Connect with us

International

10 reasons Donald Trump is headed for a landslide victory over Kamala Harris

Published

12 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Stephen Kokx

Republicans voting early, Democrats’ dislike for Kamala Harris, and polling and gambling numbers are all signs that the former president will win the election.

There is one week left in the presidential race and by all indications Donald Trump is headed for a landslide victory.

Many people I talk to tell me that they are fearful that it will be stolen from him. Here’s why I don’t think that’s likely at this point.

First, there are more registered Republicans in battleground states like Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and elsewhere than there were four years ago. This is a built-in statistical advantage for Trump.

Second, early voting and mail-in voting show that more Republicans are casting their ballots before Election Day than Democrats this year, which has not been the case in previous presidential races.

Analyst Mark Halperin has predicted that if those trends continue, Trump will be declared the winner relatively early after polls close next Tuesday.

 

 

That fact was recognized by Barack Obama a week ago when he told the media that “the brothas” do not have the same “energy” for Harris as they did when he himself ran for president.

 

Obama’s comment did not go unnoticed. During an MSNBC town hall at a barbershop in Philadelphia, black males told reporter Alex Wagner they were “offended” by Obama lecturing them how to vote.

Left-wing MSNBC anchor Andrea Mitchell has also admitted that Harris has a “big problem with men,” as have other websites.

Fourth, if you look at where Trump is campaigning this week, you can only conclude that his internal polling indicates he has shored up enough support in key battleground states that he can afford to go elsewhere to expand the map.

To be sure, he will still be visiting Wisconsin, North Carolina, and other Midwestern states over the next seven days, but he’s also headed to New Mexico, where, according to one poll he is within the margin of error.

 

Trump’s decision is notable because New Mexico hasn’t voted for a Republican president since George Bush in 2004. Mark Halperin has said, “if Trump wins New Mexico, he’s going to win in a landslide.”

 

Trump is also headed to Virginia, another historically Democrat state. Virginia elected Republican Glenn Youngkin in 2022. He is fighting to prevent illegal immigrants from voting and has instituted a number of other reforms that will likely have the effect of ensuring the count is accurate.

Trump’s daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, appeared with Youngkin in the state last week. It’s clear the campaign believes he has a chance there.

 

Fifth, almost all polling data in recent days, even those from left-leaning organizations, shows a decisive break in Trump’s favor.

 

Harris’ decision to skip the Al Smith Dinner and her awful appearances on Fox, MSNBC, and her CNN town hall with Anderson Cooper are likely to blame.

The “vibe shift,” as Tucker Carlson has called it, has been so dramatic that even liberal outlets like CNN are admitting that Trump very may well capture the popular vote.

Michigan and New Hampshire are also states he has improved in in recent days.

At least in 2020 there was a plausible explanation for Joe Biden’s supposed victory as many polls showed he was ahead going into Election Day. This time around, that argument is not on the table.

Sixth, Democrats have no end game. They are trying to link Trump to “fascism.” This is an awful closing message, especially for a candidate who promised to “unite” Americans. This shows how desperate they are.

Hillary Clinton, for example, went on MSNBC and laughably claimed Trump’s epic Madison Square Garden rally Sunday night was a Neo-Nazi rally. Why she didn’t use the term “deplorables” is beyond me.

During its own coverage of the event, MSNBC ludicrously compared it a pro-Hitler gathering there in 1939 while failing to note that Bill Clinton himself accepted the Democratic Party’s nomination at the same arena in 1992.

Even ABC’s Jonathan Karl couldn’t deny that the rally was a pivotal moment in the campaign.

“Trump has created a movement, there is no doubt. I cannot think of another Republican figure of my lifetime who could’ve come into a Democrat city like New York and put together anything like that,” he said.

Conservative Charlie Kirk has theorized that the constant Hitler references are intentional, and that Democrats are laying the groundwork for yet another assassination attempt.

Only a campaign that realizes it is on its death bed does such desperate things.

