That's the top-rated comment at a New York Times article — "How the Electoral College Could Tilt Further From Democrats" — about "the nightmare scenario many Democratic Party insiders see playing out if current U.S. population projections hold" after the 2040 census.
The next 4 most highly rated comments are similar:
These are New York Times readers, writing those comments and voting on them. Democrats need better policies... better everything.• "The Democrats don’t need more money to solve this problem. They need better policies. Odd that this article did not ask the question as to why people are leaving the blue states for the red states. Classic Democratic denial."
• "If the Democrats would ever care to prioritize the interests of normal, law-abiding people, and not lifestyle oddballs and lawbreakers in the name of 'equity' and 'justice,' I think they would do very well nationally."
• Perhaps states like NY, California and Illinois ought to start looking at how their policies tend to gouge their residents and businesses with taxes, and consider making some changes that will not only stem the losses but encourage some growth. There has to be a middle ground between these states and the extreme opposites to which people are being drawn. Of course, the weather plays a role too, but it is hardly good in the south these days either.
• Do people not understand what all these statistics are telling us? I started canvassing for Hubert Humphrey, that’s how long I’ve been a Democrat. And I just switched my party affiliation. I am sick to death of being blamed for being a straight, white, male capitalist. I’m sick of DEI, simply for the sake of diversity. I’m sick of democratic socialists. I’m sick of Bernie, Elizabeth, AOC, and Zohran. I don’t know what affirmative action has actually achieved. The statistics show a middling, if even that, success. And I’m not the only one. Many, if not most, people in my demographic have given up on the Democratic Party. A party that has given so much to American, and for which we should be so grateful. It has completely lost its way. And if my conclusions aren’t entirely correct, the perceptions certainly are. It’s almost impossible to explain away people’s perceptions."
New tag beginning today: "2032 elections"!
Posts
49 comments:
This is why the democrats want power centralized in DC.
Then it is harder to run from them as they steal your stuff.
What really upsets politicians is when they cannot steal your stuff and give it to their cronies.
I love most of what MAGA wants and Trump is doing, but I worry that the Democrats only have to act 10% less retarded to get lots of votes back. The public is that brainwashed into hating Republicans, and I don't really understand it despite living through it.
The second comment is exactly what I mean: "If the Democrats would ever care to prioritize the interests of normal, law-abiding people, and not lifestyle oddballs and lawbreakers in the name of 'equity' and 'justice,' I think they would do very well nationally."
They don't even need to do it or help fix anything. They just need to stop sounding like crazy people, and that should NOT be enough for anyone. We need real serious reforms. We need the opposite of Democrat policies.
Shouldn’t that be “2030 census”?
On current trends an election like 2024's in 2032 would have seen the GOP candidate win 325+ electoral votes rather than the 312 Trump won. Of course, the other side of this coin is that the exodus from the blue states to the red ones could make those red states lean more to the Democrats- it isn't necessarily good news for the GOP- it really depends on whether or not the people exiting were already right leaning- there is evidence both ways.
I didn't click through so is the writer quoted in the headline serious? Is a dedicated NYT subscriber not aware of the demographic trends outside their bubble?
…yes cannot see but did democrats throw in the towel on the 2030 census or is this a typo?
There is a real possibility that California is going to lose 4 or more seats in the House during the next reapportionment.
…of course many of us have been here saying that for years- it’s the policies not the ‘messaging’. I’m not comforted in the fact their remaining constituents are figuring it out but I do take comfort in the problem of them having to reject every major and minor ‘leader’ of their movement in order to heal…
Did any of the commenters make reference to re-districting to reduce the already-under-represented Republicans in their blue states? One of my neighbors left Washington state for that specific reason, and his extended family has followed him, one by one.
There has to be a middle ground between these 3 states and the extreme opposites 47 states. FIFY
Democratic gerrymandering has disenfranchised millions of voters in California, New York, Illinois, etc. Of course those voters are emigrating.
And by the way, it's not just the policies, it's the political behaviors that motivate such policy-making. They're a pestilence, and they're pervasive.
People elect politicians who are tall, handsome, and charismatic.
There could easily be a Democrat with these characteristics.
