Kamala Can’t Win Without Election Interference And She’s Getting It
The article argues that Kamala Harris is not a serious presidential candidate, as she lacks a vision and genuine interest in the role. Instead, the narrative suggests that her candidacy is primarily a strategy to prevent Donald Trump from returning to the White House, involving election interference and media manipulation to bolster her image. The piece claims that despite her past failures in office, Democrats and the media will portray her as a legitimate contender, even crafting a narrative that disregards her record. It critiques various prominent figures’ dystopian predictions about a second Trump term while pointing out the contradictions in their support for a candidate like Harris, who is seen as a product of a political maneuver rather than a true democratic process. The article paints a picture of a political landscape steeped in hypocrisy, where the focus seems to be more on defeating Trump than on genuine electoral integrity.
Everyone invested in a Kamala Harris victory in November isn’t making even the faintest attempt at taking her seriously as a presidential candidate. She’s not one because she has no reason to run for president, no vision, no interest in the job.
The whole point of this herculean, gravity-defying exercise we’re in the midst of isn’t to make Kamala president. It’s to deny Donald Trump the White House. The only way that can happen is for election interference on behalf of Kamala in ways that were once unspeakable.
We’re already seeing it with inexplicable poll numbers (literally, no one can explain them); a national news media that went from acknowledging Kamala as a perpetual screw-up to heralding her as a glamour queen; and an all-hands cleanup effort to remake her reputation from undeniably incapable to Barack Obama redux.
We’re entering a new phase where Democrats and the media will not only pretend Kamala’s last three embarrassing years in office never happened, but they will lie about anything and everything from here forward and to a degree in no way tethered to reality.
Once-great New York Times columnist Thomas Edsall this week asked a bunch of “historians” and “experts” at Yale, Harvard, Princeton, and the like to envision a second Trump presidency. The result was the kind of unyielding, hysterical stream of horror fan fiction aspiring writers in high school post on internet forums at 3 a.m.
Sean Wilentz, Princeton: “The authoritarian imperative has moved beyond Trumpian narcissism and the cultish MAGA fringe to become an article of faith from top to bottom inside the utterly transformed Republican Party, which Trump totally commands.”
Laurence Tribe, Harvard: “All the dangers foreign and domestic posed by Trump’s cruelly vindictive, self-aggrandizing, morally unconstrained, reality-defying character … would be magnified many times over in any subsequent term.”
Timothy Synder, Yale: “Democracy depends upon example, and Trump sets the worst possible one. He has openly admired dictators his entire life. He would encourage Xi and Putin.”
These are the people unashamedly supporting a Democrat nominee who got no votes for the spot, who was installed via a bloodless coup, and who is currently serving in an administration that has indisputably weaponized the Justice Department to eliminate its primary political opposition. Or, as the left calls this behavior, “the fight for democracy.”
Trump “would encourage Xi and Putin,” meanwhile Kamala as vice president watched Russia invade a sovereign nation and China float a spy balloon across the entire United States. Trump is “vindictive” while Kamala sits at the top of an administration that, for the first time in American history, criminally charged a former president. Trump voters are “cultish” while Kamala’s party bypassed the entire primary process and rallied behind her as the newly anointed nominee with no consideration for dissenting opinion.
Democrats in positions of authority and prestige will say anything, at the expense of their credibility, to make this election work for them. Their reputations don’t matter to them, so long as they win.
Kamala just proposed a “ban on price gouging,” which is another way of saying “price controls,” which is another way of saying “socialism.” Every serious economist on either the left or right says it’s an abysmal idea or, at minimum, concedes that it would lead to mass shortages.
Another election intervention required. Axios writer Emily Peck wrote Tuesday that while Kamala hadn’t actually detailed a formal policy on the ban, those fears about shortages are “just not how anti-price gouging policies work in the U.S.” Paul Krugman at the Times wrote that what Kamala “actually” meant was “legislation banning price gouging on groceries.” And while Krugman opposes just about every popular proposal put forth by Trump, he declared that in this case, “just because something is popular doesn’t mean that it’s a bad idea.”
Up is down. Wet is dry. Kamala is taken seriously.
You haven’t seen anything yet. The election interference on behalf of Kamala is going to get so much worse. She can’t possibly win without it.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...