To Advance, Add Vance: Why JD Vance is Trump’s Ideal Running Mate

President Trump’s vice presidential search is in the home stretch. Trump has to pick a running mate prior to the Republican convention in mid-July, but he has ample incentive to pick one sooner. The sooner he makes his pick, the sooner his choice can prepare for a vice presidential debate which could be held as soon as July.

Still, Trump has kept people guessing, as he likes to do. There are still more than a dozen names popping up on shortlists. Maybe all of them are under consideration. Maybe all of them are feints. With Trump, you never know.

Over the past year, I’ve considered a lot of potential running mates for Trump. On my show, I’ve sometimes talked up Sen. Ron Johnson and even Tucker Carlson as viable vice presidential candidates. 

But the days of wild speculation are past, and the time for serious decision making is here. It’s time for me to make a choice of my own. Of the serious contenders for Donald Trump’s veep slot, I think the best choice is clear: The president should choose Ohio Senator J.D. Vance.

Vance is the only candidate who, when I look at how the 2024 race has evolved, seems to have countless advantages and zero downsides. 

As a military veteran who grew up in a dysfunctional family in the exurbs of Cincinnati, Vance speaks to (and for) the Forgotten Man middle Americans of the Rust Belt who carried Trump to his shocking victory in 2016. He’s a proven winner, who defeated a tough Republican field and then a formidable Democrat opponent in what turned out to be a tougher-than-expected 2022 midterm. But Vance also isn’t just a populist totem. He’s incredibly smart. He may have the single best brain in the entire U.S. Congress for grasping what must be done to complete the Trump realignment on the border, on foreign policy, and on draining the swamp. He opposed the Ukraine war fever from day one, just like Trump, and he has detailed plans for curtailing the federal agencies that have squandered the public’s trust during the Biden years. Vance is the Senator that D.C. insiders write fearful articles about, as Politico did in March. Vance appeals to the smart, engaged young men who are swerving in Trump’s direction in greater and greater numbers. He would make mincemeat of Kamala Harris in the vice presidential debate. 

Unlike many Trump-inspired politicians, Vance isn’t simply a discount Trump, trying to do the same thing but worse. He won’t try to outshine Trump (and fail) or act outlandishly to try and copy him (and look ridiculous instead). Vance has his own style, more restrained and more serious, yet equally rock-solid on the issues. 

As I’ve argued on my show, the single best message Trump has in 2024 is a straightforward one. This is the first election in 130 years where both men have been president before. Compare their records. Who did it better? Democrats want this to be an election of distractions: Criminal trials, media sensationalism, “Christian nationalism” fearmongering. Trump should not take their bait. This election is about who was a better president, and JD Vance understands better than anyone both why Trump succeeded in his first term and how to make him succeed in a second.

That second part is essential. There are several candidates who have credible claims they’ll help Donald Trump win in November, but Vance has that and would be an excellent help to Trump for the next four years. Unlike Mike Pence before him, Vance is in full ideological alignment with Trump. He’s been a MAGA ideologue for his entire political career. Trump can delegate to Vance and his office without worrying his campaign promises will be ignored or betrayed. Of course, nobody is “owed” the job of vice president, just for being a dutiful soldier, but after the experience of the 2020 election, it’s clear that Donald Trump should have a second-in-command whose commitment to him and his political revolution is beyond question. 

Vance brings other bonuses. Vance is the VP contender with the closest ties to the state that, right now, seems to have the best odds of deciding the election. Unless Nebraska changes to a winner-take-all electoral vote system, Trump will have to win one of the three Rust Belt states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania to reclaim the presidency. Surprisingly, of those three states, Pennsylvania has been polling the most favorably for Trump. The rural voters or Pennsylvania are much like the rural voters of Ohio who elected Vance. If Vance can help turn out even another ten thousand of them for Trump, that could make the difference between victory and defeat.

Also, while Ohio itself won’t be close this cycle, a key race there will be: Sen. Sherrod Brown’s campaign for reelection. A second Trump administration will be vastly stronger with a Republican-controlled Senate: It will mean speedy confirmation of appointees, a free hand on judges, and at least a hope of passing actual legislation enabling a border wall and more. Knock out Brown, and a GOP Senate hold is assured. And one of the best ways to take out Brown is to have his fellow Ohioan on the ballot with Trump.

Vance also lacks the downsides that come with other candidates. Since he doesn’t share a home in Florida with Trump, there’s no awkwardness around one of the candidates having to change their home address to avoid running afoul of the 12th Amendment. Since Ohio has a Republican governor, there’s no issue with a Democrat choosing his replacement in Washington.

