I made a similar point in a comment recently, the working class is almost evenly split, almost. Democrats can compete for the votes of the working class, we can still be bought, the question is can Democrats pay the price.
Trump did close the border. What does the Democratic Party have to offer? There are millions of high net worth Democrats, tens of millions maybe. Can the Democratic Party tax it's millionaires? Wages need to increase dramatically, entitlements aren't wages. Wages are earned and are spent without restrictions.
When Trump said in 16 that the Iraq war was a huge mistake I realized how bracing truth can be. When will Democrats refute open borders, open trade, and wokism? AI is going to upend a lot of the professional managerial class the Democrats represent. Crisis is opportunity, can Democrats take advantage or are they going to stick with propping up the bourgeoisie "progressives".
I am going with ban nock on this one. While it is true that the American electorate is far more diverse and dynamic than the simplified categorization put forth by intense partisans and many in the media, the perils facing the modern Democratic Party are glossed over at the real risks of its future viability.
Where, for example, is the condemnation from mainstream and "leadership" Democrats of their party's radical fringe and too often violent wing? By their silence, Democrats appear to be supporting the lawlessness of Milwaukee's activist judge under arrest for allegedly harboring an illegal alien, or campus anti-Semites who harass and threaten Jewish students.
Americans are not unaware nor unmindful of the party's silent complicity to this dangerous drift.
How would you have me to do that, Ethan? Compare him and his record to his addled, cognitively impaired predecessor, or to his addled, rutterless yet radical modern Democratic Party? I have plenty of Substack posts that should satisfy your curiosity, if you are sincerely inquisitive
I do believe Trump is a flawed person, as most of us are, but his record speaks for itself. I also believe in the will of the electorate and, if he has not delivered or at least begun showing progress on his several ambitious campaign promises -- notably reducing inflation -- he and the GOP will face a deserved setback in next year's midterms. I'm pretty sure that is how the Framers intended for it to work.
His record does indeed speak for itself, as well as his personal behavior. That’s precisely what I’m trying to drill down—many elements of his record and leadership are radical and destructive.
I’m not looking for a food fight, but I do notice you are quick to pounce on Dems when there is plenty (plenty more, in my view) to criticize Trump about and the MAGA movement/agenda.
And yes, I agree with your assessment of the political implications of failure to follow through on key campaign promises (for Dem or Republican).
Well, now ... specifically what do you oppose of his campaign promises? What do you like about the Democrats' agenda, and specifically its current emergent progressive Left base?
More to the point, no food fighting, but I have been voting in presidential elections for just over 50 years now. In that time, I have voted for one more Democrat than Republican. A pretty even score, and as a now retired career journalist I would put my ability to make independent, bi-partisan assessments -- not necessarily always winning ones -- against about anybody. Care to take the dare?
blah blah blah data data data facts facts facts blah blah blah
:)
THANK YOU. People are much too persuaded by anecdotes. We evolved to do this. We didn't evolve to respond emotionally to large data sets. So the more we can educate people by presenting large data sets (i.e., statistics) the better.
If I get elected President, I am going to get sworn in on a math book. Seriously, I think you can get a pretty good sort based on what media people consume. It seems that half the country lives in a different universe from the other half.
The best candidates try to appeal to voters on good ideas and merit, with other considerations secondary (though still important). I think that’s how most folks think. And appealing to them in this way authentically and with conviction is even better.
I do believe Trump is a flawed person, as most of us are, but his record speaks for itself. I also believe in the will of the electorate and, if he has not delivered or at least begun showing progress on his several ambitious campaign promises -- notably reducing inflation -- he and the GOP will face a deserved setback in next year's midterms. I'm pretty sure that is how the Framers intended for it to work.
The breakdown of the the data is interesting and appreciated. As you mention, Democrats will have to fight to win back certain demographics. Do you think that the platform that was presented in 2024 was created to appeal to these demographics, or did it push them away?
It seems to me that a lot of college educated voters are still lazy and continue to get their information from MSNBC and CNN where Rachel Maddow, Nicolle Wallace, Morning Joe, Abby Phillips and others are not journalists, but pundits spewing their own beliefs for lots of money that they are paid. I don't understand why the college educated continue to follow these folks, other than laziness. And now, Michelle Obama is talking about how afraid she is afraid for herself and other black folks. Just more racism that is only more divisive.
When marriage is factored in, there is a dramatic statistic that shows up. Married men, married women and single men all voted for Trump to varying degrees. Unmarried women voted overwhelmingly for Harris. When you narrow it down further, it is clear that being an unmarried woman, who is also college educated and white, is the closest thing to a definition of the radical left wing core of the Democratic Party. That is their “base”. Not anyone else. And everyone else has moved away from them.
American people and perception: I think the people who work very hard to present such a false picture to Americans should be ashamed of themselves and should correct themselves, as it is THEIR JOB to present us with truthful, trustworthy information. Literal riots and deaths have been caused based on false data stirred up by the people we are meant to trust to present a fair and accurate picture. These perceptions don't just come out of thin air. We would be much happier, much more caring, much more realistic, and much more educated if we weren't propagandized constantly. If I were an alien who knew nothing about this place and I turned on the news media or read almost any legacy media or watched the most popular movies (let's say for the past 5 years) would I know what this place looks or feels like? Would I know what these humans in the United States like, dislike, believe, do? The answer is no. Presenting a fake world that does not exist is not Journalism or News or responsible. It's tearing our country apart and for what?
I made a similar point in a comment recently, the working class is almost evenly split, almost. Democrats can compete for the votes of the working class, we can still be bought, the question is can Democrats pay the price.
