John, probably. I have said for a year that we are seeing the end, the extermination, of the Democrat Party. People today with no historical perspective don't realize this happened all the time in history: Federalists, Liberty, Know-Nothing, Whig, Populist, Progressive, and most recently, Reform. Most people don't think it can happen because they haven't witnessed it happen, but the Ds are almost the inverse Whigs, who had a solid-down ticket, but couldn't stand up for the main issue of the day, slavery. Modern Ds have all sorts of issues, but they are all on the wrong side of all the main issues of the day, trans infiltration of schools, open borders, pro-Uke but anti-Israel, and most of all, anti-male. I've described these five civil wars, and I don't think Ds have moved the ball one inch in the right direction of any.
Therefore, in fact, I do believe that after a significant wipeout by Vance of whomever is nominated (I stand by 320-340 EVs at this time, and 2.5% of the pop vote---but could be much larger if, as I suspect, Ds with throw caution to the wind and nominate AOC or Mamdani---the Ds will have a final fracture in 2029, with a rump of the most radical becoming a new Socialist Party. I have no idea what happens to the other, slightly larger, D majority.
Parties have a way of hanging around a really long time after their expiration date. Parties came and went a lot more frequently back in the day as you show but the two party system is so attached to the country now, almost like barnacles that are hard to remove. I agree with you that Dems are not making significant if any movement to fix their various problems -- that's the majority of what TLP focuses on and what makes everyone yell at us. If Democrats don't fix, it they may be in for a long period out of power like Labour during the Thatcher years.
Mr. Schweikart, I understand that it's customary to use the more commonly known "Know-Nothing" party name to refer to the American Party, but why not use the actual name of the Democratic Party? Those of us who tend to support Democratic candidates find the intentional misnaming of the party by its opponents pretty childish. It's successfully irritating, but effectively sends a message that whatever follows is simply an expression of political bias, without any serious attempt at objective reasoning.
What is the Vance/Republican plan to prevent reductions in Social Security and Medicare benefits? No plan so far. Will Vance agree to increase revenues, i.e. tax increases of some kind? That goes counter to Republican dogma for 40+ years.
Democrats are controlled by the hardcore Left now - that's who most shows up to choose candidates in primaries. As you say, they are on the wrong side of several issues, the most damaging being their support for open borders immigration policies. But there is a lot of unease over the economy, what AI will do to job opportunities, etc. It's way too soon to be confident that a very left-wing Democratic party will go extinct.
"Democrats are controlled by the hardcore Left now - that's who most shows up to choose candidates in primaries."
It's hard to understand how you can write this so confidently this morning, Mr. Webster. It was put to the test in the second-most populous state last night and the results quite clearly show something different. As a liberal who generally votes Democratic I'm very optimistic about the prospects of a more pragmatic turn by the Democratic Party.
List the top 20 most salient issues that influence elections: the economy, immigration policies, abortion, etc. James Talarico and Jasmine Crockett take the same left-wing positions on all of them; neither is a moderate on any substantive issue.
Talarico has a more moderate public personality compared to Crockett. She screeches for the cameras and appeals to fanatics who love The View and MS Now. He speaks in a reasonable tone of voice and doesn't come across as hateful toward everyone who has a different opinion. He poses as a Christian, although his alleged Christianity consists of taking the left-wing side on all issues. He will have 99% of the political media in Texas and nationwide cheering for him in the general election, and he may be able to fake out enough low-information Texans to win, especially if his GOP opponent is the vile and corrupt Ken Paxton.
The hardcore Left is in full control of the Texas Democratic party.
Economy is always #1. On SS, at some point there will have to be a stair-stepped program for new signees to join later, say, at 67, while again, new signees only will probably see a very slight SS "contribution." This has been the plan for every single bailout I've seen, but predictably Rs don't want to touch it. Ds, of course, moved SS to the general ledger in the early 1970s, so they will have no trouble taxing everyone more when it is needed. But for now---as for the past 50 years---kick the can down the road.
All of that very well be negated by Trump's tariffs, which despite the Court ruling, will be in place under different legal reasoning that K laid out, and which could be used (and likely will be used) to just supplement SS.
The last great "reform" of SS was not enacted until the Trust Fund was nearly insolvent. No reason to expect anything more now. Governments seldom pre-solve an entitlement crisis while doing nothing remains an option.
So don't expect more than dueling think tank position papers for a few more years.
