Friends, no doubt you've heard a lot about how great things are going for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz. Why, they've practically got this thing in the bag! Well... My latest article analyzes the state of the race, and you might be surprised:
The Home Stretch
With the first opportunity to vote early just days away, the presidential election is about to move from mere theory to practical applications. That is to say, the main event, which Americans have so long anticipated, is almost here, and we will know all too soon whether Trump or Harris will be the 47th President of the United States.
There is no question that Kamala Harris and Tim Walz have made the race far more competitive than, well, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris did. Who would have thought that a simple game of musical chairs could achieve so much?
The Democrats and their media allies deserve ample credit for contriving to reintroduce Kamala, a singularly unpopular Vice-President, to the American people. She has been effectively shielded from controversy and criticism within a warm and fuzzy cocoon of positive press. She has been spared the agony of defining her policy positions, and instead has been gifted a vacuous idolization that focuses on her fundraising prowess, strong polls, and transcendent “joy”. On Thursday, Queen Kamala took time out from her royal duties to have a confab with one of her adoring pet reporters—doing no serious or long lasting injury to her campaign. Possibly this sit-down interview suggests a slight change of direction on her part, and a willingness to dabble in substance. In any case, the upshot of the carefully scripted, short on specifics Harris-Walz charm offensive of the last month or so is that the Democrats have pulled off a small miracle. In an age when public perceptions of leading politicians seem “baked in” and immovable, they have measurably improved the voters' perceptions of Kamala Harris, and given her an edge on Donald Trump in terms of “favorability” that could be decisive, if it holds.
Trump's problem is simple: the majority of Americans, and the majority of voters, don't like him. He is, therefore, highly unlikely to get 50% of the vote—considering that, even against Joe Biden, a much weaker candidate than Harris, he almost never did in any poll. Moreover, because Harris has improved her image and become an acceptable potential president to so many, she has consolidated almost all of the anti-Trump vote into a Harris-Walz vote. In other words, almost everyone who hates Trump is now prepared to vote for Harris, which is bad news indeed for any and all Trumpers. Joe Biden, by contrast, had dispirited the Democrats such that many of them were contemplating staying home, or voting for Kennedy, Stein, or West. The third party vote, according to polls, has shrunk immensely in the last month and a half: from 12.2% of the total to just 7% now, based on the RealClearPolitics averages. What Trump needs to do is (re)seed the electorate with doubts about Harris—to push just a few more of those newly-minted Harris supporters, temporarily infected with joy, back into despondency, and out of the electorate altogether, or into the arms of Kennedy, Stein, or West. It is by no means an impossible feat to accomplish, given the extraordinary constellation of factors that have flowed together to grant Harris this remarkable honeymoon period.
So what specifically can Trump do to upset the Harris-Walz apple cart? It won't be easy, because at least half the electorate, and possibly a bit more, still gets most of its information and analysis from a mainstream media that loathes Trump with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns. Whatever attack lines Trump tries out—and Harris is certainly vulnerable on multiple fronts—will be ignored, or derided, by the press. Instead, Trump's best hope might be that Harris will simply fall victim to that iron law of political physics: what goes up must come down. Almost inevitably, as Harris stretches her legs on the campaign trail, does more interviews, sallies forth on the debate stage, and has to deal with breaking news and concrete policy dilemmas, her star will begin to fade. Trump and Trumpers have every reason to hope that, when it does, DJT can spring ahead in the battleground states, where already, even in the midst of springtime for Kamala, he appears to be tied. In short, political gravity alone may save Trump, regardless of what he says or does.
But, to increase the likelihood that Harris will start to bleed away support to the likes of “none of the above”, Kennedy, Stein, and West, we can suggest one ruse that might accelerate the process. Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, and Cornel West, the Justice for All candidate, have both been seeking ballot access and media coverage, neither of which the political establishment and the mainstream media, both beholden to the Democratic Party, are inclined to grant. They have been fighting the good fight with very meager resources: both campaigns have only raised a little over $1 million. Smart Republicans understand that the success of the Harris-Walz campaign will almost certainly be in inverse proportion to the success of Stein and West, since they are competing, in many cases, for the same voters. Thus, smart Republicans have wished Stein and West well, which is fine, but they haven't put their money where their mouth is. It may be time to do so, since, quite frankly, a strategic investment in leftist lunacy could pay dividends that yet another check written out to Trump would not.