Trump did close the border. What does the Democratic Party have to offer? There are millions of high net worth Democrats, tens of millions maybe. Can the Democratic Party tax it's millionaires? Wages need to increase dramatically, entitlements aren't wages. Wages are earned and are spent without restrictions.
When Trump said in 16 that the Iraq war was a huge mistake I realized how bracing truth can be. When will Democrats refute open borders, open trade, and wokism? AI is going to upend a lot of the professional managerial class the Democrats represent. Crisis is opportunity, can Democrats take advantage or are they going to stick with propping up the bourgeoisie "progressives".
I am going with ban nock on this one. While it is true that the American electorate is far more diverse and dynamic than the simplified categorization put forth by intense partisans and many in the media, the perils facing the modern Democratic Party are glossed over at the real risks of its future viability.
Where, for example, is the condemnation from mainstream and "leadership" Democrats of their party's radical fringe and too often violent wing? By their silence, Democrats appear to be supporting the lawlessness of Milwaukee's activist judge under arrest for allegedly harboring an illegal alien, or campus anti-Semites who harass and threaten Jewish students.
Americans are not unaware nor unmindful of the party's silent complicity to this dangerous drift.
Fair. Now you do Trump and the radical right.
Well that's covered every single day in every single page of my newspaper. For years.
Good. I think it’d be appropriate for Dale to publicly analyze it, too.
How would you have me to do that, Ethan? Compare him and his record to his addled, cognitively impaired predecessor, or to his addled, rutterless yet radical modern Democratic Party? I have plenty of Substack posts that should satisfy your curiosity, if you are sincerely inquisitive
No, no comparison. Just an honest assessment of Donald Trump’s flaws and the radical nature of his agenda.
I do believe Trump is a flawed person, as most of us are, but his record speaks for itself. I also believe in the will of the electorate and, if he has not delivered or at least begun showing progress on his several ambitious campaign promises -- notably reducing inflation -- he and the GOP will face a deserved setback in next year's midterms. I'm pretty sure that is how the Framers intended for it to work.
His record does indeed speak for itself, as well as his personal behavior. That’s precisely what I’m trying to drill down—many elements of his record and leadership are radical and destructive.
I’m not looking for a food fight, but I do notice you are quick to pounce on Dems when there is plenty (plenty more, in my view) to criticize Trump about and the MAGA movement/agenda.
And yes, I agree with your assessment of the political implications of failure to follow through on key campaign promises (for Dem or Republican).
Well, now ... specifically what do you oppose of his campaign promises? What do you like about the Democrats' agenda, and specifically its current emergent progressive Left base?
More to the point, no food fighting, but I have been voting in presidential elections for just over 50 years now. In that time, I have voted for one more Democrat than Republican. A pretty even score, and as a now retired career journalist I would put my ability to make independent, bi-partisan assessments -- not necessarily always winning ones -- against about anybody. Care to take the dare?
blah blah blah data data data facts facts facts blah blah blah
:)
THANK YOU. People are much too persuaded by anecdotes. We evolved to do this. We didn't evolve to respond emotionally to large data sets. So the more we can educate people by presenting large data sets (i.e., statistics) the better.
If I get elected President, I am going to get sworn in on a math book. Seriously, I think you can get a pretty good sort based on what media people consume. It seems that half the country lives in a different universe from the other half.
The best candidates try to appeal to voters on good ideas and merit, with other considerations secondary (though still important). I think that’s how most folks think. And appealing to them in this way authentically and with conviction is even better.
I do believe Trump is a flawed person, as most of us are, but his record speaks for itself. I also believe in the will of the electorate and, if he has not delivered or at least begun showing progress on his several ambitious campaign promises -- notably reducing inflation -- he and the GOP will face a deserved setback in next year's midterms. I'm pretty sure that is how the Framers intended for it to work.
The breakdown of the the data is interesting and appreciated. As you mention, Democrats will have to fight to win back certain demographics. Do you think that the platform that was presented in 2024 was created to appeal to these demographics, or did it push them away?
It seems to me that a lot of college educated voters are still lazy and continue to get their information from MSNBC and CNN where Rachel Maddow, Nicolle Wallace, Morning Joe, Abby Phillips and others are not journalists, but pundits spewing their own beliefs for lots of money that they are paid. I don't understand why the college educated continue to follow these folks, other than laziness. And now, Michelle Obama is talking about how afraid she is afraid for herself and other black folks. Just more racism that is only more divisive.
When marriage is factored in, there is a dramatic statistic that shows up. Married men, married women and single men all voted for Trump to varying degrees. Unmarried women voted overwhelmingly for Harris. When you narrow it down further, it is clear that being an unmarried woman, who is also college educated and white, is the closest thing to a definition of the radical left wing core of the Democratic Party. That is their “base”. Not anyone else. And everyone else has moved away from them.
No matter what you say the Republican party will continue to grow over the Democrat party will continue to decline
American people and perception: I think the people who work very hard to present such a false picture to Americans should be ashamed of themselves and should correct themselves, as it is THEIR JOB to present us with truthful, trustworthy information. Literal riots and deaths have been caused based on false data stirred up by the people we are meant to trust to present a fair and accurate picture. These perceptions don't just come out of thin air. We would be much happier, much more caring, much more realistic, and much more educated if we weren't propagandized constantly. If I were an alien who knew nothing about this place and I turned on the news media or read almost any legacy media or watched the most popular movies (let's say for the past 5 years) would I know what this place looks or feels like? Would I know what these humans in the United States like, dislike, believe, do? The answer is no. Presenting a fake world that does not exist is not Journalism or News or responsible. It's tearing our country apart and for what?
Yes.
"Whether the parties can make effective, broad-based appeals to a heterogeneous electorate is another question." Not with the party primary system.