85.2%

[Gunnar]

No one likes a bully.

Sure they do. We have a hundred examples from history to choose from, and the country just ‘elected’ the two largest bullies within our borders. Well, one of them was elected, anyway, with the other just being foisted upon us because the elected guy likes his money.

Anyhow, I look forward to your examination of the Democratic Party’s toxic platform elements, and to your suggestions about how the Democratic Party should pander to white males. I mean, the latter could be a winning strategy, given the size of that demographic, but I’m curious as to how you believe that fits into liberal ideology, and what actions you believe it entails that can meet the goal while skirting socialism.

Anytime you’re ready. ; )

I am definitely with you on this, canpakes, I have also urged Hound of Heaven to take an honest look at the Democratic Party's platform, and point out what he perceives as toxic, unreasonable or dangerous. I he hasn't yet taken us up on that challenge and, perhaps, doesn't want to. Maybe he doesn't want to risk finding out how mistaken he might be about how evil their actual policies are. I found nothing in that platform that any reasonable, unbigoted and fair-minded person would not find laudable and worthy of adoption.

I also agree with you about Trump and Musk being "the two largest bullies within our borders." I don't believe there is anything really liberal about Musk and, probably, never has been. He is a prime example of an authoritative Oligarch whose overriding concern is his own avarice and self-interest. He has also unambiguously revealed himself to be an anti-LGTBQ (or, at least, anti-trans) bigot and, apparently, an advocate and/or apologist for Neo-Nazis.

[Hound of Heaven]

In several posts, you have attempted to depict me as a conservative due to my disapproval of the direction the progressive wing of the party has pushed the Democratic Party towards, aiming to transform it into a socialist party.

I have attempted no such thing. I have no control over your online appearance. But, I have tried to engage you on specifics, beyond your broad generalizations. Where you take that is up to you.

However, I have been a Democrat longer than you have been alive, and I have witnessed the party undergo many transformations. Yet, nothing has been as radical as the past 15 years, during which the progressive wing of the party has attempted to push the party towards socialism.

Any party has factions. The ranks of Republicans include Christian Dominionists, as example, but I don’t think that when the average person votes for a Republican, they’re supporting everything - or anything in particular, even - that Christian Dominionism wants America to be. Do you?

Rather than try to claim that Progressives craft the Democratic Party platform, please point out those things within the platform that you believe represent a toxic progressivism. Be specific. It would lend credibility to your claim if you can find examples within the platform.

As I have mentioned in various posts across different threads, progressives perceive anyone, including liberals, who do not align with socialist progressive views as adversaries.

I’ll bet they do. That’s why factions are called factions. We see this across both parties. If you are as old as you say you are, then you’ve also seen arguably much more politically radical trends from the 60’s and 70’s. If you think otherwise, point out some policy or platform examples to bolster the view that toxic progressivism has permeated the Party’s approach.

In my opinion, along with many other Democrats, the progressive movement appears to be attempting to impose socialism on America, and I will not permit that to occur.

‘Attempting to impose socialism’ is a meaningless group of words. What do you mean by socialism, even?

This is why I say that you sound as if you’re just repeating Fox News talking points at times. Please point out the undefined socialism that these unnamed progressives are trying to impose. Be specific.

If you get that far, then, tell me how that’s working out for them.

https://diem25.org/progressives-must-fa ... rats-loss/
This article provides a clear explanation of how progressives perceive the broader Democratic Party. I encourage you to review it, as it outlines the extent of the progressives' disdain for the remainder of the party and details their efforts to shift the rest of the party towards socialism.

This is a strange choice from you. DiEM is a European organization, involved with European politics. Like anyone else, they have opinions on stuff. The article you’ve posted is a fairly fluffy opinion piece. It lacks specifics, but what it does do is offer the opinion that US liberalism (and the Democratic Party by extension) “suppress(es) and demonise(s) progressive and socialist tendencies” because it has been captured by the desire for capital accumulation.

