Nov. 5, 2024

Permission to republish original opeds and cartoons granted.

 

Three things you can do to save the country

By Rick Manning

1:         Vote.   If you haven’t already, please go to the polls and vote for Donald Trump for President.  

2:         Encourage others to vote:  Simply copy this URL This year, vote. And share it with your friends on Facebook, TruthSocial, X and you might even go so far as to email it to those who you believe are like-minded who need a little boost to vote.  The people who you encourage to get to the polls might be the difference-making vote.  

3:         Report fraud:  If you personally see (not heard about, but actually experience) fraudulent activity whether it be having a machine change or failing to record your vote, or people being denied ability to vote, contact www.protectthevote.com/reportfraud

Just click the link and choose your state.   You will be provided a form to submit a report.  It will ask your name, phone number, email address, time of the issue, Type of ballot, Location of Issue, County and Address or Location Details.  

All of this data will allow the RNC to rapidly identify problem areas so they can investigate and take legal action rapidly.   

It is critical that people use this resource only to report actions that they have witnessed and not as a means to share something they heard on Facebook or elsewhere.  

VOTE

Revelations coming from five counties in Pennsylvania that a flood of last minute voter registration forms have been found to be riddled with purged signatures and a massive Democrat-led voter registration fraud scheme is being perpetrated in conservative counties in Pennsylvania is a threat to the legitimacy of our electoral system.

The fact that the same well-funded left-wing group was caught in the act in Michigan in 2020 flooding at least one county with fake voter registrations without any legal repercussions by the Democrat Attorney General, Secretary of State or Governor has emboldened this direct threat to the one person/one vote idea.

The principle of one person, one vote is the foundation of our electoral system. This year, vote.

Rick Manning is the President of Americans for Limited Government. 

To view online: https://dailytorch.com/2024/11/three-things-you-can-do-to-save-the-country/

---

Cartoon: Families At Risk

By A.F. Branco

Click here for a higher level resolution version.

To view online: https://dailytorch.com/2024/11/cartoon-families-at-risk/ 

---

Eight Bellwether States’ Margins Of Victory To Watch On Election Night: NY, SC, NJ, IN, VA, OH, NH and FL

By Robert Romano

It’s Election Day and that means once polls start closing this evening, everyone is going to want to know some indication about what’s going on across the country to divine, albeit imperfectly, what might be going on in critical battleground states like Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Arizona, Nevada and Wisconsin, but also what’s going on with the popular vote.

On the latter, generally winning the popular vote makes the Electoral College a sure thing for Republicans — no Republican has ever won the popular vote and lost the Electoral College in U.S. electoral history — but less so for Democrats, who have had the largest pluralities in 1824, 1888, 2000 and 2016 of the popular vote, or in 1876, a majority of the popular vote, but ended up losing the Electoral College.

Swing states are generally harder to discern a compelling pattern but a few things seem true about the popular vote: Only Samuel Tilden in 1876 received a majority of the popular vote (greater than 50 percent) and ended up losing the Electoral College. 

Since it’s only happened once, if Vice President Kamala Harris is on track for a majority of the popular vote nationally, it is extremely unlikely (although still possible) that she would lose the Electoral College. 

But if she is on track to get less than 50 percent of the popular vote, then she might suffer the same fate as Andrew Jackson in 1824, Grover Cleveland in 1888, Al Gore in 2000 and Hillary Clinton in 2016. But how to tell what might happen in the popular vote, given recent demographics and political trends in the U.S.?

I propose looking at the margins of victory in states Democrats or Republicans are considered highly likely to win tonight but also including at least two swing states for each side, meaning both parties had won there since 2000. Therefore, two solid blue states, two solid red states, generally speaking, and four swing states that have gone both ways in recent history, and will be called earlier enough to determine, again, imperfectly, what might be happening everywhere else. 

For Democrats, we’ll look at New York, New Jersey, Virginia and New Hampshire in 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016 and 2020. And for Republicans, we’ll look at South Carolina, Indiana, Ohio and Florida those same years. 

