RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.wsj.com/articles/should-we-follow-the-science-instead-of-the-votes-democracy-polling-elections-preferences-republicans-democrats-11656697672?mod=opinion_lead_pos10

The Democrats, ever solicitous of the people’s welfare and comfort, want to make voting easier. The Republicans, guardians of public morality, want to make sure votes are genuine. So why not abandon elections and replace them with surveys?

Surveys turn citizens into “respondents” answering from home by phone or computer. Respondents are scientifically selected to represent a slice of the population. Answering is easy, to please Democrats, and since your qualities and attributes are selected without regard to your name, there’s no risk of fraud, which should please Republicans. Now that we have surveys made reliable by the science of polling, why do we need elections with their hoopla, ceremony, and expense—not to mention their chanciness, rowdiness and unreason?

An objection to this question comes to mind at once. Polls often go wrong, failing to predict accurately the result of a following election. It would seem that we need elections to check on the surveys. But no—the objection takes for granted that an election is superior to a survey for reckoning the people’s will. That should be taken as a question, not an assumption. We must not underestimate the power of science. We must entertain the possibility that the survey is correct and the election—because it fails to follow the method of science—is incorrect.

This was done in 1995 by one of the founders of survey science, the late Sidney Verba, a friend and colleague of mine at Harvard. In a speech on “the citizen as respondent,” he made the claim that voter surveys are both more democratic and more accurate than elections because they reach those who don’t vote. Nonvoters are different from voters; they are less well-informed and less active on their own account, hence more vulnerable. The political scientist can reach out to them to capture their unvoiced opinions or even generously to articulate their feelings for them.

https://issuesinsights.com/2022/06/29/beware-america-gavin-newsom-is-running-for-president/

The governor of the biggest state in the country has said he isn’t running for president. But there’s no question Gavin Newsom wants to be in the White House. The only question: Is this country foolish enough to elect such a miserable failure?

Newsom has said publicly that he has no presidential ambitions. But it’s no secret that he’s been groomed for White House occupancy by rich, progressive San Francisco elites. And now he’s “picking exactly the kinds of fights that presidential candidates like to pick” and is “clearly laying the groundwork for a presidential run,” in 2028 if not 2024.

California, the “damn state” Newsom swears he loves, was once the destination for those who wanted a better life and were willing to work for it. Now, both residents and businesses are fleeing. They’re fed up with confiscatory taxation, a can’t-do-business-here regulatory regime, an extreme cost of living that’s been driven by public policy, and a prohibition agenda that threatens to ban every consumer convenience Americans have grown accustomed to.

No longer golden, California is the center of the universe for homelessness. At 4.3%, the state’s unemployment is worse than in all but seven states, the poverty rate is higher than in any other state, blackouts are becoming more rule than exception, soft-on-crime policies have shown up in ugly street crimes, a politically created drought has a distinct Third World feel, and personal freedom is on the decline while economic freedom has been near rock bottom for more than two decades.

No, Newsom did not create these problems. But his party did. And as governor, he’s done nothing to solve them, which he was elected to do. He has talked a lot, though, and has yet to see a camera or microphone that didn’t need his presence.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-yorks-noncitizen-voting-is-illegal-eric-adams-staten-island-judge-constitution-11656444148?mod=opinion_lead_pos4

Well, that was quick work. In December the New York City Council passed a law to let about 800,000 noncitizens vote in local elections. Mayor Eric Adams, man of action, neither signed nor vetoed the bill, allowing it to take effect. But on Monday a state judge declared it “illegal, null and void because it violates the New York Constitution.”

This was always a distinct possibility, as we warned at the time. The state constitution guarantees “every citizen” the right to vote, “provided that such citizen” is 18 years old and has lived in New York for 30 days. Another constitutional section promises a process “for ascertaining, by proper proofs, the citizens who shall be entitled to the right of suffrage.”

Ah-ha, argued advocates of the city’s bill: The constitution says “citizens” may vote, but it is silent about noncitizens. This is the kind of too-cute-by-half logic that gives the legal profession a bad name. If it prevailed, then could the city enfranchise 12-year-old noncitizens? After all, the constitution’s age requirement for citizens wouldn’t apply to them.

“It is this Court’s belief,” says a Staten Island judge, “that by not expressly including non-citizens in the New York State Constitution, it was the intent of the framers for non-citizens to be omitted.” Also, this is state law: “No person shall be qualified to register for and vote at any election unless he is a citizen of the United States.”

Representative Lee Zeldin (R., N.Y.) beat out three competitors to win the GOP nomination for New York governor on Tuesday, the Associated Press projects.

Andrew Giuliani, the son of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, was Zeldin’s closest competitor. Zeldin had notched 42.5 percent of the vote compared with Giuliani’s 23.7 percent with 53 percent of the vote reported on Tuesday evening.

Zeldin, a four-term congressman who represents New York’s first congressional district, also beat out former Westchester County executive Rob Astorino and businessman Harry Wilson.
More onNew York
Ghislaine Maxwell Sentenced to 20 Years for Sex Trafficking
‘Gun Control Is Racist’: Black Gun Owners Celebrate Supreme Court Striking Down N.Y. Concealed-Carry Restriction
Judge Slams Brakes on Noncitizen Voting

Zeldin is an attorney and Iraq War veteran who has represented eastern Long Island since 2015. He is a staunch supporter former president Donald Trump.

