Educated, wealthy white women with a "In This House We Believe" sign on their front lawn are the base and the energy of the Democratic Party. They have this Hive Mind that is enforced through social discipline and I don't see them welcoming any voice that contradicts their worldview.
I don't know what you do about that. They run the show and they are about as likeable as the 1980s Religious Right. Saira Rao versus Jimmy Swaggart.
Until Democrats acknowledge that trans surgeries (not just “medicines”, come on!) are being performed on minors as part of their party platform, they’ll never win with moderates. It’s an insane fringe position pushed by the healthcare industry and adopted by the “pro-science” club.
Another tap dance around the fact that the progs are driving the aircraft. They have no intention of opening the cockpit door.
What will you do when you can’t just wave “TRUMP BAD” at your target voters? Spend more time figuring out how many votes you acquire from voters who buy “Trump Bad”. You have less than three years to figure out how you’re gonna plug that hole.
Much data here that show moderate Democrats still have a beating pulse. But one factor overwhelms all that data: who has the highest propensity to vote in primaries where the general election candidates are chosen, in plain English who shows up the most? Answer: the most intensely committed voters, Progressive Liberals (37%) plus Woke Fringe (11%) totaling 48%.
Moderates are 47% - a statistical tie - but are overall less intensely committed and less likely to vote in primaries. The result is that the left-wing candidates win the primaries and almost all moderates vote for them in general elections. So the answer to the question in the title is YES, moderate ELECTED Democrats are becoming extinct.
They all say they have moderate views, then vote blue no matter who.
The battle lines in the ideological war have already been drawn. The progressive left has been winning the war, and they will not voluntarily decide to moderate. They may pretend, and produce candidates like Abigail Spanberger. But they will never change their ideas. That is just wishful thinking. The far left cannot be reasoned with. They will only stop when they are denounced, totally discredited, and thoroughly defeated.
Will the so-called moderate Democrats realize that and stop voting blue no matter who? I doubt it.
As a conservative, MAGA Republican, I found the questions posed to the Democrats polled in this article devoid of substance. Instead of asking, "Do you like billionaires", why not ask if the rich should pay more taxes"? All Dems would say "Yes". Another question not asked "Has Donald Trump accomplished anything positive for the country in his second term"? Probably 100% of Dems would say "No". How about "Are there any members of Trump's cabinet qualified for their positions"? Like, seriously? What about Trump's foreign policy of "peace thru strength"? Is it good for America's security? That would garner another "Solid No". Are you in favor of "sanctuary cities and states"? Of course!. Should all illegals be deported even if they haven't committed any crimes? Good gosh, "No". Is forcing voters to show "I.D." to vote important? "Certainly not - blacks don't have proper identification because of slavery". Should we "save the planet" or "drill baby, drill"? My experience with Dems of all blends is that they don't think critically, are afraid to take tough stances on crime and immigration, think their policies are working even if it causes pain to the country ("The Green Revolution") , and would rather see the country fail than Trump succeed. It's sad and disappointing.
I love issues polling second only to election result demographics. That said issues can be very misleading and need a healthy sprinkling of salt, or at least read lots of polling.
I went and followed the links to Third Way and Manhattan Institute. Third Way is afflicted with the same allergy as many in my party, an allergic reaction to saying the words "working class". I figure it's because the people writing for them make pretty good salaries, have advanced degrees, and some guilt. Guilt I guess for sending all of those jobs overseas and turbocharging the establishment of "groups".
Manhattan Institute recognises opportunity and is looking to understand the big possibilities that have kind of landed in their lap. I notice they included registered Democrats who hadn't voted for the Democratic candidate last time. Of their Democrats about half are grouped as moderates and a little less than half of those can say they've always voted for a D. In other words a quarter are possible vote switchers.
"Third Way is afflicted with the same allergy as many in my party, an allergic reaction to saying the words "working class"."
I can say from experience that the guardians of the Ivory Tower are essentially clueless about the real world. I taught in public school, have a master's in educational administration, but spent most of my career in the skilled trades. You have to be very intelligent, and a pragmatist, to be a skilled trades person. Not only are these traits not required in the Ivory Tower, they are eschewed. Group think, untethered to logic, is the stuff of the Ivory Tower. To me, their collective opinions are worse than useless. And I know, I was there.
