Kamala Chameleon and the Big Lie

 

Look! The Moon is Green!

Kamala Harris has by come commentators been nicknamed “Kamala Chameleon,” because she seems to tell every interest group whatever they want to hear. She is against fracking; she is for fracking. She is against a border wall; she is for a border wall. She wants to confiscate guns; she is for the Second Amendment. 

This, since she herself raised the comparison, is something else she and the Democrats have in common with Hitler. This is why historians have trouble classifying Nazi ideology, have trouble defining what Nazism actually was. As William L. Shirer observed in following Hitler’s rise, he would simply promise every crowd whatever he thought they most wanted to hear.

This makes sense, because Nazism’s core value was simply power, ultimately power in the hands of one man. Like the modern left, it saw all of human society as a power struggle. The goal was (and is) to get more power for yourself, not to advance anyone else’s interests. So you make whatever promises will achieve this. Once in power, you then do as you like.

Another way in which the modern Democrats echo the Nazis is in their embrace of the propaganda technique of the “big lie”: that if you keep repeating something often enough, it comes to be, or be accepted as, truth. This is the fundamental ideology of postmodernism. It is why they can assert that men become women, and vice versa, by saying so, and it must then be illegal for anyone to say otherwise. They use the big lie on the hustings again and again, asserting the Russian collusion hoax, the fine people hoax, the Vance sofa hoax, the Liz Cheney firing squad hoax, the drink bleach hoax, and a dozen others, knowing they are debunked.

The Harris Bump

 

The latest theme among commentators is how Kamala Harris is now winning the US Presidential election. Right-wing commentators are alarmed, and are saying the Trump campaign is on the back foot.

I think this is largely driven by the need to have something new to talk about. And this is just the inevitable bump of excitement any candidate gets when they are nominated. 

I expect the next story to be how the Harris campaign is crashing and burning. That should hit by election day.

People are not focused on Harris and Walz yet. There is so much material there for opp research and memes. And the Trump campaign has lots of money to put it out.

Trump is relatively restrained so far at attacking Harris. His tack is just that she is too radically left-wing. I think he is right. Because she is a woman and of darker skin tone, the minute he says anything mocking, as he does so well, he will be declared a racist, a sexist, and a bully. It is best to hold back and let her destroy herself. And let the independent commentators and meme makers do the rest.

I think she will manage to do it.

Inevitable Democratic Nominee Drops Out

Kamala Harris

So Kamala Harris is out of the race to become the Democratic US presidential candidate.

Honesty obliges me to note that I had picked her as most likely to win.

To be fair, I did also note that she was inexperienced and untested, and so might implode.

She imploded.

So now, who do I think will win?

The matter is clouded—clouded enough to have prompted some late entries to the race. Everybody seems to see the race as up for grabs.

But right now, I’d put my money on Bernie Sanders.

Granted, the media star of the moment is Pete Buttigieg. But these sudden surges to the top of the field are not to be taken too seriously. Each candidate seems to get their turn in the spotlight, and then fall back. If Buttigieg is surging now, it is probably too soon to serve him well by the time the Iowa caucuses come around. Instead, he may be killed now by raised expectations not being met.

Buttigieg is also unappealing to black voters; they may not matter much in Iowa or New Hampshire, but that will kill him in the later primaries. I don’t think this is something that can be fixed by outreach. Pete is too preppy.

And fundamentally, it is just nuts to nominate the mayor of a small Midwestern city, sans anything epoch-making in his platform. For comparison, Lloyd Henderson, former mayor of Portage-la-Prairie, a comparably-sized Canadian city, ran for the Liberal Party leadership in 1968. Anyone else remember? He received no votes.

In the end, it would be a profound embarrassment to the Party to nominate Mayor Pete. Is this really the best they can do?

His relative inexperience as a politician also makes him vulnerable, like Harris but more so, to either a fatal gaffe or some previously undiscovered closet cadaver.

Yet a reasonably strong Buttigieg candidacy tends to split Biden’s vote. If he can run first or second in Iowa and New Hampshire, it guarantees that Biden cannot take those contests.

At present, Sanders is in second place in both early states. He stands to benefit if Buttigieg falls short, and he stands to benefit even if Buttigieg takes them, then fails in later contests: he has staked his ground as the alternative, the non-Buttigieg and champion of the radical wing. Meanwhile, the moderate delegates will be split between Buttigieg and whatever candidate inherits the more moderate vote in later primaries.

