I predicted Trump would win the 2016 election. On the day of the election, the betting odds on that were 12%. Had I been a betting man, I’d have made YUGE money.
In 2020, I again predicted Trump would win. On the day of that election, the odds of that happening were 35%.
Trump lost that time, but, given the odds, I would not have lost nearly as much as I would have made four years earlier in 2016. I’d still be way ahead.
My point is that even though I missed the call in 2020, nailing the near-impossible call back in 2016 makes me a frigging prophet.
So, listen to me. Trump will win this year.
Kamala’s campaign had a strategy from the outset. Before talking about it, bear in mind that the “outset” for her was not in 2022 or even 2023 when other Democratic candidates were slogging through the snows of Iowa to visit rural coffee shops and giving interviews to local radio schmucks in New Hampshire and North Carolina.
No, the “outset” for Kamala was a couple of weeks before the Democratic convention last summer when nameless party poohbahs snatched her out of the obscurity of a failed Vice Presidency in the service of a frail, failed Presidency.
They installed her as the Democratic candidate, even though she has never won a single primary delegate, despite – or because of – her best efforts. (By the way, one might wonder exactly what’s in it for the poohbahs.)
Anyway, here’s their strategy. It’s to rest on the fact that (1) Kamala is not that frail, failed President and (2) she’s not Trump either.
That has been almost enough. But not quite.
Although they’ve succeeded in convincing voters that Kamala is not Biden and not Trump, they’ve failed to convince them that she’s not Harris.
They did try. Kamala disavowed her earlier open border policy, sort of. She retracted her position that guns owned by people not named Kamala should be confiscated, kind of. She no longer favors defunding the police, apparently. She seems not to think Joe Biden is sharp as a tack, anymore. She has not advocated taxpayer funding for “gender affirmation” surgery for rapists so they can move into women’s prisons, lately. She doesn’t advocate men competing in women’s sports, for now.
It’s a little hard to state Kamala’s current position on these things definitively. That’s because she herself does not state her position on these things definitively.
She reminds me of the lawyer who is asked “What is two plus two?” The lawyer answers “What do you want it to be?”
Kamala is more shrewd than that lawyer, however. She simply refuses to take the question. She refused all summer to sit for interviews or stand for press conferences after the previous two years when she had no campaign appearances at all because she ostensibly was not campaigning.
Once she did start campaigning in the wake of the poohbah coup, years after everyone else started, she campaigned not with press conferences or position papers or interviews – even with friendly interviewers – and pretended not to hear questions shouted to her. She instead campaigned on “Joy.”
There’s something disconcerting about anonymous poohbahs pulling a behind-the-scenes palace coup, installing a figurehead of their choosing, and instructing her not to give interviews but instead to campaign on “Joy.”
To the poohbahs’ credit, Kamala is definite about a few things. For example, she’s definite that she favors peace in the Mideast.
To their discredit, however, she’s not very definite about how to achieve it. Defeating the bad guys is evidently not on the table. In fact, identifying them is not even on the table.
All this joyous indefiniteness worked for a while. Despite Kamala’s absence at interviews and press conferences and her missing position papers, voters still believed she was definitely not Biden and definitely not Trump.
But as noted, they came to believe she might still be Harris.
As Kamala’s polling numbers have slipped, the poohbahs have evidently finally decided in desperation to put her in front of the media to state definitively that she’s not only not Biden and not only not Trump, but also not Harris.
The voters are saying, “OK, maybe. But then just exactly who are you?”
the Aspen beat 
The Kamala Campaign is an example of quantum mechanics as applied to politics. Her strategy of taking sides both for and against the various issues demonstrates the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and Candidate Kamala’s Wave Function collapses to a specific choice depending on the identity of the audience, the Observer, whom she is addressing.
That’s pretty good!
Wow, Paul, that’s great but I doubt her supporters could begin to understand it.
LOL!
Gee, I saw a campaign ad for KH featuring “real men” who eat carburetors for breakfast and say convincing things like “I’m sure as sh*t voting for her” and I’m afraid not to vote for her lest I get slapped around by one of these “real men”.
Thank God for sarcasm and moving brain waves.
She has been set up to take the fall for Sotero, Pelosi, Chuck, Mitch and the rest of the traitorous flock.
“Poobah coup” is an excellent contemporary way to describe the Democrats’ selection process this year … not election; selection.
I think this closed door incestuous political process was once called “smoke-filled room” or “some-filled back room” deals back in the day, right?
https://time.com/4324031/smoke-filled-room-history/
“There’s something disconcerting” disconcerting doesn’t come close to describing it.
Even more disconcerting is that close to 50% of Americans have no problem voting for Harris. We ceased to be a serious country a long time ago and passively allowed the communists to take over.
We ceased being serious when we elected Bill Clinton 32 years ago.
Remember “pony tail guy”?
Oh … I definitely remember the “ponytail guy” at that 1992 Presidential town hall.
The late great Maha Rushi had a great take on this “symbolic child” of the political elite.
The moment I realized the America I grew up in was ending was over 30 years ago during a Presidential debate between George H Bush, Bill Clinton and Ross Perot in 1992. A guy with a pony tail gets up and asks the following question:
“I ask the three of you, how can we, as symbolically the children of the future president, expect the three of you to meet our needs, the needs in housing and in crime and you name it.”
Bush just stood there.
In a vain attempt to channel a response to Bush, I thought “Grow up! You aren’t my ‘children’. If you’re voting, it’s assumed that you are an adult. It’s your responsibility to meet your own and your family’s needs. Neither I nor our government can possibly own that responsibility in any meaningful or practical way. My responsibility is the well-being of the country as a whole. The rest is up to you.”
Of course, that didn’t happen. The incumbent Bush stood there like a deer in the headlights in disbelief; Nothing in life had prepared him, a veteran of combat barely out of his teens in WWII, for a question from a grown man-child like that; thinking of the supposedly grown adults of America as literally “children”.
Of course, Bill Clinton hit it out of the park with his trademark and forgettable therapeutic “feel your pain” kind of mush; the kind of Pablum that the adult children of America in the ’90s wanted to hear.
And making it worse, pony-tail-guy was a teacher of small children; the kids who would eventually vote Barack Obama into office twice a generation later.
In a nation of child-voters like that, how long could we possibly last?
— A question from Denton Walthall AKA “The ponytail guy” at a 1992 presidential debate