Here’s an interesting clip of Megyn Kelly interviewing Ashley Hayek about Trump’s ground game operation.
This election seemed personal for a lot of people democrats thought they could safely ignore or bully into submission.
Here’s an interesting clip of Megyn Kelly interviewing Ashley Hayek about Trump’s ground game operation.
This election seemed personal for a lot of people democrats thought they could safely ignore or bully into submission.
Trump keeps winning, Democrats are screwed, more “questionable” Democratic vote drops, a couple of disturbing deaths (only one TDS-related), and a Disney princess dines on shoe yet again. Plus: Satan!
It’s the Friday LinkSwarm!
There is a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth among Democrats, following Donald Trump’s unexpected (by them) victory. How could this possibly have happened? is the question newspapers, television hosts, and Democratic pundits are asking.
It actually isn’t a hard question to answer. The Biden/Harris administration had an indefensible record, and Kamala Harris didn’t seriously try to defend it, absurdly presenting herself as the candidate of change, while at the same time unable to identify a single respect in which her administration would be different from Biden’s.
Voters were unhappy about inflation, about the economy in general, and about the border. The Democrats, having created these problems, had no solutions to offer. Instead, they tried to tell voters that their concerns were imaginary.
Also, Kamala herself was a lousy candidate.
But the reality is worse than that. As the dust settles, I think Democrats will realize they are in a deeper hole than they thought. It was no coincidence that Harris refused to say what her position was on a variety of issues, earning the title of the “no comment” candidate–something that must be unprecedented in presidential history. The problem wasn’t that Kamala was tongue-tied, the problem was that the Democrats no longer have a coherent policy agenda.
The one issue that Harris never refrained from talking about was abortion. That is, today, the Democrats’ signature–and arguably only–issue. Apart from a fervent devotion to abortion, up to the moment of birth and beyond, what do they stand for?
A few years ago, the energy in the Democratic Party was in its socialist wing. Several of its seemingly up-and-coming representatives were members of the Democratic Socialists of America, and Bernie Sanders is the grand old man of socialism. On one memorable occasion, Nancy Pelosi was unable to explain how a Democrat is different from a socialist.
But the bloom is off that rose. Socialism was never a serious alternative for America; it is a discredited ideology that has been rejected around the world. And socialism is not a plausible ideology for a party whose core demographic is people who earn over $200,000 a year.
The Democrats are the party of DEI and Kamala Harris was a DEI candidate, but DEI is widely unpopular. The United States has labored under affirmative action, of which DEI is the current iteration, for 50 years. But Americans don’t like race discrimination or sex discrimination, and they believe in merit. An unbroken history of polling, stretching back for decades, has found that race and sex discrimination in employment and education are unpopular. Despite the massive corporate, government and cultural pressure that has tried to force DEI on Americans, that remains true. DEI, now on its way out, can hardly be the basis for future Democratic campaigns.
Opening the borders and admitting millions of illegal immigrants has been the core policy priority of the Biden administration, as reflected in Biden’s day-one executive orders. But it was a policy prescription that Democrats were never able to openly articulate and defend. Thus, as the 2024 election approached they were reduced to making the absurd claim that “the Southern border is secure.” Open borders are deeply and correctly unpopular, and do not provide a platform on which any future Democrat can run, although no doubt we will see plenty of tearjerking stories about illegals who are being deported.
Etc. Democrats are on the loser side of pretty much every issue.

The Texas Democrat Party Chairman, Gilberto Hinojosa, has announced his resignation after a significant statewide electoral defeat in Tuesday’s election.
Hinojosa, a South Texas lawyer first elected to the role in 2012, has overseen a period marked by Democrat losses, particularly among Hispanic voters and in border counties.
Despite ongoing claims that Texas was on the verge of “turning blue” for over a decade, Democrats have failed to secure a statewide victory in 30 years. In Tuesday’s election, President Donald Trump won Texas by more than 13 points, including victories in 12 of the state’s 14 border counties. U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz also defeated his Democrat opponent by approximately nine points.
Speaking to KUT News on Wednesday, Hinojosa attributed the party’s loss partially to its focus on radical gender ideology. For example, during the party’s convention in June, delegates were addressed by a female drag queen (a woman dressed as a man dressed as a woman). When asked about “transgender rights,” he responded, “I think what the Democratic Party has to realize is that there’s some things that we can support and some things that we cannot. And when we’re pressed upon to take votes of these kinds, we need to be mindful of the long-term consequences of these choices.”