Moderate democrats are going the way of the DODO: Demographically Obsolete Democrat Oaf. The identitarian socialists they imported have taken over the party from AOC to Zohran. Anyone who resists will be purged: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/dodo-democrat-extinction
First, I would love to know where these “moderate” Democrats exist in the real world. As a largely closeted conservative in a PMC career in a blue state, I’m privy to private political conversations and I’ve never heard anyone try to push back against far-left narratives.
Second, I wish these “moderates” were asked what percentage of Federal Income tax revenue they think the top 1% pays. (It’s about 40% to 45%)
Engaging the Loud Left is an invitation to huge problems in any setting. High incidence of mental instability.
Taxes as a percentage of income when including state, local, FICA, etc usually ends up being heavily skewed towards low income paying more. Many high income pay little to no income tax, it's all capital gains, and now there's even a way out of that by lending money to oneself and simply paying interest.
My daughter throwing pizzas part time while at college pays a higher percent of income in taxes than I did. I'd be ok with a top rate double what it is.
By your own logic it wouldn’t matter if you doubled the top rate - the richest will just move money around to reflect whatever the definition of “income” at that bracket is. It’s not like they work a job and get a W-2, I really don’t think the left understands this.
From ban nock's comment I think he's speaking of the effective rate of taxation, and making taxation progressive involves identifying how different types of tax can yield a progressive result. Raising the capital gains rate and following the way those taxes are dodged to repair the holes that creates is part of the work necessary to align effective rates with the goals of a progressive tax system. (I do think many on the Left understand this, but it's also true that simply raising high-income bracket rates would be a part of any solution.)
I doubt it, but we have a distinct dichotomy occurring in the U.S. t this time. There isn't, or doesn't seem to be, a specific space for moderates, or left-of-center, right-of-center, in either party. It's tough to make a case that says there is.
Educated, wealthy white women with a "In This House We Believe" sign on their front lawn are the base and the energy of the Democratic Party. They have this Hive Mind that is enforced through social discipline and I don't see them welcoming any voice that contradicts their worldview.
I don't know what you do about that. They run the show and they are about as likeable as the 1980s Religious Right. Saira Rao versus Jimmy Swaggart.
Until Democrats acknowledge that trans surgeries (not just “medicines”, come on!) are being performed on minors as part of their party platform, they’ll never win with moderates. It’s an insane fringe position pushed by the healthcare industry and adopted by the “pro-science” club.
Another tap dance around the fact that the progs are driving the aircraft. They have no intention of opening the cockpit door.
What will you do when you can’t just wave “TRUMP BAD” at your target voters? Spend more time figuring out how many votes you acquire from voters who buy “Trump Bad”. You have less than three years to figure out how you’re gonna plug that hole.
Much data here that show moderate Democrats still have a beating pulse. But one factor overwhelms all that data: who has the highest propensity to vote in primaries where the general election candidates are chosen, in plain English who shows up the most? Answer: the most intensely committed voters, Progressive Liberals (37%) plus Woke Fringe (11%) totaling 48%.
Moderates are 47% - a statistical tie - but are overall less intensely committed and less likely to vote in primaries. The result is that the left-wing candidates win the primaries and almost all moderates vote for them in general elections. So the answer to the question in the title is YES, moderate ELECTED Democrats are becoming extinct.
They all say they have moderate views, then vote blue no matter who.
The battle lines in the ideological war have already been drawn. The progressive left has been winning the war, and they will not voluntarily decide to moderate. They may pretend, and produce candidates like Abigail Spanberger. But they will never change their ideas. That is just wishful thinking. The far left cannot be reasoned with. They will only stop when they are denounced, totally discredited, and thoroughly defeated.
Will the so-called moderate Democrats realize that and stop voting blue no matter who? I doubt it.
