It is all true. All of the issues that are at the top of the Democrat agenda or not the ones that middle America and most working class and non-college educated America care the most about. In my humble opinion, illegal immigration ,crime , The cultural issues around gender and sex, and of course, the outright discrimination through diversity equity and inclusion, and to a lesser extent national security, and foreign policy are the issues that concern the American people who elected Donald Trump, even if they didn’t care for him as a person. The Democrat party as it currently is structured is dead
The university-dwelling Democrats (and I say this as someone with 18 years of formal education, including 6 of them in top-flight universities) still do not understand that two-thirds of the American electorate does not have college degrees, and that many of those folks do not take kindly to being mocked at every turn.
Well, we'll see. There is a simple formula that has worked in almost every election since WWII. If the U-3 unemployment rate does anything but decline in the second quarter of a presidential election year, the incumbent party's candidate will lose the popular vote in November.
The only clear exception was in 1956, when the rate ticked up by 0.1% and Eisenhower was re-elected anyway. When the rate doesn't change it will be a squeaker, as in 1960 and 2000. In 2012, the indicator didn't work because of a change in the seasonal adjustment method made in 2011 that made that year look better than it was, and which made the spring of '12 look worse than it was.
It even worked in 2016, when Hillary Clinton won the popular vote but lost the electoral college because she got arrogant and campaigned in Arizona late in the game rather than listening to her advisors who begged her to stay in Wisconsin and Michigan. She knew better. That year, I won opposing bets: Salmon vs. steak in June, when I called it for Trump, and dinners at a gastropub when I called it for Hillary but by less than 4%.
Last year, I called it for Trump when the June U-3 rate was released in July, and it was 0.3% higher than in March. By and large, when U-3 moves and it's part of a trend (which it wasn't in '56), all the campaigns do is determine the victory margin. Wharton, baby. We are all about the numbers. All the rest is so many farts in the wind.
Silver is a mixed bag for sure. As a prognosticator, his track record is medicore. His main contribution was his pollster rankings, which gave the partisan lean of each poll. You can also get those in a different format by looking at the Real Clear Politics historical results.
Last year, I foretold Trump's popular vote victory margin on the nose by looking at the RCP historical data and handicapping the averages. When Trump started insulting Harris in July and into August, I wondered whether '24 would be another exception to the formula, but then Harris did a bunch of stupid things -- that shift from joy to fascist -- plus Trump had some things in his favor.
One was getting shot in Pennsylvania and then standing up and shouting, "Fight, Fight, Fight." Love him or hate him, it was an iconic moment. Harris's numbers among black men had to have been hurt by her interracial marriage, especially to a Jewish husband. (I'm not saying that this is morally right, but only that I think it hurt her. Interracial marriage is just as controversial, if not more so, among blacks as it is among whites.)
And then there were Rogan's interviews of Trump and Vance, which drew about 70 million people including myself. They were softball interviews, yet still informative about their personalities. Especially by contrast to the stilted traditional media interviews, especially the 60 Minutes debacle. Not only were they biased, but the audience was paltry compared to Rogan's. This blunted the built-in advantage that Democrats have from the naked bias of almost the entire legacy news media.
By late October, it seemed obvious to me that Trump would sweep the battlegrounds. Why? Because the Democratic candidates for Senate in several of those states started finding things to agree with Trump about.
As I wrote above, I'm an economic determinist who thinks the economy in the spring of the election year determines the November result. But not its magnitude. That's a matter of the campaigns and the media. If Trump hadn't been such a clown, I think he could have won by 3% or better. But he was a clown as usual and won by half that much.
I have not missed picking a presidential election since Nixon beat Humphrey and 68. I do not look at any numbers. I look at the issues and I listen to a wide variety of people.
An excellent and brutally honest deep dive by John Halpin into the years' long demise of the Democratic Party.
There can be little doubt that decline has accelerated very recently due, as Halpin notes, to the indifference, group think and coverup that has come to define a party so clearly out of touch with mainstream America.
If Democrats have any hope of recovery, it begins by driving the radical and looney Left elements from the party while accepting that Trump is the duly elected president, a sign of respectfulness for voters owed a thoughtful, coherent and loyal opposition to his mistaken positions.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, a recognition of the serious national security consequences for the denial and coverup of the MIA cognitively compromised Biden presidency, hand-in-hand with a willingness to identify and punish the traitors responsible for it.
Dems have an unholy trinity of problems. Immigration, children used as Progressive theory pawns and Climate spending. If they do not correct them, Trump's implosion is their only hope.
Dems purposefully imported 10-12 million desperately poor people without any plan or funding for their food, shelter, healthcare or education. Without input from Americans, in 4 years Dems created a landless, impoverished 51rst state, comprised entirely of poor Biden migrants, larger in population than 40 other US states. It was an obvious attempt to turn Texas Blue, that failed in a manner unseen since Willie Horton's weekend furlough.
New migrants ate up meager resources in low earning US areas. American minorities long told government could not afford more dollars for better schools, community centers or more cops, watched as migrants spent months in luxury hotels with room service, delivered laundry, cell phones and a plethora of other, perpetual welfare benefits. All without ever paying a dime in any sort of tax.
Migrants drove up the cost of already sparse affordable housing, while driving down low skilled wages. ERs were overwhelmed. Migrant children, unable to speak English, flooded minority schools, many already broke and failing. Most migrants are not criminal, but the ones that are, often terrorize low income and minority neighborhoods. Meanwhile, many migrants were treated as beasts of burden, enticed to a place far too expensive for most to ever be self supporting.
Trump closed the border in a few weeks, proving Dems had been lying for years about their inability to stop the flow, without comprehensive immigration reform. Dems never admitted their monstrous error, but immediately began to fight each and every deportation. Americans have no choice but to believe Dems desire open borders. It is only logical, the next Dem in the WH will once again dissolve the Southern Border and wave in 10 million more new arrivals.
On top of migration, 2/3rds of US students cannot read at grade level, but many schools have time to inform Kindergartners they may have been misgendered by their parents, 5 year prior. In later grades info regarding differing lubricants for different body areas and the creative use of home appliances can be found in some schools, all before we arrive at the trans issue.
A country that will not allow children to be tattooed, allowed children to remove healthy body parts and/or ingest drugs that cause permanent sterilization? Trans sports could have been easily solved years ago, had Dems been willing to provide trans athletes their own locker rooms, athletic categories and multi school teams. Instead, Dems demanded formally exclusively female spaces be invaded and girls at a distinct physical disadvantage, face bigger and stronger opponents. The trans issue has never been about the kids, but a political party that seeks to park itself between parents and kids, to indoctrinate the next generation.
Climate spending spurred the worst inflation in 40 years. Billions landed in the pockets of Dem donors or was simply flushed. $40 billion plus for broadband that did not connect a single home to the internet. Billions for a luxury EV company losing $100K on every $100K vehicle sold. Billions more to install a dozen EV charging stations, some sitting next to diesel generators. The list is nearly endless, but they all end at the same point. Many ordinary Americans suffering energy poverty, forced upon them by Dems far more concerned with theoretical climate models than the living conditions of actual Americans.