Seventh, Democrats are admitting that Trump is doing exceptionally well.

Left-wing New York City Mayor Eric Adams told the press this weekend that Trump is not a fascist.

Progressive commentator Cenk Uygar commented that Trump “looked presidential and personable” during his Joe Rogan interview. He called Harris a robot who acts like a “talking point machine.”

Former CNN anchor Chris Cuomo, who relentlessly pushed the COVID shot and is now injured from receiving it, hosted a town hall with JD Vance on News Nation. Cuomo could not deny that Vance and Trump appeal to many ordinary voters.

If Adams, Uygar, and Cuomo are admitting this, then regular Americans, even those who have supported Democrats in the past, are thinking it too.

Eighth, the betting markets favor Trump.

Alright, so this is a pretty unscientific way to gauge an election, but money talks, does it not?

If the oddsmakers are hedging their bets and predicting a Trump win, then chances are they know what they are doing. If they didn’t, they’d be out of business. I don’t think it is realistic to think they are up to some sinister game by tinkering with the numbers right now given all the other trends mentioned above.

Ninth, there is no obvious explanation for a Harris victory if a steal were to occur, as there is no voting bloc she can point to right now that could win the election for her.

Over the past two months, Trump has enlisted a small army of politicians, influencers, and media personalities to cast as wide a net for him as possible.

While Tucker Carlson is out riling up young male voters, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is courting moderate Democrats and health-conscious medical freedom activists.

What’s more, while Tulsi Gabbard is on the stump speaking with women, Elon Musk is making it easier for tech executives and business owners to support Trump.

What segment of the voting population is left for Harris to convince in this last week of the campaign? The sponge has been rung dry and the constant heckling of her at her rallies suggests folks have grown tired of her constant lies and evasiveness.

Tenth, there is no “October Surprise” that could derail Trump’s campaign at this point, especially with voting already underway.

Trump has been in the public spotlight for well over 40 years. He is a known entity, and the American people are preferring him — yet again — to the Democratic option, despite his personal flaws and scandals.

It is simply not possible for Harris to get the polls to go back to even and then rally not just the Democratic base but crucial independent voters next Tuesday.

As Carlson said at a rally in Georgia last week, if the Deep State does cheat and Harris is declared the winner, the people won’t put up with it this time. It will be too obvious that it was fraudulent as all the traditional indicators show she is headed for an historic defeat. I could be wrong, and I have been before, but I’m more inclined today to place a bet on Trump on one of those websites than Harris.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Alberta

Ford and Trudeau are playing checkers. Trump and Smith are playing chess

Published on

CAE Logo

 

By Dan McTeague

 

Ford’s calls for national unity – “We need to stand united as Canadians!” – in context feels like an endorsement of fellow Electric Vehicle fanatic Trudeau. And you do wonder if that issue has something to do with it. After all, the two have worked together to pump billions in taxpayer dollars into the EV industry.

There’s no doubt about it: Donald Trump’s threat of a blanket 25% tariff on Canadian goods (to be established if the Canadian government fails to take sufficient action to combat drug trafficking and illegal crossings over our southern border) would be catastrophic for our nation’s economy. More than $3 billion in goods move between the U.S. and Canada on a daily basis. If enacted, the Trump tariff would likely result in a full-blown recession.

It falls upon Canada’s leaders to prevent that from happening. That’s why Justin Trudeau flew to Florida two weeks ago to point out to the president-elect that the trade relationship between our countries is mutually beneficial.

This is true, but Trudeau isn’t the best person to make that case to Trump, since he has been trashing the once and future president, and his supporters, both in public and private, for years. He did so again at an appearance just the other day, in which he implied that American voters were sexist for once again failing to elect the nation’s first female president, and said that Trump’s election amounted to an assault on women’s rights.

Consequently, the meeting with Trump didn’t go well.

