Could 2024 Trump’s Victory Counter a 2026 ‘Midterm Curse’?

Trump's popular vote win and GOP redistricting gains have reshaped House battlegrounds, challenging Democrats' demographic strategy and midterm advantage.

by Susan Crabtree for American Greatness 

Donald Trump’s popular vote victory has eroded some of the demographic gains Democrats have been working on for years, giving Republicans hope they can break the historic trend of the president’s party losing seats in the first midterm election after winning the White House.

Two years from now some 14 Democratic House members will be defending districts Trump won, compared to just three Republicans in districts carried by Vice President Kamala Harris.

It’s a significantly better outlook than the GOP faced after Trump’s 2016 victory, which he eked out on the basis of an Electoral College win in the key swing states. That year, two dozen Republicans were elected in districts Hillary Clinton won, roughly the same number of Democrat-occupied seats that Trump carried. In 2018, Democrats gained seats in the Clinton districts and even carved into some of the districts that Trump won, wresting back control of the majority until 2022, when Republicans re-took control.

One reason House majorities have grown slimmer in recent years is the increasingly sophisticated redistricting fights waged by both parties. Over the last decade, Democrats and Republicans have engaged in a protracted battle over the redrawing of congressional districts involving millions of dollars in litigation, thousands of hours of closed-door negotiations, and multiple Supreme Court showdowns.

Partly because of their efforts, Democrats limited the House majority to five seats this year – 220 to Democrats’ 215. But because of Trump’s popular vote victory, winning back the majority in 2026 will require Democrats to carve a path through Trump territory.

“In places where the Democrats were really banking on this whole ‘demographics as destiny’ thing to carry them through the decade, President Trump just detonated that,” said Adam Kincaid, president and executive director of the National Republican Redistricting Trust.

Overall, Trump carried nearly the same number of congressional districts across the nation – 231 – that he did in 2016 before the most recent redrawing of the congressional maps took place. In 2016, Kincaid says Trump won many of those districts by a plurality because third-party candidate Evan McMullen, a former CIA officer who ran as an independent, siphoned off votes in nearly two dozen districts. Now, Trump’s two-party vote share is 50.8% – meaning he should have carried only 221 congressional districts if the results were directly proportional to the percentage of the vote he won.

Kincaid argues the surplus of 10 House districts is a sign of his group’s redistricting success.

Democrats counter that Republicans’ razor-thin majority demonstrates their own success in taking their fights for more advantageous maps to the courts, especially across the South, where Republicans control many state legislatures and have spent decades drawing the maps in their favor.

In 2016, voters favored House Republicans over Democrats by only a 1.1% advantage, 49.1% to 48%, but Republicans held a far larger House majority, 241 to 194. This year, House Republicans won 50.5% of the vote to Democrats’ 47.9% but will hold only a five-seat majority next year.

“The popular vote and seat-count margin in Congress this past election and in 2022 is evidence that the [Democratic] redistricting strategy is working,” Marina Jenkins, executive director of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, told RealClearPolitics. “What you’re seeing is a map that actually reflects where the voters are, and that’s a far cry from where we were a decade ago.”

Michael Li, a redistricting expert at the liberal-leaning Brennan Center has long argued that GOP-gerrymandered maps have for years given Republicans such an unfair edge that Democrats typically need to win the national aggregate popular vote in congressional races by 2-3% to control the House.

He and others often point to 2012, when House Democrats won 1.4 million more votes than Republicans, but the GOP held a 33-seat majority.

That gap has narrowed greatly in the ensuing years.

“There’s a lot of really good work that happened by candidates in competitive districts, and there are some places where those competitive districts went to Republicans, but that’s the whole point,” Jenkins said. “These districts are now fair and responsive. If it remains that way through the decade, that’s a good thing.”

With a more even playing field, the Democrats’ chances of taking advantage of the famed “midterm curse” in 2026 will depend in large part on whether Trump’s popularity recedes over the next two years, a variable impossible to predict. While the national politics play out, Democrats and Republicans will continue focusing on what they can control – continuing their redistricting court battles as far as they can take them.

This cycle, NDRC efforts are likely to result in Democrats gaining two seats in Alabama and Louisiana as a result of lawsuits forcing the state to abide by the Voting Rights Act, to draw maps reflecting the percentage of black voters. Federal judges ordered lawmakers in those states to give African Americans more opportunities to elect House candidates representing their views.

Meanwhile, the legal battle over the congressional map in Georgia didn’t change the partisan breakdown of the state’s House delegation. In North Carolina, the Republican-controlled state legislature crafted congressional district lines that gave their party a huge advantage, flipping three seats previously held by Democrats. In New York, the Democratic majority in the state legislature, ridiculed for the comically extreme gerrymandered original congressional map, adjusted to a more modest position.

Here are some of the most recent redistricting disputes, outcomes, and pending developments.

Louisiana

This year, the Supreme Court is expected to weigh in on the lower court ruling forcing the Republican-controlled state legislature to approve a second black-majority district.