And that’s Vance in a nutshell: He’s the complete package. Swing state cred. Political chops. Good on the campaign trail. Good on the issues. No fatal flaws. He’s the companion Donald Trump deserves for a triumphant 2024. 

The Left’s Cancel Frenzy Has Made The Right Stronger

The left tried to claim another scalp this past week – and they failed, badly. Comically, even.

The target this time was Lomez, aka Jonathan Keeperman, owner of a moderately popular X account and proprietor of the recently-founded publishing house Passage Press. Passage has published new editions of several out-of-print books, and also put out the newly-released compilation of writings by online blogger and King of Noticing Steve Sailer. 

For this unspeakable crime, Lomez was doxxed by The Guardian’s Jason Wilson. In his “bombshell” story, Wilson tried to shame Lomez for years-old blog comments, but mostly just revealed that Lomez was a successful high school athlete, an attractive English professor at UC-Irvine with gushy reviews from students, and a family man with a beautiful wife and children. 

Other than that…nothing. Lomez, fortunately, had already left his professorship at UC-Irvine (college is a scam!), so he had no job to be fired from, but he also faced zero ostracism at all. He apologized for nothing, has been disavowed by nobody, and his Twitter account and publishing house are both substantially more popular. He quickly appeared on Steve Bannon’s War Room and I hope to have him on my own show very soon. 

This is a big improvement over how things used to be. For far too long, conservatives suffered from a habit of, essentially, letting the left tell them what is right and what is wrong. If a journalist told them to stop talking to someone, they stopped. If a TV host told them to fire someone, they obeyed. If a far-left organization like the ADL or SPLC told them someone was a “fascist,” “neo-Nazi” or “white supremacist,” they listened. 

This, in my opinion, was one of the biggest reasons that conservatives felt like the “perpetual losers” of American politics. If you give your enemies the power to say what you’re allowed to think, then unsurprisingly, they don’t let you think anything that’s a threat to them. For years, the threat of cancellation made the right at large terrified of opposing rancidly evil policies like the transgender mutilation of children, the opening of America’s border to the third world, and the imposition of sweeping anti-white, anti-Asian, and anti-male discrimination at every level of American life. 

This was, to say the least, pathetic and demented. The left supports overt racism in our laws and institutions. They cheer on violent riots. They think it’s perfectly okay to dismember a baby in the womb up to the moment of birth (and some think it’s okay afterwards). Why should we ever let them give us a single second of lecturing about right and wrong, about who we are allowed to employ, read, talk to, or befriend?

Finally, things are really changing. It was long and painful, but the right has learned and it has changed. The most important realization has been understanding that the left isn’t exercising any real moral principles: They are happy to forgive the worst crimes imaginable, as long as someone is an ideological fellow traveler. Their goal, from the beginning, has always just been to shame, humiliate, and hurt the most effective people on the right, while dictating what their enemies believe so that they can never become a real threat. 

For a long time, the left’s repeated cancellations and doxxings made conservatives weaker. Talented people lost their jobs. Supporters were frightened to even speak up. Many people who might be open to conservative ideas never explored them, because they were utterly terrified of the consequences if they were caught simply reading the wrong website or endorsing the wrong politician. 

Recently, writer Steve Sailer held a book event in New York City. At that event, I’m told, two employees at an elite, high-status employer in the city were shocked to see each other there – neither knew the other was conservative!

But now that cancel culture is fading away, I think it’s also clear that its temporary existence has made conservatives stronger. For years, conservative leaders have had the opportunity to be tested, by having their friends or associates doxxed and targeted. Some of those leaders failed the test, by disowning their employees or disavowing their friends. But others passed that test, by refusing to submit to moral imperialism by the left, or by quietly supporting those temporarily hobbled by cancel culture mobs. 

Today, vast networks exist of conservatives who proved themselves during the years where the proving was tough. There are far fewer opportunists, because to be a member of the populist or America-first right from 2015 to 2021 required putting oneself at real social and professional risk. We’ve made our companies an our media outlets far more resilient against efforts to deplatform, censor, debank, or bankrupt us.

Today’s right is a brotherhood forged by adversity. Now that that adversity is fading, we are ready to take on the world. 

The Boy Scouts Didn’t Die. They Were Murdered.

For a century, hundreds of America’s most accomplished and inspiring men had something in common: They were Eagle Scouts.

Neil Armstrong. Gerald Ford. Sam Walton. Steven Spielberg. Too many senators, representatives, generals, and Cabinet secretaries to list off here. The men who ran America during its glorious peak as a global superpower were molded as young men by the principles of the Boy Scouts. I myself was an Eagle Scout as a teenager and consider it one of the most important accomplishments of my early life. 