He will face off against New York governor Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, in the general election in November. She easily won her own primary on Tuesday, fending off challenges from Representative Tom Suozzi and New York City public advocate Jumaane Williams.

Hochul was sworn in last August after her predecessor, Andrew Cuomo, resigned following a sexual-harassment scandal.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/voters-actually-we-trust-republicans-more-on-protecting-democracy/

One may argue the merits of the January 6 committee hearings, but plainly, the political aim of Democrats in the hearings, and in the torrents of press coverage and commentary on January 6 over the past 17 months, has been to present the Republican Party as a whole as an existential threat to American democracy.

How’s that working out? The latest Fox News poll actually asked voters, and the results are not going to make Democrats happy: “When asked in a new Fox News poll which party would ‘do a better job’ on ‘preservation of American Democracy,’ 46% of registered voters said Republicans compared to 45% who said Democrats.” In the same poll in January, Democrats had the advantage, 50 percent to 48 percent. Interestingly, this month’s poll showed a Democratic advantage on “voting rights” (49 percent to 43 percent) and even “election integrity” (47 percent to 44 percent), so this is not so much an endorsement of Republicans on a specific elections issue; some voters may just feel that the long-term survival of our system is better protected by Republicans, or that Democrats cannot really be trusted to let voters have their way when Republicans win elections. But either way, it is a hilariously embarrassing failure for a core Democratic narrative heading into the midterms.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/desantis-leads-trump-in-2024-new-hampshire-primary-general-election-polls/

A new poll shows that support for Florida governor Ron DeSantis in a hypothetical 2024 GOP presidential contest among likely New Hampshire voters has grown substantially, with DeSantis even boasting a slight lead over former president Donald Trump.

The University of New Hampshire survey found that support for DeSantis has more than doubled since last October to 39 percent. Thirty-seven percent of likely voters said they would vote for Trump. Nine percent said they would vote for former vice president Mike Pence, and six percent said they would support Nikki Haley.

In October, Trump had a sizable lead, garnering support from 43 percent of the same demographic. DeSantis followed with 18 percent, while Haley and Pence trailed at six percent and four percent respectively.

The poll found that in a hypothetical general election matchup against President Biden, DeSantis fares much better than Trump among New Hampshire voters.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/06/desperate-democrats-meddle-in-gop-primaries/

They’re spending millions to help notch primary wins for Republicans they consider unelectable in the general election.

So worried they have spent tens of millions of dollars and counting to promote controversial Republicans in hopes they will win their primaries. In an extremely cynical move, they are pushing candidates in key races who embrace bizarre or unproven theories about the 2020 election and who are the same candidates they claim are a clear and present threat to democracy.

Democratic groups have elevated the profile of marginal or extreme GOP candidates in Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, and Pennsylvania. The reason is that it may work. Helping such Republicans to win their primaries has worked in the past. Democratic senators Claire McCaskill in 2012 and Joe Manchin in 2018 won in part because Democrats worked to nominate the easiest GOP opponents for them (McCaskill was then defeated in her 2018 reelection effort).

In an essay in 2015, “How I Helped Todd Akin Win — So I Could Beat Him Later,” McCaskill recalled her thinking:

We came up with the idea for a ‘dog whistle’ ad, a message that was pitched in such a way that it would be heard only by a certain group of people. I told my team we needed to put Akin’s uber-conservative bona fides in an ad — and then, using reverse psychology, tell voters not to vote for him. And we needed to run the hell out of that ad.

The McCaskill tactic has had some success this year. Pennsylvania state senator Doug Mastriano recently won the GOP gubernatorial nomination in Pennsylvania aided by Democratic-sponsored ads highlighting his conservative agenda. Nonetheless, Mastriano trails Democratic candidate Josh Shapiro by only four points in the latest polls.

In Colorado, liberals are running ads attacking state representative Ron Hanks as “too conservative” in an attempt to raise his profile in the GOP Senate primary.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/06/dsouzas_mules_left_tracks.html

“D’Souza’s documentary is the seminal moment the tide washed away enough mud that, despite their shrieks and howls, the left can no longer hide the ugly truth of what it did.  Massive election fraud in 2020 is a conspiracy, but it is no longer merely a theory.”

Many conservative commentators have noted that Dinesh D’Souza’s documentary, 2000 Mules, offers compelling evidence of large-scale vote fraud.  It offers more than this, though.  It provides compelling evidence of a massive, centrally coordinated conspiracy to commit vote fraud.  Examining several states with different voter laws while focusing on just one form of fraud, the movie found that the method of fraud was executed identically in each of these states.  That is prima facie evidence of central organization and management.

From the moment counting was stopped in the dead of night in five Democrat-run swing states on election night, Democrats and the media have treated anyone who questioned election integrity in 2020 like a mob boss treats anyone who threatens to testify against him: shut up, or we will cancel you.

Democrats and the media routinely smear anyone who questions the election results as a conspiracy theorist.  They routinely pronounce any evidence that emerges as “debunked.”  For the record, “debunked” does not mean “inconvenient to the leftist narrative.”  It means “thoroughly investigated and proven to be false.”  Almost none of the evidence has been debunked; very little has been officially examined.  Leftists treat actual evidence like how a vampire treats a crucifix.  There is no reasoned discourse, just a lot of hissing and snarling.