Only a Dem Presidential Candidate undertaking a long Mea Culpa tour, has a chance in 2028, without a Trump meltdown. They must admit Dem mistakes, stop fighting deportations and champion sane school, trans and climate polices.
I have to laugh at most of your comments, but especially how the wave of illegal immigrants was really an "obvious attempt to turn Texas Blue". How were these extralegal immigrants supposed to do that, since they can't register to vote? And "drugs that cause permanent sterilization" Which drugs, specifically, are you referring to? Hormone blockers are reversible and widely used in other contexts like treating certain types of cancer and premature puberty. And "Climate spending spurred the worst inflation in 40 years" The IRA was projected by both CBO and Penn Wharton to have no impact on inflation. "Billions landed in the pockets of Dem donors or was simply flushed" Citations to support this assertion? Actually, most of the money doled out by IRA and Chips Act went to red states like GA and AZ. I used to go to the WSJ comments section for my dose of crazy, but I seem to have found a new place to go.
Ronda Ross is right about everything and your attempts to refute her with false Dem talking points, that is really laughable. I'm not going to bother arguing with you, what you are saying has all been debunked as lies and progressive propaganda long ago.
A Blue Texas would hand Dems the WH in perpetuity. A Hispanic neighbor in Texas State Government notes Dems expected Texan Hispanic American citizens to be so thrilled at millions of new Hispanic arrivals , they would permanently vote Dem out of gratitude. Needless to say, Texas is much more Red now, and and will stay that way. The millions of migrants have helped stop the Blue State bleed, for apportionment purposes.
Many EU countries have banned puberty blockers, due to permanent consequences. They were first to offer transgender treatment and surgery and first to ban them.
It was a mere coincidence the worst inflation in 40 years arrived with Biden, just as Carter's record inflation was also not his fault. Trillions in needless green spending had nothing to do with it. Good to know.
So, the Dem Texas takeover plan involved bringing in lots of competition for low-wage Hispanic workers. Sounds almost as implausible as having all these illegal immigrants vote.
It is more accurate to say that some EU countries have restricted use of hormonal therapies. From Euro News:
"In Finland, hormonal treatments can be given to adolescents if it is clear that their identity as another gender is of a “permanent nature and causes severe dysphoria”.
In 2022, the Swedish authorities said the risks likely outweigh the benefits of puberty blockers, but said that the treatment can be offered in “exceptional” cases to adolescents with gender dysphoria.
France takes a similar approach. The French medical academy says puberty blockers are available at any age with parental consent, but encourages “the greatest reserve” in their use given the potential long-term side effects, which may include osteoporosis or fertility issues.
All sounds reasonable to me.
As far as inflation goes, it was not "coincidence" but rather COVID that caused a WORLDWIDE inflation and the US inflation was a bit less than it's peers. US had the strongest recovery from COVID of all the developed world-can we at least agree on that? And the rise of oil prices in from $26/barrel in 1973 to $153 in 1980 had something to do with inflation back then.
Covid did not cause inflation. Monetary expansion did, turbocharged in the U.S. by those stimulus checks, which were the "helicopter money" that Ben Bernanke had spoken of during the Panic of 2008.
Here we are still talking about INFLATION INFLATION INFLATION! Why was inflation worldwide if it was due to expansion of the US money supply? COVID messed up supply chains worldwide
Other countries did the same thing. Without the expansion of the money supply, inflation cannot happen. But hey, you are a "progressive." You either never took Econ 101, or you flunked the class. And here you think you're smart because you can regurgitate a buzzword from the NY Times.
The article, and many others, already have. And the fact is, winners have no reason to address any of the losers concern. If the losers can't figure it our for themselves, all the better for the winners.
The bottom line is, the Dem's problems are no one eleses fault but the Dems. Blaming others is seen as shirking responsibility for one's failures. Lumping all voters for Trump into just a group of MAGA thinkers is the most damning thing you can do. MAGA didn't elect Trump and the others you insult and demean are the one's you need to come vote for your side. No one votes for arrogant assholes.
So no comment on how illegal immigrants are part of an "obvious attempt to turn Texas blue"? Or "drugs that cause permanent sterilization"? Or how "billions landed in the pockets of Dem donors" from the IRA climate spending?
None are needed. I don’t need to figure it out, the Dems do. What’s worse than letting millions of illegals in? No one has ever really said. The only answer to me is, just stupid people in charge who do stupid things for no rational reason, that cause massive harm to many the stupid don’t care about. It wouldn’t be better to say they wanted to turn Texas Blue. Dems just aren’t that smart.
The other factor is the lingering effect of the COVID lockdowns which were mostly perpetrated by Democrats in state and local government and the media. Every business is essential to the owner and every job to the employee. Not to mention the destruction of several years of education at the behest of the teachers' unions. And who can forget the arrest of the guy surfing alone. This will probably fade but the media is still trying to whip up new panic.
Same story with rural voters. Obama won 45% of rural but since then it's been only 31% b/c Dems have written us off as irredeemably racist and backwards. There are signs that Ken Martin understands the problem and will invest in rural party building but it will also require changes in party culture, what it prioritizes, how it talks, etc.
(Sorry for the multiple postings and deletions. When you edit a long comment, substack's software truncates it. The only alternative is to delete it, edit it elsewhere, and re-post the edited version here. Arrgh. I hope this is the last try.)
-----
It's hard for me to pinpoint my disaffection with the Democrats. All of those points resonate, but I can't pick out one or two that are primarily responsible. To put it differently, as I look through the list and nod in agreement, a countervailing voice reminds me that there's some "after the fact rationalization" going on in my mind.
So maybe a better way to chart my move away from the Democrats is to look back at when it happened and why, rather than to go to the laundry list of grievances that have accumulated since then. Once you leave a political party, you begin to be critical of more and more of it, which is fine but also which might obscure the reason(s) you left to begin with.
I voted straight ticket D from 1976 through 2012, and left them in 2014. I recently went to Open Secrets and looked up my political donations and saw that of the roughly $41,000 over the years, all but $1,000 went to Democratic candidates or liberal groups. I pretty much quit giving anything to anyone after '14, with the exceptions of small donations (total $750) to two local Republican candidates in my rural county.
Now, before I say what pushed me away, I need to point out that I, like most people, would occasionally be critical of the Democrats along the way. We all hold our noses at times, such as when I voted for Carter the second time, Mondale, and Kerry, or shook my head at Bill Clinton's rank stupidity with Lewinsky, and had second thoughts about the way the Waco, Texas siege was conducted.
