The State of the Race---One Week to ED

We are one week from election day in the United States.

At this point it is hard to imagine that there are many voters who do not have a view of who they favor between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris.

That is why the most important factor in the last week of an election is execution rather than influence.

Turning out the voters who favor your candidate is the top priority in the final week of any election.

When the votes are tallied, and the results are analyzed, I am almost certain that turnout will be the deciding factor in this election.

Let's look at a few recent elections to see how important turnout is in the final result.

Barack Obama won the 2008 election by turning out 10 million more votes (69 million vs. 59 million) than John Kerry had just four years earlier. John McCain actually received 1 million fewer votes than George W. Bush did in 2004. The result was a landslide victory for Obama primarily due to turnout.

However, four years later Obama received 3 million fewer votes vs. Mitt Romney in his reelection bid while the Republican turned out 1 million more voters than McCain. Obama went from a landslide in 2008 to winning by less than 4 points in the popular vote in 2012.

Hillary Clinton got the same 66 million votes in 2016 that Obama did in 2012. However, it was still 3 million less than Obama received eight years earlier. In the meantime, Trump got 3 million more votes in 2016 than McCain got in 2008. 

The fact that Hillary turned out 3 million fewer votes than Obama did in 2008 and Trump got 3 million more votes than McCain was enough for an electoral vote victory for the Republicans even though Clinton eked out a 2 point popular vote margin.

Of course, all records on turnout were obliterated in the Covid year of 2020.

Trump turned out 74 million votes in 2020---11 million more than he did in 2016 but lost.

81 million votes were counted for Biden---15 million more than Hillary received four years earlier.

In total, almost 158 million votes were cast for President in 2020---22 million more than were cast just four years before.

We have never seen anything like that turnout before. The relaxed rules on absentee ballots in which voters were mailed unsolicited ballots clearly had a lot to do with it.

The large number of mail ballots together with the inherent greater risk of fraud is one of the big reasons that many questioned the results of the 2020 election.

The best recent evidence of how turnout impacts an election can be found in looking at the election results in Kentucky comparing the 2020 Presidential race and the 2023 Gubernatorial election.

Donald Trump carried Kentucky with 1.327 million votes in 2020 to Biden's .772 million. 

However, Democrat Andy Beshear won reelection as Governor in 2023 by .695 million to .627 million over Republican Daniel Cameron.

The Democrats turned out 90% of the vote in 2023 that they did in 2020.

However, Republicans only turned out 47% of the vote for Cameron as showed up for Trump three years earlier. The Trump voters stayed home and the Republicans lost in Kentucky.

Such is the power of turnout.

In 2020, the power of turnout was in mail-in ballots for the Democrats.

An analysis after the election found that 46% of voters in 2020 voted by mail.

Of the 46% who voted by mail, almost two-thirds voted for Biden.

Interestingly, Trump enjoyed the same advantage among those who voted on election day---65% of those who voted on election day voted for Trump.

Trump also won those who voted early, in-person by 5 points.

The biggest question in the last week of the 2024 election is what the turnout will be without the wide use of mail-in ballots we had in 2020.

Will Democrats be able to get the same turnout if their voters have to show up and vote early in-person or on election day?

Additional questions are how many Republicans will vote early now that it is being encouraged and will any early vote cannibalize the strong showing Republicans have had on election day in recent years.

As of October 29 at 900pm, 53 million votes have been cast nationally per the University of Florida Election Lab that tracks the vote.

27.5 million have been in-person early votes and 25.5 million have been mail-in ballots.

Only about half of the 50 states actually have voters declare party registration.

The early vote is remarkably close compared to 2020 in those states that have party registration.

Democrats have less than a 3 point advantage in early votes with less than a week to go.

Source: https://election.lab.ufl.edu/early-vote/2024-early-voting/

At this point Democrats only have a 10 point advantage in mail ballots compared to a 28 point advantage they had in 2020 one week before election day.

In-person early voting shows Republicans with 8.6 point advantage over the Democrats compared to the 5 point advantage they had in 2020.

Source: https://election.lab.ufl.edu/early-vote/2024-early-voting/

Let's look at the challenges that each party faces in turning out the vote over the next week based on early voting patterns right now.

In 2020, 158 million total voters were counted of which 73 million were mail-in votes . 65% of these mail-in votes went to Biden.

Six days before election day there have only been 26 million votes cast by mail this year,

It is clear that mail-in votes will fall well short of 2020 totals. We are talking about 47 million votes that have to come from somewhere in the next six days to equal where overall turnout was four years ago. Two-thirds of those votes the last time went to Biden. Will those voters show up in person to vote in the next week? The election might be determined on the answer to that question.

In 2020, 50 million of Trump's total votes (74 million) came from in-person early voting or on election day. Trump is doing much better with early voting this time but is that voting just pulling votes from election day?

Trump's challenge is to stay somewhat close in early voting and still win the election day vote convincingly. He is unlikely to get 65% of the election day vote this year because many votes have been moved forward,. However, if the early votes stays in the same range as it is today and he gets 55%-60% of of the election day vote, he will be tough to beat.

The early voting returns that I am seeing in the Sun Belt states at this stage looks promising for Trump.

North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona and Nevada are all seeing Republican voters outperforming expectations in early voting. At the same time, Democrats are just not voting anywhere near the numbers we saw in 2020 early voting (especially by mail).

Of course, no one knows who those voters are voting for.  Registered Republicans could have turned on Trump and are voting for Kamala. Just the same, there could be registered Democrats voting for Trump.

The good news for Kamala is that women are outvoting men in early voting by pretty significant margins. The higher turnout combined with the fact that women traditionally vote Democrat in higher numbers is positive for Harris right now. Trump is going to need a large turnout of men on election day.