After the November election, the state now has two black members of its six-member delegation – Rep. Cleo Fields representing the newly drawn 6^thDistrict, and Rep. Troy Carter, who easily won reelection with 60% of the vote.

New York

Even though the predicted Republican “red wave” never materialized in 2022, Republicans managed to flip four House seats in New York that year, which helped them secure the majority. But a ruling by the state’s highest court threatened to jeopardize those gains by making it easier for Democrats to net as many as six Republican-held seats.

Democratic state lawmakers, however, decided not to overreach and to make only modest adjustments to the district lines. The New York legislature’s final map made modest changes, reducing the number of Republicans in freshman GOP Rep. Brandon William’s district while solidifying Democratic Rep. Tom Suozzi’s Long Island seat, which the party flipped in a February special election to succeed Rep. George Santos, who was expelled from the chamber.

Both parties have said they will operate with the new map, a decision that cements New York as a top battleground for House control for years to come.

North Carolina

Republicans hold a supermajority in North Carolina’s state legislature and used that power to redraw districts lines in their favor. The state’s congressional map was redrawn three times before the 2022 midterm elections, resulting in a 7-7 partisan split of the House delegation.

Republicans who had gained more sway over the redistricting process in the 2022 midterm elections, including flipping the state supreme court, weren’t satisfied and redrew the map once again before 2024.

In the end, Republicans flipped three House seats to Republicans after the Democratic incumbents decided against running for reelection in the GOP-skewed new districts.

Democratic Rep. Roy Cooper lacks veto power over redistricting legislation, so Democratic Party lawyers filed lawsuits on behalf of black and Hispanic voters alleging the new map “intentionally discriminates” against minority voters.

The cases are pending before a three-judge panel.

Alabama

The U.S. Supreme Court has already weighed in on the latest Alabama-approved map, which created a second congressional district with a substantial black population. Before the court action, the state, which is 27% African American, had only one black-majority district out of seven.

In the high court’s 5-4 decision upholding the map, conservative justices John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh agreed with three liberal justices to uphold the lower-court ruling enforcing a key provision of the Voting Rights Act – making it illegal to draw maps aimed at diluting the influence of black voters.

The ruling, which could impact the similar pending case in Louisiana, resulted in the election of two black House members from Alabama serving together for the first time in history. Shomari Figures will represent the newly drawn 2^ndCongressional District, which includes Mobile County and much of the so-called rural “Black Belt” (named for its rich soil, not its people). Figures, a Mobile native who worked in the Biden administration, won by nine percentage points last month. He will join longtime incumbent Rep. Terri Sewell of the state’s sprawling 7^th Congressional District centered in her hometown of Selma. She willingly ceded some of the Black Belt to help make the delegation more diverse – and more Democratic.

The Supreme Court’s ruling blocked the state from implementing its map but was not a final resolution of the case. State officials last fall said they would operate under the high court’s ruling but planned to continue litigating the case. The case is set to go to trial in February.

Georgia 

Georgia Republicans fought Democratic efforts to add an additional House seat they would likely control. The GOP-drawn map complied with an order issued by U.S. District Judge Steve Jones to establish an additional black majority district.

The map accommodated that requirement but preserved the Republicans’ 9-5 advantage in the state’s House delegation by shifting the Atlanta-area district held by Rep. Lucy McBath, a black Democrat, farther into Republican territory.

Jones late in 2023 ruled that the newly drawn map, which preserved the GOP’s 9-5 advantage, “fully complied” with his ruling.

The judge was abiding by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which protects minority voters but doesn’t prevent Republicans from altering Democratic-held districts with white majorities or where no ethnic group is in the majority. Such was the case with McBath’s district, enabling the GOP-controlled legislature to dilute the district with more Republican voters. Despite the changes, McBath won the redrawn 6^th District with 75% of the vote.

That’s not the end of the litigation. A separate federal case in Georgia argues the new map is unconstitutional. That case faces a stay pending an appeals court decision in the Voting Rights Act cases, which a three-judge panel is set to hear in late January.

Florida

In September 2023, a state judge ruled against a redrawn district in Northern Florida that Gov. Ron DeSantis had defended.

The case differs from Alabama’s Voting Rights Act lawsuit decided by the Supreme Court in that it is based on the Fair District provisions in the state constitution. The Republican-drawn map dismantled a seat held by Rep. Al Lawson, a black Democrat, that spanned several black communities across a northern swath of Florida.

Late last year, however, a state appeals court upheld the map DeSantis argued in favor of, determining that the plaintiffs “failed to present any evidence” that the prior version of the district contained a singular cohesive community that would have a right to protection under Florida law.

The state supreme court is expected to issue an opinion soon.

X22, On the Fringe, and more- Dec 26

 

The Progressive Left’s Glossary of Terms, 2024 Edition

posted by Richard Truesdell & Kieth Lehmann at American Greatness 

Listen to any speech given by Democrats in 2024, and you’ll be bombarded by buzzwords, sloganeering, euphemisms, and phrases that provide a constant diversion from answering truthfully. During this election cycle, the language is changing so fast that we need this updated glossary of terms to understand exactly what they’re talking about.