What held me through all of that, and more, were four factors. One was that the Democrats, in Clinton's famous terminology, seemed to be on the side of people who "worked hard and played by the rules." Another was that Clinton's economic centrism produced a budget surplus (briefly) by the end of his second term, something that seemed miraculous. The Republican hatred of gays and embrace of Falwell and Robertson and every crazy televangelist was obnoxious. And in every other dimension, large and small, Bush Jr. was a horror story.
Why did I break away?
In 2013, the Obama administration implemented Obamacare. This did not apply to me, but it applied to some friends and relatives. A ranching husband and wife were the first to open my eyes. She told me what the "exchange" would do: much higher premiums; it was mandatory; and they'd lose their long-time (decades) doctor.
I was thunderstruck! I told the wife that I couldn't believe that my Democratic Party would ever do such a thing. They were Republicans and surely got it wrong. Well, I looked closely and she was correct. You like your insurance and could keep it? Nope. You like your doctor and could keep him? Nope. In 2013, when Politifact had not yet become a leisure-time service of the Democratic National Committee, they gave their "Lie of the Year" award to Obama for his lying about the "Affordable" Care Act.
Speaking of "affordable," the ACA caused an immediate 40% increase in one of my brothers' premiums for the same policy. Exactly the same one. I knew about 10 other people who went onto ACA coverage; of those, only one -- count 'em, one -- had anything good to say.
This really shook me. So much for "working hard and playing by the rules." So much for the Democratic Party as guardian of the common man. Then, in 2014, came the coup de grace: "Black Lives Matter," and specifically the response to the Ferguson, Missouri riots by Eric Holder, the attorney general.
A biracial jury found the police blameless, but what did the Justice Department say? They investigated the local police for giving too many traffic tickets to black motorists. It was beyond absurd. The die was cast: The Democratic Party had become explicitly anti-white. I had voted for Obama twice, and donated the maximum in 2008. I felt like a complete sucker, one of P.T. Barnum's idiots. I still do.
Today, I could compile a much longer list of the Democratic Party's sins. This article did a good job of it, so I need not do it. What I will say is that I no longer recognize the Democratic Party I thought I knew. I don't trust the Republicans, but I have been voting for some of them (not Trump -- I have been casting cynical write-in votes for president since 2016) because the Democrats have refused to make sense.
The bottom line is that I feel abandoned and unrepresented, and am angry and resentful of the Democratic Party for what it has done to ordinary people. Today's Democratic Party can go to hell as far as I am concerned.
The one person that you knew that was happy with the ACA was probably getting it for nothing. I tried registering my granddaughter and great-grandson recently. She is an LPN who works six days a week. Between rent and childcare she makes very little. The cheapest policy I could find was around $300/month with (I think) around $9,000 deductible. She does not qualify for Medicaid or food stamps. And then I look at the thousands of illegals getting freebies in NYC and CA. This is 100% at Dem's doorstep.
So the Republicans propose to cut the IRA ACA subsidies and drive millions of people off Medicaid, but this is "100% at Dem's doorstep" ? And how do the "thousands of illegals getting freebies in NYC and CA" affect your granddaughter, exactly?
May I suggest you find an insurance broker to help your granddaughter find the best possible policy? We did for my adult kid and he was very happy with his Obamacare coverage.
Because as the article points out, the only ones who believe what you say are the losers of the Dem party. Your side has lied so much, nothing you say is trusted. Suggestion, don't say anything bad until it happens. Don't foretell disaster because you have never been right. Pretty simple, change all that you are doing in regards to elections and in 10 years you may win a dog catchers election. But everyone has to start somewhere. We've seen Trump and the New Republican party, you are neither, nor a good imitation. Just losers being losers because they know no other way life.
Speaking of dog catchers, I laughed hard at Liz Cheney becoming a liberal heroine last fall. Among other things, the woman had better not return to Wyoming and run for dog catcher there, because she will lose.
What was your kid's income, premium and deductible?
What is the entire budget amount for ACA? How is it financed? Include stand-alone clinics.
Originally cuts in Medicare payment rates and reductions in payments to the Medicare Advantage program was to be saved and put toward ACA (supposedly $700B by 2025). Did this happen?
My kid was working minimum wage and got ObamaCare basically for nothing. I suggest you "do your own research" and get back to us with that info about ACA funding.
The reason those with minimum wage jobs are free because self employed professionals with a family of three pay $24K a year in premiums, or more, with a $5K per person deductible. Prior to the ACA they paid $12 K a year. Young people have always been cheap to insure.
The ACA was simple cost shifting. 50% the country pays little to nothing and the other 50% picks up the cost , either personally of thru work plans.
Healthcare now approaches 20% of a larger GDP. The US has lousy life expectancy for a 1rst world nation with a ton of chronic illness, that begins at earlier ages. The US Diabetes rate has more than doubled since Obamacare. The ACA has been a disaster for everyone not handed a free or greatly reduced plan. Obamacare was suppose to shrink Medicaid rolls They grow larger each year. We could have handed the uninsured medical credit cards for their needs, and been in far better shape.
Agree that US healthcare spending is 17% vs 11% in peer countries with a much worse life expectancy. If we had Single Payer (or equivalent) like peer countries, we could bring that down
So your kid was getting 'free' health insurance and he was happy? Shocker.
Yes, I would definitely love to research that ACA boondoggle. Here's one timeline of the rollout. Notice "Sebelius admits that it was possible convicted felons could be hired as ObamaCare “navigators,” giving them access to personal information such as Social Security numbers and addresses of anyone signing up for the program." Gosh where were the federal judges??
Did I say he was happy? Please spare me the snark. Maybe you want to do your research before you decide it is a "boondoggle" . Here's an article that's more recent than the HIll article from 2013 that you cited that shows ObamaCare REDUCED health care spending:
What an EXCELLENT article. Bang bang bang hitting the truth.
I want to emphasize a point: Groupthink. What we have seen as the downfall is this very thing. It is the opposite of liberalism. A liberal person hears someone make an assertion and goes "prove it......prove it with data, with history, with compelling analyses."
We see an absence of liberalism in today's progressives. They are tribal. And we have experienced, repeatedly, the psychological dynamic if we as liberals challenge a precious progressive view then we are immediately called MAGAs.
So, one dimension is what happened to Democrats. (answer: progressives ruined the party). But another dimension is what happened to liberal thought?
Thanks again, John. TLP is the best 5 bucks we spend every month.
The Democrats do not have a vision they don’t have a strategy and the design of the organization ( structure, information flow, rewards et) needs significant change. Without a compelling and courageous leader the only hope they have for intermittent success is the “other guy/gal) seriously messing up.
How'd that work with lawfare against Trump? Dems have to look better than the other side of the rails other wise then other side doesn't look like they are off the rails. The Dems are worse no matter what for now. So once, again, Dems have to, be responsible for their actions and the consequences there of. They can only control themselves. No one else. Basic human interactions 101.
