I have no idea how I can trust the rational thinking of a set of Democratic leaders on the subject of affordability who cannot answer the the question “what is a women” nor define a immigration policy that actually controls a national border or create a massive system such as Obamacare that needs increased subsidies shortly after being implemented or even create a well run large city they control. I understand all the issues with the Republicans but none quite raise to this level illogical thinking that refuses to live in reality. I hope all the time for a Democratic leader that will save this situation but honestly I have just about given up hope
This point needs to be made more often. Any epistemic environment that is not capable of rejecting obviously false beliefs like “men can get pregnant” is not worthy of being trusted on other issues.
Both sides commonly hold hundreds of false beliefs. Democrats believe that 1,000 to 10,000 unarmed black men are killed by police yearly. The real value is 10.
But getting questions wrong that invoke large datasets and quantitative analysis is one thing. Thinking that women have penises is entirely different.
I agree so strongly with your core point that it motivated me to become a paid subscriber today. I have absolutely no doubt that the main reason the Democrats have been losing support is the Culture War. I'm convinced this directly enabled Trump's re-election. Until the Democratic Party ends its culture war, we're all in big trouble.
Those screaming “affordability” should be required to explain why it is that the most unaffordable places in the country have been run by Democrats for decades. And why anyone should believe that their slogans in lieu of policies will do anything to make these places more affordable. Of course, they have a large segment of the population believing that “the rich!” will provide everything.
It’s sad to see how far the left has fallen into childish attitudes that should have been left behind in the dorm lounge. When you still spout the same ideas that sounded great when you were 17 getting high in your mom’s basement, it’s time to take stock.
Note the *extremely* high correlation. (the outliers--low density, more expensive housing--are actually mostly in red counties) And since we have a distinct causal mechanism, the usual 'correlation doesn't equal causation' critique doesn't apply.
B.) Our banking system is built on top of mortgage debt; thus housing prices, as a whole, are not allowed to fall precipitously when that system is in the process of making loans. That is why they only do so when it can't be avoided, during periods of negative growth, when lending stops--i.e. during recessions. When they are allowed to fall outside of those periods, they generally cause financial crises by pricking the underlying debt bubble. (see the pre-2008 housing bubble, to a certain degree the mid-to-late 1970s)
Ergo, Democrats are elected in denser places that are inherently more expensive due to population density, and like everywhere else the housing prices there are prevented from falling due to the American financial system's mortgage-backed structure. More expensive=less affordable.
Note that Republicans are pretty terrible at fixing the problem. Look at how expensive housing is in places like Wyoming, Idaho and Montana (ruby red) despite the low population density.
Even if your explanation of the problem were true, it still leaves you in the awkward position of explaining why Democrats running the densely-populated areas have only managed to make the problem worse.
That's possible, but we need evidence. What evidence do you have that they've made the problem worse, rather than density and a mortgage-debt-based financial system simply maintaining the same broad, secular process of rising costs in denser places?
Note that 'they should build more housing' isn't a satisfactory answer. Aside from the limits of building in denser places, building more housing in the same place (i.e., 'upwards' but not 'outwards') only increases population density, which only moves prices further upward.
Hmm. Won’t Mamdani voters be shocked to learn the problem is density and a broad-based financial system that the mayor of New York can do nothing about?
Oh well, better they learn now that politicians will say whatever in order to get themselves elected.
Affordability may correlate with density but that isn’t the cause. Affordability is a function of demand and availability. Availability is a function of ut land-use rules, slow/uncertain permitting, local veto points, and sometimes real geographic limits.
What I’m really testing here is credibility. If Democrats want to run on affordability, they need to show serious, practical problem-solving on one the biggest drivers, housing, in the big metros they largely govern. I’m not asking SF/LA to become cheap overnight. I’m asking for credible plans with clear levers and milestones: what rules change, how approvals get faster, how much housing that unlocks, and on what timeline. I don’t see that level of seriousness yet, and I’m not claiming Republicans have it either. But if you’re going to campaign on affordability, you have to earn trust by showing a plan that would actually work. They lost a lot of credibility with me on big system changes with how Obamacare is needing increased subsidies shortly after being implemented and some of the savings claims have not at all been realized. In addition to naming their latest big bill inflation reduction only for inflation to go crazy. Bottom line I want some proof they can problem solve vs just emote. I would be generally open to that but I see little evidence and just calling the other side deranged does not do it for me after the last 10 years.
"Look at how expensive housing is in places like Wyoming, Idaho and Montana (ruby red) despite the low population density." -- Are these "blue dots" or ski slopes?
That map is clearly wrong because California is filled with empty uninhabited tracts of land that no one is allowed to build on (with the notable exception of wind power). But practically the entire state is marked high density.
It also doesn’t explain why people are fleeing low density blue states like Minnesota. Or the general downward trajectory of California since it flipped from red to blue in the mid-1990s.
Look at the growth around the Twin cities. As you can see the urban areas of Minnesota are still growing fast.
Can you explain why Iowa, North Dakota, and Kansas are seeing people flee them? They are red states.
Nonetheless, people tend to move from denser areas to less denser areas, for a variety of reasons, including affordability. So as technology has made it easier to move around in the past 30-40 years, we've seen people move from the densest urban areas in the Rustbelt and Frostbelt, into less dense areas in the Sunbelt and Southwest. Which is what you'd expect to see.
Nonetheless, the urban areas of the Rustbelt and Frostbelt have continued to grow.
>>California is filled with empty uninhabited tracts of land that no one is allowed to build on<<
Yes, but every large state has this. Texas has huge tracts of land that oil and gas companies prevent housing from being built on as well. Soon the trend will accelerate everywhere with the growth of data centers.
As nearly every state set to see a reduction in House districts but 1 in 2030, Blue state Minnesota is set to lose a House district with Reapportionment. That does not happen to states with robust growth.
Most all of the pricey towns in MT, WY, and ID are wealthy and blue, like Jackson the town the rest of Wyoming calls not Wyoming. Bozeman, Whitefish, Boise, etc. If you are willing to live in places like Rawlins or Gillette you can get houses well below the national average. I don't think prices are a function of politics but simply that many wealthy people are Democrats.
That's not an explanation mutually exclusive with one based on density dynamics and concentration effects. Higher density in a city overall will tend to mean a higher number of wealthy people. (along with a higher number of poor people) That's part of what drives up the prices and maintains demand--not just people looking for places to live overall, but more capital (and financiers and capitalists) looking to make asset price gains off of the rising property values. Not coincidentally, it's the rising asset prices that the financial system generally subsidizes.
