Following that last link I think Abundance should rename itself the wealthy highly educated political hobbyist party and call it a day. The Ezra Klein, Matt Yglesias brand of centrism. Cool tech to ride above the unwashed while being served exotic teas with school loan forgiveness for all.
Seymour Midwest is a great American brand selling most any long handled tool with a wooden handle. Pitchforks for instance.
If we just pay central planners more and raise their status then Socialism is bound to work this time.
I mean they are not wrong that the “we need scarcity to save the planet” line coming from their green wing is killing them. That doesn’t change the fact that markets have been delivering far more abundance/prosperity than central planning for generations.
Absolutely on that "Abundance" hoo-hah. I want to know how much some expletive-deleted bunch of Democratic rescue consultants were paid to come up with that dog. Did they get it from a shelter? It won't hunt, that's for certain.
Great article, but it is not just US Independents. The natives are restless all over the West, and then some. In Japan, the PM resigned within 48 hours of the French PM's resignation. Macron, is a political dead man walking, but has vowed to stave off Le Pen or her young disciple, at least until he sees a guillotine.
England, whose empire was once so vast the sun never sat on all British soil at once, recently went thru 5 PMs in 6 years, a couple of PMs ago. Newly elected Kir Starmer, may also have the political life expectancy of a fruit fly. Once unthinkable, it seems Nigal Farage's UK Reform might not even have to wait for the end of the decade, for their turn at power.
Even the perpetually well behaved and stoic Germans, loathe to air their dirty laundry in public, were recently informed by their new Chancellor their safety net, long the envy of the world, is collapsing. This, as Germans begin a 3rd year of recession, after playing the EU's rich Uncle for a quarter of a century. The Israelis just pushed all their chips into the middle of the table, when they bombed US alley Qatar, looking to exterminate Hamas leaders. And it appears, NYC , the financial capitol of the world, will elect a Communist in the next 60 days.
There are others, but Americans should understand, rarely has the phrase "global cluster f&$k" been more apropos, in the last 80 years. 4 years of unusually weak US leadership, coupled with the mass failure of Progressive rule, and much of the civilized West, the glue that holds the planet together, feels as if it is one heinous crime away from a slow burn evolving into rolling explosions. Something is going to give, and Mr. Nock is right, it is likely to be good for pitchfork sales.
The only thing we know with any constitutional certainty is that Donald J. Trump will NOT be the 2028 GOP candidate for President, despite Democrats' by now laughable scare tactics depicting him as a fascist authoritarian who will never give up power voluntarily.
This means that for all his boorish personal failings -- a source of embarrassment for even many of his most loyal followers -- Democrats won't have DJT, to parahrase former President Nixon, "to kick around anymore." That may be the Democratic Party's campaiign platform loss in 2028 more even than the nation's.
Anybody who believes the GOP is in as desperate straits as a shrinking, Socialist Left Democratic Party simply has not been following current events and trends.
I’m an Independent former Democrat and I’m certainly disgusted with all of them, but my disgust with the Dems outweighs my disgust with the Rs.
Trump started off well with moving to end gender ideology lunacy and woke DEI racism. The Dems responded with a push further to the left on those issues, to the point where they can say, without a touch of irony, that outrage over the brutal murder of a woman (who was a war refugee, no less) is exploitation of race.
Now the Rs are blocking access to vaccines and ending vaccine mandates for children. They make decisions to pander to ignorant adults, and children will pay the price.
To be fair to Trump, he’s now moving to ban drug ads on TV, and Kennedy is right about pulling nasty chemicals out of the food supply.
Yet all of them seem essentially incompetent in many ways. Between Democratic cruelty in the form of luxury belief virtue signalling and Republican cruelty in the form of tax breaks for the wealthiest, I don’t know how this will end.
Vaccines are the pre-eminent achievement of public health in the history of humanity. They stop deadly diseases from happening. Unfortunately, people believe the lies about them.
It’s easy for adults, in ignorance, to feel smug about the lies, as though they know something that others don’t. But on this topic, they’re wrong.