A half-century ago, more than 5 million boys participated in Scouting, learning skills like shooting, outdoorsmanship, and personal finance. Just as important, they learned those skills in an environment that praised classic virtues. In the Scout Oath they were told to remain “physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.” In the Scout Law they pledged to be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent. Crucially, Boy Scouts learned these skills and values in an all-male environment. It’s not popular to say these days, but I think that teenage boys need all-male groups to grow up properly. They need environments that foster leadership, camaraderie, and teamwork, and for all those purposes, all-male groups are strictly superior. The Boy Scouts offered one of the best possible sources of such an environment. 

But now, the Boy Scouts themselves are no more. This week, the Boy Scouts of America announced that next year, it will rename itself Scouting America, to put a focus on “inclusivity” – and because these days, the Boy Scouts aren’t even for boys. About 15% of the roughly 1 million Scouts today are girls.

The decline of the Boy Scouts has been long, protracted, and painful. No matter what, it would have been hard for an outdoors-focused organization to compete with video games, the Internet, and a million other competitors for modern young people’s time. But it was all made worse by a calculated political offense. Twenty years ago, the Scouts faced boycotts for disallowing gay leaders and condemning homosexuality as a lifestyle. The left attacked them for being too connected to the Mormon Church and too favorable towards Christianity. Repeated left-wing lawsuits tried to destroy any link or relationship between Scouting and local governments, no matter how positive those relationships were. A cascade of sexual abuse allegations left scouting financially bankrupt. 

Like so many once-great organizations, the Boy Scouts decided the path forward was to alienate its historic supporters and to try to win the left’s love instead. Gay leaders were admitted (that won’t help with the abuse problem, to say the least), along with transgender teenagers. When George Floyd died, Scouting embraced the BLM movement and created a DEI-themed merit badge

Scouting’s overt leftward turn under leaders like Rex Tillerson and Robert Gates drove away historical backers like the Mormon Church, but in a shocking twist, no left-wing support materialized to replace it. In reality, of course, the left never wanted to improve scouting. They saw an organization outside their control, promoting old-fashioned values that people cared about, and so they infiltrated it, corrupted it, and ruined it.

The Boy Scouts didn’t die a natural death. They were murdered. 

Liberal Freakouts Don’t Justify Abolishing the Constitution

One of the key things that defines conservatism as an ideology, in my opinion, is a commitment to principle and to ideas. We care about things for their own sake, and holding power is just a means to that end, rather than the end in itself.

I believe that the text of t he Constitution matters. It’s not just a tool for exerting power. It’s not just a ploy to manipulate people.

I believe the rights enshrined in our Bill of Rights, like freedom of speech, are god-given ones, not just compromises hashed out to avoid political conflict. We have our constitutional rights because they are good, not just because they are temporarily useful.

So I am immensely troubled by the many members of the House Republican caucus who apparently don’t feel that way.

On Wednesday, about 90 percent of House Republicans voted to pass HR 6090, the so-called Antisemitism Awareness Act, in response to the wave of anti-Israel and antisemitic protests on American college campuses. 

If the point of HR 6090 was to defund the DEI apparatuses that have normalized anti-white, anti-Asian, and anti-Jewish discrimination at colleges, it’d be great. But HR 6090 does nothing of the sort. In fact, it strengthens DEI, and looks to impose unconstitutional European-style “hate speech” laws onto America.

The bill does this by creating a new, formal definition of antisemitism, with specific examples, that federal agencies are expected to follow. This definition is the “working definition of antisemitism” as created by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.

Some parts of IHRA’s definition of antisemitism certainly should be illegal, such as aiding in physical attacks on Jews for their religion or ethnicity. But many other parts, however ugly or objectionable they might be, cannot be banned without smashing the First Amendment to bits. 

This bill would make it illegal, at least on college campuses, to compare policies of the Israeli government to Nazi policies. It would make it illegal to describe Israel as a racist country because it embraces an explicit Jewish identity. The bill would make it illegal to accuse an American citizen of being more loyal to Israel than to the United States. The bill would make it illegal to impose a supposed “double standard” on Israel that is not applied to other countries. 

The bill might even prohibit certain passages of the Bible! IHRA’s definition includes “claims of Jews killing Jesus” as part of its definition. Obviously, I and all authentic modern Christians do not blame today’s Jews for the death of Christ. But the text of the Bible, in John and in Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians, clearly states that the Jews of Jesus’s time caused the death of their own Messiah. So, is John’s gospel illegal?