In other words, if you hate socialism, then you should be voting for Democrats. They’re totally antagonistic to progressivism. They’re your team!
: D

This article clearly articulates how many moderate democrats, like myself, perceive the far-left progressives attempting to dominate the party. If I have misunderstood this article, I would appreciate an explanation of how I am misinterpreting the progressive values presented within it.

Are ‘far left progressives’ dominating anything? They barely seem to be part of the conversation, except when I see Fox Newsertainment hosts telling their audience that they’re out to get us, even if they never manage to tell us how, why, where, when, or who, exactly.

It is important to note that the article presents the perspective that liberalism has not succeeded. As someone with liberal views, what should my perspective be on that? Later in the article, the progressive perspective suggests that liberalism is an outdated ideology that fails to provide anything of significance and should be discarded.

Are you a liberal?

Where did liberal ideas spring from? Conservatism, or Progressivism?

What Democratic Party aims and platform values do you support or admire? How did they evolve to be included within what you perceive to be liberal ideology? What was their genesis?

That said, your previous reply to me mentioned several times about white male needs or concerns. My opinion is that your repeated insistence that the Democratic Party needs to address this is that it would smack of identity politics as bad or worse as anything else, and that any solutions to culturally unique problems of the white male community that you have (thus far) been unwilling or unable to define would likely involve one or more socialism-tainted approaches or principles.

Perhaps you could revisit your mention of this and explain what you think should be addressed and how Democrats should propose to do so?

I certainly recall the far-left radicals of the 1960s behaving like a group of entitled brats, similar to the progressives we see today. In 1966, Ronald Reagan focused his campaign for governor of California on addressing the issues at Berkeley and criticized radicals and proponents of offensive speech who incited chaos and unrest. Reagan criticized university administrators for attempting to impart their own values to students rather than focusing on the education the students sought. Does this remind you of anyone? Trump?

Perhaps you are too young to recall, but in the lead-up to 1968, Nixon based his campaign on the promise of restoring law and order. The situation was exacerbated by the violent actions of far-left radicals during the 1968 Democratic convention. The situation was such that a majority of Americans found themselves supporting the police rather than the demonstrators. In the past, far-left radicals substituted the American flag with Viet Cong flags; today, they have replaced the American flag with the Palestinian flag during protests. However, the radical protests from the far left today are significantly more intense than those in the 1960s. The overall tone and the intensity of disdain that today's youth exhibit towards those who hold differing political views is certainly unprecedented.

What you seem to overlook, and I do not, is that due to the violence and animosity directed by the far left towards their fellow Americans during that time, Nixon was elected twice, with his second victory encompassing 49 states. When I discuss the necessity for the party to shift back toward the center to enhance our chances of winning elections, I do so with an understanding of the consequences that arise when either party veers too far into the extremes. Progressivism represents the far left of my party, and because the entire party permitted progressives to dictate our approach to transforming America—regardless of whether America desires such transformation—we ultimately saw Trump elected twice.

If Trump had truly gone to prison before the election, he likely would have experienced a historic landslide, potentially winning 45 or 46 states. The reason I mention this is that the more we attempted to demonize Trump and the Republicans, the more American voters recognized the necessity of voting Trump into office. Do you agree?

Maureen Dowd authored an article for the New York Times entitled Democrats and the Case of Mistaken Identity Politics. Here are some of the points she highlighted in the article.
1. Trump secured a majority of white women.
2.Trump achieved significant support among Latino, Black, and young male voters.
3.The Democratic Party adopted a perspective characterized by extreme political correctness, condescension, and cancellation.
4. The party erred in endorsing diversity statements such as LatinX and BIPOC.
5. Rahman Emanuel stated that when the woke police target you, you aren't even afforded the reading of your Miranda rights; they simply cancel you.
6. Democrats discovered through experience that in this election, mothers are concerned about both abortion rights and ensuring their daughters can compete fairly and safely in sports.