Of course, then he had to issue a groveling apology to the alphabet people. And that’s why you continue to lose…
I VOTED TRUMP/MAHA/UNITY. I hope others will do the same.
For some reason, many people seem to think I’m not voting. For the record, that is NEVER my move. My typical approach is: “If you don’t have a candidate in this election, vote (as if) in the next one.” That usually means…
— Bret Weinstein (@BretWeinstein) November 4, 2024
Major Nielsen ratings plunge at MSNBC since Trump won, practically every day since. Just one example – 10/30 Wednesday vs Fri 11/8 –
Morning Joe 1st hour – down 39.6%
Morning Joe 2d hour – down 36.9%
Andrea Mitchell – down 39.7%
Ari Melber – down 49.6%
Joy Reid’s Reidout – down…— Elizabeth MacDonald (@LizMacDonaldFOX) November 12, 2024

The wife of a well-known transgender writer has been charged with murdering her father with an ice axe the night of Donald Trump’s election to the presidency. She then allegedly shattered the windows of the $800,000 Rainier Valley, Washington, home in which she and her father lived in what she claimed was an “act of liberation,” according to charging documents.
Corey Burke, 33, who is married to transgender writer Samantha Leigh Allen, the author of “Real Queer America: LGBT Stories from Red States,” was discovered after the death of her father, Timothy Burke, 67 — who had health issues — “smiling and clapping covered in her loved one’s blood, cops said,” according to The New York Post, which added that Burke “allegedly confessed to investigators the next day that she killed her father with the ax and also by strangling him. She also admitted to biting her father while choking him, the docs alleged.”
Yikes. I guess a lesbian who married a guy pretending to be a woman isn’t the most stable person in the world…


All of Ken Paxton’s lawsuits against the federal government have offered the possibility of notable revelations, but this one has the potential to be extra spicy.
Texas sued the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on Monday attempting to preserve all records pertaining to Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into President-elect Donald Trump.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) complaint on November 8 requesting specific records from Smith’s investigation, including “all Communications from any current or former member of the Office of Special Counsel Jack Smith to any New York State governmental office since November 18, 2022,” as well as “documents memorializing the … final reasoning to request that a trial against President-elect Trump to start in January of 2024.”
Texas expressed concerns in court documents that the DOJ’s history with special counsels is “regrettably riddled with attempts to avoid transparency,” specifically referencing Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s infamous Crossfire Hurricane incident in 2020. Mueller’s team allegedly repeatedly wiped their phones after an investigation into the DOJ’s handling of a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) probe into Trump’s purportedly unlawful links to Russia.
The suit filed on November 11 states that Paxton “fears that many releasable records — including those that he sought — will never see daylight. That is not because the DOJ has any legal reason to withhold them…”
“Rather, Attorney General Paxton has a well-founded belief as set forth herein that Defendants will simply destroy the records.”
Paxton states in the filing that since Trump won the election “it is clear that both Jack Smith’s office, and his prosecution of the President, will soon end.” The DOJ’s own policies do not permit bringing charges against a sitting President of the United States as it “would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.”
“I will not allow the corrupt weaponization of the United States government to be swept under the rug as Jack Smith and others who unjustly targeted President Trump attempt to avoid accountability,” Paxton said in a press release.
Texas’ suit was filed in the United States District Court Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division.
Obviously I hope Paxton prevails and that Smith (and the entire Biden Administration)’s attempts to illegally wage lawfare against Trump to thwart the will of American voters gets exposed. However (and here we insert the usual I Am Not A Lawyer caveat), it appears that Paxton will have difficulty in establishing standing for the lawsuit to proceed. Trump is not a resident of Texas, and it may be difficult to establish that the State of Texas has suffered direct harm from Smith’s actions.
However, in this case I’m wondering if Paxton has filed the case on a timeline that either the Biden Administration doesn’t respond in time, or that the second Trump Administration can file the response, proving a mechanism by which the Trump Administration settles the lawsuit by releasing all requested documents that may otherwise be held up by claims of executive privilege, garden variety DOJ stonewalling, etc.
It’s an interesting gambit. We’ll see how it plays out…
Tired of enjoying a nice heaping plate of schadenfreude at liberal dismay over Trump’s win? Well, I’m not! Enjoy some of the most confidently smug Democrats declaring that there’s no way Trump can win.
