THE STATE OF THE RACE FOR PRESIDENT

by Ken Grossberger, PhD

The ridiculous level of dishonesty in election campaigns and the media is a major issue in politics today. The desperate attempt to win at any cost has left too many voters in this cycle with the familiar feeling of having to pick between the better of two difficult options. The polls show this and even something as data-driven as polls become the subject of manipulation by die-hards on either side. The data should be objectively observed and reported, but such is not the case.

What we are left with is the bogus poll patrol, and both sides are guilty. Political polls are public opinion surveys that gauge sentiment at the time they are taken. The better polling organizations use sophisticated methods to construct questionnaires, collect data, analyze the data and provide the results with a reasonable margin of error. If we look at many of these polls over a period of time, we can deduce trends to indicate whether a candidate has a lead outside the margin of error, or not. Polls, therefore, are not necessarily predictive but can give us a sense as to where a particular election is heading. Hopelessly biased media “journalists” only look at the data that shows their candidate in the lead or catching up, the other candidate badly failing, and then make impossible-to-support flat predictions in declarative language. Nowhere to be found is any nuanced discussion of margins of error or the methodological difficulties inherent in collecting meaningful data from verbal questionnaires by cell phones.

But back on the campaign trail the Democrats went for the quick fix, the easy route (leveraging Biden out, deciding Kamala is in). But they are not going to solve the Biden problem with a Biden clone. Newly anointed Kamala Harris (so much for “democracy is on the ballot”) is now trying to verbally distance herself from the Biden-Harris border disaster. And Trump is back to his old self, neither chagrined nor informed by the favorable reactions to his mellower convention speech, nor the assassination attempt. Just days ago he called VP Harris “a bum.” How does this help?

Both sides will have an abundance of money, surrogates and talking points. But most of these assets will be bulls-eyed at the other candidate and it will get even uglier if that’s possible. We will be told, umpteen times, that a vote for the opposition is an existential threat, and that our candidate is the savior and the only choice to save the planet. Their candidate? Fuhgeddaboudit. Facts do not matter as each campaign will have legions of realty re-constructors that will design a never-ending air attack designed to destroy the opposition and woo the undecideds. Still, in the end, a more rational electorate will decide which presidential candidate will inherit the most complex job in the world, campaign silliness notwithstanding. This show will go on the for the next few months, with the focus sharpening in the fall, reaching a fever pitch in late October. Let’s hope that somewhere in the circus there may be some actual substantive policy discussion where we can get a glimpse as to what the winning candidate might actually do.

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION ANALOGIES – THIRD PARTIES AND FORMER PRESIDENTS

By Ken Grossberger, PhD

There is much discussion about how the 2024 US Presidential elections will play out, and media types have pushed several comparisons to prior elections, seemingly in an attempt to predict the future from the elections of the past. Analogies are usually not perfect, but there are a few that might be instructive. Three-way presidential races, where there are viable third party candidates or independents, and races between current and former presidents, upset the balance between the two major parties and lessen the predictability of the outcomes. The “third” candidate becomes a mediating variable that is hard to analyze. A brief review of the history of such elections sheds light on such unpredictable contests.

The election of 1860 was a 4-way contest between Abraham Lincoln and 3 Democrats at a time that the country was seriously polarized due to sectional differences arising from the slavery issue and the states’ rights argument. Sen. Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois (against whom Lincoln ran in 1858 for the Illinois Senate seat) represented the northern Democrats, John C. Breckenridge (incumbent Vice President of the United States) drew support from the southern states, and John Bell of the newly formed Constitutional Union party gained electoral votes from the border state region. Lincoln won almost all the electoral votes in the north, the three Democrats split the rest, and Lincoln won the presidency.

In 1892 former President Grover Cleveland, Democrat, came back to challenge incumbent Republican President Benjamin Harrison (who beat Cleveland in 1888). In this return contest Cleveland won back the presidency, the only person in US history to have 2 unconnected terms in the White House. The third party candidate in the race, James B. Weaver, representing the Populist Party, won almost 9% of the vote and carried a few western states, which may have hurt Harrison.

