I'm one of those nerds who watches C-SPAN. Usually DVR it and watch later. Lots of interesting stuff on C-SPAN, which has slowly become one of my major alternatives to the thoroughly degraded "news" media. Anyway, this morning I watched a recording of a congressional "town hall" in Wisconsin, the congresscritter being Brian Steil, a Republican. The hall was packed with loud, obnoxious Democrats who screamed and shouted over Steil's attempts to answer questions in a reasonable way.
As someone who was a Democrat for 40 years and who donated $40,000 to their candidates and liberal groups, I was irritated and embarrassed for them. If the Democratic Party wants to rebuild the coalition, they can start by growing the hell up. Kicking and screaming and stamping their little feet -- throwing temper tantrums of the sort that got me sent to my room when I was 5 years old -- is not the way to draw me back, that's for certain.
Why Dems think this is effective is beyond me, most people are repulsed by this behavior. The performative videos like Swalwell's are so cringey and Sen Chris Murphy's daily x posts about Trump being a Nazi have now devolved into Trump is a child rapist. Not a single issue or solution is being offered by any Dem.
It really and truly pisses me off. What a pack of bitter, crying, infantile sore losers. They think that's going to persuade anyone? If they were my kids, they'd get sent to bed without any supper. Sheesh.
Most of these reviews lack any mention of the specific Dem policies that should be amended, for the Party to remain viable. Ditto for Dem pundits on Sunday shows. It is akin to attending marriage counseling every Tuesday to fix a failing marriage, without ever mentioning, one spouse spends every Monday having affairs, and the other, gambles away the mortgage payment, every Thursday.
Perhaps in light of Biden's age and serious medical challenges, Dems are waiting for him to pass, so they can lay the blame for Dem policy failures, at his feet and those of his Rasputins. If not, the lack of remorse is stunning. The only plan seems to be, waiting for Trump to fail spectacularly. While that is certainly a possibility, it is also possible Trump will succeed economically. Or a man of Trump's advanced age, might pass the reigns of power, prior to the end of his term. If Dems think they have problems now, wait until they must counter MAGA policies, without Trump to kick around.
In any event, inflation, immigration and child social engineering appear to be major Dem stumbling blocks. The US is hardly alone in that situation. All over Europe, the Left has banned child gender surgeries and transitions. European mass migration continues to run roughshod over most other political issues. In Denmark, the Socialists realized they could hold power, or continue to support open borders, but they could not do both. The Far Left solution there has been closing the borders, while offering migrants $30K to self deport. Future Dane asylum applicants will be resettled in Rwanda or other nations, outside of Europe, willing to accept migrants for a fee. 15 other European countries are likely to join the policy.
US economic challenges may certainly lessen the importance of immigration and child social engineering, but there is little Dems can do now to effect US economic policy. Dems seem unlikely to fix other policy problems, they refuse to enunciate.
Where are the proposed policies to help the working class? Zohran Mamdani promised a critical policy, that of chlid care, which would help working class families that are priced out of the marker. And yes, it could be paid for by a sliding scale.
Childcare is an interesting issue, because it is not as if babies once exited birth canals self sufficient. Why did it become so unaffordable, even as 10 million migrants arrived? Childcare is often a service provided by female new arrivals. How did millions of new potential caregivers arrive, and yet prices remain so unaffordable?
The next question is who pays for it and who regulates government child care? Subsidized care means someone else is picking up more of the tab, than the user. Who is that? If I'm a parent, I want to know what caregivers qualify or is my only choice, mass government child care? If that is the case, what is the ratio of caregivers to children? What are the educational requirements? What type of background checks?
How would this "sliding scale" work? I assume those who wouldn't be able to afford child care at the market rate would pay a lower amount based on income. This would have to be balanced by the well-off paying a rate well above market -- whereupon they would simply go off and find a private child care provider.
I can think of only three ways to get around this. 1) forbid private child care in New York City. 2) pass a universal per-child tax on every family in New York City, at a rate determined by family income and make childcare free or 3) make childcare free for every family that otherwise couldn't afford it and tax everyone to pay for it. 1) wouldn't increase taxes, 2) would increase taxes on families and provide a service not every family wants and 3) would increase taxes on everybody for the benefit of some.
The child care costs for low income families would have to be subsidized. And the higher income families would have to pay market rates. One way to limit the expense is to subsidize child care for those children 2 and over. (Child care under the age of 2 is more expensive). With Clinton's "Welfare Reform" states were given a block grant. This grant was to help with child care for low income families. But it has been spent on other things. It is time to redirect those block grants to subsidize child care for low income families as originally intended.
Some of Trump's policies seem to be working, in ways I had thought would take years. Employment numbers for native born are up by at least a couple million, maybe three. If wages go up substantially for the working class it might be time for a reckoning. Calling things a border issue won't cut it anymore. The issue is what happens after the border. Do we deport illegal residents as we are supposed to by law, or not?