The large and increasing national debt is the giant dragon that is on our tail, and it will eat us unless the politicians find a way to knock it back. No one wants to believe this, and they'd rather huddle in the dark and hope for some miracle.
Well said. The Green and Constitution Parties are even weaker than the Libertarians. The Democrats also have the issue that at some point the progressive left may get tired of the centrist left doing things to make them lose. At some point the role 'perpetual junior partner' stops working. What happens next is unclear.
J.D. Vance is a "fervent ideologue" and AOC is a "beloved leader." And I laughed out loud at your list of "moderate/centrist, establishment, or “newbie” options. Kamala Harris? Gavin Newsome? Come on.
You're looking for a partisan lens when none is there. The piece says Vance is "a highly capable and smart politician" and that AOC is beloved by the "next generation left." The list is just the list of currently considered candidates or those whose names have been discussed. Fact is, both AOC and Vance have highly negative standings with voters outside of their respective bases which will only grow as things progress. That was the point of the article.
In 2000, I voted for George Bush who promised "No Nation Building" but then promptly took us into two wars of choice that eventually killed over 10,000 young Americans. I finally decided to never again vote for the lesser of two evils. The lesser of two evils is still evil.
After 2000, I have voted LP simply to make the point that neither major party was running an acceptable candidate. People routinely tell me that I'm wasting my vote, but no vote is wasted when you vote your conscience.
I do not owe my vote to anyone or any party and anyone who wants my vote has to earn it.
If the political environment in November, 2028 is exactly like it is right now then Vance would beat AOC in a two party race. America is not yet ready for full-blown socialism. But much will occur between now and November, 2028 to change the political environment; if things get bad enough even AOC could win.
A third party candidate (TPC) - who is a genuine moderate - might be a strong candidate in 2028. That genuine moderate would have to come from the Democratic party, someone who can't stomach a hard Left turn like AOC would be. The key voting bloc would be Independents, whom a recent opinion survey found to be 45% of voters, with 27% each for Democrats and Republicans. To win in the electoral college, that TPC would have to win 70%-80% of those Independents, then peel off enough votes from moderates in both major parties to win 270+ electoral votes. A very tall order, not likely. And who is the moderate Democrat with the stature to mount a competitive campaign?
In Nebraska an "independent" is running for senator, with the full endorsement of the Democrat party (they are not running a candidate). His fundraising is through Act Blue. Absolutely no one is stupid enough to believe he is anything other than a progressive democrat.
GOP has several acceptable, competent prospects from which to choose.
Democrats internecine conflicts are reflective of a body with an infection. If the AOC wing wins it will be a while before the body recovers…if it does.
I don't see a constituency that isn't being served by the two parties right now. The left side of the Democratic Party makes lefty noises, but they are all pretty comfortably wealthy and no one at all has suggested socializing the six digit earning or millionaires. The issue today is about losing servants to deportation. Democrats who are less woke can simply roll their eyes and vote, they're unbothered by the excesses of the left, no harm done.
I'm curious to find out if the Republicans will continue to draw Hispanic and black votes at ever increasing numbers, especially males. Deportations are a different demographic than voters, but still, some of the rhetoric I read online is distasteful. Businesses will be hurt due to increased costs for workers but enough to forego tax reduction? I doubt it.
It's de rigueur to give a shout out to "working people" amongst Dems but few will allow the words working class to pass their lips. The shift rightwards has been unrelenting. 2028 will probably be the first time someone actually from the New Right runs for office.
Beshear, Buttigieg, Emanuel, Gallego, Moore, Ossoff, Shapiro, and Whitmer need to get together in a room and choose one of their number to run with the backing of all the others.
Have Fetterman, Gluesenkamp Perez, Golden, Kelly, Moulton, Sherrill, Slotkin, Spanberger, Torres, and Warnock in the room to mediate.
Next, they need to hope Harris, Newsom, and Ocasio Cortez all run and tear each other apart trying to be furthest left.
Recent work by Gallup and their questions on party ID strongly suggest the environment has never been better for a strong third party or independent campaign - over 40% of voters now identify as independent, while GOP and Democratic identification has fallen below 30% or each (closer to 25%). But the obstacles third parties and independents must take, and the infrastructure required that the major parties already have, are enormous. I just don't see anyone reaching even Ross Perot's status, who won 19 percent of the vote in 1992 and not a single electoral vote.
