Now that the hoopla over the 2024 election has pretty much died down and the postmortems of the aforementioned election are calming down somewhat (and missing a lot of the points that should have been drawn from it), I wanted to throw my semi-serious hat into the ring and offer a postmortem of a different flavor, one that goes deeper into the Democrats’ 2024 loss than “America is racist and sexist.”
My thoughts? The Democrats would have been in far better shape had Joe Biden lost in 2020.
This seems counterintuitive on its face, but in looking back at the past 4 years, it’s hard to dismiss the possibility Biden winning had more to do with Kamala Harris losing than anything Donald Trump could have done, intentionally or otherwise.
As the poem goes, let me count the ways.
– The blame for the COVID-19 response and any aftermath therein would be firmly on Trump’s shoulders. Would Trump have handled it better? I can’t say for certain, but I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t be any worse.
– Trump would have been out of office sooner. Yes, I know Leftists would up in arms about another 4 years of Trump (just look at how they’re handling it today), but in retrospect, they might be willing to put up with it to not have to endure the second Trump Presidency in the here and now. And speaking of which…
– The Democrats would have had more time to find a better candidate than they had. Let’s face it. Kamala Harris was a poor candidate thrust into the role by people whose only strategy was “Orange Man Bad.” At least we would have had a primary process to weed out the bad candidates (Harris) and find other less bad candidates. Which also brings us to…
– Leftist Governors wouldn’t have felt emboldened by President Biden to take the actions they did. This is more of a future-forward thinking point, but the gist is people like Gavin Newsom, Gretchen Whitmer, and Andrew Cuomo (all of whom were seen as rising stars within Democrat circles) wouldn’t have fallen for the trap of overreach because their guy was in power. As a result, Newsom is looking inept as his state burns, Whitmer isn’t even that much of a figure in Democrat circles, and Cuomo should be in prison for his COVID stupidity. With Trump in charge, these three numbskulls would still have some stroke to come out as the anti-Trump in 2024. Now, they’re lucky if they can be named state chairs of their party caucuses.
– Republicans would have had to find a Trump replacement sooner. With Trump’s defeat in 2020, that kept his legitimacy as a candidate on life support. Had he won, the Republicans would have been scrambling to find a replacement that wasn’t Mike Pence. Nice guy, but he’s like tofu and would have been a lot easier to defeat in 2024 unless the GOP found another Trump-like candidate.
– Kamala Harris would have still been a Senator. This works in one of two ways. First, she could have shored up the concept she was a fierce prosecutor within the safety of the Senate chambers, especially after Tulsi Gabbard ate Harris’s lunch and stole her lunch money besides in 2019. Second, she could have built up her leadership resume a bit more. Instead of being the Kamala Harris we got in 2024, she could have studied the ins and outs of political maneuvering from people like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi to make her minuses look less minus-ey.
– Other potential Presidential candidates wouldn’t have to deal with the fallout from being seen as incompetent under the Biden Presidency. This is more specific to Pete Buttigieg, but it could apply to others. In 2020, Mayor Pete seemed to be confident, competent, and had a good head on his shoulders, thus bridging a gap between the Progressive wing and the Traditional wing of the Democrat Party. While serving as Secretary of Transportation, he showed none of the traits he did as a candidate, including messing up a pretty big disaster in Ohio which made him look incompetent and out of touch. (Not to mention his “breastfeeding” picture that kept him out of sight for about 30 days.)
– There would be no debate over the 2020 election results. Simple logic here. If Biden lost, the MAGA supporters wouldn’t have a place to hang their red MAGA hats on, and a lot of spin, disinformation, and other gobbledygook would have never seen the light of day. Which leads to…
– The “insurrection” wouldn’t have happened. We can debate the facts of what happened on January 6th until Jesus comes back, but the fact is without a Biden win, there would have been no “insurrection.” And as a result…
– There would be no J6 Committee. To put it mildly, the J6 Committee was a farce only one-upped by the way the Department of Justice handled the J6 arrestees. The more we look into it, the more sus things we find out. Imagine not having that around your neck like an albatross! Although I think Adam Schiff’s neck strength would handle it just fine…
– There would be no J6 arrests. Speaking of the DOJ, they did a horrible job respecting the rule of law and even basic Constitutional rights with how they haphazardly doled out punishments, coerced people into confessions that not even the Spanish Inquisition would have cooked up, and held US citizens in jail without being charged with any crimes. Heck, even the charges that were presented weren’t even close to being insurrection.
– The “lawfare” against Trump would have been more effective. Without the protection of the Presidency, Trump and his legal team would have had a much tougher road to hoe to convince judges his claims of immunity were valid, which would have negated or at least delayed the Supreme Court case that gave Trump a “Get Out of Jail Free if You’re the President” card. And I get the feeling that USSC decision is going to come back to bite us all sooner rather than later, but that’s a blog post for another time.
– The 2022 midterm elections would have been more favorable towards Democrats than they were. Granted, there was no “red wave” as predicted by many on the Right, but think of it this way. Americans seem to think a divided government is somehow preferable to the same party controlling the White House and Congress. With all the negatives Trump had at the time, the Democrats would have seen a much more favorable outcome due to the divided government concept and the rising discontent there might have been with Trump.
– The Biden family wouldn’t have been made so public. This covers a lot of ground, including Hunter Biden’s crimes and subsequent pardon, Joe’s mental decline, allegations of Joe showering with a young female relative, the too-frequent gaffes that had to be explained away, and so many more issues both substantial and inconsequential. If Joe Biden lost in 2020, he could have walked off into the sunset and we would have seen him better than he did when he left office.
– The Democrat wouldn’t look like hypocrites when criticizing Trump’s appointees as incompetent. I can’t say for certain, but I get the feeling the vetting process under Joe Biden was “how many minority boxes do you check off” and that was it. From the incompetent to the “how in the heck did you get this job,” the Biden Administration was filled with people who were in way over their heads, but were in charge of some pretty important stuff. Any Democrat who stayed silent when Sam Brinton was running around stealing people’s luggage instead of keeping an eye on nuclear energy should take all the seats before saying anybody Trump appoints is unfit for the job.
– Democrats would have more time to figure out a better message, both in real life and on social media. Let’s face it, folks. Democrats have a weak social media game, and their ground game is antiquated at best. Within four years, they could have spent less time listening to Millennials with a TikTok account and more time at the grassroots level figuring out why their messaging doesn’t resonate as much as it did. The fact a wealthy land developer from New York is now the voice of the working class should embarrass Leftists to no end.