Also tariffs haven't really caused much harm, and currently they are contributing 30 billion a month to the coffers. Apple, Taiwan semiconductor, and others are making efforts to relocate here with much larger investments than the CHIPS act, and it's costing taxpayers nothing.
In all of the Democratic candidates from NYC socialists to midwestern pragmatic governors I've heard no one come clean and admit we made serious mistakes that cost millions secure jobs and a middle class life. In order to fix things you first have to identify that something is broken.
This is the real come-to-Jesus issue for Ds. They keep describing trump as “deeply unpopular” and claiming his approval has “tanked”. They take his failure as a given based on their own blinders. But the uncomfortable truth is he has a solid floor of strong approval and support at 43-45%. That’s based on many polling outfits that - at least during this last election - consistently skewed incorrectly to the left by 3 points or so. In my view he is likely more popular than polls indicate by a few points.
So…. what do you do if Trump A) succeeds in his governing approach and B) that approach gains in popularity?
The idea that Trump is unpopular and will fail is dogma on the left - all evidence to the contrary. What to do about it? I dunno - but cooperating with initiatives that are plausibly bi partisan would at least give some cover. If they keep lighting themselves on fire, and trump succeeds, it’s hard to see how they come out very well.
What these people fail to understand is that Americans look primarily at results. We are some of the most pragmatic people on earth. We are in favor of what works, and we want it to work.
I Agree with you. I refer to myself as a MAGA Dem. I don’t think the MAGAmovement is going away at all and I think it would be awesome if the Democratic Party had a huge MAGA Dem wing so that we could debate the strategies for implementing the policies because frankly I don’t really have any trouble with the policies or the goals.
I think the "progressives" who hate MAGA are jealous of Trump for coming up with the best appeal since "Morning in America." Clinton came close with "work hard and play by the rules," even if he only did one of those. But Trump knocked it out of the park with "make America great again," and the Democrats give it more power every time they piss on it.
Ya know, the Democrats used to be pretty damn good at politics. What the hell happened? Is it something in the water? Too much Perrier and not enough from the tap like the rest of us, maybe?
What the hell happened? Both parties overpromised and underdelivered. This is how Trump was able to defeat so many Republican politicians for the Presidential nomination as well as two Democratic nominees for the Presidency.
I have been a write-in voter in the last three presidential elections, partly because of Trump's over-the-top rhetoric and partly because the Democratic candidates have been truly insulting. But if the public is tired of overpromising, I have to say that Trump has been something of an odd choice.
I think what's really going on is that the public is inured to all of it. In Trump's case, an old quip from '16 captured it well: "Trump's opponents take him literally but not seriously, and Trump's supporters take him seriously but not literally."
There are many keys to Trump's appeal, but "make America great again" is surely one of them. He laid down a marker with that; when the Democrats try to parse it, they become visibly stupid and laughable. Even though I am no Trumpanzee, I want to stand up and shout, "MAGA, you idiots!"
Past that, Trump is a master troller, and represents tens of millions of people in this country who have been shit on in every way by the "progressives" who actually think they are so smart that they can get away with calling a man a woman because he took hormones and had his gonads cut off. And then turn around and tell us to be "critical thinkers?" Do they even begin to realize what fools they are?
So when Trump trolls, he really does speak for the masses. That part amuses me, but what does not amuse me is his driving compulsion to hit back at every slight. I find it tiring and undignified, to put it mildly. So I never voted for Dennis the Menace, but he does entertain me from time to time in spite of myself. Go figure.
Why do the Dems have to do anything then but play dead? Someday Trump will be gone and perhaps in 20 years some Republican will make mistakes. In the meantime, isn't Trump doing a fine job of implementing his policies? If you are a MAGA Dem, whatever that could mean, how does that differ from a MAGA Republican?
well, it’s not in anyone’s interest for there to be an R uniparty. We need debate to dissect ideas. We need only look at the terrible ideas that the D uniparty unleashed on us while the R party was hibernating.
Well, to be realistic, none of them ever "come clean" in the way you would prefer. What they do is change direction, and then, Wizard of Oz style, send flying monkeys out with the sotto voce mea culpas. The problem for the Ds this time is that the SHTF moment will be that '30 census. It's going to be devastating, and I wonder if any of them realize it.
Progressives will not stand by while the DNC promotes center or even center-right candidates for the house, state offices etc. Yet that is exactly what it will take to trek out of the wilderness. I think the party will have to pick a lane or irrevocably split.
Activists care about their cause full stop. In a perverse way, losing and shrinking the base gives them more power than actually winning. Ds have forgotten what a party is for. Its purpose is to win and consolidate power. No other goal is possible without winning front and center.
