Democrats have often looked to European political parties for examples of what to do to win (Denmark’s Social Democrats) or what not to do to avoid losing (Britain’s Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn).
It is one of the greatest political ironies in US history that SCOTUS could not aid the Democratic Party more, then if it ruled a citizen only census, would decide apportionment going forward.
The number of Americans fleeing Blue states, in the last decade, has been so great, without millions of foreign new arrivals, there is a chance Dems would lose the House permanently.
Even with the replacement bodies, number of House seats lost from Blue to Red States in 2030 will be 10-12.
Perhaps even more importantly, importing new residents has allowed Blue States to retain unpopular policies, that have driven American residents away in droves, and will likely continue to do so.
Meanwhile, the drain on state resources is about to explode, as hundreds of billions of dollars in federal migrant aid disappears. Total state and federal migrant spending, in just 4 years under Biden, totaled roughly a 1/2 trillion dollars. As federal dollars disappear, Blues states with large dependent migrant populations will drown in debt attempting to maintain subsidies, without the aid of federal printing presses.
If SCOTUS were to rule only eligible voters would be counted for apportionment sake, Blue States would pass any Trump removal goals, at the speed of sound. The moment migrants did not aid their reapportionment counts, Dems would stop protesting ICE raids and start producing "Bon Voyage" signs. The change in policy would likely greatly improve future Dem electoral fortunes, especially if the next 3 years of fraud investigations, reveal much of it to be migrant based.
A while ago on these pages I read of polling showing Democrats with a brand problem. When offered the same set of policy options of a fictitious candidate, support dropped conclusively when the candidate was identified as a Democrat.
I've never seen a time with a greater opportunity for a change in immigration policy. The Democratic Party must change to survive as the examples in Ireland and England show. Words are not enough, nutty as he might be everyone can see that Trump did close the border and is deporting illegal immigrants.
A bill from congress should pass the simple test put forth by the by the civil rights icon Barbara Jordan who was chair of the congressionally mandated study known as the Jordan commission.........
“credibility of immigration policy can be measured by a simple yardstick: people who should get in, do get in; people who should not get in, are kept out; and people who are judged deportable are required to leave.”
Figure out a realistic way to do as Jordan suggested, and we can win elections again without hoping the other folks will simply be so inept we win by default. I don't like to see open confrontation between law enforcement and activists in our streets. We need a more orderly and effective process to do as Jordan said "people who are judged deportable are required to leave.”
One of the logical answers is the mayors and governors who stated they want the worse of the worse gone, round them up and then start handing them over to ICE? Problem solved. Irony is, the damage is mostly contained to those who voted the left into power. The word, though cruel, is apropos.
I felt funny writing that, couldn't figure out a better way to word it. The word "brand" is a word associated with marketing, and many think all we need is a better advertising, when really it's the accumulation of years of policy.
I sure do wish we had 4 or 5 parties as is described in the article.
When you think in brand marketing terms, all kinds of bad things follow, starting with shallow thinking. From there -- and this is a huge issue for the Dems -- you find it much easier to think in terms of "messaging" and "advertising," which is also shallow and whose changes are inconsistent at best.
You have tens of millions of voters who have gone from D to R because they don't recognize the "product" that they grew up with. If I have to stay with that terminology, then the Dems remind me of Schlitz when they changed the formula in the 1970s and went out of business because of it.
Or of an apocryphal story about the failing ad campaign for the new dog food brand. Big internal meeting, lots of charts, graphs, and evasive jargon from the sharpshooters up front. The CEO, near the end of the meeting, asks if anyone else has any ideas. A junior employee in back raises his hand. Even though the employees were getting it for free, his dog won't eat it.
"Sir, I think the problem is that the dogs don't like the dog food."
Like progressives in the US, Leo Varadkar was also a big Hamas supporter. The genius described 9-year-old Emily Hand who was abducted by Hamas and freed in exchange for a bunch of terrorists as an "innocent child who was lost has now been found”. Progressives in Ireland, like those in the US, have the habit of supporting Islamist terrorists and repressive Communist and Islamist regimes. That’s not a popular position, no matter how much their bubble claims otherwise.
Who could possibly object to a constitutional amendment that “ replace references to mothers’ responsibilities for family life and care with gender-neutral language.” So they wanted to delete the word mother in their constitution. What was the upside if it passed? What was the downside? The downside was the party lost signifiant power. Are progressives worth the damage they inflict on a party?
“A party or a movement that seeks to gain power cannot afford to disregard their prospective voters’ opinions.“ ‘Groundbreaking’ as Miranda Priestley said in the Devil Wears Prada.