– No Inflation Reduction Act. This one piece of legislation was pretty much the stake in the Harris/Walz campaign’s heart because it showed how out of touch Democrats became. The old saying “all politics is local” is still as relevant as “it’s the economy, stupid,” and Democrats were tone-deaf to both. No matter how much you folks tried to make us believe the economy was doing better than we thought (and calling us stupid if we didn’t agree), it didn’t match with what voters were seeing. It was, and still is, one of the biggest blunders of the Biden Administration.
– The Russia-Ukraine War might not have started. One of the things that stuck in many voters’ craws was the amount of money we were sending to Ukraine to fight off a Russian invasion. In the face of domestic issues like natural disasters, rising inflation, and the economic impact of looting and thievery in major cities, we kinda wanted to know why our money was being sent to a foreign country without question. We can speculate all we want, but in the end, we are still wondering why we’re funding a war overseas. No amount of patriotic bunting can square this circle. Without Biden cutting blank checks to Ukraine, our involvement wouldn’t be so head-scratchingly controversial. Trump ran on not getting us involved in foreign wars, and I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t have gotten us involved in Ukraine.
– The “Tech Bros” and Joe Rogan wouldn’t have seemingly moved rightward. Up until recently, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg , and Joe Rogan among others were consistently left-leaning. But as the Left went further Left, they all had a “come to Jesus” moment and decided to entertain thoughts from the Right. That alone caused Leftists to freak out instead of asking themselves if they were doing something that would make people not associate with the Left anymore. This emboldened others, along with Tulsi Gabbard and Robert Kennedy, Jr., to distance themselves from the Left and break bread with Donald Trump. But at least you still have Harry Sisson…for now.
If you made it this far, thank you for hearing me out. If you haven’t, the Readers Digest Condensed Version is Joe Biden winning in 2020 was the worst thing that could have happened to Democrats on a number of levels. As it stands, we’re now in the timeline where Biden won, which lead to Donald Trump winning and Leftists freaking out over what could have been.
It’s like the old saying: “Be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.”
Tag: joe biden
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
History has a tendency to repeat itself at times when you least expect it. Or, if you pay attention to Leftist rhetoric (which may be against the Geneva Convention, or at the very least the 2024 Shriners Convention), it happens every time a Republican gets into office. And if you’re not paying attention, you will Nazi this coming.
See what I did there?
In the waning hours of the Brick Tamland Administration, history repeated itself when he announced the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. This sentiment was echoed by Queen Kamala the Unappointed (see what I did there?), Senator Kirsten “I’m Angela from ‘The Office’ Without the Charm” Gillibrand, and Leftist groups like the Center for American Progress. And just like the previous times the Equal Rights Amendment was at the center of conversation, advocates are proclaiming its necessity to ensure equality between/among the sexes.
Yeah, about that…
Equal Rights Amendment
What the Left thinks it means – a ratified Constitutional Amendment necessary to ensure equality of the sexes
What it really means – an irrelevant Constitutional Amendment that Leftists want to enshrine anyway
Although it’s become a hot topic, the Equal Rights Amendment has a bit of a history. It was first proposed in 1923 as part of the women’s suffrage movement. Eventually, the ERA finally came into being as a proposed Amendment in 1972. The wording is as follows:
Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
This is where things get a little tricky for the ERA. Although it was passed by both houses of Congress, 38 states still had to ratify it, and there was a time limit placed on it. This time frame expired on June 30, 1982. So, that should be the end of it, right?
Ooooh, sor-ray. The Left continued to push for the ERA to be ratified like they would get an ice cream cone after it happened. Well, that explains why Brick Tamland was hot and heavy to get it ratified. Anyway, Virginia ratified the Equal Rights Amendment in January 2020, barely missing the deadline by…let me check my notes here…almost 40 years. So, so close…
In spite of this, the Left continued to push for the ERA to be ratified because a) the conditions were met aside from the time frame, and b) they really wanted women to have equal protection as men. You know, back when they thought there were only two genders? (And at the break, it’s still Genders 2, Leftists 0.)
On the surface, what the ERA stands for is pretty reasonable and a good step. We love people to be treated equally in theory. These days, though, the practice is situational and only when we’re directly impacted. You know, just like when Leftists support police officers until they don’t? And, surprise surprise, the Left is the same way when it comes to women.
The Equal Rights Amendment has become obsolete because society has changed without it. Today, women occupy many high profile positions in business, politics, OnlyFans, and so on. In some areas, they’ve even surpassed men. Maybe it’s just me, but the fact women have these positions shows the ERA is a non-starter. What more equality do women need that isn’t already covered by laws and society?
The quickest answer for the Left is abortion, or as they call it “bodily autonomy” or “health care.” Or maybe they can just call it infrastructure like they did everything else for a time. But even this fails with a cursory knowledge of recent Supreme Court rulings that made abortion a state issue rather than a federal issue. Then, there’s the logic problem. Abortion laws by definition affect women more than men because…and I can’t believe I have to say this in 2025…MEN CAN’T GET PREGNANT. Equality of rights based on sex can’t apply here because there is no equivalent male counterpart to abortion. Oops.
The wage gap? To my knowledge, there are no laws on the books right now mandating women be paid less than men for doing the same job. What’s more, there are already laws and practices on the books that prohibit it, thus the ERA would be a redundancy like having two Leftists scream about the pay gap when none would suffice.
So, this begs the question of why the Left hasn’t done anything substantive about the ERA since the Reagan era. The simple answer? Leftists don’t really give a fuck about women, just their votes and money. The more complex answer? Leftists need women to be victims, even if it’s self-inflicted victimhood. Challenging the ratification status of the ERA or even coming up with another attempt to ratify it when they had control of both houses of Congress was never a top priority to the Leftists in power. After all, we had to save the rare triple breasted albino puddle jumping raven! And how do I know that bird is rare?
Because I just made it up.
Imagine being a Leftist woman and having your equal rights take a back seat to an animal that may or (probably) not affect the world in any way, shape, or form. That should make any sensible Leftist female (a stretch, I know, but I like to dream) pack up shop, take their pink pussy hats, and look for a non-Leftist man to settle down with. But since they think they’re victims of “The Man” or “The Men” or “The Patriarchy,” they stay firmly planted in the back seat and let other causes take all the attention.
And the ERA is part is the mythical carrot that keeps them there.
But there is another angle that few, if any, have explored: the impact the ERA will have on the trans community. While it’s easy and fun to mock the Left’s inability to follow actual science and conclude most people fall into one gender or the other, there is a perverse genius involved. If we accept the Left’s idea that even genders are more complex than they actually are and that there are more that can be claimed merely with an assertion, it throws a lot of things into question.
