October 31, 2024

Probably a Mistake

This is probably a legitimate mistake, but it does not induce any level of confidence in the American electoral process:

State of the Race - Halloween edition

In the latest RCP average of polls in the swing states, Kamala Harris has pulled back ahead of Donald Trump in Wisconsin and Michigan, while Trump has opened his lead further in a few of the other states. For any new readers, I don't go by a straight lift of the RCP data, as not all polls are created equal. I filter out polls that do not share their poll population, or where the polled population is too low to consider statistically significant. I also filter out polls that are more than 10 days old (this week I am lowering that to 7 days). Any poll with a margin of error greater than 3.5% is not reliable in my opinion either. Likely voters are a must but pretty much every poll now is only looking at likely voters rather than registered voters or all adults.

All of that has to be taken into consideration, without even getting into the crosstabs of who was polled. Many pollsters still, oversample Democrats and it skews their results.

Here is what I am seeing as of today, but I have a caveat to apply to my findings:



Trump has from the above as well as safe states, enough electoral college votes to secure a victory, winning all of the swing states, and the electoral college by 312 to 226. But Pennsylvania is a must in this scenario and frankly, I don't implicitly trust their vote counts. The three rust belt states (PA, WI and MI) appear to be within the grasp of Harris at the moment. Trump's leads are thin (1.96%, 0.36% and  0.69% respectively). That makes a 'steal' more possible for the Democrats. I don't like it. And in fact if they were trying to create a plausible scenario for a surprise Kamala 'victory', from a RCP viewpoint they have succeeds.

But here are my caveats on my own results; (1) I have not looked at the crosstabs of any of the individual polls, and more importantly (2) these polls that do meet my statistical standards, are mostly all conservative leaning or neutral pollsters.  The latter point means that while Trump leads, the may truly be razor thin leads, making a stolen election possible.

Where the Democrats seem to be conceding are states that do not matter.  They appear to have written off Georgia and Arizona.  Trump needs those, Kamala does not. The Harris campaign also has apparently pulled a bunch of ad buys from North Carolina.  Trump needs the state, Kamala does not. Nevada, does not matter to either candidate in the current calculus. The Rust Belt is what matters. Kamala needs all 3, Trump only needs one to win.

Despite the polymarket betting that Trump has a 2 out of 3 chance of winning, despite Trump apparently leading in the national vote total, and despite him leading in enough (or conceivably all) the swing states, if Harris wins Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, she wins 270-268. That still makes this race a nail biter.

October 30, 2024

What's this garbage?

Let's Go Brandon tries to trash Trump and as an added bonus, Trump supporters. It overshadowed Kamala Harris' closing argument (which lacked substance anyway). Way to go Brandon, thank you for sucking the remaining oxygen out of her campaign with this.  

Always Be Closing

The sales saying Always Be Closing, is no less true in politics. But you have to do it right and in politics the optics matter.  Kamala Harris is doing it horribly badly.  Not that I'm complaining; it's not gonna help her get elected.

October 29, 2024

This settles it

The mainstream media gloms on to anything, ANYTHING, they think will harm Trump's chances. JD Vance emphatically puts an end to it as far as the offensive joke by comparing it to the vile Democrats' "Trump is Hitler" argument.


We're done here.  Moving on.

October 28, 2024

Polymarket has Trump 2 out of 3

I don't ascribe a lot of relevance to the betting markets on who is going to win the presidential election because it's not scientific.  But there's clearly a trend to be seen here.



The 'smaller' rally down the street

For posterity purposes, this was the 'smaller' rally down the street:

McTrump

 


October 27, 2024

October 26, 2024

Trump visits Joe Rogan

A great 3 hour discussion.

October 25, 2024

Hillary Clinton's Trump is Hitler moment

Okay these comparisons are way beyond ridiculous. Hillary Clinton, not at all surprisingly, has hopped on the Trump is Hitler train. Why?  Because of 1939. Wait, 1939????