It is clear that the Democratic Party is so split and it could be seen for everyone when it comes to regard to the question of supplying Israel with weapons. The radical left, of course has never changed the anti-Semitic position. They never will, but if you will notice those Democrats up for real election in 2024 are standing with Israel, the minority of Democrats that are secure at least for the next cycle or abandoning Israel. This of course is short sighted and will give the Republicans an opportunity to not only expand their lead in 2026 but to take the presidency in 2028. The Democrat party is dead. They have nothing to offer to the American people except constant criticism on cultural issues and of course simply criticizing Donald Trump on everything he does. I do not need Nate Silver or any polls to inform me of what is quite clear. Just wait and see what happens in New York City when that communist is elected mayor
Justin’s recipe for what the Democrats need to do to “win” (which may not be connected to the welfare of the country) is, of course, broadly true. I see two remaining obstacles, however. One is that all the money and energy is with the progressive/radical wing of the party. The second obstacle is that prevailing Democrat policies are, to be blunt, often infantile and not grounded in economics or even science. The average American the Party elites so disdain instinctively understands this.
With few other than Senator Fetterman even willing to point out the obvious, the Party still seems to have its head in the sand. A possible whuppin in the 2026 midterms may focus some minds and wallets. Absent success in coming together, the Party may split, providing the Republicans with a decades long runway akin to what we saw from the end of the Civil War up to Woodrow Wilson.
I actually don't like to say it, but I hope they come up short in '26 for clarity's sake. If that happens, given the longstanding historical precedent for the incumbent president's party to lose mid-terms (not always, but usually), it would be a political I.Q. test. Only a real idiot would fail to see that the goose is cooked.
If that does happen -- and maybe even if it doesn't -- I don't think there'll be time for the Dems to turn it around by '28. I think it'd be like 1988 after 1986, when Dukakis was whipped even though the Ds had retaken the Senate two years earlier. J.D. Vance is very smart, very talented, and personable. He will be formidable, and the usual "progressive" hatred and mockery won't work.
Going forward from '28 will be the reapportionment after the '30 census, which will shift a dozen EVs from blue to red states. There's a damn good chance that the Democrats will be looking at an 8-1 Supreme Court by '32 if not sooner, and NJ, NH, MN, and even NY turning red. So if I were their overpaid consultant, I'd be going balls to the wall in '26, because if they come up short it's going to be one grim road ahead.
Maybe it's going to be time for the Democratic Party to say sayonara like the Whigs did, and be replaced by something that doesn't make middle America puke and run away. The same thing is happening to the legacy media. Colbert is a pebble in front of the landslide. Major changes are on the way.
1) The GOP registration surge/Democrat flight is NOT just in "key states." This is pretty important. It is in EVERY. SINGLE. STATE. WE. CAN. TRACK. including places such as NJ and CA.
]2) The snide swipes at Republicans as anti-intellectual are pretty funny to this Ph.D., my Ph.D. friends, and my pretty thoughtful wife and her friends. Some of the most "intellectual" people I've met---I'm talking people who have long developed positions they can reason---didn't go to college at all. The anti-intellectualism is totally on the left. There has been an effort to flat out cancel or deny CONTRADICTORY ideas or evidence on the left now for 30 years, beginning with "climate change" then moving to the China VIrus.
3) We have Jared Golden likely losing in 2026.
4) OH will be redistricted (Rs gain at least 2, maybe 3) by its constitution. FL will probably redistrict (adding 2-3 more). By the time redistricting is finished, the GOP will have a House lock even if every Cook "tossup" goes Ds, which they won't (see #2).
5) This analysis doesn't even begin to look at the court-ordered voter roll purges in places such as Kollyfornia where 3.1 MILLION have been removed from the rolls at a 2:1 GOP advantage. Other states are following.
6) This analysis doesn't begin to factor in deportations, which will probably dilute the Democrat national presence by 2-3 million.
What I see is the exact opposite of a national party united on anything. I have written in my own substacks about the "Five Democrat Civil Wars," and currently the party isn't close to ending any of them. Instead, I see increasingly bi-coastal minority party with the GOP chipping way big at NJ, NY, and even CA.
I think the Ds might pick up a Senate seat in North Carolina and maybe another in Maine, with the Rs picking up seats in Georgia and Michigan. I wouldn't be surprised to see the partisan balance unchanged.
NC way too far out to be called. Cooper is popular, but he's only 3 points up. Not good at this point for an incumbent everyone knows. Collins has shown incredibly resilience in ME. Not sure about GA. Candidates there are weak. Maybe MI.
Volatile national situation. The economy is a real tossup. I can see it going either way. To me, the most important takeaway will be the House. If, as is likely, the Rs keep the Senate, and then they also keep the House, the Democrats will be in a very, very deep hole.