	New York	New Jersey	Virginia	New Hampshire
2000	60.2% D/35.2% R	56.1% D/40.3% R	44.4% D/52.5% R	46.8% D/48.1% R
2004	58.4% D/40% R	52.9% D/46.2% R	45.5% D/53.7% R	50.2% D/48.9% R
2008	62.8% D/36% R	57.1% D/41.6% R	52.6% D/46.3% R	54.2% D/44.5% R
2012	63.3% D/35.2% R	58.2% D/40.5% R	51.1% D/47.3% R	51.1% D/46.4% R
2016	59.4% D/36.7% R	55.4% D/41.3% R	49.7% D/44.4% R	47.6% D/47.3% R
2020	60.9% D/37.4% R	57.3% D/41.4% R	54.1% D/44.4% R	52.7% D/45.4% R

 

Starting with the Democrats, in New York, in years Republicans won the Electoral College, Democrats’ margin of victory in New York averaged just 22 percentage points, and in years Democrats won the Electoral College, their margin averaged 26.1 points.

In New Jersey, in Republican years, Democrats’ margin of victory averaged 12.2 points, and in Democratic years, it averaged 16.2 points.

In Virginia, in Republican years, Republicans’ margin of victory averaged 3.6 points, and in Democratic years, Democrats’ margin of victory averaged 6.6 points.

And in New Hampshire, in Republican years, Democrats’ margin of victory averaged 0.1 points, and in Democratic years, it averaged 7.2 points.

	South Carolina	Indiana	Ohio	Florida
2000	56.8% R/40.9% D	56.6% R/41% D	49.9% R/46.5% D	48.8% R/48.8% D
2004	57.9% R/40.9% D	56.9% R/39.3% D	50.8% R/48.7% D	52.1% R/47.1% D
2008	53.4% R/44.9% D	48.8% R/49.9% D	46.9% R/51.5% D	48.1% R/50.9% D
2012	54.6% R/44.1% D	54.1% R/43.4% D	47.6% R/50.6% D	49.1% R/50.0% D
2016	54.9% R/40.7% D	56.5% R/37.5% D	51.3% R/43.2% D	49.0% R/47.8% D
2020	55.1% R/43.4% D	57.0% R/40.9% D	53.3% R/45.2% D	51.2% R/47.9% D

 

As for the Republicans, in South Carolina, in Republican years, Republicans’ margin of victory averaged 15.7 points, and in Democratic years, it averaged 10.2 points.

In Indiana, in Republican years, Republicans’ margin of victory averaged 17.4 points, and in Democratic years, it averaged 8.6 points.

In Ohio, in Republican years, Republicans’ margin of victory averaged 4.5 points, and in Democratic years, it averaged 0.17 points.

And in Florida, in Republican years, Republicans’ margin of victory averaged 2 points, and in Democratic years, Democrats’ margin of victory averaged 0.13 points.

In all eight cases, definitive patterns emerge. For example, big Republican wins in South Carolina above 15 points and in Indiana above 17 points appear to predict Republicans wins in Ohio, Florida and the rest of the Electoral College. Whereas, smaller margins of Republican victory of, say, 10 points and 9 points, respectively, predict a Democratic win in both the popular vote and the Electoral College.

And, big Democratic wins in New York of more than 25 points and 16 points in New Jersey appear to predict Democratic wins in the popular vote, Virginia, New Hampshire and the Electoral College. Whereas smaller wins of 22 points and 12 points predict a Republican win in the Electoral College.

Mixed results in between those ranges might indicate a very close race, and late hours, days or even weeks of counting until we know the outcome, like 2000 and 2020. Or if the above scenarios play out one way or another, a somewhat decisive win, as in 2008, 2012 and 2016.

As for the popular vote for Trump, something that alluded Republicans since 2004, it would appear Trump would need to pull an upset and win in Virginia, for example, to accomplish that feat. 

All of these potential outcomes have massive implications down the ballot in Congress. In five out of six instances, the winner of the Electoral College also won a majority in the House of Representatives, with the lone exception being 2012 when Barack Obama was running for reelection but failed to reclaim the House (a feat no president since Harry Truman accomplished in 1948). 

