Why Is Kamala Still Losing?
Category: Op/Ed
Via: vic-eldred • 3 months ago • 86 commentsBy: Robert Stacy McCain (The American Spectator USA News and Politics)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Nobody wants Kamala Harris to win this election more than do her celebrity media friends, who are willing to forfeit their credibility to drag her across the finish line. ABC News, whose blatantly one-sided "fact-checking" during Harris's debate with Donald Trump was widely criticized, has seen its ratings tumble in the aftermath.
What's remarkable is not just the absolute shamelessness of the media's pro-Democrat bias — they're so far in the tank for her, their "news coverage" is just an endless campaign ad for Harris — but the fact that it doesn't seem to be helping. The one story they're not reporting is the most important of all: Kamala Harris is losing this election.
The process by which Kamala obtained the nomination was decidedly un-democratic, and then the party … spent weeks hiding the candidate from media curiosity.
Don't take my word for it. Go look at where Harris stands in the polls today, and then compare her numbers to what the polls showed for Joe Biden on the same day in his 2020 race against Trump, and for Hillary Clinton in her 2016 race against Trump. In both of those previous two elections, most polls were slanted in favor of the Democratic candidates, so that Trump did better in the final official vote tallies than he did in the polls. This track record of error in favor of Democrats provides the proverbial "grain of salt" with which everyone should consume public polling.
Fortunately, Tom Bevan, Carl Cannon and the rest of the crew at RealClearPolitics (RCP) have made it easy for anyone to compare current presidential poll numbers to those in 2020 and 2016. These comparisons show Harris to be underperforming Biden and Clinton to such an extent that a Trump victory in November is the most likely outcome.
As of Sunday morning, the RCP average of national polls showed Harris leading Trump by 1.9 points, but four years ago on the same day, Biden led Trump by 6.6 points in the RCP average, meaning that Harris is underperforming Biden by 4.7 points and guess what? In the final official tally of 2020, Biden won by 4.5 points, with 51.3 percent to Trump's 46.8 percent. In other words, if polls have the same predictive value now as they did in 2020, Trump would actually win the popular vote by a slender margin over Harris.
(After I did the above calculation, NBC News published a poll done by Hart Research Associates and Public Opinion Strategies showing Harris ahead by five points, which moved her lead in the RCP average to 2.2 points. However, the comparison factor was scarcely changed, since an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll from mid-September 2020, done by the same firms, had Biden ahead by eight points.)
Now do the same comparison with polls from the 2016 election. On September 22, 2016, the RCP average had Hillary Clinton leading Trump by 2.6 points, and what happened on Election Day 2016? Although Hillary won the national popular vote by a 2.1-point margin, she got beat by Trump in several key states — notably Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin — so that Trump won 304 Electoral College voters to Clinton's 227.
And when you consider that Harris's current 1.9-point lead over Trump is less than the margin by which Hillary led at this point in the campaign four years ago, it's easily possible that Trump could once again get more than 300 Electoral College votes this November.
The same phenomenon — Harris underperforming Biden and Clinton — can be documented not only in terms of poll averages, but also doing apples-to-apples comparisons of results from individual pollsters. For example, the latest Reuters/Ipsos national poll, conducted September 11-12 (i.e., immediately after the September 10 debate), had Harris leading Trump by a margin of five points, 47 percent to 42 percent.
However, in September 2020, Reuters/Ipsos had Biden leading by nine points, 50 percent to 41 percent, meaning that Harris is underperforming Biden by four points, according to the same polling operation. And, keep in mind, Biden's official final popular-vote margin was just 4.5 points, a result that had many key states decided by much smaller margins (officially, I hasten to add, for the benefit of all who doubt the legend of Biden's 81 million votes).
What about the battleground states that will ultimately decide the Electoral College winner? Take a look at Wisconsin, one of the previously "blue" Democratic strongholds that Trump won in 2016 — shocking Hillary Clinton, who hadn't even bothered to make a campaign appearance in the state — but which Biden won in 2020 by a razor-thin margin of barely 20,000 votes (less than 1 percent).
The current RCP average of Wisconsin polls has Harris leading by one point and guess what? Four years ago — September 22, 2020 — the RCP average had Biden leading by 6.4 points in Wisconsin and, on the same date in 2016, the RCP average had Hillary ahead by 4.7 points in Wisconsin. To repeat the caveat I've stated before, if the predictive value of polls is the same now as it was in the two most recent presidential elections, Kamala Harris is on track to lose Wisconsin, and lose it by a significantly larger margin than Hillary Clinton did in 2016.