It's an absolutely absurd linkage but it's happening because Democrats are desperate.  They have nothing; no plans to discuss, not even joy. All they have is "NOT Trump!". So they have to amp that up with Trump is Hitler.  While Donald Trump is floating 'No income tax', all they can float is 'No Trump'. Pathetic and not worthy of leading the country.

This is the woman who compares Trump to Hitler

Kamala Harris is ridiculous, but also perhaps, evil. RFK Jr. shares some shocking details about the real Kamala Harris:

October 24, 2024

We're back to calling the opponent Hitler? Really?

Democrats cannot comport themselves like adults.  They can't seem to help it either.

When Democrats use guns

1. It's okay.

2. Damage ensues.

3. It's reported differently.

October 23, 2024

Trump's Rogan podcast appearance could seal the deal

President Trump is going to sit down with Joe Rogan on his podcast on Friday.  Could this seal the deal for Trump? It might.  It won't hurt, that's for sure.

Tulsi Gabbard's surprise announcement

It seemed like this was inevitable, eventually.  This is a great thing; Tulsi Gabbard confirming her team.

October 22, 2024

My swing state view as of Oct 22

This morning I read the TIPP national tracking poll that showed over the weekend the race was tightening. It had this to say:

Trump's weekend momentum has fizzled out, and Harris and Trump are locked in a tight contest. Despite Trump's earlier momentum, the TIPP tracking poll shows former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris tied at 48%.

My first thought was okay it's a tracking poll, there is a daily fluctuation that shouldn't be taken as gospel. So I decided to look further, and I discovered two things.  Firstly, despite the rounding, overall the details show Trump with a fractional lead at 48% and Harris somewhere around 47.7%. That is still a Trump lead, however small.  The second thing I discovered was that within their tracking poll, Trump did indeed drop from 49% to 48% on the rolling score while Harris gained from 47% to just under the 48% mark. That could be anything from a weekend Democrat response bias to real movement.  It's hard to tell.  

Keep in mind this is a national poll. If Trump is even in a national poll, he is in a strong position to win the national total vote count, which is of course, merely bragging rights. Perhaps it's a little more consequential this time around but that's a discussion for another time. What's interesting is that it matches a couple of my updated swing state results.  What really matters is the swing state polls.

Taking a look at the RealClearPolitics battleground state polling average (which are not the gold standard and why I try to average the polls a bit differently than RCP does) we see the following:

  • Pennsylvania - Trump +0.8%
  • North Carolina -  Trump +0.5%
  • Georgia - Trump +2.5%
  • Arizona - Trump +1.8%
  • Wisconsin - Trump +0.4%
  • Michigan - Trump +1.2%
  • Nevada - Trump +0.7%
Here's what I am seeing as of this morning:


How does that compare to my previous snapshot


In my view, Trump has improved modestly in the sunbelt states of Arizona and Georgia (Nevada is statistically unchanged). In North Carolina and Pennsylvania there were no new polls so obviously, unchanged. In Wisconsin, Trump's lead has shrunk, perhaps mirroring the national TIPP findings.

As the polls begin to move in Trump's direction, the difference between my results and the RCP average has tightened. In Arizona, Wisconsin and North Carolina, our differences are negligible. In Georgia, Michigan and Pennsylvania I am seeing a much better Trump result than RCP and conversely, I am seeing a worse result for Trump in Nevada than RCP.

If my view is correct, Trump has a lead pretty much outside the margin of error cheating in Georgia and Pennsylvania. Those two states would bring his Electoral College total to 254 of the 270 needed to win. If Trump wins Michigan (his next highest lead) it would put him at 269. Arizona would put him over the top, being Trump's next highest lead over Michigan.  At just under 2% in the latter two states, Trump is likely to win, but they are not at a comfort level just yet.  With 13 days to go, I'm expecting one of two things; either a nailbiter finish with a Harris two-days-later, come from behind suspicious victory, or a Trump blowout win.