Excellent review. Hey, history says that there can be time for a turnaround. But the key is turnaround from what? Looking at past parties that faded into non-existence, the Federalists clung to an issue-less structure-based organization til they died in the 18-teens. They ignored issues, and remained wedded to a nominating process that was obsolete. Both the Liberty Party and the Know-Nothings were single issue parties that had no chance for larger appeal.
Right now, the Whigs look the closest to the Democrats, but with a big exception: for the Whigs, THE single biggest issue, slavery, was ignored entirely, reminding me of Sgt. Schulz on "Hogan's Heroes" ("I know nooothiink!")
The big difference today with modern Democrats is that they are not ignoring ONE major issue that voters want resolved, but at least three: illegal immigration, woke/transoidism, and international adventurism. (there are still a few in the GOP favoring the last, but they are of the triceratops era).
You can ignore one issue because not all communities will be effected by it. Maybe two and eke by. But you can't ignore all these PLUS the AI revolution that has taken a scimitar to Democrats' support for "green."
Moreover, what Trump has done is not just run on ONE of these, but on ALL FOUR and has linked them together in a powerful, cohesive Make America First Way. He can, and does, cogently argue how each affects the other and all of them pose threats to America's existence.
Then you throw in my "Second Democrat Civil War" of Jews/Israel v. Pales/Hamas and Democrats lose yet another constituency, either way. This is why I keep saying that I do not think it unrealistic to think the Democrats can even survive for 10 more years, let alone win.
This analysis is spot on, but unfortunately, I see no signs of the Dems accepting that they've alienated millions of people. I do, however, see some of them pretending to be reasonable:
Newsom has a new podcast where he talks to people who aren't Progressives, and he even said that maybe, just maybe, males don't belong in female sports. But of course, he backtracked when the Progressives started shouting. Plus, he leads a state that gives free medical insurance to illegal immigrants while letting taxpayers go without.
Ro Khanna's latest mantra is "stop shouting." Okay, but he still thinks that drugging children and letting them have double mastectomies is a fine idea. He just shakes his head politely when someone tries to point out why it isn't, and then politely argues for double mastectomies.
AOC stopped listing her pronouns, but she still wants to give free money to all illegal immigrants and abolish ICE.
They're all still radicals; they just play reasonable people on TV.
I voted D in every presidential election from 1984 to 2020. But in 2024, I couldn't support the Democrats' claims that their toxic, destructive ideology is virtuous. Couldn't vote for Trump either, so I voted third party.
But I'll be honest: this time around, Trump has done some good things, like taking action on gender ideology, left-wing racism, and antisemitism at universities. Do I agree with everything he's done? Absolutely not (Ukraine, cruelty to government employees...). But unfortunately for the Dems, I prefer him over someone like Harris.
The left groupthink has always existed. But it would hit a firewall of real journalism to prevent the proliferation of irrational radical ideological nonsense that tends to originate in the bowels of the campus.
The media quickly went from blocking... blew through a transformation of indifference... and went straight to amplifying the irrational radical ideological nonsense hatched on campus.
The Obama Regime also exploded the corruption of dark money from government funding an industry of Democrat political influence. Not only did the media grow corrupt in Democrat bias, but an army of NGOs soon existed with the primary agenda of working to get Democrats elected and Democrat policies enacted.
The Democrats got drunk on this campus-media-NGO feedback loop... never having to face the self-reflection of youth being idealistically wrong and needing to grasp the wisdom of adulthood.
They saw the awesome power of their machine, when coupled with social media, to nudge the entire electorate with rage and fear to vote for their Democrat dog food.
The Democrats in charge simply underestimated the electorate's ability to critically think for themselves, to see the corruption in the machine, and to vote to dismantle it as the primary threat to democracy.
But once having tasted the power of that machine, the existing power structure of the Democrat machine cannot let go. They are frankly stuck on stupid. It helped them win, but it also caused them to more recently lose. But instead of recognizing that their gig is up... the machine is being dismantled and discarded... they keep thinking that it just needs more gas... rev it up to even higher volume of radical ideological extremes... and that will do the trick.
Trump seems to be playing 3D chess with these blue hair BlueSky Democrats... dismantling their machine while also poking them to grow even more radical and absurd so the voters keep being reminded of their toxicity.
The only hope for the Democrats is that the coalition breaks with the radicals going to a Green party, and the old Democrat party grows to basically adopt Trump's platform of ideas.
This is a great article. But while your readers are once again nodding along with your analysis the members of the Democratic National Committee are sitting in a circle discussing the removal of David Hogg, and pointing out that a white male did not check any of the diversity bingo boxes . After that they might discuss some budget busting giveaway-- similar to student loan forgiveness-- that could be used to buy working class votes. The party apparatus needs to be totally replaced or-- as others have suggested--replaced by third party .
David Hogg very much reminds me of Rolf in "The Sound of Music," yet I refuse to call him a little Nazi because that would be wrong even though both did wear shorts and ride bicycles.
Besides, he doesn't have a ghost of a chance of getting our guns. Neither does his school, Harvard, whose endowment, by the way, is worth a good deal less than the $53 billion headline number. That much will become evident over the next few years as they have to liquidate private equity and hedge fund positions (70% of the total) to fund operating costs no longer underwritten by the federal government.
Harvard could try getting with the program of ending illegal discrimination against whites, Jews, and anyone to the right of AOC. They could fire all their DEI administrators, since they would not be needed anymore. They could follow the law on color-blind admissions and fair treatment for everyone. That is what Trump wants them to do, and if Harvard made real and substantive changes in the way they run the school their funding would likely be restored. Otherwise, Harvard, pick the hill you want to die on and stay there.
Harvard has a history on that front. In the 1960s, to ensure objectivity, they used high school grades, high school quality, and SAT scores. They should return to that.
By the way, both Rasmussen and Democracy Institute have polls out that show Trump at 52% approval and, for the first time ever with Ras, a majority of Americans think the country is on the "right track" and Democracy Institute respondents' majority say Trump is "trying to fix things."
It is all true. All of the issues that are at the top of the Democrat agenda or not the ones that middle America and most working class and non-college educated America care the most about. In my humble opinion, illegal immigration ,crime , The cultural issues around gender and sex, and of course, the outright discrimination through diversity equity and inclusion, and to a lesser extent national security, and foreign policy are the issues that concern the American people who elected Donald Trump, even if they didn’t care for him as a person. The Democrat party as it currently is structured is dead
The university-dwelling Democrats (and I say this as someone with 18 years of formal education, including 6 of them in top-flight universities) still do not understand that two-thirds of the American electorate does not have college degrees, and that many of those folks do not take kindly to being mocked at every turn.
And they are the ones who will elect a Donald Trump type republican in 2028.
Well, we'll see. There is a simple formula that has worked in almost every election since WWII. If the U-3 unemployment rate does anything but decline in the second quarter of a presidential election year, the incumbent party's candidate will lose the popular vote in November.