Similar calculations could be made for Pennsylvania, Michigan, and other battleground states, with the same result. Trump will win those states, perhaps with margins large enough that no amount of "ballot-harvesting" shenanigans by Democrats can prevent Harris from suffering a defeat even worse than Clinton's 2016 loss.
This is, as I say, the most important story of the campaign, and one the major media organizations refuse to report, even though any of them could do the same thing I've done, using the tools provide by RealClearPolitics to compare poll numbers and demonstrate how significantly Harris is underperforming compared to Biden in 2020 and Clinton in 2016.
If any of them did such reporting, they could not avoid the conclusion that Kamala is losing this election, but since they won't report this, they cannot even begin to answer the question of why she's losing — which should be equally obvious.
To start with, Biden's victory in 2020 was certainly no landslide, no "mandate" repudiating Trump. Even if you accept the final official totals (which most Republican voters still don't), Biden's election was the result of his winning by razor-thin margins in five states — Arizona (10,457 votes, 0.3 percent), Georgia (11,729 votes, 0.2 percent), Michigan (154,188 votes, 2.78 percent), Pennsylvania (80,555 voters, 1.2 percent) and Wisconsin (20,682 voters, 0.6 percent) — that Trump had won four years earlier.
Flip the four states with the thinnest margins to Trump, and he wins. Out of more than 150 million votes cast in 2020, then, the election was ultimately decided by a margin of 123,423 votes in Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Despite the narrowness of Biden's victory — and, as I say, most Republicans still don't believe Sleepy Joe actually got 81 million votes — the Democrats acted as if they had beaten Trump by the kind of sweeping landslide that Ronald Reagan beat Walter Mondale by in 1984. Biden and his congressional allies swiftly acted to reverse every key Trump policy, and to implement an agenda nearly as ambitious as LBJ's "Great Society" crusade in the 1960s.
In many ways, what Biden did in 2021-2022 resembled the similar mistakes made by Bill Clinton and Barack Obama in their first two years in the White House, with a Democrat-controlled Congress to rubber-stamp their policies and a news media singing hosannas of praise for their "bold" leadership, until voters had their say in the next midterm election and took away the congressional rubber stamp.
Every Democratic president makes this mistake — misinterpreting their election as a mandate for radicalism — precisely because the media are so in-the-tank for Democrats. Any Republican president can expect to be hectored, harassed and investigated by the news media, condemned as a hard-hearted villain for trying to do anything remotely conservative policy-wise, and so whatever tendency to overreach a Republican might have, the implacable hostility of the D.C. press corps tends to put the brakes on GOP hubris.
Joe Biden had no such opposition from the media, who consulted their thesauruses seeking new synonyms for "courage" to celebrate Biden's policy agenda. Because the media had spent the previous four years in a fever of Trump Derangement Syndrome, they viewed Biden as a sort of messiah, the heaven-sent source of political salvation, and his presence in the White House was hailed by his journalistic devotees with quasi-religious reverence.
With the Washington press corps singing his praises, Biden went from one policy disaster to another. Ruinous inflation took hold as a Congress controlled by Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer rammed through huge deficit-spending measures that pumped trillions of devalued dollars into the economy.
Arguably the biggest lie of Biden's administration was naming one of these omnibus spending packages "The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022," which had the exact opposite effect announced in the title and was, as Biden himself has since admitted, mostly about enacting a "green energy" agenda.
Kamala Harris cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate to pass that bill, and therefore cannot claim she played no part in wrecking the finances of millions of Americans who suffered as a result of Biden's misguided policies. Harris has furthermore claimed to have played a key role in another of Biden's disasters, as "the last person in the room" when he made the decision on the botched U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, a decision that went against the advice of key military leaders. Thirteen U.S. troops were killed in that catastrophic bungle, which handed more than $7 billion in American military equipment to the Taliban.
As if these economic and foreign policy mistakes were not sufficient to confirm Barack Obama's judgment of Biden's ineptitude ("Don't underestimate Joe's ability to f-k things up"), then there was the matter of immigration.
Here, Biden seems to have assumed that he had a mandate to do the exact opposite of what Trump had done. Whereas Trump had made "build the wall" his signature campaign promise of securing the southern border, Biden threw open the floodgates for an unprecedented influx of illegal immigration.
