The internal migration thing is likely the reverse, because of who is leaving and the specific donor/recipient states and locations. On the who, internal migrants tend to be people who value a lower cost of living in red states over the cultural amenities of blue states. As for the where, prime destinations Texas and Florida can absorb more democrats without turning blue. So, NY and California keep losing electoral votes and the red states keep gaining. Also, to extent that internal migrants are democrats, they tend to move to cities. Because they’re packed together in already blue state legislative districts, they have little effect on the partisan balance for the state government.
The fact that internal migrants move to cities rather than the country isn't relevant to my thesis. North Carolina counts all votes -- it doesn't differentiate between a rural vote and a city vote.
Blue states are losing a lot of their republicans. This will make them more blue without making CA/FL more Blue. Just a bigger Electoral College waste.
The biggest issue tonight is that the GOP won a majority of Hispanics in FL/TX. If that holds, TX is never turning blue, which was basically THE BIG PLAN for Democrats.
IN 2030 red states will gain +12 electoral votes via the census. That's a whole other swing state.
People who move out of California are the most right-wing Californians. Texas transplants are *more* right-wing than native Texans. Overall internal migration is terrible for Democrats.
Clintonism is running on empty. The Clintonian formula is to take suburbia and collect massive donor money with the free market stuff, hold the coalition together with idpol stuff, and have .gov do just enough not to get blown out with working-class whites. If they’re hemorrhaging working-class minorities, and getting blown out among working-class whites, well, good luck running Gavin.
The other big problem is that so-called elite human capital has been outsmarted by Trump not once but twice. Are they truly elite, or is this just ethnic nepotism plus DEI? The New York Times is reporting that the Trump campaign did data analysis and discovered undecided battleground voters were six times more likely to be motivated by opposition to Israel’s genocides than other voters, so they muddled their message accordingly in the closing days. Dems are too slavish toward their donors, some of which are doing more harm than good at this point by pulling us away from majoritarian positions and need to be cut loose.
The platform I offered is a fusion of Clinton's tough on crime/immigration platform with Bernie's socialism, not pure Clintonism. I'm not optimistic about a Gavin run, I support Buttigieg or Heinrich for 2028.
>Are they truly elite, or is this just ethnic nepotism plus DEI?
Yeah, DEI actively undermines the Dems' human capital advantage. You can see this in SCOTUS, for example. The Dems have something like a 10:1 advantage over Republicans in elite law school graduates. They have a VERY deep pool of high IQ legal talent. But at this point 2/3 of their SCOTUS appointments are DEI picks and likely the lowest IQ members of the Court.
Not having elite, philosophical, creative judges on the bench when we're the minority especially sucks since dissents often introduce new concepts that lay the groundwork for law in the future. When we have mere starters as top judges instead of All-Stars, then that doesn't happen. A top-tier dissenter like Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. is historically priceless.
Yes, that makes sense. I don’t understand the law well enough to know all the disadvantages of your side having the dumber judges. I’ve heard people say it doesn’t even matter, you just want politically reliable judges. But that doesn’t ring true to me at all.
Voters are not misogynistic,kemi badendoch crushed everyone in a conservative party. EHC with willinguess to lead is dispropotionaly male,and high information voters know that. Highlighting the fact you are a woman(first female president may bibes) is not effective,Americans don't want to see gender race and sexualiy,at least the 80% of them near the political center
Britain is also more racist than US(lower percentage of parents happy if their child marries a poc),blaming Harris loss to racist and sexist illiterate folks is a suicidal decision by Dems right now,
If you like Republican (pro-corporate) economics, why settle for the ersatz Democratic version when you can support the real thing?
The populist playbook also won't work. Democrats have been offering programs that help people for decades, while Republicans offer working people *nothing* Their economic program promises to make their lives worse, and *delivers* on that promise. The result, Democrats have continued to lose working class votes, and today the Republican party is now a populist party.
The working class is lost for the Democratic party. You aren't going to bribe them back with free stuff. That ship has sailed.
If you want a Leftist policy that will benefit working people it will have to come from the Republicans, But this can never happen as long as the plutocrats are in charge, as has been the case since the beginning of the party and even more so today (look at their two leading figures, Trump and Musk, both billionaires).