Trump said expect a big turnaround in the economy in about six months. He usually knows what's what. The foreign investments will come on line, the idiot Fed will be forced at some point to lower interest rates, and the U.S. boom will occur. I am 100% confident, and more important, while I have NOT FACTORED AN ECONOMIC REBOUND in any of my voter analysis that still has GOP holding the House & Senate, an economic rebound could significantly pad those margins.
Trump just said this yesterday. 90% of the foreign investments are still coming in. Reagan's recovery didn't occur til the second quarter of 1983. Takes about that long to flush through the system, esp. with that a-hole Powell holding interest rates hostage.
Good post, well written, easy to read. But I see Mr. Vassallo living in a bubble, or rather, within several - one of locality, another of ideology, a third of association, etc. His focus is on data, techniques, and mechanisms, all of which have made the democrat party such a formidable political machine. There’s little, however, in the way of morality, (non-Marxist) ethics, or a sense of what the majority of people want or need. He talks about his parties failures in a sterile, indirect, superficial way. To him what constitutes a “winning” coalition doesn’t matter; even if it includes criminals, perverts, psychopaths, foreign interests, and America-haters.
I'm not on board with your final sentence, which to me is too strong, but I would agree with your implicit point that the Democrats desperately need to offer a lot more than hatred of Trump. Under "progressive" control, the Democratic Party has become a negative and even malevolent force with nothing positive to offer. I don't see how that will be a path back to power, and frankly, I hope it's not.
Most Americans understand what it means to be flatlined, and can both see and hear the evidence of finality. Those simply in denial will keep the faith but won't alter the reality of mortality, in politics as in life. Mamdani might prove most striking evidence of the Democratic Party's fate, not its future.
If Mamdani is elected, either the New York City Council will not pass his agenda or 2030 will see a reprise of 1975, when NYC came within a whisker of declaring bankruptcy.
Interesting. You might have a point there. If so, something else to think about is the Pew survey showing that the majority of liberal women under 30 have been formally diagnosed with depression.
The people you mention at the beginning aren't trying to rebuild the coalition. They are trying for the nomination. It's a Hail Mary play dependent on Trump imploding. If you're serious about an anti-monopoly move, you need to reach out to Republicans with similar views. You're still running against Romney and Ryan.
The power and money Arab states have told Hamas et. al. To lay down their weapons and make a two state deal. Where Hamas and the radicals are not in charge. Seems the not too bright supporters of Hamas and the Palestinians in this country are now out of step with the Muslim/Arab world. The problem with adapting is that you need intelligent leadership to know what adaptations are needed. I hope Mamdani wins. I hope Jeffries and Schumer are put out to pasture and the AOC faction of the party comes to power. I then hope the Dems Trump comes to power and burns it all down. As an Independent I would love to have viable Dem candidates to even consider. At this point, the all in insane MSM keeps reassuring those who voted for Trump that they did the moral and right thing.
Media prior to the internet. The most obvious, but actually least impactful, CNN and MSNBC. Because my local paper makes me read the AP, I especially mean them. And there are more. But in the interest of my time, this is enough.
None of them approve of Trump or his supporters in any way, shape or form. Especially not MSNBC, which is now circling the drain because of their attitude.
Did I miss making that understandable. They don’t like/hate Trump and nothing is off limits to attack. The ends justify the means of if the means are in violation of our Constitution.
I always enjoy your writings. However I really feel like you are screaming in the wind on this. Democrats don’t care about working class or white people as a whole, and they are trying to push a super radical agenda.
Take roy cooper - as a gov he could be moderate and reject the hard left and progressive stupidity when it came. But as a senator he will have zero power to do that. He will give power to Schumer or whatever hard leftist leader the dnc has and he will never buck the party in any meaningful way. 98% of his votes will be the same as the dem from California.
If the dnc wants to win - and I want a strong counter party even though I vote Republican mostly - they have to burn their house to the ground and restart. And they will never do that. That is what Trump did to make the gop more successful and as soon as the DNC does it he better.
I would love to agree with this but how is it that the GOP with zero ideological diversity and run by one man without meaningful dissent can prosper if such diversity of ideology is essential for Democrats? Perhaps we are just in an age of charismatic leaders like Obama and Trump that can get electoral colleges majorities based on their "strong leader" image.
The problem with this argument is that the old Democratic coalition that allowed them to dominate Congress for most of the second half of the 20th century included guys like Vance, Hawley, and arguably Trump.
I'm one of those nerds who watches C-SPAN. Usually DVR it and watch later. Lots of interesting stuff on C-SPAN, which has slowly become one of my major alternatives to the thoroughly degraded "news" media. Anyway, this morning I watched a recording of a congressional "town hall" in Wisconsin, the congresscritter being Brian Steil, a Republican. The hall was packed with loud, obnoxious Democrats who screamed and shouted over Steil's attempts to answer questions in a reasonable way.