The 1912 election was the race of the 3 presidents, one past, one current and one future. Former President Theodore Roosevelt ran against his old protégé William Howard Taft and won 27% of the vote. President Taft, the incumbent Republican, ran third with only 23% of the vote and only 8 electoral votes. Socialist candidate Eugene V. Debs won about 6% of the vote. Roosevelt and Taft split the Republican vote, and New Jersey Governor Woodrow Wilson, the Democrat, won the election with only 41% of the popular vote but an electoral landslide.

The presidential election of 1948 was famous for the biggest media faux pas in American history when the Chicago Tribune prematurely published a headline that stated: “Dewey Defeats Truman”. Incumbent President Harry S. Truman beat New York Governor and former prosecutor Thomas E. Dewey by a fairly comfortable margin in the electoral college. Truman was not that popular and the third party candidate, Dixiecrat South Carolina Governor Strom Thurmond denied Truman a sizable portion of the southern Democrat vote. After attempts to get him to drop out of the race the Democratic Convention nominated Truman, who went on to win by waging a strong campaign.

There was a similar outcome in the 1968 presidential race but this time the Democrat split gave the election to the Republican former Vice President Richard M. Nixon. Democrat Gov. George Wallace of Alabama ran on the American Independent ticket and won 5 southern states, denying Democrat and incumbent Vice President Hubert Humphrey the electoral votes of those states and a significant portion of the popular vote.

In 1992 independent Ross Perot, a Texas billionaire, won 19% of the vote, most of it from incumbent Vice President Republican George H.W. Bush, giving the election to Democrat Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton. Perot scored one of the highest third party totals in US history. Ironically Bush had a national approval rate of 81% following the 1991 Gulf War, only to see his popularity dwindle to only 37 percent of the vote in the election.

The election of 2024 may be a mix of these scenarios. There is a viable third party candidate I Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, who is drawing about 10% in many polls, but not enough to be in contention for any electoral votes in the swing states. He appears to be taking more votes from Biden than Trump as we see a shift of a few points in the 5-way polling (including 2 other third party candidates), as opposed to the head-to-head data showing Trump with about a 2 point lead over Biden.

The post June 27 debate polls show a slippage in Biden’s support, most notably in the swing states, where Trump now leads outside the margin of error in 8 of 14 critical states. Worse for Biden is that New Hampshire, Minnesota and Virginia, which have voted Democrat in recent elections, are now within the margin of error. There will be more to come with the polls following the assassination attempt on Trump.

Predicting the future from the past is always a lesson in objectivity and thought, and this election is no different.

TIPPING POINT

by Ken Grossberger, PhD

“The critical point in a situation, process, or system beyond which a significant and often unstoppable effect or change takes place” (Miriam-Webster Dictionary).

Donald Trump has been the focal point of the American political discussion since he first walked down the escalator in Trump Tower in 2015 when he announced his candidacy for president. Since then much has happened. A good economy, a lousy economy, a pandemic, 2 wars, 3 new Supreme Court justices, elections, court cases, and more political fights than anyone can count. Trump has been at the center of it all.

Thus the political world has divided into 3 camps: those who love Trump, those who hate Trump, and a lot of people in the middle. The current presidential polls show Trump and Biden within the margin of error nationally but Trump with a lead in most swing states. Biden’s approval ratings have been negative for quite some time, and Trump’s aren’t much better. Most polls show that much of the voting public, in general, would prefer 2 other candidates.

Trump has been living on the political edge since he first ran for president. That’s because he put himself there, and the not-so-mainstream media, hardly his fan club, has attached him to almost every story. They just can’t stop talking about him, and they hurl the most bitter, vindictive accusations at him at every chance they get, proving once again there is a dark lining in the silver cloud of public service.

Trump gets forgiven his ranting and personal attacks by his supporters, as his administration had a good record in many ways. Certainly, his time in office compares well against the seriously challenged Biden record of high inflation, the border crisis, the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, the mismanagement of 2 wars and the deal with Iran that almost guarantees this terrorist state a path to deliverable nuclear weapons.

But even with all that, there remains the issue of Trump fatigue – have too many people heard Trump stories too many times. This has been analyzed and discussed, but his lead in the polls show no evidence of that. There is also the New York hush money trial, with a biased judge who precluded defense witnesses and manipulated the jury instructions so that any 4 jurors could find Trump guilty of any of 3 underlying crimes and did not have to be unanimous in doing so. Any objective reading of the presiding judge’s obvious attempt to manufacture a guilty verdict would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the trial was skewed in favor of conviction.