And when I say “illegal,” I mean it. The bill requires the Department of Education to use IHRA’s definition when it decides how to enforce Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. If a school commits any of the above offenses, or tolerates others who do, the federal government is ordered to sue them for violating civil rights law, the same way it currently sues for race or sex discrimination. And while they aren’t explicitly named, it’s reasonable to imagine this bill requires all other civil rights bureaucracies to act the same way, leading to lawsuits against businesses and non-profits of all sorts. 

In short, HR 6090 turns the federal bureaucracy into a weapon for punishing those who criticize a foreign government. 

I have repeatedly gone on the record as a proud supporter of Israel and of the Jewish people. My record on that is long and, I believe, above reproach. But I care about the Constitution even more. This bill is unacceptable.

Not only that, it’s deeply unnecessary. The mayhem engulfing elite college campuses didn’t need us to get involved, unless it was to arrest trespassers and rioters. The chaos at Columbia University was a blue-on-blue incident. It was ripping the left apart and profoundly embarrassing its leaders. As they say, do not interrupt your enemies when they’re making a mistake.

Yet now, Republicans have stepped in with an absurd bill which sends the message that all our supposed concerns about free speech on campus are a sham, and will be tossed out as soon as it looks convenient.

What a waste.

Make Joe Biden Into Benjamin Harrison

As the world’s oldest continually-functioning constitutional republic, few things are unprecedented in American politics. Even the pending rematch between Donald Trump and Joe Biden, while a first within recent memory, has happened several times in our country’s long history.

There have been six presidential election rematches in American history, going all the way back to John Adams and Thomas Jefferson’s showdown in 1800. In four of those rematches, the loser of the first tilt won.

But one election in particular stands out as a model for Trump vs. Biden Round Two: The 1892 election between Grover Cleveland and Benjamin Harrison. To this day, it is the only rematch election between two men who had both served a term as president. 

Eight years before, in 1884, Grover Cleveland became an unlikely presidential election winner. While Cleveland was a Democrat, he actually resembled President Trump in many ways. Like Trump, he was a surprise national political figure. In the fall of 1881, Cleveland was simply a prominent lawyer in Buffalo, New York. But after whirlwind stints as mayor of Buffalo and governor of New York, just three years later Cleveland was president-elect. Just like Trump, he rocked to the top because voters were frustrated with corruption in both major parties. Just like Trump, his foreign policy emphasized non-interventionism.

And, just like Trump, Cleveland lost a nail-biter election in 1888, to Republican Benjamin Harrison. 

Even as Cleveland moved out of the White House the following spring, his wife supposedly told a staffer to take good care of all the building’s furniture, “for I want to find everything just as it is now, when we come back four years from now.”

It was a bold boast, but it came true. Just like Trump, there was little doubt that Cleveland would be his party’s champion again four years later. He romped to a win on the first ballot at the 1892 nominating convention. Just like Biden, meanwhile, President Harrison suffered from surging prices and a divided party. The 1892 election, just like this year’s, had a formidable populist third party candidate, James Weaver of the literal Populist Party. 

Thanks to all of these forces, Grover Cleveland’s third election was much stronger than either of his first two. In 1884, Cleveland had won 20 states with 219 electoral votes. Eight years later, he won 23 states worth more than 277.

I believe all the pieces are in place for Donald Trump to repeat Cleveland’s feat. The determination is there, the The most important fact is this one: In a rematch like this one, voters don’t have to speculate about whether the challenger might do better as president. Instead, they can just make a direct comparison. So, how does that look?

A poll conducted earlier this month by The New York Times and Siena College lays it all out: 42 percent of respondents believe that Trump’s presidency was mostly good for America, compared to a gruesome 25 percent for Biden. On the other side of the coin, while just 33 percent think Trump’s presidency was mostly a bad time, for Biden the figure is an ugly 46 percent.

Americans have had three years and change to evaluate Joe Biden in the White House, and their thoughts are clear: Donald Trump did it better.

Republicans must make that the central question every voter is asking themselves come November: Who was better? Who was better on the border? Whose economic policies led to prosperity and a blue-collar boom, and whose led to inflation and oligarchy? Whose foreign policy created peace, and whose created chaos? Whose actions enraged the incompetent elites Americans loathe, and whose won their steadfast support? 

Because in 2024, unlike any election in our lifetimes, there is no speculation. Both candidates have a record, and we know who was better. 

So let’s make Joe Biden 2024’s Benjamin Harrison.

The Will to Win

Nebraska has, suddenly, become the center of the American political universe. Okay, that’s not a sentence I ever expected to read – let alone write.