As a conservative, MAGA Republican, I found the questions posed to the Democrats polled in this article devoid of substance. Instead of asking, "Do you like billionaires", why not ask if the rich should pay more taxes"? All Dems would say "Yes". Another question not asked "Has Donald Trump accomplished anything positive for the country in his second term"? Probably 100% of Dems would say "No". How about "Are there any members of Trump's cabinet qualified for their positions"? Like, seriously? What about Trump's foreign policy of "peace thru strength"? Is it good for America's security? That would garner another "Solid No". Are you in favor of "sanctuary cities and states"? Of course!. Should all illegals be deported even if they haven't committed any crimes? Good gosh, "No". Is forcing voters to show "I.D." to vote important? "Certainly not - blacks don't have proper identification because of slavery". Should we "save the planet" or "drill baby, drill"? My experience with Dems of all blends is that they don't think critically, are afraid to take tough stances on crime and immigration, think their policies are working even if it causes pain to the country ("The Green Revolution") , and would rather see the country fail than Trump succeed. It's sad and disappointing.
I love issues polling second only to election result demographics. That said issues can be very misleading and need a healthy sprinkling of salt, or at least read lots of polling.
I went and followed the links to Third Way and Manhattan Institute. Third Way is afflicted with the same allergy as many in my party, an allergic reaction to saying the words "working class". I figure it's because the people writing for them make pretty good salaries, have advanced degrees, and some guilt. Guilt I guess for sending all of those jobs overseas and turbocharging the establishment of "groups".
Manhattan Institute recognises opportunity and is looking to understand the big possibilities that have kind of landed in their lap. I notice they included registered Democrats who hadn't voted for the Democratic candidate last time. Of their Democrats about half are grouped as moderates and a little less than half of those can say they've always voted for a D. In other words a quarter are possible vote switchers.
"Third Way is afflicted with the same allergy as many in my party, an allergic reaction to saying the words "working class"."
I can say from experience that the guardians of the Ivory Tower are essentially clueless about the real world. I taught in public school, have a master's in educational administration, but spent most of my career in the skilled trades. You have to be very intelligent, and a pragmatist, to be a skilled trades person. Not only are these traits not required in the Ivory Tower, they are eschewed. Group think, untethered to logic, is the stuff of the Ivory Tower. To me, their collective opinions are worse than useless. And I know, I was there.
Moderate democrats are going the way of the DODO: Demographically Obsolete Democrat Oaf. The identitarian socialists they imported have taken over the party from AOC to Zohran. Anyone who resists will be purged: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/dodo-democrat-extinction
First, I would love to know where these “moderate” Democrats exist in the real world. As a largely closeted conservative in a PMC career in a blue state, I’m privy to private political conversations and I’ve never heard anyone try to push back against far-left narratives.
Second, I wish these “moderates” were asked what percentage of Federal Income tax revenue they think the top 1% pays. (It’s about 40% to 45%)
Engaging the Loud Left is an invitation to huge problems in any setting. High incidence of mental instability.
Taxes as a percentage of income when including state, local, FICA, etc usually ends up being heavily skewed towards low income paying more. Many high income pay little to no income tax, it's all capital gains, and now there's even a way out of that by lending money to oneself and simply paying interest.
My daughter throwing pizzas part time while at college pays a higher percent of income in taxes than I did. I'd be ok with a top rate double what it is.
By your own logic it wouldn’t matter if you doubled the top rate - the richest will just move money around to reflect whatever the definition of “income” at that bracket is. It’s not like they work a job and get a W-2, I really don’t think the left understands this.
From ban nock's comment I think he's speaking of the effective rate of taxation, and making taxation progressive involves identifying how different types of tax can yield a progressive result. Raising the capital gains rate and following the way those taxes are dodged to repair the holes that creates is part of the work necessary to align effective rates with the goals of a progressive tax system. (I do think many on the Left understand this, but it's also true that simply raising high-income bracket rates would be a part of any solution.)
I doubt it, but we have a distinct dichotomy occurring in the U.S. t this time. There isn't, or doesn't seem to be, a specific space for moderates, or left-of-center, right-of-center, in either party. It's tough to make a case that says there is.
Since the answer is “no” why use this headline?