But is this one issue too many, in a political career jammed with issues? Even if one concedes that Trump had a good record in office, and that this latest trial was a sham, have we just reached the point where some likely voters have reached the Trumpian saturation point and will begin to finally peel away from the Trump-is-better-than Biden logic? Trump is setting fundraising records off his guilty verdict, but will millions of dollars be enough to hold the soft Trump voters, and to persuade the undecideds? Does Robert Kennedy Jr. edge more into the weaker part of the Trump base?

Polls give us trends, not necessarily predictions, and we will see in the coming weeks which direction the political needles point, but let’s not be surprised if there begins a new attrition in Trump support, and perhaps correspondingly in Biden’s as well.

THE HAMAS FIELD TRIP

by Ken Grossberger, PhD

The news media has reported numerous Pro-Palestine, Pro-Hamas, Anti-Israel protests on a wide variety of American college campuses. This is bizarre, and perhaps the student protestors (paid outside agitators notwithstanding) are a bit misinformed.

Some recent, undisputed history. As previously stated in a prior blog, on October 7 Hamas put on a freak show that would have embarrassed the Gestapo. Over 1200 Israelis were murdered. Yet, fast forward from what, historically, is the blink of an eye, college students are conducting protests for Hamas and against Israel. Also as previously blogged, Israel is in a moral quandary, having to kill innocent civilians (including children) in an attempt to survive (Israel has been attacked on 4 sides by terrorist organizations). Only a Solomon could figure this out. This is the torturous position in which Israel finds itself: do nothing and risk everything, or kill innocents in order to survive. But the mindless miscreants on college campuses, caught up in the latest frenzy, seem to have skipped that day in class on October 7, and have bought into the goading of the paid anarchists on various campuses. They began setting up encampments and shouting slogans based on an alternative reality and a need for expression reserved only for the emotionally over-stimulated, dim-witted neurotics all too present in past times of mass hysteria.

However, we may have a solution. There is an opportunity for these pseudo-radicalized college students who feel so strongly about Hamas, Palestine, Israel and America, to gain a bit of perspective on this troubling situation, and that is to go to the source. A Palestine field trip. Pack up and go, possibly funded by the SAVE AMERICA PAC, the Trump for President organization. They can learn first-hand what is really going in, from the ones doing the fighting and suffering. But the otherwise-coddled college students may have to toughen up a bit: no Starbucks, no lattes, no instant satisfaction, no Door Dash pizza deliveries, and no one to rub their tushies when they get a bit fussy. In Hamas-land, women do not fare particularly well, nor do protestors. Instant death seems to be the controlling technique, and we cannot be sure how these privileged Americans would fare under such circumstances with no First Amendment, no fawning student organizations, and no sympathetic, permissive, paranoid school administrators to crank out the excuses and rationalizations for their inexcusably irresponsible behavior.

One can only guess as to how many of these earnest but challenged protesting students would take advantage of such an offer, but we may surmise that the volunteers would not take up too much space on one of several open-minded international carriers (presumably El Al would not be a first choice). And many in this latte-dependent cohort may have to send less caffeine-reliant proxies in their stead. Those that brave the trip may learn more than they bargained for, as they involuntarily manifest into the next round of hostages, having to negotiate the tender surroundings of a Hamas tunnel some 80 meters below the streets of Rafah.

INFLATION IS RISING, OR IS IT FALLING?

by Ken Grossberger, PhD

Politicians love to spin reality into a self-serving interpretation. Inflation may be the number one topic in this year’s presidential election, and both Biden and Trump have contrived diametrically opposed stories. Both cannot be true at the same time, but this is the silly season. The key topic this year, as in most elections, is the economy.

Inflation is defined as too many dollars chasing too few goods, creating economic conditions whereby prices rise. There are a number of metrics for this but the most recent number being reported is 3.5% for March of 2024 (US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 04/10/24). The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is the most used term for inflation, a measure of the change in the prices of basic goods, and what we worry about most is food and energy (e.g., gas). When Trump left office, the CPI was 1.9% (Investopedia, 04/30/24). Under Biden the CPI rose as high as 8.0% in 2022 (Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, 04/30/24).

