Shapiro Wants Harris to Lose (Especially Pennsylvania) + Captain K's Debate Debrief

Topic: Perspective

In gleaning bits and pieces of information from the vast expanse of cyberspace, I had intended to make a lengthy post about a chaos theory from within the Democrat Party I’ve become intrigued with; however, since there is so much spin happening from all sides about last night’s debate, I will segue from my chaos theory into my takes on the debate in what will serve as a sort of road dispatch, seeing that I’m writing to you in the air to Chicago for an event this evening over in Kane County.

First, it is obvious that polling, despite being the PSYOP practice it is, is signaling trouble for the Harris campaign.  Several recent national pollsters, far from association with “the right,” are showing a race that is a statistical tie, either dead even or +1 for either candidate.  Keep in mind that most pundits don’t think Harris would win the Electoral College if she won (or “won”) the national popular vote by 3%, which amounts to a margin of roughly 5 million votes (or ballots) – the gap between Trump and Biden in California last time around.  With it impractical to fudge the popular vote too far, and meaningless given our Electoral College configuration, the only thing left to do is cast doubt on the decisive states, which are still looking good for Trump in most cases.

The one everyone is talking about is Pennsylvania.  I have been hearing whispers that the Harris campaign is increasingly anxious about the Keystone State, for good reason, and potentially making plans to attempt a path to 270 without it.  Trump leads in the polling there and another strong registration shift toward the GOP is underway in the same strength it has been moving since 2016, when Trump came on the scene.  If Trump can take its 19 electoral votes, hold North Carolina, and flip Georgia back, then he wins, kicking and screaming from the blue or other decisive states be damned.  Who stands to benefit the most, after Trump and the American people, if Harris and her California Marxism flubs Pennsylvania?

The subversive prick pictured above with Alexander Soros, that’s who.  I’m talking about Josh Shapiro, whose push to become Harris’s running mate was foiled by a combination of Trump outmaneuvering a “Pennsylvania will back a ticket with Shapiro” narrative and Josh’s own ambition.

Shapiro is 51 years old.  He would be 55 if Harris “won” and ran for reelection, then 59 when the Democrats would need another nominee, in what would be a Republican-tilting Electoral College for the ages if she won in 2028 and if we made it that far (and elections were even semi-winnable) given that the Democrats would have “won” 5 of 6 presidential elections leading into 2032.  Eight years of a GOP president starting in 2033 would mean 2040, the year Shapiro turns 67, would be the next most opportune window for him to run. In other words, his political prime is here and now in the 2020s and early 2030s.

What am I getting at here?

I think Shapiro wants Harris to lose, and the best way for that to happen is for her to suffer the consequences of something he can directly impact – ballot harvesting operations and urban election rigging.  Harris eating dirt in November and going out on her back especially by losing Shapiro’s all-important home state makes him the number one guy in 2028 for the Democrats:

·      They picked Walz and he couldn’t get her over in my home state of Pennsylvania. They should have picked me.

·      I am the popular Democrat governor of the most important swing state.

·      I am the only one standing on this stage who can carry Pennsylvania.

For all the talk about Shapiro beating Doug Mastriano for the governorship by the largest non-incumbent margin since 1946, Mastriano had substantially more votes than Democrat Tom Wolf did when he won the governorship in 2014 by 9.9%.  Don’t look at those numbers and tell me Shapiro doesn’t command a massive ballot harvesting apparatus centered around the Philadelphia collar counties that got him more votes than Barack Obama in 2012 or Hillary Clinton in 2016 (and more than Biden should have had in a fair 2020 race).

All that is needed in what will be a race decided within five points is for him to call the dogs off ever so slightly, give orders in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh to run a tight ship, and continue to spread messages that Trump is strong in Pennsylvania, like he was doing last week.

He’s not alone – his counterpart Gavin Newsom has emerged to critique Harris’s elusive antics with regard to the media.  If and when Harris’s West Coast radicalism sinks her, Shapiro will have a clear edge over Newsom, who is a no doubt candidate for 2028 if Trump wins this year.  That’s why it is to Shapiro’s tremendous advantage if Trump wins Pennsylvania in November.

Debate Debrief

Last night convinced me that we have reached a point of no return in this country.  We no longer need debates, and that isn’t only because both sides are dug in, and the mainstream media is in the tank for the regime.  Debates have devolved into bloodsport, with both sides waiting for their candidate to land a wild haymaker and get the shock points, similar to how all basketball skills are thrown out the window when an NBA game turns into a flashy slam dunk contest instead of one that focuses on all-around skill and strategy.

I’ve had twelve hours to let some of the Internet takes sink in, and here is how I think the debate went:

·      I lost interest in the second hour.  I know Trump well enough, and in the background, I found Harris to be nearly impossible to listen to.  I can’t imagine young men, including minorities, are going to be drawn to her hectoring and screeching.  In this way, Harris is basically “America’s ex-wife.”

·      Richard Baris, one of few pollsters I trust, thinks Trump missed layups, but most people recognized Harris’s bitchy attitude, facial expressions, and the clear fact that David Muir was on a mission to “stump Trump.” This debate feels like a “push” with no decisive outcome, much like the 2016 debates with another candidate for “America’s ex-wife” honors.

·      Pursuant to the previous point, Harris should research the battle of Bunker Hill, a British victory in 1775 that cost so many casualties, especially officers, that it crippled their efforts in Massachusetts.  It is a textbook example of what is known as a “Pyrrhic Victory,” or one that comes at such great cost it jeopardizes the remainder of the war.  I say this because she appears to have a slight edge on who “won” the debate, but the focus groups of so-called undecideds have broken strongly for President Trump because he was able to voice policy over the ridiculous fracas on the screen last night. This is true of not only CNN’s panel, but Reuters’ own panel that broke 2:1 for Trump.

·      Harris, if it can be concluded that she “won,” only won because Joe Biden set the bar so low for her in his June season finale that she would look good by default if she could remember her name, stand up straight for two hours, and not defecate behind the podium.

·      I think Trump had better zingers, especially when he turned “I’m talking” around on Harris and referenced the need to wake up Joe Biden at 4 p.m. for a signature. Harris sounded like a broken record stuck on the Lincoln Project soundtrack.

·      Harris didn’t get enough shots in, which is evidenced by Taylor Swift paying her regime dues immediately after the debate (no one gives a damn what you think, Taylor – stick to your awful noise) and Harris instantly rushing to request another debate.  If you think the candidate who has avoided scrutiny and public exposure as much as possible since July is demanding another debate because she’s winning, then I have a beach in Tucson to sell you.

---

Seth Keshel, MBA, is a former Army Captain of Military Intelligence and Afghanistan veteran. His analytical method of election forecasting and analytics is known worldwide, and he has been commended by President Donald J. Trump for his work in the field.