Liberals' Political Bucket List

Last week, I shared my political bucket list.  Believe it or not, liberals have spent the last several weeks sharing their political bucket list with the American people and it includes far more than the release of the Mueller report, which appears to have disappointed liberals.  While the Democrats would like to check of all of these items in time for the 2020 Presidential Election, they know that they will have no such luck as long as Republicans control the Senate.  Nonetheless, liberals have decided to go big and bold when creating their political bucket list:

The abolition of the Electoral College: Apparently forgetting that they have held the Presidency for 16 of the last 26 years, the Democrats have declared war on the Electoral College; which they blame for their losses in the 2000 and 2016 Presidential Elections.  The Constitution mandates the use of an Electoral College to elect the President but it does not specifically say how each state must allocate its electoral votes.  Knowing this, liberals have created the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact; an agreement between the states where every state would award its electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote nationwide, as opposed to the person who received the most votes in their respective state.  The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact requires the support of states with a total of 270 electoral votes to take effect.  As of right now, states totaling 181 electoral votes have signed onto the National Popular Vote Interstate compact. All but two states currently have “winner-take-all” systems for electoral votes; where the winner of the popular vote receives the state’s electoral votes regardless of his or her vote share or margin of victory.  Nebraska and Maine, on the other hand, award two of their electoral votes to the winner of their state’s popular vote and allocate the remaining electoral votes to the winners in each of their Congressional districts.  In all but two elections, all of Maine and Nebraska’s electoral votes have gone to the same candidate.  In 2008, Nebraska’s 2^nd Congressional District voted for President Obama as the rest of the state voted for John McCain while Maine’s 2^nd Congressional District voted for President Trump eight years later as the rest of the state voted for Hillary Clinton.  If conservatives really wanted to play dirty, they should advocate for every state to go the way of Maine and Nebraska and award their electoral votes based on the results in each Congressional district.  After all, Mitt Romney would have won the election in 2012; since he carried a majority of the nation’s Congressional districts.  However, Republicans did not do this because they generally have an easier time accepting unfavorable election results; unlike liberals.

If liberals do not succeed in abolishing the electoral college, they have an insurance policy.  This insurance policy has more likely than not enabled them to win the popular vote in six of the last seven elections.  For the past several decades, liberals have imported voters; rather than trying to convince Americans to support their ideas.  Many of their new voters live in California, which gave the Democrats a gargantuan margin of victory of more than eight million votes.  The Democratic voter rolls have increased as a result of the Reagan amnesty and everything that came with it, notably the beneficiaries of the amnesty having children and the dual scams of anchor babies and birth tourism.  Presidential candidate Julian Castro predicted that “the Hispanic vote in Texas will continue to increase. By 2024 Democrats can win Texas, Arizona, and Florida. A big blue wall of 78 electoral votes.” Castro’s calculation does not take into account the fact that the three states he mentioned will likely gain electoral votes following the 2020 Census.  Add the “big blue wall” Castro talks about to the existing blue wall of California, Oregon, Washington, New York, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont, Hawaii, Delaware, the District of Columbia, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Colorado and the Democrats won’t need to abolish the electoral college to obtain a permanent majority in American politics. 

The lowering of the voting age to sixteen: In a time when people generally delay adulthood later and later, this proposal might make the least sense of all the items on liberals’ political bucket list.  When the Twenty-Sixth Amendment, which lowered the voting age to 18 first passed, the Vietnam War had engulfed the nation and supporters of the amendment argued “old enough to fight, old enough to vote.”  Back then, most 18-year-olds could also legally drink and find a full-time job with little to no difficulty; regardless of whether or not they had a college degree.  Adults in 1971, when the Twenty-Sixth Amendment passed, generally got married and bought houses a lot sooner than adults in the twenty-first century; many of whom remain on their parents’ health insurance plans well into their twenties.  Fast forward nearly half a century and today’s young people put off the milestones of adulthood, buying houses and getting married, and many of them do not have the same luck that their parents and grandparents had finding adequate employment in the post-industrial society.  In spite of all of the facts I just listed justifying why 16-year-olds should not vote, the Speaker of the House seems to think otherwise, saying that she had always supported lowering the voting age because she thought “it’s really important to capture kids when they are in high school when they are interested in all of this, when they are learning about the government to be able to vote.”  If young people voted overwhelmingly Republican, Nancy Pelosi would not feel the same desire to “capture kids when they’re in high school.”  The same applies to the illegal immigrants and immigrants in general; if they voted overwhelmingly Republican, the Democrats would not have the same enthusiasm for letting them into the country and helping them become “fully part of our system,” as Speaker Pelosi said when romanticizing the “newcomers” who “make America more American.” As exit polling proves, these “newcomers” favor the Democrats by a margin of 2 to 1 while Americans under the age of 45, who made up 44 percent of the electorate in 2016, voted for Hillary; with Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 favoring her over President Trump by 19 points. 