So here’s the conundrum: the rate of inflation rose dramatically during Biden’s term but has since decreased. So far so good. But how do we word this? If inflation is currently increasing at a 3.5% rate, it is still going up. But it was rising at about 8.0%. So is it correct to state that inflation itself is coming down, or is it just going up less? It would be correct to say that the rate of inflation has come down since 2022 but it’s not factually correct to state that “today’s report shows inflation has fallen more than 60%…” (The White House, 04/10/24) inferring that the rate of inflation, and therefore prices, are coming down (thus things are getting better). Under Biden the price of consumer goods has constantly increased. To manipulate the wording to make it seem like the opposite is true, is to engage in the kind of political deception we see too often in today’s political environment. And Biden has said this many times, part of his Bidenomics mantra (a term he has recently dispensed with). Under Biden, consumer prices have increased by about 20% (Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, 04/30/24). This has crushed the middle class and the working poor, who are struggling to pay for food and gasoline for their vehicles.

This is reflected in the political polls, which show Biden has lost about 6% overall since he won in 2020[1], and its worse in 7 swing states[2] (Wikipedia n.d.; RealClearPolitics 04/30/24). He is on the defense in every swing state he won in 2020, and if the election were held today, he would lose most of them, and with them the election. Clever arguments about the economy, and treating the electorate as morons, will not win him a second term.

References:

Federal Reserve Bank. (04/30/22). Consumer Price Index 1913-. https://www.minneapolisfed.org/about-us/monetary-policy/inflation-calculator/consumer-price-index-1913-

Investopedia. 04/30/22. Average Yearly Inflation Rate by President. https://www.investopedia.com/us-inflation-rate-by-president-8546447

RealClearPolitics. 04/30/24. RCP Poll Averages. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/

The White House. 04/10/24. Statement from President Joe Biden on the March Consumer. Price Index. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/04/10/statement-from-president-joe-biden-on-the-march-consumer-price-index-2/

US Bureau of Labor Statistics. 02/06/22. Consumer Price Index Summary. Consumer Price Index Summary – 2024 M03 Results (bls.gov)

US Bureau of Labor Statistics. 04/10/24. Consumer prices over 7.5 percent over year ended January 2022. Consumer prices up 7.5 percent over year ended January 2022: The Economics Daily: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (bls.gov)

Wikipedia. (n.d.). 2020 United Staes presidential election. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election#:~:text=Biden%20ultimately%20received%20the%20majority,Bush%20in%201992.

[1] Biden beat Trump 51.3% to 46.8% in 2020, a margin of 4.5%, but in the RCP average Trump currently leads Biden in a 5-way race (including the third party candidates) by 1.6%, showing a statistical shift of 6.1%.

[2] As of this report Trump leads Biden by more than the margin of error in Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina and Georgia; Trump leads Biden in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania but within the margin of error. This is based on an average of recent polls.

THE CORRUPTION OF THE MEDIA IN A POLARIZED POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT

By Ken Grossberger, PhD

The media, both liberal and conservative, would have us believe every paranoid notion they foment, like Biden will sell us out to Iran and Trump will be a dictator. Believing this nonsense is the intellectual equivalent of going to a bar at 2AM and taking notes. Journalism, as we used to know it, was about providing information on the critical topics of the day. Now it’s an opinionated free-for-all with a can-you-top-this attitude in sensationalism where commentators cannot pile it on enough in a desperate attempt to bash the other side on a daily basis. They are down to name calling on a level that would embarrass the occupants of a junior high school locker room.

So CNN beats up Trump and Fox beats up Biden. Every day. All day. Each candidate is described in the most horrific, belligerent terms, and each is labeled a criminal and an existential threat to democracy, depending on the media outlet (oh yeah, and our guy is the savior). They would have us believe (whichever side they are on) that we certainly could not survive the election of the guy they don’t like. Yet we just survived a combined seven years of both.