The result is that the foreign-born population (both legal and illegal) is now grown to more than 50 million (more than 15 percent of the total U.S. population), a historic record both in total numbers and percentage, and continues increasing at a rate of about 2.5 million annually, according to Census Bureau data analyzed by Steven A. Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies.
As with Biden's economic and foreign-policy blunders, Kamala Harris is directly implicated in the immigration disaster, having been appointed "border czar" by Biden in March 2021 (a reality that Harris and her media sycophants have striven to "fact check" out of existence).
The Biden administration's policies are unpopular, and despite her attempts to disown her share in the woes of the past three-and-a-half years — with the slogan "A New Way Forward" — Harris is up to her neck in blame. Then there is the problem that Roger Kimball calls "the supreme oddity of Kamala Harris's presidential campaign," i.e., exactly how she became the Democratic Party's nominee.
Despite his advanced age, 81-year-old Biden insisted he was capable of serving a second term as Commander-in-Chief, a belief he refused to abandon after his cognitive decline was exposed in the June 27 debate. For the next 24 days, while Biden and his closest henchpeople (including Harris) kept telling everybody that he was continuing his campaign and was confident of victory in November, the polls showed him headed to certain defeat.
Finally, on July 21, Biden announced he would quit the campaign and anointed Harris to replace him on the ballot. Exactly why and how this happened is a story that probably won't be fully told until after Election Day, but this candidate switcheroo by the Democrats was decidedly irregular. It was, as every political commentator acknowledged at the time, unprecedented in American history. Democrats held a "virtual roll call" prior to their convention, making the switcheroo official and thus ensuring that there could be no floor challenge to Harris as the party's nominee.
Nothing quite like this had ever happened before, and the top-down imposition of Harris as the candidate was done by the same party that had spent years claiming that Trump must be defeated (indeed, must be sent to prison!) because he posed an existential threat to "our democracy." What kind of democracy is it, where party insiders force the incumbent to quit his reelection bid and then pick a substitute candidate who never got a single primary vote for president?
The process by which Kamala obtained the nomination was decidedly un-democratic, and then the party which claims to be fighting on behalf of "our democracy" spent weeks hiding the candidate from media curiosity. She didn't do a single interview until a late August hug-fest with CNN, in which she was accompanied by her running mate Tim Walz. Even in that ultra-friendly environment, Harris proved evasive and incoherent, giving non-answers to whatever actual policy questions were asked.
This evasive pattern continued in the September 10 debate. Asked about the economy, Harris began her reply: "So, I was raised as a middle-class kid. And I am actually the only person on this stage who has a plan that is about lifting up the middle class and working people of America. I believe in the ambition, the aspirations, the dreams of the American people. And that is why I imagine and have actually a plan to build what I call an opportunity economy."
Later in the debate, when Harris was asked to explain her obvious policy flipflops, she reiterated her latest policy stance — she will NOT ban fracking, and never mind her saying the exact opposite a few years ago — before returning to her personal narrative: "As it relates to my values, let me tell you, I grew up a middle class kid raised by a hard-working mother who worked and saved and was able to buy our first home when I was a teenager."
Kamala's habit of not giving real answers to important questions is easily mocked, as in the headline at the Babylon Bee satire site: "'I Was Born Into A Middle Class Family,' Explains Wife When Husband Asks Why The Car Is On Fire." It's easy to see why her handlers are eager to keep her away from the news media when, even in the softball context of an Oprah Winfrey interview, Harris served up a smorgasbord of word salad, an all-you-can-eat buffet of embarrassing incoherence.
She is a bad candidate, defending a bad policy agenda and yet, we are told that Kamala Harris is winning. In reporting their latest poll Sunday, NBC News headlined it thus: "Poll: Newly popular Harris builds momentum, challenging Trump for the mantle of change."
Barely six weeks remain until Election Day, so we won't have long to wait and see how "newly popular" Harris actually is. Maybe the in-the-tank news media can fool enough people to turn their own hopes into reality. But they don't fool me, they probably don't fool you, and something more than a hunch — a diligent inquiry into the predictive value of polling — tells me they probably can't fool enough of our fellow Americans to push the "momentum" of Kamala Harris to 270 Electoral College votes.
What if my calculations are wrong? What will I say, if November 5 turns into a landslide for Kamala? No problem. I've got my explanation ready: "I was born into a middle-class family …"
Tags
Who is online
539 visitors
42 days until election day.