The ruling class in the USA usually responds to a national problem by creating a new, ineffective executive department. Energy shortage? Create the Department of Energy. Traffic jams? Create the Department of Transportation. Bad government schools? Create the Department of Education. If the Democrats get control of the federal government by running on affordability, expect them to create a Department of Affordability and staff it with people skilled at getting government jobs.
Indeed the Republicans bear substantial blame for the culture war, but that's beside the point. Unless you're a Republican or a Republican-friendly independent, there's almost nothing you can say or do in the contemporary hyper-partisan environment to influence/modify Republicans' attitudes/behavior. More importantly, Republicans see this as a war they will win; the large majority of the voting public aligns with their perspective. Trump's "They're for they/them; I'm for YOU" ad was incredibly effective. So if Democrats have a genuine desire to return to national power (or even to national relevance), they need to end the culture war.
I broadly agree with your point about the hyperpartisan environment; however, I don't think you can really 'end' a culture war when you have a large, diverse population like the U.S. On a bipartisan, cooperative basis, maybe you can turn down the temperature so you go from 'hot war' to 'cold war' or something, (that's what I hope happens) but like you said bipartisanship is hard to come by these days.
It's true that Republicans believe they will win the war; but both the Democrats and the Republicans have held that belief at various times, and it rarely pans out, because culture isn't static. It's possible there are certain issues that get 'resolved'--e.g., most people now agree we shouldn't segregate schools by race and so on--but then those resolutions give birth to more issues, too. (e.g., segregating schools is unfair, but what about DEI? Is that fair or unfair?) I can't think of any time in U.S. history when there wasn't some set of cultural issues different political factions in the country were fighting over, and usually those issues are traceable to the resolutions of prior issues that they once fought over, but aren't any longer.
Yeah, I was being fast and loose with the "war" metaphor. But I think positions like "defund the police," open borders, and trans women in girls' athletic competitions are obvious losers for the national electorate. I think Trump is dangerous, pointing to the urgent need for Democrats to make themselves more appealing to the electorate. I don't know whether to scream or weep that so much of the public debate within the Democratic Party centers on how the party can provide better economic incentives to voters, while continuing to disregard hugely damaging cultural issues.
Yeah I generally agree with that. Those aren’t winning positions, and Democrats should actively move away from them. The issue is how you take a nuanced position (“We need to demilitarize and reform ICE while increasing funding for border protection”) without social media immediately lumping you in with “Open borders!”, which is what happens on a lot of these issues. Dems need to figure that out. Personally, I think new blood would help tremendously.
"So there’s your playbook. Don’t aggressively push your cultural positions but don’t change them either and talk a lot about affordability."
Independents such as I see Democrats as wanting to change their messaging, but not their goals and policies. How could I possibly trust such people with power?
I want truly moderate Democrats to succeed, but not the party as it's being run.
Rue, Spot on. Dems are saved on the Immigration issue only by Rep ineptitude. Reps should have explained the magnitude Biden's open border, while providing total lifetime costs to US taxpayers, in an easily understood manner.
Reps should have also discussed Western Europe's problems and the failure of mass migration around the globe. Reps should have explained mass migration's effect on housing costs. Then Reps should have offered a larger self deportation payment to non criminal migrants, with a shorter fuse, coupled with the end of subsidies.
More Biden new arrivals would have humanely self deported, while ICE would have fewer needles to sort through, to find criminals. Most Independents would have cheered such Rep policy.
As for why Dems believe Open Borders are preferable , I think it is hard for most Americans who have never resided in Blue Coastal enclaves to fathom the superiority complexes in those areas. Trump didn't change Dem attitudes, so much as he gave Dems permission to voice their beliefs.
Migrants are preferable to racist, ill educated, fat, Flyover F$$Ks, because they know their place. They do not complain about their lot in life and do not demand advancement. When was the last time a migrant complained about globalization, lousy public schools or Green spending?
Moreover, when they become US citizens, Dems believe the majority will support Dems and perpetually expanding government. Dems want an obedient servant caste that will eventually produce Dem Single Party rule. They believe migrants are the answer.
Finally, the Big Sort has left Dems dependent on migrants, for the Party's very survival. Ultimately, without migrant bodies juicing Blue State populations, Apportionment will end the Dem Party, for all practical purposes.
That is the reason every American should understand Dems will reopen the border, at their first opportunity. They may utilize triple the amount tourist visas with unlimited overstays, or simply declare all Trump removals invalid and invite the deported to return. One way or another, given the opportunity, the Border will reopen. Dems have no choice.
Your first paragraph is on target and describes a major failure by Trump dating from his first term as President. His first words about illegal immigration were that Mexico and other countries weren't sending their best people, they were sending rapists, murders, and other criminals. There were definitely criminals among the illegal population, but the vast majority of them were coming for better economic opportunities and to escape the awful conditions in their home countries.
Trump could have acknowledged the valid reasons why illegals wanted to enter the U.S. without coming across as racist. He could have educated Americans about the huge financial costs of massive low-skilled illegal immigration just by quoting prominent Democrats from the pre-2008 era on this issue. But as always, Trump was too lazy to become well-informed on this issue, so he just shot from the hip and thereby alienated millions of persuadable citizens.
We saw a tiny sliver of cultural debate in the aftermath of the election. For example, Seth Moultin said he didn’t want his daughter playing sports with a biological male. Then he went through 2 minutes of hate and learned the correct lesson: voting against preventing biological males participate in women’s sports.
The Groups own the Democratic Party. And after their success in 2025, they’re convinced that both 2026 and 2028 are on lock. See also: our own Minsy on this. Why should they change when the election is already as good as officially won?
The Democrat party has given up on Policy and Strategy. They have gone market share and tactical. No position is too stupid as long as it is contra-Trump.
Ruy keeps talking about the effects of democrat leadership positions as if they're listening. They ain't. Their policies are designed to make their followers feel righteous (but not responsible) and to maintain their leadership roles (and incomes).
The actual effects and effectiveness of said policies ARE NOT MATERIAL. Why? Because those positions are marketing slogans. Descriptions of a world goal that makes everyone warm and fuzzy, not the real world. They are not the actions of a leadership that takes responsibility for results as well as intentions. They are the actions of the folk who sell stuff door to door.
