Does Anyone Ever Poll For Authenticity? Does It Even Matter To Voters?
In the 1960 presidential race, the Democrats fielded Massachusetts Senator John Kennedy against Vice President Richard Nixon. I was just 12 on Election Day but I was already a political junkie and I was up all night as the TV stations claimed it was too close to call but that Kennedy was ahead. Once all the votes were counted, it was breathtakingly close:
Kennedy- 34,220,984 (49.72%)
Nixon- 34,108,157 (49.55%)
If math isn’t your thing, that’s a 112,827 vote difference with over 68 million cast, less than a 0.2% margin. There were persistent rumors that Chicago Democratic boss Richard Daley delivered the 8,858 votes Kennedy needed with stuffed ballot boxes.
Kennedy- 2,377,846 (49.98%)
Nixon- 2,368,988 (49.80%)
Hawaii was even closer— and it was their first presidential election since statehood with an incredible 93.6% turnout. Nixon won every island but Oahu. It took a recount to award the 115 vote win to Kennedy.
Kennedy- 92,410 (50.03%)
Nixon- 92,295 (49.97%)
But the biggest scandal was in Texas, where Nixon kicked ass in Dallas-Ft Worth and the Houston area, but narrowly lost the state when votes came flooding in for Kennedy and LBJ from the Rio Grande Valley
Kennedy- 1,167,567 (50.52%)
Nixon- 1,121,310 (48.52%)
Had Nixon won Illinois and Texas, he would have won the electoral college and become president. But determined to avoid a constitutional crisis, Nixon conceded on Wednesday even though many of his supporters were sure the election was stolen (including young Illinois Republican activist Hillary Clinton).
Ten states were decided by less than 10,000 votes. It was the closest election of the 20th Century. Nixon was at a crossroads. Despite calls from many in the Republican Party for him to remain a national figure, he needed a platform to stay politically relevant. Running for governor of California, his home state which he had just won (albeit very narrowly) seemed like a logical step to position himself for a future presidential bid. But he was unsure at first, a governorship looking to him as a step down after having been a vice president. His allies talked him into it as an opportunity to rebuild his image and then use the governor's office as a springboard for another presidential campaign.
He faced popular Democratic incumbent Pat Brown in what quickly devolved into a very negative, bitter campaign, Nixon going right to his old soft-on-communism song and dance, while Brown portrayed him as loser, opportunist who was only running for governor as a stepping stone to the presidency, stoking skepticism that he wasn't genuinely interested in California's governance.
Nixon’s defeat was decisive, putting his electoral viability into question nationally:
Brown- 3,037,109 (51.94%)
Nixon- 2,740,351 (46.87%)
Nixon's post-election behavior became almost as famous as the campaign itself. At a press conference the morning after his defeat, he lashed out at the media, accusing them of bias and unfair treatment during the campaign and whined pathetically to the press “Just think how much you're going to be missing. You won’t have Nixon to kick around anymore, because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference,” his farewell to electoral politics. He moved to New York nd quietly rebuilt his political viability.
So why bring all that up today? See this yesterday? The big decision facing Kamala Harris. Disclaimer: I never voted for Kamala Harris for anything— not for D.A., not for attorney general, not for senator, not for vice president, not for president— not in a primary, not in a general election. I have always found her to be wretchedly inauthentic and she has always made me sick to my stomach— the worst kind of Democrat who represented nothing at all but her own career. Just like… Nixon.
Eugene Daniels and Rachel Bade wrote that her decompression in Hawaii is ending after an innocuous message to her allies: “I am staying in the fight,” which I took tomean that she will be fighting tooth and nail for the only thing she has ever fought for: her career. “Harris has two possible tracks should she wish to stake a place at the highest level of Democratic politics: (1) position herself for a 2028 presidential run or (2) pursue a run for California governor in 2026. While the two aren’t mutually exclusive technically, they are practically— there’s an ‘emerging consensus that she probably can’t do both’… Assuming she is elected governor, it would be hard to imagine her turning right around and running for president given the demands on the leader of the nation’s largest state. (As one confidant put it, ‘It’s a real job.’)”
They wrote that “Few around Harris thought the open race to succeed term-limited Gov. Gavin Newsom [another meaningless careerist] might be appealing to an ex-presidential nominee. But that thinking is starting to change. Yes [just as Nixon thought in 1960], going from VP to governor could be like a step down in prestige. But a Governor Harris would have more power than she’s held in any other position she’s previously held, and— as Newsom has shown— it would give her a potent platform to take on Trump. And two terms as California’s first woman (and African American, and South Asian) governor, the thinking goes, would be a fitting capstone to a pathbreaking career. S a political matter, the road to the governorship would likely be relatively smooth. A recent UC Berkeley poll found nearly half of likely California voters were inclined to support her for governor. In other early polls of the field, possible Democratic candidates like Katie Porter, Xavier Becerra, Antonio Villaraigosa and Rob Bonta are lucky to clear double digits. The primary election takes place in July 2026, and every pol we’ve spoken to— Harris ally or not— agrees that she has the potential to clear the field, so she has time to decide. But the longer she waits, the more opportunity she gives rivals to gain a foothold.”
