In the shadow of Donald Trump’s victory last November was another development that seemed to receive less much attention at the time: Republicans flipped four Senate seats, giving them a majority.
We agree. Voted for Democrats for 50 years, and switched to Trump. This was one of the big reasons. Too much hostility toward Trump voters, and that's not what our Democratic Party of old did. Progressives, though, have probably never even met a Trump voter much less lived around Trump voters or had them in their families.
Many "progressives" end relationships with everyone they know who even occasionally agrees with Trump's policies. This includes family members. I have found myself reciprocating their rejections, because I will not put up with disrespectful reactions to my stated opinions. It is unfortunate, because most of the people I no longer speak to were long time friends, but I don't hang out with cult members.
Yes, me too. I had a long-time friend who was more liberal than I was, but as an intelligent centrist myself, we could rationally discuss and agree upon a lot of issues.
But then came the "woke" movement, based on the gross exaggeration that American society was infested by "white racism" and "oppression of marginalized people" despite all of the anti-discrimination, anti-poverty programs of the past 60 years. A component of that was for its advocates to "cancel" anyone who didn't agree with their extremism.
My former friend tried that with me, by delivering a diatribe about alleged "voter suppression" by Republicans with no opportunity to point out my reasons for supporting enhanced election security measures. So, I cancelled him.
(I am confident that Biden won the 2020 election and am repulsed by the January 6 insurrection, incited by Trump. But I also support Republican efforts for enhanced election security measures, considering the many election irregularities committed by Democrats (and some Republicans) in the past.)
The people in the woke movement are insufferable self-righteous bullies. They need to suffer a lot more defeats, but unfortunately they thrive on the feeling of being underdogs, so the losses will just turn them on all the more.
Yes, I too have found many Trump partisans will quickly dissociate with someone who either A.) points out the mendacity of what the man does in broad daylight, or B.) points out the sheer scale of the man’s lying.
I tend not to engage in person, but the other day I did make the mistake of pointing out, after someone said something to the effect of “the government is staffed by rich people who don’t care about us and Elon is gonna clean it up”, that the richest men in the world think only in terms of acquiring more power than their competitors, and that Elon is unlikely to reform anything in the interest of anyone but himself. Let us say the response was not what one would call ‘cool-headed’ or tolerant. (Fortunately the person falls into the ‘acquaintance’ category—but, again, an example of why you ought not talk politics with family or friends unless they’re already in your political ‘camp’.)
My mom, like many in her generation (b. 1912) told me so many times not to talk to anybody about politics, religion or money. My parents were Republicans, and my father remained one, but my mother switched to Democrat during the Seventies. Today they would both be considered conservative but also libertarian with respect to other people choose to live.
Yup. I’ll engage online in forums for discussion (and occasionally Facebook associates I’m not particularly attached to, see above) but in person I avoid politics unless I can be sure the people I’m talking to won’t object to my views. In-person arguments between people who disagree never tend to end well—but I don’t think it’s only progressives that fail to realize this, particularly in a nation as polarized as ours.
Where I live there are nothing except "progressives," so I love having the opportunity to hang out with conservative people. It's a breath of fresh air that never penetrates into my once beautiful city. I can certainly empathize, however, with people who are surrounded by any sort of dogmatists. I myself have been politically independent my whole life, so I fail to understand why people get so identified with any political party. They exist to gain power and just use the voters to achieve that goal, so being "loyal" to any of them places a person in an exploitive relationship.
Salena Zito who is an old school reporter wrote a book about 2016. She commissioned a private poll. One of the most interesting findings was the managerial class who generally trended Democratic had a segment in smaller cities that actually knew MAGA types were much more positive than their counterparts in big cities.
I think once it sinks in fully for Dems that they can’t compete consistently for Senate control without competing in those rural states, they will make the necessary changes to do so. I’m sure party leadership already recognizes this. Working class-minded, culturally moderate, less elitism, middle of the road on immigration—basically getting back to their roots and the ideals here at TLP.
The structural bias of the Senate toward Republican control means Dems have no choice but to court rural voters and adjust their image, values, and political strategy accordingly. Otherwise they will be perpetual losers, and by extension will not have a chance of tipping the Supreme Court back in their favor or even moderating its conservative majority.
There is no greater motivating factor to change course than consistently losing elections, for either side.
You'd think this would be obvious. Nebraska hasn't elected a Dem to a state-wide election since I can remember. Yet the head of the Dem party (Jane Kleeb) still insists on open borders, trans surgeries for children, and accusing Republicans of LITERALLY wanting to murder children. It's not the WAY the message is delivered, it's the MESSAGE.