It is one of the greatest political ironies in US history that SCOTUS could not aid the Democratic Party more, then if it ruled a citizen only census, would decide apportionment going forward.
The number of Americans fleeing Blue states, in the last decade, has been so great, without millions of foreign new arrivals, there is a chance Dems would lose the House permanently.
Even with the replacement bodies, number of House seats lost from Blue to Red States in 2030 will be 10-12.
Perhaps even more importantly, importing new residents has allowed Blue States to retain unpopular policies, that have driven American residents away in droves, and will likely continue to do so.
Meanwhile, the drain on state resources is about to explode, as hundreds of billions of dollars in federal migrant aid disappears. Total state and federal migrant spending, in just 4 years under Biden, totaled roughly a 1/2 trillion dollars. As federal dollars disappear, Blues states with large dependent migrant populations will drown in debt attempting to maintain subsidies, without the aid of federal printing presses.
If SCOTUS were to rule only eligible voters would be counted for apportionment sake, Blue States would pass any Trump removal goals, at the speed of sound. The moment migrants did not aid their reapportionment counts, Dems would stop protesting ICE raids and start producing "Bon Voyage" signs. The change in policy would likely greatly improve future Dem electoral fortunes, especially if the next 3 years of fraud investigations, reveal much of it to be migrant based.
Very well said.
A while ago on these pages I read of polling showing Democrats with a brand problem. When offered the same set of policy options of a fictitious candidate, support dropped conclusively when the candidate was identified as a Democrat.
I've never seen a time with a greater opportunity for a change in immigration policy. The Democratic Party must change to survive as the examples in Ireland and England show. Words are not enough, nutty as he might be everyone can see that Trump did close the border and is deporting illegal immigrants.
A bill from congress should pass the simple test put forth by the by the civil rights icon Barbara Jordan who was chair of the congressionally mandated study known as the Jordan commission.........
“credibility of immigration policy can be measured by a simple yardstick: people who should get in, do get in; people who should not get in, are kept out; and people who are judged deportable are required to leave.”
Figure out a realistic way to do as Jordan suggested, and we can win elections again without hoping the other folks will simply be so inept we win by default. I don't like to see open confrontation between law enforcement and activists in our streets. We need a more orderly and effective process to do as Jordan said "people who are judged deportable are required to leave.”
One of the logical answers is the mayors and governors who stated they want the worse of the worse gone, round them up and then start handing them over to ICE? Problem solved. Irony is, the damage is mostly contained to those who voted the left into power. The word, though cruel, is apropos.
They could start by ditching the "brand marketing" mentality that got them into this mess in the first place.
I felt funny writing that, couldn't figure out a better way to word it. The word "brand" is a word associated with marketing, and many think all we need is a better advertising, when really it's the accumulation of years of policy.
I sure do wish we had 4 or 5 parties as is described in the article.
When you think in brand marketing terms, all kinds of bad things follow, starting with shallow thinking. From there -- and this is a huge issue for the Dems -- you find it much easier to think in terms of "messaging" and "advertising," which is also shallow and whose changes are inconsistent at best.
You have tens of millions of voters who have gone from D to R because they don't recognize the "product" that they grew up with. If I have to stay with that terminology, then the Dems remind me of Schlitz when they changed the formula in the 1970s and went out of business because of it.
Or of an apocryphal story about the failing ad campaign for the new dog food brand. Big internal meeting, lots of charts, graphs, and evasive jargon from the sharpshooters up front. The CEO, near the end of the meeting, asks if anyone else has any ideas. A junior employee in back raises his hand. Even though the employees were getting it for free, his dog won't eat it.
"Sir, I think the problem is that the dogs don't like the dog food."
Like progressives in the US, Leo Varadkar was also a big Hamas supporter. The genius described 9-year-old Emily Hand who was abducted by Hamas and freed in exchange for a bunch of terrorists as an "innocent child who was lost has now been found”. Progressives in Ireland, like those in the US, have the habit of supporting Islamist terrorists and repressive Communist and Islamist regimes. That’s not a popular position, no matter how much their bubble claims otherwise.
This is excellent analysis.
Who could possibly object to a constitutional amendment that “ replace references to mothers’ responsibilities for family life and care with gender-neutral language.” So they wanted to delete the word mother in their constitution. What was the upside if it passed? What was the downside? The downside was the party lost signifiant power. Are progressives worth the damage they inflict on a party?
“A party or a movement that seeks to gain power cannot afford to disregard their prospective voters’ opinions.“ ‘Groundbreaking’ as Miranda Priestley said in the Devil Wears Prada.
As a great man once said - "Well, duh!"
I know we just went over the hills and through the woods, but are we at grandma's house yet?