Like…oh I don’t know…the Equal Rights Amendment.
Once the Left gets a foothold on a legal matter, they will use it as a catapult for other matters only tangentially related to the original matter. That’s how the gay rights movement went from merely asking to be treated like regular people to “bake the cake, bigot.”
I have no hard data to back this up (aside from the fact the Left abandons women like Leonardo DiCaprio does when they turn 25), but having seen how the Left has used other social issues to push an alternate agenda, I can’t rule out the possibility of the ERA being “ratified” by Presidential fiat being used to further their transgender agenda. Or as I am calling it the transgenda.
See what I did there?
Although the Left is going to call the next steps in the ratification process uncertain, that’s only because they know as much about the Constitution as they do about economics: very little, but they’ll still try to convince you otherwise. The fact remains the Equal Rights Amendment had its shot to be ratified within the time limit Congress set and it wasn’t. No matter how many social media posts or proclamations from current and former political figures get made, the ERA is DOA, and it doesn’t l0ok like the Left wants to do the heavy lifting to make it a priority.
Which is fine by me. I’m not a fan of redundancy except when it comes to my jokes and pop culture references, but it’s clear America has moved past the notion that women have only certain societal roles. Now, we can confidently say women can fuck shit up just as well as men can!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
With the incoming Trump Administration, there are going to be a lot of confirmation hearings for his Cabinet. And without exception, Leftists are obsessed with qualifications. To hear them speak (and I’m not sure why you would want to), none of Trump’s appointees have the basic qualifications to tie their own shoes, let alone run a section of the American government.
Let’s just say the irony is not lost on your humble correspondent.
But what exactly do Leftists mean when they talk about qualifications? Good question, and I hope I have a good answer, or at least an answer entertaining enough that you won’t throw your computer in the dumpster.
qualifications
What the Left thinks it means – important characteristics that show someone is capable of doing the job
What it really means – qualities politicians have little room to talk about
First, a bit of a rabbit hole to set up the shitshow proper. Under the Constitution, the Senate has the responsibility of advice and consent. Under normal conditions, this can be a useful tool to determine whether a potential government official has the knowledge, background, and judgment necessary to fulfill the duties of the role. Under current conditions, it’s a way for know-nothing assholes to preen for the cameras and look for their “gotcha” moments. And that’s when the Senate is being less horrible than usual.
Through this advice and consent process, nominees get dragged in front of Senate committees and either given more ball gagging than on a gay porn set (not that I know anything about that, mind you) or a gauntlet of nonsensical, partisan bullshit questions that makes you wonder if the Senators asking them actually want to hear from the nominee.
In other words, any given Tuesday on Capitol Hill.
The reason qualifications is such a buzz word recently is because Democrats and Leftists want to make the public at large believe everyone Trump nominates is dumber than a bag of hammers, even if they have more experience than the assholes asking the questions. And when these assholes aren’t asking gotcha questions, they’re heading to their favorite media outlets to brag about what they did, and so they can get their balls sucked.
Yes, even the women, or for any Leftist reading this, birthing people.
Although we would like to get the best people for the job, there’s one significant hurdle: the best people for the job wouldn’t take it because it would be a downgrade. For most people, getting a cushy government job where you couldn’t get fired even if you tried would be a dream. But within that dream, there is the nightmare of being stagnant. Great ideas rarely get implemented, excellence is seen as a detriment, and good employees are pushed to be as mediocre as they can be. And qualifications? It’s more about connections or other factors unrelated to the job than it is about whether you can do it.
That’s one of the reasons I chuckle when the Left starts talking about how unqualified Trump’s appointees are. Leftist hate achievement and want everybody to be equally…meh. Just check the right boxes and you, too, can be the Undersecretary of Beverage Acquisition for the Undersecretary of Waste Disposal under the Secretary of Environmental Justice, Transgender Division. In other words, you’re getting coffee for trash collectors under someone who got a shitty degree that couldn’t get you hired by a temp agency.
And it might give you a fast track to being in Congress or some President’s Cabinet if you play your cards right. Just ask Pete Buttigieg.
Which brings me to another reason I’m chuckling a lot at Leftists demanding Trump’s appointees be qualified: they’re responsible for confirming some of the Brick Tamland Administration’s worst picks, like Pete Buttigieg as Secretary of Transportation. Not to pick on Mayor Pete here, but what in the wide world of fuck were his qualifications? Fixing roads in South Bend, Indiana.
Let’s ask the people of East Palestine, Ohio, how they feel about his qualifications for Secretary of Transportation. That is if you can get them to drop their pitchforks and torches at the mention of his name.
The fact many of the same Senators who question the qualifications of Trump’s appointees thought nothing of the lack of qualifications of many appointees of the Brick Tamland Administration makes me want to tell them to take a seat, but that wouldn’t be any fun.
That comes when you ask these sanctimonious assholes obsessed with qualifications to pontificate on the California wildfires, where the people in charge aren’t qualified to run a free water outlet in the desert, let alone fighting a major fire. I would particularly like to hear from new Senator Adam Schiff, one of the ones who keeps warning us about the dangers of having incompetent people in positions of power. Or he could just look in the mirror to see an incompetent person in power.
Yeah, I went there. And I’ll continue to go there so much, I’ll get my mail forwarded there.
The whole kerfluffle over qualifications right now is based on partisanship, just like it has been with previous appointees from both sides. As much as I like Ted Cruz (which is slightly more than I like most politicians), his questioning of Ketanji Jackson Brown over issues like Critical Race Theory only feed into the problem. Which gives me an idea for an Extremist Makeover, but that’s a blog post for a different time.
In the meantime, it should be pointed out these hearings are like the plot of a horrible mystery novel: you know what’s going to happen before we get to the end because it’s so fucking obvious. Democrats are going to vote against the nominees, Republicans will vote for the nominees, both sides are going to claim victory, and the qualification kerfluffle gets tossed aside.
And we’ll get stuck with the results.
So, yay, I guess?
Unlocking the Keys
With all of the post-2024 Election analyses, there’s been a lot of talk about Allan Lichtman’s 13 Keys, the factors he’s used to predict 9 of the past 11 Presidential elections. A lot of talk, but not a lot of analysis, per se. Oh, you had your share of squawking heads on both pointing out how the 13 Keys failed this election, but not a lot of thought as to why.
Well, since I lack hobbies, I decided to do a bit of research and analysis of my own and what I found out might change a few minds.
Before we get into the boring stuff, we have to set our parameters, i.e. know what we’re talking about. After all, this isn’t MSNBC, so we can’t get away with spouting off without having facts.