"Let's look under the hood". A wealthy, media savvy non-politician. In the internet/social media age, fund raising, ballot signatures and GOTV are all possible.
Maybe a dark horse will come out of the weeds for the Dem's. If they do win the presidency it will be because war boy Trump, who has sold out to the money and Netanyahu, has shot the Rep's in the foot and people will vote for 'anyone but' and the White House will be theirs to continue their own path of destruction of the U.S.
I think the results of yesterday's Democratic Primary in Texas indicates that AOC has very little chance of being the party's 2028 presidential nominee.
Speaking as a Texan, yesterday's results point to AOC and Mamdani being the Dem standard bearers, at least for policy, even more. Hand it to Dems. Talarico is the quintessential Trojan Horse, or Trojan Longhorn, in Texas .
In no particular order, James supports unrestricted abortion, child transitions, and the 2nd coming of the Green New Deal. Talarico doesn't just believe in Open Borders and abolishing ICE. Talarico believes in taxing Americans to provide any world resident who arrives on US soil, legally or not , with perpetual and unlimited welfare.
Talarico also hopes to nationalize the tax and spending of CA and NYC, along with health and childcare. Because who would not hand over a 6 week old baby to the same people who developed the DMV and often refuse to incarcerate child predators?
Talarico is Mamdani with a Bible, instead of a Quran. AOC without the makeup and bar tending skills.
Dems have done a masterful job at hiding Talarico's real beliefs. They took the Spanberger playbook, and radiated it. FYI, yesterday Spanberger noted she would refuse hand over an undocumented murderer to ICE, without a judicial warrant. He was caught on video, brutally killing a 40 year old VA Mother at a bus stop, after numerous previous violent charges and convictions, produced little incarceration.
The "new" religious, moderate Dem party, embracing the undocumented who murder US women, with the audacity to leave the house alone. A Texas primary is one thing. An election is another. We shall see if Reps can pull back the curtain on this massive Dem political hoax.
Hi Ms. Ross. I'm not a Texan but I do not in any way see Talarico's position on immigration as "Open Borders." He explicitly has likened the border to a door with a welcome mat and a lock that is unlocked only for those whom we wish to invite in. I have seen nothing in his positions I would not agree with, and I am far from an AOC progressive.
He is indeed pro-choice, but his position has focused on a negative argument, trying to refute the claim that the pro-life position is Biblically mandated. He has not, so far as I know, articulated a position on whether there should be limits to choice, such as those mandated in Roe v Wade, which attempt to accommodate the bitter divisions around these issues. There are indeed some progressives who believe abortion of viable fetuses (third trimester) should be legal (they were not under Roe v Wade except in emergencies threatening the life of the mother, and if the fetus survived the procedure it was to be treated as a live birth with full protections of personhood -- a premature delivery rather than an abortion). I think the position of those progressives is ethically untenable. I have not seen any evidence that Talarico holds those views.
You are certainly correct that he is for Green policies: he is a Democrat. From your perspective I suspect members of almost all wings of the Democratic Party would appear to advocate the second coming of the Green New Deal. I certainly would, and I'm considered conservative by progressives because given current politics I do not think it's realistic to believe that a fully responsible response to climate change is possible, so we should aim for the most renewable-friendly legislation feasible. We'll see whether Talarico can mobilize strong political support among Texas independents despite taking the position he has.
Talarico's position on medical treatment for youth gender dysphoria does lean more closely to the progressive wing of the party in taking the position that this is a matter for doctors and parents, rather than for the state.
As for Spanberger's position on turning an apparent murderer over to ICE concerns due process, not deportability. The man is in jail and would almost certainly be convicted and incarcerated here if he were not deported. Spanberger's point is that ICE should follow due process procedures to have him released from county custody to their custody, as it should follow legal procedures in processing all deportations. I don't know whether she is legally correct in claiming that ICE must obtain a judicial warrant. If she is, her position is legally mandated. If she's wrong, then she has made a mistake and this will be determined through litigation and, perhaps, through legislation to repair a gap in procedural requirements. But either way, the man will not be released from jail. Note that prior to this crime, it was not only local law enforcement that failed to appropriately incarcerate this man; ICE equally failed to act on its own deportation order. The fundamental issue here, regardless of whether Spanberger's position turns out to be legally justified or not, is whether ICE is obligated to follow legal procedures or is its own extra-legal authority. I believe we should all agree that *no* government agency should be licensed to operate on its own authority without being subject to legal procedural constraints and judicial review (except under stipulated emergency conditions). This position is one that I have always believed was supported by Libertarians, Democrats, and Republicans alike.