If there is one thing we do know based on past elections is that there is no Republican in our lifetimes that can turnout votes like Trump can.  We saw it in the primaries in 2016 and 2020. We saw it in the general elections in both years. Trump brings a lot people to the polls who would otherwise stay home.

The important takeaway from those Sunbelt states is that if Trump can sweep those four states, he only needs two more electoral votes using the 2020 electoral map as the baseline.

Trump has many paths to 270 electoral votes if he can turn Georgia, Arizona and Nevada into his column.

Trump's camp has recently signaled that they also believe he has realistic chances in New Hampshire, Virginia and New Mexico. Some pollsters have even suggested that Minnesota could be in play.

Kamala Harris has to hold all of these states and sweep Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin to tie and win one electoral vote from Nebraska's 2nd Congressional District to give her 270 electoral votes. 

This is what that map would look like.

You could say that would be akin to pulling an inside straight in a poker game.

Of course, the same thing was said about Trump's chances in 2016 against Hillary one week before election day when the electoral map was even more daunting.

Trump had to win all of those Rust Belt states but also Florida and Ohio which were still considered battleground states at that time. He won them all.

All of the polls, data and analysis mean nothing until the votes are counted.

The state of the race remains uncertain.

The trend is still Trump's friend.

However, the Democrats have the money and organization to turnout votes better than anyone, including Donald Trump.

Whether Democrats can do it in the next six days will determine this election.

Predictably Pathetic

As we enter the final ten days of the Presidential election it appears that Kamala Harris has decided that her best closing argument is to claim that Trump is a "fascist" tying him to Hitler and the Nazis.

He is "dangerous" and "unfit" for office according to Kamala.

This is the headline from a story on Kamala's appearance at Wednesday's CNN town hall.

Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/kamala-harris-calls-trump-fascist-argues-dangerous-unfit-office-rcna176713

It remains to be seen whether this closing argument will do anything for Kamala with voters.

However, it is clear that Kamala's overall performance at the Town Hall did not impress a CNN panel after the event that included a number of people who are Democrat operatives or apologists.

Link: https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/1849466189912645837

What I find most interesting is Kamala and the Democrats would revert to the same tired "Trump is a bad, bad man" in the final days of the campaign that they have used over and over the last eight years.

Does this signal how desperate they are as the election clock ticks down? 

It is predictably pathetic.

Perhaps it might work if Donald Trump was unknown.

However, Trump had been in the public eye for decades and decades before he even got into politics.

At that time he was adored by the elites.

No one ever thought he was a racist, a fascist or a Hitler wannabe.

More importantly, Trump has already been President of the United States for four years.

Does anybody except those with the most serious cases of Trump Derangement Syndrome remember any death or re-education camps, wars of conquest, censoring of the media or other Hitler-like actions by Trump over those four years?

What is especially telling is that there is nothing new in any of this.

Unfortunately, it seems that Democrats have reverted to the "Hitler", "Nazi" "Fascist" narrative over and over again through the years.

Credit to @sunnyright on X for many of the following examples.

You can actually see the same narrative being used by President Harry Truman in the final days of the 1948 election against Thomas Dewey. 

It is possible that narrative worked in 1948 as Truman won an election that appeared he was going to lose until the election day returns came in.

Credit: https://x.com/conjunction77/status/1849235370367729833/photo/1

 They also did it to George W. Bush.

Source: https://x.com/sunnyright/status/1849222305664393566

They did it to supporters of John McCain,

Source: https://x.com/sunnyright/status/1849222305664393566

Madonna did it to John McCain.

Source: https://x.com/sunnyright/status/1849222305664393566

They are doing it to Trump and his supporters who will attend a  rally at Madison Square Garden this weekend.

Source: https://x.com/sunnyright/status/1849222305664393566

They have also done it to a number of Republicans over the years who do not even like Trump.

Nikki Haley was a Nazi when she was Governor of South Carolina.

Source: https://x.com/sunnyright/status/1849222305664393566

The same for Dick and Lynne Cheney who are now on Kamala's team.

Source: https://x.com/sunnyright/status/1849222305664393566

Former GOP Speaker Paul Ryan is another Never-Trumper who has been in the Nazi club in the past according to Democrats.

Source: https://x.com/sunnyright/status/1849222305664393566

They went after Mitt Romney the same way.

Source: https://www.salon.com/2016/11/07/bill-maher-liberals-cried-wolf-about-mitt-romney-now-they-face-a-genuine-fascist/

Source: https://x.com/shoveitjack/status/1849224987124650165

Would it be different if Ron DeSantis rather than Trump had won the nomination?

Look what was said about Nikki Hailey above as well as this statement by the Democrat who ran against DeSantis in Florida in 2022.

Source: https://x.com/sunnyright/status/1849222305664393566

In the meantime, as Kamala calls Trump a fascist she refuses to state what her views are on any issues or she hides or lies about them.

Every problem over the last four years also seems to have been the fault of Trump.

It is so predictably pathetic.

How long until this is over?

The sad reality is that it might actually get worse when the election is over no matter who wins.

And that will not be due to Trump being a fascist.

The State of the Race---Two Weeks to ED

We are two weeks from ED (Election Day).

We can only hope that we are not two weeks from Electoral Dysfunction similar to what we saw in 2020.

If there is one thing we need it is a fair, equitable and clear cut victory for one side or the other in 2024.

However, the hope that we will see that does not seem to be shared by many people according to a Rasmussen poll earlier this year.

Two-thirds of all voters were concerned that the 2024 election outcome would be affected by cheating.

That view was also held by 55% of Democrats.

