Democrats learning that 'fervor' doesn't equal donations

I found the following headline on the front page of the WSJ extremely humorous, because it is so easy to figure out what the Democrats' problem is. 

The headline on the front page for December 28 is "Democrats Struggle to Convert Fervor into Donations." 

From the article

The national committee's lackluster fundraising is at odds with a wave of enthusiasm Democrats have experienced across the country.  A new WSJ/NBC poll found [that] 50% of respondents want Democrats to lead [C]ongress after next year's election compared with 39% who picked Republicans.

The problem for Democrats is clearly that when you have fake news and fake polls, you get fake fervor, which leads to poor fundraising. 

For a year and a half, the media along with almost all Democrats have been talking about the fake Russian collusion with Trump, while the true collusion is clearly the Justice Department, the FBI, and the Obama administration seeking to protect Hillary and destroy Trump every step of the way. 

Then you do fake polls.  Almost every poll I see takes a sample of around 1,000, skewed with an over-sampling of around 10% of Democrats versus Republicans.  Then you get the results that fit your agenda even though the public doesn't vote in numbers that match the sample.  If they over-sampled Republicans by 10%, you would get a Republican preference in the 2018 election, and that would match the enthusiasm in Republican fundraising. 

I'm going to give the media and Democrats hints as to why donations are tough to come by.  I have no worries that they will listen because they never have before.  They believe that the public just needs more indoctrination and government control. 

Democrats believe we need more government and regulations.  The public doesn't agree.

Democrats believe that the government needs to keep and increase the amount of money it confiscates from the private sector.  The public doesn't agree. 

Democrats believe in abortion on demand.  The public doesn't like late-term abortions. 

Democrats like sanctuary cities.  The public doesn't. 

Democrats don't want photo IDs to vote.  The public overwhelmingly does. 

Democrats want to get rid of fossil fuels and collect massive amounts of taxes to supposedly control the climate.  The public says it would pay little to achieve the pretend results. 

I do get a kick out of Rahm Emanuel bragging about how many mayors have signed up for his climate change agenda when we are getting record cold.  Isn't it nice that Rahm is concentrating so hard on climate change instead of crime and the massive debts and financial difficulties of Chicago? 

I thought the ice would be gone by now, that the Earth would be burning up, and sea levels would have overflowed the cities because Trump is rebuilding the coal industry, opening up drilling, and approving pipelines.  I wonder if journalists and other Democrats ever have any questions as to how you can have record cold if 150 years of fossil fuel use and rising CO2 cause warming.  It is such a shame when the actual climate won't cooperate with the computer models.  It's time to cook the books again. 

The main reason why there are no donations with Democrats is that they essentially want big government.  They call themselves progressives, but there is absolutely nothing progressive about wanting more people to be dependent on government.  Why would there be fervor to continue or go back to Obama's policies when they yielded the slowest economic recovery in 70 years, despite massive spending increases, higher taxes, more regulations, punishingly low interest rates, and $10 trillion in new debt?  I think Democrats should go out and tout their policies and their all-out attempt to block people and businesses from keeping more of the money they earn. 

I also think they should run on taking away freedom of choice on health care and the massive premium and out-of-pocket increase that has caused.  That should be as big a winner as running against tax cuts.

I do have a poll question suggestion that I am sure the media will never ask: is it good to have a president and administration that slow down or block an investigation into drug-running by a terrorist group to appease a terrorist-sponsoring country in order to supposedly improve a legacy? 

And a follow-up question: should the media mostly ignore this story or cover it? 

I look forward to Democrats running on the great success of their policies and their obstructionism.  The media will support them every step of the way, as they have the last ten years, as they have lost 1,000 seats. 

I wonder if the WSJ writers can figure out why there is trouble getting donations. 

It will be good for Republicans to run on agenda that gives the power and purse back to the people and reduces the number of swamp creatures.  They certainly should be proud of running with Trump instead of running away from him.

If you experience technical problems, please write to