October 21, 2024

My swing state view as of Oct 21

Here's what I see when I look at the polls and include only polls from the last 10 days, with only Likely Voters, only polls of 700 or more respondents, and with a margin of error less than or equal to 3.5%. Just like RCP, I'm seeing a swing state sweep for Trump.



This would equate to a significant electoral college sweep for Trump. There's good news and worrisome news in this.  Firstly, Georgia and Pennsylvania look like they are approaching outside of margin of error leads for Trump. The worrisome part, the other states are all tin to razor-thin leads. The momentum is in Trump's favor BUT...

The Kamala Harris honeymoon was almost certainly a product of media and push-pollster hype. The polls 100% had to move towards Trump because the Harris leads were pure vaporware wishful-thinking, pie-in-the-sky unicorns and fairy dust. Which means that the polls have in reality, probably moved very little towards Trump.  I don't doubt he's leading, but the margins may indeed be slim in these key battleground states. And if that's true, vote tabulation malfeasance is a risk.

McKinsey implicated in drone scandal

McKinsey & Company is an American multinational strategy and management consulting firm that offers professional services to corporations, governments, and other organizations. Um, what the heck have they been doing??? And what has the Department of Defense been doing? Why is the United States been doing buying drones from China? What a mess.

I'm dubious, CBS

60 Minutes obfuscates to hide their own manipulation of their Kamala Harris interview.  It sure took them a long time to craft a response. And it sure was carefully worded. So it sure doesn't make them look any less deceptive.

October 20, 2024

October 19, 2024

Meanwhile in Canada, Trudeau is desperate

Former Canadian socialist party (NDP) leader Tom Mulcair calls out Trudeau for his desperate and unfounded attack on conservative leader Pierre Poilievre.  He said it's unworthy of consideration.  Kudos to him for being honest, unlike the current NDP socialist leader.  Trudeau is trying to distract everyone from his own miserable failings, and it is truly disgusting.

October 18, 2024

This is a clear failure

Leadership failure, intelligence failure, and a military failure are all wrapped into one problem:

October 17, 2024

And the spin continues

The spin has spun out of control, from the disastrous Kamala Harris interview, right on into some recent polling. Here's a discussion on why it's a lot of crap.

Democrat spin cycle

When you don't have facts, you spin.  And with Kamala Harris, all you've got is a spin cycle; the facts are she's a bad candidate.  Not only didn't that stop Democrat talking heads from spinning, it mandate that they had to do exactly that.

It was a train wreck

I by far, most often, am a glass half full person but more often than I'd like, I revert to a glass half empty mentality. This is particularly true when it comes to politics and sports. "We're gonna lose." kicks in way faster than it should.  And most of the time it's unwarranted pessimism. 

Last night as Brett Baier was interviewing Kamala Harris on Fox News, it kicked in.  He started off soft.  I get it, he was setting her up for harder questions later. Interviews should be polite even if the subject matter is contentious. But last night with that start to the interview, I turned it off. He was going to softball her, I just knew it.  Waste of time. Fox is helping Kamala.  

Normally I would force my way through it but not last night.  This morning I watched it.  I'll happily admit it; I was wrong to doubt Kamala's ability to implode just as badly as Let's Go Brandon. It was indeed a train wreck.  Not the interview, just for the vapid candidate that is Kamala Harris.

Do I think it hurt Kamala Harris?  A little bit, yeah. Did it help her in any way?  Definitely not. I'm sure there are those who are spinning this as a win for Harris, just as I predicted yesterday.  But there were so many soft underbelly openings she left that even if Brett Baier didn't catch them all, others would. And sure enough, there have been no shortage of those noticing how badly she did.

For example, they're even commenting on the other side of the world:

October 15, 2024

What comes of desperation?

Rewriting this because somehow, most of my post was somehow deleted while I posting it. This is a much shorter version as I am not inclined to rewrite as much as I wrote previously, and to be honest, did not have any notes to work from. Below is my attempt to game theory out why Kamala Harris is going to be interviewed on Fox News.