As someone who was a Democrat for 40 years and who donated $40,000 to their candidates and liberal groups, I was irritated and embarrassed for them. If the Democratic Party wants to rebuild the coalition, they can start by growing the hell up. Kicking and screaming and stamping their little feet -- throwing temper tantrums of the sort that got me sent to my room when I was 5 years old -- is not the way to draw me back, that's for certain.
Why Dems think this is effective is beyond me, most people are repulsed by this behavior. The performative videos like Swalwell's are so cringey and Sen Chris Murphy's daily x posts about Trump being a Nazi have now devolved into Trump is a child rapist. Not a single issue or solution is being offered by any Dem.
It really and truly pisses me off. What a pack of bitter, crying, infantile sore losers. They think that's going to persuade anyone? If they were my kids, they'd get sent to bed without any supper. Sheesh.
Most of these reviews lack any mention of the specific Dem policies that should be amended, for the Party to remain viable. Ditto for Dem pundits on Sunday shows. It is akin to attending marriage counseling every Tuesday to fix a failing marriage, without ever mentioning, one spouse spends every Monday having affairs, and the other, gambles away the mortgage payment, every Thursday.
Perhaps in light of Biden's age and serious medical challenges, Dems are waiting for him to pass, so they can lay the blame for Dem policy failures, at his feet and those of his Rasputins. If not, the lack of remorse is stunning. The only plan seems to be, waiting for Trump to fail spectacularly. While that is certainly a possibility, it is also possible Trump will succeed economically. Or a man of Trump's advanced age, might pass the reigns of power, prior to the end of his term. If Dems think they have problems now, wait until they must counter MAGA policies, without Trump to kick around.
In any event, inflation, immigration and child social engineering appear to be major Dem stumbling blocks. The US is hardly alone in that situation. All over Europe, the Left has banned child gender surgeries and transitions. European mass migration continues to run roughshod over most other political issues. In Denmark, the Socialists realized they could hold power, or continue to support open borders, but they could not do both. The Far Left solution there has been closing the borders, while offering migrants $30K to self deport. Future Dane asylum applicants will be resettled in Rwanda or other nations, outside of Europe, willing to accept migrants for a fee. 15 other European countries are likely to join the policy.
US economic challenges may certainly lessen the importance of immigration and child social engineering, but there is little Dems can do now to effect US economic policy. Dems seem unlikely to fix other policy problems, they refuse to enunciate.
Where are the proposed policies to help the working class? Zohran Mamdani promised a critical policy, that of chlid care, which would help working class families that are priced out of the marker. And yes, it could be paid for by a sliding scale.
Childcare is an interesting issue, because it is not as if babies once exited birth canals self sufficient. Why did it become so unaffordable, even as 10 million migrants arrived? Childcare is often a service provided by female new arrivals. How did millions of new potential caregivers arrive, and yet prices remain so unaffordable?
The next question is who pays for it and who regulates government child care? Subsidized care means someone else is picking up more of the tab, than the user. Who is that? If I'm a parent, I want to know what caregivers qualify or is my only choice, mass government child care? If that is the case, what is the ratio of caregivers to children? What are the educational requirements? What type of background checks?
How would this "sliding scale" work? I assume those who wouldn't be able to afford child care at the market rate would pay a lower amount based on income. This would have to be balanced by the well-off paying a rate well above market -- whereupon they would simply go off and find a private child care provider.
I can think of only three ways to get around this. 1) forbid private child care in New York City. 2) pass a universal per-child tax on every family in New York City, at a rate determined by family income and make childcare free or 3) make childcare free for every family that otherwise couldn't afford it and tax everyone to pay for it. 1) wouldn't increase taxes, 2) would increase taxes on families and provide a service not every family wants and 3) would increase taxes on everybody for the benefit of some.
TANSTAAFL.
The child care costs for low income families would have to be subsidized. And the higher income families would have to pay market rates. One way to limit the expense is to subsidize child care for those children 2 and over. (Child care under the age of 2 is more expensive). With Clinton's "Welfare Reform" states were given a block grant. This grant was to help with child care for low income families. But it has been spent on other things. It is time to redirect those block grants to subsidize child care for low income families as originally intended.
Some of Trump's policies seem to be working, in ways I had thought would take years. Employment numbers for native born are up by at least a couple million, maybe three. If wages go up substantially for the working class it might be time for a reckoning. Calling things a border issue won't cut it anymore. The issue is what happens after the border. Do we deport illegal residents as we are supposed to by law, or not?
Also tariffs haven't really caused much harm, and currently they are contributing 30 billion a month to the coffers. Apple, Taiwan semiconductor, and others are making efforts to relocate here with much larger investments than the CHIPS act, and it's costing taxpayers nothing.
