Forget Kennedy Dems. Here Comes the 2024 Kennedy Voter

Forget Kennedy Dems. Here Comes the 2024 Kennedy Voter

'Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s coalition of the disaffected and the dismayed ask not what their government can do for them, but what it’s done to them.'


A New Hope.

Voters looking for a fresh approach.

'Cahill, 50, is a formerly reliable Democratic voter who was alienated by the leftward drift into policies he can’t abide — like a Covid-19 vaccine mandate that almost cost him his firefighting job. On Tuesday, he got up early, driving nearly two hours from the Sacramento area to Oakland, just so he could witness — in person — Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announcing his running mate. (Attorney/philanthropist/documentary producer/fellow former Democrat Nicole Shanahan.) As Cahill sees it, Kennedy’s fierce independence from a sclerotic two-party system is just what the country needs.'

A lot of Americans agree with that.

'Kennedy has what it takes to heal the partisan wounds bedeviling the nation.'

Will the Left Wing Militias of BLM/Antifa soon be attacking and beating RFK supporters, bloody?

'This sunny Tuesday in Oakland, several hundred fervent RFK Jr. fans, some decked out in Kennedy paraphernalia, gather at the Henry J. Kaiser Center for the Arts to show their support of RFK Jr., and where, just outside, another dozen or so folks — some sporting “Kennedy for Measles” stickers — gather to show their contempt of him.'

The RFK voters stand against the illicit control of the American People by authoritarian privileged gentry.

'The new Kennedy voters scattering through the cavernous venue have misgivings about powerful institutions — a panoply of venal politicians, an untrustworthy media, Big Ag, Big Pharma, Big Tech.'

They aren't anti-vax, they are anti government coordinated disinformation attacks on the Free American People to require vaccinations that may not be risk justified.

'A shared aversion to vaccines hardened during the Covid-19 pandemic. They worry about chemicals and monoculture crops eroding public health. They’re weary of grinding foreign wars. They admire Kennedy’s history of challenging powerful corporations.'

Today's men have half the sperm counts and testosterone levels that their fathers and grandfathers enjoyed. Only RFK will even discuss that.

I'm glad he's in the race. With his VP pick who is very close to the major donor class, he now has a much better opportunity for ballot access by having the $Billions necessary to break through the uniparty lock on ballot access in too many states.

If he's polling in the double digits, this fall, look for RFK to be on the debate stage with a wonderful opportunity to communicate to the American People, hopeful for another choice.



Running Strong with Independents. Please discuss.

 

If he was the democrat that got elected as president I'd still be able to sleep as much, not so much with CROOKED JOE in charge

 

Think of all the dirty tricks the left used against Trump in 2016 and 2020, then also look how they went after Roy Moore and Kavanaugh. RFK needs to watch his back

 

At best, RFK Jr. will not do better than Ross Perot did in his best run for the presidency -- a mere 18.9% of the popular vote, and ZERO votes in the Electoral College. All Perot did was make certain that Democrat Bill Clinton won the election in 1992 and in 1996 also!

RFK Jr. supporters say he'll do better, and he might have -- but then he comes out with a VP selection that made absolutely NO political or practical sense at all. There's nothing 'wrong', per se, with Nicole Shanahan, but she has never held a political office in her life.

However -- "She is the "Global Joy Officer" and a member of the board at the Sloomoo Institute."
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicole_Shanahan

 

Not really sure what the appeal of an anti-vax nutjob is, but to each their own.

 

If you look strictly at independents, 66% do not want Biden to run for president again. 58% don’t want Trump to run again either. No doubt both are totally disliked and unwanted by independents who make up roughly 42% of the electorate. If you look at independents only, Trump has a one-point lead, 36-35 over Biden. With the rest stating they’ll either vote third party, will not vote or undecided.


https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/econTabReport_mTlzQOB.pdf


The dislike and unwantedness of both major parties, independents lack any type of enthusiasm about getting out to vote for the presidency. Only 21% of independents are either extremely or very enthusiastic about voting for the presidency this time around. 62% are not too enthusiastic or not enthusiastic at all. For many independents it’s a who cares who wins or loses with the two major party candidates, they dislike and don’t want neither one to become the next president.