And in six out of six instances, the winner of the Electoral College also won a majority in the Senate, although the year 2000 comes with an asterisk, where although Republicans won 50 seats plus the presidency, and should have had a majority with the Vice President, the defection of Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords temporarily flipped the Senate to Democrats.

We’ll see how this all plays out tonight as that is more than enough to chew on for your own scorecards. 2024 has been an exceptional election year, but in many ways, considering the above, the outcome might turn out to be rather normal when all of the bellwethers are considered in hindsight. We’ll see. Stay tuned.

Robert Romano is the Vice President of Public Policy at Americans for Limited Government Foundation. 

To view online: https://dailytorch.com/2024/11/eight-bellwether-states-margins-of-victory-to-watch-on-election-night-ny-sc-nj-in-va-oh-nh-and-fl/ 

---

 

Mark Mills: A Looming Political Earthquake

By Mark Mills

If it weren’t for the election season swamping news coverage, odds are more people would be talking about the revelation that, to quote a Bloomberg headline, “The World Bank Somehow Lost Track of at Least $24 Billion.” In fact, that may understate the reality: the World Bank’s “accounting gap” could be as big as $41 billion. The missing funds in question were for “climate finance” projects, “financed by taxpayer dollars from its member countries, the biggest being the US.”

According to the Oxfam report that was the source for the Bloomberg story, “There is no clear public record showing where this money went or how it was used, which makes any assessment of its impacts impossible.” It is possible that much, maybe even most, of the missing money went to the intended people and purposes. But only the hopelessly naïve would dismiss the probability of rampant waste, malfeasance, graft, and outright theft as explanations for that “gap.” Spending of such magnitude and velocity with sloppy oversight is an invitation to thieves.

But the oversight scandal at the World Bank is chump change compared with the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and its massive planned “climate finance” program. The misnamed IRA is, in the words of its advocates, the “largest climate policy in US history.” [emphasis added] The law’s ambitions dwarf those of the World Bank. By various estimates, the IRA will lead to some $3 trillion in direct spending on grants, subsidies, and the like, plus another $3 trillion in related spending induced by mandates and rules. For perspective, that’s far more than the cost of Obamacare, and even more than the $4 trillion the U.S. spent (inflation adjusted) to fight World War II.

It makes zero difference which side you’re on regarding the urgency of climate change: the associated policies and spending are almost entirely about trying to create an “energy transition.” Nor does it matter what you think about whether such a transition is sensible (it isn’t): the sheer immensity of IRA spending represents a “whole of government” opportunity for waste, abuse, and fraud on an unprecedented scale.

If the likelihood for waste and abuse doesn’t strike you as obvious, consider a few well-documented features of federal spending in general. A March 2024 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on overall federal government spending in FY2023 found that “more than $175 billion of errors were overpayments—for example, payments to deceased individuals or those no longer eligible for government programs,” and “$44.6 billion were unknown payments.” [emphasis added] The only “good news,” the GAO wrote, was that the “unknown” was $11 billion less than in the previous fiscal year, when Covid money was still being liberally ladled out. Again, only the naïve would conclude that waste, fraud, and abuse didn’t account for any of those “unknown” payments and “errors” in the normal course of our government’s $6 trillion annual budget.

Now along comes the IRA, another federal government gusher, with its overall $6 trillion directed at “climate finance,” with far fewer administrative and oversight guardrails than one normally finds in federal programs. What could go wrong?

Where are all the curious investigative journalists? Fortunately, a few still exist, notably James Varney at RealClearInvestigations, who has recently published a preliminary investigation: “Overnight Success: Biden’s Climate Splurge Gives Billions to Nonprofit Newbies.”

The purpose of Varney’s investigation wasn’t to question the efficacy of the underlying spending policies, their cost-effectiveness, or their capacity to achieve their stated goals. (For the record, we have good reasons to question both the policies’ efficacy and goals. For example, a new analysis from the National Bureau of Economic Research reveals that the “IRA spends $23,000 to $32,000 per incremental EV sold.”) Rather, Varney sought answers to simple questions that fall under the purview of investigative journalism: Who’s getting the money, and what is it being spent on? Let’s hope Varney will inspire more reporters to dig in, because the massive scale of this “whole of government” spending program cannot possibly be covered by one person.

