Here’s an compelling, if somewhat mysterious, data clue from the just-concluded 2024 election. In deep blue Massachusetts, Kamala Harris actually outperformed someone – namely the far-left Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. While Kamala Harris received 2,072,849 votes in the Bay State, Senator Warren only received 1,582,110 – a difference of almost half a million votes.
Why? There are few, if any, changes to the maps between the two campaigns. There was no third-party candidate who could take votes away from Senator Warren – in fact, this disadvantage only existed in the presidential race, where Green candidate Jill Stein and Libertarian candidate Chase Oliver received 25,431 and 17,377 votes, respectively. A ballot initiative favored by the left to raise the minimum wage for tipped workers passed easily. So why the difference?
One has to wonder if Elizabeth Warren’s idea, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), and the controversies surrounding it are costing the only 1/1064th of the Senate’s Native American members some support.
Last summer we saw the CFPB director being questioned by Congress about his fee structure:
See related: Rogue agency: GOP lawmakers audit Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
So we have a fraudulent agency – the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau – that doesn’t really protect consumers or taxpayers. Freedom of Information Act requests incur fees that are, by the FBI’s own definition, junk fees. The only conceivable reason for this is to deter Freedom of Information Act requests. The office may also be violating the statutes that govern where its funding comes from.
Then, later that summer, it emerged that the CFPB had taken some actions that looked suspiciously like protection rackets:
See related: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Suggests Ohio Bank With… Protection Racket?
This actually smells like a protection racket; “Nice little banking system you have there, Fifth Third – would be a shame… happened And that, folks, is always the problem with over-regulation and government overreach – in order to continue their agency’s mission and protect their bogus jobs, regulators are incentivized to find problems even when none exist. Here In this case, these perverse incentives led the CFPB to fabricate victims who didn’t exist, file charges of alleged harm when there was no evidence, and cost an Ohio company a lot of money it never should have paid must.
This leads us to the CFPB question: Are they the victim or the crime?
Is it one of these things? Is it just Senator Warren’s involvement in creating this arguably unconstitutional and largely uncontrolled intervention in the financial sector that cost her almost half a million votes in deep blue Massachusetts? The voices just seem to have disappeared; Donald Trump received more votes in Massachusetts (1,236,929) than Senator Warren’s Republican opponent John Deaton (1,069,538).
What’s up? Is it because of the CFPB and its serial scandals? Or is Warren a touch too far left, even for Massachusetts, in a year when it seems like the left is facing a lot of electoral rejection?
Here’s the thing: Elizabeth Warren isn’t going anywhere. Her victory was still decisive with almost 60 percent of the vote. She can probably sit in that chair in the Senate until she shuffles off to where 1/1064th of Native Americans go when they leave the mortal coil.
But why the discrepancy? It’s curious. It’s demanding to explain. And it could be a sign that the left-wing bridge is too far for some voters, even in Indigo Massachusetts.