Yep, and they’ll just keep losing there. The national party itself has to come to a reckoning first—that’s when it’ll start to trickle down to state parties. Even sensible Dems running in the states get dragged down by the national party’s image. And given the way the DNC is functioning right now, it still may be some time before they get their act together.
2. keep their mouths shut and wait to see whether Trump works out. Don't stand in his way or if he doesn't work out it will be Democrats' resistance that will be blamed.
Long term strategy:
1. Develop a long-term strategy. What do Democrats even stand for any longer? We won the battles on race, on Vietnam, on women, on Medicaid for poor people. These battles had a lot of POWER. What now has lots of POWER that millions of people want but don't have?
Specifically, that it seems your perspective on the problems being faced by many ethnic minority communities and their police-civilian relations is actually *more* congruent with a theory of 'systemic racism' than Balko's, *if* we take the definition you cited in the post (which, in another irony, is Balko's own) seriously. Your thesis seems to acknowledge that the criminal justice system sometimes (but not always) *does* produce some racially unequal outcomes, (since you don't dispute the numbers in Balko's statistics), but that this does *not* imply racial prejudice on the part of police officers or lawyers, because it could be due to a wide range of secular historical and socioeconomic factors that have nothing to do with them personally. (thus making it silly to blame said police officers and lawyers for these racial inequities, or imply that they are all personally racist)
In fact, I would say much of your criticism of Balko's work actually amounts to a criticism that he does not apply the idea of 'systemic racism' rigorously *enough*--he pays it lip service by citing correlational statistics, but then through lazy analysis winds up chalking everything up to personal prejudice on the part of police officers and lawyers, rather than higher-order causes in a larger, more complex and impersonal socioeconomic system. (FWIW, I find that both progressives and their critics tend to engage in the same lazy analysis whenever this idea is brought up)
Just something I found interesting when I first read the post. Many thanks to your wife for her service. (no snark intended)
This is the price a political party pays when it chooses to defy, disrupt and engage in childish antics over self-reflection after losing.
Me thinks Democrats will continue to lose political ground in the midterms and beyond until they abandon their sophomoric political theater and start governing like responsible adults on behalf of the American people.That means ditching their emergent Woke, progressive Left wing and re-embracing the American electorate middle.
Looking at the list of states that have had Democratic Senators in the last 20 years...wow. And Minnesota, Oregon, New Mexico and Colorado had Republicans. It shows how people have self selected by moving. Then again, West Virginia has, in my lifetime, elected Jay Rockefeller, Robert Byrd and Joe Manchin. Today, none of them could get the Democratic nomination.
At this very, very early point, my predictions are going to be conservative.
*Democrats have no shot in NC. Rs slashed another 1600 off the D lead, which at one time was 175,000 and Trump STILL won the state (then won it a second and third time).
*Brian Kemp, while I despise him, will win GA fairly easily. Whatever Georgians think he's done, he is pretty popular and is certainly no Herschel Walker.
*Beyond that, all I can do is look at the trends: Democrats are jumping ship in seats they normally should win (MI, MN), which should tell you something. Each senate election in the last 3 cycles has gotten closer (last time just .5%. MN is about a D+5 state, but it's not a squishy D-5 like PA was in 2016. Likewise, Collins in ME is the northern equivalent of Kemp.
*What should be troubling is that despite some recent (and in my mind, completely inexplicable wins in NV, AZ, and PA, the voter registration trends are against the Democrats.
PA will be dead even or red by the next election, not D+3 as last time. AZ has already added another 38,000 Rs and continues to add every month. If the candidate is Andy Biggs, this is a likely pickup. He is popular here. Kelly has done nothing. There will be no "anti-Lake" coalition as last time.
NV continues to add Rs. Like ME, its elections get closer and closer.
However, there is a very significant factor looming: the continued deportation of illegals will accelerate. A great deal of Democrat's voter base in NV, NC, AZ and even PA comes from illegals. Not a majority, but a significant number that, if not on Democrat rolls, will be very important.
In short, revisit this next Feb. when Rs have added 5% more in most of these states, Ds have lost 2-3%, and see what the field looks like. But as of today, I'd say R+1 net in 2026.
It is not clear to me that illegals actually vote. If their names are on the rolls, they are voted. So the key for Republicans is cleaning up the rolls, That and not the actual deportations is what will make your predictions correct.