Appreciate the detailed reply, but Talarico believes in abolishing ICE. This is de facto Open Borders, especially in Texas where our border became one of the most crossed in world history in 4 years, without prompting from war, famine or natural disaster.
James does not believe in government regulation of abortion, which is a clever way of communicating, he supports abortion until delivery. If the government doesn't regulate it , who would?
Appreciate most Dems would love to return to a trillion dollars a year chasing Green fantasies. Hopefully in South Texas, where roughnecks with a high school degree and few other prospects, can earn $200K a year pumping oil before age 20, will understand, in the long run, Talarico and his ilk wish to end their lucrative employment.
Forgive me, but as woman, the fact you believe the fundamental issue in Spanberger's policy is not the dead Mother, but "constitutionality", says everything anyone needs to know about Dem voters.
Judicial warrants are not required to turn over anyone from a jail. Being in jail, with previous convictions, renders one automatically deportable. No dead 40 year old Mother required.
I'm going to reply to your points, Ms. Ross. But first I want to concede that after reading more about Talarico I've seen that he is, in fact, more progressive than I initially thought, based on reports I had read (I'm not a Texan!). Your post was the prompt that made me ask myself how well I really understood his positions.
I don't believe the Abolish ICE position is at all equal to the Open Borders position, and I think there are many people who support the former and oppose the latter. I'm pretty close to the former position myself. I think the CBP is the essential force that should police the border and work to restrict entry and to apprehend and deport those who initially evade detection. When it comes to identifying other deportable individuals in the US I think ICE has thoroughly conflated the categories of "deportable" -- which includes many people whom it is not, in fact, in our interest to deport -- and those who are undesirable and whom we should deport because of their individual profiles. I think a far less robust force, perhaps under CPB supervision, can be used to coordinate with state and local law enforcement to locate and detain those people. This is entirely consistent with policies to enhance and preserve border security.
When it comes to Talarico's position on abortion. when you say "X is a clever way to say Y" you are inferring an extreme position from one that could equally be seen as mainstream pro-choice. If the government doesn't regulate abortion decisions medical licensing professional organizations would be the appropriate regulators, and the government could stipulate by statute that only licensed medical personnel could perform abortions.
I support (in general) Green New Deal policies because I believe they will *radically* reduce fiscal, property, and human costs over time. I suspect that we do not share the same factual bases for our contrasting views, which means we will not agree on the urgency of the problem of climate change. I also suspect we differ in the degree to which we attend to statistics concerning the extraordinarily fast drop in the costs of renewable energy and the equally fast rise in renewable energy storage capacity. When NAFTA was adopted thirty years ago I supported the initiative but was astonished that major funding was not being sequestered to offer retraining, relocation, and re-employment assistance to Americans whose jobs would be lost. Green energy impacts on the young guys pumping oil will be similar in scope, and we will save huge amounts in social welfare costs if we devote adequate funding to providing people like them with paths to long-term lucrative employment in a changing world.
The murdered woman is the human tragedy at the center of the criminal tragedy in Virginia. That will not change regardless of the outcome of the legal question, nor will the end of freedom for her murderer. If you are correct in saying, "Judicial warrants are not required to turn over anyone from a jail," then Spanberger's action will be overturned. If you are not correct then her action is an appropriate assertion of the essential nature of due process in a society of laws. I don't know which way the courts will rule, and I've read arguments from law enforcement and legal experts on both sides of the issue. Not being a lawyer or scholar of law I will await rulings to judge whether Spanberger's objections were correct or in error to a degree that indicates bad faith.
John, probably. I have said for a year that we are seeing the end, the extermination, of the Democrat Party. People today with no historical perspective don't realize this happened all the time in history: Federalists, Liberty, Know-Nothing, Whig, Populist, Progressive, and most recently, Reform. Most people don't think it can happen because they haven't witnessed it happen, but the Ds are almost the inverse Whigs, who had a solid-down ticket, but couldn't stand up for the main issue of the day, slavery. Modern Ds have all sorts of issues, but they are all on the wrong side of all the main issues of the day, trans infiltration of schools, open borders, pro-Uke but anti-Israel, and most of all, anti-male. I've described these five civil wars, and I don't think Ds have moved the ball one inch in the right direction of any.