But Trudeau isn’t Canada’s only politician, and in recent days we’ve seen some contrasting approaches to this serious matter from our provincial leaders.

First up was Doug Ford, who followed up a phone call with Trudeau earlier this week by saying that Canadians have to prepare for a trade war. “Folks, this is coming, it’s not ‘if,’ it is — it’s coming… and we need to be prepared.”

Ford said that he’s working with Liberal Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland to put together a retaliatory tariff list. Spokesmen for his government floated the idea of banning the LCBO from buying American alcohol, and restricting the export of critical minerals needed for electric vehicle batteries (I’m sure Trump is terrified about that last one).

But Ford’s most dramatic threat was his announcement that Ontario is prepared to shut down energy exports to the U.S., specifically to Michigan, New York, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, if Trump follows through with his plan. “We’re sending a message to the U.S. You come and attack Ontario, you attack the livelihoods of Ontario and Canadians, we’re going to use every tool in our toolbox to defend Ontarians and Canadians across the border,” Ford said.

Now, unfortunately, all of this chest-thumping rings hollow. Ontario does almost $500 billion per year in trade with the U.S., and the province’s supply chains are highly integrated with America’s. The idea of just cutting off the power, as if you could just flip a switch, is actually impossible. It’s a bluff, and Trump has already called him on it. When told about Ford’s threat by a reporter this week, Trump replied “That’s okay if he does that. That’s fine.”

And Ford’s calls for national unity – “We need to stand united as Canadians!” – in context feels like an endorsement of fellow Electric Vehicle fanatic Trudeau. And you do wonder if that issue has something to do with it. After all, the two have worked together to pump billions in taxpayer dollars into the EV industry. Just over the past year Ford and Trudeau have been seen side by side announcing their $5 billion commitment to Honda, or their $28.2 billion in subsidies for new Stellantis and Volkswagen electric vehicle battery plants.

Their assumption was that the U.S. would be a major market for Canadian EVs. Remember that “vehicles are the second largest Canadian export by value, at $51 billion in 2023 of which 93% was exported to the U.S.,”according to the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers Association, and “Auto is Ontario’s top export at 28.9% of all exports (2023).”

But Trump ran on abolishing the Biden administration’s de facto EV mandate. Now that he’s back in the White House, the market for those EVs that Trudeau and Ford invested in so heavily is going to be much softer. Perhaps they’d like to be able to blame Trump’s tariffs for the coming downturn rather than their own misjudgment.

In any event, Ford’s tactic stands in stark contrast to the response from Alberta, Canada’s true energy superpower. Premier Danielle Smith made it clear that her province “will not support cutting off our Alberta energy exports to the U.S., nor will we support a tariff war with our largest trading partner and closest ally.”

Smith spoke about this topic at length at an event announcing a new $29-million border patrol team charged with combatting drug trafficking, at which said that Trudeau’s criticisms of the president-elect were, “not helpful.” Her deputy premier Mike Ellis was quoted as saying, “The concerns that president-elect Trump has expressed regarding fentanyl are, quite frankly, the same concerns that I and the premier have had.” Smith and Ellis also criticized Ottawa’s progressively lenient approach to drug crimes.

(For what it’s worth, a recent Léger poll found that “Just 29 per cent of [Canadians] believe Trump’s concerns about illegal immigration and drug trafficking from Canada to the U.S. are unwarranted.” Perhaps that’s why some recent polls have found that Trudeau is currently less popular in Canada than Trump at the moment.)

Smith said that Trudeau’s criticisms of the president-elect were, “not helpful.” And on X/Twitter she said, “Now is the time to… reach out to our friends and allies in the U.S. to remind them just how much Americans and Canadians mutually benefit from our trade relationship – and what we can do to grow that partnership further,” adding, “Tariffs just hurt Americans and Canadians on both sides of the border. Let’s make sure they don’t happen.”

This is exactly the right approach. Smith knows there is a lot at stake in this fight, and is not willing to step into the ring in a fight that Canada simply can’t win, and will cause a great deal of hardship for all involved along the way.