Let me point out a small detail, namely the notion that someone who "just crosses" the border is not involved in major crime. Virtually all such people eventually obtain a driver's license under false pretenses (fraud), almost invariably commit fraud if they put children who are not part of the citizenry into public schools intended for citizens; who soak up massive amounts of medical care intended for native Americans (in TX the Medicaid fraud is thought to be $2b just within one major hospital system. In short, it's not just one crime. It's multiple, ongoing crimes, lying to cover up a lie.
When Sheriff Joe Arpaio was here, he made public the crime stats (that the D sheriff won't do) that showed that in nearby Mesa, for example, over 70% of the CRIMINAL arrests were of illegal invaders.
Nonetheless polling indicates the average American does not like inhumane treatment of non-violent illegal migrants, nor do they like ICE, nor what is going on in Minneapolis. These are MAGA's unsatisfactory answers to the problem--every migrant to the gulag violent or not, masked ICE agents kicking your door in without a warrant and arresting anyone with a vaguely hispanic accent--and they are a liability, too. While it may be your thing, not everyone revels in cruelty.
The US does not have gulags. Deported people are returned to their nations of origin. A handful of migrants were sent to prison outside the US and returned. If they have a legal claim for damages, a lawyer will surely file one.
The Left marinates in "inhumane treatment" but conveniently never explains, how ICE agents are suppose force a child predator or someone with a Final Deportation Order, out of their car and into an ICE vehicle to be deported, when they physically resist.
This mess did not appear organically, and everyone in the US knows it. Dems purposefully dissolved the border, and imported people to be exploited, to influence future elections and juice Blue State populations. Dem funded NGOs convinced migrants US law was irrelevant and US tax payers would perpetually subsidize them.
It was one of the largest acts of calculated evil by Democratic Party in US history. And that is saying something, since these were the same people blocking Black kids from entering Schools, 1/2 century ago.
Voters' dislike of open borders won't change their distaste for that. So if it keeps happening, (which you can expect it to, given the way ICE has been set up) it will be a liability to MAGA and the GOP, the way 'open borders' is to the Democrats, and if the median Democrat moves away from 'open borders', then very soon MAGA, the GOP and the Right may well end up on the wrong side of the issue. (A point the article really doesn't mention, but ought to)
Many ICE employees have a Spanish accents, and I don't think accent or ethnicity alone is enough for apprehension. False arrests would drive down an agents statistics as false arrests probably cost many times the rate of legal apprehensions.
We have a large resident Hispanic population here that seems about as concerned as the ethnic Swedes and Germans with whom they are often intermarried. It might be my imagination but when I'm around large numbers of people who maybe aren't from here there is a sense of nervousness.
Well, aside from the videos we’re seeing of the practice, I’d note ICE doesn’t need to worry about ‘false’ arrests, or anything legally downstream of apprehension, really. They pretty much just need to meet their immediate quotas and stay in Trump’s good graces—they have de facto legal protection if they have to fudge the numbers a bit by speed-running arrest protocols. (Or bending procedures for getting a search warrant)
There sure are a lot of them that's for sure. We have no statistics from them either or not that I've ever seen. My wife asked me if she should carry her passport card thing. I told her just give them your memorised SS# and license, she has an accent but with a SoCal sound to the vowels, and for sure not western hemisphere.. Minnesota is cold. Seems like if they are going to arrest someone convicted or with a warrant they knock first then bust the door if someone is home. Disrupters and people with whistles they don't like much. I wonder how long this keeps up.
I beg pardon for being a broken record here - repeating the same point I have made many times in the past - but Democratic politicians will NOT change their unpopular positions on cultural issues because the Wokester Left controls Democratic nominating processes almost everywhere in the U.S. The Wokesters are intensely motivated voters and punch way above their weight in primaries compared to genuinely moderate Democrats. To get nominated for any elective office, a Democratic candidate cannot openly defy the Wokesters and survive to general election day.
A non-Wokester Democrat would likely win a popular vote and electoral college landslide in 2028 over JD Vance. But a non-Wokester candidate can't get nominated in the current national Democratic party. BTW, substitute MAGA/Trump worshipers for Wokesters and a similar analysis applies to the current Republican party.
Ruy Texeira and, by way of his introduction, Noah Smith, offer hope for a reasserted American sanity against the current throes of a desperate, unflinching and chaotic cultural and political grip from the progressive Left.
Texeira suggests the November midterms may not offer sufficient time for the coming backlash to this progressive Left kookiness, but that the 2028 general election will more likely deliver a decisive setback. Certainly there is some data to back this up, given Trump's of late declining support numbers and Democratic Left successes in a few strictly local contests in Virginia, New Jersey and New York City, where the victors posed as more moderate than their already early governing words and deeds.
No, Ithink that for the same reasons Texeira posits that the Democratic progressive Left learned nothing from Trump's re-election, it will come up short in the midterm election where history teaches the party out of power almost always makes decisive gains.
And in their failure to again read the political tea leaves, the 2028 General Election will reduce their open borders, gender interchangeability and other Leftwing claptrap to a mere and eminently forgettable footnote in American history.
They don’t seem to realize that the actions of people like Mamdani and Spanberger immediately following victory will show that for Democrats, “moderate” is only a pose to try to win elections. They couldn’t even keep up the fake “moderate” stance to help get through midterms.
Did you catch the list of proposed VA bills? Mamdani has nothing on Trojan Horse Spanberger.
Virginians are going to get the government they deserve good and hard. Any Governor who has watched the Minnesota mess and then immediately signed legislation to join the party, is going to provide her constituents with an interesting term.
The more chaos in VA , the better 2028 looks for Reps. Let's hope it comes without fatalities.
I was previously a loyal Democrat. In the last election, I switched parties and voted all Republican and cultural issues were major factors in my decision.
Men cannot become women. Women cannot become men. We should not give puberty blockers and cross sex hormones to children and we should not do surgery to cut off healthy body parts.
DEI and affirmative action are racism or sexism. They don’t help the people they propose to help, the put less competent people into jobs were we need excellence, and they breed hostility. As Thomas Sowell says “Affirmative action is racism under new management”.
I cannot vote for anyone that supports these.
In addition, we cannot drive our electrical grid completely on wind, solar and batteries. Anyone that thinks we can has not seriously looked at this. I cannot support anyone who wants to try and force this.
Affordability, in the Democrats mind, means subsidies paid for with taxes by someone else. As Thomas Sowell says. "The political left has long had a remarkable lack of interest in how wealth is created. As far as they are concerned, wealth exists somehow and the only interesting question is how to redistribute it."
The only way to truly make something more affordable to increase the supply of it or reduce the demand for it. None of the Democratic affordability proposals will help. They will just make things worse.