The model I was working holds that the GOP is the antebellum Democratics and the plutocrats are the plantation elite. The Civil War eliminated the plantation elite as players in national politics, stripping the part of its plutocrats. The capitalist plutocrats were concentrated in the Republican party. SO when the Depression came the Democrats could throw the plutocrats under the bus because they were mostly in the other party to build the New Deal economy that produced very good results for working people.
The success of the New Deal and WW II created a new elite class, the Mandarins who rule the Democratic party:
The Mandarins are rich (not rich as the GOP elite) but they serve more as cultural elites. They pretend to be left, but divert people away from a class-based identities to those based on
race, sex/gender, or sexuality,
Class based politics that actually improves people life would be most directly enacted through the Red party (Republicans) as it was in the 1930;s. But first you need to move the plutocrats from the Republican to the Democratic party, Trump's victory had strengthened the plutocrats grip in the Republicans. I' afraid the working class is going to get it in the ass and hard by Trump and company.
> As a black-Indian woman, she alienated whites, misogynists (who make up a significant proportion of the Democratic base and swing voters), and even black people who saw her as a “fake black person.”
The “fake black person” charge really turns the idea of “hypodescent”/“one-drop rule” on its head. It appears that in politics, to be black is prestigious, and to be Indian is a liability. I hope this hierarchy is reshuffled but I doubt it will be.
I think the charge is at least partly due to the fact that she wasn't raised by a black parent or within black culture. Neither was Obama (and some forget that there was some initial black skepticism towards him), but he made good by marrying a black woman and raising his daughters that way. Plus he's just more charismatic and there was a lot more hype around potentially electing the "first black President" than merely the "first black female President".
Good point about the spouse and Obama’s efforts that Harris did not make. But I think there’s a countervailing gendered aspect to “black authenticity” that allows a black woman to relax her hair and “speak white” in a way that a brotha couldn’t without getting clowned on.
You cannot have a cuddly welfare state and open borders. Bernie admitted that years ago and then backtracked when the notion became unPC.
If you want American wages to be above world levels, then you need to enforce the national picket line. That means border controls and tariffs. Arbitrage happens.
Yeah, 2028 is going to be a very tough year for the GOP. If you play the averages, bet on Trump being less popular in 2028 than he was in 2020, AND no Republican being able to fill his shoes; everyone will be too compromised by the association with Trump to be considered "normal", too normal/square to have the monster truck rally appeal of Trump.
Democrats win automatically in '28 if they can run someone that's another plausible "return to normal" but at minimum 25 years younger than Biden -- Biden's debate performance is going to stick in everyone's mind for a long time, Trump is going to age noticeably over the course of his term (if he even survives), and as a result their records as the oldest Presidents probably won't be beaten for a long time.
To me it seems Buttigieg really screwed up by not grabbing that free Senate seat in Michigan. I have no idea what he was thinking, but if he had done that, he would be the presumptive nominee. Instead there's still a legitimate case that he has no real political experience. Though would America see a gay man as a "return to normal"? I have no idea at this point.
Yes, but he also owes a lot to Peter Thiel, there’s a specific logic there.
There’s a male disgust reaction to acts of male homosexuality that’s very real and probably hardwired and that will continue to cost male votes on the margin. People can ignore that gut reaction but Pete would help himself if he downplayed his man heavily in visual media (even if people knew intellectually he was gay), but not something he has shown any inclination towards.
Though doesn’t mean he can’t win. But he hasn’t given much indication that he cares about winning all that much (again, the free Senate seat).
TrumP; Former Dem
Elon Musk: Former Dem
Jeff Bezos: Former Dem
Mark Zuckerberg: Former Dem
Paypal Mafia: Former Dems
Joe Rogan: Former Dems
IDW-Sphere: Former Dems
JD Vance: More or less former Dem or at least 90s Dem
I think we found the 90s Dem coalition.
This is funny, but I still think the Dems can win with my platform.
The internal migration thing is likely the reverse, because of who is leaving and the specific donor/recipient states and locations. On the who, internal migrants tend to be people who value a lower cost of living in red states over the cultural amenities of blue states. As for the where, prime destinations Texas and Florida can absorb more democrats without turning blue. So, NY and California keep losing electoral votes and the red states keep gaining. Also, to extent that internal migrants are democrats, they tend to move to cities. Because they’re packed together in already blue state legislative districts, they have little effect on the partisan balance for the state government.