***

Affordable Housing: Housing that is government subsidized to below-market value, ruining the value of compatible unsubsidized housing in the nearby area. So what? Ownership is oppressive and harmful to those who don’t have it. From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs. Marxism is so cool!

Anything-phobic: A tactical label given to someone who is winning an argument with a leftist. Don’t like the idea of underage children getting “gender-affirming” surgeries? You’re “transphobic.” In favor of Israel defending itself from Hamas? You’re “Islamophobic.” Concerned about the illegal mass importation of third-world peasants into the country? You’re “xenophobic.” See also “racist” below.

Bipartisan: Republicans give the Democrats everything they want so the Republicans don’t get criticized for “creating gridlock” in Congress or “shutting down” the government. Any legislation passed as being “bipartisan” has likely been drafted by Democrats and has support from a group of establishment Republicans typically in favor of the Democrats’ agenda. This indicates the presence of a “uniparty” that supports big government—and your interests don’t matter.

Brat: See “joy” below.

Climate Change: An all-inclusive label given to the Earth’s climate, which has been changing for 3.4 billion years. The theory of human-caused climate change has yet to be proven in any scientific manner, but humans are nonetheless expected to abandon their quality of life on the odd chance that our existence is killing the planet. We can’t have that, so let’s throw soup on the Mona Lisa and glue ourselves to the highway during rush hour to show how serious we are.

“Common Sense” Gun Control: Gun confiscation. There is nothing “sensible” about violating a citizen’s Second Amendment rights. It is like confiscating a person’s car because someone else used their car in the commission of a crime. This is a ploy by the government to disarm citizens as a way to exert maximum control over their lives. Don’t think it can’t happen here.

Corporate Greed: An accusation leveled at any company that turns a profit for the benefit of its shareholders. The same accusation is made toward any company raising prices due to inflation caused by destructive government economic policies. This is yet another sign that the government will not assume any accountability for its incompetence or malice.

Deincarceration: Setting convicted criminals free with the intention of closing prisons. In the eyes of the left, no human being, even the most violent and depraved, should be imprisoned and separated from the public. The chaos, destruction, and loss of life are a feature, not a bug.

Disinformation: See “misinformation” below.

Diversity: Dividing people by their immutable qualities, such as race and gender, to create conflict within a society or system for the benefit of those in power. You see, “diversity” is our strength. Just ask those who are in charge.

Equity: Equal outcome of life’s experiences, no matter how much effort or ambition is applied. A chain is as strong as its weakest link; thus a society is as strong as the most incompetent, lazy, psychopathic weirdo among us.

Existential Threat to Democracy: A person or movement that will interrupt the looting of the U.S. Treasury, the kickbacks from U.S. foreign aid to Ukraine, and massive corruption at the federal level in which elected and unelected bureaucrats emerge from “public service” fabulously wealthy for doing virtually nothing of value. See “‘our’ democracy” below.

Fair Share: The amount of taxes that “rich” people and corporations must pay as determined by the politician demanding it. The actual amount varies depending on how much influence that person or company has with the politician.

Food Desert: The lack of access to groceries due to the consistent looting of goods by neighborhood residents, with the store owner threatened with jail if he intervenes and the police instructed to stand down. Eventually, the grocery store closes due to lost profitability and the inability to obtain business insurance. Or maybe it’s just corporate greed? Yeah, that sounds better (see “corporate greed” above).

Gaslighting: The practice of leftists and progressives deluding themselves that fantasy is reality as practiced by Democrats and their handmaidens in the mainstream media. In 2024 this was especially true as practiced by CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, and the Washington Post. To “gaslight” is to manipulate viewers and readers into questioning their perception of reality. 

Harm Reduction: Providing clean drug paraphernalia for junkies and a safe area for them to shoot up or smoke up, making drug addiction almost consequence-free. That is, until the junkie ODs and winds up dead in a ditch somewhere. See, there is a cure for addiction after all.

Hate Speech: Any speech the left disagrees with.

Inclusion: The exclusion of heterosexual, white males from employment, opportunities for advancement, and participation in American society.

Investment: Spending excessive taxpayer monies on already bloated programs without any expectation of being held accountable for failure. A lot of “investments” have been made in the last four years, right?

Joy: Also “brat.” Nobody has a f*cking clue what this means.

Justice: Payback for all grievances, real or imagined. Social justice, climate justice, racial justice, and even distributive justice. Revenge for thinking or being different. This takes the place of “criminal justice,” as criminals are now considered a key voting bloc among Democrats. Why else would they want to give incarcerated felons voting rights?

Justice reform: Refusal to enforce laws that deter crime, creating societal chaos to urge citizens to give up their freedoms and allow others to control their lives in exchange for security (see “Security” below).

Malinformation: See “misinformation” below.