Therefore, in fact, I do believe that after a significant wipeout by Vance of whomever is nominated (I stand by 320-340 EVs at this time, and 2.5% of the pop vote---but could be much larger if, as I suspect, Ds with throw caution to the wind and nominate AOC or Mamdani---the Ds will have a final fracture in 2029, with a rump of the most radical becoming a new Socialist Party. I have no idea what happens to the other, slightly larger, D majority.
Parties have a way of hanging around a really long time after their expiration date. Parties came and went a lot more frequently back in the day as you show but the two party system is so attached to the country now, almost like barnacles that are hard to remove. I agree with you that Dems are not making significant if any movement to fix their various problems -- that's the majority of what TLP focuses on and what makes everyone yell at us. If Democrats don't fix, it they may be in for a long period out of power like Labour during the Thatcher years.
Mr. Schweikart, I understand that it's customary to use the more commonly known "Know-Nothing" party name to refer to the American Party, but why not use the actual name of the Democratic Party? Those of us who tend to support Democratic candidates find the intentional misnaming of the party by its opponents pretty childish. It's successfully irritating, but effectively sends a message that whatever follows is simply an expression of political bias, without any serious attempt at objective reasoning.
What is the Vance/Republican plan to prevent reductions in Social Security and Medicare benefits? No plan so far. Will Vance agree to increase revenues, i.e. tax increases of some kind? That goes counter to Republican dogma for 40+ years.
Democrats are controlled by the hardcore Left now - that's who most shows up to choose candidates in primaries. As you say, they are on the wrong side of several issues, the most damaging being their support for open borders immigration policies. But there is a lot of unease over the economy, what AI will do to job opportunities, etc. It's way too soon to be confident that a very left-wing Democratic party will go extinct.
What is any democrat's plan to "fix" social security and medicare?
That's easy:
- remove the payroll cap from SS taxes and adding 12.4% to the marginal tax rate
- thereby turning social security from a universal benefits program to - essentially - an income redistribution program
Not to mention that it will only cover about 1/2 the shortfall.
https://www.city-journal.org/article/raising-the-tax-cap-cannot-save-social-security
"Democrats are controlled by the hardcore Left now - that's who most shows up to choose candidates in primaries."
It's hard to understand how you can write this so confidently this morning, Mr. Webster. It was put to the test in the second-most populous state last night and the results quite clearly show something different. As a liberal who generally votes Democratic I'm very optimistic about the prospects of a more pragmatic turn by the Democratic Party.
List the top 20 most salient issues that influence elections: the economy, immigration policies, abortion, etc. James Talarico and Jasmine Crockett take the same left-wing positions on all of them; neither is a moderate on any substantive issue.
Talarico has a more moderate public personality compared to Crockett. She screeches for the cameras and appeals to fanatics who love The View and MS Now. He speaks in a reasonable tone of voice and doesn't come across as hateful toward everyone who has a different opinion. He poses as a Christian, although his alleged Christianity consists of taking the left-wing side on all issues. He will have 99% of the political media in Texas and nationwide cheering for him in the general election, and he may be able to fake out enough low-information Texans to win, especially if his GOP opponent is the vile and corrupt Ken Paxton.
The hardcore Left is in full control of the Texas Democratic party.
Economy is always #1. On SS, at some point there will have to be a stair-stepped program for new signees to join later, say, at 67, while again, new signees only will probably see a very slight SS "contribution." This has been the plan for every single bailout I've seen, but predictably Rs don't want to touch it. Ds, of course, moved SS to the general ledger in the early 1970s, so they will have no trouble taxing everyone more when it is needed. But for now---as for the past 50 years---kick the can down the road.
All of that very well be negated by Trump's tariffs, which despite the Court ruling, will be in place under different legal reasoning that K laid out, and which could be used (and likely will be used) to just supplement SS.
The last great "reform" of SS was not enacted until the Trust Fund was nearly insolvent. No reason to expect anything more now. Governments seldom pre-solve an entitlement crisis while doing nothing remains an option.
So don't expect more than dueling think tank position papers for a few more years.
The large and increasing national debt is the giant dragon that is on our tail, and it will eat us unless the politicians find a way to knock it back. No one wants to believe this, and they'd rather huddle in the dark and hope for some miracle.
