Kamala won. No, Trump won. No, no one won, it was a draw. The establishment media – especially the moderators -- won. Well, such-and-such on channel X said that this focus group liked Kamala better. Really? How about so-and-so at channel Y who swore that he was watching people’s faces and they responded better to Trump’s answers?
So goes the back-and-forth a day or so after the first “debate” of the 2024 presidential cycle. Yes, there have already been a number of similar primary events on the Republican side – without Trump, of course – and the earliest ever presidential forum between Trump and senile Joe Biden at the end of June, but these “official” meetings between the nominee candidates are spun that much harder by each side’s pundits. Ultimately, the only arbiters that matter are the ones who cast the votes on Election Day or earlier.
But they don’t get the headlines until the results are in. For now, it’s what the experts think.
With both candidates presenting their cases without noteworthy departures from expectations the other night, each claimed victory. In the weirdest of all election seasons, both candidates can lay claim to being the incumbent, Trump because he was president four years ago and Harris because she was gifted the Democrat nod due to senile Joe Biden’s sudden decision to step away in late July while still in office as Biden’s vice president.
What occurs next is anyone’s guess. Voters often take time to make up their own minds. The initial impressions typically favor the newcomer to presidential politics, which means Kamala will probably lead the immediate reaction. Then Trump, as he usually does, will make a comeback purely because he’s got the clear advantage in common sense and experience in nearly every issue except abortion.
We had a number of people, myself included, who predicted what would happen during the debate itself – and who would “win” -- but not as many who gave a shot at forecasting what would happen after it was over, where we’re at now. Were they right? In an article titled “Vivek: ‘Get Ready for Some Very Strange Things to Happen’ if Trump Wins Tuesday's Debate Against Kamala Harris”, Craig Bannister reported at MRCTV.org this week:
“’If Trump trounces Kamala at the debate, get ready for some very strange things to happen before November,’ Ramaswamy predicts in a social media post of video from his appearance on ‘Hannity.’ Democrats took a ‘drastic’ step – replacing Joe Biden as their nominee – after Trump beat him in their debate, but they don’t have time to replace Harris if she performs poorly...
“’We have a machine that we’re up against that has demonstrated that it is going to go to great measures to defeat Donald Trump, Ramaswamy said, recalling the unprecedented steps they’ve already taken to defeat Trump…
“’I think we’ve got to learn from those lessons, Sean, to say that they’re still going to have many more tricks up their sleeve,’ Ramaswamy told Hannity.”
The other night, Vivek stopped short of saying on Hannity that Democrats would, once again move to replace their nominee if they felt the urge to do so. There simply isn’t time to do something so drastic now, and even the Democrats’ vaunted “machine” couldn’t pull off a fast one of that magnitude with so little leeway. Ballot filing deadlines have long since expired and, well, who would the Democrats get as a stand-in so quickly?
Not even Michelle Obama could be swapped as the Democrat nominee at this point. Democrats put all of their time, money and effort into making Kamala look like, well, the second coming of Barack Obama that they’d need a virtual miracle to start the process all over again, though they are still fresh from their switcheroo they pulled with senile Joe.
Democrats are shameless, and, as Ramaswamy pointed out, they’re desperate. What’s the old saying? Never approach a wounded animal; they’ll assume that your intentions are sinister and bite you just for trying to help.
This means the Democrats are stuck with Harris, for better or worse. And while I certainly wouldn’t rate Kamala’s debate performance among the best and most memorable of all time – either for being great or for being awful – it’s doubtful that she would motivate Democrats to want to ditch her now. Recall how, after the June 27th event, there were a number of party leaders who insisted that what we’d just seen from senile Joe wasn’t really that bad.
Barack Obama commented that everyone, including himself, could have a bad night, and predicted that Biden would recover with more than enough time to make good on the next debate… which happened to be on Tuesday night.
Besides, a good argument could be asserted that Democrats did it to themselves. They have no one to blame but the person opposite them in the mirror. It wouldn’t have helped to completely get rid of senile Joe now, either, though giving Kamala keys to the Oval Office would’ve increased her presidential stature in Tuesday night’s debate.
