President Obama’s record, government overreach and more. These are real issues, which is why one tactic used by Democrats left them as losers at the ballot box.

Democrat campaigns are often run on emotion, portrayal of victimhood and slogans, not issues. It’s a tactic that’s been used successfully for decades. This time, it didn’t work.

In Texas, Democrat Wendy Davis was anointed to run for governor after making a stand in the name of late-term abortion, a procedure the vast majority of Americans find abhorrent. Her story and credentials weren’t properly vetted before the ink dried on checks from emotional outside donors who learned the hard way their money went to waste. After a series of wheelchair references during her campaign to chide her disabled opponent, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, and after a story in the Dallas Morning News outed her as a fraud, Davis went down in flames on Election Day, losing by 20 points.

In Georgia, operatives working on behalf of Democrat Michelle Nunn published fliers featuring exploited black children that warned if Democrats didn’t get elected, kids were at risk of dying like Michael Brown, the teenager who was shot and killed by a police officer in Ferguson, Mo., over the summer (another case based on emotion instead of facts, but that’s a subject for another column).

“If we want a better, safer future for our children, it’s up to us to vote for change. The choices may not always be perfect, but the cost of inaction is simply too great,” the fliers read.

Nunn lost to Republican David Purdue by 8 points.

In Wisconsin, after revelations Democrat Mary Burke was fired by her own family for incompetence, fliers featuring Trayvon Martin were distributed in predominantly black communities in a last-ditch effort to scare voters to the polls. “Trayvon Martin can’t vote. Don’t let anyone silence your vote,” it read.

Burke lost to Republican Scott Walker by 6 points.

In Louisiana three-time Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu is headed for a run-off election with her Republican opponent, Bill Cassidy. Just last week, she essentially told NBC’s Chuck Todd that she’s struggling as a candidate because Southerners are racist and sexist.

“The South has not always been the friendliest place for African-Americans. It’s been a difficult time for the president to present himself in a very positive light as a leader. It’s not always been a good place for women to be able to present ourselves. It’s more of a conservative place, so we’ve had to work a little bit harder,” she said.

But just a few states away in South Carolina so-called racist Southerners handily elected Tim Scott to the U.S. Senate on Tuesday, making him the first black Republican senator from the state.

The bogus war on women narrative failed. The race-baiting also failed. Candidates were judged on their ideas, not by their gender or the color of their skin. Overall, emotional statements and arguments made by liberal candidates were rejected at every level. As a result, the best candidates are set to take their seats in January.

Katie Pavlich is news editor of Her exclusive Trib columns appear the first and third Fridays of each month.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.