I know that the CDC messed up its response to the pandemic. I know that there are problems in research. I’m a researcher; I ought to. But I also have a sister who almost died from Mumps Encephalitis before a shot was available. My parents knew people who died of or were crippled by polio.
Anyone: feel free to ask me about specific things that you believe make vaccines toxic or dangerous or whatever. I’ll answer them.
It’s so sad that children, who have no vote in this matter, are the ones who will pay for the foolish decisions of people who are supposed to be responsible about looking out for their best interests.
This is likely much ado about nothing. Americans do not listen to their government regarding vaccines, they talk to their MDs. The mistake both sides make is refusing to acknowledge the difference between a polio or measles vaccine, used a billion times over the better part of a century, and a Covid vaccine rushed thru development, with little to no testing. All so it could be foisted on healthy kids never threatened by Covid. Ditto for vaccine for Hep B, a disease passed by IV drug use or unprotected sex, something most middle class American 18 month olds, are unlikely to encounter.
For Texans, the pearl clutching is really rich. Dems allowed 10 million people to cross the US border, mostly thru Texas, during Covid. Not a single one was asked to produce a vaccination record or required to be vaccinated for anything, prior to entry. Despite the staggering numbers, and an ongoing pandemic, Dems branded anyone who mentioned the lack of vaccinations a racist. Now the CDC tells Americans to talk to their doctors, and then end of humanity is nigh?
vaccines aren't necessarily to keep the individual from being infected. Measles is only 97% effective. Vaccines stop the infection from being in the population generally. Kids can kill grandma or the teacher. Measles is 90% infective. As the vaccinated dips below 90%, and some places it's much lower, we start having measles outbreaks.
I wonder what happened to testing immigrants for HIV and TB before issuing a visa.
I've had every vaccination that exists, including 7 covid shots. I listen to my doctor, not some government agency that can't even get job numbers right.
I don't think anyone is seriously "anti-vax." Not even RFK Jr. People are asking some legitimate questions, and the usual suspects among the "progressives" are vilifying them for it.
I think you mistake who the independents or disgruntled are. They are not moderates but radicals who drifted away from party affiliation because of a belief that their party was too accommodating. Certainly true of Democrats and pre-Trump of Republicans too.
They are definitely part of the mix. Wrote a series on the four types of independents -- moderates, left- and right-populists, and the disengaged. Here is a bit more about those who are markedly anti-system. https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/the-populist-independents
Good article but I would submit that the moderate group and perhaps the populist independent group have eroded since 2023. It is easier to see in Europe because of multiple parties. Macron bet on this theory and lost.
Right-populism is ascendant in Europe for sure. That element is subsumed w/in Trump's GOP in our two-party system and the remaining populists basically just hate all the leaders and parties here. Some will continue to try to takeover one or both parties while others will just move on.
I’m not sure right-populism as a philosophy is truly ascendant in Europe so much as the so called “far right” populist parties are the only ones taking common sense stands on immigration, energy & social issues.
It was the Left that finished first in the French election. And in Germany, the other breakthrough party is the BSW which is definitely populist Left. UK is harder to read but Labour's landslide had a lower vote share than their disaster in the previous election. I suppose that provides support for your theory but the UK is seriously messed up. Perhaps Labour is the populist Left while the Conservatives are Center-Left. Reform supporters are populist Right but Farage is a mystery.
It remains to be seen where the GOP goes after Trump. He doesn't seem the sort to quietly retire but he is not immortal. I am pretty sure that the would be successors to Bush are going to try a comeback but they lack a standard bearer. Certainly not one to compete with Vance or Rubio much less Trump.
As for the polling data, people say they want moderates but what they mean is they want the other guys to agree with them. Especially Democrats who had a subservient Republican party for generations. Even Reagan didn't really challenge them on domestic policy.
Great mansplaining. I’m a moderate grown tired by the Democratic Party’s appeasing of progressive kooks and racist socialists. If you think the former-Democrat independents are radicals, but the progressive wing isn’t, you really have your head screwed on backwards.