Lichtman’s Keys are as follows:
Party mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the US House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.
Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
Long term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.
Under Lichtman’s model, a successful candidate has to win at least 8 of these Keys. And considering its track record, it would be hard to imagine a scenario where the Keys failed.
This is where things get a little tricky, and where most of the post-election analysis surrounding the Keys stopped. The consensus was the Keys were wrong, which negatively impacts Lichtman and the model itself. However, that’s far too simplistic and inaccurate an assessment. Based on my own analysis, the Keys still work and worked in the 2024 election.
Where the failure occurred is in the interpretation of the data. Whenever you do any kind of social research, there is always a chance one’s personal beliefs can find their way into the analysis of the findings. If you’re not careful, you go from letting the data drive your conclusions to rooting for a particular conclusion and retroactively figuring out how it came to pass.
To be fair, observation bias isn’t limited to the “soft sciences.” There are some prime examples of hard sciences being sucked into the wonderful world of bias. The difference is in the ability to reconstruct the experiment to test the hypothesis further. With hard science, the way to do that is clear, but with soft science, it’s unclear, if not impossible, to reproduce the outcomes. We can set up similar conditions, but the passage of time, the introduction of new information, or even just the possibility of a changed opinion limit the effectiveness and accuracy of the reproduction.
Setting all that aside (because it gets pretty close to migraine-inducing territory for me), the important takeaway is the data is the data. It’s how we interpret it that creates the opening for bias to affect the outcome.
I can’t say for certain Lichtman’s prediction that Vice President Kamala Harris would win 9 of the 13 keys was based on bias rather than a difference in interpreting the data. Prior to 2024, the only other time in recent history that the Keys didn’t accurately predict the outcome was in 2000 when he predicted Al Gore would defeat George W. Bush. His explanation for why the Keys didn’t predict the winner then? Bush stole the election.
That suggests to me he may have a bias issue when it comes to elections he feels strongly about, and he has made it clear he’s not a Trump supporter by any means. Having said that, I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt here and chalk the 2024 election prediction failure to just having an off night. More grace than he deserves? Maybe, but feel free to excoriate me in the comments.
Lichtman’s prediction for 2024 were as follows:
The following nine keys line up in favor of the incumbent Democrats.
Contest Key 2: The Democrats have united in near unanimity behind Harris.
Third-Party Key 4: In recognition of his fading support, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. suspended his campaign. His endorsement of Donald Trump does not impact this key.
Short-Term Economy Key 5: It is too late for a recession to take hold of the economy before the election. The National Bureau of Economic Research, which provides the most reliable assessment of recessions, typically takes a few months to establish that the economy has fallen into a recession (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2020).
Long-Term Economy Key 6: Real per-capita growth during the Biden term far exceeds the average of the previous two presidential terms.
Policy Change Key 7: Biden has fundamentally changed the policies of the Trump administration in areas such as the environment and climate change, infrastructure, immigration, taxes, and women’s and civil rights.
Social Unrest Key 8: Despite sporadic demonstrations, social unrest has not risen to the level needed to forfeit this key: massive, unresolved unrest that threatens the stability of society as in the 1960s and early 1970s.
Scandal Key 9: Republicans in Congress have tried and failed to pin a scandal on President Biden. His son Hunter’s crimes do not count as scandal, which to do so must implicate the president himself and generate bipartisan recognition of wrongdoing.
Foreign/Military Success Key 11: President Biden and Biden alone forged the coalition of the West that kept Putin from conquering Ukraine and then undermining America’s national security by threatening its NATO allies. Biden’s initiatives will go down in history as an extraordinary presidential achievement.
Challenger Charisma Key 13: As explained, Trump does not fit the criteria of a once-in-a-generation, broadly appealing, transformational candidate like Franklin D. Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan.
Seems like a lock, right? Not quite.
I have no dog in this hunt since I didn’t vote for either Trump or Harris, so my analysis shook out a bit differently. Instead of focusing on just the 9 keys Lichtman thought Harris would win, I think a look at all 13 would be helpful.
Here’s what I came up with.
Party Mandate: Although the 2022 midterm elections didn’t quite swing as far right as the GOP would have wanted, the fact remains they regained control of the House of Representatives. On that, Lichtman and I concur. Advantage: Trump.
Contest: Lichtman gave this one to Harris, but the conditions under which she received the nomination makes this a bit harder for me to concede this Key to her. At the beginning of the election cycle, Ms. Harris was still considered to be Vice President, in spite of the thoughts at the time she might be a drag on the ticket. The unity behind her didn’t come together until after the nomination process was truncated and she was allowed to take over for Joe Biden. Trump, on the other hand, went through a primary process where he had challengers of varying degrees of ineptitude. Even with that being the case, the GOP by and large got behind Trump from the outset. Thus, I have to give this one to the GOP. Advantage: Trump.
Incumbancy: Once Joe Biden dropped out, this Key became a moot point. Neither Trump nor Harris could claim this, so neither one would get the advantage from it. No Advantage.
Third Party: There was no significant third party presence in the 2024 election. The closest we had was Robert Kennedy, Jr. No Advantage.
Short Term Economy: Now, we’re getting into the fun stuff! Lichtman was correct when he said there was not a recession in play here. However, that doesn’t automatically mean the economy is strong. We may not have had a recession, but we still had to deal with an economy voters felt was in decline because, well, it was. Even if you consider the drop in the inflation rate to be a step in the right direction, it didn’t resonate with voters. For that reason, I cannot give Harris the nod as Lichtman did. Advantage: Trump.
Long Term Economy: Second verse, same as the first. Advantage: Trump.
Policy Change: Again, Lichtman correctly stated the Biden Administration changed policies put in place by the Trump Administration, which were certainly big, but for the wrong reasons because they were historically bad changes. (Inflation Reduction Act, anyone?) When asked what she would do differently, Harris couldn’t come up with anything, which meant she knowingly or inadvertently signed off on the policy changes Biden made, which were ultimately unpopular. Staying the course when you’re about to hit the rocks isn’t smart in real life or in politics. Advantage: Trump.
Social Unrest: One of the candidates got shot at twice after years of being called a fascist, and the other was Kamala Harris. That tells me there’s social unrest. Advantage: Trump.
Scandal: Sorry, sir, but you think President Biden was devoid of scandal, I have swamp land in Death Valley I’d love to sell you. This was one of the biggest blunders Lichtman had with his 2024 Keys because it ignored one of the biggest stories of last year: Biden’s declining mental faculties. That in and of itself (as well as the media’s cover-up) was a big enough scandal to swing this Key to Trump. Advantage: Trump.