Marginalized communities: People who compete for benefits within the government spoils structure but don’t want to work for it, expecting social workers to guide them through the system, creating dependency. This dependency keeps them “marginalized,” and the welfare-industrial complex chugs on into perpetuity.

Minimum wage: Sometimes referred to as “living wage,” this is the mandated wage paid to entry-level workers that is above and beyond the market value those workers actually deliver, which eliminates the number of available entry-level jobs and reduces the hours (and salaries) of those who ultimately will need multiple jobs to offset their losses. At any rate, the real minimum wage is ZERO once you’ve lost your job, all good intentions notwithstanding.

Misinformation: Any statement or narrative that exposes the truth about an event or intention. Also known as “disinformation” and “malinformation.”

MSDNC: Another name for the far-left cable news outlet, MSNBC. Led by its best-known propagandist, Rachel “RussiaGate” Maddow, and supported by a cast of Democrat operatives, including Jen Psaki, Joy Reid, Mika Brzezinski, Stephanie Ruhle, Chris Hayes, Alex Wagner, and Lawrence O’Donnell, along with long-standing RINO (Republicans In Name Only) neocons like Nicole Wallace and Joe Scarborough, who gaslighted themselves. In the aftermath of the 2024 election, MSDNC proceeded to lose approximately 50 percent of its audience. DNC in MSDNC refers to the Democrat National Committee.

Newcomer: One of the over 15 million people from all over the world that have illegally descended on our nation over the past four years. Each “newcomer” immediately receives prepaid credit cards, cell phones, EBT cards, transportation, and hotel vouchers that are not available to U.S. citizens (“see Undocumented Migrant” below). The “newcomer” is to be welcomed, fast-tracked to citizenship, registered to vote, and fully supported by your tax dollars without any exception or limit.

Non-binary: A person who can’t decide if they’re straight or gay. Spoiler: If you’re a guy and you like guys, or if you’re a gal and you like gals, gay it is. You’re welcome.

Opportunity Economy: A campaign platitude that has no meaning and cannot be explained by anyone claiming this as a policy platform. Also known as a “dream economy,” in which economic recovery under Democrats exists only in a dream.

“Our” Democracy: “Our” government spoils system that we control, allowing us to reign over the population by choosing economic winners and losers, buying votes through wealth transfers, paying people to be dependent on us so we can control them, and having the ability to punish our political enemies, which, as it so happens, is about half of the country. Let’s get one thing straight: It is not “your” democracy we are saving.

Palestinian People: Mostly Jordanians who were kicked out of Jordan for attempting to overthrow the country continuously since the 1940s. The “Palestinian people” exist only as a suicide squad against Israel. One must realize that a vast majority of “Palestinians” are actually incorrigible barbarians still living under 7th-century religious and social doctrines that even the surrounding Arab nations cannot control and thus refuse to take into their countries.

Path to Citizenship: Blanket amnesty.

Privilege: Something for White people to “check.” We keep “checking,” but we can’t find it.

Progressive: A weasel word for a communist-curious, poorly educated radical with no impulse control and only a slight relationship with reality. When in power, the progressive wants to preserve the status quo. Out of power, the progressive tries to overthrow the opposition by any means necessary. The label has nothing to do with “progress,” but word games are fun, and they hate themselves anyway, so let them run with that label.

Public servant: A noble, dedicated government figure who tirelessly works on behalf of the people. A person who also, under any circumstance, cannot be terminated in most cases, who will walk off the job in a New York minute if the union says so, has every single federal and local holiday off with pay and has a government pension that will continue to pay out a nearly full annual salary with benefits upon retirement for the rest of the “public servant’s” life. It’s a career path for those who otherwise would be unemployable.

Racist: A label slapped on any action or statement that a leftist cannot handle or answer honestly. It’s a coping mechanism for the left, rendering the genuine meaning of “racist” useless.

Reproductive freedom: The position that a woman should have complete and total freedom to kill her unborn child, even in the delivery room. It’s her body and her choice, you sexist pig.

Security: A prohibition of self-defense where citizens defending themselves or others will be punished while non-citizens and the “marginalized” will be set free and rewarded with taxpayer benefits. All in the name of “social justice” (see “justice” above).

Transgender: Formally known as “gender dysphoria,” which elevates a person to near the top of the victim pyramid, and everyone must play along with the person’s break from reality and call that person by their preferred pronoun, or you will lose your job and everything you own. Our pronouns are Screw/You.

Underrepresented: An ethnic group that, in the opinion of politicians, doesn’t have enough power over other people.

Undocumented immigrant: A brave, admirable new member of society offering cultural enrichment, doing the jobs Americans won’t do, and living in the U.S. as a net-positive influence on our society. Documents should not matter, because no human being should be considered “illegal.” We’re pleased to have you, just not living in our neighborhood.

Word Salad: A stunningly absurd response to a straight-up inquiry, consisting of conjoined sentences and non-sequiturs containing zero substance. Words are repeated to indicate seriousness, yet it only reinforces the notion that the speaker has no idea what they are talking about. If it were a cuisine, it would be a popular item at the Democrat Diner.