Highlights:
Seems like Democrats lack imagination about a whole lot of things…
The work of undoing the Biden Administration’s unlawful importation of millions of illegal aliens didn’t stop with Kamala’s defeat, and Texas and other states just won an important legal victory to help secure the border.
Texas received a final judgment permanently blocking a Biden administration “parole in place” (PIP) policy that would have allegedly allowed over a million illegal aliens to secure citizenship without satisfying “clear” congressionally-issued requirements.
That policy established a process for “certain noncitizen spouses and noncitizen stepchildren of U.S. citizens” to get around federal prohibitions against certain immigration benefits being obtained until after leaving the country and returning in a legal manner, according to the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) press release.
The final judgment was issued on November 7, along with United States District Judge Campbell Parker’s opinion determining that the Biden administration lacks “statutory authority” to implement the PIP program.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, along with 15 other states and co-counsel America First Legal (AFL), filed a lawsuit on August 23 against the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS), alleging that the Biden administration was violating the U.S. Constitution in its new agency rule adopted on August 19.
The primary complaint against the DHS rule is that it allows a roundabout path for certain non-legal spouses and stepchildren of U.S. citizens to receive legal permanent status without going through the proper process such as applying for it at an embassy or consulate in one’s home country before becoming a legal citizen. The concern over the DHS rule was that instead of following the protocol established by Congress, the aforementioned illegal aliens would be allowed to stay in the country under “parole,” during which they could apply for citizenship status, all without leaving the country.
Paxton was granted a temporary stay on August 26, blocking the policy while litigation proceeded.
“Once again we have stopped the Biden-Harris Administration’s radical attempts to destroy America’s borders and undermine the rule of law,” Paxton said in a press release.
“This unlawful parole scheme would have rewarded more than 1 million illegal aliens with citizenship and incentivized millions more to break into our country. I look forward to the day when the federal government starts following the law again,” he concluded.
Judge Parker’s opinion concluded in agreement with the 16-state coalition’s claim that the “defendants lack statutory authority … itself to grant parole ‘in place’ to aliens … or to deem parole ‘in place’ as used there to be parole ‘into the United States.’”
Lawsuit by lawsuit, the open borders insanity of the Biden Administration is being rolled back, laying the foundation for President Trump to start promised mass deportations upon re-assuming office.
Here’s a short, interesting video of a black, female YouTuber with a punk rock haircut who goes by Gothix, who found herself inadvertently red-pilled.
If you know a white liberal who reflexively calls Trump a racist, send them a link to this video.
And I’ll have to track down that Uncle Tom documentary…
Fallout from Trump’s decisive victory over the Obama Machine continues to land fast and heavy. So let’s do a roundup before the Friday LinkSwarm gets unwieldy.
For months now, they have been saying that mainstream pollsters and pundits predicting a Harris victory were full of it. They were right. The late Harris surge in the polls was a mirage. The stories that recently appeared in outlets such as Politico about massive last-minute swings to Harris among independents, Hispanics offended by a comic’s Puerto Rico joke, and educated women—all of it was bullshit, invented out of whole cloth by Harris campaign operatives and repeated by journalists such as Jonathan Martin as if it were fact. In the end, none of it was real. The election wasn’t even close.
How did Trump do it? We’ve seen some suggestive exit polls showing, for instance, Trump winning more than 40% of the Jewish vote in New York City; that sounds right, but we’d caution that exit polls are notoriously unreliable. County data, on the other hand, is rock-solid…
To put that in simple terms: Pretty much the entire country shifted toward Trump. That includes deep-blue strongholds. The New York Post reported Wednesday morning that Harris was leading New York by a little more than 11% with 95% of votes counted—the worst performance by a Democrat in the Empire State since Michael Dukakis in 1988. Trump cracked 30% in New York City—also the best performance by a Republican since 1988, driven by a 35% improvement in the Bronx relative to 2020 and improvements of 20% and 16.5% in Manhattan and Queens, respectively. Finally, Trump blew the doors off of several heavily minority counties across the country, flipping Florida’s Osceola County (home to a large Puerto Rican population) and Texas’s 97% Hispanic Starr County. He won the latter by nearly 16% after losing it by 5% to Biden—a 21-point swing in four years. It was, as Ryan Girdusky observed on X, the first time Starr County had voted for a Republican since 1892.