Tomorrow on Fox News (Fox News!) Kamala Harris is going to sit down for an interview. This is very likely going to be her first, and only, real interview this election cycle. Why is this happening now? I have a few thoughts.

Kamala Harris would not be sitting for an interview with a 'hostile' Fox News unless her campaign knew the truth; she's losing. But what will come from this interview?  I see two ways the interview can go, and possible outcomes that result from that.  The first factor is whether or not Fox News asks her tough questions.

There's no guarantee that Fox News actually does ask Kamala Harris tough questions.  It's one thing to have journalistic standards and wanting to get answers to tough questions. But that's not all that motivates newsrooms. There's money, there's viewership, there's acceptance among peers and/or interviewees. None of these things should play into investigative reporting or interviews - but they do. Worse still; there's politics. Any of these could lead to Fox giving a softball interview to Harris. 

Money in the form of powerful advertisers with a lot of financial pull who might be pro-DEI, would not take kindly to Fox hammering Harris. Money drives business and alienating current and/or potential advertisers is not something Fox would want to do.  There are a lot of woke companies out there with a lot of money.

From a viewership perspective, while Fox will get eyeballs for the interview, an unduly hard interview might scare off potential disaffected centrist viewers who tuned in specifically for this and got hit with a meme; Fox is unfair and biased against Democrats. No viewership growth would come of it.  Conversely an even handed interview might grow viewership and be a better long run strategy. 

Fox has drifted towards the center since Rupert Murdoch handed off control to his children. They are far less conservative than their father. But there's also the idea of media acceptance.  Fox News, and Fox television in general has always been an outsider in the industry.  Playing along with CBS, NBC et. al. would go a long way to garnering not necessarily clout, but perhaps acceptance, within the industry.  We cannot pretend that such things do not matter to if not Fox, at least those who work there.

If Fox does take it easy on Harris, they will definitely lose viewers from those who currently watch it expecting fair and balanced at a minimum.  Remember, Kamala Harris has not faced anything other than controlled softball interviews so far. People want to see her face tough questions.  If she doesn't get them on Fox News, she will never get them. 

But this is not about Fox, it's about Harris. Another softball interview could easily work in Harris' favor; making her look tough for willing to go toe-to-toe with the 'enemy' and come out shining on the other end, having handled the questions with ease.  I know, I know, I laughed re-reading that myself.

Getting obviously softball questions on Fox could easily backfire too; it would show that she is only going places she knows are safe, and clearly had something lined up with Fox.  It would amplify the elites-agenda-versus-the-common-man notion that is clearly driving the election cycle.  That's not a good outcome for Harris or for Fox News.

All that said, Fox still could go tough on her, and they probably will to at least some extent. If they go too hard, it's a nasty look (but honestly, who cares? Look at what Trump has had to endure since 2015!). But if Fox goes tough but fair Harris could still do well (haha, okay not bloody likely) or get ruined.  If she gets ruined though, don't think the Democratic brain trust hasn't pre-planned for that outcome.

How hard would it be to paint Harris as a victim? "They went after her unfairly because she's a woman." "They went after her unfairly because she's black." "They weren't fact checked as they interviewed her, let us do that for you now." The list goes on. While Harris-as-victim is a really bad look for her if you are say named Putin, there are key voting blocks (women for example) who may feel sympathy as a result. A president should be tough enough to handle a rough ride.  If not, why are they president? Voters shouldn't matter as much as a leader who can take the tough shots and fight back for America and its people, but in an election year, voters matter a lot. 

There's one further possibility here; the back room Democrat elite know Harris has lost and they see no way out, so they are hanging her out to dry, now, while they can make a difference elsewhere. The cabal that runs the left, clearly knew Let's Go Brandon was many, many egg noodles short of a meal. They hid it for years.  When they knew they could no longer hide it, they concocted a plan to deal with him.  The Democrat elite are schemers; they put him out there to debate Trump so far ahead of the nomination, they knew they would have time to replace him with someone nobody voted for in the Democrat primaries. 