The GOP’s problem is that Trump has a personality that’s best described with words unfit for a family publication, tends to take things farther than anyone but his base wants, and makes it far too easy for left leaning media to paint him as infinitely worse than he actually is.
The Democrats’ problem is that they are on the wrong side of every 80/20 issue out there and left leaning media has lost credibility outside of their base. While they can drive Trump’s numbers down they can’t keep him from being viewed as the lesser evil without getting back to the sensible center-left policies of the Clinton administration.
Low turnout may help them beat the spread and narrowly take the house in 26, but as Ruy wrote a while back that will likely be a Pyrrhic victory.
YouGov polling numbers are ridiculous -- almost laughable -- and I will explain why at length. They are somewhat useful in direction, but not in magnitude.
I am a close watcher of the polls. I have been for decades. These days, I use Real Clear Politics to follow them. In '24, I called Trump's victory margin on the nose by looking at the RCP numbers in '16 and '20 and adjusting their '24 numbers to correct the pollster biases against Trump.
Between presidential elections, pollsters become more biased. I think they are aware that they make their bones on election accuracy, and try to correct their biases. The biases remain, but are attenuated in the final month or so before. The bias against Trump was still present, but reduced, as it was in the home stretches of '16 and '20. Now that the election is in the rear view mirror. the dogs come out to bark in the front yard.
YouGov is right up there with CBS, Quinnipiac, and Yahoo in the TDS derby. Daily Mail is newer, and has been all over the map, but I discount them. So I throw all of them out. Do that, and RCP's -6.4% for Trump becomes -3.4%. Still underwater, but much less so than the skewed average suggests.
Why does this matter? Because any analysis based on one of the dirty 4 pollsters has to be taken not only with a grain of salt, but the entire shaker. In particular, I think the YouGov results on the issues are phony. No one should even begin to take those numbers seriously. They are far beyond the usual imprecision; to me, they cross the line to propaganda.
YouGov is an internet poll. I used to participate until I decided a few years ago that they were an unprofessional joke. I'll never prove it, but I think they just make it up and have done so for a long time. Note that YouGov shows both parties equally disfavorered, which is sharply at odds with legitimate polls. What's the Washington-speak phrase? Oh, yeah, "phoning it in." That's what they're doing, IMO. There are some pro-Trump polls that I think do the same thing, but for the moment the worst of them have dropped out of the RCP average.
Oddly enough, I don't dispute the idea that independents are alienated. But I don't even begin to believe the YouGov numbers with respect to the issues. Not even close.
Fair enough. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. I appreciate that The Economist makes all their YouGov polls available fully with crosstabs. Many polls are conducted with online panels (or some hybrid of phone/online/voter registration methods) these days, even the "respectable" ones. RDD phone polls alone are impossibly time consuming and expensive. No one answers the phone anymore! One can quibble about the exact figures across polls but as you say, the trend is the same across all on independents. Cheers.
I'm doing more than quibbling. I think those numbers were phonied up. I hasten to add that I cannot prove it; this is a guess. Why? In this instance, to try to show that the parties are equally disfavored, which doesn't square with what reputable pollsters have been reporting.
I probably sound like a "MAGA loyalist," but in fact I have been a write-in voter for president ever since '16, and in '12 voted for Obama mainly because Romney repelled me. I find Trump's rhetoric to be bombastic, erratic, and undisciplined; on issues, I think he's doing fairly well, although the jury inside my head is still out.
So I am one of those "independents," and near the top of my list of grievances is the state of political discourse and especially analysis. My jihad against YouGov this morning is more than just a numbers nerd arguing with data. I could easily go after other pollsters too, but your resting an argument on a polling outfit that I consider one of the worst made it easier for me to make a cogent case.
Mind you, I usually like the Liberal Patriot quite a bit, and your and Ruy Teixeira's material in particular. But even the best hitters foul it off into the grandstands. This is one of those times. Good thing that one Karen with the Phillies shirt isn't here to snatch the ball away from a little kid. LOL
2026 republicans keep house and senate and in 2028 keep the presidency and by then the Democrat party will split too two parties one will be some sort of populist party and the other will be An elite party
Possible, but the Dems have a good shot in 2026, and the 2028 picture is complete guesswork right now.