While Trudeau indulges in virtue signaling and Ford in sabre rattling, Danielle Smith is engaging in true statesmanship. That’s something that is in short supply in our country these days.

As I’ve written before, Trump is playing chess while Justin Trudeau and Doug Ford are playing checkers. They should take note of Smith’s strategy. Honey will attract more than vinegar, and if the long history of our two countries tell us anything, it’s that diplomacy is more effective than idle threats.

Dan McTeague is President of Canadians for Affordable Energy.

Continue Reading

Daily Caller

LNG Farce Sums Up Four Years Of Ridiculous Biden Energy Policy

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

That is what happens when “science” isn’t science at all and energy reality is ignored in favor of the prevailing narratives of the political left.

As Congress struggled with yet another chaotic episode of negotiations over another catastrophic continuing resolution, all I could think was how wonderful it would be for everyone if they just shut the government down and brought an end to the Biden administration and its incredibly braindead and destructive energy-policy farce a month early.

What a blessing it would be for the country if President Joe Biden’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were forced to stop “throwing gold bars off the Titanic” 30 days ahead of schedule. What a merry Christmas we could have if we never had to hear silly talking points based on pseudoscience from the likes of Biden’s climate policy adviser John Podesta or Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm or Biden himself (read, as always, from his ever-present TelePrompTer) again!

What a shame it has been that the rest of us have been forced to take such unserious people seriously for the last four years solely because they had assumed power over the rest of us. As Jerry Garcia and the Grateful Dead spent decades singing: “What a long, strange trip it’s been.”

Speaking of Granholm, she put the perfect coda to this administration’s seemingly endless series of policy scams this week by playing cynical political games with what was advertised as a serious study. It was ostensibly a study so vitally important that it mandated the suspension of permitting for one of the country’s great growth industries while we breathlessly awaited its publication for most of a year.

That, of course, was the Department of Energy’s (DOE) study related to the economic and environmental impacts of continued growth of the U.S. liquified natural gas (LNG) export industry. We were told in January by both Granholm and Biden that the need to conduct this study was so urgent, that it was entirely necessary to suspend permitting for new LNG export infrastructure until it was completed.

The grand plan was transparent: implement the “pause” based on a highly suspect LNG emissions draft study by researchers at Cornell University, and then publish an impactful DOE study that could be used by a President Kamala Harris to implement a permanent ban on new export facilities. It no doubt seemed foolproof at the Biden White House, but schemes like this never turn out to be anywhere near that.

First, the scientific basis for implementing the pause to begin with fell apart when the authors of the draft Cornell study were forced to radically lower their emissions estimates in the final product published in September.

And then, the DOE study findings turned out to be a mixed bag proving no real danger in allowing the industry to resume its growth path.

Faced with a completed study whose findings essentially amount to a big bag of nothing, Granholm decided she could not simply publish it and let it stand on its own merits. Instead, someone at DOE decided it would be a great idea to leak a three-page letter to the New York Times 24 hours before publication of the study in an obvious attempt to punch up the findings.

The problem with Granholm’s letter was, as the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board put it Thursday, “the study’s facts are at war with her conclusions.” After ticking off a list of ways in which Granholm’s letter exaggerates and misleads about the study’s actual findings, the Journal’s editorial added, “Our sources say the Biden National Security Council and career officials at Energy’s National Laboratories disagree with Ms. Granholm’s conclusions.”

There can be little doubt that this reality would have held little sway in a Kamala Harris presidency. Granholm’s and Podesta’s talking points would have almost certainly resulted in making the permitting “pause” a permanent feature of U.S. energy policy. That is what happens when “science” isn’t science at all and energy reality is ignored in favor of the prevailing narratives of the political left.

What a blessing it would have been to put an end to this form of policy madness a month ahead of time. January 20 surely cannot come soon enough.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

Continue Reading

Trending

X