If you want inflation, high taxes, price controls and open borders you can still vote for Kamala.
She isn't 'still losing'. She's surging while the former 'president' is weaving. lol
[✘]
Does it really take a whole essay to argue that what could turn out to be a photo finish if not a landslide to boost Trump? I, for one, prefer to rely on what Allan Lichtman predicts. Polls are much too easy to be manipulated to provide the numbers that the pollsters are seeking to produce for them to be a reliable indication, so an opinion based on an analysis of such manipulated polls is not necessarily respected by those capable of critical thinking.
If the polls are wrong in the same way they were the last two presidential elections, Trump will win an electoral landslide. As it is, its a coinflip.
My cleaning woman (she is from Guatemala) asked me who I was voting for a few days ago.
I told her "I wasn't sure."
If I'm saying that, you can imagine how many people aren't saying they are voting for Trump.
So you lied to her?
Your cleaning woman actually asked you that?
Maybe Vic thought that if he told her the truth she would be so disgusted she wouldn't work for him any more. He was being practical.
She is from Guatemala. There is a reason I told you that.
I don't know the circumstances of how she came to this country. I do happen to like her. I'm sure she knows Trump's stand on illegal migration.
So why would I tell her?
No worries on that.
She is not a radical democrat.
Truth. Is she an illegal immigrant?
I don't know.
That story describes Trump and his supporters so well. Rage about illegal immigrants, blame all their problems on them and lie about Democrats wanting 'open borders', but when the rubber meets the road and they want their house cleaned or low cost produced picked and they're asked if their housekeeper is here legally, they feign ignorance, 'I don't know'... 'But I'm certainly not going to let my housekeeper know I'm voting for the loudmouthed slimy racist!'...
Nailed It!
You should know. Because if she isn't, you're breaking the law
Only if he employs her directly, and not through a cleaning service.
[deleted][✘]
Do you pay her under the table?
You didn't tell me that, you told Sean.
Fucking A!
Ah yes— the time honored “Cleaning Women Survey Method of Prediction”!
While of course there are many methods of attempting to predict the future— over time that method has proven to be by far the most accurate!
Oh wait— I just re-read that comment. She’s from Guatemala!
After having studied these matters for many years, I can tell you that over time the record of Guatemalan cleaning ladies ain’t too bad.
(But here’s a little secret: if you want absolute cleaning woman accuracy… go with the Bolivians, they never fail!!!)
Don’t like the cleaning lady method of prognostication? Well here’s another hint. Remember these words:
When the Moon is in the Seventh House
And Jupiter Aligns with Mars
look for John Carter to arrive .
Hah! Good movie reference.
I'll just say I'm a democrat.
But democrats do want open borders.
And the only racists are the people who try to manipulate black voters every 4 years.
I think my story brought out more about progressives than Trump supporters.
I'm glad you saw that. I emphasized that she was Guatemalan. That was the whole point. You see, I kind of like her and if she is here illegally, I wouldn't want her to think I was voting for her deportation, even though I would be. As much as I like her, if she broke the law, there must be accountability.
The telling of that story really provokes some on the left. I must confess, I knew it would. It is all part of presenting things in an orderly way, at the right time.
Sime you seem t like the lighter side of my pointed story, I have an actual funny story involving her. Last winter I was about to leave for Florida, and I told her I wouldn't need her services for the next two months. Instead of telling her I was going to Florida, I told her I was going to see Guatemala. She said: "That is where I come from. There is nothing there. Why you go there?"
I then told her I was kidding and that I was going to Florida. On the plane, I couldn't stop laughing about what she said.
I couldnt get through this whole remarkably stupid article.
The only common thread between 2016, 2020 and 2024 is Trump.
Harris has been in the presidential race for exactly two months, Trump has been in it for two years.
Harris "advantage" in national aggregate polls has only grown, it has not gotten smaller.
Since Trump tried to overthrow our government in the beginning of 2021 Democrats have done very well in elections across the nation.
There has been no presidential election since Roe v Wade was overturned, but there have been quite a few votes taken on the subject. The pro choice side has won almost all of them.
A perfectly orchestrated entrance. Maybe the best in history and she has no lead. She has a long record of radical views. She is hidden away, and it isn't working.
The pro choice side has won almost all of them.