After Clinton's center-left "triangulation" of the 1990s, the Democrats split into two very different parties under one name. Yet, you cannot serve two masters. Their response was to install castrated white male symbols (i.e., Biden, Newsom) in leadership roles and hope to fool some of the people all the time.
Generations of unchecked control led to rampant corruption. Whatever they say and do is all about maintaining control to keep the money flowing. They literally have no vision beyond this, as being coherent must offend at least one of their internal factions (i.e., female, transgender, p3do4iles, greens, black & brown, working class, immigrant, global business monopolists, etc.)
A lot of us have voted with our feet over the last few years. My wife and I left CA. FL was a great place to land. Everyone is friendly and the place is clean and green and well governed. We both get the feeling here similar to our safe semi-rural CA hometowns. So who knows, maybe in 50 years this place also will have an influx of progressives ruining everything like they did for CA. I'm taking a wait and see attitude.
bagoh20 @9:51, I share your concern. How many supposed "former Democrats" have we heard about since, oh, a year ago who were driven from their party affiliation not by the fact that Democrat policies fail - indeed, tend to exacerbate the problems they purport to solve - wherever they're tried, versus the number who abandoned the Harris campaign because it was incoherent and crazy in its embrace of illegal immigration, criminals, people who want to trans children, and people who think a $30 minimum wage will have no behavioral effects other than making life so much easier for minimum-wage workers? And, on top of that, when they spoke out even in hesitant murmurs about their misgivings on these points, were demonized and ostracized by their friends and family?
They are NOT newly minted "Republicans" nor "conservatives." They're homeless Democrats and would be happy to get back into their political home, if it weren't a broken-down crack house occupied by the untreated (or over-treated) mentally ill.
Read a recent book called the Summer of Our Discontent by a writer for the Atlantic. It is about 2020 and the fall out from the G. Floyd demonstations and riots. One thing the book does is to simply chronicle some of the worst excesses of the time. I still find it hard to believe that the Democratic Party (someone at least) put forward a candidate for the President (Harris) who was on the wrong side of so much of those truly terrible times. From giving comfort to the defund the police folks, to contributing to a fund to bail out the rioters, from not speaking out about the violence. But one thing you have to give the Democrats: an impressive immunity to even a smidgen of self-reflection.
The 2030 census might add a Citizenship question, which could skew California's numbers down.
Being one of the exodus from California and knowing others, there is a pervasive fear among us that what we ran from is going to follow us and infect our new home. We hope only the like-minded follow, but the blue state failures hurt everybody, and even many of those responsible want relief and see greener grass.
(Man, it's hard for me to keep track of my own grammar in the tiny comment box.)
That is something I notice about not only the Dem leadership - but the Dem cultists. They have ZERO ability to accept that they are ever wrong. Not one thing. Ever.
I guess that is what defines cultism.
Isn't this old news? Very old?
It seems the blinkers are falling off the heads of some of the silliest partisans. Years too late.
One Party Democratic Authoritarian rule in CO = Total failure.
Yet - people keep voting for it. That said, people are leaving the state. CO is as unfriendly as you can get for business and middle class.
The Dems and dem loyalists that run and support the shit show here - you can make it big as an insider crony. Tax payer funded.
As someone who lives only a few hours from Austin, Berkeley On Lady Bird Lake, be afraid, bagoh20... be very afraid.
"Shouldn’t that be “2030 census”?"
Yes, thanks. Fixed.
I'm particularly bad at typing numbers.
In 2040, I'll be 89. If I'm lucky!
"It’s almost impossible to explain away people’s perceptions." But they try so very hard to do so.
I do fear the Exodus will simply create new blue states. I watched as Californians moved into WA state in the '80s and '90s and turned it into a socialist hell-hole, and it feels the same thing is happening here in AZ.
That said, if one can secure elections properly, it might not turn them blue. I don't doubt that much of the AZ vote in the last two elections was fraudulent.
Some of the foot voters have left because their employers have migrated to red states because the costs of operating in blue state have become unsustainable. Some of those costs are regulatory burdens, others are material losses due to robbery (shoplifting became an obsolete word when the shoplifters started carrying away their booty in sacks) vandalism, assaults on staff, assaults on customers, and insurance rates that reduce profit margins to fractional percents.
