Democrats a permanent minority?

[dogs4thewin]

Oh, we haven't felt the pain yet. Give it a year. Watch the government backlogs in services to grow to absurd levels. Watch how women and minorities react to Trump stomping on their pride and recognition. See how taking a hacksaw to the economy and environment work out. Should be enlightening.

We shell see. I am a disabled woman and I for one am glad to see DEI go

 

[Yttrium]

We shell see. I am a disabled woman and I for one am glad to see DEI go

I can't complain. White non-LGBT men like me won't have any problems finding work.

 

[dogs4thewin]

I can't complain. White non-LGBT men like me won't have any problems finding work.

and no one should if they meet the qualifcation for the postition. As to LBGT how on Earth would an employer know anyway?

 

[loveofourlord]

Link?

60% of whom?

regular polls last 10 or so years they have frequently shown that.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Democrats a permanent minority?​

Their ideology problem is only getting worse.​

Democrats’ demographic problem is ideological: They’re becoming more liberal, but America remains more conservative.

What’s more, one of Democrats’ traditionally most important groups, young voters, is becoming more conservative, too. If they continue, these trends will lead Democrats into long-term minority status.

n politics, it is always dangerous to move away from the leading ideological group; it is even more so when you are moving so strongly toward the smallest ideological minority. Yet Democrats’ plight is worse still.

Obviously, the political answer for Democrats is to become more moderate. But as recent actions show, they’re not budging from their losing leftist ideology. If anything, they’re becoming more adamantly liberal.

It would be premature to dismiss the Democrats based solely on one election result. In 7 out of the last 9 presidential elections, the Democratic candidate won the popular vote.

Democrats did lose significant support from youth voters in 2024, but it is just one election cycle. Even the article from The Hill acknowledges that the last time Republicans led with youth was in 1991.

We need to observe how the next two or three elections unfold before identifying it as trends.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

It would be premature to dismiss the Democrats based solely on one election result. In 7 out of the last 9 presidential elections, the Democratic candidate won the popular vote.

That is a good point. And how the Electoral College gives a false representation.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

I ain't buying it.
I remember Republicans saying that kind of stuff after W Bush won, we know how that turned out.

Democrats stated in 2008, 2012, and even 2020 that Republicans would never recover. Similarly, Republicans made the same claim in 2016 and now.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

That is a good point. And how the Electoral College gives a false representation.

There is a group of supporters of President Trump who identify somewhat with the MAGA movement but are not associated with any political party. They are critical of both Democrats and Republicans, oppose free trade and globalism, and believe that all politicians belong to a single political establishment. These voters primarily participated in elections when President Trump was on the ballot, which explains their lower turnout in midterm elections. It is likely that these voters will return to not voting once President Trump is no longer in office.

The problem for Democrats isn't "woke" culture or socialism, as Republicans claim. It's that Democrats have repeatedly taken advantage of certain groups without providing tangible benefits. They believe discussing immigration with compassion secures Hispanic voters, and merely talking about justice reform satisfies African American voters.

Hispanic voters realize Democrats offer little, while Republicans, despite their stance on immigration, align with them on social issues, including Muslim immigrants.

 

[Always in His Presence]

regular polls last 10 or so years they have frequently shown that.

Try reading the link

 

[MehGuy]

Eh, I'm sure they'll bounce back.. I remember reading the same said by Democrats about Republicans sometime back, lol.

The severity of how they act once back into power may depend on how Trump's gambles play off. I do fear what the next administration could be like. Really, Republican or Democrat.

 

[RileyG]

Woke (liberalism on steroids) has gotten a lot of backlash. And the democrat party attached themselves so much to it, that voting democrat has become voting for more woke. Therefore those who don't want more woke, aren't likely to vote democrat. Trump of course took advantage of that by stomping the tar out of woke.

I agree.

 

[RileyG]

Eh, I'm sure they'll bounce back.. I remember reading the same said by Democrats about Republicans sometime back, lol.

The severity of how they act once back into power may depend on how Trump's gambles play off. I do fear what the next administration could be like. Really, Republican or Democrat.

Only time shall tell, my friend.

 

[mark46]

And if Biden has announced in his 2023 State Of The Union that he was not running and that he welcomes turning over the country to the next generation. we'd be asked whether the fractured Republican Party can survive.
===========

 

[RDKirk]

Woke (liberalism on steroids) has gotten a lot of backlash. And the democrat party attached themselves so much to it, that voting democrat has become voting for more woke. Therefore those who don't want more woke, aren't likely to vote democrat. Trump of course took advantage of that by stomping the tar out of woke.

"Woke" is not liberalism...at least not classical liberalism. "Woke" is Critical Theory ideology, based on Marxism. It's a wholly different thing from what the Democratic Party was even as late at the 2004 election.