Seeing that level of distrust does not build a lot of confidence that we will see a fair, equitable and clear cut victory for one side or the other in two weeks.

That confidence is further shaken when we have seen the Secretary of State in several swing states suggesting that we should not expect final voting results for up to a week after election day.

How does that make sense considering over half of the vote in many states will be in the form of early votes?

I am at a loss as to how voting results during almost my entire lifetime were counted and tabulated on the night of the election when almost all voting was done on election day.  However, it now takes longer to get the count done when most of the voting is done early with voting machines?

This tweet sums it up pretty well.

By any measure, the Presidential race in the United States appears to be extraordinarily tight based on the polls.

In the RealClearPolitics composite average for national polls, Harris is +0.8.

Source: https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/trump-vs-harris

However, in the all important Battleground states, Trump is +1.2.

In fact, Trump is leading in each state in the composite average although all of them are the slimmest of margins.

Source: https://www.realclearpolling.com/elections/president/2024/battleground-states

The only clear signal in the polling is that Trump has been improving his position over the last month.

Democrats got a boost when Kamala replaced Biden but Trump has been steadily eroding that advantage.

The momentum for Trump increased right after the Vice Presidential debate in early October.

Source: https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/trump-vs-harris

For context, let's look at the national popular vote margins for Democrats in 2016 and 2020 compared to the 0.8 point Harris lead has in the RCP poll average right now.

Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by a 2.1 point margin in 2016 and lost the electoral vote.

Joe Biden won the popular vote by a 4.4 point margin and won the electoral vote.

The popular vote margin that Kamala has in the polling average does not appear to be large enough to translate to an electoral college win based on past experience.

It is also useful to compare where Trump stood in the polls two weeks out in the last two elections.

Two weeks before the election in 2020, Trump was down by 8.6 points to Biden. Trump was down 6.4 points to Hillary. The final results had Trump improving by 4.2 points in 2020 and 4.3 points in 2016 comparing polls two weeks before election day and the final results.

Are we going to see similar movement to Trump this year or has the polling improved to identify the silent Trump voter?

It is a huge factor in assessing the reliability of the polls.

The other big factor in the accuracy of any poll is the assumptions made on the make-up of the electorate.

It has generally been the case for many years that more voters identified as Democrats than Republicans. Therefore, pollsters sampled more Democrats than Republicans when they did a voter survey.

A typical poll in the past might have used a +2 or +3 Democrat sample.

However, recent trends have seen more voters identifying as Republicans. Republicans have also been outpacing Democrats in new registrants in many states.

For example, in Pennsylvania, Democrats had a registration advantage of 7.5 points in 2020. The latest data indicates that advantage is down to 3.7 points. That could be significant in that critical swing state.

Source: https://x.com/RealSKeshel/status/1841695712221806974

Gallup's most recent survey of national party identification actually has Republicans at +3 right now.

This is the highest it has been in a Presidential year going back to 1992.

Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/651092/2024-election-environment-favorable-gop.aspx

If a pollster is using a +2 Democrat sample in a +3 Republican environment the chances are that the poll is going to be wrong.

Many people think back to the 2022 mid-terms and look at it as a massive disappointment and defeat for the Republicans.

It is argued that the predicted Red Wave never materialized.

However, if you actually look back at the popular vote totals broken down for  the 435 House seats, the Republicans actually won the national vote by....2.8 points.

Is it merely a coincidence that number is almost exactly in line with the recent Gallup data?

Source: https://www.cnn.com/election/2022/results/house?election-data-id=2022-HG&election-painting-mode=projection&filter-key-races=false&filter-flipped=false

The bottom line is that you can find positive news for either candidate depending on which polls you look at.

However, on balance, I would rather be Trump than Harris right now based on the trend and the party identification and registration data.

The biggest change in assessing the state of the race this year compared to 2016 is the degree to which early voting has taken hold.

We are not likely to see the same number of early and mail votes cast as we did in the Covid year of 2020 in which almost 70% voted before election day.

However, it is certain that we will see over half of all ballots cast by mail or in early in-person voting.

Source: https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/04/what-methods-did-people-use-to-vote-in-2020-election.html

This non-traditional voting is providing additional insights into the state of political races that was not previously available.

Although we do not how any one person voted, it is possible to know who voted.

Data analysts know their age, their gender, their race and if they are registered or identify with a political party. They also know whether they have been high or low intensity voters in the past.

This provides an additional tool beyond polling to better understand what outcome to expect. In most respects, early voting data is much more important than the polls right now.

In 2020, mail-in and early voting was heavily utilized by Democrats. Republicans tended to vote on election day.

You can see how large this effect was in 2020 by looking at the votes in Pennsylvania split between early voting and election day voting.

Biden won this important swing state by a margin of less than 81,000 out of almost 7 million total votes.

However, Biden had a 1.4 million vote advantage before election day even arrived.

Trump could not make that margin up and lost by 1.2 points despite garnering 1.3 million more votes on election day than Biden did.

Source: https://www.electionreturns.pa.gov/_ENR/General/SummaryResults?ElectionID=83&ElectionType=G&IsActive=0

Republicans have been encouraged to vote early this year.

However, voting early only becomes a net advantage for the GOP if they do not cannibalize their election day vote.

Democrats voted early in large masses in 2020. Will they turnout in the same numbers without Covid?

If they don't vote early, will they turn out on election day?

These are big questions to consider in looking at the early voting data in 2024.

Thus far, it can be generally stated that Republicans appear to be outperforming Democrats in expectations involving early voting.

This summary by ABC News on early voting in the key swing states provides a general idea of the state of the race.

Note first that the number of early votes in 2024 vs. 2020 at this time have dropped by some 3 million votes or 36% (5.2 million in 2024 vs. 8.2 million in 2020).