71% of all independents state this country needs another choice other that Trump and Biden. 62% of independents would consider voting for an independent or third-party candidate. Hope for JFK Jr. or perhaps no labels?


https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/HHP_Mar2024_KeyResults.pdf


One last thing, among all Americans 26% have a negative view of both Trump and Biden. 34% favorable of Biden but not Trump, 37% favorable of Trump, but not Biden, Among independents only, the election deciders, 37% have a negative or unfavorable view of both Trump and Biden, 27% favorable of Biden, but not Trump, 31% favorable of Trump, but not Biden.


https://www.pewresearch.org/short-r...ve-unfavorable-views-of-both-biden-and-trump/


One could say only republicans like Trump, only democrats like Biden, independents don’t like nor want neither one. Adding independents who dislike, have a negative view of both to those who dislike one or the other, you have 73% of independents who view Biden negatively or unfavorably while 69% view Trump negatively or unfavorably. For independents, this is a pox on both major parties and their chosen candidates.

 

I suspect a lot of former Haley supporters are taking a hard look at Kennedy.
While most voters are admitting that they are voting against (insert name), it seems Kennedy supporters are saying they're voting FOR Kennedy.

HMMMM

 

When you say "antivax nut job" do you mean a person who doesn't believe people should be forced to take vaccinations?

Many voters....Democrat, Republicans and independents don't think they or their children should be forced to take shots ...

 

More along those lines. Asked the reason why Biden supporters are voting for Biden, 40% state they’re for Biden, 58% of Biden voters are just against Trump. Trump supporters, 68% are for Trump, only 32% are voting against Biden.


https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/econTabReport_mTlzQOB.pdf


I find that interesting which if one looked at the exit polls for 2020, those who voted followed basically the same line. Those who voted against a candidate, not for any candidate, didn’t matter who won as long as it wasn’t the candidate they were voting against. Biden won the anti-voters as I called them 68-30 over Trump. Among those who voted for a candidate because they want that candidate to become the next president, Trump won the for vote 53-46 over Biden.


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


Biden owes his presidency to the anti-voters. Not that most Americans wanted him to become president in 2020, they just didn’t want Trump to be reelected. Whoever was Trump’s opponent was fine with them. This explains why a lot of voters voted for Biden then republican down ballot allowing the republicans to gain 13 house seats.

 

RFK would be a better POTUS than Trump. Unfortunately I dont think he's gonna be able to beat the propaganda campaign that the media is waging against him to protect their pharma ad revenues.

 

I started at the RCP average and with the most recent poll, and worked back until I found a poll with Indies broke out, and found the following:



That's a strong showing for RFK, 19% is what Perot got the first time. With that, he certainly deserves a spot on the debate floor.

No Labels is running out of time. Many states require a VP on the ticket for the P to get on the ballot, that's what moved up RFK's VP choice, and it takes $Millions, as in approaching a $Billion to get on all the ballots, given how hard the Uniparty fights to maintain their duopoly.

Well, for those that want a 3rd choice, RFK is probably the strongest 3rd choice, at least since Perot. The difference being that RFK actually wants the job, whereas I think Perot's goal was to ensure the defeat of GHW Bush.

I've often wondered if Perot jumped out because he realized that was probably going to win the presidency if he didn't. Then he jumped back in to make sure that Papa Bush didn't make a comeback.

 

I was working for Perot in 1992, unlike most I knew of him from Vientiane Laos in 1969 while I was stationed there, and Perot flew in with Christmas Presents for our POW’s in Hanoi. Longer story there. I always wondered the same thing. Did Perot drop out because he looked like he was going to win? Perot actually led in the June polls 34 to 32 for Bush to 27 for Clinton in June when he dropped out. I don’t think many of us who were working for Perot at that time believed the reason why he dropped out.