The only clear exception was in 1956, when the rate ticked up by 0.1% and Eisenhower was re-elected anyway. When the rate doesn't change it will be a squeaker, as in 1960 and 2000. In 2012, the indicator didn't work because of a change in the seasonal adjustment method made in 2011 that made that year look better than it was, and which made the spring of '12 look worse than it was.
It even worked in 2016, when Hillary Clinton won the popular vote but lost the electoral college because she got arrogant and campaigned in Arizona late in the game rather than listening to her advisors who begged her to stay in Wisconsin and Michigan. She knew better. That year, I won opposing bets: Salmon vs. steak in June, when I called it for Trump, and dinners at a gastropub when I called it for Hillary but by less than 4%.
Last year, I called it for Trump when the June U-3 rate was released in July, and it was 0.3% higher than in March. By and large, when U-3 moves and it's part of a trend (which it wasn't in '56), all the campaigns do is determine the victory margin. Wharton, baby. We are all about the numbers. All the rest is so many farts in the wind.
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000?years_option=all_years
So I expect '28 to hinge on the economy between March and June of that year. Pundits ignore this because, otherwise, where would they be?
I will run that through the Nate Silver paradigm
Silver is a mixed bag for sure. As a prognosticator, his track record is medicore. His main contribution was his pollster rankings, which gave the partisan lean of each poll. You can also get those in a different format by looking at the Real Clear Politics historical results.
Last year, I foretold Trump's popular vote victory margin on the nose by looking at the RCP historical data and handicapping the averages. When Trump started insulting Harris in July and into August, I wondered whether '24 would be another exception to the formula, but then Harris did a bunch of stupid things -- that shift from joy to fascist -- plus Trump had some things in his favor.
One was getting shot in Pennsylvania and then standing up and shouting, "Fight, Fight, Fight." Love him or hate him, it was an iconic moment. Harris's numbers among black men had to have been hurt by her interracial marriage, especially to a Jewish husband. (I'm not saying that this is morally right, but only that I think it hurt her. Interracial marriage is just as controversial, if not more so, among blacks as it is among whites.)
And then there were Rogan's interviews of Trump and Vance, which drew about 70 million people including myself. They were softball interviews, yet still informative about their personalities. Especially by contrast to the stilted traditional media interviews, especially the 60 Minutes debacle. Not only were they biased, but the audience was paltry compared to Rogan's. This blunted the built-in advantage that Democrats have from the naked bias of almost the entire legacy news media.
By late October, it seemed obvious to me that Trump would sweep the battlegrounds. Why? Because the Democratic candidates for Senate in several of those states started finding things to agree with Trump about.
As I wrote above, I'm an economic determinist who thinks the economy in the spring of the election year determines the November result. But not its magnitude. That's a matter of the campaigns and the media. If Trump hadn't been such a clown, I think he could have won by 3% or better. But he was a clown as usual and won by half that much.
I have not missed picking a presidential election since Nixon beat Humphrey and 68. I do not look at any numbers. I look at the issues and I listen to a wide variety of people.
An excellent and brutally honest deep dive by John Halpin into the years' long demise of the Democratic Party.
There can be little doubt that decline has accelerated very recently due, as Halpin notes, to the indifference, group think and coverup that has come to define a party so clearly out of touch with mainstream America.
If Democrats have any hope of recovery, it begins by driving the radical and looney Left elements from the party while accepting that Trump is the duly elected president, a sign of respectfulness for voters owed a thoughtful, coherent and loyal opposition to his mistaken positions.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, a recognition of the serious national security consequences for the denial and coverup of the MIA cognitively compromised Biden presidency, hand-in-hand with a willingness to identify and punish the traitors responsible for it.
Dems have an unholy trinity of problems. Immigration, children used as Progressive theory pawns and Climate spending. If they do not correct them, Trump's implosion is their only hope.
Dems purposefully imported 10-12 million desperately poor people without any plan or funding for their food, shelter, healthcare or education. Without input from Americans, in 4 years Dems created a landless, impoverished 51rst state, comprised entirely of poor Biden migrants, larger in population than 40 other US states. It was an obvious attempt to turn Texas Blue, that failed in a manner unseen since Willie Horton's weekend furlough.
New migrants ate up meager resources in low earning US areas. American minorities long told government could not afford more dollars for better schools, community centers or more cops, watched as migrants spent months in luxury hotels with room service, delivered laundry, cell phones and a plethora of other, perpetual welfare benefits. All without ever paying a dime in any sort of tax.
Migrants drove up the cost of already sparse affordable housing, while driving down low skilled wages. ERs were overwhelmed. Migrant children, unable to speak English, flooded minority schools, many already broke and failing. Most migrants are not criminal, but the ones that are, often terrorize low income and minority neighborhoods. Meanwhile, many migrants were treated as beasts of burden, enticed to a place far too expensive for most to ever be self supporting.
Trump closed the border in a few weeks, proving Dems had been lying for years about their inability to stop the flow, without comprehensive immigration reform. Dems never admitted their monstrous error, but immediately began to fight each and every deportation. Americans have no choice but to believe Dems desire open borders. It is only logical, the next Dem in the WH will once again dissolve the Southern Border and wave in 10 million more new arrivals.
On top of migration, 2/3rds of US students cannot read at grade level, but many schools have time to inform Kindergartners they may have been misgendered by their parents, 5 year prior. In later grades info regarding differing lubricants for different body areas and the creative use of home appliances can be found in some schools, all before we arrive at the trans issue.
A country that will not allow children to be tattooed, allowed children to remove healthy body parts and/or ingest drugs that cause permanent sterilization? Trans sports could have been easily solved years ago, had Dems been willing to provide trans athletes their own locker rooms, athletic categories and multi school teams. Instead, Dems demanded formally exclusively female spaces be invaded and girls at a distinct physical disadvantage, face bigger and stronger opponents. The trans issue has never been about the kids, but a political party that seeks to park itself between parents and kids, to indoctrinate the next generation.
Climate spending spurred the worst inflation in 40 years. Billions landed in the pockets of Dem donors or was simply flushed. $40 billion plus for broadband that did not connect a single home to the internet. Billions for a luxury EV company losing $100K on every $100K vehicle sold. Billions more to install a dozen EV charging stations, some sitting next to diesel generators. The list is nearly endless, but they all end at the same point. Many ordinary Americans suffering energy poverty, forced upon them by Dems far more concerned with theoretical climate models than the living conditions of actual Americans.
Only a Dem Presidential Candidate undertaking a long Mea Culpa tour, has a chance in 2028, without a Trump meltdown. They must admit Dem mistakes, stop fighting deportations and champion sane school, trans and climate polices.
.