Foreign or Military Failure: That was Joe Biden’s M.O. even back in his Congressional days. As we saw with the mess that was the Afghanistan withdrawal, there was no way for Biden to escape blame for it. And Harris was pretty much either a ghost on the scene or nodded in approval at whatever harebrained idea Biden came up with at the time. Trump didn’t have that problem because, well, he wasn’t Commander In Chief. Advantage: Trump.
Foreign/Military Success: Unless you count making President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine super rich, I got nothing. Advantage: Trump.
Incumbent Charisma/Hero: Even if you count Harris as the incumbent, she was a popularity void, as evidenced by the number of people who walked out of her rallies after the musical performances by big-name stars concluded. And Trump wasn’t the incumbent. It’s a wash. No Advantage.
Challenger Charisma/Hero: Say what you will about the man, Donald Trump has charisma and he imposed his will on the Harris campaign. Lichtman got this one completely wrong. Advantage: Trump.
So the final score from my analysis is 10 Keys for Trump, 0 for Harris, and 3 for No Advantage. And considering Trump won the White House, I’d say the Keys worked pretty good once possible bias (and definite missed calls) were accounted for. It may not have been the result Lichtman wanted, but from where I sit, the Keys worked to perfection, even if he didn’t.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
With Christmas right around the corner (please check local listings for the time and location of Christmas), people are exchanging presents, cards, well-wishes, and other wonderful holiday items. But the Left? They’re exchanging insults over Elon Musk.
Again.
Considering this is an almost hourly occurrence, we shouldn’t be surprised, but this time the Left has gone and made Musk into…co-President! While the Left has their collectivist panties in a wad, I wanted to delve into this concept a bit further, mainly because it shows the Left has the attention span of a goldfish on crack.
co-President
What the Left thinks it means – Elon Musk, an unelected man who wields unprecedented power in the incoming Trump Administration
What it really means – a term that could cover anyone with sway over the President
The concept of a co-President is kinda amusing when you really think about it (and I have because I have a lot of downtime in my personal life), and the Left have made it even more amusing by really leaning into it. They see Musk as the man controlling Trump’s strings, while at the same time claiming Trump is the puppet master of his followers. Although anyone who has seen Trump give a speech can tell you he’s about as controllable as a Chihuahua/pit bull mix on a steady diet of truck stop speed, energy drinks, and, oh yeah, PCP.
So, the concept of Musk controlling Trump as his co-President is funny at its face because of how utterly detached from reality you have to be to believe it. Musk has Trump’s ear for sure, but that doesn’t mean he has control over the incoming Commander in Chief. Until such time as evidence comes out that Musk is secretly cloning Trump so he can get his way, I’m gonna stay over on the not-that-fucking-crazy side.
And the best part? We would have to go allllllll the way back to 1993 to find the first modern reference of someone being a co-President. Ah, 1993. America was still enthralled by grunge and club music. The uniform of the day was flannel and oversized pants. Boy bands were still a good 5 years away or so. And the genius who introduced us to the concept of a co-President?
Bill “The Commander In Briefs” Clinton.
On the campaign trail, ole Slick Willie talked about if he got elected, the country would get Hillary Clinton as a “two-for-one deal.” Although this might be a good deal for Bill at any of his favorite brothels, it wasn’t that good of a deal for the rest of us. Hillary was put in charge of healthcare reform, and promptly sucked at it. But don’t worry. She was young and hadn’t truly embraced her ability to fuck shit up yet.
Now, Billy Boy wasn’t the first President to take influence from someone other than his staff, and he certainly won’t be the last. The thing is there’s a vast difference between having influence and actually using it. Did Hillary influence Bill’s decision-making at times? Undoubtedly. Who do you think gave Bill the idea to make Madeleine Albright Secretary of State and send her to talks with Muslim countries?
Spoiler Alert: It was the dumbass who used a prop Reset button to signal a new positive relationship with Russia.
Then, we had George W. Bush, a man so hated by the Left he was accused of being a puppet to Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, the Koch Brothers, the 1992 Denver Broncos, and just about everyone else. Although I think I might have missed out on my turn because I have this great idea of what to do with the IRS. Oh, well. Maybe next time!
With Barack Obama, it’s harder to pin down whether Michelle Obama had any more power than previous First Ladies, but I get the feeling she wore the pants in the family. She would have to in order to keep her balls from falling out. (Kidding!)
Now, with the most recent President, it’s a lot easier to pin down who had the President’s ear. In fact, President Brick Tamland may have been the first co-de-President ever.
Hmmm…it seems like co-Presidents occur when…weak-ass Leftist “men” are in charge. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence, though. I mean, how likely would it be that Leftist man after Leftist man would be that incompetent, right?
And it makes perfect sense for the Left to project their issues onto Trump because they’re that fucking stupid. Oh, and it make them feel better about having complete wimps be their male standard bearers in politics. To them, weakness is strength, incompetence is competence, and an utter shitshow is normal.
I’m starting to think the Left is more influenced by George Orwell than George Soros these days.
Meanwhile, this attitude creates a paradox. If we were to follow the Left’s logic on this (and for God’s sake why would you), being a co-President is only bad when the Left is out of power, but it’s ho-hum when the Left is in power. This goes back to something the Left believes with all of their heart: anyone not like them is a fucking idiot and, thus, easily manipulated by bad players.
My irony meter broke after typing that, mainly because the Left doesn’t recognize they’re doing what they accuse the Right of doing. Oh, and they’re fucking idiots.
And we should keep this in mind when thinking about the entire co-President concept, especially that last part. The fact the Left is so concerned with unelected people having so much power, presumed or otherwise, shows how freaked out they get when they’re not the unelected people having the power. Say what you will about Elon Musk, but after the last 4 years of Leftists letting utterly unqualified people have more power than they can handle (I’m looking at you, Pete Buttigieg), he should be the least of our worries. He’s not a co-President any more than Melania Trump is and shouldn’t be considered as such.
Besides, if Leftists were concerned about unelected people with a lot of power, they would be against bureaucrats.
False Assumptions in the Meme Time
The Left and their memes. Time again to dive into one and break it down and destroy it.
It beings with a lie. The Left is certainly and categorically mad at anyone who does not conform to their political ideology. This is why Hilary Clinton stated that Republicans were the number one threat to democracy and that Trump supporters should be put into re-education camps.
There are even families that have been torn apart due to a Leftist member who is mad as hell and hates their family members who aren’t Leftists like them. So they are truly mad because of our political views.