Dunno. I have been watching politics for 50 years, and heard for 50 years the debt was unsustainable
Well said. The Green and Constitution Parties are even weaker than the Libertarians. The Democrats also have the issue that at some point the progressive left may get tired of the centrist left doing things to make them lose. At some point the role 'perpetual junior partner' stops working. What happens next is unclear.
J.D. Vance is a "fervent ideologue" and AOC is a "beloved leader." And I laughed out loud at your list of "moderate/centrist, establishment, or “newbie” options. Kamala Harris? Gavin Newsome? Come on.
You're looking for a partisan lens when none is there. The piece says Vance is "a highly capable and smart politician" and that AOC is beloved by the "next generation left." The list is just the list of currently considered candidates or those whose names have been discussed. Fact is, both AOC and Vance have highly negative standings with voters outside of their respective bases which will only grow as things progress. That was the point of the article.
In 2000, I voted for George Bush who promised "No Nation Building" but then promptly took us into two wars of choice that eventually killed over 10,000 young Americans. I finally decided to never again vote for the lesser of two evils. The lesser of two evils is still evil.
After 2000, I have voted LP simply to make the point that neither major party was running an acceptable candidate. People routinely tell me that I'm wasting my vote, but no vote is wasted when you vote your conscience.
I do not owe my vote to anyone or any party and anyone who wants my vote has to earn it.
If the political environment in November, 2028 is exactly like it is right now then Vance would beat AOC in a two party race. America is not yet ready for full-blown socialism. But much will occur between now and November, 2028 to change the political environment; if things get bad enough even AOC could win.
A third party candidate (TPC) - who is a genuine moderate - might be a strong candidate in 2028. That genuine moderate would have to come from the Democratic party, someone who can't stomach a hard Left turn like AOC would be. The key voting bloc would be Independents, whom a recent opinion survey found to be 45% of voters, with 27% each for Democrats and Republicans. To win in the electoral college, that TPC would have to win 70%-80% of those Independents, then peel off enough votes from moderates in both major parties to win 270+ electoral votes. A very tall order, not likely. And who is the moderate Democrat with the stature to mount a competitive campaign?
TPCs just steal votes from the party they most resemble.
In Nebraska an "independent" is running for senator, with the full endorsement of the Democrat party (they are not running a candidate). His fundraising is through Act Blue. Absolutely no one is stupid enough to believe he is anything other than a progressive democrat.
Short answer is no.
GOP has several acceptable, competent prospects from which to choose.
Democrats internecine conflicts are reflective of a body with an infection. If the AOC wing wins it will be a while before the body recovers…if it does.
AOC makes Kamala sound like a orator. And Whitmer deferred to her as the expert?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF5iiLD9-F0
I don't see a constituency that isn't being served by the two parties right now. The left side of the Democratic Party makes lefty noises, but they are all pretty comfortably wealthy and no one at all has suggested socializing the six digit earning or millionaires. The issue today is about losing servants to deportation. Democrats who are less woke can simply roll their eyes and vote, they're unbothered by the excesses of the left, no harm done.
I'm curious to find out if the Republicans will continue to draw Hispanic and black votes at ever increasing numbers, especially males. Deportations are a different demographic than voters, but still, some of the rhetoric I read online is distasteful. Businesses will be hurt due to increased costs for workers but enough to forego tax reduction? I doubt it.
It's de rigueur to give a shout out to "working people" amongst Dems but few will allow the words working class to pass their lips. The shift rightwards has been unrelenting. 2028 will probably be the first time someone actually from the New Right runs for office.
Beshear, Buttigieg, Emanuel, Gallego, Moore, Ossoff, Shapiro, and Whitmer need to get together in a room and choose one of their number to run with the backing of all the others.
Have Fetterman, Gluesenkamp Perez, Golden, Kelly, Moulton, Sherrill, Slotkin, Spanberger, Torres, and Warnock in the room to mediate.
Next, they need to hope Harris, Newsom, and Ocasio Cortez all run and tear each other apart trying to be furthest left.
Then the Democrats have a chance in 2028.
A bunch of progressives deciding which progressive gets the nod? Aren't democrat voters tired of the party picking the candidate?