By necessity, Varney focused on just one tiny corner: the White House’s $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. As an EPA press release announced this past April: “Biden-Harris Administration Announces $20 Billion in Grants to Mobilize Private Capital and Deliver Clean Energy and Climate Solutions to Communities Across America.” Varney found that there isn’t “much public information” about many of the organizations receiving the funding, nor about what they’re doing or planning to do with the money.

Merely reading the EPA press release would raise some reasonable questions about the potential for waste and the relevance to “climate.” For instance, the EPA announcement says that one of the awards aims to “[d]edicate over $14 billion toward low-income and disadvantaged communities, including over $4 billion for rural communities as well as almost $1.5 billion for Tribal communities—ensuring that program benefits flow to the communities most in need and advance the President’s Justice40 Initiative.” Need it be said that poor communities consume far less energy than wealthier ones? Thus, changing behaviors or purchases among them would do nearly nothing to achieve the IRA’s stated climate goals. Regardless, one would want to know more about what, exactly, the grant-receiving organizations are doing or will do, and who runs them.

Varney reported that one award recipient obtained nonprofit status in 2023 and eight months later received a $940 million award. Another awardee received $2 billion just one month after obtaining nonprofit status and showing a prior reported income of $100 (not a typo). Varney doesn’t accuse any of these organizations of misdeeds; he merely sets out to establish some clarity on who got what, when, and where the money is going. However, when he contacted various recipients, he received either no responses or elliptical ones.

Again, setting aside the question of whether the spending will be useful, a reasonable person might object that we’re still in the early days and that it’s hard to spool up such an ambitious program. All true. But of course, the beginning is precisely the time when opportunities for waste and fraud get baked into a program. Varney reports: “The [$27 billion] awards were made by the Environmental Protection Agency, which is new to the world of major grantmaking. The agency acknowledges it has never handed out such gigantic sums of money, and its inspector general told Congress last month it marked a ‘fantastically complex’ and ‘unusual’ setup that his small staff would be hard-pressed to follow.”

Thus, we come back to obvious questions, such as: How is the grant-giving entity organized to evaluate and monitor funding recipients? How many of the groups were formed by political insiders? Regarding the latter, such arrangements can be perfectly benign, since insiders know where the money and opportunities reside. But the public has a right to know more. Certainly, one would hope Congress will put in place effective oversight. It is a huge amount of money. Again, from Varney’s reporting: “‘I can’t say enough about how complex this system will be,’ EPA Inspector General Sean O’Donnell testified to a House subcommittee in September. ‘It’s like they created an investment bank. It’s fantastically complex. I think it’s unusual.’”

Democrats have been eager to extol the IRA’s virtues. (The law was passed without a single Republican vote, only the second time something so consequential was so partisan. The other was Obamacare, which, it bears noting, didn’t create a “whole of government” lallapaloosa of multibillion-dollar grant-giving programs.) Given the stated claims and goals of the IRA, and the quantity of money already ladled out, one would expect to have seen far more news and press releases touting program successes. The IRA is, after all, the most expensive effort ever made to restructure an entire U.S. sector.

In the absence of further information, we can make a few reasonable suppositions: if the IRA is subject to typical levels of waste, abuse, and fraud for government largesse, then odds are that a major political tectonic shift is on the horizon. Perhaps more than any other single factor, the undoing of the climate-industrial complex could come from the volume of money being pushed into the economy to accelerate an impossible goal: the “energy transition.”

The popular expression “follow the money” comes from the iconic 1976 movie, All the President’s Men, which dramatized the Watergate investigation and the subsequent political earthquake. IRA spending dwarfs anything that precedes it. If serious investigative journalists do follow the money, it’s a good bet that we’ll see gargantuan scandals emerge.

To view online: https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-inflation-reduction-act-a-looming-political-earthquake?skip=1