Here’s a link to Morning Joe on MSNBC Reading the Maureen Dowd article and discussing why it's so important for Democrats to realize Woke is Broke! https://youtu.be/OstJFEtu7us?si=Rx6EsWizaxE6USq5

An important pole featured in the Financial Times states this. Four groups were surveyed regarding the presence of racism in our society. The results showed that 75% of white progressives agreed America is racist, 62% of black respondents agreed, 38% of Hispanics agreed, and 28% of white conservatives agreed. Progressives maintain perspectives that are significantly more left-leaning than those of the minorities they frequently claim to support. That represents a significant error if securing electoral victories is a priority.

It’s gets even more disappointing! The same four groups were asked whether America is the greatest country in the world. Only 31% of white progressives responded yes, while 58% of blacks, 75% of Hispanics, and 90% of white conservatives expressed agreement. Progressives, particularly white progressives, seem disconnected and unaware of the sentiments of the American people regarding fundamental and patriotic positions that a party should understand when aiming for electoral success. Progressivism seems disconnected from the American electorate, and the path to winning elections again lies in progressives acknowledging the necessity of liberals like myself, despite my belief that their agenda does not align with what America requires at this moment.

If you want to win elections, love America!

[Gunnar]

It’s gets even more disappointing! The same four groups were asked whether America is the greatest country in the world. Only 31% of white progressives responded yes, while 58% of blacks, 75% of Hispanics, and 90% of white conservatives expressed agreement. Progressives, particularly white progressives, seem disconnected and unaware of the sentiments of the American people regarding fundamental and patriotic positions that a party should understand when aiming for electoral success. Progressivism seems disconnected from the American electorate, and the path to winning elections again lies in progressives acknowledging the necessity of liberals like myself, despite my belief that their agenda does not align with what America requires at this moment.

And you still, apparently, have not looked at or read the 2024 Democrat Party platform, as canpakes and I have urged you to do, and addressed what you might or might not have found so objectionable about it. Are you afraid to do so?

[canpakes]

What you seem to overlook, and I do not, is that due to the violence and animosity directed by the far left towards their fellow Americans during that time,…

HOH, I think that you may have overlooked where I pointed out several posts back that the leftism of past days was certainly more ‘extreme’ than what is seen today. Doesn’t your comment here confirm that?

If Trump had truly gone to prison before the election, he likely would have experienced a historic landslide, potentially winning 45 or 46 states. The reason I mention this is that the more we attempted to demonize Trump and the Republicans, the more American voters recognized the necessity of voting Trump into office. Do you agree?

No. Trump should be held accountable to the law. Some voters may believe that he should be allowed to escape consequences, for fear of offending his base (and for what reason are they offended, I’d ask you), or the fear of not having their candidate win, but my perspective on law and order differs.

Maureen Dowd authored an article for the New York Times entitled Democrats and the Case of Mistaken Identity Politics.

The Dowd article a good read from a particular perspective, but it’s one that somewhat ironically points out the two-sided nature of the problem you want to blame a Democratic Party loss on. Per Maureen:

“The Trump campaign’s most successful ad showed Kamala favoring tax-funded gender surgery for prisoners.”

The problems? First off, Harris didn’t voice an opinion on ‘favoring’ this. She only said that she would follow the law on the process. A law that existed under the Trump Administration.

https://19thnews.org/2024/10/harris-gen ... act-check/

The second problem was that there are only two prisoners who are known to have gone through the vetting process and received any gender-affirming surgery.

You’re left asking yourself who is to blame for this even being portrayed as an issue, and for what reasons. And what you believe the alternative option was.

How many people were misled by the Trump campaign’s ad? How many did not understand the context or the idea of following the existing law? How many had absolutely no idea of the total number - 2 - of people who constituted the entire category of ‘prisoners receiving transgender surgery’?