But it’s true. The way Nebraska will vote in the 2024 election is not in doubt. In 2020, Donald Trump thumped Joe Biden by 19 points. This fall, he should beat that figure easily.

But avid election watchers know that even with a landslide, Donald Trump probably won’t get all of the state’s five electoral votes. Instead, he might receive only four, just like he did in 2020.

Why? Because while forty-eight U.S. states award their electoral votes in a winner-take-all manner, Nebraska awards them by congressional district. Nebraska’s 2nd district includes all of Omaha, an area that is trending left even as the rest of Nebraska moves right. And so, this fall, deep-red Nebraska will likely hand a free electoral vote to the candidate that the vast majority of the state’s voters don’t support.

This could matter a lot. Current polling shows Donald Trump leading Joe Biden in Arizona, Georgia, and Nevada. If Trump flips all three of those states, but there are no other changes, then he will fall just short of the presidency: 270 electoral votes for Biden, and 268 for Trump. Nebraska’s stray electoral vote would be the difference between a Biden reelection, and the election going to the House (where Trump would likely win). 

As I have repeatedly emphasized this week, this is fixable. None of the excuses you will hear otherwise are actually true. Nebraska’s legislature is in session as I write this. But even if they go into recess, Gov. Jim Pillen can summon them back for a special session. Even if a filibuster gums up the process, they can vote by a 60% majority to suspend the rules – and Nebraska Republicans control more than enough seats to do that.

None of this is about what is possible. Instead, it’s entirely a matter of will. Fixing Nebraska would require doing things a little bit differently from before. It might require staying up late a few nights or working through a weekend. It might, dare I say, require enduring a hostile news segment from CNN. 

The tools are there. What we need is the desire, the will to use them.

This is a will far too many Republicans have historically lacked. But we know that it’s possible. In 2016, when Justice Antonin Scalia died, Barack Obama tried to appoint Merrick Garland in his place. The pressure on Republicans in the Senate to give in was immense.

“You can’t just leave a SCOTUS seat vacant!” the press screamed. “You have to at least hold a hearing!”

I have many differences with Sen. Mitch McConnell, but to his credit he didn’t fall for these tricks. He knew the truth: Under the Constitution, he absolutely had the power to block Garland, and wait until after the 2016 election. Following that election, Senate Democrats tried to filibuster Donald Trump’s own nominee. But McConnell knew something else: The Senate filibuster is fake. It can be repealed by a simple majority vote at any time. So that’s what he did – he nixed the filibuster for all SCOTUS votes.

Thanks to Mitch McConnell’s will, we have Neil Gorsuch filling Antonin Scalia’s seat, as well as Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett on the Court as well. This is the majority that delivered us the overturning of Roe v. Wade and many other crucial constitutional victories.

But it’s not just politics. Ten thousand dismissive pundits, investors, and journalist hacks told Elon Musk “You can’t just spend $40 billion to buy Twitter!” They all thought it was ridiculous. Maybe it was, a little. But Musk did it anyway, because he cared about preserving a real free speech platform. And as we’ve seen how enormously impactful that was. I don’t think the swerve we’ve seen on trans issues, or the popular revolt against endless Ukraine war funding, or the big polling shift toward Trump, would be happening without a liberated Twitter. Elon Musk’s will and ambition delivered what has turned out to be a historic blow for freedom.

That’s the importance of will. Now let’s get back to Nebraska. The issue is right in front of us: It is entirely possible that what Nebraska Republicans choose to do will decide the fate of America. If they change the state to winner-take-all, the same system almost all other states use, then they might deliver Donald Trump the presidency this fall. But if they fail to act, they might instead bring us 4 more years of Joe Biden. That’s four more years of open borders. Four more years of trans lunacy and race hate. Four more years of a politicized DOJ treating patriots like terrorists. Four more years of being ruled by an increasingly senile puppet. 

Those are the stakes. So, do Nebraska Republicans have the will prevent disaster? 

We’re about to see.

RFK’s VP Choice Shows His Campaign Is Not An Option For Conservatives

I’ve spoken with hundreds of people who are fans of RFK for his advocacy on Covid injections and lockdowns. Many of them, including close friends of mine, are thinking of voting for him next fall or are already planning to do so.

But it’s worth remembering: RFK has spent most of his career as a committed liberal, and he remains liberal on countless issues of importance. He’s pro-abortion, pro-gun control, and once called to criminally prosecute “climate deniers” in the fossil fuels industry. 

From the beginning, parts of RFK’s campaign have appealed to the right, and other parts to the left, all while RFK presents himself as a centrist alternative to the major parties. All of this has fueled speculation about whether RFK will try to take more votes from Joe Biden or from Donald Trump.