Democrats make up 50% of the early vote (down from 54% in 2020) and Republicans are at 38% (up from 32%).

However, in looking at actual early vote totals, both parties have fewer overall early votes.

Democrats are down 1.8 million votes compared to 2020.

Republicans are only down .6 million votes to the 2020 Covid year.

Early voting in Pennsylvania provides a closer look at early voting trends in what is clearly the most important swing state this year.

As I pointed out above, the Democrats won Pennsylvania in 2020 because of a huge early vote advantage. Similarly, John Fetterman beat Mehmet Oz in the 2022 race Senate for the same reason.

Oz won the election day vote by almost 500,000 votes but lost the early vote by 726,000 votes.

However, in 2024 the Republicans are not ceding that early advantage and are looking to keep the race close heading into election day.

Justin Hart in his Rational Ground substack provides this analysis.

Source: https://covidreason.substack.com/p/happenings-in-pennsylvania-latest

Democrats say they want a 500,000 vote firewall heading into ED. Some Republican analysts suggest that 800,000 is a more realistic number considering the Dems had a 1.4 million early advantage in 2020.

The Democrat firewall in Pennsylvania is a number to keep a close eye on over the next two weeks.

The big question here is whether Democrats can get the turnout they did in 2020 in the next two weeks.

They have traditionally proven to be good at getting out the vote. Are they going to be able to do it being this far behind 2020 early vote numbers and not having an electorate that has been voting late the last couple of cycles?

Any early voting shortfall for Republicans should not be as worrisome as their voters are accustomed to voting late on election day. However, how many of those early votes were just moved forward from election day voting in the past?

Again, it is not a clear picture on early voting but I would rather be Trump than Harris in looking at the data right now.

Some of the people that are looking at the data very closely would seem to be those placing wagers on the race in the betting markets.

The people who have put real money down on the outcome of the Presidential race now have Trump with a 66% chance to win the election.

Source: https://polymarket.com/elections

That is the highest Trump has performed against Harris since she replaced Biden.

Trump's all-time high in Polymarket was 72% vs. Biden in July of this year.

You can see in this graph of the long-term trend in the odds that Trump started pulling away in the first week of October right after the VP debate.

Source: https://polymarket.com/elections

Trump is also the odds on favorite in betting on Polymarket to win every swing state as we stand right now two weeks before ED.

Source: https://polymarket.com/elections

However, I am also old enough to remember when all of the bets were on Hillary to win in 2016 and it did not turn out well for her.

As I have also written before in these pages, two weeks is an eternity in politics. That is particularly true in the last two weeks before a Presidential election.

What lies ahead?

Could we see a real October surprise or a large gaffe by one of the candidates?

What external events might affect the outcome? 

In particular, what effect would an attack by Israel on Iran and the possibility that all-out war breaks out between the two countries have on the  election?

What about threats by Iran to hold the United States responsible if it comes to that?

What if Iran's response was to initiate terror attacks on American polling sites on election day to instill fear and suppress turnout. Turnout that would largely benefit Trump. Such a scenario would allow Iran to put Kamala Harris in the White House.

It is another reason to vote early.

Nobody knows what we might see over the next two weeks.

Such is the state of the race two weeks from election day.

My plan is provide another state of the race report one week before and the day before ED.

Stay in touch with BeeLine for what you need to know.

The Road Ahead

I don't know who is going to be elected President of the United States in two weeks.

I do know that they are going to face unprecedented fiscal challenges during their term.

The U.S. Treasury Department recently released the final federal budget numbers for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024 showing a $1.833 trillion deficit.

The deficit was up from last year's $1.695 trillion deficit for fiscal 2023 despite federal revenues increasing by 11%, or $479 billion, from a year earlier. This suggests that the increased deficit is not due to a revenue problem.

The biggest driver of the increased deficit was interest on the federal debt that is now approaching $36 trillion.

$12 trillion of this debt has been added in the last four years. Debt is clearly being piled on at an unprecedented level.

It is certain to get far, far worse as compound interest on that debt is now taking over.

Interest on the federal debt for fiscal 2024 was $1.113 trillion.

By comparison, total individual income tax collections for the year were only $2.4 trillion.

We have reached a point where interest expense is consuming almost half of all individual income tax revenues.

Interest expense is also now 1.37x what is being spent annually on Defense ($826 billion).

To put the issue of interest expense in better perspective, it is expected that 189 million individual income tax returns will be filed in 2024.

That means that the average individual paying income taxes is seeing $5,820 of their income taxes being used solely to pay interest on the debt annually.

Spread among the entire population of 340 million, that is $3,235 of annual interest expense for every man, woman and child.

Credit: https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-budget-deficit-tops-18-trillion-fiscal-2024-third-largest-record-2024-10-18/

We are fast approaching the point at which interest on the federal debt will bury everything else.

However, the budget problems run much deeper than interest on the debt.

Consider, for example, that even if the federal government had no debt and was paying no interest, the budget deficit would still be over $700 billion annually.

An annual federal deficit of that size by itself would have been unfathomable until 15 years ago when we first saw the effects from the Great Recession of 2009-2012 on the nation's budget.

Credit: https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-budget-deficit-tops-18-trillion-fiscal-2024-third-largest-record-2024-10-18/

The fact that we are seeing the amount of red ink we are at a time of low unemployment is another large warning sign.

What will the deficits look like in a deep recession with high unemployment?

$4 trillion? $5 trillion?

As bad as the $1.8 trillion reported deficit is for 2024, I see some evidence that the actual deficit is larger and the number has been manipulated down by the Treasury Department. Was this for political reasons?

For example, the total federal debt outstanding on 9/30/23 was $33.2 trillion. It was $35.5 trillion a year later---an increase of $2.3 trillion.