Liberals have not made much progress when it comes to checking this item off their bucket list.  The House of Representatives rejected a measure proposed by Democratic Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley that would have lowered the voting age to 16 by a margin of 305-126.  All but one Republican voted against the idea while a majority of House Democrats supported the measure.

Pick up where FDR left off when it comes to court-packing: Believe it or not, President Franklin Roosevelt had a harder time than most people think implementing his famed series of social programs known as the New Deal.  He found his toughest opposition from the Courts.  Because of this, Roosevelt flirted with court packing; thinking that adding more Supreme Court justices appointed by him would override the votes of the justices who consistently opposed his initiatives.  However, eventually one of the Justices began voting in favor of Roosevelt’s programs.  Following Roosevelt’s tenure in office, the Court changed form and quickly became a vehicle for rubber-stamping every aspect of the secular-progressive agenda; from abolishing school prayer to legalizing abortion.  In the era of President Trump, conservatives may have finally achieved their goal of creating a Court not beholden to the wishes of Gloria Steinem, George Soros, et al.  This came in spite of liberals’ best efforts to torpedo the nominations of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.  When Democrats pulled together the votes to filibuster Gorsuch, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell simply took a page out of Harry Reid’s playbook and invoked the “nuclear option,” thereby abolishing the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, allowing for the confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee with a simple majority.  Democrats went even nastier when it came to Kavanaugh’s nomination, relying on decades-old sexual assault allegations to sink his nomination. 

Because Republicans demonstrated strength when it came to the confirmation of President Trump’s Supreme Court nominees, liberals see court packing as the only way to regain control of the Supreme Court; which they now feel that they have lost.  Their latest proposal involves creating a 15-person Court with five Republicans, five Democrats, and five others selected unanimously by the other ten.  As Ann Coulter pointed out, “liberals see the Supreme Court as their backup legislature, giving them all the laws Democrats can’t pass themselves because they’d be voted out of office if they did.”  Their court-packing plan only reinforces that point. 

2020 Presidential hopeful Cory Booker has introduced another idea that does not necessarily equivocate to “court-packing,” he has instead talked about term limits for Supreme Court justices.  What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.  Booker has probably made the calculation that his term limits plan would force conservatives’ favorite justice, Clarence Thomas, to step aside.  Maybe he forgot that two of liberals’ favorite Supreme Court justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, would likely have to leave office due to the same term limits law that he put forward.

Abolition of the Senate: This probably comes in at the bottom of liberals’ political bucket lists.  Former Michigan Congressman John Dingell died before he had the chance to check this item off his bucket list. As with all of the other items on liberals’ bucket list, they have an insurance policy should it fail to materialize.  If they cannot abolish the Senate, they will merely seek to change the makeup of the Senate by giving Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C. statehood, in addition to splitting up California into seven solid blue states.  David Faris has documented these and all of the Democrats’ insurance policies in a book called It’s Time to Fight Dirty.

Liberals have many other items on their political bucket list, including the Green New Deal and Medicare for All but many of the aforementioned items serve as important prerequisites in giving liberals the permanent electoral domination they would need in order to enact such a progressive agenda. 

America would face dire consequences if liberals even achieved a modest degree of success in checking off the items on their bucket list.  As Senator Lindsey Graham said told his Democratic colleagues during the Kavanaugh confirmation, “boy, you all want power. God, I hope you never get it.”

At this point, it looks like the next several decades will shape up as a “battle of the bucket lists.”  Conservatives will fight to pass the items on my bucket list while liberals work overtime to pass the items on their bucket list, which I have outlined above.  The outcome of the 2020 Presidential Election will obviously have a large role in determining the fate of both bucket lists. With this in mind, the old adage “elections have consequences” applies  to the 2020 Election just as much, if not more so, than in previous elections.