A lot of Republicans blamed Perot for Bush’s loss, but that was going to happen with or without Perot. Here - As for 1992 and Ross Perot, Clinton beat Bush by 6 million votes, Perot received 19 million. To win Bush would have to receive 13 million votes out of Perot’s 19. That is 68% which is very unrealistic. Exit polls show Perot drew 25% of his 19 million votes from Republicans, 20% from Democrats and 55% from independents and first-time voters.


Perot drew 1 million more votes from Republicans than he did Democrats, but that still would have left Clinton with a 5 million vote victory instead of six. What is interesting is how independents voted in in 1992. 38% voted for Clinton, 32% for Bush and 30% for Perot.


Exit Poll Data and the Perot Vote

Now, let’s briefly consider the 1992 exit poll data and the actual composition of the Perot vote. According to the exit poll data, 38% of the Perot voters said they would have voted for Clinton in a two-way race, 38% would have voted for Bush, 24% would not have voted. Perot won 30% of independents, 17% of Republicans, and 13% of Democrats. Put another way, of his 19% popular vote share, 8 percentage points came from independents, 6 from Republicans, and 5 from Democrats. Fully 53% of Perot’s vote came from self-defined moderates, 27% from conservatives and 20% from liberals; so about 10 points of his 19% came from self-described moderates, with 5 points coming from conservatives and 4 points from liberals. We also know from the exit polls that the Perot voters were angrier at the political system than supporters of the other candidates. Do these Perot supporters really look like voters that would have gone heavily to incumbent Bush in a two-candidate race?


http://www.pollingreport.com/hibbitts1202.htm


Yes, it cost money to get on the ballot. Back in 1992 Perot had to hire a bunch of lawyers and bring lawsuits against both major parties just to get on the ballot. It cost him millions back then just to get on the ballot. But he succeeded. This is the last I read on No Labels ballot access - No Labels has ballot access in at least 14 states, worth 123 electoral college votes: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota, and Utah. Signature gatherers have another 14 states in their sights between now and November.


I do think RFK Jr. scares both major parties. They know their candidates are unpopular and unwanted by most Americans. Denying the American People another option is their best bet to ensure one or the other wins. Republicans and Democrats write out election laws and they do so as a mutual protection act. If there’s one thing both agree on, it’s not viable third party or independent will ever rise.

 

I would say that Kennedy is a lesser evil than Biden but I'm pretty sure neither one of them will win the election. That will belong to Trump unless the DNC installs a replacement for Biden.

 

Biden will announce at the August Democrat convention that he's 'stepping aside' (tearful cheers and applause will go on for at least half an hour). A month earlier, Sotomayor will retire from the SCOTUS and Biden and Senate Democrats will stick Kamala-la-la on it pronto! (the best way to get rid of her permanently)

Then they'll put Gavin Newsom in the top-spot and maybe (just, MAYBE) some Mid-West liberal senator with the right gender, and a modicum of intelligence (like Amy Klobuchar). The only thing that ticket would have against it is that both candidates would be White -- but, what the hell, 97% of all the Blacks are going to vote Democrat anyway (as usual). So, there's a classic "slam dunk"!

 

I agree about Newsom replacing Biden as nominee. I think this has been going on for at least a year. Sotomayor is not likely to retire from the court and according to polls 12% of blacks support trump. Another roughly 12% appear not to intend to vote since they say they do not support Biden. The dems will get those votes back with a new candidate. I think the result of the election is up to the DNC. Run Biden and Trump wins. Run someone else and Trump loses. We shall see.

 

I'm a big believer in each of us doing what we can, and making sure we do it. That's what we have the power to do.

If you don't live in one of these states, because of the duopoly, we have no real say. Our votes are banked by one party or the other years in advance. So what the rest of us can do, if we so choose, is choose the best 3rd party candidate, other than GOP and Dem and make a statement and trust that millions will join us. I also think that RFK is an above average caliber 3rd party choice, so this is a good election cycle to get behind this.

 

How can the Democrats say they’re for saving democracy when they’re working hard to deny ballot access to independents and third-party candidates? Perhaps saving democracy for the democrats is having only the democrats on the ballot ALA the old USSR. I live in Georgia, RFK Jr. if he’s on the ballot is probably the way I’ll go. Mainly because it seems to me Democrats are trying to destroy democracy as much as they state Trump is trying to do by rigging the ballot to limit the choices to just two candidates.