We’ve seen some talk of a “realignment election,” with the Republicans broadening their appeal among the multiracial working class while the Democrats become more entrenched in affluent white suburbs. We’ll have to wait for more detailed demographic breakdowns to say for sure, but what the above table suggests to us is something different: a “whole of society” (to borrow a term) rejection of Kamala Harris and her party. Punchbowl’s congressional reporter, Max Cohen, cited a Democratic House source this morning who summed up the result nicely: “This was a total and complete repudiation of the Democratic Party. People are not buying what we’re selling. Period.”
Now that we have the election results, it appears that the gender gap actually shrunk.
In 2020, President Joe Biden won women by a 15-point margin, 57% to 42%. This year, Vice President Kamala Harris won women by a much smaller 8-point, 53% to 45% margin.
But while the gap between men and women actually shrank this year, another gap widened. In 2020, married voters narrowly chose President Donald Trump by a 7-point, 53% to 46% margin. This year that margin grew to 13 points at 56% to 43%.
For all the talk of Trump’s problem with women, Trump actually won married women by three points, 51 to 48. To repeat, Trump won a majority of not just married white women, but a majority of all married women.
Trump also handily won married men 60-38 and he even eked out a victory among unmarried men 49-47. Where Trump got crushed was among unmarried women, who chose Harris (who didn’t get married until age 50, by the way) by a 60-38 margin.
Sorry to beat a dead horse, but can we go back to what happened here? pic.twitter.com/FkScNHivuU
— zerohedge (@zerohedge) November 6, 2024
The editor in chief of @sciam, Laura Helmuth, has increasingly pushed the publication to take ideological stances on scientific issues, such as gender medicine. Despite evidence that when Nature endorsed Joe Biden, this compromised readers’ trust, she had SciAm endorse Harris. https://t.co/QjyNP17wJw
— Benjamin Ryan (@benryanwriter) November 6, 2024
Voters in the state [reversed] course after previously supporting a measure that lightened penalties for theft and otherwise gutted crime-control efforts in this state. California Proposition 36, also known as the “Allows Felony Charges and Increases Sentences for Certain Drug and Theft Crimes” measure, passed with over 70% of the vote.
Proposition 36 would walk back much of the decade-old Proposition 47, turning some theft misdemeanors into felonies, requiring a warning about a possible murder charge for selling or providing drugs, and creating a new “treatment-mandated felony,” according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office.
…[T]he Family Business Association of California has called Proposition 47 “catastrophic” for the state, saying homelessness has gone up by 51% and smash-and-grab crimes have cost businesses nearly $9 billion a year. It says Proposition 36 will fix a loophole in Proposition 47 that allows thieves to take less than $950 in property from different stores and remain a misdemeanor.
Under Proposition 36, theft would be classified as a felony offense if the suspect has two or more past convictions for certain theft crimes, such as shoplifting, burglary and carjacking. The sentence would then be up to three years in county jail or state prison.
With 51 percent of the vote reported, Proposition 33—which would have repealed all state-level limitations on local rent control policies—is capturing the support of just 38 percent of voters. The New York Times is declaring the initiative done and dusted.
This is the third failed ballot initiative sponsored by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) that would have loosened or repealed California’s state-level limits on rent control. Prop. 33 could also be the AHF’s last ballot initiative.
That’s thanks to the apparent (narrow, but not yet confirmed) victory for Proposition 34, which would effectively prevent AHF from spending money on political activism.
Prop. 34 requires beneficiaries of federal discount prescription drug programs to spend 98 percent of their revenue on direct patient care.
AHF benefits from just such a federal program that requires pharmaceutical companies to sell their drugs at discounted rates to hospitals and other organizations that primarily serve low-income patients. Those discount drug–buying organizations are then allowed to bill federal insurance programs like Medicare and Medicaid the standard reimbursement rates for those drugs.
The AHF has benefited handsomely from this program through its network of discount pharmacies serving AIDS patients. It has spent the proceeds on the heterodox pet causes of AHF President Michael Weinstein, which includes supporting rent control policies.
This deserves a Nelson.

(Hat tip: Dwight.)
This is the shill period right here. Boom! All of a sudden Trump dropped a point when Kamala Harris went in the race. It’s like everybody gave her a shove to get her over the starting line, and then they massively shift left. They shilled for Harris all fall, and then right at the end they decided ‘Well, it’s time to save our credibility,’ and Trump, look at that, all of a sudden Trump got this great momentum. Where’d it come from? Oh, he never lost it. This is all fake all here this whole period, and Trump was actually up in the national popular vote and nobody said sorry.