The effects of the tariffs will be interesting--some of their second-order effects are less predictable than others, but they are very (*very*) likely to disrupt the auto industry's supply lines in the Rust Belt, including Ohio, and in the Southwest. And it will be hard for Republicans to distance themselves from that without facing a revolt from MAGA. I'd say seizing on the damage done to the auto industry would be a good way for the Democrats to start luring working-class voters back. (then when a recession pops up, as it probably will soon, they can kick it into higher gear) Especially since the tariffs the industry (and those employed by it) will endure will probably ultimately prove fruitless--you can't make an export market appear out of nowhere with a few gimmicky tariffs, and the U.S. doesn't have such a market anymore, and probably won't until the dollar stops being the world reserve currency.
If currently known factors accurately predicted future results - i.e. if the political world were a static environment - then the Democrats' prospects in the Senate would indeed be grim. It's now obvious that despite their 2024 defeat the dominant faction in the Democratic party - the woke Left - will not moderate any of their unpopular positions no matter what.
However, as always, events will determine which party wins in 2026, 2028, and 2030. If there is a significant economic downturn, the out party - currently the Democrats - will have a major advantage come election day. Our massive debt problem and the looming entitlements crises (Social Security and Medicare) will require tax increases to maintain those very popular programs. If Republicans resist those tax increases, they will get crushed at the polls, with Democrats' extreme positions on abortion, transgenderism, open borders immigration, etc. being very secondary electoral factors.
For these reasons, my guess is that by 2033 at the latest Democrats will control the White House and Congress. They will enact the entire left-wing agenda and America will turn permanently Left forever.
Geopolitics may re-emerge as part of the picture, too. Trump and Hegseth just effectively ceded Eastern Europe to a Putin-Xi axis and kicked themselves out of the latter's sphere of influence. Instability in Europe might soon help people understand just how much of a blunder it was.
A lot of projections that are meaningless until we see exactly what Trump accomplishes or does not accomplish or if we even have elections if Trump and the Military have a successful coup !
Why would rural Americans vote for Democrats? It's painfully clear what the party thinks of us.
We agree. Voted for Democrats for 50 years, and switched to Trump. This was one of the big reasons. Too much hostility toward Trump voters, and that's not what our Democratic Party of old did. Progressives, though, have probably never even met a Trump voter much less lived around Trump voters or had them in their families.
Many "progressives" end relationships with everyone they know who even occasionally agrees with Trump's policies. This includes family members. I have found myself reciprocating their rejections, because I will not put up with disrespectful reactions to my stated opinions. It is unfortunate, because most of the people I no longer speak to were long time friends, but I don't hang out with cult members.
We have found the same thing. It's emotionally very hard. Sorry you have had this as well.
Yes, me too. I had a long-time friend who was more liberal than I was, but as an intelligent centrist myself, we could rationally discuss and agree upon a lot of issues.
But then came the "woke" movement, based on the gross exaggeration that American society was infested by "white racism" and "oppression of marginalized people" despite all of the anti-discrimination, anti-poverty programs of the past 60 years. A component of that was for its advocates to "cancel" anyone who didn't agree with their extremism.
My former friend tried that with me, by delivering a diatribe about alleged "voter suppression" by Republicans with no opportunity to point out my reasons for supporting enhanced election security measures. So, I cancelled him.
(I am confident that Biden won the 2020 election and am repulsed by the January 6 insurrection, incited by Trump. But I also support Republican efforts for enhanced election security measures, considering the many election irregularities committed by Democrats (and some Republicans) in the past.)
The people in the woke movement are insufferable self-righteous bullies. They need to suffer a lot more defeats, but unfortunately they thrive on the feeling of being underdogs, so the losses will just turn them on all the more.
Yes, I too have found many Trump partisans will quickly dissociate with someone who either A.) points out the mendacity of what the man does in broad daylight, or B.) points out the sheer scale of the man’s lying.
I tend not to engage in person, but the other day I did make the mistake of pointing out, after someone said something to the effect of “the government is staffed by rich people who don’t care about us and Elon is gonna clean it up”, that the richest men in the world think only in terms of acquiring more power than their competitors, and that Elon is unlikely to reform anything in the interest of anyone but himself. Let us say the response was not what one would call ‘cool-headed’ or tolerant. (Fortunately the person falls into the ‘acquaintance’ category—but, again, an example of why you ought not talk politics with family or friends unless they’re already in your political ‘camp’.)