Protecting Democracy has always been the last thing on their minds, except maybe as a slogan. They want puppets. When their main puppet was full of holes, they discarded him and grabbed onto the next available option; Kamala Harris.  They are not protecting democracy in doing this; in fact it is the exact opposite.  It's Covid lockdowns all over again.  They're thinking we can get away with this because we own the news. 

What they actually are protecting is their club. Not democracy, not the American people, they are protecting their own grip on power. They want to ensure that the down-ballot impact of a feckless Kamala Harris doesn't affect the senate or congress, and leaves them open to a midterm rebound in 2026.  They have given their puppet one chance to do well, far enough out, so they can react.  A weak performance and you'll see every Democrat in a swing district or state, run from her so far and so fast it will make your head spin. 

After failing to fake a euphoria of joy for Harris, this is Democrat insiders' last best shot at changing the trajectory of the election, whether Harris does well or not. I strongly doubt it will make a positive difference for Harris, but I think the Democrats already know that themselves and no longer care.

Trump gaining or no?

Let's not pretend Donald Trump has been making up ground on Kamala Harris; he was always doing better than her, but the push polls are being forced to stop playing games and start reporting reality.  They have to report the truth or their integrity and validity will be challenged post-election. They are moving their polling towards the truth because they must.

20 days until the most important election of our lifetime

There are 20 days until the 2024 election. I try to avoid hyperbole as much as possible. I've heard people say this is the most important election of our lifetime ever since 2008.  I've tended to avoid that and regarded it as hyperbole.  I can think of times that I thought an election was the most important of our lifetime. Ronald Reagan in 1980 halting the real and imminent decline of America under Jimmy Carter was one such time. Another example was the dire need to stop Obama in 2012.  Stopping the election of Hillary Clinton in 2016 was critical, and as it turned out, so was the election of Donald Trump. Then 2020 re-electing Donald Trump was an imperative.  Twice, the most important elections of my lifetime ended with success and twice it ended in failure.  America is still here. So were they really the most important elections of our lifetime?

Yes, they were. But times change, and as they have changed, elections have become more important. Technology is on another level. Illegal immigration is out of control. There are high stakes wars in progress. The deep state is extending its tendrils into more and more of American life. Morality has decayed to an abysmal level. I now believe that this is indeed, the most important election of our lifetime. 

In 2020 America decided to roll the dice with Trump. Despite all of the bulwark of the deep state and Democrats and even many establishment Republicans lined up against him and his America first agenda, the roll of the dice paid off.  This election Trump is no longer a roll of the dice.  You know what you'll get; a better economy, America first, normalized immigration, a restored military, a  leaner and more efficient government and plenty more. Democrats want to define Trump by a phony January 6th narrative, but Americans should see through that.

Conversely if there is a roll of the dice candidate in this election it's Kamala Harris.  She's changed her opinions and policy positions more often than they change Let's Go Brandon's diapers.  You can't tell what she really believes, it's all lies designed to appeal to the voters in the room with her at that moment. There's no substance, no real conviction there.  Of course there is an inkling of what her real positions actually are. For example, it's almost certain she doesn't really own a Glock. Tim Walz; that dog don't hunt either.  Her policy positions will be similar to Let's Go Brandon's; her positions will be what she's told they will be.

In reality a Kamala Harris presidency is far worse than a roll of the dice. A Kamala Harris presidency is an outright bad bet. Americans may be willing to roll the dice but I cannot fathom Americans are willing to make a bad bet. That's especially true when there is a really good bet available to make.  You only make a bad bet out of sheer desperation. Americans are struggling in numbers too great, but Americans are not desperate.  The only people who are desperate, seem to be the Democrats and the Kamala Harris campaign.