The special elections are a useful, if imperfect, bellwether for 2026. While swings in the House popular vote diverge from swings in special election votes (due to the prevalence of higher propensity voters), they have always diverged within a margin. The biggest divergence in favor of Republicans came in the period between 2022 and 2024, where Democrats were +2 in special elections but the House popular vote wound up being +4 GOP.
Thus far in 2025 the Dems performance in special elections has been *+13*. That indicates they have a more-than-fair shot at winning the House in 2026.
TLP often makes the point that the Democrats can't win on just opposition to Trump; but it runs the other way, too. You ought not assume that "We aren't the Democrats" is sufficient for a 'permanent Republican majority', either.
They are "so done" that astoundingly GOP voter registration continues to rise. Now, either indies are becoming Rs, or Ds are becoming Rs. Just in the last week we had a new report from NJ (+43,000 new Rs net) and NM (+1100 over a 2 month period net). Even NV, where Ds very temporarily regained a lead, they are now back to shrinking in monthly totals vs. Rs.
Independents are such a large percentage of voters in general elections - at least 30% - that one would expect at least one major party to change enough to attract a large majority of those voters. But major party candidates are chosen in party primaries, with the most partisan/ideologically extreme voters outnumbering the more moderates. So for general elections we get party line dogmatists, and we moderate independents have to always choose the lesser of two evils if we choose one major party over the other.
In the long run - by the mid 2030s - the biggest issues will be (probably) the massive national debt and (definitely) the fiscal conditions of Social Security and Medicare. The current and likely future dogma in the GOP is no increased taxes, period. The Trump wing (now dominant) also opposes any reductions in SS and Medicare benefits. The only way to maintain the current levels of benefits will be general revenues infused into those programs - meaning even more federal borrowing, ballooning the total debt even more.
Democrats, of course, are quite willing to raise taxes to preserve those programs which will NEVER be reduced to any meaningful degree - that's political reality. What will the American public favor: raising taxes or borrowing more to salvage those programs? My guess is raising taxes, which will doom the GOP by 2036, probably even 2032. The whole wokester, left-wing agenda will then be enacted: open borders immigration, two new Democratic majority states, an expanded SCOTUS, massive tax increases to enact European-level social democracy, DEI on steroids, etc.
While the funding of Social Security/Medicare is a challenge, it is already essentially being partially funded out of general revenues through the financial mechanism of the Social Security program "cashing in" the Treasury bonds in the Social Security Trust Fund -- which is simply a claim on cash from the Treasury. All that needs to be done to continue full funding of Social Security and Medicare is for Congress to appropriate the supplemental funds.
The federal government issued bonds that SS invested in. Those funds were then used for other spending purposes. The federal government effectively issued IOUs to SS, and SS is drawing down on those IOUs - SS is getting the money back that it lent to the Treasury.
My point is that big infusions of general revenues - not cashing in of IOUs - will be needed to maintain current benefit levels for SS and Medicare unless other taxes are raised. More borrowing = bigger national debt.
I agree that an increase in revenues will be required to fund current programs without additional borrowing that will increase the national debt, which is already much too high. My point is that continuing to supplement the Social Security program with Treasury funds appropriated by Congress (after the "trust fund" is no longer receiving cash for redemption of its bonds) will not in itself result in an increase in overall federal expenditures. It doesn't have to be as dire an outlook for the Social Security program as some people claim it to be.
Following that last link I think Abundance should rename itself the wealthy highly educated political hobbyist party and call it a day. The Ezra Klein, Matt Yglesias brand of centrism. Cool tech to ride above the unwashed while being served exotic teas with school loan forgiveness for all.
Seymour Midwest is a great American brand selling most any long handled tool with a wooden handle. Pitchforks for instance.
Yeah. It’s TLDR version could be:
If we just pay central planners more and raise their status then Socialism is bound to work this time.