The fact that internal migrants move to cities rather than the country isn't relevant to my thesis. North Carolina counts all votes -- it doesn't differentiate between a rural vote and a city vote.
Blue states are losing a lot of their republicans. This will make them more blue without making CA/FL more Blue. Just a bigger Electoral College waste.
The biggest issue tonight is that the GOP won a majority of Hispanics in FL/TX. If that holds, TX is never turning blue, which was basically THE BIG PLAN for Democrats.
IN 2030 red states will gain +12 electoral votes via the census. That's a whole other swing state.
People who move out of California are the most right-wing Californians. Texas transplants are *more* right-wing than native Texans. Overall internal migration is terrible for Democrats.
Provide a source so we're going off the same data here. Specifically, are California-to-Texas transplants more Christian than the average Texan?
Yeah and this is especially true since 2020. COVID/Wokness was a total disaster for the DEMS.
Have you seen Alex Nowrasteh's new article?
Depends. Idt internal migration to North Carolina (Asheville, Charlotte) is great for repubs
Clintonism is running on empty. The Clintonian formula is to take suburbia and collect massive donor money with the free market stuff, hold the coalition together with idpol stuff, and have .gov do just enough not to get blown out with working-class whites. If they’re hemorrhaging working-class minorities, and getting blown out among working-class whites, well, good luck running Gavin.
The other big problem is that so-called elite human capital has been outsmarted by Trump not once but twice. Are they truly elite, or is this just ethnic nepotism plus DEI? The New York Times is reporting that the Trump campaign did data analysis and discovered undecided battleground voters were six times more likely to be motivated by opposition to Israel’s genocides than other voters, so they muddled their message accordingly in the closing days. Dems are too slavish toward their donors, some of which are doing more harm than good at this point by pulling us away from majoritarian positions and need to be cut loose.
The platform I offered is a fusion of Clinton's tough on crime/immigration platform with Bernie's socialism, not pure Clintonism. I'm not optimistic about a Gavin run, I support Buttigieg or Heinrich for 2028.
>Are they truly elite, or is this just ethnic nepotism plus DEI?
Yeah, DEI actively undermines the Dems' human capital advantage. You can see this in SCOTUS, for example. The Dems have something like a 10:1 advantage over Republicans in elite law school graduates. They have a VERY deep pool of high IQ legal talent. But at this point 2/3 of their SCOTUS appointments are DEI picks and likely the lowest IQ members of the Court.
Many such cases.
Not having elite, philosophical, creative judges on the bench when we're the minority especially sucks since dissents often introduce new concepts that lay the groundwork for law in the future. When we have mere starters as top judges instead of All-Stars, then that doesn't happen. A top-tier dissenter like Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. is historically priceless.
Yes, that makes sense. I don’t understand the law well enough to know all the disadvantages of your side having the dumber judges. I’ve heard people say it doesn’t even matter, you just want politically reliable judges. But that doesn’t ring true to me at all.
Newsom will defeat Vance.
What basis for confidence?
Voters are not misogynistic,kemi badendoch crushed everyone in a conservative party. EHC with willinguess to lead is dispropotionaly male,and high information voters know that. Highlighting the fact you are a woman(first female president may bibes) is not effective,Americans don't want to see gender race and sexualiy,at least the 80% of them near the political center
use the space bar after commas
Britain is also more racist than US(lower percentage of parents happy if their child marries a poc),blaming Harris loss to racist and sexist illiterate folks is a suicidal decision by Dems right now,
The corporate strategy is foolish. Know what Republican (neoliberal) economics gets you:
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/what-is-neoliberalism-an-empirical
If you like Republican (pro-corporate) economics, why settle for the ersatz Democratic version when you can support the real thing?
The populist playbook also won't work. Democrats have been offering programs that help people for decades, while Republicans offer working people *nothing* Their economic program promises to make their lives worse, and *delivers* on that promise. The result, Democrats have continued to lose working class votes, and today the Republican party is now a populist party.
The working class is lost for the Democratic party. You aren't going to bribe them back with free stuff. That ship has sailed.
If you want a Leftist policy that will benefit working people it will have to come from the Republicans, But this can never happen as long as the plutocrats are in charge, as has been the case since the beginning of the party and even more so today (look at their two leading figures, Trump and Musk, both billionaires).