Over the last year the Treasury Department reported a $1.8 trillion deficit but the federal government's debt increased by $2.3 trillion over the same period. This suggest that an additional $500 billion was spent over the last year compared to what came in.

More interesting is that in just the three weeks between September 26 and October 17 the federal government added almost $500 billion in new debt outstanding.

Why????

Source: https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/datasets/debt-to-the-penny/debt-to-the-penny

What is going on ?

My guess is that the Treasury Department is borrowing heavily before the debt ceiling limit is reached on January 1, 2025.

Treasury is attempting to squirrel away as much cash as possible before that deadline.

You may recall that in May, 2023 a debt ceiling agreement was reached between Biden and then Hosue Speaker Kevin McCarthy (that was then approved by both houses of Congress) to do away with the debt ceiling limit until January 1, 2025. In other words, the Treasury Department had free reign to borrow as much as it desired until that date. 

Whatever the outstanding debt was on January 1, 2025 would be the new debt limit ceiling.

I wrote about all of this shortly after the agreement was reached in a blog post titled, "Debt Deal Disappointment".

This is what I wrote about the debt limit deal 17 months ago.

It seems that most of my predictions about what we would see have been realized.

The McCarthy-Biden proposal has no dollar-denominated debt ceiling limit.

Instead, it allows the federal government to borrow as much as it needs or wants until January 1, 2025.

This will mean that the debt ceiling could go up another $2 trillion, $3 trillion, $4 trillion or higher without  requiring additional Congressional approval.

If we were to face a recession in the next 18 months there is no telling what the debt limit might end up being.

Notice as well that the debt ceiling limit will expire after the 2024 elections but before a new Congress will be sworn in during the first few days of January, 2025.

This means the next debt limit ceiling discussions will occur during a lame duck session of Congress and what could also involve a lame duck President.

You also have to wonder what would stop the Biden administration Secretary of Treasury from issuing as many debt obligations as they could right before the January 1, 2025 deadline?

None of this is conducive to being in the best interests of the American people.

Since that debt deal was enacted into law on June 3, 2023 the amount of outstanding federal debt has increased from $31.5 trillion to $35.8 trillion----an increase of $4.3 trillion in less than 18 months.

On the current trajectory it would not be surprising to see another $1 trillion in debt taken on before January 1, 2025.

My prediction as to where the amount of debt would be at the end of the debt deal agreement actually appears to have been conservative.

It also appears that I was correct in predicting that the Treasury would be issuing as much debt as they could before the year-end deadline.

We now will have to wait and see what a lame duck President and Congress might do about the debt ceiling limit in December.

My guess is we will see that the can will be kicked further down the road again.

However, we are fast reaching the point where the can will not be able to be kicked much further.

A day of reckoning is on the horizon.

And on that day you are likely to find that you have run out of road.

The Stakes Have Never Been Higher

The presidential election this year is undoubtedly the most consequential election in our lifetimes based solely on the policy differences in the two candidates.

Kamala Harris has always been an open borders advocate. Trump is in favor of strong borders.

Trump is in favor of all forms of energy development. Harris has a long history of supporting a ban on fossil fuels.

Harris wants to raise income taxes and has suggested a wealth tax. Trump has called for the elimination of taxes on tips. overtime and Social Security benefits. He wants to raise revenues through tariffs that would also encourage more manufacturing in the United States.

On issue after issue, you could not have much bigger policy differences between the two candidates.

However, it is what lies ahead for the losers in this titantic political struggle that elevates this election from the most consequential in our lifetimes to the most consequential in American history.

Simply stated, the stakes have never been higher when we consider what could happen to the adversaries in this election when it is finally decided.

We know what happens to the winner.

Four years in The White House and all the power and privilege that comes with it.

In most Presidential elections we see the loser quietly leave the political stage where they are out of sight and out of mind for the most part. 

They may write a book, serve on corporate boards or pursue charitable activities but they generally fade into the sunset content with both personal and financial security.

That is not where we are in 2024.

Donald Trump surely knows that defeat in this election will not provide him with any peace and quiet. He will not return to Mar-a-Lago to enjoy golf and his riches in when he leaves the political arena. Trump will undoubtedly continue to be pursued by the deep state until he is either in prison and/or bankrupt.

It is clear that the deep state wants to teach Trump a lesson and in so doing provide a warning to anyone else who might think about bucking the D.C. establishment in the future.

If Kamala loses her future probably will look like many other defeated Presidential candidates. She will return to California, write a book and be given a job with a company in Silicon Valley with no real responsibilities and a big salary.

However, it is important to realize that Kamala Harris is merely a front person in this election.

She is standing in for the D.C. establishment

It is the D.C. establishment or deep state that is truly running against Trump.

They also know the jeopardy they are in if he wins.

What would be the result if there was a truly unbiased and fair investigation of the Biden family?

Of the Clintons? 

Of Nancy Pelosi's insider stock trades and those of other members of Congress?

What about the FBI and their role in spying on Trump, staying silent on the Hunter Biden laptop or involvement in J6?

What about the 51 former national security "experts" who stated that the Hunter laptop had all the earmarks of a Russian disinformation campaign?

What about the Biden administration using social media companies to silence free speech during Covid?

What about the billions of dollars in aid to Ukraine? How much has been laundered back into the United States?

Where exactly has the $1 billion in campaign funds that Kamala Harris has raised in two and half months come from? This dwarfs what Trump has raised and he has been running forever.

Has the Democrat fundraising platform Act Blue been engaged in money laundering?

What about Anthony Fauci, the NIH and the gain of function research on Covid at the Wuhan lab?