Political artifice such as this might make a real difference, but, if we're to be honest, this campaign, and the fate of our nation, is mostly in the hands of Kamala Harris, and secondarily in the hands of the handlers who handle Kamala Harris and tell her what to do. If she performs flawlessly and holds the anti-Trump coalition together all the way to November, she's very likely to be our next president. If, however, she stumbles in even the slightest way—and she's a natural bumbler, make no mistake, which is precisely why her campaign has her under lock and key—then Trump is likely to beat her. It really is that simple.
No pressure, Kamala! You got this, girl. Maybe. Maybe not.
Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred and blogs at: www.waddyisright.com. He appears on the Newsmaker Show on WLEA 1480/106.9.
And here it is at World Net Daily:
https://www.wnd.com/2024/09/its-bumbling-kamalas-race-to-lose/
***
In other news, the "far right" has scored some major wins in German state elections, and naturally the establishment and the media are aghast. The mainstream parties are predictably ganging up on the AfD. What else is new? Seems like "our betters" only respect democratic outcomes when they suit them, huh?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn02w01xr2jo
Oregon is dialing back its decriminalization of drug possession and use. I don't know how you feel, but I have grave doubts about whether throwing drug users in the clink is the best way to handle this admittedly serious societal problem.
Lastly, Hvaldimir, the suspected Russian spy whale, has died, and I for one suspect foul play!!! Could the Ukrainians be involved? Rumors are flying that an elite CIA assassin -- code name JONAH -- may be behind this outrage, or possibly inside it. Stay tuned.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Perhaps some potential donors to Stein or West are concerned that they may end up on the snide with the winner no matter who that is. Naturally the Dems would hold them, at best, in contempt but more likely deserving of good 'ol antiamerican left vindictiveness. If they do it with the intention of electing DJT they may fear that their outlay and its risk would be misunderstood. Perhaps the donors might state that they loath both candidates. That might cost them favor with the winner.If say, the effect of Stein and West is not decisive, their intent may not be appreciated(?)
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: I'm sure Oregon included legal forgiveness for those who committed drug crimes ,in its legalization. Just like forced taxpayer assumption of college grad debts, or deliverance of Vietnam draft dodgers, this manifests understandable cynicism in the lawful and responsible. If it was a crime at the time of commission, then it must be prosecuted. If it was a debt voluntarily assumed for assured benefit, it must be repaid by the debtor.
ReplyDeleteSo enough with the forgiveness. Drug crime is the cause of incalculable amounts of public degradation and fear. Then: legalize the less harmful drugs, like grass, which pose no greater hazard than alcohol. Then: drop the ton of bricks on the truly harmful drugs and most heavily on the sociopathic dealers. Singapore sets a good example. They hang the dealers and put users through a period of laborious incarceration which should traumatize anyone who experiences it. Singapore was right from the start of its independence to recognize the direct connection between drug abuse and societal dissolution and to RESOLVE never to tolerate it. They had seen some of its worst depravity when the Brits allowed it in the colony of Malaya and the city of Singapore most blatantly.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: The culture of Singapore is heavily Chinese and always fresh in Chinese memory is the catastrophic degradation forced on South China by the Brits in the Opium Wars of the 19th century. Opium became a terrible scourge in a China already tormented by natural disasters, later a civil war which made ours look like a skirmish and what my wonderful Chinese History Prof. described as hitting the "rock bottom which is the necessary prerequisite for revolution". We know how that turned out. One could argue then that drug abuse played a major role in forming today's world.
ReplyDeleteThe Chinese regard America's drug hell as a failure of will on our part and one has to wonder if they see it as a fundamental weakness in our civilization. But I also think they are wise enough to heed the lessons we wreaked upon other countries which regarded us as dissipated voluptuaries. It makes for a politically and historically interesting dialectic.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: The whale episode is almost comically grotesque. Belugas are such benevolent looking critters. I think we tried to train dolphins to perform military duties didn't we?
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: As is to be fully expected by anyone with common sense, Oregon's assertive frivolous leftism, when empowered, results in disaster. It's just like San Francisco and NYC; its nothing new and nothing hard to understand. Even fantastic Oregon was summarily forced by consequences to admit it. As long as people have legal access to recreational drugs which provide adequate relief from stress and temporary deliverance from care (" the merry cheerer (s) of the heart') there is no need for tolerance of hard drugs and users of them create a deadly market which of course attracts cynical lowlife parasites. It is futile for organized society to try to wean addicts off of all drugs. Let willing addicts take responsibility and seek private means of deliverance. For those who persist in criminal misuse , simply demonstrate to them that going beyond legal drug forms of recreation and consolation will have most unavoidable and undesirable consequences for them. As for dealers , they must be presumed to be
ReplyDeleteunapologetic fundamental threats to the well being of any community and incapable of reform , like sex offenders. At the least, lifetime custody must be their lot.
Jack, I would donate wherever donating does the most good, but you're right that many donors want to be SEEN to donate to whomever will show them the most effectual appreciation...
ReplyDeleteJack, I'm not sure that a zero tolerance policy on drug abuse is realistic, unless you want to put, oh, 50 million Americans behind bars?
You know, it occurs to me that, for all society's herculean efforts to suppress addictive behavior and its admittedly horrific consequences, there may simply be no way to stop addictive personalities from abusing various substances. Perhaps you can redirect consumers of mind-altering substances from one to another, but can you really prevent them from indulging -- especially since many of the worst "drugs", from the perspective of real world effects, are legal!
Dr. Waddy from Jack: I was able to observe well established intensive substance abuse programs when I worked in NY's Shock Incarceration facility. It appeared that their main purpose was to get addicts to refrain from all "recreational" drugs, including alcohol. If a person has done destruction (eg. DWI by alcohol)even with a legal drug then society has a right to protect itself from the consequences of any further abuse of it by that person. Otherwise, I'd say, show them that its possible to get tight without violating the law and then enjoin them in CERTAIN terms to heed this "guidance " .
ReplyDeleteMy understanding is that some DWI punishments are draconian. Since drug misuse produces so much anarchy, perhaps their severity should be the model. Many drug users come from settings so dysfunctional that conventional incarceration is not the ordeal which it should be to render justice and make repetition unthinkable.
President Reagan said: "there are no solutions, only choices". More often than not that is true I think. We must choose to protect the innocent, no matter the possible prior misfortune of those who choose to victimize.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Zero tolerance is of course unworkable in our country but Mayor Guiliani proved, in a NYC which appeared at the beginning of his Mayoralty to be beyond redemption, that common sense, applied without apology and with fortitude, CAN intimidate victimizers. Say what one will about Singapore, in my experience that city was safe for all, which is as it should be.
ReplyDeleteMy understanding is that totalitarian societies are quite successful in suppressing disorganized crime. Our country is so dreadfully rife with moral relativism that we must wonder if we can muster the national will to establish a healthy balance between rights and responsibilities. The disgraceful postMayoral treatment of Mayor Guiliani must give pause to others who might follow his example. Marxism thrives when disorder gives it leave to impose its essential totalitarianism. Since a very actual and heretofore unthinkable possibility of marxist investment of our country by the antiamerican far left now obtains we may pay a terrible price for failing to realize that our democracy is still an experiment and that we MUST pay attention to the truths it reveals.
Interesting that it is expected that Harris will mess up. Have you watched Trump's rallies lately. Low energy, wild tangents (sharks and batteries, Hannibal Lecter) and repetitive to the point of cliche. His recent dance about the FL abortion law takes away from his calling Harris a flip-flopper.
ReplyDeleteAs far as drugs, until it is tackled as a medical problem and not a legal one, we are not going to make progress.
I think the view that it is primarily a medical problem is plausible. OK , let's medically treat the users who have not directly victimized others but lets treat the illegal sellers as the cynical sociopaths they are; show them no more mercy than they have their victims ( which , potentially, all of us are).
ReplyDeleteDJT' position , as a state citizen with one vote on a Florida abortion measure, does not compare in importance to his having restored the states' power to apply their particular cultural standards in regulating this horrid practice. If its a change on his part its nothing compared to Harris's casual wholesale disingenuous "transformation" into a moderate. Her Clintonesque sneering contempt for the American electorate , plainly demonstrated by this massive deceit, is manifest.
above from Jack.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Germany, because of the incalculably evil history of its nazi extremely far right understandably bears watching when it shows any credible hint of revanchism. Vicious antisemitism was a very powerful force even in Imperial Germany, so one might wonder if denazifacation and sincere German revulsion for its monstrous recent past has thoroughly reformed Germany.
ReplyDeleteBut is present right wing advance in Germany a credible hint of a dangerous tendency? The use of the term "far right" by the MSM is discredited by its widespread reflexive bias for leftist views and convenient leftist hyperbole.
When one considers the very nearly incredible cruelty Germany wreaked upon Europe , its probably a lucky thing for Germany that its reunion was ever tolerated. They are a supremely dynamic people when organized and motivated and are capable of mustering truly astonishing enduring resolve. Its understandable that the world itself must regard them with some caution.
But if they have fundamentally rejoined civilization, that should be recognized, lest it reprise in them national resentment which suggests that which drove them to such hellish reaction to perceived injustice in the '30s and '40s. So a level headed analysis of recent advances by their right wing is vital. Those who have labeled the recent victors "far right" may not be capable of such objectivity.
Jack, I quite agree that those who are a danger to others must be isolated from society. "Rehabilitation" is a secondary objective, and must remain so.
ReplyDeleteRod, what I've seen of Trump's rallies, and what I saw of him in the last debate, indicates that Trump is Trump is Trump. Sure, he goes off on tangents and repeats himself. He also has relatively few facts at his fingertips. None of these things prevented him from winning in 2016 and almost winning in 2020.
Jack, my two cents re: the Germans of today is that they are scarcely capable of rudeness let alone aggression or racism. Maybe a few of them are fed up with immigration, but the reinstitution of Nazism is about as likely as aliens abducting Trump on election day...so, one in three, at best!
Dr. Waddy from Jack: One history of Germany I read holds that Germans were permanently traumatized by the 30 Years War (which perhaps bred in them a firm willingness to accept authority rather than risk calamity). Maybe their monstrous and catastrophic effusion of destruction under the Nazis has worked a similarly transformative effect on the Germans, this time a promising one .
ReplyDeleteJack, I hesitate to conclude that any people's culture/psyche could be altered by a single conflict, but those were two immensely searing conflicts, so maybe. Certainly history would tend to indicate that total defeat can be a learning experience, to say the least, and can engender a healthy impulse to submit. You and I wouldn't know, of course. Our lives have been one triumph after another!
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: I was in Japan, including Nagasaki, only 23 years after the war, in American uniform. No doubt I met many people who remembered the war.
ReplyDeleteWe had, of necessity, to wreak terrible destruction on them in order to destroy their demonstrated power and willingness to oppress East Asia.I did alot of roaming around outside the usual sailor haunts and I never once encountered anything I perceived as hostility. I was often treated with open friendliness. And to see their energetic, optimistic and prosperous country you'd never guess what they had been through.
WWII was a unique experience for them. They had never faced attack of that intensity and comprehensive invasion and occupation. Plus: they benefitted from perhaps the most civilized, benevolent and well informed stewardship ever imposed on a country by another. In fact, it might well be that they received the best stroke of luck history can reveal in having been ruled by the brilliant and compassionate General MacArthur, a man they learned to love, with good reason. Just imagine how the Soviets would have treated them.
Japan's period of military aggression was relatively brief and arguably atypical of them. Their original object was to prevent the West from savaging them as it had China and S.E. Asia and they were very successful in that. After their astonishing victory over Russia they apparently came to believe that lasting security for them necessitated them establishing hegemony over the Western Pacific; in pursuit of that they overextended themselves militarily and shamed themselves beyond measure with their gratuitous cruelty to those they conquered .
In traditional Japan, with the exception of a couple terrible civil wars ., military action usually did not touch the lives of most of the population. Perhaps Japan has returned to that premodernization state. Though China and S.E. Asia have not forgotten Japanese predation they probably realize that Japan alone is not a potential threat.
Has Germany perhaps similarly deeply renounced the perception of its place in the world which led it to use its immense potential power to
enact such immeasurable evil in the 20th century ? I wonder what the Russians really think about that.
There are of course two sections of our country which have suffered defeat and occupation: Native America and the South.Their experiences and responses may be instructive. Otherwise we have been blessed beyond measure to have been spared the indescribable ravages of war in our country.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Maybe the key to judging the possible transformative effect of total defeat on a country using WWII as an example is the fact that Japan and W. Germany were treated humanely by their conquerors. What other examples of such relative good will obtain in history? Few, I think. Perhaps the Ottomans for those they subdued? Perhaps the Romans for the Greeks?
ReplyDeleteJack, the transformation of the Japanese from loathsome villains into trusted and highly valued allies, in the space of LESS than one generation, is quite fascinating and darn near miraculous. Now, you're right that we treated the Japanese with incomparable mildness, but I do wonder how they might have seen us if they hadn't had the Russian bear looming over them...
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure the Romans enslaved a great many Greeks, so that might not be the best example of mild occupation.