Then, ask yourself what, exactly, motivates people to vote for Trump based on this?

I absolutely believe that a case can be made for redirecting some of the energy that Democrats have aimed towards purely ‘woke category’ issues, but when the fellow who won spent $200 million dollars on ads targeting transgendered folks, and proudly pushed a false rumour during a dozen rallies and in a nationally-televised debate of immigrants eating people’s pets, then you’re facing an issue that isn’t cured by Democrats abandoning even every possible word spoken that will be called ‘woke’ by their Republican opponents.

You’re left walking a fine line between allowing yourself and your claimed principles to be bullied into submission for worry of alienating people who’ve chosen fear and lies to guide them, or to have to join into the same identity politics that you claim should be tossed aside, as demonstrated by your previously-stated desire for the Democratic Party to specifically formulate and label platform policies that address ‘white male’ concerns.

If you - with your long history of Democratic Party involvement - can’t find your footing on this, then what is it that you’re expecting any other Democrat voter to do?

[Gunnar]

Maureen Dowd authored an article for the New York Times entitled Democrats and the Case of Mistaken Identity Politics.

The Dowd article a good read from a particular perspective, but it’s one that somewhat ironically points out the two-sided nature of the problem you want to blame a Democratic Party loss on. Per Maureen:

“The Trump campaign’s most successful ad showed Kamala favoring tax-funded gender surgery for prisoners.”

The problems? First off, Harris didn’t voice an opinion on ‘favoring’ this. She only said that she would follow the law on the process. A law that existed under the Trump Administration.

https://19thnews.org/2024/10/harris-gen ... act-check/

The second problem was that there are only two prisoners who are known to have gone through the vetting process and received any gender-affirming surgery.

You’re left asking yourself who is to blame for this even being portrayed as an issue, and for what reasons. And what you believe the alternative option was.

How many people were misled by the Trump campaign’s ad? How many did not understand the context or the idea of following the existing law? How many had absolutely no idea of the total number - 2 - of people who constituted the entire category of ‘prisoners receiving transgender surgery’?

Then, ask yourself what, exactly, motivates people to vote for Trump based on this?

I absolutely believe that a case can be made for redirecting some of the energy that Democrats have aimed towards purely ‘woke category’ issues, but when the fellow who won spent $200 million dollars on ads targeting transgendered folks, and proudly pushed a false rumour during a dozen rallies and in a nationally-televised debate of immigrants eating people’s pets, then you’re facing an issue that isn’t cured by Democrats abandoning even every possible word spoken that will be called ‘woke’ by their Republican opponents.

You’re left walking a fine line between allowing yourself and your claimed principles to be bullied into submission for worry of alienating people who’ve chosen fear and lies to guide them, or to have to join into the same identity politics that you claim should be tossed aside, as demonstrated by your previously-stated desire for the Democratic Party to specifically formulate and label platform policies that address ‘white male’ concerns.

If you - with your long history of Democratic Party involvement - can’t find your footing on this, then what is it that you’re expecting any other Democrat voter to do?

One of the most tragic things about the last election is that too many voters (unfortunately, even some Democrats, apparently) were more persuaded by the virtual firehose of blatant, easily debunked lies, coming from Trump and his minions than by easily demonstrable reality. J.D. Vance, for example, went so far as to justify continuing the lie about immigrants eating pets even after admitting it was a lie, because turning public opinion against them was more important to him than telling the truth.

So, who are the real bigots, miscreants and liars? The MAGA, anti-woke bigots and liars, or the Democrats with their entirely laudable 2024 platform, which you still (apparently) refuse to even read or discuss. I still maintain that "anti-woke" is essentially just a euphemism for "bigot."

[Hound of Heaven]

The Dowd article a good read from a particular perspective, but it’s one that somewhat ironically points out the two-sided nature of the problem you want to blame a Democratic Party loss on. Per Maureen:

“The Trump campaign’s most successful ad showed Kamala favoring tax-funded gender surgery for prisoners.”