I have to laugh at most of your comments, but especially how the wave of illegal immigrants was really an "obvious attempt to turn Texas Blue". How were these extralegal immigrants supposed to do that, since they can't register to vote? And "drugs that cause permanent sterilization" Which drugs, specifically, are you referring to? Hormone blockers are reversible and widely used in other contexts like treating certain types of cancer and premature puberty. And "Climate spending spurred the worst inflation in 40 years" The IRA was projected by both CBO and Penn Wharton to have no impact on inflation. "Billions landed in the pockets of Dem donors or was simply flushed" Citations to support this assertion? Actually, most of the money doled out by IRA and Chips Act went to red states like GA and AZ. I used to go to the WSJ comments section for my dose of crazy, but I seem to have found a new place to go.
Ronda Ross is right about everything and your attempts to refute her with false Dem talking points, that is really laughable. I'm not going to bother arguing with you, what you are saying has all been debunked as lies and progressive propaganda long ago.
I appreciate how substantive your comment is!
A Blue Texas would hand Dems the WH in perpetuity. A Hispanic neighbor in Texas State Government notes Dems expected Texan Hispanic American citizens to be so thrilled at millions of new Hispanic arrivals , they would permanently vote Dem out of gratitude. Needless to say, Texas is much more Red now, and and will stay that way. The millions of migrants have helped stop the Blue State bleed, for apportionment purposes.
Many EU countries have banned puberty blockers, due to permanent consequences. They were first to offer transgender treatment and surgery and first to ban them.
It was a mere coincidence the worst inflation in 40 years arrived with Biden, just as Carter's record inflation was also not his fault. Trillions in needless green spending had nothing to do with it. Good to know.
So, the Dem Texas takeover plan involved bringing in lots of competition for low-wage Hispanic workers. Sounds almost as implausible as having all these illegal immigrants vote.
It is more accurate to say that some EU countries have restricted use of hormonal therapies. From Euro News:
"In Finland, hormonal treatments can be given to adolescents if it is clear that their identity as another gender is of a “permanent nature and causes severe dysphoria”.
In 2022, the Swedish authorities said the risks likely outweigh the benefits of puberty blockers, but said that the treatment can be offered in “exceptional” cases to adolescents with gender dysphoria.
France takes a similar approach. The French medical academy says puberty blockers are available at any age with parental consent, but encourages “the greatest reserve” in their use given the potential long-term side effects, which may include osteoporosis or fertility issues.
All sounds reasonable to me.
As far as inflation goes, it was not "coincidence" but rather COVID that caused a WORLDWIDE inflation and the US inflation was a bit less than it's peers. US had the strongest recovery from COVID of all the developed world-can we at least agree on that? And the rise of oil prices in from $26/barrel in 1973 to $153 in 1980 had something to do with inflation back then.
Covid did not cause inflation. Monetary expansion did, turbocharged in the U.S. by those stimulus checks, which were the "helicopter money" that Ben Bernanke had spoken of during the Panic of 2008.
Here we are still talking about INFLATION INFLATION INFLATION! Why was inflation worldwide if it was due to expansion of the US money supply? COVID messed up supply chains worldwide
Other countries did the same thing. Without the expansion of the money supply, inflation cannot happen. But hey, you are a "progressive." You either never took Econ 101, or you flunked the class. And here you think you're smart because you can regurgitate a buzzword from the NY Times.
So keep whistling past the graveyard, then. This is America, where fools run rampant as examples to all.
Yeah, don't bother addressing my points
The article, and many others, already have. And the fact is, winners have no reason to address any of the losers concern. If the losers can't figure it our for themselves, all the better for the winners.
The bottom line is, the Dem's problems are no one eleses fault but the Dems. Blaming others is seen as shirking responsibility for one's failures. Lumping all voters for Trump into just a group of MAGA thinkers is the most damning thing you can do. MAGA didn't elect Trump and the others you insult and demean are the one's you need to come vote for your side. No one votes for arrogant assholes.
So no comment on how illegal immigrants are part of an "obvious attempt to turn Texas blue"? Or "drugs that cause permanent sterilization"? Or how "billions landed in the pockets of Dem donors" from the IRA climate spending?
None are needed. I don’t need to figure it out, the Dems do. What’s worse than letting millions of illegals in? No one has ever really said. The only answer to me is, just stupid people in charge who do stupid things for no rational reason, that cause massive harm to many the stupid don’t care about. It wouldn’t be better to say they wanted to turn Texas Blue. Dems just aren’t that smart.
Correct. We care because it's true, but these are not what did it.
The other factor is the lingering effect of the COVID lockdowns which were mostly perpetrated by Democrats in state and local government and the media. Every business is essential to the owner and every job to the employee. Not to mention the destruction of several years of education at the behest of the teachers' unions. And who can forget the arrest of the guy surfing alone. This will probably fade but the media is still trying to whip up new panic.
Same story with rural voters. Obama won 45% of rural but since then it's been only 31% b/c Dems have written us off as irredeemably racist and backwards. There are signs that Ken Martin understands the problem and will invest in rural party building but it will also require changes in party culture, what it prioritizes, how it talks, etc.
Democrats despise rural America until it's time to eat.
If the Democrats are dominated by college educated, why do they not care about the deficit and the exponential growth of the country’s debt?
Their degrees don't include a math requirement.
Never hate your enemies. It affects your judgment.— Don Corleone
The Democrats who constantly call Trump, his cabinet members, and his supporters "Nazis" might consider those words, wouldn't you think?
(Sorry for the multiple postings and deletions. When you edit a long comment, substack's software truncates it. The only alternative is to delete it, edit it elsewhere, and re-post the edited version here. Arrgh. I hope this is the last try.)
-----
It's hard for me to pinpoint my disaffection with the Democrats. All of those points resonate, but I can't pick out one or two that are primarily responsible. To put it differently, as I look through the list and nod in agreement, a countervailing voice reminds me that there's some "after the fact rationalization" going on in my mind.
So maybe a better way to chart my move away from the Democrats is to look back at when it happened and why, rather than to go to the laundry list of grievances that have accumulated since then. Once you leave a political party, you begin to be critical of more and more of it, which is fine but also which might obscure the reason(s) you left to begin with.
I voted straight ticket D from 1976 through 2012, and left them in 2014. I recently went to Open Secrets and looked up my political donations and saw that of the roughly $41,000 over the years, all but $1,000 went to Democratic candidates or liberal groups. I pretty much quit giving anything to anyone after '14, with the exceptions of small donations (total $750) to two local Republican candidates in my rural county.
Now, before I say what pushed me away, I need to point out that I, like most people, would occasionally be critical of the Democrats along the way. We all hold our noses at times, such as when I voted for Carter the second time, Mondale, and Kerry, or shook my head at Bill Clinton's rank stupidity with Lewinsky, and had second thoughts about the way the Waco, Texas siege was conducted.
What held me through all of that, and more, were four factors. One was that the Democrats, in Clinton's famous terminology, seemed to be on the side of people who "worked hard and played by the rules." Another was that Clinton's economic centrism produced a budget surplus (briefly) by the end of his second term, something that seemed miraculous. The Republican hatred of gays and embrace of Falwell and Robertson and every crazy televangelist was obnoxious. And in every other dimension, large and small, Bush Jr. was a horror story.