The next section lists several veiled attacks on President Trump. Many of which are false or at least misleading. Just part of the Leftist propaganda for useful idiots and their talking points.
SA. That’s Sexual Assault. I had to ask a Leftist since I couldn’t figure out what the abbreviation was representing. It’s not a common abbreviation after all. These kind of attacks are common against wealthy and famous peoples. A great majority of these s0-called assaults have been recanted by their tellers as false claims.
The majority of these cases have zero evidence. There is no DNA, no rape kit, no immediate going to the police. Also, many of these alleged sexual assaults are filed as cases in New York. A heavily dominated Leftist stronghold. So much so that Trump left his home state.
When the Left is against a political candidate or appointee, there are always charges of sexual assault made against them. Someone comes forward states that X happened in such and such year. Yet, the Left ignores the blatant and easily seen evidence of there own. Just look at President Biden’s wandering hands. And even President Clinton’s actions in the Oval Office. The list is longer of course but the Left ignores them all because the perpetrator is a Democrat.
Ah, “women’s rights“, of course the means abortion at any time up to and including birth. This is what the Left demands. Infanticide on demand. You can easily see that within the Leftist movement of women who are shaving their heads today now that Trump won the election. This is what they want despite what they say.
President Trump thinks that abortion should be a States issue. And currently it is just that. If you don’t like that or how your state is handling the issue. Get involved or move.
Racism. A lie of lies. And this has been debunked even in the mainstream media. I’ve written about this one many times in many forms. The Republican Party was founded to end slavery. While the southern Democratic Party was in opposition to that end of slavery. And left the Union because of it.
Republicans don’t give a hoot about one’s skin color. We care about your character and merits. The Democratic Left, like all Leftist movements, seeks to divide everyone by class, race, or other identifiable groups.
And of course, Donald Trump isn’t a racist. I’ve written about that too and how he makes a terrible racist.
Homophobia. What? This one makes no sense at all. But we will look at it in detail anyway. First what is a phobia?
“A phobia is an anxiety disorder, defined by an irrational, unrealistic, persistant and excessive fear of an object or situation. Phobias typically result in a rapid onset of fear and are usually present for more than six months. Those affected go to great lengths to avoid the situation or object, to a degree greater than the actual danger period.”
Using the true definition of phobia there are very few people who would have homophobia. We all know however that the Left always changes the language. Even to the point of dumbing it down to limit critical thinking and resistance.
So to the Left homophobia is anyone who disagrees with the LGBTQ+ agenda. Including transsexualization of children and the newest “sexual orientation” of minor attracted persons aka pedophiles.
President Trump is certainly against the transsexualization of children and pedophiles. Everyone should be against the rape of children and the insanity of sexually mutilating and confusing children.
But President Trump, in his first term, appointed an openly gay man to a cabinet level position. Trump was the first president to do so. He is not homophobic.
Lying. Seriously!? There isn’t a single person who isn’t a liar. And unfortunately it is a mainstay in politics. No one candidate or office holder would be innocent of this charge. Try something serious as this one doesn’t count.
Many Presidential candidates make promises on the campaign trail that they don’t intend to keep. Some are promises that they need the backing of Congress to keep. President Trump, in his first term has a good track record of keeping promises.
And if lying is a deal breaker for you on any politician. You aren’t voting for anyone.
Etc. Etcetera. If your are going to list things you don’t like about a candidate or the voters of a candidate. List them. Don’t use Etc. This isn’t an issue. It isn’t a dealbreaker. Because it isn’t anything. It is moot and stricken from the record.
None of these so-called points or charges are deal breakers for the reasons already listed above. Most are false charges and just shows the insanity of Trump Derangement Syndrome in the minds of the Left and their useful idiots.
So, yes they are mad at us for our political views. It doesn’t matter because we know these are false points and have no merit. We know they are made up lies that the Left uses so they can work on their true agenda. The destruction of the American Republic.
It doesn’t matter because we know that the Left always accuses their opponents of crimes that they are committing. This is right out of the Rules for Radicals handbook. It causes confusion in the minds of the useful idiots.
Of course we are a problem. We stand to defend the Constitution as written. We stand to defend our Judeo-Christian morality and ethics. We stand to defend Western Civilization. We are the problem to the Left as we stand for freedom and Liberty for all.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
I’ve followed Presidential politics for most of my life, so very little surprises me. But there are times when a new concept will make me take notice, sometimes because it’s so novel, other times because it’s so fucking stupid.
The 2024 election introduced such a concept. While watching a TikTok video of a Queen Kamala the Appointed supporter, I heard her repeating the phrase “red mirage, blue shift.” Naturally, I thought she was insane, but it intrigued me enough to look into it a bit further.
Turns out she might have been insane after all.
red mirage/blue shift
What the Left thinks it means – a phenomenon when a Republican candidate leads in the early polls only to lose support as the votes are counted
What it really means – a stupid ploy designed so Leftists get their hopes up
The concept of the red mirage and blue shift came into being in the 2020 election where Donald Trump lead in key battleground states, only to lose to President Brick Tamland as more votes were fabricated…I mean counted. I forgot, election denial is bad…or is it these days now Queen Kamala the Appointed got spanked? I guess we’ll find out soon.
Either way, the fact there are adults who placed so much faith in Donald Trump being so unpopular that he could never win the Presidency ever again that they invented a term to describe it is mind-blowing. And then to bring it back in 2024? I know Leftists believe in recycling, but shitty ideas should be left alone, not turned into a self-delusional mantra.
The core of the red mirage/blue shift idea is based on election uncertainty. With many elections, no one has a handle on who is ahead or behind, so there is a lot of guesswork by people paid way too much to be inaccurate. Yet, they are. There’s an entire cottage industry in political circles for people who make meteorologists look like Nostradamus, and they are paid well to come up with shit politicians, pundits, and media squawking heads take as gospel. What’s next, checking biorhythms, horoscopes, and tea leaves to see how Jethro G. Pigfucker is going to vote in the upcoming election for county dog catcher?
Given some of the politicians, pundits, and media squawking heads out there, I might have just figured out how they make their predictions.
Anyway, the point is there is too much emphasis being placed on a common phenomenon in politics. Nobody knows who is going to win for sure until all the votes are counted, and anyone who tells you differently is trying to sell you something, namely their prognostication abilities.
And while we’re here, the assholes who came up with the concept in 2020 sold Leftists a bill of goods not borne out by a little thing the kids like to call repetition. To put it mildly, the 2020 election was a clusterfuck of clusterfuckian proportions. It would have taken a lot to recreate the conditions that helped President Brick Tamland win the White House to help Queen Kamala the Appointed limp across the finish line.