RFK Jr. and the ballot access wars


https://www.politico.com/newsletter...21/rfk-jr-and-the-ballot-access-wars-00148478

 

Is it just Democrats or are the Republicans working to keep 3rd party candidates off, as well?

I think he's going to get my vote. I'd love to see him in the national debates and see how he responds in that format.

 

In the past it’s been both working hard and pulling all sorts of shenanigans to keep independents and third-party candidates off the ballot. This year, I’ve read 3 or 4 articles on RFK Jr. ballot access, all of them were talking Democrats. Especially about the team of lawyers put together by the democrats targeting RFK Jr. to prevent him from gaining ballot access. Nevada is the most recent where after obtaining enough signatures, he was told he had to have a VP and all the signatures RFK Jr. obtained were now invalid. Problem was there was no place on the form given to RFK Jr. by Nevada for him to fill out for a VP name. No place at all. Nevada changed the rules and form only after RFK Jr. being successful in obtaining enough signature to qualify for the Nevada presidential ballot.


Far as I know, the republicans haven’t tried to prevent RFK Jr. from obtaining ballot access. They may have, if so the media and RFK Jr’s team haven’t reported on it. So far as I can gleam, it has been only the democrats. How’s that for saving democracy, keeping candidates off the ballot. That’s anathema to a democracy ideals. How can one say they’re saving democracy when they won’t let the opposition to them on the ballot or at least try to deny the opposition a place on the ballot?


As for debates, the RNC has pulled out of the bipartisan debate commission. Chances are there will be none.


https://www.npr.org/2022/04/14/1092...the-biased-commission-on-presidential-debates

 

Well, they aren't the only folks who can host a debate.

Trump loves a huge audience.
I think the tune in to a RFK/Trump debate would be massive.
What better way to show that Bribed Joe isn't up to the job, than to have Bribed Joe not show up?

And if he does show up, I think the audience will be unfavorably comparing Biden to RFK

 

I’ve always been partial to having the League of Woman’s Voters hosting the debates. But the League made the mistake of allowing Perot into the debates. So, the two major parties took the debates away from the League of Woman’s Voters by forming the so called bipartisan commission on presidential debates to ensure that no third party or independent will never be in the debates again.


Debates between two challengers with the sitting president absent has happened before. Reagan debated Anderson back in 1980 with no Jimmy Carter. Carter refused to attain if Anderson was present. The debate went on without Carter.

 

There's nothing 'wrong', per se, with Nicole Shanahan, but she has never held a political office in her life.
---
That's how you drain the swamp.

 

I've been watching these 'trial balloons' percolating up in the liberal news media since the first of the year about Sotomayor and her well-known health issues. Here's an article (without paywall) from liberal journalist, Josh Barro, who writes for very liberal "The Atlantic": https://www.joshbarro.com/p/sonia-sotomayor-must-retire

Barro's article in "The Atlantic" does have a paywall, but here's the article they ran just a few days ago: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/03/sonia-sotomayor-should-retire/677764/

Now, admittedly, there isn't anything in either of these stories to suggest that the inner-circle of Democrat decision makers would stick Kamala-la-la on the SCOTUS -- but -- it would be a masterstroke if they did! Consider: Kamala has been the Attorney General of California, so she's got "legal experience cred". Best of all, it gives her an honorable step-down honorific... and gets her the hell out of the political spotlight!

Plus, it would work well for Democrats to simply replace one far-Left liberal Sotomayor with another far-Left liberal Kamala Harris. Biden could nominate Kamala, and Schumer could ram it through the Senate even faster than Trump got Amy Coney Barrett on the SCOTUS.

My solution would "scratch the itch" of what to do with both Joe Biden and Kamala, since obviously nobody in the Democrat Party really wants either one of these twits to run in 2024....

 

The article described how Trump cultists -- "disaffected Democratic voters" or "independents" -- love Kennedy.

We're good with Kennedy taking votes from Trump.

Notice how it's only the Trump crowd here heaping praise on Kennedy?