Too many politicians, like many media types, cast ethics to the winds, and have no more respect for civility and honor than a storm has for the grains of sand on a beach. The negative lessons for the young may have lasting effects, as many continue to be lost in the dark hole of the internet/cellphone void. Yet, oddly, the percentage of voter turnout has been on the rise in recent elections. Below is a chart of the presidential elections since 2000:

US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION TURNOUT
2000-2022

YEAR	TURNOUT
2022	66.6%
2016	60.1%
2012	58.6%
2008	61.6%
2004	60.1%
2000	54.2%

ave.	60.2%

This represents an increase from the 1990s and 2000s when the average turnout was in the mid-fifty percent range. Perhaps voters are driven by party loyalty, anger, or fear but certainly not by respect for the political system. Below are the average approval ratings for the last 3 presidents in their third year in the White House:

Biden 40%

Trump 42%

Obama 44%

All three were disliked by more than half the country. All were in office during the attack-media period. Not that the media was all that kind in previous years, but it has gotten much worse.

It is routine to tune into one of the major media outlets and witness outright bashing of politicians and candidates, even making jokes about them in these “panel” discussions of so-called experts. They make up alternative realties to suit their tribal narratives, and facts don’t seem to be a concern. To add fuel to the neurotic fire social media is a sea of uninformed opinion, vindictive hyperbole and hysterical vitriol and it seems more like a therapy session on steroids than a marketplace of intelligent ideas.

So where does the voting public go from here? Perhaps the one critical issue that is not mentioned is the need for political education, so people know more about how government works and what the candidates really stand for. Maybe then voters can intellectually separate legitimate policy ideas from the hysteria.

POLLS, POLLS, POLLS – What Do They Really Tell Us?

by Ken Grossberger, PhD

It’s the silly season (again) and all the punsters and pollsters are making predictions as to who is leading and who will win. How do they know? The answers they use are in the almighty polls, but what do those polls really tell us?

The consensus is that voters begin to seriously focus on the election after Labor Day, so the early polls may provide an indication, but we need to look deeper to understand what the polls may mean. Polls are not necessarily predictive but are designed to provide qualitative data on popular sentiment. Gauging a number of polls over time yields trends, which are retrospective, not prospective. In other words, political polls look at the present and the past, not the future. Yet many play the prediction game because we think that what is probable today might tell us what’s going to happen tomorrow. Not necessarily.

Political polls are public opinion surveys, and thus we have to be concerned with the data collection methods as well as the data parameters. For example, in order to collect data many polls use a technique known as Random Digit Dialing (RDD) to ensure all voters in a population have an equal chance of being called. The survey staff must be properly trained and supervised, and samples should be large enough to be statistically meaningful or they may suffer from small sample size validity issues (which may lead to results that are true, when they are false, called Type II error in statistics).

For instance, a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll (04/15/24) showed that 833 registered voters preferred Biden to Trump by 41% to 37%. The margin of error (MOE, the statistic that indicates how far off a survey may be) was 4% with 22% of those polled having no preference/might not vote/favoring a third party candidate. So what does this really tell us? The media would report that Biden has 4 point lead, but is that accurate? Does this poll have any realistic predictive value?

My observations are as follows: any sample of less than 1,000 respondents is too small to have much statistical power, and the results are within the margin of error as well. Also, 22% undecided is too large a group to give us confidence in the determination as to which candidate may be leading. This is just the tip of the statistical iceberg. Many polls suffer from considerable statistical issues:

Registered voters vs. likely voters: polls that measure registered voters only are weak as they measure people who may not vote; likely voter responses are more meaningful
Timing: polls from last month may be out of date in an age of fast paced news cycles
Sample size: it’s doubtful that a sample of less than 1,000 voters could be representative of the voting population of the United States
Undecided responses: the Reuters/Ipsos poll mentioned above had 22% choosing something other than Biden and Trump, with only a 4% difference between the two with seven months to go to the election – this makes it very difficult to draw any meaningful inferences
Margin of error: rates over 4% are usually too large to provide confidence in the result, and leads within the MOE means no one has a lead
Outlier polls: a result that is far from the average of the other polls – the media on either side loves to quote polls that show their guy in the lead, even if it is way outside the average

So to revisit the Reuters/Ipsos poll, a result that seems to favor Biden: it’s a small sample of registered voters only, a result within the MOE, with a large amount of undecided. If you’re looking for a prediction, don’t bet any real money using this poll.