I mean they are not wrong that the “we need scarcity to save the planet” line coming from their green wing is killing them. That doesn’t change the fact that markets have been delivering far more abundance/prosperity than central planning for generations.
Absolutely on that "Abundance" hoo-hah. I want to know how much some expletive-deleted bunch of Democratic rescue consultants were paid to come up with that dog. Did they get it from a shelter? It won't hunt, that's for certain.
Great article, but it is not just US Independents. The natives are restless all over the West, and then some. In Japan, the PM resigned within 48 hours of the French PM's resignation. Macron, is a political dead man walking, but has vowed to stave off Le Pen or her young disciple, at least until he sees a guillotine.
England, whose empire was once so vast the sun never sat on all British soil at once, recently went thru 5 PMs in 6 years, a couple of PMs ago. Newly elected Kir Starmer, may also have the political life expectancy of a fruit fly. Once unthinkable, it seems Nigal Farage's UK Reform might not even have to wait for the end of the decade, for their turn at power.
Even the perpetually well behaved and stoic Germans, loathe to air their dirty laundry in public, were recently informed by their new Chancellor their safety net, long the envy of the world, is collapsing. This, as Germans begin a 3rd year of recession, after playing the EU's rich Uncle for a quarter of a century. The Israelis just pushed all their chips into the middle of the table, when they bombed US alley Qatar, looking to exterminate Hamas leaders. And it appears, NYC , the financial capitol of the world, will elect a Communist in the next 60 days.
There are others, but Americans should understand, rarely has the phrase "global cluster f&$k" been more apropos, in the last 80 years. 4 years of unusually weak US leadership, coupled with the mass failure of Progressive rule, and much of the civilized West, the glue that holds the planet together, feels as if it is one heinous crime away from a slow burn evolving into rolling explosions. Something is going to give, and Mr. Nock is right, it is likely to be good for pitchfork sales.
The only thing we know with any constitutional certainty is that Donald J. Trump will NOT be the 2028 GOP candidate for President, despite Democrats' by now laughable scare tactics depicting him as a fascist authoritarian who will never give up power voluntarily.
This means that for all his boorish personal failings -- a source of embarrassment for even many of his most loyal followers -- Democrats won't have DJT, to parahrase former President Nixon, "to kick around anymore." That may be the Democratic Party's campaiign platform loss in 2028 more even than the nation's.
Anybody who believes the GOP is in as desperate straits as a shrinking, Socialist Left Democratic Party simply has not been following current events and trends.
I’m an Independent former Democrat and I’m certainly disgusted with all of them, but my disgust with the Dems outweighs my disgust with the Rs.
Trump started off well with moving to end gender ideology lunacy and woke DEI racism. The Dems responded with a push further to the left on those issues, to the point where they can say, without a touch of irony, that outrage over the brutal murder of a woman (who was a war refugee, no less) is exploitation of race.
Now the Rs are blocking access to vaccines and ending vaccine mandates for children. They make decisions to pander to ignorant adults, and children will pay the price.
To be fair to Trump, he’s now moving to ban drug ads on TV, and Kennedy is right about pulling nasty chemicals out of the food supply.
Yet all of them seem essentially incompetent in many ways. Between Democratic cruelty in the form of luxury belief virtue signalling and Republican cruelty in the form of tax breaks for the wealthiest, I don’t know how this will end.
Is not making vaccines mandatory the same thing as 'blocking access'?
What? Is up down? No.
Vaccines are the pre-eminent achievement of public health in the history of humanity. They stop deadly diseases from happening. Unfortunately, people believe the lies about them.
It’s easy for adults, in ignorance, to feel smug about the lies, as though they know something that others don’t. But on this topic, they’re wrong.
I know that the CDC messed up its response to the pandemic. I know that there are problems in research. I’m a researcher; I ought to. But I also have a sister who almost died from Mumps Encephalitis before a shot was available. My parents knew people who died of or were crippled by polio.
Anyone: feel free to ask me about specific things that you believe make vaccines toxic or dangerous or whatever. I’ll answer them.
It’s so sad that children, who have no vote in this matter, are the ones who will pay for the foolish decisions of people who are supposed to be responsible about looking out for their best interests.