And by a lot, I mean a lot of cheating…I mean vote counting.
Even though I think Donald Trump lost the 2020 Presidential election, I still think there was enough fuckery to question the results. I would have gone about it differently than the Trump Team did, mind you, but it’s not as outrageous as the Left would make it out to be. After all, they did it, too.
Regardless, there was a major problem the Left didn’t anticipate this year: Queen Kamala the Appointed is no President Brick Tamland. Say what you will about the man, he is charismatic. Dumb as a bag of hammers, but charismatic. Queen Kamala got the first half down, but didn’t bother to pick up the second half. Kinda hard to get a blue shift going when your candidate is less popular than an IRS agent with the Clap.
But the Left bought into Kamalamania…after saying she was dragging President Tamland down. And in doing so, they were heavily invested in the possibility a blue shift would come immediately following the red mirage. And as you might have guessed if you’ve been watching Leftists on social media, that didn’t happen. The possibility of Donald Trump getting and keeping a lead didn’t even cross their minds.
That’s the danger of believing so heavily in the red mirage/blue shift idea. It deludes people into thinking the tides of political fortune are so mercurial. Even in close elections, there is rarely a point where there is a fundamental shift that flips the results like we saw in 2020. It’s the political equivalent of a unicorn, only the unicorn doesn’t have the nuclear codes…that we know of…
Hey, at least with the unicorn, we wouldn’t have to worry about someone accidentally starting World War III while thinking he or she was ordering a sandwich.
The point is the red mirage/blue shift isn’t a real thing, nor should it be considered one. It’s a fantasy dreamed up by people who want Leftists to win so badly that they’re willing to lie about its frequency to get voters’ hopes up that the Republican candidate can’t win. To those people and the Leftists who believe them, I have three words.
President Trump, bitches.
Not with Her
I am not with her. Not because she is a woman. I’m all for a woman president if it’s the right candidate. I am not with her. Not because she is of color. I don’t care about that either. I have supported other presidential candidates of color in the past.
If these are the only reasons you are voting for her. Please, for the survival of our Republic, take a hard look past these superficial items and look at the issues facing our nation instead.
I am not with her because of where she stands on almost every issue. We are not in agreement on these things. And morally I can not support a candidate that goes against my ethics and morals to such a degree.
I am not with her because of her record. She has done nothing in the last 3 1/2 years as Vice President. And her record in previous posts is just as bad if not worse.
I am not with her because she is a Leftist. A hater of the Republic and the Constitution.
I am not with her because she didn’t earn a single vote for her nomination. She was crowned in a coronation as the nominee of the Democratic Party. Going against the very name and betraying Democracy. Zero votes. No delegates. Yet she is the Nominee. Appointed and selected by the Democratic Elite.
This should be concerning to every Democratic Party member. Their voice was silenced with Joe Biden and the appointment of Kamala Harris as the nominee.
Desperation Now Caucus
Well, the Democratic National Convention just ended much like it began: without Kamala Harris saying anything of substance. Not that the media aren’t trying to give her the gravitas she earned in the same way she got the Presidential nomination.
And, no, that’s not a good thing.
When they aren’t gushing over the joy of the Harris/Walz ticket is allegedly bringing to the 2024 campaign, the media are doing their best to make it sound like Donald Trump is panicking due to the rise of Kamala. To their credit, they are making a persuasive case, as Harris has gone from unpopular Vice President to popular Presidential candidate rapidly.
The obvious question is what has changed. Harris hasn’t changed. She’s still the same person she was when many of the same people cheering her now were calling for President Brick Tamland to drop her from the ticket if he wanted to win. And now, we’re supposed to believe there’s this groundswell of support for her that was always there, but only now started to come forward and be known.
Yeah, I’m not buying it.
The Harris/Walz ticket has multiple problems, not the least of which being a lack of specificity in what they believe. As of the date of this missive, their campaign website has zero policy positions, but plenty of ways for you to donate money. Even delegates at their own coronation…I mean convention couldn’t name specific policies they support from the Harris/Walz campaign. Oh, they gave word salad answers (not unlike their candidate of choice), but there was no there there.
The media aren’t helping matters either. When they’re not jockeying for position to be her biggest cheerleader, they’re making excuses for why she doesn’t have to spell out a policy vision. And if you want to do any significant research on Harris and Walz, be prepared to use an Internet history website while you can because their pasts are getting scrubbed. Want to read up on how many prisoners Harris locked up in California for cheap labor? Have a desire to see what military people actually thought of Walz? Good luck! The media won’t tell you these things, but the Internet is forever.
At least until they bend the knee to Harris/Walz to erase their histories and create new narratives. Oh, and gaslight you for not believing the new lies they’re telling to cover up the old ones.
Where am I going with all this? Glad you asked!
What I’m seeing is a party that knows it has a crappy hand, but has all the gusto in the world to play it out like it’s a royal flush in the hopes others will fold. In some cases, like with Robert Kennedy Jr., they just didn’t recognize him as a candidate. Basically, the ostrich with its head in the ground approach: if you don’t see it, it doesn’t exist. With others, like Jill Stein, they’ve been marginalized to the point you could run Pat Paulsen and get the same result.
But Trump? He’s a different animal altogether. And as it turns out, Robert Kennedy Jr. is, too. With the latter dropping out of the race and throwing his support behind Trump, it’s easy to dismiss it as a fart in a wind tunnel, but it gives voters an option. The option may be between a dog poop sandwich and a cat poop sandwich, but the option is still there.
Something to keep an eye out for in the next week or so is whether Harris/Walz gets a post-convention bump in the polls. Then, watch for how long it lasts. There is a lot of happy talk right now with almost universal praise (from Leftists) at the heavy hitters that appeared at the DNC (0r were alleged to have appeared, but weren’t actually booked). But after the confetti and balloons are cleaned up, what’s left?
A campaign without specifics, and a lot of questions that need to be answered.
So far, the toughest question Harris has faced from the media is “How do you feel?” The media’s question about President Tamland’s favorite ice cream was tougher! And as a former journalism student, that bothers me. The media are supposed to be adversarial towards those in power, not sucking up to them in hopes of being picked for some low-level government job where they can do even less than they do now.
But at some point, tougher questions are going to be asked, either by the press (yeah, even I don’t believe that’s going to happen) or by people outside of the Mandatory Joy campaign. What are they going to do about inflation, supply chain issues, infrastructure, the war in Ukraine, the war in Gaza, climate change, and so on? And I think the party knows their ticket doesn’t have any answers, only the ability to try to blame Trump for the policies they supported.