Why did I break away?
In 2013, the Obama administration implemented Obamacare. This did not apply to me, but it applied to some friends and relatives. A ranching husband and wife were the first to open my eyes. She told me what the "exchange" would do: much higher premiums; it was mandatory; and they'd lose their long-time (decades) doctor.
I was thunderstruck! I told the wife that I couldn't believe that my Democratic Party would ever do such a thing. They were Republicans and surely got it wrong. Well, I looked closely and she was correct. You like your insurance and could keep it? Nope. You like your doctor and could keep him? Nope. In 2013, when Politifact had not yet become a leisure-time service of the Democratic National Committee, they gave their "Lie of the Year" award to Obama for his lying about the "Affordable" Care Act.
Speaking of "affordable," the ACA caused an immediate 40% increase in one of my brothers' premiums for the same policy. Exactly the same one. I knew about 10 other people who went onto ACA coverage; of those, only one -- count 'em, one -- had anything good to say.
This really shook me. So much for "working hard and playing by the rules." So much for the Democratic Party as guardian of the common man. Then, in 2014, came the coup de grace: "Black Lives Matter," and specifically the response to the Ferguson, Missouri riots by Eric Holder, the attorney general.
A biracial jury found the police blameless, but what did the Justice Department say? They investigated the local police for giving too many traffic tickets to black motorists. It was beyond absurd. The die was cast: The Democratic Party had become explicitly anti-white. I had voted for Obama twice, and donated the maximum in 2008. I felt like a complete sucker, one of P.T. Barnum's idiots. I still do.
Today, I could compile a much longer list of the Democratic Party's sins. This article did a good job of it, so I need not do it. What I will say is that I no longer recognize the Democratic Party I thought I knew. I don't trust the Republicans, but I have been voting for some of them (not Trump -- I have been casting cynical write-in votes for president since 2016) because the Democrats have refused to make sense.
The bottom line is that I feel abandoned and unrepresented, and am angry and resentful of the Democratic Party for what it has done to ordinary people. Today's Democratic Party can go to hell as far as I am concerned.
The one person that you knew that was happy with the ACA was probably getting it for nothing. I tried registering my granddaughter and great-grandson recently. She is an LPN who works six days a week. Between rent and childcare she makes very little. The cheapest policy I could find was around $300/month with (I think) around $9,000 deductible. She does not qualify for Medicaid or food stamps. And then I look at the thousands of illegals getting freebies in NYC and CA. This is 100% at Dem's doorstep.
Might have been. It's been more than a decade since I was asking people.
So the Republicans propose to cut the IRA ACA subsidies and drive millions of people off Medicaid, but this is "100% at Dem's doorstep" ? And how do the "thousands of illegals getting freebies in NYC and CA" affect your granddaughter, exactly?
May I suggest you find an insurance broker to help your granddaughter find the best possible policy? We did for my adult kid and he was very happy with his Obamacare coverage.
Because as the article points out, the only ones who believe what you say are the losers of the Dem party. Your side has lied so much, nothing you say is trusted. Suggestion, don't say anything bad until it happens. Don't foretell disaster because you have never been right. Pretty simple, change all that you are doing in regards to elections and in 10 years you may win a dog catchers election. But everyone has to start somewhere. We've seen Trump and the New Republican party, you are neither, nor a good imitation. Just losers being losers because they know no other way life.
Speaking of dog catchers, I laughed hard at Liz Cheney becoming a liberal heroine last fall. Among other things, the woman had better not return to Wyoming and run for dog catcher there, because she will lose.
Troll...
Nope. This is an American with an opinion, and one that's reasonably articulate and seriously stated even if I think most of it is foolish.
Thank you!
I appreciate how substantive your comment is!
What was your kid's income, premium and deductible?
What is the entire budget amount for ACA? How is it financed? Include stand-alone clinics.
Originally cuts in Medicare payment rates and reductions in payments to the Medicare Advantage program was to be saved and put toward ACA (supposedly $700B by 2025). Did this happen?
My kid was working minimum wage and got ObamaCare basically for nothing. I suggest you "do your own research" and get back to us with that info about ACA funding.
The reason those with minimum wage jobs are free because self employed professionals with a family of three pay $24K a year in premiums, or more, with a $5K per person deductible. Prior to the ACA they paid $12 K a year. Young people have always been cheap to insure.
The ACA was simple cost shifting. 50% the country pays little to nothing and the other 50% picks up the cost , either personally of thru work plans.
Healthcare now approaches 20% of a larger GDP. The US has lousy life expectancy for a 1rst world nation with a ton of chronic illness, that begins at earlier ages. The US Diabetes rate has more than doubled since Obamacare. The ACA has been a disaster for everyone not handed a free or greatly reduced plan. Obamacare was suppose to shrink Medicaid rolls They grow larger each year. We could have handed the uninsured medical credit cards for their needs, and been in far better shape.
Agree that US healthcare spending is 17% vs 11% in peer countries with a much worse life expectancy. If we had Single Payer (or equivalent) like peer countries, we could bring that down
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-comparecountries/#GDP%20per%20capita%20and%20health%20consumption%20spending%20per%20capita,%20U.S.%20dollars,%202023%20(current%20prices%20and%20PPP%20adjusted)%C2%A0
However, ACA (Romney-ObamaCare as I like to call it) actually reduced the growth rate in healthcare spending: https://www.statnews.com/2019/03/22/affordable-care-act-controls-costs/
The problem is not what you don't know, it's what you think you know that isn't true
So your kid was getting 'free' health insurance and he was happy? Shocker.
Yes, I would definitely love to research that ACA boondoggle. Here's one timeline of the rollout. Notice "Sebelius admits that it was possible convicted felons could be hired as ObamaCare “navigators,” giving them access to personal information such as Social Security numbers and addresses of anyone signing up for the program." Gosh where were the federal judges??
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/190485-timeline-of-botched-implementation-of-obamacare/
Did I say he was happy? Please spare me the snark. Maybe you want to do your research before you decide it is a "boondoggle" . Here's an article that's more recent than the HIll article from 2013 that you cited that shows ObamaCare REDUCED health care spending:
https://www.statnews.com/2019/03/22/affordable-care-act-controls-costs/
What an EXCELLENT article. Bang bang bang hitting the truth.
I want to emphasize a point: Groupthink. What we have seen as the downfall is this very thing. It is the opposite of liberalism. A liberal person hears someone make an assertion and goes "prove it......prove it with data, with history, with compelling analyses."
We see an absence of liberalism in today's progressives. They are tribal. And we have experienced, repeatedly, the psychological dynamic if we as liberals challenge a precious progressive view then we are immediately called MAGAs.
So, one dimension is what happened to Democrats. (answer: progressives ruined the party). But another dimension is what happened to liberal thought?