Then there’s the allure of another try for the presidency. “Harris, it’s safe to say, is an ‘X factor’ in the 2028 presidential derby. Some Democrats are dismissive of another run given her loss, and— unlike in California— it’s unlikely other Democrats would defer to her. ‘I can’t conceivably imagine the party turning to her a second time,’ said one strategist… But [completely meaningless] polls have found her miles ahead of other Democrats in very, very early polling of the prospective field. She won more presidential votes than any Democrat not named Joe Biden. And she has infrastructural advantages that others will be hard-pressed to beat, including a massive donor list.”
After Hillary’s loss in 2016, idiots wanted her to run again, but that balloon deflated fast. Since we’re not talking about anything put a careerist’s career, “there is, of course, a different path: A comfortable and potentially lucrative life back in California replete with corporate board appointments, speaking engagements, a book deal and a role as an elder stateswoman in Democratic politics rather than as an active participant. But few people believe the 60-year-old Harris is truly done with politics.”
In 2020, Biden beat Trump to a pulp in California:
Biden- 11,110,639 (63.48%)
Trump- 6,006,518 (34.32%)
Kamala crushed Trump in California as well, although not nearly as strongly as Biden had and the worst of any Democrat since 2004. Trump flipped 8 counties from blue to red: Riverside, San Bernardino, Fresno, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Butte and Inyo.
Harris- 9,184,242 (58.60%)
Trump- 5,989,358 (38.22%)
Bob Lefsetz wrote that “leaving out personalities, looking at the issues, the Democrats should have easily won the election. But Harris couldn’t even bring out as many people to vote for her as they did for Old Joe. And it wasn’t even Covid times anymore. People were just not excited, they were disillusioned. But if you dared to say a single negative thing about Harris you were a sexist hater. Sam Harris did a good podcast on this. It wasn’t that America was not ready to elect a woman, they weren’t ready to elect THIS woman, and to beware, if we don’t get it right Candace Owens could be president in the future. But those on the left may not even be aware of Owens. Because if it’s not in their anointed media, it doesn’t exist. But how can you win if you do not know the enemy? People hate the Democrats. I’M A DEMOCRAT and I hate the Democrats. If Chuck Schumer is your point person… God, you might as well concede before the war begins. He doesn’t know how to amp it up, never demonstrates any passion, this is the guy you want to lead the charge?”
So Harris was perfect! And therefore the Trump voters must be guilty. Stupid. Ignorant. Can’t they see the truth? Maybe it’s the Democrats who can’t see the truth! For a party that considers itself to be a big tent, it’s amazing that most people are not let inside. Man, god forbid you mess up someone’s pronouns. Sure, people are entitled to dignity, but is this the main issue in our country?
OF COURSE NOT!
Wipe out the DNC, get new blood. When a team has a bad year they don’t go into the next with the exact same people. They fire the manager/coach. Bring in some ringers. Maybe even hire a new GM with a different philosophy.
But so far in the Democratic party it’s been hosannas. It’s like nursery school, no one is at fault, no one is to blame, everyone keeps their job.
… [S]ocial media is where people get their information. Don’t decry it, don’t you get your info at school or work, it’s the same damn thing, and also sometimes wildly inaccurate.
And if Trump could lie constantly and win…
Why is that?
Well, people are voting on emotions. And when it comes to emotions and perceptions facts oftentimes don’t matter. People want someone who excites them… Hell, the rock stars of the sixties and seventies built their careers on lying, with publicity stunts, and the music industry is all about proffering false “facts.” The show that’s sold out is not. The album that had a certain level of success did not. But the rules should be different in politics?
And an outside agitator, Elon Musk, swayed all those voters?
God forbid you show some testosterone on the left. It’s all namby pamby, you don’t want to hurt anybody’s feelings. God, the Democrats are a sexless party. We’re all screwing all the time, but it’s taboo on the left because the guy isn’t doing it right, not asking the right permission. Sure, there are bad actors, and they should be held to account, but not every male in America. Men are the enemy? Where is that a winning strategy?
This election illustrated that conventional wisdom was b.s. The public isn’t concerned with DEI. I’ve got to tell you, it’s always white people who reach out and tell me something I’m saying is racist or sexist, doing the work of parties who don’t feel offended.
You’re offended right now! Don’t you see you’re helping the enemy Bob? No, I’m just speaking the truth, and you can’t handle it.
We don’t have a person/candidate on the left who is 3-D like either Trump or Musk, no one to get behind and believe in. We’ve got some soft intellectuals, but nobody willing to yell and blow the doors off the enemy! And one thing about Trump and Musk, they mix it up constantly. And when you do this sometimes you get it wrong. But the left is in constant referee mode, looking for faux pas, when what happened yesterday isn’t even remembered today.
Comments