Another issue is using the average of polls, a method which is supposed to give us a solid basis as to who is leading whom. Perhaps the most popular is the RealClear Politics (04/15/24) average of polls (widely quoted by the media) which is an unweighted average, meaning it’s a simple average of polls with different sample sizes. Here is a recent report:

POLLSTER	DATE	SAMPLE	MOE	TRUMP (R)	BIDEN (D)	SPREAD
RCP Average	3/21 – 4/7	—	—	45.5	45.3	Trump+0.2
Morning Consult	4/5 – 4/7	6236 RV	1.0	44	43	Trump+1
Reuters/Ipsos	4/3 – 4/7	833 RV	4.0	37	41	Biden+4
I&I/TIPP	4/3 – 4/5	1265 RV	2.8	40	43	Biden+3
Emerson	4/2 – 4/3	1438 RV	2.5	46	45	Trump+1
Rasmussen Reports	3/31 – 4/2	1099 LV	3.0	49	41	Trump+8
Data for Progress (D)**	3/27 – 3/29	1200 LV	3.0	46	47	Biden+1
NPR/PBS/Marist	3/25 – 3/28	1199 RV	3.7	48	50	Biden+2
Forbes/HarrisX	3/25 – 3/25	1010 RV	3.1	50	50	Tie
FOX News	3/22 – 3/25	1094 RV	3.0	50	45	Trump+5
Quinnipiac	3/21 – 3/25	1407 RV	2.6	45	48	Biden+3

But when the samples are weighted by the number of voters (a sample of 1,438 is given more “weight” than a sample of 833), Trump’s lead doubles. Also, note how many of the polls are “RV” or registered voters, and that some of the polls are older, meaning from prior news cycles. The age of a poll is an issue as in just one month Biden may have any number of mumbled gaffes, Trump may insult another dozen people, and another war or two may break out. All of these sway public opinion and affect the polls.

Anyone who draws firm conclusions from these polls is engaging in a neurotic level of wishful thinking. But there is hope, many surveys over a period of time (longitudinal, in statistical language) generate more confidence than one-off polls (cross-sectional). There are no simple answers, we have to do the work. For example, most recent polls show Trump with a lead outside the MOE in the swing states over a period of time, and we therefore can have some confidence in that result. In recent history polls tend to tighten as we get closer to election day, and much can happen. We will see what events move the arc of the current trajectory.

References:

RealClear Politics. 04/15/24. RCP Poll Average. RealClearPolitics – Live Opinion, News, Analysis, Video and Polls. RealClearPolitics – Live Opinion, News, Analysis, Video and Polls

Palmer, Ewan. 04/15/24. Donald Trump’s Polling Numbers Are Dropping. Newsweek. Donald Trump’s Polling Numbers Are Dropping (newsweek.com)

KENNEDY’S VEEP: THE STRUGGLE FOR CREDIBILITY

By Ken Grossberger, PhD

RFK Jr. has picked Nicole Shanahan for the vice-presidential slot on his ticket. The ex-wife of Google co-founder Sergey Brin is a lawyer and an activist, and at 39 finds herself in the center of the American political arena. Kennedy, in his introduction yesterday warned her about the candidate risks in current political times: character assassination, name calling, negative reporting, exposure, investigations, lawsuits, etc. She has no experience as a political office holder, which may be one of her strengths. She is from humble origins but has been in a position to contribute to various causes such as climate change, female reproductivity and criminal justice. She has also contributed to the campaigns of Democrats and progressives, and her checkbook may be one of the most attractive features to the Kennedy campaign.

But the main issue for Kennedy is his credibility. Does he really intend to win, or just make a statement? Is this a set up for 2028? There is a long history of third-party candidates for President of the United States. The fledging Republican Party (in the process of replacing the Whig Party) was running candidates in 1856 (John C. Fremont) and 1860 (Abraham Lincoln). In the 1890s issue-oriented groups formed the Greenback Party, the Populist Party and the People’s Party. The early 1900s saw the rise of the Progressive Party (also known as the Bull Moose Party with Teddy Roosevelt as their candidate in the chaotic election of 1912). Southern Democrats ran as Dixiecrats with Strom Thurmond as their presidential candidate in 1948. Gov. George Wallace of Alabama ran on the American Independent line in 1968 and John Anderson ran as a liberal Republican on the National Unity Party on 1980. Ross Perot was an independent candidate in 1992 and 1996. The Reform Party ran Pat Buchanan in 2000 and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson ran as the Libertarian Party candidate in 2012 and 2016. The Green Party has run Ralph Nader several times in recent history and now Jill Stein in 2012, 2016 and this year. All of this with little success, but Lincoln won and Perot got 19% in 1992. Most of the rest were also-rans with low percentages of the votes.