In all of the Democratic candidates from NYC socialists to midwestern pragmatic governors I've heard no one come clean and admit we made serious mistakes that cost millions secure jobs and a middle class life. In order to fix things you first have to identify that something is broken.
This is the real come-to-Jesus issue for Ds. They keep describing trump as “deeply unpopular” and claiming his approval has “tanked”. They take his failure as a given based on their own blinders. But the uncomfortable truth is he has a solid floor of strong approval and support at 43-45%. That’s based on many polling outfits that - at least during this last election - consistently skewed incorrectly to the left by 3 points or so. In my view he is likely more popular than polls indicate by a few points.
So…. what do you do if Trump A) succeeds in his governing approach and B) that approach gains in popularity?
The idea that Trump is unpopular and will fail is dogma on the left - all evidence to the contrary. What to do about it? I dunno - but cooperating with initiatives that are plausibly bi partisan would at least give some cover. If they keep lighting themselves on fire, and trump succeeds, it’s hard to see how they come out very well.
What these people fail to understand is that Americans look primarily at results. We are some of the most pragmatic people on earth. We are in favor of what works, and we want it to work.
I Agree with you. I refer to myself as a MAGA Dem. I don’t think the MAGAmovement is going away at all and I think it would be awesome if the Democratic Party had a huge MAGA Dem wing so that we could debate the strategies for implementing the policies because frankly I don’t really have any trouble with the policies or the goals.
I think the "progressives" who hate MAGA are jealous of Trump for coming up with the best appeal since "Morning in America." Clinton came close with "work hard and play by the rules," even if he only did one of those. But Trump knocked it out of the park with "make America great again," and the Democrats give it more power every time they piss on it.
Ya know, the Democrats used to be pretty damn good at politics. What the hell happened? Is it something in the water? Too much Perrier and not enough from the tap like the rest of us, maybe?
What the hell happened? Both parties overpromised and underdelivered. This is how Trump was able to defeat so many Republican politicians for the Presidential nomination as well as two Democratic nominees for the Presidency.
I have been a write-in voter in the last three presidential elections, partly because of Trump's over-the-top rhetoric and partly because the Democratic candidates have been truly insulting. But if the public is tired of overpromising, I have to say that Trump has been something of an odd choice.
I think what's really going on is that the public is inured to all of it. In Trump's case, an old quip from '16 captured it well: "Trump's opponents take him literally but not seriously, and Trump's supporters take him seriously but not literally."
There are many keys to Trump's appeal, but "make America great again" is surely one of them. He laid down a marker with that; when the Democrats try to parse it, they become visibly stupid and laughable. Even though I am no Trumpanzee, I want to stand up and shout, "MAGA, you idiots!"
Past that, Trump is a master troller, and represents tens of millions of people in this country who have been shit on in every way by the "progressives" who actually think they are so smart that they can get away with calling a man a woman because he took hormones and had his gonads cut off. And then turn around and tell us to be "critical thinkers?" Do they even begin to realize what fools they are?
So when Trump trolls, he really does speak for the masses. That part amuses me, but what does not amuse me is his driving compulsion to hit back at every slight. I find it tiring and undignified, to put it mildly. So I never voted for Dennis the Menace, but he does entertain me from time to time in spite of myself. Go figure.
Why do the Dems have to do anything then but play dead? Someday Trump will be gone and perhaps in 20 years some Republican will make mistakes. In the meantime, isn't Trump doing a fine job of implementing his policies? If you are a MAGA Dem, whatever that could mean, how does that differ from a MAGA Republican?
well, it’s not in anyone’s interest for there to be an R uniparty. We need debate to dissect ideas. We need only look at the terrible ideas that the D uniparty unleashed on us while the R party was hibernating.
Well, to be realistic, none of them ever "come clean" in the way you would prefer. What they do is change direction, and then, Wizard of Oz style, send flying monkeys out with the sotto voce mea culpas. The problem for the Ds this time is that the SHTF moment will be that '30 census. It's going to be devastating, and I wonder if any of them realize it.
Progressives will not stand by while the DNC promotes center or even center-right candidates for the house, state offices etc. Yet that is exactly what it will take to trek out of the wilderness. I think the party will have to pick a lane or irrevocably split.
Activists care about their cause full stop. In a perverse way, losing and shrinking the base gives them more power than actually winning. Ds have forgotten what a party is for. Its purpose is to win and consolidate power. No other goal is possible without winning front and center.