Donald Trump was very measured and benevolent in 2016 after he defeated Hillary Clinton.

Despite many calls from his supporters to "lock her up",  when he took office Trump stated it would be inappropriate and set a bad precedent to prosecute a political rival and the spouse of a former President.

Based on what has been done to Trump since then could you blame him if he would not be feeling quite so benevolent if he wins again?

Put all of this together on both sides and you can see why the stakes have never been higher in a Presidential election.

I don't want to say it is "life or death", especially in light of the fact that there have already been two attempts on Trump's life.

However, it is life or death insofar as the future personal and financial freedom of the adversaries in this political drama are concerned.

Considering the stakes, there is not much that would surprise me on what could still happen in these final two weeks.

Trump vs. the D.C. Establishment.

It is a dimension to this election that is very much under appreciated by most voters.

I can assure you that it is fully understood and appreciated by both Donald Trump and the D.C. establishment.

The stakes have never been higher in any presidential election in American history.

That Which Is Seen and That Which Is Unseen

One of the most interesting trends in American politics over the last 25 years has been the shift we have seen in party identification between college and non-college educated voters.

College educated voters tended to be Republicans a generation ago.

Non college educated voters were likely to vote Democrat.

These previous norms have completely flipped.

In fact, the more education someone has the more likely they are to vote Democrat.

You can see how the trend in the party identification among college-educated voters has changed in the chart below.

50% of college-educated voters identified as Republicans in 2000. That number has dropped to 40% in 2020.

Only 39% of college-educated voters identified as Democrats in 2000 compared to 53% in 2020.

Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/gop-faces-massive-realignment-it-sheds-college-educated-voters-n1264425

Donald Trump won the majority of non-college educated voters in 2020 51%-48% according to exit polls.

However, Joe Biden won the college-educated vote by 55%-43% overall. 

Source: https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/exit-polls/president/national-results

Trump won white non-college educated by 67%-32%.

Biden's margin narrowed to 51%-48% with white college educated voters.

Source: https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/exit-polls/president/national-results

The shift of non-college voters to Trump and the Republican party makes sense in that the Democrats generally consistently ignored this group of voters for years.

Democrats did nothing as manufacturing in the United States was hollowed out, the party put more attention to courting minority groups, importing illegal immigrants and pursuing a woke agenda.

The trend to the Republican party among these working class voters started before Donald Trump but it gained real momentum when Trump gave voice to these concerns beginning in Obama's second term.

The shift of college-educated voters to the Democrat party is more puzzling. It is not as easy to understand it logically. In fact, it makes little sense.

Some of it is undoubtedly the result of the increased numbers of younger voters that are college graduates.

I have always believed that academia and young college graduates skew to the liberal side of politics in that they tend to view the world in theoretical and idealistic terms.

Democrats favor policy solutions based on how they think the world should work in theory. This is what college students are taught over and over again in the classroom.

Most liberal ideas are well meaning and well intentioned. In a theoretical laboratory these ideas may make a lot of sense. 

Of course, the real world does not exist in theory. People act and make decisions based on their self interest which can be influenced by incentives and disincentives. A reality where unintended consequences often have much greater effects than the intended consequences.

Republicans look at issues much more based on how the real world really operates in practice. They tend to be more pragmatic and practical in their outlook, This is why voters tend to be more conservative the older they are. Theory is replaced with practical experience and common sense.

What is particularly confounding to me in looking at the political divide today is that most of the major issues today are complex. They are mult-layered and multi-dimensional. There are few simple answers. It requires thinking beyond the first order.

There are visible effects in many policy solutions but there are also many secondary and tertiary effects that are not immediately visible. It requires real critical thinking skills (or plain old common sense) to balance all of this---the SEEN and UNSEEN.

You would think that those who have the most education would possess the critical thinking skills that could best balance the seen and unseen effects in assessing issues of policy involving politics.

Instead, it seems that the more education one has, the greater the likelihood that they do not possess the  level of critical thinking or common sense to see beyond theories to the reality of the real world in which we live.

How is it that high graduates seem to have more common sense than highly educated college and post-college graduates?

How come they seem to see things that their more educated fellow Americans do not?

I wrote about the interesting aspects about various political issues on what is SEEN and UNSEEN ten years ago in these pages.

This might be a good time to revisit that blog post.

What I wrote then seems as true today (if not even more so) as it was in 2014.

Kamala Harris is the embodiment of SEEN thinking. Every policy prescription only considers first-order SEEN effects. There is no consideration of UNSEEN effects.

That type of thinking by our leaders is a sure road to ruin.

In addition, keep in mind how hard Kamala Harris is working in this campaign to keep what she really believes to be UNSEEN.

Why is that?

In this election keep in mind that which is SEEN and that which is UNSEEN.

It will make you a better informed and reasoned voter.

Seen and Unseen (originally published February 20 , 2014)

I came across this insightful observation last week in John Mauldin's Thoughts from the Frontline blog quoting an essay written by Frederic Bastiat in 1850, "That Which Is Seen and That Which Is Unseen".

There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.

In the economic sphere an act, a habit, an institution, a law produces not only one effect, but a series of effects. Of these effects, the first alone is immediate; it appears simultaneously with its cause; it is seen. The other effects emerge only subsequently; they are not seen; we are fortunate if we foresee them.

I think this observation also applies in explaining the differences between Democrats and Republicans.

I have always believed that a fundamental difference between a Democrat and Republican is how they view the world. Democrats see the world in much more theoretical and idealistic terms. Republicans tend to be more practical and pragmatic in their outlook.

Democrats want policy solutions based on how they think the world should work in theory. Republicans favor policies based on how the world really works in practice.

Bastiat's essay has given me one more perspective on the difference in thinking between Republicans and Democrats.