For those who originally wondered why Democrats wouldn’t have wanted senile Joe Biden to simply resign his rickety throne so Kamala Harris could take over early and thus campaign as an incumbent – with all its advantages – the reason is simple: because then she would’ve actually had to have articulated what she was for and start behaving, at least in public, as though she knew what she was talking about and defend her positions.
So, in essence, the Democrat powers-that-be decided among themselves that senile Joe would maintain the ruse that he was functioning as president at least a little longer – or as long as he could possibly get away with it – so as to create space for Kamala to invent some pre-conceived campaign narrative and travel the country to recite it. As best she could. So, both Biden and Harris were members of the same “team” so to speak, neither of them meeting with the establishment media or doing the things that presidential candidates usually do.
And the plan, with the willing cooperation of the establishment media, has worked swimmingly thus far, aided by a favorable campaign calendar (with the Democrat convention providing a convenient excuse to chew up about two weeks’ worth of days for preparation and the event itself) and, at the same time, has provided cover for cackling Kamala to learn what it is she’s supposed to know intending to spill it all on September 10.
So if Kamala were busy actually governing the country, she not only would be required to know what she’s supposed to know but also would likely screw up in some capacity when touting some policy she might not have been “authorized” to say, thus ruining her campaign, too. It’s brilliant, isn’t it?
In response, Democrats opted to keep senile Joe on in the White House. If Kamala had tanked so badly on Tuesday night as Ramaswamy suggested, the process would’ve started all over again. Who’s to say the fill-in for the fill-in would’ve been any more prepared? How would they bring the next nominee similarly up to speed so he or she would know what his or her positions would need to be for the general public to take ahold of?
There’s an argument, and I suppose it’s theoretically possible, that Democrats could simply make a play to have senile Joe resume the party nominee’s chair long enough to compete in the election – if Kamala had done that putridly. The thinking being if Biden is able to run the country for the next few months, they could prop him up long enough to finish the campaign and maybe even long enough to take the oath of office next January.
The party’s nomination rules would have to be redone, again, but since when have rules ever presented a serious barrier to what Democrats set out to accomplish?
Then, when the election is over, Biden could then immediately resign, citing some made-up reason, and the “new” vice president could assume the presidency. Or who knows, perhaps cackling Kamala herself would “walk” into the presidency, debate debacle or no. Democrats’ built-in advantages would kick in either way. They’ve raised what, a half billion dollars since senile Joe announced he was quitting?
Democrats would bank on Biden being able to summons his old 2020 magic and he would simply wage another campaign where he’d make few public appearances. The party message revolves around abortion anyway, and that’s not exactly something they’d need to show in an image kind of way.
That would be a heck of a trick, wouldn’t it be?
Other than replacing Kamala as nominee, I’m not sure what else Ramaswamy could’ve been referring to by implying that Democrats have tricks up their sleeves if Harris had bombed Tuesday’s debate so badly that she had to be replaced. Democrats certainly would’ve made up some excuse for why Kamala did so badly – she was sick? – and sought to keep her even tighter under lock and key until Election Day.
Everyone knows that Democrats ran a shadow gubernatorial candidate in Arizona in 2022 and ended up winning. It’s often surmised among Democrats that all they need is a ballot slot, lots of money, their cheating get-out-the-vote apparatus and Donald Trump – or some other conservative – to run against and they have at least an even chance of competing in a tight contest.
If none of the aforementioned works, there’s always a more traditional “October surprise” to pull out of the hat. Democrats could simply invent another Russian collusion scenario and entrust AI to concoct all the documentation. Or start spreading leaks and rumors about Trump being “guilty” of other crimes. Whatever it would take to get the job done.
There are no rules in politics and that’s what makes the Democrats dangerous. Here’s thinking Kamala Harris did well enough to “survive” on Tuesday night, thus alleviating the need for Democrats to do anything “strange” to try and get her replaced before November gets here. But this year has been unprecedented to say the least. Would you put anything past them?
Joe Biden economy
inflation
Biden cognitive decline
gas prices,
Nancy Pelosi
Biden senile
Kamala Harris candidacy
Donald Trump campaign
Harris Trump debates
J.D. Vance
Kamala vice president
Speaker Mike Johnson
Donald Trump assassination
2022 elections
Donald Trump
2024 presidential election
Tim Walz
Comments