This is likely much ado about nothing. Americans do not listen to their government regarding vaccines, they talk to their MDs. The mistake both sides make is refusing to acknowledge the difference between a polio or measles vaccine, used a billion times over the better part of a century, and a Covid vaccine rushed thru development, with little to no testing. All so it could be foisted on healthy kids never threatened by Covid. Ditto for vaccine for Hep B, a disease passed by IV drug use or unprotected sex, something most middle class American 18 month olds, are unlikely to encounter.
For Texans, the pearl clutching is really rich. Dems allowed 10 million people to cross the US border, mostly thru Texas, during Covid. Not a single one was asked to produce a vaccination record or required to be vaccinated for anything, prior to entry. Despite the staggering numbers, and an ongoing pandemic, Dems branded anyone who mentioned the lack of vaccinations a racist. Now the CDC tells Americans to talk to their doctors, and then end of humanity is nigh?
vaccines aren't necessarily to keep the individual from being infected. Measles is only 97% effective. Vaccines stop the infection from being in the population generally. Kids can kill grandma or the teacher. Measles is 90% infective. As the vaccinated dips below 90%, and some places it's much lower, we start having measles outbreaks.
I wonder what happened to testing immigrants for HIV and TB before issuing a visa.
I've had every vaccination that exists, including 7 covid shots. I listen to my doctor, not some government agency that can't even get job numbers right.
I don't think anyone is seriously "anti-vax." Not even RFK Jr. People are asking some legitimate questions, and the usual suspects among the "progressives" are vilifying them for it.
I think you mistake who the independents or disgruntled are. They are not moderates but radicals who drifted away from party affiliation because of a belief that their party was too accommodating. Certainly true of Democrats and pre-Trump of Republicans too.
They are definitely part of the mix. Wrote a series on the four types of independents -- moderates, left- and right-populists, and the disengaged. Here is a bit more about those who are markedly anti-system. https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/the-populist-independents
Good article but I would submit that the moderate group and perhaps the populist independent group have eroded since 2023. It is easier to see in Europe because of multiple parties. Macron bet on this theory and lost.
Right-populism is ascendant in Europe for sure. That element is subsumed w/in Trump's GOP in our two-party system and the remaining populists basically just hate all the leaders and parties here. Some will continue to try to takeover one or both parties while others will just move on.
I’m not sure right-populism as a philosophy is truly ascendant in Europe so much as the so called “far right” populist parties are the only ones taking common sense stands on immigration, energy & social issues.
It was the Left that finished first in the French election. And in Germany, the other breakthrough party is the BSW which is definitely populist Left. UK is harder to read but Labour's landslide had a lower vote share than their disaster in the previous election. I suppose that provides support for your theory but the UK is seriously messed up. Perhaps Labour is the populist Left while the Conservatives are Center-Left. Reform supporters are populist Right but Farage is a mystery.
It remains to be seen where the GOP goes after Trump. He doesn't seem the sort to quietly retire but he is not immortal. I am pretty sure that the would be successors to Bush are going to try a comeback but they lack a standard bearer. Certainly not one to compete with Vance or Rubio much less Trump.
As for the polling data, people say they want moderates but what they mean is they want the other guys to agree with them. Especially Democrats who had a subservient Republican party for generations. Even Reagan didn't really challenge them on domestic policy.
Great mansplaining. I’m a moderate grown tired by the Democratic Party’s appeasing of progressive kooks and racist socialists. If you think the former-Democrat independents are radicals, but the progressive wing isn’t, you really have your head screwed on backwards.
The GOP’s problem is that Trump has a personality that’s best described with words unfit for a family publication, tends to take things farther than anyone but his base wants, and makes it far too easy for left leaning media to paint him as infinitely worse than he actually is.
The Democrats’ problem is that they are on the wrong side of every 80/20 issue out there and left leaning media has lost credibility outside of their base. While they can drive Trump’s numbers down they can’t keep him from being viewed as the lesser evil without getting back to the sensible center-left policies of the Clinton administration.