Workers’ Rights: A label given to the activity of a union’s coercion of workers to organize, pay union dues, and vote the way the union bosses want them to vote. The only “workers’ rights” the union cares about are the ability to strike at the direction of the union and to authorize massive pay packages for the union leadership. The workers are otherwise expendable.

Who Can Trust White House Reporters Who Hid Biden's Infirmity?

posted by Brent Bozell at Townhall 

Even after The Wall Street Journal published a four-byline bombshell detailing how President Joe Biden's staff energetically hid his ongoing cognitive decline from the public, there wasn't a single question at the White House briefing. No reporters demanded answers about how they were misled, or complained they were pressured into silence.

They mustered that umbrage over the Hunter Biden pardon, but this slow-rolling scandal was apparently too painful to recount. Perhaps they thought that since Biden was talked out of a reelection bid, the matter was settled. This scandal is already over. But Trump scandals never stop emerging.

Radio host Hugh Hewitt proclaimed he had been calling Biden "infirm" for two years but didn't know the depth of the infirmity that's now been revealed. Everyone inside the White House must have known, including the reporters. He said they were "either explicitly complicit or recklessly indifferent" to Biden's decline.

Hewitt upset knee-jerk defenders of the media when he said, "With the exception of Peter Doocy, I would ban everyone from the White House press room who has been there for the past four years because they are obviously of no use to the country. They didn't tell us the number one thing, which is that [Biden] is not competent. Why in the world would Trump let them in?"

Hewitt's guest, author Bethany Mandel, agreed about the media failure: "It's really disturbing and it's funny because Brian Stelter and all the columnists decree the trust that we should all have in the media, that we should all respect them and their hard work and sacrifice. Can you imagine any other job in America where you could do your job that badly and still keep on failing up? The media is pretty much it."

For his part, Doocy expressed amazement on Fox that no one asked Karine Jean-Pierre a single question about this. His Fox colleague Jacqui Heinrich was present, but Jean-Pierre did not call on her (no need to wonder why).

The White House briefing room under Republicans is like a roiling shark tank. Under Democrats, it's a shallow kiddie pool. Donald Trump allows hateful reporters to question him. Pro-Biden reporters have supinely accepted getting few opportunities to interview Biden and Kamala Harris, until they decide they'll take a swing or two.

Everyone knew the president was babbling and bumbling. They knew because they observed it firsthand, and they knew because he was kept away from the press, and he was even kept away from his own cabinet members. They knew because reporters like Courtney Subramanian of the Los Angeles times were in on it. Photographs showed that in a press conference, she asked the question that Biden had on a notecard with her name and her face on it.

Some reporters -- like former CNN political scribe Chris Cillizza -- are confessing that they should have been pushed back when Biden aides furiously argued asking questions was ageist. He admitted, "I should have not let the shame campaign to make you feel bad for asking the question get to me." But CNN's audience expects relentless anti-Trump bias, and questioning Biden seems like it's helping Trump. That's the reflex -- don't do anything that helps Trump. Like your jobs.

This entire spectacle makes it sickening that leftist journalists are all running around right now worrying that Donald Trump's lawsuits against the press will cause them to "self-censor." As if they haven't been aerobically self-censoring for the last four years.

What Was So Different This Time About Trump’s Election?

Victor Davis Hanson:

Trump's 2024 resurgence marks a dramatic shift from his 2016 vilification, fueled by Biden's unpopularity, a longing for normalcy, and Trump's endurance through relentless opposition.

In the weeks before the 2016 Trump Electoral College victory, Trump was polling between 35 and 40 percent.

He would average only about 41 percent approval over his tumultuous four-year tenure.

No one knows what lies ahead over the next four years. But for now, Trump already polls at well over 50 percent approval.

Trump’s inauguration in a few weeks likely will not resemble his 2016 ceremony.

In the 2016-7 transition, Democratic-affiliated interests ran commercials urging electors to become “faithless” and thus illegally reject their states’ popular votes and instead elect the loser, Hillary Clinton.

Massive demonstrations met Trump on Inauguration Day.

In less than four months after assuming the presidency, Special Counsel Robert Mueller was appointed to investigate the hoax of Russian collusion.

That wasted 22-month, $40 million investigation found no collusion but did derail the first two Trump years.

What followed the collusion ruse was a consistent effort to undermine the Trump presidency—two subsequent impeachments, the laptop “disinformation” hoax, the COVID-19 nationwide lockdown, and news suppression of any mention of the Chinese lab origin of the virus or questioning the closing of schools.

In the Trump administration’s last summer of 2020, 120 days of riot, arson, looting, assault, and murder followed, with the denouement of the January 6 turmoil.

In contrast, during the 2024-2025 transition, Trump has all but assumed the presidency. Over 100 foreign leaders have elbowed each other to be invited to Mar-a-Lago or to phone in their congratulations to the newly elected Trump.