My mom, like many in her generation (b. 1912) told me so many times not to talk to anybody about politics, religion or money. My parents were Republicans, and my father remained one, but my mother switched to Democrat during the Seventies. Today they would both be considered conservative but also libertarian with respect to other people choose to live.
Yup. I’ll engage online in forums for discussion (and occasionally Facebook associates I’m not particularly attached to, see above) but in person I avoid politics unless I can be sure the people I’m talking to won’t object to my views. In-person arguments between people who disagree never tend to end well—but I don’t think it’s only progressives that fail to realize this, particularly in a nation as polarized as ours.
Where I live there are nothing except "progressives," so I love having the opportunity to hang out with conservative people. It's a breath of fresh air that never penetrates into my once beautiful city. I can certainly empathize, however, with people who are surrounded by any sort of dogmatists. I myself have been politically independent my whole life, so I fail to understand why people get so identified with any political party. They exist to gain power and just use the voters to achieve that goal, so being "loyal" to any of them places a person in an exploitive relationship.
Salena Zito who is an old school reporter wrote a book about 2016. She commissioned a private poll. One of the most interesting findings was the managerial class who generally trended Democratic had a segment in smaller cities that actually knew MAGA types were much more positive than their counterparts in big cities.
interesting! And it's what we see as well.
I think once it sinks in fully for Dems that they can’t compete consistently for Senate control without competing in those rural states, they will make the necessary changes to do so. I’m sure party leadership already recognizes this. Working class-minded, culturally moderate, less elitism, middle of the road on immigration—basically getting back to their roots and the ideals here at TLP.
The structural bias of the Senate toward Republican control means Dems have no choice but to court rural voters and adjust their image, values, and political strategy accordingly. Otherwise they will be perpetual losers, and by extension will not have a chance of tipping the Supreme Court back in their favor or even moderating its conservative majority.
There is no greater motivating factor to change course than consistently losing elections, for either side.
You'd think this would be obvious. Nebraska hasn't elected a Dem to a state-wide election since I can remember. Yet the head of the Dem party (Jane Kleeb) still insists on open borders, trans surgeries for children, and accusing Republicans of LITERALLY wanting to murder children. It's not the WAY the message is delivered, it's the MESSAGE.
Yep, and they’ll just keep losing there. The national party itself has to come to a reckoning first—that’s when it’ll start to trickle down to state parties. Even sensible Dems running in the states get dragged down by the national party’s image. And given the way the DNC is functioning right now, it still may be some time before they get their act together.
The short term strategy for Democrats:
1. get rid of progressives
2. keep their mouths shut and wait to see whether Trump works out. Don't stand in his way or if he doesn't work out it will be Democrats' resistance that will be blamed.
Long term strategy:
1. Develop a long-term strategy. What do Democrats even stand for any longer? We won the battles on race, on Vietnam, on women, on Medicaid for poor people. These battles had a lot of POWER. What now has lots of POWER that millions of people want but don't have?
Random thought Vicky & Dan--I read the post you linked to on your blog the other day and wanted to mention that I found a subtle irony in it. (https://livinginthebedofapickup.blogspot.com/2024/08/why-we-wont-vote-for-harris-her-anti.html)
Specifically, that it seems your perspective on the problems being faced by many ethnic minority communities and their police-civilian relations is actually *more* congruent with a theory of 'systemic racism' than Balko's, *if* we take the definition you cited in the post (which, in another irony, is Balko's own) seriously. Your thesis seems to acknowledge that the criminal justice system sometimes (but not always) *does* produce some racially unequal outcomes, (since you don't dispute the numbers in Balko's statistics), but that this does *not* imply racial prejudice on the part of police officers or lawyers, because it could be due to a wide range of secular historical and socioeconomic factors that have nothing to do with them personally. (thus making it silly to blame said police officers and lawyers for these racial inequities, or imply that they are all personally racist)
In fact, I would say much of your criticism of Balko's work actually amounts to a criticism that he does not apply the idea of 'systemic racism' rigorously *enough*--he pays it lip service by citing correlational statistics, but then through lazy analysis winds up chalking everything up to personal prejudice on the part of police officers and lawyers, rather than higher-order causes in a larger, more complex and impersonal socioeconomic system. (FWIW, I find that both progressives and their critics tend to engage in the same lazy analysis whenever this idea is brought up)
Just something I found interesting when I first read the post. Many thanks to your wife for her service. (no snark intended)
This is the price a political party pays when it chooses to defy, disrupt and engage in childish antics over self-reflection after losing.