Low turnout may help them beat the spread and narrowly take the house in 26, but as Ruy wrote a while back that will likely be a Pyrrhic victory.
YouGov polling numbers are ridiculous -- almost laughable -- and I will explain why at length. They are somewhat useful in direction, but not in magnitude.
I am a close watcher of the polls. I have been for decades. These days, I use Real Clear Politics to follow them. In '24, I called Trump's victory margin on the nose by looking at the RCP numbers in '16 and '20 and adjusting their '24 numbers to correct the pollster biases against Trump.
Between presidential elections, pollsters become more biased. I think they are aware that they make their bones on election accuracy, and try to correct their biases. The biases remain, but are attenuated in the final month or so before. The bias against Trump was still present, but reduced, as it was in the home stretches of '16 and '20. Now that the election is in the rear view mirror. the dogs come out to bark in the front yard.
YouGov is right up there with CBS, Quinnipiac, and Yahoo in the TDS derby. Daily Mail is newer, and has been all over the map, but I discount them. So I throw all of them out. Do that, and RCP's -6.4% for Trump becomes -3.4%. Still underwater, but much less so than the skewed average suggests.
https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/approval/donald-trump/approval-rating
Why does this matter? Because any analysis based on one of the dirty 4 pollsters has to be taken not only with a grain of salt, but the entire shaker. In particular, I think the YouGov results on the issues are phony. No one should even begin to take those numbers seriously. They are far beyond the usual imprecision; to me, they cross the line to propaganda.
YouGov is so biased against Trump that survey respondents rate Democrats worse than Trump? That's some real magic!
YouGov is an internet poll. I used to participate until I decided a few years ago that they were an unprofessional joke. I'll never prove it, but I think they just make it up and have done so for a long time. Note that YouGov shows both parties equally disfavorered, which is sharply at odds with legitimate polls. What's the Washington-speak phrase? Oh, yeah, "phoning it in." That's what they're doing, IMO. There are some pro-Trump polls that I think do the same thing, but for the moment the worst of them have dropped out of the RCP average.
Oddly enough, I don't dispute the idea that independents are alienated. But I don't even begin to believe the YouGov numbers with respect to the issues. Not even close.
Fair enough. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. I appreciate that The Economist makes all their YouGov polls available fully with crosstabs. Many polls are conducted with online panels (or some hybrid of phone/online/voter registration methods) these days, even the "respectable" ones. RDD phone polls alone are impossibly time consuming and expensive. No one answers the phone anymore! One can quibble about the exact figures across polls but as you say, the trend is the same across all on independents. Cheers.
I'm doing more than quibbling. I think those numbers were phonied up. I hasten to add that I cannot prove it; this is a guess. Why? In this instance, to try to show that the parties are equally disfavored, which doesn't square with what reputable pollsters have been reporting.
I probably sound like a "MAGA loyalist," but in fact I have been a write-in voter for president ever since '16, and in '12 voted for Obama mainly because Romney repelled me. I find Trump's rhetoric to be bombastic, erratic, and undisciplined; on issues, I think he's doing fairly well, although the jury inside my head is still out.
So I am one of those "independents," and near the top of my list of grievances is the state of political discourse and especially analysis. My jihad against YouGov this morning is more than just a numbers nerd arguing with data. I could easily go after other pollsters too, but your resting an argument on a polling outfit that I consider one of the worst made it easier for me to make a cogent case.
Mind you, I usually like the Liberal Patriot quite a bit, and your and Ruy Teixeira's material in particular. But even the best hitters foul it off into the grandstands. This is one of those times. Good thing that one Karen with the Phillies shirt isn't here to snatch the ball away from a little kid. LOL
2026 republicans keep house and senate and in 2028 keep the presidency and by then the Democrat party will split too two parties one will be some sort of populist party and the other will be An elite party
Possible, but the Dems have a good shot in 2026, and the 2028 picture is complete guesswork right now.