All too true. And now, the left is gearing up for a frenzied campaign to "defund [or: abolish] ICE", not having noticed the utter folly of "defund the police." There's lots of room to reform and bring order to the policies and procedures of ICE, but another self-defeating political slogan is not the way to achieve anything, except, perhaps, elect the next right-wing wave.
Ruy, I have to hand it to you, you try so hard. I feel for you.
I'll be honest - I'm a Republican. But I take the time to read your posts and indeed, I became a paying subscriber recently, because I know that you make sense.
I'm an openminded GOP voter who switched parties for ten years and voted for Obama twice, only to regret her decision. I was very attracted to the Democrats because I thought they were pro-worker. Pro-family. Pro-freedom. You know, patriotic liberals.
I won't get into how I supported Bernie over Hillary and then ended up voting twice for Donald. I'll simply say I'm a populist at heart, and anti-war. That's how I went for Obama over the GOP and Hillary, actually, but I digress.
Long story short, you make sense to more Republicans and populist indies like me than you will ever make to your own party, and I feel for you. I enjoy reading you and I agree with you on so many things, but your own party is going to end up canceling you if you keep saying honest things like the things in this post.
Y'all need to get your Blue Dem thing back. Unfortunately, I don't think it's going to happen.
I completely relate. Open minded Republican subscribes to Ruy to stay informed and entertain different perspectives. I don't however, feel bad for Ruy...if you continue to vote Democrat in today's world you are part of the problem.
The Democrats are hopeless when it comes to so-called cultural issues. I don't even like that characterization because it implies that these issues are somehow lesser, less important than the fact that the fascist goon in the White House is trying to destroy the country.
But guess what -- the Dems helped put him there. The Democratic Party, in its relentless, implacable, smug sanctimoniousness and willful ignorance, is partially responsible for putting Trump in power, not just once, but twice. And they still haven't learned their lesson.
Women are half the population. Call me crazy, but I think that fact is important. I think we count. I think we matter. And I KNOW that deluded, predatory men don't belong in women's restrooms, locker rooms, prisons, rape crisis centers, domestic violence shelters, or any women's single-sex spaces. Children are being harmed, physically and psychologically, by this bonkers "trans" ideology, they're being encouraged to join this fucked-up cult by a complicit media (looking at you, NYT, NPR, Guardian, New Yorker, etc.), they're being indoctrinated in schools. This is the biggest medical scandal of our time, and the Democratic Party is on board with it.
I don't give a shit who doesn't understand this. I don't give a shit that the "Be Kind" crowd is afraid of losing faux-virtue-signaling points over this. I'm out of patience.
I hope that all these moronic "trans allies" learn a lesson, and if they have to learn it the hard way, so be it: maybe they'll be confronted or even assaulted by a man-fake-woman in a public restroom, or maybe one of their daughters will be injured on the playing field by a boy-fake-girl, all of which has already happened and is happening. Some people only learn by touching the proverbial hot stove and getting burned. #NotMyFaultTheirs
Letitia James just fired lawyer Glenna Goldis because Goldis has the temerity to know what a woman is and to say so. And of course the tribal Dems will go along with Letitia James because she's another of their poster children for The Democrats Are Always Right.
I've sacrificed a lot in my life to stand up for civil liberties and liberal causes, I've voted blue for 50 years, and I'll be damned if I vote for any Democrat in the coming elections. I won't vote for any MAGAss either, but I will withhold my vote entirely. The Dems apparently need to be smacked in the face again and again and again before they wake the fuck up. C'est la vie.
While much of what is written here is true, Ruy is eliding the fact that U.S. politics is a game of "Who sucks less?", and *both* parties have weaknesses that must be addressed clouding its outcome. Democrats have the advantage in the short-run due to the magnitude of Trump's insanity and thermostatic effects, but I wouldn't place any bets either way on who wins in the long-run. (say in the 20-30 year time frame)
Why? Because while the Dems will have these issues to face in the long-run, the already-arrived-but-not-yet-noticed surpassing of the U.S. by China on the technological and geopolitical front will pose a huge issue for any member of the GOP seeking national office, as they will shoulder the burden of having been instrumental in enabling it. Nothing hurts Americans more than wounded national pride, and voters will remember who pushed U.S. allies into the arms of the Chinese and who enfeebled NATO at just the time China was expanding its sphere of geopolitical influence. The GOP lost a lot of ground with the people by losing their wars in the Middle East; they are just as liable to lose ground for having lost the war against Chinese communism. So the isolationists will need an answer, too--and if they don't find one, every sale of Chinese rare earth resources to Canada in the coming years, will be a political liability. That may win the culture wars when set against 'men in women's sports', or it may not--but being confident in the victor is hubris.
It will be interesting to see what polling in VA looks like 6 months from now, given that after running as moderates focused on “affordability” and winning all around the Democrats have gone hard left especially on social issues right out of the gate. Their only sop to “affordability” appears to be resurrecting the deeply unpopular Obama plan to override local zoning laws so they can build section 8 housing in suburban neighborhoods. Of course this won’t happen in the wealthy neighborhoods that do support it.
Love the Ulysses reference. It usually takes two or more decisive defeats for a major party to change their views and actions. Unfortunately, I do not see that happening with the Democrats.
If, and it is a very uncertain if, the economy improves, inflation abates, and jobs open, everything changes. It is not an impossibility, but at the moment it is almost a unicorn, in terms of probability.
I have no idea how I can trust the rational thinking of a set of Democratic leaders on the subject of affordability who cannot answer the the question “what is a women” nor define a immigration policy that actually controls a national border or create a massive system such as Obamacare that needs increased subsidies shortly after being implemented or even create a well run large city they control. I understand all the issues with the Republicans but none quite raise to this level illogical thinking that refuses to live in reality. I hope all the time for a Democratic leader that will save this situation but honestly I have just about given up hope
This point needs to be made more often. Any epistemic environment that is not capable of rejecting obviously false beliefs like “men can get pregnant” is not worthy of being trusted on other issues.
Like who won the 2020 election and do vaccines prevent disease?
Both sides commonly hold hundreds of false beliefs. Democrats believe that 1,000 to 10,000 unarmed black men are killed by police yearly. The real value is 10.
But getting questions wrong that invoke large datasets and quantitative analysis is one thing. Thinking that women have penises is entirely different.
If you wonder what the Democrats will do on the issue of affordability, look how affordable health care has become under the Affordable Care Act.