The model I was working holds that the GOP is the antebellum Democratics and the plutocrats are the plantation elite. The Civil War eliminated the plantation elite as players in national politics, stripping the part of its plutocrats. The capitalist plutocrats were concentrated in the Republican party. SO when the Depression came the Democrats could throw the plutocrats under the bus because they were mostly in the other party to build the New Deal economy that produced very good results for working people.
The success of the New Deal and WW II created a new elite class, the Mandarins who rule the Democratic party:
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/the-mandarins-and-capitalists
The Mandarins are rich (not rich as the GOP elite) but they serve more as cultural elites. They pretend to be left, but divert people away from a class-based identities to those based on
race, sex/gender, or sexuality,
Class based politics that actually improves people life would be most directly enacted through the Red party (Republicans) as it was in the 1930;s. But first you need to move the plutocrats from the Republican to the Democratic party, Trump's victory had strengthened the plutocrats grip in the Republicans. I' afraid the working class is going to get it in the ass and hard by Trump and company.
Democratic populism wasn't on the ballot in 2024.
Yes it does. Republicans are antigrowth and are the party of the working class now.
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/what-is-neoliberalism-an-empirical
What is your point?
Did you read the link?
> As a black-Indian woman, she alienated whites, misogynists (who make up a significant proportion of the Democratic base and swing voters), and even black people who saw her as a “fake black person.”
The “fake black person” charge really turns the idea of “hypodescent”/“one-drop rule” on its head. It appears that in politics, to be black is prestigious, and to be Indian is a liability. I hope this hierarchy is reshuffled but I doubt it will be.
I think the charge is at least partly due to the fact that she wasn't raised by a black parent or within black culture. Neither was Obama (and some forget that there was some initial black skepticism towards him), but he made good by marrying a black woman and raising his daughters that way. Plus he's just more charismatic and there was a lot more hype around potentially electing the "first black President" than merely the "first black female President".
Good point about the spouse and Obama’s efforts that Harris did not make. But I think there’s a countervailing gendered aspect to “black authenticity” that allows a black woman to relax her hair and “speak white” in a way that a brotha couldn’t without getting clowned on.
Within project 2025 there is a proposal to round up all Priest types. Warriors and merchants ascendant
lol good luck
Critias massacring eleusinian mystery priests
You cannot have a cuddly welfare state and open borders. Bernie admitted that years ago and then backtracked when the notion became unPC.
If you want American wages to be above world levels, then you need to enforce the national picket line. That means border controls and tariffs. Arbitrage happens.
I'm not sure if you read the article you're commenting on, but I am putting forth border security as part of a Democratic platform.
Yeah, 2028 is going to be a very tough year for the GOP. If you play the averages, bet on Trump being less popular in 2028 than he was in 2020, AND no Republican being able to fill his shoes; everyone will be too compromised by the association with Trump to be considered "normal", too normal/square to have the monster truck rally appeal of Trump.
Democrats win automatically in '28 if they can run someone that's another plausible "return to normal" but at minimum 25 years younger than Biden -- Biden's debate performance is going to stick in everyone's mind for a long time, Trump is going to age noticeably over the course of his term (if he even survives), and as a result their records as the oldest Presidents probably won't be beaten for a long time.
To me it seems Buttigieg really screwed up by not grabbing that free Senate seat in Michigan. I have no idea what he was thinking, but if he had done that, he would be the presumptive nominee. Instead there's still a legitimate case that he has no real political experience. Though would America see a gay man as a "return to normal"? I have no idea at this point.
JD Vance is already memeing "normal gay guys"
Yes, but he also owes a lot to Peter Thiel, there’s a specific logic there.
There’s a male disgust reaction to acts of male homosexuality that’s very real and probably hardwired and that will continue to cost male votes on the margin. People can ignore that gut reaction but Pete would help himself if he downplayed his man heavily in visual media (even if people knew intellectually he was gay), but not something he has shown any inclination towards.
Though doesn’t mean he can’t win. But he hasn’t given much indication that he cares about winning all that much (again, the free Senate seat).
I question your political acumen if you think butt judge would be a prez hopeful.
People clearly dont care about association with trump. Though it will be hard for repubs to drive turnout without some1 with trump’s charisma