That is one way of interpreting those democrat wins. There is one other thing the past three elections had in common: MASSIVE MAIL IN BALLOTING. In all of those races democrats banked millions of votes every day while Republicans waited until election day when they were overwhelmed by all the unenthusiastic voters that cast mail in ballots. I just heard some good news tonight. In the few places where early voting is going on, the democrat advantage has shrunk by about 35%.
The author of the article still has a valid point. In all the elections he has been in, Trump's supporters have been underestimated in all the polling.
She has at least a 6 point lead.
You need to understand something. All Americans over the age of 20 know and understand Trump tried to overthrow the government four years ago. Tens of millions of people will never vote for him for that reason alone. There is no logical reason to compare 2024 to 2016 or even 2020.
This topic is rather [boring][✘]
Do actually think the majority of Americans are going to vote for such a person ?
[✘]
I'll see you in HD.
That fact that Trump tried to overthrow the government four years ago is indisputably true. Those who support his effort to install an authoritarian regime deny that truth in order to distract from and disguise their extremely unpopular goal. They hope they can accomplish by subterfuge what they failed to accomplish with a frontal assault.
Beware of the truth deniers.
Says who?
That is not true. You may want to believe that.
Four years this was a sane prosperous country.
Vic, I would like to know your prediction about this. If Harris wins and the numbers of Republicans in both the House and Senate are reduced in November, will Trump and his supporters accept it in a peaceful mature way, or will it be all this childish "rigged election" and "stolen election" stupidity and rioting and storming the capitol building again?
I see that you still have not read the January 6th Report.
Only Four? It has been a long time since the Constitution was signed on September 17, 1787.
Surely you must have meant 'years ago'? Assuming you meant to juxtapose the societal and economic conditions between then and now, a strong argument can be made that we are more prosperous than we were four years ago. The level of insanity has risen due to a plethora of brainwashed Republicans who believe what falls from Trump's lips. That so many are mislead by this con-man is truly a sad statement on the state of the democracy.
I hope he will.
That question can be asked both ways. You do remember how democrats reacted when he won in 2016. You should ask them the same question.
I would like to have read what that partisan committee destroyed, but I guess we'll never know those details.
a strong argument can be made that we are more prosperous than we were four years ago.
No, it can't. That is a big problem for Harris.
I don't recall anyone in 2016 saying the election was "rigged" or "stolen", nor do I remember a storming of the Capitol building back then, and if I remember correctly it was a peaceful transition of power, although I wouldn't blame EITHER party if they were pissed because there was a majority popular vote that was usurped by an opposite electoral college majority.
Anyway, 10 pm and I'm done for the day. I'm making French toast for my wife and me for breakfast in the morning.
Perhaps this will help your memory............................
That's odd. Here:
"Congress made the election of Donald Trump official Friday, certifying the votes of the Electoral College in a formal joint session of Congress.
Some Democratic House members attempted to object to some states Electoral College votes to protest the election results. But their objections went nowhere because they were unable to gain the support of a senator, per the rules.
Despite protests, the final vote tally was:
Democrats objected 11 times, citing a variety of issues, including “Russian interference,” “massive voter suppression” and the “violation of the Voting Rights Act.”
Vice President Joe Biden, who sat in the chair and presided over the 41 minute-long process in the House chamber, attempted to speed through the objections. After the third objection and the third time Biden asked if a senator had signed on, Biden said, “it is over.”
But a handful of Democratic House members continued to object during specific states and tried to continue their speeches even after Biden gaveled them down and said debate is not allowed. After the states were counted, three citizens in the audience gallery stood up to demonstrate.
At one point, Rep. Maxine Watters, D-Calif., stood and asked for a senator to join them. Only four Democratic senators attended the ceremony."
Despite Objections, Congress Certifies Donald Trump's Election (nbcnews.com)
Anyway, 10 pm and I'm done for the day.
Have a good night.
I'm making French toast for my wife and me for breakfast in the morning.
Viva La France!
Only amongst the willingly delusional or crazy, or, I suppose, there could be some people who are just not that smart.
Did Democrats try to illegally change the electoral vote by having the VP declare some states electoral votes "invalid " and then have the VP declare Clinton was the actual winner?
Did Hilary Clinton call one of the states and tell election officials "I need you to find me 12,000 votes"?
Did Hilary call the speaker of the house of Arizona and ask him to say the election was fraudulent?