The special elections are a useful, if imperfect, bellwether for 2026. While swings in the House popular vote diverge from swings in special election votes (due to the prevalence of higher propensity voters), they have always diverged within a margin. The biggest divergence in favor of Republicans came in the period between 2022 and 2024, where Democrats were +2 in special elections but the House popular vote wound up being +4 GOP.
Thus far in 2025 the Dems performance in special elections has been *+13*. That indicates they have a more-than-fair shot at winning the House in 2026.
The Republicans also had anti-incumbency on their side in 2024, which has become a powerful booster in the more recent, populist era. In 2028, the Republicans will be the incumbents, and Trump will either A.) not be on the ballot, or B.) be on the ballot for a third term that 80% of the country thinks is a bad idea. (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/americans-oppose-trump-term-taking-control-greenland-canada-poll/story?id=121244234)
TLP often makes the point that the Democrats can't win on just opposition to Trump; but it runs the other way, too. You ought not assume that "We aren't the Democrats" is sufficient for a 'permanent Republican majority', either.
They are "so done" that astoundingly GOP voter registration continues to rise. Now, either indies are becoming Rs, or Ds are becoming Rs. Just in the last week we had a new report from NJ (+43,000 new Rs net) and NM (+1100 over a 2 month period net). Even NV, where Ds very temporarily regained a lead, they are now back to shrinking in monthly totals vs. Rs.
in pursuit of a peculiar mix of economic and trade policies that aren’t helping with jobs or high costs for families,
After 7 months and some can already say good or bad. Why not give Trump the same amount of time 4 years, as they gave to failed biden?
Not a Trump fan (largely for other reasons) but I agree this judgment regarding his economic program is very premature.
Independents are such a large percentage of voters in general elections - at least 30% - that one would expect at least one major party to change enough to attract a large majority of those voters. But major party candidates are chosen in party primaries, with the most partisan/ideologically extreme voters outnumbering the more moderates. So for general elections we get party line dogmatists, and we moderate independents have to always choose the lesser of two evils if we choose one major party over the other.
In the long run - by the mid 2030s - the biggest issues will be (probably) the massive national debt and (definitely) the fiscal conditions of Social Security and Medicare. The current and likely future dogma in the GOP is no increased taxes, period. The Trump wing (now dominant) also opposes any reductions in SS and Medicare benefits. The only way to maintain the current levels of benefits will be general revenues infused into those programs - meaning even more federal borrowing, ballooning the total debt even more.
Democrats, of course, are quite willing to raise taxes to preserve those programs which will NEVER be reduced to any meaningful degree - that's political reality. What will the American public favor: raising taxes or borrowing more to salvage those programs? My guess is raising taxes, which will doom the GOP by 2036, probably even 2032. The whole wokester, left-wing agenda will then be enacted: open borders immigration, two new Democratic majority states, an expanded SCOTUS, massive tax increases to enact European-level social democracy, DEI on steroids, etc.
While the funding of Social Security/Medicare is a challenge, it is already essentially being partially funded out of general revenues through the financial mechanism of the Social Security program "cashing in" the Treasury bonds in the Social Security Trust Fund -- which is simply a claim on cash from the Treasury. All that needs to be done to continue full funding of Social Security and Medicare is for Congress to appropriate the supplemental funds.
The federal government issued bonds that SS invested in. Those funds were then used for other spending purposes. The federal government effectively issued IOUs to SS, and SS is drawing down on those IOUs - SS is getting the money back that it lent to the Treasury.
My point is that big infusions of general revenues - not cashing in of IOUs - will be needed to maintain current benefit levels for SS and Medicare unless other taxes are raised. More borrowing = bigger national debt.
I agree that an increase in revenues will be required to fund current programs without additional borrowing that will increase the national debt, which is already much too high. My point is that continuing to supplement the Social Security program with Treasury funds appropriated by Congress (after the "trust fund" is no longer receiving cash for redemption of its bonds) will not in itself result in an increase in overall federal expenditures. It doesn't have to be as dire an outlook for the Social Security program as some people claim it to be.
Good stuff. For a similar assessement, check out: https://open.substack.com/pub/nathanlockwood/p/after-the-calimander?r=5xo80&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false