Democrats generally confine themselves solely to visible effects. They seem to consider only first-level effects and ignore everything else that might flow from that.  All of their focus is on what they see in front on them. They ignore the unseen issues. Republicans, on the other hand, are considering both the immediate effects and second-level effects. The seen and the unseen.  Especially the unseen effects which should be foreseen.

Let's look at a few issues that show you what I am talking about.

Deficit spending- Democrats focus almost solely on spending more on today's needs that they see. Continuing to borrow and spend money we don't have is totally justified over what that debt will do to unseen generations in the future.

Healthcare reform- Obamacare was justified in Democrat minds in order to solve the immediate problem of uninsured Americans.  They totally ignored the fact that the solution would completely undermine the health care system for unseen millions of Americans who already were satisfied with their coverage.

Minimum wage- Democrats want to raise the minimum wage because they believe it will alleviate the poverty problem they see.  However, they totally ignore the unseen after-effects in that the minimum wage increase will undoubtedly result in long-term job losses. For example, the CBO estimates that raising the minimum wage to $10 per hour could result in the loss of 500,000 jobs by 2016.

Immigration- Democrats want to legalize millions of immigrants who have entered the United States illegally and who we see everyday around us.  However, when calling for this they totally ignore the unseen potential immigrant who has been waiting patiently in line for years to come to this country illegally.  They also don't consider the effects that amnesty will have on encouraging even greater illegal immigration in the future.

Welfare-  Democrats can't do enough to help people in need that they see.  Food stamps, housing assistance, Medicaid, long-term unemployment assistance.  It is natural to want to help people who need the help.  However, what about the unseen problem that in all of this we may also be creating a cycle of dependency?  In the end our compassion may feed the problem rather than solve it.

Abortion- A woman who is pregnant is seen and known.  An unborn baby is unseen and unknown for most Democrats. We see the life affected today with that pregnancy.  The life of that baby's future is unseen.

Gun control-  A person with a gun who uses it in a horrific crime is seen.  Democrats see that.  However, unseen are the millions of guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans as well as the thousands of crimes that may have been deterred by that fact.

Transgenders- (edit-this is a 2024 addition to the list) In their zeal to support "equality" and gain favor with the LGBTQ+ community, Democrats argue that rest rooms need to be open to trangenders, biological men should be able to play women's sports and minors should have irrevocable sex change surgeries. What is unseen is that almost no woman wants a man in her bathroom. allowing biological men to play women sports is unfair, dangerous and inimical to women's rights while promoting life altering sex change operations for minors has untold potential long-term adverse effects over a lifetime. 

My point is that it is easy to see visible effects. They are right in front of you.  However, as Bastiat observed over a century and a half ago, we rarely see single effects, but a series of effects. Good government policy should dictate that we should not be focusing on the seen, but on the unseen.  This is particularly the case with the unseen effects that should be foreseen.

Unfortunately, Democrats consistently seem to be only interested in what they see right in front of them. They seem to believe we live in a simple, superficial, single dimension universe. The fact is that our world is getting more complex everyday and that type of thinking is a sure road to ruin.

As we look at government policy we need to not only consider what we see right in front of us but what is also down the road and around the curve.  It takes deep thinking. On issue after issue it is hard to detect that Democrats see any of it.

This observation might have been unseen to you before.  I hope that you see it now.

Supermen

"All men are created equal." 

This fundamental truth was penned by Thomas Jefferson when he wrote the Declaration of Independence.

Of course, it is also true that all men do not use all of their skills and abilities to achieve extraordinary results in their life.

History shows that their number to be extraordinarily low.

Thomas Jefferson was such a man as was George Washington and Benjamin Franklin.

They all excelled in a number of spheres of life.

When I was a younger I marveled at what a man named Pete Dawkins had accomplished in his life.

How could one man be so good at so many things?

At age 11, Dawkins was successfully treated for a case of polio.

He went to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point where he was a running back on the Army football team from 1956-1958.

He won the Heisman Trophy and Maxwell Award as the top college football player in the nation in 1958.

Credit: https://www.pristineauction.com/a5097373-Pete-Dawkins-Signed-Army-Black-Knights-8x10-Photo-Inscribed-Heisman-58-Beckett-COA

At West Point, Dawkins was the Brigade Commander, was class President and was a Star Man (top 5% of his class) in addition to being the captain of the football team.

A cadet is considered outstanding if he attains one of these positions. Dawkins was the only cadet in history to hold all four at once. 

In addition to all of that, Dawkins also played hockey at West Point where he was an assistant captain.

He is considered the most decorated West Point cadet of all time.

Upon graduation, Dawkins was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship and studied for two years in England at Oxford University.

At Oxford, he took up rugby and became one of the elite players in that game as well.

Upon returning to the United States to serve in the Army, Dawkins finished Infantry and Ranger schools before serving in Vietnam where he earned two Bronze stars.

He later served as a White House Fellow and earned both a Masters Degree and PhD from Princeton University.

He retired from the Army as a Brigadier General after 24 years of service and worked in both investment banking and business consulting.

He later became Chairman and CEO of Primerica, a financial services firm.

Dawkins ran for the U.S. Senate in New Jersey in 1988 and lost to incumbent Democrat Senator Frank Lautenberg by eight points. It was a rare setback in the life of Dawkins who is the oldest living Heisman winner today at age 86.

I don't know that I have ever seen a better resume than that of Peter Dawkins.

A true Superman.

There are many who will not want to admit it but Donald J. Trump also has to be considered a Superman.

How many people can you name that have achieved the level of success he has in the three different areas during their lifetimes--- business, entertainment and politics?

A billionaire businessman. The star of a top-rated television show. President of the United States.