It is clear that the Democratic Party is so split and it could be seen for everyone when it comes to regard to the question of supplying Israel with weapons. The radical left, of course has never changed the anti-Semitic position. They never will, but if you will notice those Democrats up for real election in 2024 are standing with Israel, the minority of Democrats that are secure at least for the next cycle or abandoning Israel. This of course is short sighted and will give the Republicans an opportunity to not only expand their lead in 2026 but to take the presidency in 2028. The Democrat party is dead. They have nothing to offer to the American people except constant criticism on cultural issues and of course simply criticizing Donald Trump on everything he does. I do not need Nate Silver or any polls to inform me of what is quite clear. Just wait and see what happens in New York City when that communist is elected mayor
Justin’s recipe for what the Democrats need to do to “win” (which may not be connected to the welfare of the country) is, of course, broadly true. I see two remaining obstacles, however. One is that all the money and energy is with the progressive/radical wing of the party. The second obstacle is that prevailing Democrat policies are, to be blunt, often infantile and not grounded in economics or even science. The average American the Party elites so disdain instinctively understands this.
With few other than Senator Fetterman even willing to point out the obvious, the Party still seems to have its head in the sand. A possible whuppin in the 2026 midterms may focus some minds and wallets. Absent success in coming together, the Party may split, providing the Republicans with a decades long runway akin to what we saw from the end of the Civil War up to Woodrow Wilson.
I actually don't like to say it, but I hope they come up short in '26 for clarity's sake. If that happens, given the longstanding historical precedent for the incumbent president's party to lose mid-terms (not always, but usually), it would be a political I.Q. test. Only a real idiot would fail to see that the goose is cooked.
If that does happen -- and maybe even if it doesn't -- I don't think there'll be time for the Dems to turn it around by '28. I think it'd be like 1988 after 1986, when Dukakis was whipped even though the Ds had retaken the Senate two years earlier. J.D. Vance is very smart, very talented, and personable. He will be formidable, and the usual "progressive" hatred and mockery won't work.
Going forward from '28 will be the reapportionment after the '30 census, which will shift a dozen EVs from blue to red states. There's a damn good chance that the Democrats will be looking at an 8-1 Supreme Court by '32 if not sooner, and NJ, NH, MN, and even NY turning red. So if I were their overpaid consultant, I'd be going balls to the wall in '26, because if they come up short it's going to be one grim road ahead.
Maybe it's going to be time for the Democratic Party to say sayonara like the Whigs did, and be replaced by something that doesn't make middle America puke and run away. The same thing is happening to the legacy media. Colbert is a pebble in front of the landslide. Major changes are on the way.
Loved your comment about Barack Obama attempting to rise above the partisan fray. Good one, thanks for the laugh this morning.
Totally.
Just a couple of points:
1) The GOP registration surge/Democrat flight is NOT just in "key states." This is pretty important. It is in EVERY. SINGLE. STATE. WE. CAN. TRACK. including places such as NJ and CA.
]2) The snide swipes at Republicans as anti-intellectual are pretty funny to this Ph.D., my Ph.D. friends, and my pretty thoughtful wife and her friends. Some of the most "intellectual" people I've met---I'm talking people who have long developed positions they can reason---didn't go to college at all. The anti-intellectualism is totally on the left. There has been an effort to flat out cancel or deny CONTRADICTORY ideas or evidence on the left now for 30 years, beginning with "climate change" then moving to the China VIrus.
3) We have Jared Golden likely losing in 2026.
4) OH will be redistricted (Rs gain at least 2, maybe 3) by its constitution. FL will probably redistrict (adding 2-3 more). By the time redistricting is finished, the GOP will have a House lock even if every Cook "tossup" goes Ds, which they won't (see #2).
5) This analysis doesn't even begin to look at the court-ordered voter roll purges in places such as Kollyfornia where 3.1 MILLION have been removed from the rolls at a 2:1 GOP advantage. Other states are following.
6) This analysis doesn't begin to factor in deportations, which will probably dilute the Democrat national presence by 2-3 million.
What I see is the exact opposite of a national party united on anything. I have written in my own substacks about the "Five Democrat Civil Wars," and currently the party isn't close to ending any of them. Instead, I see increasingly bi-coastal minority party with the GOP chipping way big at NJ, NY, and even CA.
I think the Ds might pick up a Senate seat in North Carolina and maybe another in Maine, with the Rs picking up seats in Georgia and Michigan. I wouldn't be surprised to see the partisan balance unchanged.
NC way too far out to be called. Cooper is popular, but he's only 3 points up. Not good at this point for an incumbent everyone knows. Collins has shown incredibly resilience in ME. Not sure about GA. Candidates there are weak. Maybe MI.
Volatile national situation. The economy is a real tossup. I can see it going either way. To me, the most important takeaway will be the House. If, as is likely, the Rs keep the Senate, and then they also keep the House, the Democrats will be in a very, very deep hole.