I agree so strongly with your core point that it motivated me to become a paid subscriber today. I have absolutely no doubt that the main reason the Democrats have been losing support is the Culture War. I'm convinced this directly enabled Trump's re-election. Until the Democratic Party ends its culture war, we're all in big trouble.
I can't vote for someone who can't honestly answer basic questions or articulate concrete proposals instead of a vague "affordability" platform.
Those screaming “affordability” should be required to explain why it is that the most unaffordable places in the country have been run by Democrats for decades. And why anyone should believe that their slogans in lieu of policies will do anything to make these places more affordable. Of course, they have a large segment of the population believing that “the rich!” will provide everything.
It’s sad to see how far the left has fallen into childish attitudes that should have been left behind in the dorm lounge. When you still spout the same ideas that sounded great when you were 17 getting high in your mom’s basement, it’s time to take stock.
Ok, here's an explanation, but you're not gonna like it. There are two principal factors:
A.) Affordability is determined by population density. Democrats are elected in densely populated areas.
Here is a map of house price affordability in the U.S.: https://mdpi-res.com/geographies/geographies-05-00057/article_deploy/html/images/geographies-05-00057-g002.png
Here is a map of U.S. population density: https://ecpmlangues.unistra.fr/civilization/geography/map-us-population-density-2021
Note the *extremely* high correlation. (the outliers--low density, more expensive housing--are actually mostly in red counties) And since we have a distinct causal mechanism, the usual 'correlation doesn't equal causation' critique doesn't apply.
B.) Our banking system is built on top of mortgage debt; thus housing prices, as a whole, are not allowed to fall precipitously when that system is in the process of making loans. That is why they only do so when it can't be avoided, during periods of negative growth, when lending stops--i.e. during recessions. When they are allowed to fall outside of those periods, they generally cause financial crises by pricking the underlying debt bubble. (see the pre-2008 housing bubble, to a certain degree the mid-to-late 1970s)
Ergo, Democrats are elected in denser places that are inherently more expensive due to population density, and like everywhere else the housing prices there are prevented from falling due to the American financial system's mortgage-backed structure. More expensive=less affordable.
Note that Republicans are pretty terrible at fixing the problem. Look at how expensive housing is in places like Wyoming, Idaho and Montana (ruby red) despite the low population density.
(Pages from where the maps were taken):
I.) https://ecpmlangues.unistra.fr/civilization/geography/map-us-population-density-2021
II.) https://www.mdpi.com/2673-7086/5/4/57
Even if your explanation of the problem were true, it still leaves you in the awkward position of explaining why Democrats running the densely-populated areas have only managed to make the problem worse.
That's possible, but we need evidence. What evidence do you have that they've made the problem worse, rather than density and a mortgage-debt-based financial system simply maintaining the same broad, secular process of rising costs in denser places?
Note that 'they should build more housing' isn't a satisfactory answer. Aside from the limits of building in denser places, building more housing in the same place (i.e., 'upwards' but not 'outwards') only increases population density, which only moves prices further upward.
Hmm. Won’t Mamdani voters be shocked to learn the problem is density and a broad-based financial system that the mayor of New York can do nothing about?
Oh well, better they learn now that politicians will say whatever in order to get themselves elected.
Affordability may correlate with density but that isn’t the cause. Affordability is a function of demand and availability. Availability is a function of ut land-use rules, slow/uncertain permitting, local veto points, and sometimes real geographic limits.
What I’m really testing here is credibility. If Democrats want to run on affordability, they need to show serious, practical problem-solving on one the biggest drivers, housing, in the big metros they largely govern. I’m not asking SF/LA to become cheap overnight. I’m asking for credible plans with clear levers and milestones: what rules change, how approvals get faster, how much housing that unlocks, and on what timeline. I don’t see that level of seriousness yet, and I’m not claiming Republicans have it either. But if you’re going to campaign on affordability, you have to earn trust by showing a plan that would actually work. They lost a lot of credibility with me on big system changes with how Obamacare is needing increased subsidies shortly after being implemented and some of the savings claims have not at all been realized. In addition to naming their latest big bill inflation reduction only for inflation to go crazy. Bottom line I want some proof they can problem solve vs just emote. I would be generally open to that but I see little evidence and just calling the other side deranged does not do it for me after the last 10 years.
"Look at how expensive housing is in places like Wyoming, Idaho and Montana (ruby red) despite the low population density." -- Are these "blue dots" or ski slopes?
That map is clearly wrong because California is filled with empty uninhabited tracts of land that no one is allowed to build on (with the notable exception of wind power). But practically the entire state is marked high density.
It also doesn’t explain why people are fleeing low density blue states like Minnesota. Or the general downward trajectory of California since it flipped from red to blue in the mid-1990s.
They aren't fleeing. Here's the population growth from 2000-2020:
https://vividmaps.com/population-change-by-us-county/
Look at the growth around the Twin cities. As you can see the urban areas of Minnesota are still growing fast.
Can you explain why Iowa, North Dakota, and Kansas are seeing people flee them? They are red states.
Nonetheless, people tend to move from denser areas to less denser areas, for a variety of reasons, including affordability. So as technology has made it easier to move around in the past 30-40 years, we've seen people move from the densest urban areas in the Rustbelt and Frostbelt, into less dense areas in the Sunbelt and Southwest. Which is what you'd expect to see.
Nonetheless, the urban areas of the Rustbelt and Frostbelt have continued to grow.
>>California is filled with empty uninhabited tracts of land that no one is allowed to build on<<
Yes, but every large state has this. Texas has huge tracts of land that oil and gas companies prevent housing from being built on as well. Soon the trend will accelerate everywhere with the growth of data centers.
As nearly every state set to see a reduction in House districts but 1 in 2030, Blue state Minnesota is set to lose a House district with Reapportionment. That does not happen to states with robust growth.
Most all of the pricey towns in MT, WY, and ID are wealthy and blue, like Jackson the town the rest of Wyoming calls not Wyoming. Bozeman, Whitefish, Boise, etc. If you are willing to live in places like Rawlins or Gillette you can get houses well below the national average. I don't think prices are a function of politics but simply that many wealthy people are Democrats.
That's not an explanation mutually exclusive with one based on density dynamics and concentration effects. Higher density in a city overall will tend to mean a higher number of wealthy people. (along with a higher number of poor people) That's part of what drives up the prices and maintains demand--not just people looking for places to live overall, but more capital (and financiers and capitalists) looking to make asset price gains off of the rising property values. Not coincidentally, it's the rising asset prices that the financial system generally subsidizes.