Recent work by Gallup and their questions on party ID strongly suggest the environment has never been better for a strong third party or independent campaign - over 40% of voters now identify as independent, while GOP and Democratic identification has fallen below 30% or each (closer to 25%). But the obstacles third parties and independents must take, and the infrastructure required that the major parties already have, are enormous. I just don't see anyone reaching even Ross Perot's status, who won 19 percent of the vote in 1992 and not a single electoral vote.
"Let's look under the hood". A wealthy, media savvy non-politician. In the internet/social media age, fund raising, ballot signatures and GOTV are all possible.
Maybe a dark horse will come out of the weeds for the Dem's. If they do win the presidency it will be because war boy Trump, who has sold out to the money and Netanyahu, has shot the Rep's in the foot and people will vote for 'anyone but' and the White House will be theirs to continue their own path of destruction of the U.S.
As a slightly right commenter, I'm rooting for AOC to get the nomination. Secret infiltrators of the D party want her so they can be defeated again.
Dang, I was pulling Jasmine last night....
We said that about Trump in 16. Sometimes getting what you want isn't what you wanted.
"Will there be?" is a leading indicator of clickbait.
I think the results of yesterday's Democratic Primary in Texas indicates that AOC has very little chance of being the party's 2028 presidential nominee.
Speaking as a Texan, yesterday's results point to AOC and Mamdani being the Dem standard bearers, at least for policy, even more. Hand it to Dems. Talarico is the quintessential Trojan Horse, or Trojan Longhorn, in Texas .
In no particular order, James supports unrestricted abortion, child transitions, and the 2nd coming of the Green New Deal. Talarico doesn't just believe in Open Borders and abolishing ICE. Talarico believes in taxing Americans to provide any world resident who arrives on US soil, legally or not , with perpetual and unlimited welfare.
Talarico also hopes to nationalize the tax and spending of CA and NYC, along with health and childcare. Because who would not hand over a 6 week old baby to the same people who developed the DMV and often refuse to incarcerate child predators?
Talarico is Mamdani with a Bible, instead of a Quran. AOC without the makeup and bar tending skills.
Dems have done a masterful job at hiding Talarico's real beliefs. They took the Spanberger playbook, and radiated it. FYI, yesterday Spanberger noted she would refuse hand over an undocumented murderer to ICE, without a judicial warrant. He was caught on video, brutally killing a 40 year old VA Mother at a bus stop, after numerous previous violent charges and convictions, produced little incarceration.
The "new" religious, moderate Dem party, embracing the undocumented who murder US women, with the audacity to leave the house alone. A Texas primary is one thing. An election is another. We shall see if Reps can pull back the curtain on this massive Dem political hoax.
Hi Ms. Ross. I'm not a Texan but I do not in any way see Talarico's position on immigration as "Open Borders." He explicitly has likened the border to a door with a welcome mat and a lock that is unlocked only for those whom we wish to invite in. I have seen nothing in his positions I would not agree with, and I am far from an AOC progressive.
He is indeed pro-choice, but his position has focused on a negative argument, trying to refute the claim that the pro-life position is Biblically mandated. He has not, so far as I know, articulated a position on whether there should be limits to choice, such as those mandated in Roe v Wade, which attempt to accommodate the bitter divisions around these issues. There are indeed some progressives who believe abortion of viable fetuses (third trimester) should be legal (they were not under Roe v Wade except in emergencies threatening the life of the mother, and if the fetus survived the procedure it was to be treated as a live birth with full protections of personhood -- a premature delivery rather than an abortion). I think the position of those progressives is ethically untenable. I have not seen any evidence that Talarico holds those views.
You are certainly correct that he is for Green policies: he is a Democrat. From your perspective I suspect members of almost all wings of the Democratic Party would appear to advocate the second coming of the Green New Deal. I certainly would, and I'm considered conservative by progressives because given current politics I do not think it's realistic to believe that a fully responsible response to climate change is possible, so we should aim for the most renewable-friendly legislation feasible. We'll see whether Talarico can mobilize strong political support among Texas independents despite taking the position he has.
Talarico's position on medical treatment for youth gender dysphoria does lean more closely to the progressive wing of the party in taking the position that this is a matter for doctors and parents, rather than for the state.
