Posted on 11/25/2024 8:18:59 AM PST by Starman417
by Jeff Childers
The New York Times ran (another) deep post-election analysis over the weekend headlined, “How Democrats Lost Their Base and Their Message.” It described what is gaining speed to potentially become the Democrats’ worst-case scenario.
The article began by contrasting Trump’s 2016 and 2024 strategies. In 2016, Trump won using an electoral “Moneyball” approach, surprising Democrats by gaming out exactly which handful of key counties were needed to win the Electoral College. The 2020 election proved the Democrats learned their lesson and weren’t about to let Republicans win again through cherry-picking.
During his 2020-2024 wilderness years, amidst fending off FBI raids and a mudslide of political lawfare persecution, President Trump discarded wonky statistical manipulation. Instead, he leaned into his roots, his undeniable genius: marketing. The new strategy was not to win through statistical sleight of hand but by actually selling Americans on a better vision, a vision of a better America that was and an even better America that once again could be.
Make America Great Again. It was pure marketing genius.
Only President Trump could have done it, and that is because he is quintessentially American: part P.T. Barnum, part Teddy Roosevelt, part Abraham Lincoln.
Commonly referred to as a “master showman,” P.T. Barnum was a genius of spectacle and self-promotion. Like Trump, Barnum enjoyed an uncanny ability to captivate audiences, transform controversies into publicity, and consistently manifest a larger-than-life persona. Like Trump, Barnum built his fortune in Manhattan.
Like Trump, President Teddy Roosevelt (1901-1909), who coined “speak softly and carry a big stick,” was also a dynamic, larger-than-life figure, beloved for his populism, rugged individualism, and his feisty, combative spirit. He shattered political norms and redefined the GOP for a generation, delivering a "Square Deal" for America by waging war on the entrenched power structures of the day, especially big corporations (the “trusts”). Teddy was a strong Republican leader, but he shattered political norms by embracing the working class through his trust-busting, anti-corporate, and consumer protection policies.
Finally, Trump is easily compared to President Abraham Lincoln (1860-1864), who is regularly ranked as the nation’s greatest president by presidential historians. Like Trump, Lincoln was (and remains) deeply divisive. Democrats in 1860 were so enraged at the election of the first Republican president that seven heavily Democrat southern states quickly seceded between Lincoln’s election and his inauguration. They didn’t even wait for Lincoln to take the oath to see what he would do.
You could call it Lincoln Derangement Syndrome (LDS). And, of course, they shot both Lincoln and Trump in the head after each president’s first term.
There are many points of similarity, but here’s just one more: like Trump, Lincoln was also elected through a unique confluence of electoral events: a disunited Democrat party shattered into three competing candidates, paving the way for the first Republican to be elected president in the nation’s history.
I am not arguing Trump is just like these three great American men, not at all. President Trump is a unique modern amalgam of their circumstances and their best, quintessentially American qualities.
Regardless, during his presidential interregnum, master marketer Trump undertook to give the GOP a much-overdue brand refresh. He hawked conservatism to core parts of the Democrat base, the parts that don’t enjoy full membership benefits enjoyed by that party’s elite ruling class.
But … was it a re-brand? Or did Trump, like Teddy Roosevelt did, shift the GOP from an off-skew slant back toward its home base?
Trump’s success at communicating with discarded, disenfranchised Democrats is undeniable. Consider this chart from the New York Times’s analysis, calculating the 12-year shift toward the GOP:
In other words, men and women included, Trump gained with: young people, working-aged folks, college-educated minorities, black folks, Hispanics, Asians, all “other race” people, and working-class whites.
Now consider this: These gainers are all folks who would have voted for President Lincoln in 1860. Think about what that implies.
It got better. The next chart in the Times’s analysis showed the paltry three groups that improved for Democrats—the demographics that shifted away from Trump’s populism—and one group in particular stuck out like monkeypox:
The first outrageous implication, which I won’t dwell on because why pout about things you can’t change, is that if it had gone the other way, had Republicans only gained with over-educated whites, the New York Times would be jumping up and down shouting “white supremacy!!” from the skyrises.
But which party is actually, by the numbers, the party of “white supremacy?” Trump exposed the Democrats. The only group who solidly slid away from Trump’s populist MAGA movement was college-educated whites. Insufferable, pasty-skinned, wealthy coastal elites.
In other words, the same people who would have voted Democrat in 1860.