As a non-American, but one cheering for American success, I urge you in the most strenuous possible way, go make a good bet.  I would also add that it extends beyond the presidency.  If you want Trump to make a difference, you need to vote for congressional representatives and senators who will support his agenda. If you don't he won't be able to do for America what needs to be done.

Did Bill Clinton get injected with a truth serum?

Bill Clinton admits the truth about illegal immigration, at least part of truth:

October 14, 2024

State of the race: October 14th

 

Click to enlarge.

Taken from the RCP polls, and including only polls that are likely voters, with a sample size greater than 500 or more, and a margin of error less than or equal to 3.5% and polls taken on September 30th or later.

This map would lead to a Trump win with 306 electoral college votes, the same as in 2016.  I think this time around he may do better than this shows at the moment.

NOTE:  Applying the same logic to national polls, Kamala Harris appears to still be leading in the popular vote, but not by a great margin.

Stone Cold Steve Austin discusses Donald Trump

This explains Donald Trump pretty well. 

Democrats' hyperbole leads to yet another crazy targeting Trump

Coachella planned assassination on Trump. This is the third individual. Ridiculous.

October 12, 2024

Do you need a laugh? I need a laugh.

Justin Trudeau over-ripe and can't tell

Some people just can't take a hint.  Justin Trudeau is facing yet another challenge to his leadership from within his own party.  This after his coalition, while still standing, his been dissolved by his co-conspirator (socialist Jagmeet Singh). Trudeau continues to languish in the polls. He has no support. He's well past his best before date.  He just doesn't seem to get it.

Ana Kasparian semi-red-pilled

Ana Kasparian has shown signs of not drinking the Kool Aid for the last two years. She's left the left. But she's not quite been red-pilled.  Maybe more to come, probably, in the months to come.

October 11, 2024

60 Minutes: Part of the Coverup

Trying to make Kamala Harris look good when she can't do it on her own, will eventually have fallout for those who try to participate in the cover-up (just like it made the media look incredibly foolish for lying about Let's Go Brandon).

60 Minutes could implode for trying to cover up for Harris.  This isn't going to just go away I think:


Of course the cover-up scandals are not new to 60 Minutes.  They've been doing it since they lied about George Bush and would not own up to their lies. They were clearly biased in dealing with president Trump years ago too. 

The truth is that the truth does not matter to CBS. Never has, never will. It's still happening today. It's all about their absurd liberal bias agenda. Always has been, always will be. So when things don't go their way, they cover up and wait for the uproar to pass. This is why they cannot be trusted, and in large part, aren't.
 

Pre-Trudeau vs. Post Trudeau, as predicted

Former Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper told Canadians this would happen under Trudeau.  Unfortunately not enough Canadians listened.  Thankfully in another year or less, Justin Trudeau will be in our rearview mirror.

THIS IS Trudeau's fault

I'm not going to sugarcoat this, Trudeau has not only allowed this to happen in Canada, he has not only enabled it to happen in Canada, he has passively (perhaps even actively) encouraged this to happen in Canada.  What I'm talking about is support for terrorism.


Passive encouragement?  Nothing will happen to these people.  Active encouragement? Unfettered immigration without proper standards.

Trump's plan for the auto industry

The mainstream media is blasting Trump as insulting Detroit while in Detroit. That's not what happened.  He talked about the unfortunate deterioration of Detroit while in Detroit.  He was speaking facts.  In addition he laid out a plan to bring Detroit and the United States back into being a manufacturing powerhouse.  He talked about the auto industry specifically.

When you contrast that with the absolute decimation the half-baked plan Kamala Harris is spewing, there really is only one choice for president; Donald Trump.

Astroturfed

Democrats trying to buy votes is a real thing.  In this case, buying influence (influence peddling):

This is crazy

CBS to it's reporters: Don't ask questions. But I guess that's par for the course, leftists don't want leaders to run the country properly. They also apparently don't want journalists/reporters to do their job properly either.