So, the probability of a Kennedy win is exceptionally low, even in a cycle where both major party candidates are seriously flawed and highly vulnerable. But anything that includes Trump will defy any odds thus history may not be as much of a factor as it usually would.

TRUMP’S VEEP (AND REPLACEMENT?)

by Ken Grossberger, PhD

The latest polls suggest a probable Trump victory in November based on his edge in the swing states. Assuming this holds, his Vice-Presidential pick looms large as a successor if Trump gets convicted of any of the criminal charges against him in the multiple jurisdictions in which he has been formally charged. So who will it be?

The short list, as reported, includes Sen. Tim Scott, Gov. Ron DeSantis, business guy Vivek Ramaswamy, Rep. Byron Donalds. Gov. Kristi Noem and now former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard. Others have been mentioned (including former Gov. Nikki Haley). All this is speculative as Trump dangles a lot of bait in many directions. If Trump suffers a criminal conviction or goes bankrupt (or both), there is a scenario where the Republican National Committee (RNC) would have to replace him, and if he has already chosen a VEEP (before or after the Republican convention in August), then the RNC (led by his hand-picked chair and his daughter-in-law) might well select his pick as the successor presidential candidate. If recent polls are any indication, that successor might fare well against President Biden (polls during the primary showed Haley doing better against Biden than Trump did).

If Trump survives the barrage of lawsuits against him then this is a moot point and then it’s on to November. But if he takes a bad hit and is mortally (politically) wounded, then his number 2 becomes the Republicans’ number 1, and we are in a brand new ballgame. But if the potential replacement is likely to have better numbers against Biden, then exactly what is the political rationale behind the Democrat’s massive push to remove Trump from the political landscape?

Most of the Democrats’ campaign strategy revolves around bashing Trump, so if he’s not there, what do they do?

PHARMA CARTEL MEXICANO

by Ken Grossberger, PhD

The Mexican drug cartels, as a collective, are some of the largest suppliers of pharmaceutical grade drugs to the US. Reports state that record amounts of fentanyl were illegally exported to the US in 2023. Last year, these reports tell us, about 240,000 pounds of drugs were seized by the Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) including over a billion fentanyl doses. All this came through our southern border and was consumed in the United States.

This is a huge market. All of the US government attempts to interdict the flow across the border, all of law enforcement attempts to apprehend the offenders, all of the diplomatic attempts to get help from the Mexican government, have all been of little or no avail under the current administration. President Biden has shown little taste for doing anything meaningful at the border and has even taken Texas to court to stop their attempts to stop the flow. Clearly, the tsunami of illegals (sorry, the “deprived newcomer future Americans”) and the avalanche of drugs crossing the border are apparently what he wants. Nothing effective has been done by the White House as the problem worsens, and Biden is left in desperation to blame Trump and the Republicans.

So we look at another option. A French drain (not to be confused with the French Connection), is a technique whereby a structure constantly gets flooded, so instead of trying to stop it, the water is let in through a drain, and then it is let out by the same drain. In other words, control the flow. Why not do the same thing at the border? Let the drugs in but regulate it, and then tax it. If we’re not going to stop it, we might as well make some money from it. Maybe Biden can use some of his proposed almost 100,000 IRS agents to collect taxes from the cartels. If he doesn’t want to secure the border, at least he can get some revenue out of it (“the rich should pay their fair share”). So let’s make a cartel out of the cartels. As Pharma Cártel Mexicano (stock symbol PCM) grows, Biden can get a brokerage to put together an IPO and Americans can then invest, hopefully making enough money to pay for the drug rehab for relatives addicted to the fentanyl that illegally came across the border in the first place.