The problems? First off, Harris didn’t voice an opinion on ‘favoring’ this. She only said that she would follow the law on the process. A law that existed under the Trump Administration.

https://19thnews.org/2024/10/harris-gen ... act-check/

The second problem was that there are only two prisoners who are known to have gone through the vetting process and received any gender-affirming surgery.

You’re left asking yourself who is to blame for this even being portrayed as an issue, and for what reasons. And what you believe the alternative option was.

How many people were misled by the Trump campaign’s ad? How many did not understand the context or the idea of following the existing law? How many had absolutely no idea of the total number - 2 - of people who constituted the entire category of ‘prisoners receiving transgender surgery’?

Then, ask yourself what, exactly, motivates people to vote for Trump based on this?

I absolutely believe that a case can be made for redirecting some of the energy that Democrats have aimed towards purely ‘woke category’ issues, but when the fellow who won spent $200 million dollars on ads targeting transgendered folks, and proudly pushed a false rumour during a dozen rallies and in a nationally-televised debate of immigrants eating people’s pets, then you’re facing an issue that isn’t cured by Democrats abandoning even every possible word spoken that will be called ‘woke’ by their Republican opponents.

You’re left walking a fine line between allowing yourself and your claimed principles to be bullied into submission for worry of alienating people who’ve chosen fear and lies to guide them, or to have to join into the same identity politics that you claim should be tossed aside, as demonstrated by your previously-stated desire for the Democratic Party to specifically formulate and label platform policies that address ‘white male’ concerns.

If you - with your long history of Democratic Party involvement - can’t find your footing on this, then what is it that you’re expecting any other Democrat voter to do?

One of the most tragic things about the last election is that too many voters (unfortunately, even some Democrats, apparently) were more persuaded by the virtual firehose of blatant, easily debunked lies, coming from Trump and his minions than by easily demonstrable reality. J.D. Vance, for example, went so far as to justify continuing the lie about immigrants eating pets even after admitting it was a lie, because turning public opinion against them was more important to him than telling the truth.

So, who are the real bigots, miscreants and liars? The MAGA, anti-woke bigots and liars, or the Democrats with their entirely laudable 2024 platform, which you still (apparently) refuse to even read or discuss. I still maintain that "anti-woke" is essentially just a euphemism for "bigot."

You're not understanding just how crucial it is for the party to welcome the middle, if not the more conservative faction, especially over the next 15 years! Allow me to clarify this from another perspective, one that might assist you in grasping the challenges we are likely to face in the next decade. Many individuals have relocated from New York, California, Washington, Illinois, and Massachusetts—states known for their blue political leanings—to Texas, Georgia, Arizona, Florida, and North Carolina, which are red states. People are engaging in this for a variety of reasons, but the primary reason seems to be that it's more affordable in red states and reportedly less restrictive. The second reason is that living under progressive policies is not enjoyable.

Over the past 20 years, 9 million more individuals t moved from blue to red states compared to those who moved from red to blue. This news is quite unfortunate for our party; I cannot emphasize that enough. Are you aware that individuals from diverse backgrounds and beliefs are increasingly weary of residing in blue states due to the rising costs and stress associated with it? This is crucial for our party to unify and take decisive action.

In 2030, the next national census will occur, and if migration trends proceed as expected until that time, California is projected to lose 4 electoral votes, New York will lose 3, Illinois will lose 2, and an additional 3 or 4 blue states are likely to lose 1 each. This means that those 13 votes will be allocated to red states, further complicating the prospects for Democrats to achieve a nationwide electoral victory.

Compounding the issue, for years, many Democrats, myself included, believed it was a brilliant strategy for fellow Democrats to relocate to red states with the hope of transforming them into blue states. However, the contrary has occurred. Red states are increasingly intensifying in their political stance as more Democrats leave blue states.