 

[RileyG]

"Woke" is not liberalism...at least not classical liberalism. "Woke" is Critical Theory ideology, based on Marxism. It's a wholly different thing from what the Democratic Party was even as late at the 2004 election.

I guess it depends how one compares classical liberalism to modern liberalism, eh? I dunno.

 

[mark46]

There is a group of supporters of President Trump who identify somewhat with the MAGA movement but are not associated with any political party. They are critical of both Democrats and Republicans, oppose free trade and globalism, and believe that all politicians belong to a single political establishment. These voters primarily participated in elections when President Trump was on the ballot, which explains their lower turnout in midterm elections. It is likely that these voters will return to not voting once President Trump is no longer in office.

The problem for Democrats isn't "woke" culture or socialism, as Republicans claim. It's that Democrats have repeatedly taken advantage of certain groups without providing tangible benefits. They believe discussing immigration with compassion secures Hispanic voters, and merely talking about justice reform satisfies African American voters.

Hispanic voters realize Democrats offer little, while Republicans, despite their stance on immigration, align with them on social issues, including Muslim immigrants.

Yes, the anti-intellectual America First movement (now called MAGA) hasn't been so popular in the US since the 30's. The movement seems to appeal to a large (non-majority) portion of the country.

There is room for a centrist party in 2028, even if the result is electing a MAGMA Republican. That centrist party could then have a chance of winning in 2032. Of course, that could have happened in 2024 if there were a viable candidate willing to run.

The Democrats cannot win again until they abandon much of the policies of the current far left. And, BTW, I am NOT considering Sanders and Warren as part of that left. The Democrats must be able to speak the language of the people. They must truly feel people's pain. They must respect what people feel. The Democrats can never win telling the people how they should think and feel about various issues. Let's be clear. Biden was a fine politician, just too old to run.

The Democrats have possibilities, but they will never be acceptable to the fringe. Examples are Federman and Emmanuel.
==========
MY DIMINSHED HOPES ARE FOR
a Democratic House majority and then a non-MAGA Republican who quietly is our president for 8 relatively quiet years. I now would find ANY of the presidents since Reagan more than acceptable in place of any that I see as possibilities. I just want to see us restore our role as a world leader (in science, security and diplomacy). I want us to have a forward going budget that provides for needs of the people, including medical care for all. HOWEVER, I am fine with states and local governments having the vast amount of the power over spending priorities.

 

[ozso]

"Woke" is not liberalism...at least not classical liberalism. "Woke" is Critical Theory ideology, based on Marxism. It's a wholly different thing from what the Democratic Party was even as late at the 2004 election.

There's various terms. Neo-liberalism. Radical liberalism. Progressive liberalism. Woke liberalism. Whatever one wants to call it, it's something many don't want to see flourish.

 

[RDKirk]

There's various terms. Neo-liberalism. Radical liberalism. Progressive liberalism. Woke liberalism. Whatever one wants to call it, it's something many don't want to see flourish.

No, as I said this is a completely different ideology, not just a different syntax.

 

[mark46]

I guess it depends how one compares classical liberalism to modern liberalism, eh? I dunno.

I strongly disagree.

Liberalism as a US political movement started with Roosevelt and was essentially defined by Humphrey in his 1948 speech at the Democratic convention. Humphrey kicked the communists out of the coalition and formed his Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party in MN. Followers of Humphrey have been called liberals for my lifetime. Yes, we are big tent, with views that have always been pro-market and have also supported the expansion of the safety net (including the ideas of Sanders). Our obvious successes have been Clinton and Obama (considerably on the right of most Democrats). Today's examples are Federman and Emmanuel.

The liberals have been a solid majority of the Democratic Party since WWII. We can argue when the far left took over as majority of the Democratic Party. Perhaps, liberals were still in the majority in 2004. Certainly, Obama was a centrist, working the Bush administration, the bankers and the corporations, and deporting more than anyone since Eisenhauer.

 

[RileyG]

I strongly disagree.

Liberalism as a US political movement started with Roosevelt and was essentially defined by Humphrey in his 1948 speech at the Democratic convention. Humphrey kicked the communists out of the coalition and formed his Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party in MN. Followers of Humphrey have been called liberals for my lifetime. Yes, we are big tent, with views that have always been pro-market and have also supported the expansion of the safety net (including the ideas of Sanders). Our obvious successes have been Clinton and Obama (considerably on the right of most Democrats). Today's examples are Federman and Emmanuel.

The liberals have been a solid majority of the Democratic Party since WWII. We can argue when the far left took over as majority of the Democratic Party. Perhaps, liberals were still in the majority in 2004. Certainly, Obama was a centrist, working the Bush administration, the bankers and the corporations, and deporting more than anyone since Eisenhauer.

Thanks for the insight.
I thought Obama was far more moderate than say, H. Clinton or Pelosi.

Maybe I'm wrong?