And that has to scare the crap out of the party.
I’ve had an idea that I’ve been kicking around in the back of my mind, but I haven’t shared it before now. I get the feeling the party leaders know they have two empty suits at the top of the ticket, so they’re hyping the joy to avoid looking like they’re throwing the 2024 election so better candidates can run in 2028. Not that their bench is as deep as a mud puddle, mind you, but the fact is to date Harris has not been impressive as a candidate in the two times she’s run for the Presidency. All the joy in the world won’t make up for a lack of substance.
That’s why they’re trying to get people to believe Trump is scared and panicking right now. After years of telling people not to believe President Tamland wasn’t mentally well and getting them to believe it while projecting the same issues onto Trump, the media are now trying to hide Harris’s lack of a record by lying to us again.
If we take anything from the DNC last week, it’s how much the party is willing to lie to us, obscure facts that don’t play into the narrative, and turn Kamala Harris from zero to hero while not really changing who she is or what she’s accomplished. But, it’s not working as well as it did in 2020, and the Left can’t do anything but project its own desperation onto Trump.
But remember, my Leftist friends, you made this happen. And in November, we’ll see how much joy you have.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
With President Brick Tamland announcing he was not limping…I mean running for reelection, the eyes of the world turned to Vice President Kamala Harris as the heiress apparent. And that means we get to do a deep dive into her accomplishments so far.
Fortunately for us, that deep dive doesn’t take that long since she’s accomplished what other Vice Presidents before her did: Jack Shit, and Jack left town.
But one role she had was Border Czar. Or not, depending on who you ask. In true Tamland fashion, she was put in charge of looking into the reason why so many illegal immigrants are coming here. (Spoiler Alert: it’s because we have the best free shit in the world.) And in true Harris fashion, she visited El Paso and called it a day. But she hadn’t been to Europe, either, so it’s totes cool, guys!
While the Left tries to figure out what excuse to use to try to cover up Harris’s ineptitude on the border, it gives us a chance to wade into the wonderful world of what a Border Czar even is.
Border Czar
What the Left thinks it means – a title bestowed upon Vice President Harris by evil Republicans to try to connect her to the border crisis (which doesn’t exist, by the way)
What it really means – a meaningless title given to a meaningless figurehead
The concept of policy czars has been around for a while. The first ones came about during the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Presidency to address certain aspects of World War II and the economy, but later expanded into areas like combating drug abuse, reading, and weatherizing. (And I wish I was kidding about those last two.)
Put bluntly, being a policy czar today is like being salutatorian of summer school: only a few people actually care about it and even fewer will remember it. And in the end nothing gets done, really.
Which means it’s a perfect gig for someone with a lot of time on his or her hands and who isn’t expected to succeed in any meaningful way. You know, like the Vice President.
It also means it shouldn’t be done just to put a body in a seat when it come to addressing a high profile issue like illegal immigration. Depending on which lie you want to believe, our southern border is either perfectly secure (but Republicans are totally to blame for record-breaking crossings) or less secure than an unlocked Ferrari in South Central LA. And for your eagle-eyed readers out there who click on the links, you’ll notice these statements come from two different members…of the same Administration. But you know who didn’t weigh in on the border situation?
The fucking Border Czar herself.
Now, I’m no policy wonk, but I would think one of the most important elements of being a Border Czar is presenting a consistent, fact-based message. Unfortunately for us, the Tamland Administration’s consistency is in denying the problem exists until it gets to a point where they have to do something to make it look like they’re doing something. Meanwhile, illegal immigration is still very much an issue, despite Harris’s brilliant message to some looking to enter the country illegally: do not come.
Well, Kams, they’re not listening. Or maybe they’re trying to figure out your message amidst the vomited word salads you frequently put out there as cogent statements.
Maybe that’s why the Left is trying to scrub the collective memories of the general public by denying she was the Border Czar. After all, Kamala Harris has to beat Donald Trump, even though she’s never won a national election by herself yet. The last time she tried to win the Presidency she pulled out of the race before the Iowa Caucuses after Tulsi Gabbard bitch-slapped her into oblivion.
It also means I got the same number of delegates Harris did and I didn’t even run.
It’s clear Harris’s role as Border Czar has been a dismal failure (and I’m being verrrrrrrrrrrrry generous here). This begs the question of why we need one in the first place, especially considering we already have one: the President. If you remember your civics homework (or in the case of Leftists if you’re hearing this for the first time since you blew off civics to protest), the Executive Branch is responsible for enforcing the laws of his country. That means the President and his staff are the Czars and they’re not doing a good job.
That means anybody who is called a Czar becomes a lightning rod to absorb any criticism for when they fuck up their one jobs. But, as with so many government jobs, you can’t be fired for being incompetent. If anything, it’s a career enhancer. (See the current President and Vice President for two examples.) Plus, you get a nice stipend and a government pension, and that much capital goes a long way to fix any hurt feefees.
But the immigration problem is still there. Pretty soon we’ll have to throw the concept of the Border Czar on top of the pile of other well-meaning, but poorly-executed government ideas, like the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, and making the Socialist Socialite a Congresswoman. Yet, there isn’t really much of a will to do anything about the problem from the Czar on down because there’s too much to be gained by both sides of the issue. The Left use illegal immigration to help their candidates win and create a “humanitarian crisis” that only Big Daddy Government can fix. The Right use illegal immigration to create scary scenarios where all the jobs are taken, only violent criminals make it across, and no one but them can fix the problem.
But where the Right gets it right (see what I did there?) is in pointing out the national security aspect of illegal immigration. Open borders, such as the kind promoted by the Tamland Administration, create gaps in our security network. And with Leftist dipshits on record as not wanting to even look for illegal immigrants let alone deport them, those gaps are going to get wider and harder to close. Worse yet, we don’t have much of a strategy for dealing with the implications.
Certainly this is something a President (or a prospective President) should take seriously enough to do more than appoint some toadie to do nothing and get paid for doing it. The last guy who even attempted that got called all sorts of names, ironically by some of the people currently in charge of the failed border policy but are now trying to copy what Donald Trump did. See, President Tamland can’t help but plagiarize!
Ultimately, though, we don’t need a Border Czar in the same way we don’t need an extended warranty for a beater from Uncle Sleazy’s It Was Like That When We Got It Used Car Emporium where their motto is “No Refunds.” It’s a worthless position that should already be covered by the existing leadership structure.
Then again, this is the federal government we’re talking about here. Expecting leadership in Washington is like expecting the hooker to fall in love with you after you pay her. Not that I know anything about that, mind you…