The implementation of progressive policies, along with the prevailing anxiety among progressives regarding an impending end to our current way of life, undeniably contributes to the issues observed in the blue states I referenced. Should we continue on our current path, observing as countless Democrats depart from blue states and carry their electoral votes along with them? Is your ideology so significant to you that you're prepared to witness the electoral map become nearly unachievable for Democrats to succeed over the next two decades?

[canpakes]

… living under progressive policies is not enjoyable.

Which policies are you referring to?

In 2030, the next national census will occur, and if migration trends proceed as expected until that time, California is projected to lose 4 electoral votes, New York will lose 3, Illinois will lose 2, and an additional 3 or 4 blue states are likely to lose 1 each. This means that those 13 votes will be allocated to red states, further complicating the prospects for Democrats to achieve a nationwide electoral victory.

If a red state or blue state gains more electoral votes while remaining the same (red or blue status), that won’t affect much. The real issue is the total number of red or blue states, and flipping states that are in play.

Is your ideology so significant to you …

Is yours? Do you have an ideology? The only action item you’ve mentioned so far is that the Democratic Party must address the needs of ‘white males’. I and others keep asking for how you propose to do that without dipping into the identity politics and socialism that you despise. Posting a wall of A.I.-massaged text in response isn’t addressing the problem.

[Gunnar]

The implementation of progressive policies, along with the prevailing anxiety among progressives regarding an impending end to our current way of life, undeniably contributes to the issues observed in the blue states I referenced. Should we continue on our current path, observing as countless Democrats depart from blue states and carry their electoral votes along with them? Is your ideology so significant to you that you're prepared to witness the electoral map become nearly unachievable for Democrats to succeed over the next two decades?

Have you read the 2024 Democrat platform yet that we keep urging you to read?

by the way: What are these needs of white males that you think are not being sufficiently addressed? Do you think white males have certain unique needs not equally experienced by everyone else, other than their aberrant need to be accepted as superior and/or special to which they are entitled simply because they happen to be white?

[ceeboo]

You're not understanding just how crucial it is for the party to welcome the middle, if not the more conservative faction, especially over the next 15 years! Allow me to clarify this from another perspective, one that might assist you in grasping the challenges we are likely to face in the next decade. Many individuals have relocated from New York, California, Washington, Illinois, and Massachusetts—states known for their blue political leanings—to Texas, Georgia, Arizona, Florida, and North Carolina, which are red states. People are engaging in this for a variety of reasons, but the primary reason seems to be that it's more affordable in red states and reportedly less restrictive. The second reason is that living under progressive policies is not enjoyable.

Over the past 20 years, 9 million more individuals t moved from blue to red states compared to those who moved from red to blue. This news is quite unfortunate for our party; I cannot emphasize that enough. Are you aware that individuals from diverse backgrounds and beliefs are increasingly weary of residing in blue states due to the rising costs and stress associated with it? This is crucial for our party to unify and take decisive action.

In 2030, the next national census will occur, and if migration trends proceed as expected until that time, California is projected to lose 4 electoral votes, New York will lose 3, Illinois will lose 2, and an additional 3 or 4 blue states are likely to lose 1 each. This means that those 13 votes will be allocated to red states, further complicating the prospects for Democrats to achieve a nationwide electoral victory.

Compounding the issue, for years, many Democrats, myself included, believed it was a brilliant strategy for fellow Democrats to relocate to red states with the hope of transforming them into blue states. However, the contrary has occurred. Red states are increasingly intensifying in their political stance as more Democrats leave blue states.

The implementation of progressive policies, along with the prevailing anxiety among progressives regarding an impending end to our current way of life, undeniably contributes to the issues observed in the blue states I referenced. Should we continue on our current path, observing as countless Democrats depart from blue states and carry their electoral votes along with them? Is your ideology so significant to you that you're prepared to witness the electoral map become nearly unachievable for Democrats to succeed over the next two decades?