Remember that in 2016 the left screamed “Logan Act” if a Trump transition appointee even talked with foreign officials.

So why is newly elected Trump a veritable cultural hero in 2024 in a fashion unimaginable eight years ago when the media had rendered him a near demon?

One, Trump is now seen as a welcome relief.

A departing and unpopular Joe Biden will leave with about a 36 percent approval rating.

The prior Biden years are now seen as abnormal, if not disastrous.

The left’s cultural revolution championed fringe policies never quite seen before: destroying the border, welcoming in 12 million illegal aliens, nihilist critical race and legal theories, institutionalizing a third sex, and mandating woke/DEI quotas and indoctrination sessions.

Yet Biden had inherited from Trump a secure border, an economy rebounding after the COVID quarantines, 1.23 percent inflation, no wars abroad, and cheap energy.

Four years later, the outgoing Biden administration is widely unpopular. Almost every one of its policies polls below 50 percent.

In response, Trump promises not just to restore his first-term success but to expand it.

Two, Trump personally remains transparent, upbeat, and energetic—eager to meet with anyone, anytime, anywhere, to talk about anything.

His energy offers a sharp contrast with the era of the non-compos-mentis Biden. The change is welcomed by an electorate exhausted by past presidential stumbling, wandering, incoherence, mind freezes, and angry, “get-off-my-grass” aged fragility.

Three, Trump is grudgingly admired, now even by some of his enemies who once sought but failed to destroy him.

He endured two impeachments, five civil and criminal court indictments, incessant lawfare, a 95% negative media, attempts to remove him from states’ ballots, and two assassination attempts.

Yet all these unprecedented hostile efforts to end Trump may only have made him stronger—and more empathetic when seen as a target of increasingly fanatical enemies.

Four, Trump has expanded his MAGA base and permanently branded it as an ecumenical movement that welcomes shared class interests rather than fixates on the tired old tribal racial and ethnic chauvinism.

Trump also brought in disaffected Democrats, independents, and minorities in a way the Democrats could not with the evaporating and bitter Never Trump dead-enders.

Trump’s veritable campaign menagerie of RFK, Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, Elon Musk, Joe Rogan, Dana White, and Kid Rock made it impossible for the left to demonize MAGA Republicans as right-wing aristocrats, warmongers, or laissez-faire capitalists.

Fifth, the endorsements of the Biden-Harris legacy media, calcified Hollywood endorsers, blowhard university faculties, and tech barons proved overrated.

It was trumped by more popular and dynamic internet influencers, podcasters, bloggers, and maverick entrepreneurs.

Sixth and finally, Trump himself proved more experienced and reflective than in 2016. His team too was more disciplined and street smart, led by savvy chief of staff Susan Wiles.

2024 saw truly pivotal moments of Trump as everyman—posing for a mug shot after being railroaded by a weaponized lawfare indictment, serving McDonald’s drive-through customers, riding in a garbage truck cab, and raising his fist and yelling “fight, fight, fight”—after having his head near blown off by a would-be assassin.

Add all of these once unimaginables up, and the people trusted more—and liked better—the Trump reboot than grouchy Joe Biden or inane, inauthentic Kamala Harris and their shared extremist agendas.

https://amgreatness.com/2024/12/26/what-was-so-different-this-time-about-trumps-election/

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 

man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 

Back to the Future for the GOP – A Return to the Whig Rallies

Adam Turner reporting for RedState 

One of the more interesting innovations that Donald Trump has brought to modern presidential campaigns has been the party-like atmosphere of his Trump rallies. These rallies were in battleground states and areas, where Trump spoke for a few hours, oftentimes mixing political and policy issues with jokes and commentary on non-political affairs, with some music and a little dancing.

Then again, these types of political rallies are not totally new and unique to American politics. Political events with a party atmosphere have been around since the beginning of the Republic and before; in his elections to the Virginia House of Burgesses, George Washington himself paid for at least one raucous event on election day where he plied voters with alcoholic beverages and food. 

But it was in 1840 when the real precursor to the modern-day Trump rallies first occurred. As a result of that year’s rallies, that election was called, according to one prominent historian, “mainly fun and games.” Presidential Campaigns, Paul F. Boller, Jr. That year, the opposition party, the Whig Party, running General William Henry Harrison, challenged the Democratic-Republican Party and sitting President Marvin Van Buren (note – contrary to popular culture, Martin Van Buren wasn’t particularly “mean”). The economy was not in the best of shape, but the Whigs also ran a strikingly dishonest campaign depicting Harrison as a war hero who was a man of the people, born in a log cabin, and who enjoyed drinking hard cider. (None of these assertions was true.)