Nothing has changed! Nothing about Democrats has changed except, for a long time, the Democrats were able to fool minorities and working-class whites into thinking they’d abandoned their elitist, slave-owning roots. They tricked the same groups that, down south, the Democrats had consistently fooled before the Civil War.
But the Democrats have not, in fact, changed. The numbers prove it, and the Times’s analysis agreed. “Democrats,” the article explained, “became the party of institutions, the national security apparatus, norms and, ultimately, the status quo — not change.”
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net ...
This broad swath where 40% of the population supports the wokism the democrats have adopted and the uniparty blob uses for power and control is fairly new
Barely related even to Abbie Hoffman era or civil rights excess though the latter made it possible
It’s a result of media and education brainwashing generations and open borders
And the preponderance of homosexuals immediately tooting their own horn
Neocons who always resort to bashing antebellum democrats do so to deflect criticism that the white conservative base which is strong in the south is actually the problem
Them and their ancestors
But we’re working on them
Cowards and liars
Trump doesn’t do this
He supports his southern base which adores him and we appreciate that
So Ben Shapiro and mark levin etc can go pound sand
Democrats have fired me from several jobs. I would only be satisfied if Trimp put together a staff that would cause ALL supervisors to think twice before terminating someone JUST for expressing his/her point of view. Something HAS to happen to those people that is horrible.
Trump re-aligned both major parties into a new coalition of Democrats that do not trust gov’t and anti-war conservatives.
Both are in an alliance against the pro-war Democrats/neocon conservatives and against the pro-corporate Democrats and pro-corporate country club Republicans.
Both are aligned in favor of free speech, secure borders and reducing wasteful federal spending and regulations
What brought these two sides together was free speech and listening to each other, finding that we share more in common than we ever thought.
The far left wants to silence listening to each other while the country club Republicans just want conservatives for fundraising, not governance.
Most voters from both parties support controlled immigration, reasonable spending, less federal intrusion into our lives/businesses, voter ID and peace over war.
Trump & Company offered that. As it appears that Trump is following through on his campaign promises (just like his first term) people who were told Trump is a liar are now coming to support him..
This is a huge change from the last 50 years and will affect the next 50.
:^D Anything here look familiar vis a vis some of my posts? ? ? ?
-PJ
An interesting take...
...that the Underground Railroad led to "sanctuary cities" run by northerners.
Harboring escaped southern slaves equals harboring illegal aliens?
-PJ
The marxist tactics of marginalizing and namecalling finally wore thin with voters who are now thinking with their wallets.
thanks! bump for later reading...
Chime in here, and see some of the comments. Love to hear your take on all this. Might even provide some fodder for your blog.
Make America Great Again was only first discovered in 2024? Good morning, Rip. Had a good nap?
Why does the NYT even try to formulate thoughts. They’re no good at it.
This one is worth reading and reading and reading again...talk about a keeper.
For the record we should call them ‘the elites’ - it’s the term freepers have been using for decades.. great post
I wouldn’t equate giving sanctuary to slaves the same as giving it to criminal invaders. Not even close.
“They even lived in the very same areas of the country that are still hotbeds of liberalism today. Places like Boston, Chicago, Washington DC and New York.”
And the confederate south, Democrats, were the same states that are now completely red.
Thanks for the ping
Yup. The dividing lines are still the same. The liberals hold power in the Northeast and the West, while conservatives hold power in the heartland.
Are there degrees of difference in breaking Federal law?
Do we owe allegiance to the government or do we not?
Lincoln did carry Chicago narrowly. He was a native son. Moreover Chicago was a relatively new city, a city of upstarts, not of the Establishment. The Republicans won Massachusetts easily, but Lincoln didn't get a majority in Boston, falling short by a couple of percentage points. The Constitutional Union candidate John Bell did rather well there. In 1860's four-way race, Lincoln barely got a majority in Philadelphia. The Democrats were surprisingly strong there.
Then as now, Democrats were the party of the big city machines and the big city masses. Wealthy Establishment urbanites also favored the Democrats, the status quo party who didn't rock the boat. Republicans were stronger in the rural, small town, and small city North.
Democrats had thrown the country into a fiscal crisis. They weren't opposed to government programs, like railroad subsidies. They wanted to be in control of them. They didn't like the Homestead Act preferring to allow the rich to buy up land in the West, rather than open it up to homesteaders. You have to stretch things to make it look like protective tariffs, subsidies for railroads that both parties favored, and the Homestead Act added up to big government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.