Thanks again, John. TLP is the best 5 bucks we spend every month.
Very kind, thank you
This substack is on a short list of places that aren't entirely echo chambers. Kudos to you and your team.
The Democrats do not have a vision they don’t have a strategy and the design of the organization ( structure, information flow, rewards et) needs significant change. Without a compelling and courageous leader the only hope they have for intermittent success is the “other guy/gal) seriously messing up.
The only hope for the Democrats is that the Republicans go equally far off the rails to the right. Swell choices for democracy.....
How'd that work with lawfare against Trump? Dems have to look better than the other side of the rails other wise then other side doesn't look like they are off the rails. The Dems are worse no matter what for now. So once, again, Dems have to, be responsible for their actions and the consequences there of. They can only control themselves. No one else. Basic human interactions 101.
Don't try to preach personal responsibility, principles, or facts to "progressives." They hate that.
Excellent review. Hey, history says that there can be time for a turnaround. But the key is turnaround from what? Looking at past parties that faded into non-existence, the Federalists clung to an issue-less structure-based organization til they died in the 18-teens. They ignored issues, and remained wedded to a nominating process that was obsolete. Both the Liberty Party and the Know-Nothings were single issue parties that had no chance for larger appeal.
Right now, the Whigs look the closest to the Democrats, but with a big exception: for the Whigs, THE single biggest issue, slavery, was ignored entirely, reminding me of Sgt. Schulz on "Hogan's Heroes" ("I know nooothiink!")
The big difference today with modern Democrats is that they are not ignoring ONE major issue that voters want resolved, but at least three: illegal immigration, woke/transoidism, and international adventurism. (there are still a few in the GOP favoring the last, but they are of the triceratops era).
You can ignore one issue because not all communities will be effected by it. Maybe two and eke by. But you can't ignore all these PLUS the AI revolution that has taken a scimitar to Democrats' support for "green."
Moreover, what Trump has done is not just run on ONE of these, but on ALL FOUR and has linked them together in a powerful, cohesive Make America First Way. He can, and does, cogently argue how each affects the other and all of them pose threats to America's existence.
Then you throw in my "Second Democrat Civil War" of Jews/Israel v. Pales/Hamas and Democrats lose yet another constituency, either way. This is why I keep saying that I do not think it unrealistic to think the Democrats can even survive for 10 more years, let alone win.
This analysis is spot on, but unfortunately, I see no signs of the Dems accepting that they've alienated millions of people. I do, however, see some of them pretending to be reasonable:
Newsom has a new podcast where he talks to people who aren't Progressives, and he even said that maybe, just maybe, males don't belong in female sports. But of course, he backtracked when the Progressives started shouting. Plus, he leads a state that gives free medical insurance to illegal immigrants while letting taxpayers go without.
Ro Khanna's latest mantra is "stop shouting." Okay, but he still thinks that drugging children and letting them have double mastectomies is a fine idea. He just shakes his head politely when someone tries to point out why it isn't, and then politely argues for double mastectomies.
AOC stopped listing her pronouns, but she still wants to give free money to all illegal immigrants and abolish ICE.
They're all still radicals; they just play reasonable people on TV.
I voted D in every presidential election from 1984 to 2020. But in 2024, I couldn't support the Democrats' claims that their toxic, destructive ideology is virtuous. Couldn't vote for Trump either, so I voted third party.
But I'll be honest: this time around, Trump has done some good things, like taking action on gender ideology, left-wing racism, and antisemitism at universities. Do I agree with everything he's done? Absolutely not (Ukraine, cruelty to government employees...). But unfortunately for the Dems, I prefer him over someone like Harris.
What a mess.
Thank the decline and corruption of the media.
The left groupthink has always existed. But it would hit a firewall of real journalism to prevent the proliferation of irrational radical ideological nonsense that tends to originate in the bowels of the campus.
The media quickly went from blocking... blew through a transformation of indifference... and went straight to amplifying the irrational radical ideological nonsense hatched on campus.
The Obama Regime also exploded the corruption of dark money from government funding an industry of Democrat political influence. Not only did the media grow corrupt in Democrat bias, but an army of NGOs soon existed with the primary agenda of working to get Democrats elected and Democrat policies enacted.
The Democrats got drunk on this campus-media-NGO feedback loop... never having to face the self-reflection of youth being idealistically wrong and needing to grasp the wisdom of adulthood.
They saw the awesome power of their machine, when coupled with social media, to nudge the entire electorate with rage and fear to vote for their Democrat dog food.
The Democrats in charge simply underestimated the electorate's ability to critically think for themselves, to see the corruption in the machine, and to vote to dismantle it as the primary threat to democracy.
But once having tasted the power of that machine, the existing power structure of the Democrat machine cannot let go. They are frankly stuck on stupid. It helped them win, but it also caused them to more recently lose. But instead of recognizing that their gig is up... the machine is being dismantled and discarded... they keep thinking that it just needs more gas... rev it up to even higher volume of radical ideological extremes... and that will do the trick.
Trump seems to be playing 3D chess with these blue hair BlueSky Democrats... dismantling their machine while also poking them to grow even more radical and absurd so the voters keep being reminded of their toxicity.
The only hope for the Democrats is that the coalition breaks with the radicals going to a Green party, and the old Democrat party grows to basically adopt Trump's platform of ideas.
This is a great article. But while your readers are once again nodding along with your analysis the members of the Democratic National Committee are sitting in a circle discussing the removal of David Hogg, and pointing out that a white male did not check any of the diversity bingo boxes . After that they might discuss some budget busting giveaway-- similar to student loan forgiveness-- that could be used to buy working class votes. The party apparatus needs to be totally replaced or-- as others have suggested--replaced by third party .
David Hogg very much reminds me of Rolf in "The Sound of Music," yet I refuse to call him a little Nazi because that would be wrong even though both did wear shorts and ride bicycles.
Besides, he doesn't have a ghost of a chance of getting our guns. Neither does his school, Harvard, whose endowment, by the way, is worth a good deal less than the $53 billion headline number. That much will become evident over the next few years as they have to liquidate private equity and hedge fund positions (70% of the total) to fund operating costs no longer underwritten by the federal government.
Harvard could try getting with the program of ending illegal discrimination against whites, Jews, and anyone to the right of AOC. They could fire all their DEI administrators, since they would not be needed anymore. They could follow the law on color-blind admissions and fair treatment for everyone. That is what Trump wants them to do, and if Harvard made real and substantive changes in the way they run the school their funding would likely be restored. Otherwise, Harvard, pick the hill you want to die on and stay there.
Harvard has a history on that front. In the 1960s, to ensure objectivity, they used high school grades, high school quality, and SAT scores. They should return to that.
By the way, both Rasmussen and Democracy Institute have polls out that show Trump at 52% approval and, for the first time ever with Ras, a majority of Americans think the country is on the "right track" and Democracy Institute respondents' majority say Trump is "trying to fix things."