Me thinks Democrats will continue to lose political ground in the midterms and beyond until they abandon their sophomoric political theater and start governing like responsible adults on behalf of the American people.That means ditching their emergent Woke, progressive Left wing and re-embracing the American electorate middle.
Looking at the list of states that have had Democratic Senators in the last 20 years...wow. And Minnesota, Oregon, New Mexico and Colorado had Republicans. It shows how people have self selected by moving. Then again, West Virginia has, in my lifetime, elected Jay Rockefeller, Robert Byrd and Joe Manchin. Today, none of them could get the Democratic nomination.
Too much inside baseball. The path back is what Ruy says.
At this very, very early point, my predictions are going to be conservative.
*Democrats have no shot in NC. Rs slashed another 1600 off the D lead, which at one time was 175,000 and Trump STILL won the state (then won it a second and third time).
*Brian Kemp, while I despise him, will win GA fairly easily. Whatever Georgians think he's done, he is pretty popular and is certainly no Herschel Walker.
*Beyond that, all I can do is look at the trends: Democrats are jumping ship in seats they normally should win (MI, MN), which should tell you something. Each senate election in the last 3 cycles has gotten closer (last time just .5%. MN is about a D+5 state, but it's not a squishy D-5 like PA was in 2016. Likewise, Collins in ME is the northern equivalent of Kemp.
*What should be troubling is that despite some recent (and in my mind, completely inexplicable wins in NV, AZ, and PA, the voter registration trends are against the Democrats.
PA will be dead even or red by the next election, not D+3 as last time. AZ has already added another 38,000 Rs and continues to add every month. If the candidate is Andy Biggs, this is a likely pickup. He is popular here. Kelly has done nothing. There will be no "anti-Lake" coalition as last time.
NV continues to add Rs. Like ME, its elections get closer and closer.
However, there is a very significant factor looming: the continued deportation of illegals will accelerate. A great deal of Democrat's voter base in NV, NC, AZ and even PA comes from illegals. Not a majority, but a significant number that, if not on Democrat rolls, will be very important.
In short, revisit this next Feb. when Rs have added 5% more in most of these states, Ds have lost 2-3%, and see what the field looks like. But as of today, I'd say R+1 net in 2026.
It is not clear to me that illegals actually vote. If their names are on the rolls, they are voted. So the key for Republicans is cleaning up the rolls, That and not the actual deportations is what will make your predictions correct.
The effects of the tariffs will be interesting--some of their second-order effects are less predictable than others, but they are very (*very*) likely to disrupt the auto industry's supply lines in the Rust Belt, including Ohio, and in the Southwest. And it will be hard for Republicans to distance themselves from that without facing a revolt from MAGA. I'd say seizing on the damage done to the auto industry would be a good way for the Democrats to start luring working-class voters back. (then when a recession pops up, as it probably will soon, they can kick it into higher gear) Especially since the tariffs the industry (and those employed by it) will endure will probably ultimately prove fruitless--you can't make an export market appear out of nowhere with a few gimmicky tariffs, and the U.S. doesn't have such a market anymore, and probably won't until the dollar stops being the world reserve currency.
If currently known factors accurately predicted future results - i.e. if the political world were a static environment - then the Democrats' prospects in the Senate would indeed be grim. It's now obvious that despite their 2024 defeat the dominant faction in the Democratic party - the woke Left - will not moderate any of their unpopular positions no matter what.
However, as always, events will determine which party wins in 2026, 2028, and 2030. If there is a significant economic downturn, the out party - currently the Democrats - will have a major advantage come election day. Our massive debt problem and the looming entitlements crises (Social Security and Medicare) will require tax increases to maintain those very popular programs. If Republicans resist those tax increases, they will get crushed at the polls, with Democrats' extreme positions on abortion, transgenderism, open borders immigration, etc. being very secondary electoral factors.
For these reasons, my guess is that by 2033 at the latest Democrats will control the White House and Congress. They will enact the entire left-wing agenda and America will turn permanently Left forever.
Geopolitics may re-emerge as part of the picture, too. Trump and Hegseth just effectively ceded Eastern Europe to a Putin-Xi axis and kicked themselves out of the latter's sphere of influence. Instability in Europe might soon help people understand just how much of a blunder it was.
A lot of projections that are meaningless until we see exactly what Trump accomplishes or does not accomplish or if we even have elections if Trump and the Military have a successful coup !