As for Spanberger's position on turning an apparent murderer over to ICE concerns due process, not deportability. The man is in jail and would almost certainly be convicted and incarcerated here if he were not deported. Spanberger's point is that ICE should follow due process procedures to have him released from county custody to their custody, as it should follow legal procedures in processing all deportations. I don't know whether she is legally correct in claiming that ICE must obtain a judicial warrant. If she is, her position is legally mandated. If she's wrong, then she has made a mistake and this will be determined through litigation and, perhaps, through legislation to repair a gap in procedural requirements. But either way, the man will not be released from jail. Note that prior to this crime, it was not only local law enforcement that failed to appropriately incarcerate this man; ICE equally failed to act on its own deportation order. The fundamental issue here, regardless of whether Spanberger's position turns out to be legally justified or not, is whether ICE is obligated to follow legal procedures or is its own extra-legal authority. I believe we should all agree that *no* government agency should be licensed to operate on its own authority without being subject to legal procedural constraints and judicial review (except under stipulated emergency conditions). This position is one that I have always believed was supported by Libertarians, Democrats, and Republicans alike.
Appreciate the detailed reply, but Talarico believes in abolishing ICE. This is de facto Open Borders, especially in Texas where our border became one of the most crossed in world history in 4 years, without prompting from war, famine or natural disaster.
James does not believe in government regulation of abortion, which is a clever way of communicating, he supports abortion until delivery. If the government doesn't regulate it , who would?
Appreciate most Dems would love to return to a trillion dollars a year chasing Green fantasies. Hopefully in South Texas, where roughnecks with a high school degree and few other prospects, can earn $200K a year pumping oil before age 20, will understand, in the long run, Talarico and his ilk wish to end their lucrative employment.
Forgive me, but as woman, the fact you believe the fundamental issue in Spanberger's policy is not the dead Mother, but "constitutionality", says everything anyone needs to know about Dem voters.
Judicial warrants are not required to turn over anyone from a jail. Being in jail, with previous convictions, renders one automatically deportable. No dead 40 year old Mother required.
I'm going to reply to your points, Ms. Ross. But first I want to concede that after reading more about Talarico I've seen that he is, in fact, more progressive than I initially thought, based on reports I had read (I'm not a Texan!). Your post was the prompt that made me ask myself how well I really understood his positions.
I don't believe the Abolish ICE position is at all equal to the Open Borders position, and I think there are many people who support the former and oppose the latter. I'm pretty close to the former position myself. I think the CBP is the essential force that should police the border and work to restrict entry and to apprehend and deport those who initially evade detection. When it comes to identifying other deportable individuals in the US I think ICE has thoroughly conflated the categories of "deportable" -- which includes many people whom it is not, in fact, in our interest to deport -- and those who are undesirable and whom we should deport because of their individual profiles. I think a far less robust force, perhaps under CPB supervision, can be used to coordinate with state and local law enforcement to locate and detain those people. This is entirely consistent with policies to enhance and preserve border security.
When it comes to Talarico's position on abortion. when you say "X is a clever way to say Y" you are inferring an extreme position from one that could equally be seen as mainstream pro-choice. If the government doesn't regulate abortion decisions medical licensing professional organizations would be the appropriate regulators, and the government could stipulate by statute that only licensed medical personnel could perform abortions.
I support (in general) Green New Deal policies because I believe they will *radically* reduce fiscal, property, and human costs over time. I suspect that we do not share the same factual bases for our contrasting views, which means we will not agree on the urgency of the problem of climate change. I also suspect we differ in the degree to which we attend to statistics concerning the extraordinarily fast drop in the costs of renewable energy and the equally fast rise in renewable energy storage capacity. When NAFTA was adopted thirty years ago I supported the initiative but was astonished that major funding was not being sequestered to offer retraining, relocation, and re-employment assistance to Americans whose jobs would be lost. Green energy impacts on the young guys pumping oil will be similar in scope, and we will save huge amounts in social welfare costs if we devote adequate funding to providing people like them with paths to long-term lucrative employment in a changing world.
The murdered woman is the human tragedy at the center of the criminal tragedy in Virginia. That will not change regardless of the outcome of the legal question, nor will the end of freedom for her murderer. If you are correct in saying, "Judicial warrants are not required to turn over anyone from a jail," then Spanberger's action will be overturned. If you are not correct then her action is an appropriate assertion of the essential nature of due process in a society of laws. I don't know which way the courts will rule, and I've read arguments from law enforcement and legal experts on both sides of the issue. Not being a lawyer or scholar of law I will await rulings to judge whether Spanberger's objections were correct or in error to a degree that indicates bad faith.