Eric Holder and Democrats Misunderstand Harry Reid

The left is fond of playing politics in the aftermath of someone’s death. When it’s a conservative, they either cheer or hypocritically praise posthumously; when a Democrat dies — well, former attorney general Eric Holder says this:

It’s a good thing Holder never ran for elected office. He’s clueless.

Harry Reid was a far more effective Senate leader than Chuck Schumer, and not for the reasons Holder mentions.

Related: Chuck Schumer’s Disastrous First Year

Some sort of “toughness” did not make Reid effective; having 60 senators did. And there are reasons that occurred. Of course,  today’s radical, tone-deaf Democrats won’t understand this, so they lash out instead.

With help from Barack Obama’s coattails in 2008, Democrat Senate candidates did well, even winning in conservative places Obama lost, like Arkansas, Louisiana, and South Dakota.

A few months later, Al Franken finished off stealing Minnesota’s U.S. Senate election, giving Democrats 60 senators, a majority so large that even after the 2010 Republican midterm wave, Reid remained majority leader.

Two years later, Democrats won U.S. Senate elections in non-liberal states like Florida, Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota, and Ohio. With today’s socialist policies and smug elitism, that likely won’t happen again anytime soon.

But this was only nine years ago, spoiling the disingenuous narrative today that the Senate is somehow rigged against Democrats. Nothing about the structure of the U.S. Senate changed between 2012 and today.

Most Democrats under Harry Reid simply understood they had to win statewide elections to earn seats, and thus nominated candidates accordingly.

Reid wouldn’t allow surefire losers like Barbara Bollier, Jaime Harrison, MJ Hegar, Sarah Gideon, Theresa Greenfield, and Amy McGrath to suck up hundreds of millions in fundraising dollars challenging the likes of John Cornyn, Joni Ernst, Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell, and Susan Collins.

A self-destructive nationwide slogan like “defund the police” would surely have been disavowed immediately by every candidate a decade ago.

Under Reid, Democrats mainly nominated inoffensive, electable candidates like Mark Begich, Joe Donnelly, Bill Nelson, Heidi Heitkamp, and Mark Pryor, and let them run campaigns suited to their purple or red states. They eschewed distrustful lunatics like Beto O’Rourke and Stacy Abrams.

Even if Reid lacked charisma, maybe his small-town, humble upbringing helped him appreciate these realities, unlike hapless Brooklyn-born Schumer, whose coastal progressive politics many Americans find toxic.

Schumer has only 50 senators because he got lucky in Georgia, but more so because Democrats ran goons who lost winnable races in Iowa, Maine, Montana, and North Carolina last year.

The party under Harry Reid was much better at winning elections than Democrats today. If Holder  wants people to learn something from Reid’s legacy, it should be that you must win elections before you govern and push policies. (Frankly, Republicans could learn that too.)

View Original Source Source