To further their campaign, the Whigs held huge rallies:

Estimates of crowds assembled for Whig rallies ranged from one thousand to one hundred thousand and sometimes were reckoned in terms of acreage covered… And Whig gatherings – replete with speeches, songs, cheers, and hard cider – were almost interminable: two, three, five hours long. Log cabins decorated with coonskins (after the fashion of frontier huts) became ubiquitous; erected at party rallies, drawn along in parades, and stationed in just about every city, town, village, and hamlet in the land. Hard cider was plentiful: the latchstring at the door of the log cabins was always drawn; and there was also sweet cider for the temperate. Slogans, mottoes, nicknames, and catchwords abounded: “The Farmer’s President”; “The Hero of (the battle of) Tippecanoe”…and best of all (since John Tyler of Virginia was Harrison’s running mate), “ Tippecanoe and Tyler Too!” 

There were Tippecanoe badges, handkerchiefs, shaving cream, and log cabin songbooks. The Whigs created the expression “keep the ball rolling” by rolling huge Harrison balls ten or twelve feet in diameter, made of twine, paper, leather, or tin, and covered in slogans, from town to town.

All of this worked in 1840; Harrison beat Van Buren in both the popular vote and the electoral vote by a huge margin. As a Democratic-Republican newspaper complained, “We have been sung down, lied down, drunk down!” 

Granted, General Harrison did not speak at these Whig rallies. He did not speak much at all during the 1840 campaign. Prior to the 20th century, presidential nominees avoided personal campaigning, and Harrison’s political aides specifically instructed him to keep quiet on the salient issues; as a result, the Democratic-Republicans tagged him as “General Mum.”

In 2024, the Trump rallies (presumably) worked as well. They were certainly popular with Republicans, and they seemed to provide some free positive media for the Trump campaign. There is at least one study that said there was a positive polling effect from them (using data from 2016).

Of course, there is one other big difference between the Trump rallies and the Whig rallies – no alcohol is/was served at the Trump rallies. I will leave it to the readers to tell me whether that is a positive or a negative. 

Unfortunately, The Trump Cabinet Will Likely Expand the Surveillance State

posted by Sundance at Conservative Treehouse 

The surveillance state is an outcropping of the Fourth Branch of Government, which is, essentially, the unelected intelligence community in control of our government.

The surveillance state comes from the creation of the Dept of Homeland Security (DHS) which is an entirely inward-looking agency. Prior to the Patriot Act, the surveillance sweep searching for terror threats focused outward, looking outside the U.S borders. The Patriot Act took the surveillance sweep a full 360 degrees and looked inside the Homeland for terror threats. Hence, DHS was created.

The office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) was also created by the Patriot Act, and was specifically created as the pivot point to combine the surveillance sweeps. The Pentagon and CIA intel agencies sweeping outside the U.S. and the DHS sweeping inside the U.S.

It was the creation of The Dept of Homeland Security (DHS) that destroyed what remained of privacy protections within the constitution (4th amendment). Americans are no longer secure in their ‘papers and effects’, nor protected by the ‘probable cause’ need for warrants. The erosion of the 4th amendment was absolutely connected to the creation of DHS; there is zero doubt about this cause and effect.

With the ODNI and DHS created, the sub-silos of the surveillance state then began. The Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) is one agency within the Dept of Homeland Security that was an outcome. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) also gained massive tools within this new system.

The key point behind all of this context is what I refer to as the ‘Surveillance State.’ American citizens have lost all privacy protections within this new system of surveillance, that has extended far beyond even what most people fathom.

When you understand the root origin of the Surveillance State, then the discussion turns to what we have accepted within its creation, and what is the current status of American Liberty as an outcome of it.

The fact that this system was weaponized by Barack Obama and Joe Biden to target their political opposition is only one aspect of this dynamic. Yes, it is a big issue, and yes what they did was horrific, corrupt and in my opinion unlawful. However, their ability to weaponize this system only existed because the domestic surveillance state was created and authorized by the legislative branch of government.

Now we are left arguing about who controls a system that should never have been authorized.

.

♦ We have outlined exhaustively how Obama and Biden weaponized this surveillance system. Now, we shift to discuss the system itself against the backdrop of President Trump and our new technology MAGA allies.

All of President Trump’s cabinet and key appointments carry the same outlook toward the surveillance state. They fundamentally believe the system is needed, the DHS system holds national security value, and the capacity within the DHS system is only a problem when corrupt political operatives are in charge of it. If good, virtuous and moral people are in charge, the DHS surveillance system is okay.

I have talked to many of them, key people including Devin Nunes for perspective, and I can say directly that President Trump’s team believe the system is good and necessary, it was just controlled by bad actors.

To be clear and fair to readers, I disagree with the Trump administrations’ foundational perspective of the Surveillance State. I do not believe the system holds greater benefit than it does cost. However, that is not the primary reasoning for my opposing viewpoints.

There are two larger issues within this surveillance state. The first, is the potential weaponization of it; this is a simple matter of accepting the historic reality of it. The second issue is an issue that will surface quickly in the next few years, just as rapidly as the advances in technology that support it.

• President Trump is going to unwittingly create a ‘caste system’ within the surveillance state. He will not do so with willful, corrupt or malicious intent, rather it is an inherent problem built into any surveillance network.