On the Forbes 400 list for wealth. On a list of just 46 Presidents of the United States. Recognized with a star on Hollywood Boulevard along with Marilyn Monroe, Walt Disney, Lucille Ball and Tom Cruise among others..

This is a picture I took of Trump's star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame when I was in Los Angeles recently.

Pick any three major areas of endeavor and give me another name or two that compares with what Trump has done over his lifetime. It is not an easy task. 

If you think of someone, please list them in the comments section.

This brings us to Elon Musk.

As I have written before, when the definitive history of the early 21st Century is written I will be surprised if Elon Musk is not considered the most consequential person of this period.

Musk may yet have the potential to be remembered as the most consequential individual in the history of mankind short of Jesus Christ.

Musk developed and marketed the first popular mass-produced electric vehicle---the Tesla

Leveraging off of Tesla he has created an energy storage business for homes and huge "megapacks" for utilities that extend the usefulness of solar and wind-powered generators.  Some analysts value that Tesla Energy business at $600 billion of value by itself.

Musk created SpaceX with the audacious goal of colonizing Mars. In the process he has basically taken over the U.S. space program. SpaceX is on track to carry 90% of all earth payloads in the world into space orbit this year. It is even more impressive when you consider the fact that he is competing against government controlled space programs such as China, Russia, Japan and India.

Musk developed the Starlink communication system that allows for any cellphone in the world to be connected to the internet. There are more than 6,400 Starlink satellites in orbit already that have been launched by SpaceX. I recently was able to stay connected 24/7 while on a ship in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

Musk is also working on autonomous driving, humanoid robots, robotaxis, electric semi trucks, advanced artificial intelligence applications, implanted chips to cure paralysis and much more in addition to owning the preeminent free speech platform ("X") in the world.

It seems that the fact that Elon Musk bought Twitter to protect free speech is the reason that the liberals and progressives have now made Elon public enemy #1 after Donald Trump.

This tweet on X below sums it up pretty well I believe.

The rocket he launched was larger than the Saturn V rocket that sent men to the moon with over 2.5 times the thrust and power. 

Musk also attended the Trump rally in Butler. PA which seems to be another reason for Democrats to hate him.

If you have not seen the launch and catch of the Starship Super Heavy booster I recommend you view this three minute highlight reel.

It is one of the most astounding engineering feats in the history of man.

If you want to have a glimpse of what else Musk is working on this is a 7 minute video of Elon explaining his robotaxi, robovan and humanoid robots at an event he held last week in LA.

Link: https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/videos/see-teslas-musk-introduce-new-cybercab-robotaxi/

Elon Musk is literally transforming the world around us before our eyes.

You would think that he would be getting all of the encouragement and support he could from our government officials.

You would be wrong.

Last December the FCC rejected Starlink's proposal to provide broadband services to rural areas in the United States. 

       

Source: https://www.aha.org/news/headline/2023-12-13-fcc-rejects-starlink-bid-bring-broadband-services-rural-areas

The Federal Communications Commission Dec. 12 rejected an application by Starlink for nearly $900 million in Rural Digital Opportunity Funds to bring broadband services to rural locations, including health care facilities, concluding the application failed to demonstrate the company could deliver the promised service.

The FCC said this in December but it is Starlink that is providing the necessary broadband access in the isolated and devastated sections of western North Carolina in the wake of Hurricane Helene?

Something does not add up here.

In the meantime, Biden/Harris received $42 billion in allocated funds from Congress in 2021 and have yet to connect one single household to broadband in the United States under the program.

Source: https://reason.com/2024/06/27/why-has-joe-bidens-42-billion-broadband-program-not-connected-one-single-household/

At the same time. Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota stated last week that Minnesota is providing $52 million in state grants to expand broadband access to over 7,500 homes and businesses in the state.

Let's do the math.

$52 million for 7.500 homes and businesses is almost $7,000 per hookup.

The cost of a Starlink terminal installed in a home is only $349 in hardware costs.

Source: https://www.starlink.com/us/residential

Perhaps Tim Walz and Kamala Harris need to be introduced to Elon Musk?

If you do not think politics is involved here, also consider the fact that the state of California just refused permission for Musk's SpaceX program to expand launches in that state because they don't like his politics and his tweets.

Even more incredibly, the Biden/Harris Department of Justice is suing SpaceX for alleged discrimination in not hiring asylum seekers and refugees from countries such as Afghanistan, Haiti and Venezuela

Source: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-spacex-discriminating-against-asylees-and-refugees-hiring

I think that those working at SpaceX are doing a pretty good job without the extra help.

In addition, who thinks it is a great idea to hire non-citizens from these countries to work on the sensitive technology that SpaceX is developing and deploying?

This guy on X puts all of what Elon Musk is doing in perspective.

(Click to enlarge)

Source: https://x.com/Devon_Eriksen_/status/1845479747020640570

This is why I believe that Elon Musk is the most consequential individual of this era.

Can you imagine shutting all of this innovation down because of politics?

Can you imagine having the opportunity to have this man working for free to recommend better and more efficient ways to run the federal government?

Musk has made that offer to Donald Trump.

It is not often that a Superman comes along to save the day.

It is even rarer to have two Supermen on the same team that are dedicated to making America and the world greater.

Forget about the politics.

The 2024 vote is most assuredly about our future.

All men are created equal.

However, some just get far more done than others.

You might not choose either of these men to be your pastor or have them marry your daughter.

However, when it comes to your future and that of your children and grandchildren, is there any better choice before you?

Let's start a SpaceX type countdown.

5, 4, 3, 2, 1....before liberal brains explode after reading this blog post and seeing these images.

Credit: Craiyon.com