Trump said expect a big turnaround in the economy in about six months. He usually knows what's what. The foreign investments will come on line, the idiot Fed will be forced at some point to lower interest rates, and the U.S. boom will occur. I am 100% confident, and more important, while I have NOT FACTORED AN ECONOMIC REBOUND in any of my voter analysis that still has GOP holding the House & Senate, an economic rebound could significantly pad those margins.
We just passed the six-month mark. No big turnaround. By the way, only a Kool-Aid drinker is "100% confident," especially these days.
Trump just said this yesterday. 90% of the foreign investments are still coming in. Reagan's recovery didn't occur til the second quarter of 1983. Takes about that long to flush through the system, esp. with that a-hole Powell holding interest rates hostage.
This just in on Cooper. An old-fashioned sex scandal.
https://archive.is/XQwf3
Good post, well written, easy to read. But I see Mr. Vassallo living in a bubble, or rather, within several - one of locality, another of ideology, a third of association, etc. His focus is on data, techniques, and mechanisms, all of which have made the democrat party such a formidable political machine. There’s little, however, in the way of morality, (non-Marxist) ethics, or a sense of what the majority of people want or need. He talks about his parties failures in a sterile, indirect, superficial way. To him what constitutes a “winning” coalition doesn’t matter; even if it includes criminals, perverts, psychopaths, foreign interests, and America-haters.
I'm not on board with your final sentence, which to me is too strong, but I would agree with your implicit point that the Democrats desperately need to offer a lot more than hatred of Trump. Under "progressive" control, the Democratic Party has become a negative and even malevolent force with nothing positive to offer. I don't see how that will be a path back to power, and frankly, I hope it's not.
Most Americans understand what it means to be flatlined, and can both see and hear the evidence of finality. Those simply in denial will keep the faith but won't alter the reality of mortality, in politics as in life. Mamdani might prove most striking evidence of the Democratic Party's fate, not its future.
If Mamdani is elected, either the New York City Council will not pass his agenda or 2030 will see a reprise of 1975, when NYC came within a whisker of declaring bankruptcy.
The Democrats are still a female-centric party and as long as that is the case it forecloses any idea of a broad appeal.
Interesting. You might have a point there. If so, something else to think about is the Pew survey showing that the majority of liberal women under 30 have been formally diagnosed with depression.
The people you mention at the beginning aren't trying to rebuild the coalition. They are trying for the nomination. It's a Hail Mary play dependent on Trump imploding. If you're serious about an anti-monopoly move, you need to reach out to Republicans with similar views. You're still running against Romney and Ryan.
The power and money Arab states have told Hamas et. al. To lay down their weapons and make a two state deal. Where Hamas and the radicals are not in charge. Seems the not too bright supporters of Hamas and the Palestinians in this country are now out of step with the Muslim/Arab world. The problem with adapting is that you need intelligent leadership to know what adaptations are needed. I hope Mamdani wins. I hope Jeffries and Schumer are put out to pasture and the AOC faction of the party comes to power. I then hope the Dems Trump comes to power and burns it all down. As an Independent I would love to have viable Dem candidates to even consider. At this point, the all in insane MSM keeps reassuring those who voted for Trump that they did the moral and right thing.
The MSM? In this country?
Just an easy way to ID them.
What MSM do you have in mind? Everybody knows, or at least says, that Fox and the WSJ aren't mainstream. Who else approves of Trump?
Media prior to the internet. The most obvious, but actually least impactful, CNN and MSNBC. Because my local paper makes me read the AP, I especially mean them. And there are more. But in the interest of my time, this is enough.
None of them approve of Trump or his supporters in any way, shape or form. Especially not MSNBC, which is now circling the drain because of their attitude.
Did I miss making that understandable. They don’t like/hate Trump and nothing is off limits to attack. The ends justify the means of if the means are in violation of our Constitution.
I always enjoy your writings. However I really feel like you are screaming in the wind on this. Democrats don’t care about working class or white people as a whole, and they are trying to push a super radical agenda.
Take roy cooper - as a gov he could be moderate and reject the hard left and progressive stupidity when it came. But as a senator he will have zero power to do that. He will give power to Schumer or whatever hard leftist leader the dnc has and he will never buck the party in any meaningful way. 98% of his votes will be the same as the dem from California.
If the dnc wants to win - and I want a strong counter party even though I vote Republican mostly - they have to burn their house to the ground and restart. And they will never do that. That is what Trump did to make the gop more successful and as soon as the DNC does it he better.
I would love to agree with this but how is it that the GOP with zero ideological diversity and run by one man without meaningful dissent can prosper if such diversity of ideology is essential for Democrats? Perhaps we are just in an age of charismatic leaders like Obama and Trump that can get electoral colleges majorities based on their "strong leader" image.
The problem with this argument is that the old Democratic coalition that allowed them to dominate Congress for most of the second half of the 20th century included guys like Vance, Hawley, and arguably Trump.