Well, on Tuesday, RFK gave his answer: He turned to the left. His vice presidential choice, tech entrepreneur Nicole Shanahan, is no political outsider. Instead, she’s already been a six-figure political donor…specifically, to George Gascon. 

If that name doesn’t ring a bell, the congrats, you don’t live in the Hell that is modern California. Gascon served as San Francisco district attorney from 2011 to 2019. Gascon made the city substantially worse than it was under his predecessor, which is pretty remarkable since his predecessor was a certain Kamala Harris. As DA, Gascon fought to end cash bail, popularizing the left’s now-routine catch-and-release approach to managing crime. He also coauthored Prop 47, California’s law that turned shoplifting and other forms of theft into misdemeanors. Years later, criminals now loot California’s convenience stores and even high-end shops with near impunity. 

Under Gascon, San Francisco property crime rose by almost 50%. Then, he quit and moved down to LA, where he promptly ran for and won the DA’s job there. Gascon has worked the same “magic” on LA that he worked on the Bay Area. Gascon’s policies in LA are so lenient that child rapists literally gloat on the jailhouse phone about how minimal their punishments are.

So yeah, that’s the person RFK’s veep choice gave a six-figure check to. Shanahan alo donated to support Measure J, a Los Angeles measure that forcibly rerouted local spending away from prisons or law enforcement to instead fund “social services” and “mental health treatment” – in other words, not putting criminals or dangerous psychos behind bars. 

But it wasn’t just RFK’s veep choice that put up a red flag on Tuesday. At the rally’s outset, RFK’s team had American Indian activist Charlene Nijmeh hold a “land acknowledgement,” declaring that the rally was being held on the “unceded, unsurrendered” lands of the Muwekma Ohione tribe. “Land acknowledgments” like this one exist so that radicals can delegitimize the existence of the United States and the people who settled it. They also exist to justify sweeping demands for legal and financial concessions to a small minority of American Indians at the expense of the American people.

In short, RFK’s vice presidential announcement was a left-wing event, in a left-wing city, to announce his choice of a left-wing candidate. With American cities crumbling to dust thanks to criminal anarchy, RFK is making a play for the pro-crime vote. With America splitting itself along racial lines and with America’s very legitimacy under assault every day, RFK is indulging those who deny America’s basic legitimacy.

These are real red flags. They don’t negate RFK’s good parts. But in my opinion, they absolutely rule him out as a choice to be president of the United States.

Remember this in the months to come, when RFK inevitably makes an effort to appeal to conservatives and Trump supporters as well. Remember the person who RFK wants to succeed him. Remember – and act accordingly in the voting booth.

Why Biden Is Losing the Young

I definitely didn’t expect it to happen this fast.

I founded the youth outreach organization Turning Point USA almost 12 years ago. My mission was and is to promote a conservative, pro-liberty, and above all pro-America message to young people, and to encourage young people who agree with those causes to speak up for themselves instead of being shouted down and intimidated on campus and online.

But from the start, I’ve always emphasized that this is an uphill battle. In 2012, Barack Obama won 60% of under-30 voters. In 2016, Donald Trump won just 28% of them. From Cape Cod to California, it was a canard of American politics that young people were far left and getting more far-left with each fresh high school graduating class. The only hope for conservatives, I was told, was praying that they’d drift right as they aged. But that was supposed to be impossible, too: As we all know, young voters are less white than older ones, and non-white voters will be monolithically Democrat to the end of time.

Despite these warnings, I always believed that it would be possible to shift young people back to being, if not a right-leaning demographic, then at least a competitive one. But I thought it would be a lengthy, perhaps decades-long process, one requiring the same institutional infiltration and gradual cultural change that the left used to make everything so left-wing in the first place. 

But it turns out, we just had to wait for a Joe Biden administration. A poll at the end of February shows that Biden is still leading Trump among voters 18 to 34…by four points. Four years ago, all those voters would have been under 30, and Biden won them by 24. 

The poll isn’t a one-off. Polls showing Biden narrowly ahead or in a statistical tie among young voters have been coming in for months. Some even show Trump with a lead. The collapse is real. Every day I see it play out in person. Membership in my campus activism group, Turning Point USA, is booming. When I first began giving speeches on campus, the crowds were small, and when I hosted a Change-My-View table event, I was lucky to see a few dozen sympathetic students, many of them afraid of being outed as conservatives. 

Today, fear has been replaced by pride. Events that drew dozens now draw hundreds, and speeches with 200 attendees now can have a thousand people, and they’re overwhelmingly young conservatives or moderates open to considering something different. And it’s not just the numbers, it’s the energy. When I started Turning Point USA a decade ago, older conservative pundits complained that we were too confrontational, too disruptive, and too loud. Maybe we were. But today, as conservatives retake ground from the left on campus, it’s this confrontational attitude that is winning. 