There are going to be tiers of people who are not subjected to the rules of the Surveillance State. There are going to be tiers of people, powerful, influential, some intensely rich people, to whom the application of the surveillance does not exist.

I have already seen this ‘tiered’ system starting to come into place. I have witnessed firsthand the outcomes of the software being deployed within the design of their building.  I have witnessed real identities masked by the system as an outcome of their status. Facial recognition programs that black out search results based on arbitrary definitions and determinations of those who control the surveillance application.

Inside the surveillance system, supported by the policy team behind President Trump, there will be classes of people. Just as we defined “essential workers” within the COVID-19 pandemic. This essential group will be classed based on their administrative value to the government operators who control the mechanics of outcomes; perhaps “essential administrators.” This is a natural outcome of the mindset behind “continuity of government,” the baseline for the Patriot Act creation.

The system to classify Americans by personage is currently being developed inside the silos of the Intelligence Community, the Dept of Homeland Security and combined with the technological creations of those who are contracted to build it – like Palantir (Peter Thiel).

Within this matrix of categorized Americans there will be those who are not subjected to the surveillance, their constitutional rights will be protected, and they will be afforded all benefit of personage.  However, there will be lower classes who are continual targets for it who do not have such protection. There is no way to avoid this caste system outcome; in fact, many components of it are already in place.

[PERSONAL NOTE: Even when given the opportunity to join or align with the elite group, I decline. I am an American, of no greater or lesser value than any other American. Unfortunately, my internal compass viewpoint is not carried by those who are currently building or will operate the system. I do not fault them, for it is perhaps an expected weakness within human nature to align with those of greater benefit when the benefit can transfer to a lifestyle of greater abundance. I do however let them know they are defining their own moral compass heading.  It was with this perspective I previously presented this image. I embrace my choice.]

President Trump’s unwitting authorization of the caste system within the Surveillance State will be the issue of debate in a few short years.  I do not hold positive perspective on the outcome of litigation because the judicial branch has already conceded their view of liberty to those in the executive branch who hide behind the shield of “national security.”

♦ This brings me to the technology group who are creating the system unwittingly supported by President Trump. Peter Thiel (Palantir), Elon Musk (xAI, SpaceX), Larry Ellison (Oracle), David Sacks and a host of mutually aligned artificial intelligence builders stand to benefit financially from a technologically efficient Surveillance State. Their companies and their AI software products are the targeting tools within the DHS surveillance system itself.  Do not be misled by their ownership of different companies within this construct, they are all mutually allied; factually, they are all friends in the same tech sector.

The tools created by Palantir et al, are multifunctional. They can be used by the Pentagon and CIA for military application, and they can be used by DNI, DHS, FBI and TSA for domestic application. Just as the Patriot Act redefined “terror threats” to begin sweeping 360 degrees, so too are the tools of the surveillance state designed for both foreign and domestic application.

There is no way to avoid being the target of a weapon once that weapon is created. However, unlike the mutually assured destruction within the nuclear analogy, there will be no threat of mutual application within the surveillance bomb.

There are going to be castes of people not subjected to the outcome of detonation; therein lies my biggest point against it.

Some are starting to awaken to this issue. I have recently seen commentator Laura Loomer begin questioning the motives of Thiel, Musk, Ellison, Ramaswamy, Sacks and crew. However, no one has yet noted the strategic insurance policy, JD Vance.

Lastly, I do not fault President Trump for this predictable outcome. Few people can fathom the scale and consequence of the big picture items that lay on the desk of President Trump.

What the technocratic team are doing in the supporting offices of the White House cannot be micromanaged by the same person who is trying to confront globalism, stop illicit trade schemes, provide national security, stop geopolitical unrest, unravel foreign wars and simultaneously prioritize the domestic dangers presented by the collapsed and borderless sovereign nation state of America.

Do you really believe President-elect Donald Trump is aware the person he announced as chief-of-staff for Pam Bondi is/was the same person used by Rod Rosenstein to construct the Robert Mueller targeting operation? Am I to believe that Chad Mizelle just had a lapse in momentary judgement, and Donald Trump knows the background of Mizelle at that critical moment in 2017.  Just stop; we accept in brutally honest fashion, there are going to be a few aspects of non-winning amid the DC confrontation.  President Trump cannot ‘know everything’ and simultaneously confront everything as a priority; at a certain point, even he has to trust their intents.

What I am warning about now, is something entirely predictable that is looming in the near future; like, within 18 months.

At a certain point, the financial interests of the technocratic team who helped win the 2024 election will no longer be in alignment with MAGA Americans.  At that point, I have no doubt President Trump will align with our side in the just cause of liberty.

When the sh*t hits the fan and all of these connected interests’ surface, I am optimistic President Trump will support our position; I do not question that at all.  However, we must accept the consequence of that non-alignment is going to make those same technocratic MAGA billionaires shift from united allies to lukewarm defenders.

Peaceniks don’t build bombs; and those who genuinely believe in liberty do not build nor support domestic surveillance networks that can be weaponized depending on who is in power.