Biden is still leading in the national polls. But national polls matter less than Iowa and New Hampshire. Biden is not close in Iowa and New Hampshire. Even if Buttigieg stumbles before those states vote, they like to do something surprising and transgressive. Voting for Biden does not fit that profile, since he is the nominal front-runner and the most familiar of the candidates. Voting for Biden would be boring. More probable would be a surprise surge by Yang, or Gabbard, or Steyer.

So Biden’s strategy, of necessity, is to take losses in both states, then start winning in South Carolina and the South.

That strategy has never worked before. The negative media resulting from the two losses, plus the buzz around the winner, tends to kill all momentum. Biden’s strategy is Rudy Giuliani’s strategy in 2008. Giuliani led the national polls too. And Biden is actually running not second, but third, in both states. He is not even establishing himself as the natural alternative.

For a while, the centre lane in the race was uncrowded, while candidates were all shuffling left. In particular, Elizabeth Warren’s strong candidacy was splitting Sanders’s natural constituency. That made Biden look strong. Now that situation seems reversed. Warren has fallen dramatically in the polls. Having had two campaign revivals, I do not think she is likely to rise again. Her insincerity has finally sunken in with Democratic voters. Sincerity is more important than it used to be. Perceived lack of sincerity sunk Kamala Harris, and it looks like it is sinking Warren now almost as decisively.

In the meantime, new candidates have been poaching Biden’s following. Buttigieg has moved to sound more moderate; Steyer, Bloomberg, and Patrick have entered the space. Steyer and Bloomberg seem to be posting significant numbers. Those are numbers largely bled from Biden.

So Sanders and Buttigieg come out of Iowa and New Hampshire as the two leading candidates. Most likely with Sanders on top, Buttigieg underperforming based on prior expectations. Then Buttigieg fails in later primaries, because he cannot appeal to the black vote; and because he is no longer so fresh. Moderate vote splits between Biden and Bloomberg and Buttigieg, at a minimum. Bloomberg can stay in the race as long as he wants, being self-financing. Quite likely Steyer as well. But the radical vote quickly coalesces around Bernie.

I think a sudden surge by some dark horse, a stealth win or near-win in Iowa, may yet overturn the race. But that is more or less unpredictable. Based on what is predictable, I see Sanders as the most likely nominee.

Who Won the First Democratic Debate?

Who won the Democratic debates?

Matt Drudge’s unscientific online poll has Tulsi Gabbard winning far and away. This is supported as well by a Washington Examiner poll, and by the number of Google searches for her name during the debate.

Both Drudge’s and the Washington Examiner’s audience is well to the right of the Democratic Party’s. This indicates that Gabbard has the crossover potential, and so probably the best shot in a general election; but not necessarily in the primaries.

On the other hand, polls suggest that the Democratic Party is also well to the left of actual Democrats. Forty percent of the latter call themselves either moderate or conservative.

In any case, Gabbard’s ant-war message looks to me like a winner either left or right. It seems only reasonable to suppose that, after almost two decades of Afghanistan and Iraq, Americans are tired of foreign entanglements. Who could blame them?

The idea alarms my Filipina wife. If the US pulls back, it could mean disaster for a lot of smaller players around the world, who count on them. But from the American perspective, has it ever been worth it? They only get blamed for the sacrifice.

The odd fact that the Democratic Party establishment and the media seem to hate Gabbard probably works in her favour. The average American is angry, and wants to buck authority. Gabbard now gives them that opportunity, if ideology keeps them away from Trump. 

On the second night, the winner seems to have been Kamala Harris. She has always had great potential, but had not caught on. Her exchange with Biden on busing seems to be the sound clip that will be remembered. Hurts Biden badly, and seems to give her moral authority over him, which matters a lot. She looked like a leader. 

To be fair to Joe, her attack was probably not. Bismark defined politics as the art of the possible, Biden's stance on busing may well have been what was politically wisest at the time, if not desirable in absolute terms. He is here another victim of politics' newly long tail, thanks to social media.

The Drudge poll actually gives the second debate to Andrew Yang. But that is a bit suspect, since the moderators hardly let him speak. Maybe he benefited from this, since everyone else seemed so angry at each other.

Harris came second with Drudge: she may have less crossover appeal, but surely more potential with Democrats. At the same time, taking Biden down a notch may have helped Gabbard as much as herself. If Biden’s support is the party moderates, they are probably not now going to move to Harris, who has been running to the left. If Biden seems weak, they need a new standard-bearer. O’Rourke got mauled in the debates; Buttigieg seems to be hitting rough seas due to events back in South Bend.

It is almost as though the seas are parting for Gabbard.