It took a lot of years for the American Civil War to get done with.
There are a lot of reasons for that. (I should mention that any statement of fact, voicing of observation, or expression of opinion about the Civil War will lead to a great outcry about the facts, observations, and opinions, so check below in the comments for that.) One of the reasons the Civil War took almost five years (and never mind that there is an argument that had the Civil War not taken all that time it would not have stuck) is that the Union Generals were crap. Many were political appointees, or for some other reason incompetent. They lost a lot of battles.
One of the things the Northern generals were doing wrong was this. Most “battles” would take a couple-few days. So the two sides slog at each other for a while, and one of the sides gets hurt worse, and maybe leaves the field. Then there is a period of time during which the dead and near dead are collected. Then, later that day or the next day, in cases where the North had prevailed in the first wave of the battle, the Northern officer staff would have tea or do some other thing. During that time, the South would round up reinforcements, regroup, and attack back, and drive the Northern army away. (Alternatively, the southern force would bug out and move out of range, then regroup, while the Northern general failed to keep up, re-attack, and finish them off.)
But US Grant did not operate this way. Grant did not drink euphemistic tea. He would get up at 3 in the morning after the first wave of battle, call together his troops, and attack even more bigly than he had attacked the day before. Personally I think one of the reasons behind this is this was that after the battle, during the reset, most generals would rearrange troops on their front and center line, to prepare for the next day. Grant would hit that front line while his enemies were looking left and right instead of forward.
Once Grant was put in charge of the whole Union Army, having demonstrated the success of his approach in the West, it was only a matter of time before the North defeated the South.
So, here’s the lesson. One way to win is to pull your pieces off the field. Then, when the other side goes to have tea, put everything back on the field, doubled. Then you win.
So, yesterday’s news that the Republcian Party has reduced its ad budget in Minnesota by 90% does NOT mean that DFLers (DFL=Democratic Party) go have tea. It will take a phone call for the Trump campaign to resurge in our state. DON’T BE FOOLED. HOLD FAST. Swarm, don’t rest!
We’ve got this, but only if we don’t get fooled again.
15 thoughts on “Minnesota Democrats: HOLD!”
Biden previously bragged about Delaware being on the Southern side, and his friendship with George Wallace, Sen Eastland and other segregationists.
The other day he went to Gettysburg and declared himself a PROUD DEMOCRAT.
Try as you might RickN, right now the racist Party of the United States is the Republican Party. Easily. Wallace has not been around for decades. His mantra was taken up by Nixon and refined as the ‘Southern Strategy’. There was nothing refined about it. The Republicans wanted to court the votes of uneducated white males and they have since the early 1970s. Look at it this way. In the most recent poll, 67% of white males with an education no higher than high school say they will vote for Trump. I do not want to be elitist here, but this is the demographic of those most likely to hold racist, nativist, nationalist views. The higher a person’s education, the more they are likely to vote for Biden. Racism is rife among the poor, disenfranchised white male working class voters. They are looking for scapegoats for America’s decline and minorities, immigrants and refugees for the bill. Trump inspires them, if this is indeed a proper way of stating it, with his scapegoating and borderline racist rants.
You really do need to try harder. Your views are so simple.
mikeN’s comment doesn’t seem to make any point (no surprise there) but is, as usual, lacking context and completeness.
He didn’t brag about “friendship” with Wallace — that’s fabricated by mikeN. He was proud of an a comment wallace made about biden being an amazing politician (you can find the precise wording if you dig around).
mikeN conveniently leaves this out:
In 2019, in an interview with Rolling Stone magazine, a Biden aide said
Yup, defending a racist, unhinged maniac — just as mikeN and rickA are doing constantly.
* The “Delaware was on the South’s side” statement is odd, since it wasn’t. The state has slavery, a good bit of its population apparently favored the southern traitors, but in 1861 the stated voted not to secede. Southern prisoners of war were held at Fort Delaware, and the Undeground Railroad (no doubt a terrorist operation in the eyes of rickA and mikeN) delivered people to Wilmington. Whatever Biden meant in that statement (no context provided, as noted) it was a stupid statement.
“The other day he went to Gettysburg and declared himself a PROUD DEMOCRAT.”
I have no explanation for why mikeN thinks that is in any way a negative thing.
Indeed, and a prime example of this is Joseph Hooker who gave creation to the use of the word ‘hooker’ to describe women of a certain trade. Hooker had a large following, as with camp followers, of such ‘working’ girls.
One of the better books on this civil war is
‘Battle Cry of Freedom’ by James M. McPherson
Not forgetting the major contribution of William Tecumseh Sherman who also happened to have a WW2 battle tank named after him as did Grant with an earlier model, an oddity with a gun in a turret but the main calibre weapon in a casemate to one side.
If they are going to tear down Confederate monuments, then it makes sense to include the Democratic Party as well. Calling yourself a proud Democrat at Gettysburg is not a good look.
I didn’t expect you to have any logical support for your comment. I am not disappointed.
Some more of trump’s very good people are in the news.
The forthcoming US civil war will use Nukes.
There’s this fellow Helmut Norpoth, poli-sci professor at Stony Brook, whose model predicts Trump has a 91% chance of winning.
I think the man, despite what he says, is too wedded to his model. He says he includes the South Carolina primary, but is vague about it this year. South Carolina, as we know, was one of 8 states where the Republicans canceled their primary to head off any competition to Trump.
He also glosses over the unique loathing that Trump has engendered, much of which is due to actions after the primary season,
He is interesting, and odd. He predicted trump would win the popular vote in 2016, then after the fact said he’d predicted the general election result. His primary thesis then was that many people who said they were going to vote wouldn’t, and he stuck to that (that notion was put out after the 2016 election and was found to be not the case: the same for the notion that many people lied about the candidate they would vote for when they responded to earlier polls. The detailed analysis of the polls in the states that won it for trump showed something in between: many people didn’t decide until the final weeks which candidate they’d vote for. Even so the margins at the end were in the last polls’ margins of error. Polling wasn’t wrong — reporting of the polling was.) In any case, it’s still way too soon to be making predictions about winning based on any single poll or model.
How strange the reporting of the polls was so bad.
In 2004, with similar polls, the media was reporting it was John Kerry’s race to lose.
It’s like they only want to report Democrats’ winning.
How strange it is that you, someone who has zero understanding of statistics or honesty, find a conspiracy in this.
Today our incredibly stable president tweeted an old conspiracy that Obama and Biden had Seal Team 6 killed under pressure from HRC. This is the level of derangement trump’s supporters and those who say “both sides are equally bad” support.
And we have a Michigan story about one of the “very good people” trump and his fans here support.