“Affordability” = more state capacity = more bureaucrats = lower prices.
= more fraud
The ruling class in the USA usually responds to a national problem by creating a new, ineffective executive department. Energy shortage? Create the Department of Energy. Traffic jams? Create the Department of Transportation. Bad government schools? Create the Department of Education. If the Democrats get control of the federal government by running on affordability, expect them to create a Department of Affordability and staff it with people skilled at getting government jobs.
>>Until the Democratic Party ends its culture war<<
A conflict takes at least two belligerents to qualify as a war...
Indeed the Republicans bear substantial blame for the culture war, but that's beside the point. Unless you're a Republican or a Republican-friendly independent, there's almost nothing you can say or do in the contemporary hyper-partisan environment to influence/modify Republicans' attitudes/behavior. More importantly, Republicans see this as a war they will win; the large majority of the voting public aligns with their perspective. Trump's "They're for they/them; I'm for YOU" ad was incredibly effective. So if Democrats have a genuine desire to return to national power (or even to national relevance), they need to end the culture war.
I broadly agree with your point about the hyperpartisan environment; however, I don't think you can really 'end' a culture war when you have a large, diverse population like the U.S. On a bipartisan, cooperative basis, maybe you can turn down the temperature so you go from 'hot war' to 'cold war' or something, (that's what I hope happens) but like you said bipartisanship is hard to come by these days.
It's true that Republicans believe they will win the war; but both the Democrats and the Republicans have held that belief at various times, and it rarely pans out, because culture isn't static. It's possible there are certain issues that get 'resolved'--e.g., most people now agree we shouldn't segregate schools by race and so on--but then those resolutions give birth to more issues, too. (e.g., segregating schools is unfair, but what about DEI? Is that fair or unfair?) I can't think of any time in U.S. history when there wasn't some set of cultural issues different political factions in the country were fighting over, and usually those issues are traceable to the resolutions of prior issues that they once fought over, but aren't any longer.
Yeah, I was being fast and loose with the "war" metaphor. But I think positions like "defund the police," open borders, and trans women in girls' athletic competitions are obvious losers for the national electorate. I think Trump is dangerous, pointing to the urgent need for Democrats to make themselves more appealing to the electorate. I don't know whether to scream or weep that so much of the public debate within the Democratic Party centers on how the party can provide better economic incentives to voters, while continuing to disregard hugely damaging cultural issues.
Yeah I generally agree with that. Those aren’t winning positions, and Democrats should actively move away from them. The issue is how you take a nuanced position (“We need to demilitarize and reform ICE while increasing funding for border protection”) without social media immediately lumping you in with “Open borders!”, which is what happens on a lot of these issues. Dems need to figure that out. Personally, I think new blood would help tremendously.
Well, when someone punches you in the face and you fight back, I guess you could say it takes two...
Praytell who threw the first punch, and when?
(I guarantee whatever your answer is I can identify a pre-existing cultural battle people were already fighting over by that time)
"So there’s your playbook. Don’t aggressively push your cultural positions but don’t change them either and talk a lot about affordability."
Independents such as I see Democrats as wanting to change their messaging, but not their goals and policies. How could I possibly trust such people with power?
I want truly moderate Democrats to succeed, but not the party as it's being run.
Rue, Spot on. Dems are saved on the Immigration issue only by Rep ineptitude. Reps should have explained the magnitude Biden's open border, while providing total lifetime costs to US taxpayers, in an easily understood manner.
Reps should have also discussed Western Europe's problems and the failure of mass migration around the globe. Reps should have explained mass migration's effect on housing costs. Then Reps should have offered a larger self deportation payment to non criminal migrants, with a shorter fuse, coupled with the end of subsidies.
More Biden new arrivals would have humanely self deported, while ICE would have fewer needles to sort through, to find criminals. Most Independents would have cheered such Rep policy.
As for why Dems believe Open Borders are preferable , I think it is hard for most Americans who have never resided in Blue Coastal enclaves to fathom the superiority complexes in those areas. Trump didn't change Dem attitudes, so much as he gave Dems permission to voice their beliefs.
Migrants are preferable to racist, ill educated, fat, Flyover F$$Ks, because they know their place. They do not complain about their lot in life and do not demand advancement. When was the last time a migrant complained about globalization, lousy public schools or Green spending?
Moreover, when they become US citizens, Dems believe the majority will support Dems and perpetually expanding government. Dems want an obedient servant caste that will eventually produce Dem Single Party rule. They believe migrants are the answer.
Finally, the Big Sort has left Dems dependent on migrants, for the Party's very survival. Ultimately, without migrant bodies juicing Blue State populations, Apportionment will end the Dem Party, for all practical purposes.
That is the reason every American should understand Dems will reopen the border, at their first opportunity. They may utilize triple the amount tourist visas with unlimited overstays, or simply declare all Trump removals invalid and invite the deported to return. One way or another, given the opportunity, the Border will reopen. Dems have no choice.
Your first paragraph is on target and describes a major failure by Trump dating from his first term as President. His first words about illegal immigration were that Mexico and other countries weren't sending their best people, they were sending rapists, murders, and other criminals. There were definitely criminals among the illegal population, but the vast majority of them were coming for better economic opportunities and to escape the awful conditions in their home countries.
Trump could have acknowledged the valid reasons why illegals wanted to enter the U.S. without coming across as racist. He could have educated Americans about the huge financial costs of massive low-skilled illegal immigration just by quoting prominent Democrats from the pre-2008 era on this issue. But as always, Trump was too lazy to become well-informed on this issue, so he just shot from the hip and thereby alienated millions of persuadable citizens.
We saw a tiny sliver of cultural debate in the aftermath of the election. For example, Seth Moultin said he didn’t want his daughter playing sports with a biological male. Then he went through 2 minutes of hate and learned the correct lesson: voting against preventing biological males participate in women’s sports.
The Groups own the Democratic Party. And after their success in 2025, they’re convinced that both 2026 and 2028 are on lock. See also: our own Minsy on this. Why should they change when the election is already as good as officially won?
The Democrat party has given up on Policy and Strategy. They have gone market share and tactical. No position is too stupid as long as it is contra-Trump.
Ruy keeps talking about the effects of democrat leadership positions as if they're listening. They ain't. Their policies are designed to make their followers feel righteous (but not responsible) and to maintain their leadership roles (and incomes).