Some of those migrants are stupid enough not to realize their voting habits directly caused their employers to moved out, compelling them to move with them or resign.
Talking a new game will not rescue the Democrats. They must reform their style of governance in the states and cities where they currently hold sway. They must demonstrate by practical action that they grasp what is meant by morality, rather than defining immortality out of existence.
Several of the comments have asked if the Ds are really that removed from reality. As someone whose friends are mostly Northeast/West Coast Democratic Progressives, the answer is very much a "yes." They really are. Mostly great people, but completely insular and parochial.
bagoh20 said...
I love most of what MAGA wants and Trump is doing, but I worry that the Democrats only have to act 10% less retarded to get lots of votes back.
Won't happen. They'd need to act more on the lines of 70% less retarded to get votes back. If they did that they wouldn't be the Democrat party any more. (At least not the Democrat party in it current iteration as the party that protect and defends the segment of society that really needs looking after; wealthy elitists and America's wine moms.)
Whether reaching age 89 is "lucky" is debatable. My mother just turned 96, and every time I see her now the first thing she says is "you don't want to get to be this old." Which is ironic, because her health is remarkably good for her age. Perhaps it's because she outlived Dad and all her peers.
In 2040, I'll be 89. If I'm lucky!
Just go see your doctor for those exams. Maybe not a PSA, but you understand.
Yesterday a client spent a phone call with his accountant griping about the state of the world with Trump in power and how it was all going to collapse. ‘How many other clients have given up their citizenship?’ asked the otherwise sophisticated client. ‘It isn’t easy…’
Food desert, a nonsense concatenation of recent coinage and a phenomenon of cities with long histories of Democrat domination. It's a phrase intended to deflect blame from the wrongdoers onto the victims, not unlike Die Juden sind unser Unglück.
The wrongdoers include the thieves and miscreants who steal and despoil, but they are not alone. Equally guilty are those who demand law and order when the local TV news crew shows up when the local Kroger is shut down, and vote for the Democrats in the next election. It has been wisely said, in a democracy, the people get the government they deserve.
"If the Democrats would ever care to prioritize the interests of normal, law-abiding people, and not lifestyle oddballs and lawbreakers in the name of 'equity' and 'justice,' I think they would do very well nationally."
Or you could - following that logic - just throw in with Trump.
Jamie writes, "Man, it's hard for me to keep track of my own grammar in the tiny comment box."
Tell it, sistah! Amen. Blogger even took away the preview option...
Not trying to threadjack - I think this is on topic:
I had a thought the other day that we should just enlarge the House.
The 435 size is set by statute, so it can be changed by statute. The only Constitutional limitation is that each Rep must rep at least 30,000 people.
We could double or triple the House without much of a problem. Triple it to 1305 Reps. With a US population of 342 million, that would be about 260,000 constituents each. By comparison, the British House of Commons have 650 MPs for a country of about 65 million, so about 100,000 constituents each.
A 1305-seat House would still be manageable, especially since it hardly ever meets as a whole.
I think all sides would like a larger House:
- More members (R, D) and more staffers for these members, so more tax money to spread to political allies (R,D);
- Smaller districts could more reliably represent one party or ethnicity (mostly D);
- Smaller districts would also allow seats for parties that have 30-40% of a state's population but none of the seats (mostly R);
- Just like smaller and smaller intervals approximate the area under the curve in calculus, smaller and smaller districts approximate the national popular vote (Ds are supposed to like this);
- You'd need a big building project for the larger chamber and the staff office space, i.e., construction slush for connected DC area companies (D);
- the larger footprint for Congressional buildings, parking, etc., would push out DC residential real estate and help make it more of a federal reservation and less of a blue city (R);
- smaller districts would make it easier for local people to influence their Rep. Candidates would have to become more expert in micro-local issues, the way UK MP's are (mostly R);
- more districts would increase the amount of money needed to lobby the whole House, giving an advantage to big business and big nonprofit (mostly D).