Bingo!

[Gadianton]

You're not understanding just how crucial it is for the party to welcome the middle, if not the more conservative faction, especially over the next 15 years! Allow me to clarify this from another perspective, one that might assist you in grasping the challenges we are likely to face in the next decade. Many individuals have relocated from New York, California, Washington, Illinois, and Massachusetts—states known for their blue political leanings—to Texas, Georgia, Arizona, Florida, and North Carolina, which are red states. People are engaging in this for a variety of reasons, but the primary reason seems to be that it's more affordable in red states and reportedly less restrictive. The second reason is that living under progressive policies is not enjoyable.

As one of those, I assure you the reason is entirely cost of living. Success brings high costs and gentrification, the need for more dollars for social services for people who aren't A.I. coders and now can't afford rent. As Texas is, California once was; as California is, Texas will become. It's already happening in some places. Sure, those places turn blue, but it's for a reason. You're never going to have a Silicon Valley economy combined with the single street-light one-sheriff non-nonsense policies of Sulphur Oklahoma.

Over the past 20 years, 9 million more individuals t moved from blue to red states compared to those who moved from red to blue. This news is quite unfortunate for our party; I cannot emphasize that enough. Are you aware that individuals from diverse backgrounds and beliefs are increasingly weary of residing in blue states due to the rising costs and stress associated with it? This is crucial for our party to unify and take decisive action.

Why, are they converting to red once they move? Everyone I've ever met, including right-wingers, say the opposite. You know how many times I've had someone tell me (nicely or without knowing) that California people are ruining their city?

In 2030, the next national census will occur, and if migration trends proceed as expected until that time, California is projected to lose 4 electoral votes, New York will lose 3, Illinois will lose 2, and an additional 3 or 4 blue states are likely to lose 1 each. This means that those 13 votes will be allocated to red states, further complicating the prospects for Democrats to achieve a nationwide electoral victory.

We shall see how long red California stays so red. Folks are caught up in identity politics right now. If you've been looking at other issues, you may have noticed CA farmers in particular called Trump's bluff on mass deportation. They consider illegal workers an "open secret" and can't imagine Trump is serious about mass deporting them, noting that it will ruin their businesses and result in mass inflation of grocery prices. They're begging Trump to make an exception for them. There are already fears growing in the populace that Trump may really enact his economy killing policies. A lot depends on Trump. If Trump ends up capitulating to the deep state and not making good on his threats, then he may keep the momentum for the right going, as they out-message the left with pure nonsense so long as people in general are shielded from real consequences.

Compounding the issue, for years, many Democrats, myself included, believed it was a brilliant strategy for fellow Democrats to relocate to red states with the hope of transforming them into blue states. However, the contrary has occurred. Red states are increasingly intensifying in their political stance as more Democrats leave blue states.

I don't think it's a strategy, it's a simple matter of cost of living. I've never met a fellow migrant who has claimed voting blue is a reason for moving, at best it's an added benefit, but way down on the list of added benefits.

The implementation of progressive policies, along with the prevailing anxiety among progressives regarding an impending end to our current way of life, undeniably contributes to the issues observed in the blue states I referenced. Should we continue on our current path, observing as countless Democrats depart from blue states and carry their electoral votes along with them? Is your ideology so significant to you that you're prepared to witness the electoral map become nearly unachievable for Democrats to succeed over the next two decades?

Maturing red states will soon have the problems of mature blue states and will become more woke or progressive, if they don't, if they figure out the magic solution to greater equality without wealth transfers, then red deserves to win, and I will turn red also. Unlike you, I don't have a "love" for the Democratic party or think it needs to be any one thing. I want the best policies, if somehow red can produce those then fine with me. Part of your assumption has been the disruptive innovation of Musk, who will cut costs and make the country super prosperous; how can the Democrats fight against that kind of success? Why would I want them to? If you think red is making the world a better place then no reason to fight it.