The actual effects and effectiveness of said policies ARE NOT MATERIAL. Why? Because those positions are marketing slogans. Descriptions of a world goal that makes everyone warm and fuzzy, not the real world. They are not the actions of a leadership that takes responsibility for results as well as intentions. They are the actions of the folk who sell stuff door to door.
Let me point out a small detail, namely the notion that someone who "just crosses" the border is not involved in major crime. Virtually all such people eventually obtain a driver's license under false pretenses (fraud), almost invariably commit fraud if they put children who are not part of the citizenry into public schools intended for citizens; who soak up massive amounts of medical care intended for native Americans (in TX the Medicaid fraud is thought to be $2b just within one major hospital system. In short, it's not just one crime. It's multiple, ongoing crimes, lying to cover up a lie.
Illegal immigrants commit a high proportion of identity theft, especially by using Americans' Social Security numbers.
When Sheriff Joe Arpaio was here, he made public the crime stats (that the D sheriff won't do) that showed that in nearby Mesa, for example, over 70% of the CRIMINAL arrests were of illegal invaders.
Nonetheless polling indicates the average American does not like inhumane treatment of non-violent illegal migrants, nor do they like ICE, nor what is going on in Minneapolis. These are MAGA's unsatisfactory answers to the problem--every migrant to the gulag violent or not, masked ICE agents kicking your door in without a warrant and arresting anyone with a vaguely hispanic accent--and they are a liability, too. While it may be your thing, not everyone revels in cruelty.
The US does not have gulags. Deported people are returned to their nations of origin. A handful of migrants were sent to prison outside the US and returned. If they have a legal claim for damages, a lawyer will surely file one.
The Left marinates in "inhumane treatment" but conveniently never explains, how ICE agents are suppose force a child predator or someone with a Final Deportation Order, out of their car and into an ICE vehicle to be deported, when they physically resist.
This mess did not appear organically, and everyone in the US knows it. Dems purposefully dissolved the border, and imported people to be exploited, to influence future elections and juice Blue State populations. Dem funded NGOs convinced migrants US law was irrelevant and US tax payers would perpetually subsidize them.
It was one of the largest acts of calculated evil by Democratic Party in US history. And that is saying something, since these were the same people blocking Black kids from entering Schools, 1/2 century ago.
I said *non*-violent illegal immigrants. I'd consider a 'child predator' a violent one, wouldn't you?
Regardless, there are professional methods for apprehending violent and non-violent individuals that professionally trained LEOs learn. The median voter expects this professionalism from law enforcement, and generally view police positively as a result. What they *don't* like is unprofessional lawless thuggery from masked men, and predictably there's a lot of that going on with ICE right now, according not just to average people on the street but from local police: https://wgme.com/news/local/bush-league-policing-cumberland-county-sheriff-bashes-ice-after-arrest-of-recruit-immigration-customs-enforcement-kevin-joyce-maine-president-donald-trump
Voters' dislike of open borders won't change their distaste for that. So if it keeps happening, (which you can expect it to, given the way ICE has been set up) it will be a liability to MAGA and the GOP, the way 'open borders' is to the Democrats, and if the median Democrat moves away from 'open borders', then very soon MAGA, the GOP and the Right may well end up on the wrong side of the issue. (A point the article really doesn't mention, but ought to)
Many ICE employees have a Spanish accents, and I don't think accent or ethnicity alone is enough for apprehension. False arrests would drive down an agents statistics as false arrests probably cost many times the rate of legal apprehensions.
We have a large resident Hispanic population here that seems about as concerned as the ethnic Swedes and Germans with whom they are often intermarried. It might be my imagination but when I'm around large numbers of people who maybe aren't from here there is a sense of nervousness.
Well, aside from the videos we’re seeing of the practice, I’d note ICE doesn’t need to worry about ‘false’ arrests, or anything legally downstream of apprehension, really. They pretty much just need to meet their immediate quotas and stay in Trump’s good graces—they have de facto legal protection if they have to fudge the numbers a bit by speed-running arrest protocols. (Or bending procedures for getting a search warrant)
There sure are a lot of them that's for sure. We have no statistics from them either or not that I've ever seen. My wife asked me if she should carry her passport card thing. I told her just give them your memorised SS# and license, she has an accent but with a SoCal sound to the vowels, and for sure not western hemisphere.. Minnesota is cold. Seems like if they are going to arrest someone convicted or with a warrant they knock first then bust the door if someone is home. Disrupters and people with whistles they don't like much. I wonder how long this keeps up.
I beg pardon for being a broken record here - repeating the same point I have made many times in the past - but Democratic politicians will NOT change their unpopular positions on cultural issues because the Wokester Left controls Democratic nominating processes almost everywhere in the U.S. The Wokesters are intensely motivated voters and punch way above their weight in primaries compared to genuinely moderate Democrats. To get nominated for any elective office, a Democratic candidate cannot openly defy the Wokesters and survive to general election day.
A non-Wokester Democrat would likely win a popular vote and electoral college landslide in 2028 over JD Vance. But a non-Wokester candidate can't get nominated in the current national Democratic party. BTW, substitute MAGA/Trump worshipers for Wokesters and a similar analysis applies to the current Republican party.
Ruy Texeira and, by way of his introduction, Noah Smith, offer hope for a reasserted American sanity against the current throes of a desperate, unflinching and chaotic cultural and political grip from the progressive Left.
Texeira suggests the November midterms may not offer sufficient time for the coming backlash to this progressive Left kookiness, but that the 2028 general election will more likely deliver a decisive setback. Certainly there is some data to back this up, given Trump's of late declining support numbers and Democratic Left successes in a few strictly local contests in Virginia, New Jersey and New York City, where the victors posed as more moderate than their already early governing words and deeds.
No, Ithink that for the same reasons Texeira posits that the Democratic progressive Left learned nothing from Trump's re-election, it will come up short in the midterm election where history teaches the party out of power almost always makes decisive gains.
And in their failure to again read the political tea leaves, the 2028 General Election will reduce their open borders, gender interchangeability and other Leftwing claptrap to a mere and eminently forgettable footnote in American history.
They don’t seem to realize that the actions of people like Mamdani and Spanberger immediately following victory will show that for Democrats, “moderate” is only a pose to try to win elections. They couldn’t even keep up the fake “moderate” stance to help get through midterms.
Did you catch the list of proposed VA bills? Mamdani has nothing on Trojan Horse Spanberger.
Virginians are going to get the government they deserve good and hard. Any Governor who has watched the Minnesota mess and then immediately signed legislation to join the party, is going to provide her constituents with an interesting term.
The more chaos in VA , the better 2028 looks for Reps. Let's hope it comes without fatalities.