- finally, and this brings us back fully on topic, with more seats to lose, a state would lose fewer of them to 'foot voting' such as described in this post. (mostly D)
RR
JSM
Anthony, IMO WA and AZ were just like CA, but slower to notice. Both are generally conservative (as was CA outside SF and LA) but ruled by pockets of concentrated leftists who eventually get enough control to change rules (all mail voting in WA, crooked SOS in AZ) and create virtual one-party rule. Progressives ruined all three states. There aren't enough of us former Californians to do all you say.
The Dems won't reform, because honest voters will see that as a conclusive admission that Trump and MAGA were correct all along, the entire TDS thing was hogwash from the start, and that the Dems were behind it. Imagine the embarrassment inflicted on Kimmel, Colbert, Maddow, Oliver, De Niro, SNL, the New York Times, Rosie O'Donnell!
Katie Porter is leading in California. She picked up most of the Camala Harris vote. Some people never learn.
The LA Times informs us that CA Democrats prefer Newsom to Harris. Even when they learn something, they still don't learn anything.
After Clinton's center-left "triangulation" of the 1990s, the Democrats split into two very different parties under one name.
In the 50s and 60s it was common to speak of America's "four party system." The Congressional Republicans were the most conservative. The Presidential Republicans had to satisfy a national, rather than a local, constituency. The Congressional Democrats were hobbled by Southern, rural and white ethnic office holders and couldn't embrace the liberal vision of the Presidential Democrats, the most "progressive group."
Since Clinton, the Congressional Democrats have become more progressive than the Presidential Democrats. The Biden years were an exception to that, but then, the country didn't even have a president back then.
But is Bill Clinton's Democrat Party still around? Didn't it rely on people who are no longer Democrats, or no longer moderate or no longer alive? Similar to Reagan Democrats and (on the other side) liberal Republicans.
The democrats have hate, lies, more lies, delusion and mental illness.
As Kamala says about the left's thuggish rioters -
--> "And they're not going to stop."
Dumb analysis. Immigration is making Red states more populous. Who are these immigrants? If they're African/hatian etc. they will vote Democrat. Same with Hispanics.
As the USA "becomes more brown" (ht Ben Shapiro - "I dont give a damn about the browning of America") it will become more Liberal/left. Why should some poor Latino or african or Indian vote Republican?
Trump was sui generis (sic). Nominate Ted cruz or Tom Cotton and the R's will go down in flames in 2028.
And Californians are STILL running away to other states. Mostly red. And they take their stupid Liberal/left policies with them. Some are conservatives. But a lot are the same types that destroyed the "Golden State".
JSM your house expansion would also make gerrymandering more difficult
Howard: expanding the House would make gerrymandering unnecessary. If you're trying to keep a certain number of seats for your peeps, smaller districts work better. Of course, if you're offensively gerrymandering, to keep the other peeps out of power, then yes, smaller districts make that harder.
RR
JSM
Ocean: "Why should some poor Latino or african or Indian vote Republican?"
...because they don't want to stay poor?
RR
JSM
Can you imagine the Democrat Party of 2026 coming out with something like Newt's Contract with America? Listing 10 specific pieces of legislation they would put forth?
Who knows, maybe they're working on that this very moment.
A larger House would be a little reminiscent of the rubber stamp, clapping seal assemblies of dictatorships. Too many delegates means no time for debate. But maybe we're already there. Nobody in Congress is persuaded by a speech.
It would make gerrymandering less of a problem. You can't carve a Republican district out of Massachusetts 9 House seats. When there were 14 seats in the 1950s, it was hard to avoid having one (in fact, there were 7 Republican Representatives from Massachusetts in 1950, but those days aren't coming back).
It could also mean a return to citizen legislators, less full of themselves, but (possibly) easier to bribe. A larger House, though, would mean more presidential electors (and therefore more "faithless electors").
·
The idea that the "Browning of America" would mean a permanent Democrat majority has stalled. Has it been disproved or is this hold-up just temporary? A "browner" America means more conflict between "brown" groups and greater difficulty for Democrats to bring them together. Biden's embrace of illegal immigration hurt him with the black community -- and with Latinos as well. That white (and white-adjacent) liberal young women have become the Democrats' new base doesn't bode well for their party's hopes either.
"In 2040, I'll be 89. If I'm lucky!" No luck involved, every 74-year-old now will be 89 in 2040. Only question is, vertical or horizontal?
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.