What’s going on? A lot of forces are in play. Young white men have been pushed far to the right in outrage by racist attacks against them in school and the workplace, attacks which portray them as the “privileged” source of America’s problems and valid targets for every form of discrimination. Young Hispanics are more assimilated than their parents and grandparents. They see themselves as Americans who don’t deserve to be replaced by further waves of illegal immigrants, instead of as foot soldiers in some kind of Third World crusade against America. Even among young blacks, there are those who have noticed that their parent’s nearly 100%-Democrat voting patterns the past 50 years have done precious little to improve the black way of life.

Another crucial factor is the black swan event of Elon Musk buying Twitter. 2016 through 2021, in hindsight, marked the peak of censorship and “cancel culture” in American life. Thanks to Twitter’s liberation and the rise of new platforms like Telegram and Rumble, the power of the institutional left to control narratives and what people are allowed to think has collapsed.

But one of the most important forces, I think, is that today’s young voters have literally never known conservatives to be “the Establishment.” If you’re turning 18 today, then you’ve spent your entire life living under suffocating left-wing dominance in pretty much everything. You were bombarded with LGBT propaganda in middle school and with George Floyd-inspired race Marxism in high school. Every form of censorship you’ve seen has come from the left, never from the right.

This kind of propaganda might be super effective if the system was working. But under Biden, it’s clearly not. Young people have never known a world-beating America. To them, the liberal-ruled America is one where a college degree costs $200,000 but teaches nothing, where the border is a free-roam zone for smugglers and cartel members, where shoplifters loot stores at will, where the military spews gender propaganda while losing wars, where a house is an unattainable luxury – and where seeking an honest discussion of what’s going on will get you kicked off YouTube or doxxed on social media.

If you were feeling young and rebellious, wouldn’t you push back too? 

You Didn’t Believe The Polls In 2016 or 2020. Why Believe Them Now?

The polling of the 2024 election is some of the most positive I’ve seen in my entire life – literally. Never in my life have I seen a presidential election where the Republican candidate was consistently dominating his opponent. Even when a Republican has won, the polling has been close, or even shown a Democrat lead going into election day.

But according to the polls, right now, Donald Trump isn’t just poised to beat Joe Biden in a rematch. He’s going to dominate. 

Of the 17 national polls released so far in March (as of this writing), 12 of them show Trump ahead, and a few more show a tie. One poll has Trump with a staggering 6 point lead.

But it’s in the battleground states where the polling is most stark. Right now, the poll aggregator RealClearPolitics highlights seven battleground states on its frontpage: Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Nevada. In 2020, every one of these states except North Carolina went to Biden. Right now, Trump is up in all of them. In Nevada, the polling average has him up by five and a half points – in a state he lost by two and half points in 2020!

By now, many of you may be thinking what I’m thinking: If the polls show Trump ahead, then it’s possible that in reality he’s way ahead. In 2020, the RCP polling average said Trump would lose Florida by a point, when in reality he won by three. In 2016, RCP’s average had Trump down by six and a half in Wisconsin, only for him to win the state by 22,000 votes. 

Twice, Trump has been down badly in the polls, and twice, he has greatly outperformed them on Election Night. So why can’t he make it happen a third time, and get the landslide he deserves to win and Joe Biden deserves to suffer?

It might happen. I hope it happens. But I’m not going to bet on it. From my perspective, a big Trump lead in the polls can only lead to bad outcomes. It will convince people that they don’t need to ballot harvest, donate, or volunteer. It will drive the left into even more fanatical stunts to try and rig the vote, or take Trump off the ballot, or plan to nullify his victory after the fact. It will cause the GOP to splurge on trying to win unlikely states like Virginia or New Hampshire instead of focusing on the states that will get them over 270.

To me, the lesson of 2016 and 2020 isn’t “the polls underrate Trump.” The lesson is “the polls lie.” Whether they’re in our favor or not, polls are simply too untrustworthy to base all of our actions on them. That doesn’t even have to mean that the pollsters are lying. Maybe they feel embarrassed over the last two elections and overcorrected with their methods. Maybe Trump voters have stopped being shy about expressing their support to the world – after all, celebrities are a lot more willing to be seen backing Trump than they were eight years ago. 