I was previously a loyal Democrat. In the last election, I switched parties and voted all Republican and cultural issues were major factors in my decision.
Men cannot become women. Women cannot become men. We should not give puberty blockers and cross sex hormones to children and we should not do surgery to cut off healthy body parts.
DEI and affirmative action are racism or sexism. They don’t help the people they propose to help, the put less competent people into jobs were we need excellence, and they breed hostility. As Thomas Sowell says “Affirmative action is racism under new management”.
I cannot vote for anyone that supports these.
In addition, we cannot drive our electrical grid completely on wind, solar and batteries. Anyone that thinks we can has not seriously looked at this. I cannot support anyone who wants to try and force this.
Affordability, in the Democrats mind, means subsidies paid for with taxes by someone else. As Thomas Sowell says. "The political left has long had a remarkable lack of interest in how wealth is created. As far as they are concerned, wealth exists somehow and the only interesting question is how to redistribute it."
The only way to truly make something more affordable to increase the supply of it or reduce the demand for it. None of the Democratic affordability proposals will help. They will just make things worse.
All too true. And now, the left is gearing up for a frenzied campaign to "defund [or: abolish] ICE", not having noticed the utter folly of "defund the police." There's lots of room to reform and bring order to the policies and procedures of ICE, but another self-defeating political slogan is not the way to achieve anything, except, perhaps, elect the next right-wing wave.
Ruy, I have to hand it to you, you try so hard. I feel for you.
I'll be honest - I'm a Republican. But I take the time to read your posts and indeed, I became a paying subscriber recently, because I know that you make sense.
I'm an openminded GOP voter who switched parties for ten years and voted for Obama twice, only to regret her decision. I was very attracted to the Democrats because I thought they were pro-worker. Pro-family. Pro-freedom. You know, patriotic liberals.
I won't get into how I supported Bernie over Hillary and then ended up voting twice for Donald. I'll simply say I'm a populist at heart, and anti-war. That's how I went for Obama over the GOP and Hillary, actually, but I digress.
Long story short, you make sense to more Republicans and populist indies like me than you will ever make to your own party, and I feel for you. I enjoy reading you and I agree with you on so many things, but your own party is going to end up canceling you if you keep saying honest things like the things in this post.
Y'all need to get your Blue Dem thing back. Unfortunately, I don't think it's going to happen.
I feel for you.
I completely relate. Open minded Republican subscribes to Ruy to stay informed and entertain different perspectives. I don't however, feel bad for Ruy...if you continue to vote Democrat in today's world you are part of the problem.
The Democrats are hopeless when it comes to so-called cultural issues. I don't even like that characterization because it implies that these issues are somehow lesser, less important than the fact that the fascist goon in the White House is trying to destroy the country.
But guess what -- the Dems helped put him there. The Democratic Party, in its relentless, implacable, smug sanctimoniousness and willful ignorance, is partially responsible for putting Trump in power, not just once, but twice. And they still haven't learned their lesson.
Women are half the population. Call me crazy, but I think that fact is important. I think we count. I think we matter. And I KNOW that deluded, predatory men don't belong in women's restrooms, locker rooms, prisons, rape crisis centers, domestic violence shelters, or any women's single-sex spaces. Children are being harmed, physically and psychologically, by this bonkers "trans" ideology, they're being encouraged to join this fucked-up cult by a complicit media (looking at you, NYT, NPR, Guardian, New Yorker, etc.), they're being indoctrinated in schools. This is the biggest medical scandal of our time, and the Democratic Party is on board with it.
I don't give a shit who doesn't understand this. I don't give a shit that the "Be Kind" crowd is afraid of losing faux-virtue-signaling points over this. I'm out of patience.
I hope that all these moronic "trans allies" learn a lesson, and if they have to learn it the hard way, so be it: maybe they'll be confronted or even assaulted by a man-fake-woman in a public restroom, or maybe one of their daughters will be injured on the playing field by a boy-fake-girl, all of which has already happened and is happening. Some people only learn by touching the proverbial hot stove and getting burned. #NotMyFaultTheirs
Letitia James just fired lawyer Glenna Goldis because Goldis has the temerity to know what a woman is and to say so. And of course the tribal Dems will go along with Letitia James because she's another of their poster children for The Democrats Are Always Right.
I've sacrificed a lot in my life to stand up for civil liberties and liberal causes, I've voted blue for 50 years, and I'll be damned if I vote for any Democrat in the coming elections. I won't vote for any MAGAss either, but I will withhold my vote entirely. The Dems apparently need to be smacked in the face again and again and again before they wake the fuck up. C'est la vie.
While much of what is written here is true, Ruy is eliding the fact that U.S. politics is a game of "Who sucks less?", and *both* parties have weaknesses that must be addressed clouding its outcome. Democrats have the advantage in the short-run due to the magnitude of Trump's insanity and thermostatic effects, but I wouldn't place any bets either way on who wins in the long-run. (say in the 20-30 year time frame)
Why? Because while the Dems will have these issues to face in the long-run, the already-arrived-but-not-yet-noticed surpassing of the U.S. by China on the technological and geopolitical front will pose a huge issue for any member of the GOP seeking national office, as they will shoulder the burden of having been instrumental in enabling it. Nothing hurts Americans more than wounded national pride, and voters will remember who pushed U.S. allies into the arms of the Chinese and who enfeebled NATO at just the time China was expanding its sphere of geopolitical influence. The GOP lost a lot of ground with the people by losing their wars in the Middle East; they are just as liable to lose ground for having lost the war against Chinese communism. So the isolationists will need an answer, too--and if they don't find one, every sale of Chinese rare earth resources to Canada in the coming years, will be a political liability. That may win the culture wars when set against 'men in women's sports', or it may not--but being confident in the victor is hubris.
It will be interesting to see what polling in VA looks like 6 months from now, given that after running as moderates focused on “affordability” and winning all around the Democrats have gone hard left especially on social issues right out of the gate. Their only sop to “affordability” appears to be resurrecting the deeply unpopular Obama plan to override local zoning laws so they can build section 8 housing in suburban neighborhoods. Of course this won’t happen in the wealthy neighborhoods that do support it.
Love the Ulysses reference. It usually takes two or more decisive defeats for a major party to change their views and actions. Unfortunately, I do not see that happening with the Democrats.
If, and it is a very uncertain if, the economy improves, inflation abates, and jobs open, everything changes. It is not an impossibility, but at the moment it is almost a unicorn, in terms of probability.