Did Hillary file 62 lawsuits, and lost 61 of them, baselessly alleging the election was rigged?
Did Hillary defame the manufacturer of voting machines , saying they were creating votes for her opponent out of thin air?
The argument that your comment is making, to use the word extremely loosely , is child like.
In 2000, 20004 and 2016, Democrats did exactly what Republicans did in 2020. In fact, Republicans are the only party this century to lose a Presidential election and not challenge it.
Challenging the Presidential vote in congress is not illegal, which is why Congress created a process to do it.
Utter nonsense.
Everyone in Trump's illegal steal the election scheme was a Republican.
The next day after the electoral college confirmed its totals, which was dec 14th, I believe, Trump went on social media and asked his followers to come to the Capitol on Jan 6th saying "it will be wild".
One door had closed to his frantic plan, and now he would open another.
Comparing what the Democrats did to what Trump and his minions did is like comparing going to the grocery store to going to the moon.
I don't think there is any question that a majority of Americans will vote for Kamala in November. The only reason the race is a toss-up is because we do not go by popular vote but by electoral vote. So, a minority of Americans, the low information low IQ brain dead racist Trump lovers who take zero self-responsibility and blame all their problems on immigrants, lgbtq, liberal and progressive Americans, have a chance at putting their racist convicted felon rapist candidate in the white house to represent them.
But again, the majority of Americans, likely by several million, will be voting for Kamala Harris because the majority of Americans don't have their heads shoved up a disgusting morally bankrupt liars' ass.
I still remember that one woman falling to her knees and screaming NOOOO when Trump won in 2016! Wonder if she'll do it again if Trump wins this time?
Logical arguments, not ridiculous ones.
Thanks, I did.
I think she chooses to live in the present unlike some
Don't know, don't care. It's her problem not mine.
Sane? Under Trump? You don't even want to get into that. But, for argument's sake, let's just start with "I will build a wall and Mexico will pay for it." Insane, to say the least.
As for "properous", here are some of the facts:
The economy lost 2.7 million jobs. The unemployment rate increased by 1.7 percentage points to 6.4%.
The international trade deficit Trump promised to reduce went up. The U.S. trade deficit in goods and services in 2020 was the highest since 2008 and increased by the end of his term to 36.3% from 2016.
The number of people lacking health insurance rose by 3 million.
The federal debt held by the public went up, from $14.4 trillion to $21.6 trillion.
Illegal immigration increased.
Coal production declined 26.5%, and coal-mining jobs dropped by 25%.
The murder rate in Trump's last year in office rose to the highest level since 1997.
Quite a record!
No logical reason?
What’s logic got to do with it?
Remember lad—- this is The Internet!!!
Just to report that my honey-coated cinnamon French toast was absolutely delicious this morning, and in deference to the French I ate it the way the French would rather than "fork-switcher" style.
Now back to less important matters. LOL
In honor of the French, I think I'll have my DD breakfast sandwich on a croissant.
Those stats make no sense, even If you only take the Pandemic period of 2020, which is what Harris defenders try to do.
It is called GASLIGHTING.
John, they did worse than that. The Clinton campaign concocted a fake story about Trump colluding with Russia and the media and the FBI ran with it for about 3 years.
Those stats are fact. Prove that any of them are wrong. You can't.
Trying to deny them is GASLIGHTING.
May I please ask where said "facts" came from?
I wonder why you can't refute a single fact Gsquared stated!
He conveniently forgot a couple...............
I clearly stated that I was presenting "some" of the facts in order to refute the unfounded inference in Comment 3.1.14 that during the Trump presidency there was nothing but economic prosperity.
Further, despite the Trump fueled inflation, on average wages have exceeded inflation during the Biden presidency.
In addition, corporate profits have reached an all-time high during the Biden presidency.
Since the statistics you mentioned about the Trump presidency came from factcheck.org, the same source as the information I provided, they must also be GASLIGHTING, right?
Yep.
Oh ya, great stats /s. That's why the dems had to dump Biden.
To be fair John, he has never stopped campaigning.
The sweet scent of her being chosen to be the democrat nominee wore off pretty quickly. Now the stink of her past and present far left progressive views, words, and actions, has caught up with her. The vast majority, both vocal and silent, of the American people, have made it clear that they will not accept a weird Soviet style type of government.
The Party of What the Fuck?
She isn't losing.. LOL
Harris is up 2 points over trump nationally.