October 9, 2024

October 8, 2024

FEMA troubles keep growing

KJP = blame-thrower. This is not a money problem, this is an operational (i.e. administration) problem.  How do we know that? Mayorkas = liar. Watch:


(1) FEMA sent money to Lebanon. 
(2) They claim they don't have enough deal with upcoming disasters
(3) The administration throws scraps to Americans hurt by the hurricane
(4) The scraps turn out to be even less than what the administration is claiming they are giving
(5) Turns out FEMA does have more money, they just cannot be bothered to allocate it, they'd rather hoard it.

Washington D.C. insiders, and elite circles? You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

A question for Democrats

Do you really want a self-professed knucklehead a heartbeat away from the presidency?


Now I realize the knee-jerk, TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) response will be, better that than a knucklehead as president. But think about what Trump did while in office; record low unemployment, a vast reduction in illegal immigration, Middle East peace accords, and far better trade deals just to name a few. Regardless of what you might think of Trump as a person, his policies were good for the country. The policies were sound.  The results were telling.  The polices made sense and were clearly not knucklehead policies.

Second point. Saying he's a knucklehead is just a way of covering up for what he actually is - a liar. It's the lesser of two evils.  

Third point.  Kamala Harris, though not self-professed, is also a knucklehead, and a liar.  She flip flops, she does not understand basic policy; this morning I heard a clip of her saying she wanted to boost small business tax credits from $5,000 to $50,000 because "you can't start a business on $5,000". She doesn't understand that a tax credit is not handing money to a small business but rather a deduction in the amount of tax a business has to pay.  That's BASIC, and she doesn't get it. Her policies are either previously tried failures or stolen from Trump. She IS a knucklehead.  She chose a knucklehead as her running mate.  That alone speaks volumes; neither one of them is equipped to run the country.


October 7, 2024

They just don't care

I'm sure most people outside the leftist bubble already know about this, but it bears frequent repetition:


The left just doesn't care about Americans in need of aid. Why? Because they are in a red state and not a pet cause of the left. But North Carolina is a state supposedly in play, so why not help out and get yourself some votes?  Does Kamala Harris already realizer she has lost the election and they don't even care about votes? Or is it even more sinister than that?
Former Obama senior adviser David Axelrod argued that Vice President Kamala Harris voters will be clever enough to navigate voting in the wake of the devastation from Hurricane Helene, while saying that rural Trump voters will have a harder time getting to the polls.

Axelrod made the claim during an episode of his podcast "Hacks on Tap" that aired Wednesday, predicting that liberal voters in Asheville, North Carolina – a predominantly blue area in the state – will "figure out a way to vote" more so than conservatives in the storm’s aftermath. 

Describing Asheville as a "blue dot" in the state, he continued, "Those voters in Asheville are – they’re, you know, the kind of voters that will figure out a way to vote. You know, they’re upscale, kind of liberal voters, and they’re probably going to figure out a way to vote," Axelrod said.

He continued, stating that rural conservatives may not be as resourceful in finding ways to vote following the destruction of their homes and communities.

"I’m not sure a bunch of these folks who’ve had their homes and lives destroyed elsewhere in western North Carolina – in the mountains there – are going to be as easy to wrangle for the Trump campaign," the political commentator hypothesized.

That's not just political opportunism, it's vile, sick and evil. 

October 5, 2024

Conservative vs. Liberal priorities on display

Canada is an advanced microcosm of what would happen in America under Kamala Harris.  Canadian voters have come back to their senses, nary a moment too soon.  I hope American voters do so before it's too late:

This deserves a second post

....because it's so ridiculous. Stop gaslighting the American public!

October 4, 2024

Just...why, FEMA?


Illegal immigrants got all the money? Why FEMA, why?

