Escondido, CA
Partly cloudy
Partly cloudy

The Anger Angle

Logically, the Democratic candidate that lost the last Presidential election should be trying again in 2020. It only makes sense that after coming so close, winning the majority of the popular vote, and supposedly representing everything the progressive wing of the Party wants to accomplish, Hillary would still be the perfect foil for Trump in 2020. 

And she could still be the first female President. 

In 2016 Hillary was viewed as the rightful heir to Obama’s throne. She supported his policies, she was the most prepared to ascend to the presidency having been a Senator, a Secretary of State, and a previous occupant of the Clinton White House. She had the right positions on abortion and women’s rights, on immigration and human rights, and she supported Obamacare.

If we are to believe the narrative of her staff and supporters, and of the Democratic National Committee and their public relations department, the Mainstream Media, Hillary only lost because Trump used Russian media bots that systematically overwhelmed unsuspecting Facebook users with Fake News stories that mischaracterized her positions.

All of that has been fixed. 

Most major social media platforms are now actively suppressing any “misleading” information that would infect our elections. So it only makes sense that she and her support team should be better prepared more than ever to challenge the Big Dummy in the White House. Knowing now what they didn’t know in 2016, Queen Hillary should be able to crush Trump and the vast right-wing conspiracy of nationalists that he has whipped into a delusional frenzy. Having exposed the Russian social media conspiracy, who could possibly be better prepared to wage war with Trump than Hillary?

So where is she? Why are the Democrats totally ignoring her? What is different today than the circumstances that made Hillary the perfect candidate in 2016? 

During the three 2016 Presidential campaign debates, the subjects were mostly about the civil war in Syria and worldwide terrorism, restoring the stagnant economy, the Affordable Care Act, immigration reform and the utility of building a border wall. There were a few mentions of the legitimacy of our elections and future Supreme Court nominations. 

Trump’s administration has muted most of those issues with a surging economy, low unemployment, renewed dialogue with China, Russia and North Korea, and a massive tax cut to put more money in taxpayers’ pockets on payday. 

So the Democrats have shifted their focus to protecting the Affordable Care Act, Trump’s “attacks” on the media and government institutions, reducing “unfair” restrictions on immigration across the southern border, and establishing sanctuaries for illegals. They continue to claim Trump is a totalitarian that threatens everything that America stands for. When pressed for more specifics, they suggest the NRA supports school shootings, that the First Amendment is outdated because it supports hate speech and that Trump is stacking the Supreme Court with white supremacists.

What is clearly missing from their list this time around is creating new jobs, defeating ISIS and reducing worldwide terrorism, or reducing the threat of cyber warfare or nuclear proliferation. If it doesn’t have to do with social justice or wealth redistribution, it is ignored by Progressive candidates.

Since Trump has dominated all of the happiness issues, the Democrats can only run on anger issues. That, it seems to me, is another reason Hillary is still the perfect candidate for the Democrats in 2020. 

She has the most experience with the anger angle.

* * * 

Rick Elkin is a cultural and media observer, author and columnist. His most recent book, “Trump’s Reckoning: Bulldozing Progressivism, Rebuilding Americanism,” is available through most online book sellers. He resides in Escondido, California. You can follow him at or on Twitter @Rick_Elkin.

*Note: Opinions expressed by columnists and letter writers are those of the writers and not necessarily those of the newspaper.

2 responses to “The Anger Angle”

  1. Rebecca Randolph says:

    Dear Times-Advocate:

    I’m confused. The term “News Desk” appears in the dateline of the piece “The Anger Angle,” but the author of the piece, Rick Elkins, relies pretty heavily on personal opinion of a provocative sort. I’d be delighted to read the Times-Advocate regularly if I thought it had a journalistic purpose and wasn’t primarily a propaganda and advertising vehicle.


    • Paul Williams says:

      Hard to read anything online that doesn’t survive by “being an advertising vehicle” since they won’t be in business for very long. Also, let’s be honest; you only want to read things that are “primarily propaganda” only as long as it agrees with your viewpoint.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *