RightDataUSA

Demographics and Elections Commentary tagged with Veep

7/23/2024: Who Will Be Cackles' Veep? [RightDataUSA]


Photo credit: Robert Deutsch, USA Today

This may become a pertinent question even sooner than expected. Kamala "Cackles" Harris isn't merely the presumptive Democrat nominee for the 2024 presidential election, she may be elevated to President any time now. Although President Biden's personal physician, who is apparently Dr. Nick Riviera, assured the nation on Monday that the President was still alive and continuing to "perform all his presidential duties", this is the same doctor who recently insisted -- everyone's lying eyes notwithstanding -- that Biden was fit as a fiddle and sharp as a tack. The comparison of those items to Biden is valid only if they had just been run over by a train.

And then came the debate. And numerous other examples of physical and mental degradation. Finally the Democrats couldn't abide the devastating polling data (must have been internal polls) any longer and threatened Biden out of the race.

With Biden out of the running and his replacement as Democrat presidential nominee all but official, the focus turns to who the vice-presidential nominee might be.


Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

Candidates from the gubernatorial ranks include: Andy Beshear (D-KY), J.B. Pritzker (D-IL) and Tim Walz (D-MN). Beshear, a pretty boy in an empty suit, could (or so the Democrats think) plausibly pose as a moderate, but the reality is that he's no such thing, and he probably wouldn't even be able to deliver Kentucky's 8 electoral votes. Pritzker's usefulness on the ticket would be limited to donut-eating contests; Illinois is in no danger of voting anything other than Democrat for president anyway. The same applies to Walz except for maybe the donut-eating part, though there are (or at least were) some fever dreams on the right about Minnesota going for Trump in November. Democrats are rightfully unconcerned about that possibility, and will not select Walz simply to defend against it.

If a Governor is selected to run alongside Cackles, there's a greater likelihood that it would be one from a swing state and not a state which is either hopeless for Democrats or already in the bag for them. Swing state Rat Governors include Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI), Tony Evers (D-WI), Roy Cooper (D-NC, and unemployed as of January) and the Great Jewish Hope, Josh Shapiro (D-PA).

Of those, only Cooper could remotely be described as anything other than extreme-left, and even he isn't far off from that. Not that the Democrats require an actual moderate on the ticket; they can (and will) select an in-your-face ultra-liberal -- like Cackles herself -- and when the media controllers repeatedly lie and claim that whoever the VP turns out to be is a moderate, enough clueless and easily fooled voters will believe it. If the Rats truly wanted a moderate VP candidate, they'd have to look outside the party to someone like Mitt Romney (he's downright "conservative" by Democrat standards).

The liberal Veep-pickers could bypass governors altogether. Or they could put a rump ranger such as Colorado Governor Jared Polis or Transportation Secretary Pete Buttgieg on the ticket, but the Democrats aren't likely to be quite that "bold", and Colorado's not even close to being a swing state.

What with the overt (but totally unreported) trend of a significant portion of Hispanic voters -- particularly rural Hispanics -- towards the Republican party starting in 2020, you might expect that the Dems would look for a VP of Mexican or Puerto Rican descent, but the Democrat puppetmasters apparently believe there aren't any who are prominent enough to be worthy of serious consideration.

Finally, the one U.S. senator who is on the short list is Mark Kelly (D-AZ). Kelly has a military record and was once an astronaut, which would lead the ignorant to believe he must be a patriotic conservative or at least a moderate. He is none of those things (neither was John Glenn except maybe early in his political career), irrespective of the false image of him the media will create if he becomes the chosen one. Kelly is as ultra-liberal as any Democrat senator.


mynewsgh.com

The favorite among these has to be Pennsylvania Governor Joshua Shapiro. Shapiro is from the most important of all swing states, is known to be highly covetous of national office, and PA would instantly go from "tossup" to "likely Democrat" in the 2024 presidential election if Shapiro gets the VP slot. As we mentioned just a few days ago, without Pennsylvania's 19 electoral votes Trump is going to have pull off a major upset somewhere else in order to get to 270 EV.

Furthermore, a down-ballot effect in Pennsylvania might help save the Senate seat of dim bulb Bob Casey, Jr. Joshie's presence on the ticket might also help shore up some vulnerable Democrat U.S. House incumbents, of which there are 2 or perhaps 3 in the PA delegation (Susan Wild, Matt Cartwright, Chris DeLuzio) though none of those -- including Casey -- are in grave danger of losing. They are in potentially close races, but creative vote counting on the part of Democrats, if necessary, ought to be enough to return those liberal politicians safely to their offices next year.

As far as having a Jewish candidate for VP, note that while the core of the Democrat party strongly supports the Hamas terrorists, it does not necessarily follow that the party as a whole hates Israel. They DO hate it -- for now -- but that's because of just one man: Benjamin Netanyahu. Once he is no longer in the picture and Israel is controlled by the secular, ultra-liberal, atheistic, self-loathing wing of The Tribe, Democrats will be supporters of Israel again, at least to a much greater extent than they are now.

In the meantime as they wait for Bibi's demise, they may feel it wise to nominate someone from The Tribe as Harris' VP, though of course NOT someone who supports Netanyahu: that description fits Shapiro nicely. This could be the Democrats' attempt to fraudulently claim support for Israel ("Look at our VP! He's Jewish!") -- seeing as how their embrace of anti-Israel terrorists is not completely popular with the American public, or even with some elements within the Democrat party. Democrats already have the total support of Shapiro's tribalists among the media controllers, however this move might help to get those campaign dollars from the ultra-rich Jews flowing again.

Though if we're to believe the recent gaslighting about "record-setting" Democrat contributions earlier this week, that geld may not be necessary. The Dems' ActBlue money laundry has been spinning wildly lately, splitting donations from liberal billionaires into millions of smaller fragments and assigning those fragments to smaller "contributors" in an attempt to create the illusion of broad-based support from the common people, not to mention violating campaign finance law.


The Democrat Veep is still unknown at this moment, but whoever it is will not have a tremendous effect on the national polls; it will be sufficient if he impacts the polls in just one swing state. Some on the right are still nervously reciting (at least for a few more days) polls showing Trump "crushing" Cackles in now-irrelevant surveys which were taken before Biden dropped out of the 2024 race.

Even before this week Harris was speculatively included in some polls of course, but only since Sunday have we been inundated -- and will continue to be inundated -- by liberal media shills puffing about how wonderful, competent and "brat" Cackles is. [We don't speak punkie or monkey around here or whatever language that is, so we don't know what the hell "brat" means, but adolescent voters seem to consider it to be a positive thing.]

Ignorant, gullible, non-adolescent voters who weren't overly familiar with Harris up to now will be told that she's Cleopatra, Indira Gandhi, Eva Peron and Golda Meir all rolled into one; not that any of those are good things, but we're talking about gullible voters here who are easily impressed by whatever lies the media feeds them.

When Harris' approval begins to skyrocket, however astroturfed that skyrocketing is, Trump isn't going to be "crushing" her in any polls -- and he already isn't; at least not in any legitimate polls which were taken beginning on 7/21. And just wait a few weeks, or days (or hours) before Biden croaks or resigns and this thoroughly unqualified dunce is suddenly "President Kamala Harris, Commander-in-Chief"!

If you think the hysterical media worship and adulation for B. Hussein Obama back in 2008 was ridiculous, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Take Bonzo, make him a female (a real one, not a closet homo), and run him/her against the most media-despised presidential candidate in U.S. history. Wait a short period of time for the effect of the 100% positive stories about Harris, combined with the 100% negative media stories about Trump. . . and THEN take a gander at those supposedly crushing polls. They will likely be crushing in a way that the good people of America do not want to believe.


Until actually forced to face reality, some will continue to deny it. They will rely on outdated polls which are no longer relevant, and claim that Trump's overall lead is holding steady. As if that lead was ever much to brag about.

Even considering things as they were prior to Biden's dropout, Trump leading only by 1 or 2 percent, or slightly more but within the small margin of error against a comatose candidate like Biden should hardly fill anyone with confidence. Basement Biden was practically as somnolent in 2020 as he is now, and he still "somehow" won.

No matter whether Harris, Newsom, Whitmer, Manchin or whoever were tested in some previous polls, Trump's Democrat opponent had been Joe Biden and only Joe Biden up until Sunday. Past data on any other matchup is not remotely as meaningful. Now of course, even the Trump-Biden or Trump-Biden-RFK polls are not meaningful anymore.

Those who foolishly believe that Trump was going to cruise (and that cruising was barely above water level anyway) better have their shocked faces ready when the polls come out after the media REALLY goes into overdrive for Kamala, especially when they do so for "President Harris" once Biden croaks/resigns. You've never seen anything like it unless you were in the Soviet Union to observe how their obedient media treated Joseph Stalin, or how our own New York Times adored Uncle Joe -- or Fidel Castro.

True Trump supporters aren't going to be fooled by 24/7 Harris Hagiography; no matter how desperately the Democrat media tries to spin Kamala's record, we know that she got to where she is today because of what's between her. . . well, it's not because of what's between her ears.

But enough ignorant "independent" voters WILL be influenced by the daily coronation ceremonies, and the Rats only need to swing a small percentage of the ignorati back in the Democrat direction. The Trump campaign team better all have their thinking caps on regarding how they're going to combat this. Given Cackles' past, it sounds like it should be fairly easy. But it won't be -- the media won't allow it.


July 25 update: It's fashionable to claim that Shapiro as V.P. would effectively concede the state of Michigan to Trump, and that's a poor trade considering that the Democrats can win Pennsylvania even without Shapiro. That forfeiture of Michigan is not certain by any means. Don't overrate the Muslim vote in Michigan, it's not all that substantial. Anyway, why would those Muslims bypass Kamala Harris, who for all intents and purposes is a Muslim in a political sense, just because of who her VP is? The answer is: they won't.

A lot of them in Michigan will look past the VP selection (Josh Shapiro hates Benjamin Netanyahu as much as a typical Dearbornistan resident does anyway) and vote (D) as they normally do. They will not defect nearly enough to throw Michigan to Trump.

Also: the state of Florida better not even be close in November, but if it is then a pick of Shapiro would be a master stroke, for the obvious reason.

Tags:

2024 Heels Up! Veepstakes


1/19/2024: [New York] 'She's a killer': Trump eyes Rep. Elise Stefanik as a potential VP pick [NBC News]


Photo credit: ANNA MONEYMAKER/THE NEW YORK TIMES VIA REDUX

We like her aggressive attitude.

Nobody should like her voting record in Congress.

She's been a complete squish through most of her career, and nobody needs to wave that off and bother pretending that it's because "Duh, sheez frum Noo Yawk" and therefore must automatically represent some liberal district in the middle of a ghetto (which would somehow elect a Republican???) or some demographically deteriorating soccer mommy/country club suburb in Westchester County.

Stefanik's district is at the far northern end of the state, far away from all of the above, and is solidly Republican. It never elects a Democrat.

Well, except for a couple of terms starting in a 2009 special election in which establishment putzes like Newt Gingrich tried to foist a left-wing Republican named Dede Scozzafava upon the area. A good conservative, Doug Hoffman, had the support of lots of voters but not the GOPe, so he had to run on the Conservative ballot line only. Her support dropping to almost zero (actually 5.7%), Scozzafava spitefully withdrew from the race at the last minute, endorsed liberal Democrat Bill Owens (thanks again, Newt) and took just enough votes away from Hoffman to prevent him from winning.

Other than that and the two elections which followed, when Owens somehow eked out two more wins before fleeing, you have to go back to the 1800s or earlier to find a Democrat U.S. House member from this part of New York. And you may not even find one then.

In this district Stefanik doesn't need to run shrieking hysterically to the left in order to get elected. But she does so anyway. Or at least she used to -- that may be changing.


Stefanik's voting record has taken a noticeable jump to the right in recent years, but that is not as impressive an accomplishment as it may sound; we'll explain below. In her first two terms (2015-2018) she voted the conservative position on key issues 37% of the time which is an abysmal rating for any Republican.

In her next term at the end of the first Trump administration (2019-2020) she improved to 58% which is somewhat less abysmal but still quite weak.

From 2021-2022 Stefanik voted the right way 73% of the time. All of those percentages are based on key votes as determined by the American Conservative Union (ACU). They have not yet released their data for 2023, but we here at RightDataUSA.com have identified 34 key votes from last year -- a greater number than the ACU normally focuses on per year -- and Stefanik grades out at 88% (!). She will probably get a correspondingly high figure from the ACU when they get around to calculating one for 2023.


Why is Stefanik's improvement not as impressive as it looks? During the Trump and Biden administrations, the Democrats have become more polarized -- and polarizing -- than ever before. They vote in perfect lockstep on nearly every issue except for when certain members are allowed to dissent for tactical purposes. In response most Republicans, even ones with long-term liberal tendencies like Elise Stefanik, have found themselves voting in opposition to Democrats as a bloc too.

As a result, Republican ratings have become almost as extreme as Democrat ratings. Nearly all House Democrats have conservative ratings near 0%. Anything even as high as 10% is rare (it's mainly those "tactical" votes).

Democrat polarization has been customary for decades and is not something that only began with Trump in the White House; their extremism gained momentum with the extinction of that species of politician known as "Conservative Democrat". Even "Moderate Democrat" is highly endangered and practically extinct now. Its population is down to a small handful.

But "Liberal Republican" and "Moderate Republican" have generally been as healthy as ever. There are GOP Senators like Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Light Loafers Lindsey Graham who vote more with the Democrats than with their own party. Even Mitt Romney doesn't do that.

Such a thing as a Democrat voting mostly with the GOP is unheard of. No, not even Joe Manchin at his grandstanding finest; he's not even close to doing that anymore. "Independent" Kyrsten Sinema? Get real. Sinema voted 95% of the time with her fellow Democrats in 2023. She's a total IINO (Independent in Name Only).

However many Republicans are clustering in the 90-100% conservative range on key votes at a rate higher than usual. This is a very recent development and does not even go back as far as the Trump days. All of that notwithstanding, Stefanik is still quite an unusual case. It's as if she's strategically trying to position herself as a VP candidate by showing that she can act as a conservative if necessary.


Hers is not a normal progression for a member of Congress. A Republican from a relatively safe House district often starts out as an enthusiastic conservative bent on keeping the campaign promises he made. As time goes on the Representative normally caves in to the Uniparty establishment and moves to the left -- "going along to get along" -- otherwise career advancement is impossible.

Not only that, if someone sticks to his principles he is merely asking for disillusionment and frustration: frustration as he sees his legislative objectives watered down or failing entirely; frustration as he sees even his most patriotic colleagues corrupted by lobbyists and big-$$$$$ anti-conservative campaign contributors; and frustrated by that Beltway Culture which keeps him permanently on the outside unless he waives those principles he brought to D.C. with him -- "no fancy Georgetown cocktail party invitations for you, Neanderthal!"

Furthermore, with rare exceptions such as Jim Jordan, you do not get to be in the Republican Party leadership or advance towards it unless you are a squish. Stefanik currently holds a minor leadership position as Chair of the House Republican Conference, which may not sound like much but it makes her the 4th-ranking Republican in the House.


Trump and the GOP have lately realized that their appeal to urban and suburban racists and femiNazis is limited if they insist upon a presidential ticket consisting of two White males. There is a significant probability that Trump will select a female as a running mate, or one will be selected for him.


Photo credit: J. Scott Applewhite/AP; Leah Millis/Reuters

Even given her recent rightward trend and her gender, that hardly means Stefanik is the best possible option. [Sacrilegious though it is, we've liked Tulsi Gabbard for a while despite her congressional voting record -- we feel she has "evolved". But we don't completely trust her.]

It should be noted that a truly conservative woman probably need not apply for the position. The Republicans aren't going to make that Sarah Palin "mistake" again, regardless of the fact (which the GOPe refuses to accept) that the only reason John McCain got any conservative votes at all was the presence of Palin on the ticket. That plus the sheer odiousness of the Democrat puppet which opposed him in '08.

There is likely a desire to select a female VP strategically, i.e. one from a liberal state, in the completely futile hope that her presence will flip that liberal state's electoral votes to Trump. If someone along those lines is absolutely necessary, better to make a choice from a critical swing state than one from a totally lost cause like New York or even Hawaii. Are any ladies from Pennsylvania, Michigan or Wisconsin available?


Working against this supposedly clever approach is the fact that the GOP has never learned the lesson that tokenism and pandering pay off only for Democrats, not Republicans. For example, when they nominate black candidates for statewide office in anything other than the most Republican states, the strategy almost always fails. If a non-White -- or non-male -- is truly the best possible candidate for a Senate seat in 2024, like James Craig (Michigan) or David Clarke (Wisconsin, but not yet officially in the race) then so be it. Always go with your best regardless of race or sex; anyone except a liberal would agree that's how society should work. However if the minority is not truly the best candidate, then this tactic is truly idiotic.

Of course the voters are the ones who pick the candidates, but the Republican party has a lot to say about who is encouraged to run, who is NOT encouraged to run, and who gets the logistical and financial support if they do run (and, of course, who does NOT get that support). Most of the time the voters merely select from the choices the party offers. Insurgents, normally conservative challengers, are unwelcome and are pushed aside from important statewide elections whenever possible. If one of them happens to win a primary election against the wishes of the establishment, they are hung out to dry in the general. You only need to look back to 2022 for considerable evidence of this.

The theory that "urban" (i.e. racist) voters will leave the Democrat plantation in significant numbers and vote for a black statewide Republican nominee is patently false in the vast majority of cases. If a black Republican gets elected statewide, e.g. Tim Scott in South Carolina, he does so almost exclusively on the votes of Republicans and not Democrats. If an "Uncle Tom" GOP candidate needs Democrat votes to win statewide.... he loses, simple as that.


As far as Trump's VP goes, there has been considerable chatter in the liberal media about Stefanik over the past few days. In an attempt to sow even further dissention and get Trump supporters sniping at each other, they are now even floating trial balloons for the most objectionable possible VP nominee short of Trump picking Big Mike Obama for the job. Or Governor Krispy Kreme.

In the end, some adult in the room needs to select the best person for the job regardless of their melanin content or genitalia. The best person is probably not Elise Stefanik and it's sure as hell not Nimrod Randhawa. Hint: if those who control the media approve of whoever it is, it's definitely a bad choice.

Tags:

Trump 2024 Veep Elise Stefanik New York Anybody but Nimrod