October 2, 2024

3 on 1 and Vance still won the debate handily

The moderators were not moderating the debate they were supporting panicky Tim Walz and still JD Vance was able to kick butt in the debate.  It was brilliant.  When polling comes in I'm sure it will be a win for Vance.  I'm equally sure, though it won't be polled, Vance pointing this out further chipped away at the abysmal levels of trust for the mainstream media.

Unfortunately, I'm also sure this debate will do little to move the polling, as VP debates have only a small impact.  I would caveat that a little here; it might mean more than normal, but just not a lot more.



I'm shocked that the fairest debate this election cycle was conducted by CNN (not really). Debate moderators have become useless given that they are all so left-biased now. 

How about the questions are pre-packaged and displayed on a screen to the participants and microphones are automated to turn on and off at set times? No people involved whatsoever. Questions can come from sources proposed by candidates and accepted by their opponents. For example Vance could request 10 questions come from Fox and Walz could request 10 from CBS. The questions would be asked alternately between both sources.  Just a thought.

October 1, 2024

I'm running out of entertainment options here!

I stopped watching the mainstream media, for the most part. It's a rare occasion I watch network or cable television. Why did I stop? Left leaning agendas that I could not stomach were making their way into most every broadcast show. But there was Netflix, Amazon Prime, YouTube and several other options. 

Amazon Prime is grotesquely woke, I never watch it, even though there were shows on there I wouldn't mind seeing, I can't support it. Jeff Bezos is a leftist and it has infected the entire Amazon Prime platform. It's exactly what happened to CNN; Ted Turner's leftward bias could not be held out of it's newscasts, and now like a plague, it's infected every corner of the company. Bezos has stepped away from the day to day of Amazon but Amazon is already what it is, a progressive platform. So it's out.

YouTube is a Google platform that's even further left than Amazon.  It's become my number one source of entertainment but the content creators I watch have been squeezed out slowly and systematically by YouTube. That's not to mention that despite the heavy leftward bias of Google and YouTube, YouTube has fallen heavily in love with a ridiculous volume of commercials. It's unwatchable from that perspective. I find myself on YouTube less and less and have become much more selective. From 6 to 12 seconds of ads to 60 seconds of unskippable ads every few minutes is not sustainable. It isn't for me at least. And I'm certainly not going to subscribe to a platform where all my favorite content providers are treated like dirt through shadow-banning, shadow-unsubscribing, ad revenue racketeering or through some other means.

Disney+ was a non-starter for me. ABC is ultra-woke, Disney itself has gone ultra-woke, so why would I buy into that to begin with?  The platform as it turns out, unsurprisingly, is also ultra-woke.

The last refuge? Netflix. Netflix has not been any sort of paragon of neutrality they have worked with the Obama's, trashed history, presented ultra-woke content, etc. But they did have some decent content as well.

 That unfortunately has fallen to the wayside for me in light of this:

I can't support Netflix any more.

So now where do I go? Gaming?  Too late, already woke. Rumble? Good platform, not enough critical mass. Fox? Not terrible but it has been slipping since 2020 and Rupert Murdoch's handoff to his kids. X? It's been great since Elon Musk took over, retreating from the uber-woke status, but it isn't a big content provider. It should be, it should become one, Tucker Carlson's show has been great, but the platform needs more; it has the potential to become more.  Facebook? Despite Mark Zuckerberg's recent 'miraculous' (suspicious) turn towards libertarianism, the platform is not really a content platform.  It's more just a big pile of mess. And the platform is not libertarian by any stretch.

I'm running out of entertainment options here! Seems to me a wise person who is either conservative or at least unconcerned about politics, and who had enough capital to do something about my current conundrum, would recognize that it is likely a massively common problem. There is a huge opportunity to create an entertainment platform that is not woke, and is simply concerned about quality content for it's audience. It would thrive. Advertisers may be woke but eyeballs mean money. YouTube knows this as I mentioned above.  That's why despite being woke, they pepper us with ads. The new entertainment platform would not go broke. It would thrive. 

Just saying.

Based on believable polls

As of yesterday, this is what I was seeing:

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Share This