Or maybe there really is an agenda. Maybe pollsters, who lean left, decided their side was overconfident the last few times, and want MAGA to be the overconfident group this time around. Maybe they’re laying the groundwork for a “Comeback Kid” narrative for Biden if the gap closes next summer or in the fall. Or maybe Donald Trump is just benefiting from a few terrible news cycles for Joe Biden, and will fall off when it’s his turn for negative coverage thanks to the various politically motivated prosecutions he faces this year. 

The bigger lesson here is: Don’t even think about the polls. You learned to ignore them in 2016 and 2020. Learn to ignore them now, too.

Sheldon Johnson’s Gruesome Slaying Exposes the Great Left-Wing Crime Lie

The conservative English writer Evelyn Waugh has a memorable short story titled “Mr. Loveday’s Little Outing.” It’s worth reading if you have a few minutes.

The story concerns the titular Mr. Loveday, an inmate at a British insane asylum who has been locked up for 35 years after strangling a young woman to death. A young, progressive woman named Angela encounters Mr. Loveday while visiting her ill father, and becomes taken with Mr. Loveday: To her, he seems perfectly sane. When asked what he hopes for in life, Mr. Loveday tells Angela he wants just one thing: Just one more day where he can walk outside freely, before he is too old to enjoy it. 

Angela becomes obsessed with liberating Mr. Loveday from his confinement. She pursues every legal and political angle that she can, until finally the great day arrives, and Mr. Loveday walks out of the asylum a free man, celebrated by all around him.

Two hours later, Mr. Loveday returns to the asylum satisfied: He has fulfilled his wish of finding one more young woman to strangle to death.

Waugh wrote that story almost a hundred years ago, but to say the least, the left hasn’t changed. 

According to Josh Dubin of the Innocence Project, Sheldon Johnson Jr. was “a miracle” and a “wonderful human being.”

A month ago, Dubin brought Johnson onto The Joe Rogan Experience, the world’s most popular podcast and an important platform for messaging the centrist, politically uncommitted men of America. Dubin presented Johnson as a symbol of America’s racist, overly harsh criminal justice system, a man who should have never spent the 25 years he spent behind bars.

Why was Johnson imprisoned for 25 years, then? According to Dubin, Johnson went to prison a quarter-century over “two stitches,” plus a racist criminal justice system driven by “the legacy of slavery, segregation, [and] Jim Crow.” If our criminal justice system locks up men like Sheldon Johnson, Dubin argued, then our criminal justice system is rotten to the core.

Well, about that. You’ve perhaps already heard the news about Sheldon Johnson: That according to police, earlier this week Sheldon entered a man’s Bronx apartment and shot him in the head as the man begged for his life. He then carefully sawing apart the remains, which he transported to his own apartment and stuck in his freezer. Johnson apparently planned to encase the remains in concrete in order to fully dispose of them. This was not a crime of passion, but the wretched and evil behavior of sociopathic killer. 

Sheldon Johnson didn’t just fall back into a life of crime. He committed a calculated, gruesome, and heinous offense. But that should have been no surprise, because all the evidence was already there that he was a hardened criminal. The “two stitches” that got Johnson his 25 years were not from some petty scrap. Instead, he pistol-whipped someone while robbing them at gunpoint, a severe assault that can easily kill someone. That robbery wasn’t the only one committed by Johnson, who was also a senior member of a drug gang. 

Sheldon Johnson wasn’t a model of a broken criminal justice system, he was a model of it working correctly. We have to ask: How much did the Innocence Project know, or how much should they have known? I find it impossible to believe that there were no warning signs about Johnson’s true nature. Johnson’s advocates either ignored these signs, or willfully downplayed them for the greater cause of campaigning in support of dangerous criminals and against law and order.

Now think: Sheldon is the example that the Innocence Project chose to showcase, ahead of other people. So ask yourself: How much worse are the other criminal cases they’re not choosing to highlight, while campaigning for “criminal justice reform” that will put more of those criminals back on the street?

This is what the left does. Fifty years ago, they made excuses for rioters who ruined cities like Newark and Detroit. Thirty-five years ago, they gave murders like Willie Horton weekend passes out of prison so that they had a chance to kill again.

Their bias is always against society, and in favor of those who undermine it, whether it’s antifa rioters, homeless shoplifters, perverts in girls’ locker rooms, or violent criminals. Sheldon Johnson is not an isolated exception: He’s just a fortunate case where the consequences of the left’s pro-criminal sympathies became obvious immediately and publicly. 

We must not forget the greater lesson. Thousands of Americans are dead thanks to the lies that our justice system is “racist” and that America needs sweeping criminal justice reform. It isn’t, and we don’t. The only thing America requires is a system that empowers police to track down crooks and killers like Sheldon Johnson – and makes sure they stay locked away where they can’t hurt us.