No, celebrities don’t really die in threes. That’s actually a myth.
But it just might apply to the Democratic Party: Each of these stories — independently — might’ve generated a headline or two, but all together, they’re a devastating one-two-three deathblow against the Donkeys.
And it happened so quickly, few people noticed.
Some mortal wounds take years to manifest; others bleed out quickly. For largely self-inflicted reasons, the Democrats now have the worst of both worlds:
Reason #1: Loss of the Electoral College
While everyone was focusing on the Great Gerrymander War of 2025, the New York Times dropped an anvil on the hopes and dreams of American liberals: “Turn out the lights, the party’s over.”
The Times’ headline was dry, understated, and unusually direct — something the media does when they’re so dismayed about the facts of the story, they don’t even wanna play the clickbait game: “How the Electoral College Could Tilt Further Away From Democrats”
But even though its headline was understated, the hyperbolic (and clickbait-worthy) phrase “nightmare scenario” was used in the lead of paragraph two:
The year is 2032. Studying the Electoral College map, a Democratic presidential candidate can no longer plan to sweep New Hampshire, Minnesota and the “blue wall” battlegrounds of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and win the White House. A victory in the swing state of Nevada would not help, either.
That is the nightmare scenario many Democratic Party insiders see playing out if current U.S. population projections hold. After every decennial census, like the one coming up in 2030, congressional seats are reallocated among the states based on population shifts. Those seats in turn affect how big a prize each state is within the Electoral College — or how a candidate actually wins the presidency.
In the next decade, the Electoral College will tilt significantly away from Democrats. [emphasis added]
The problem, you see, is that Blue States are governed by Democrats. And for some crazy reason, their citizens keep fleeing to Red States that are governed by Republicans. (Free advice to the Dems: It’s kinda sorta in your best interests to figure out WHY this keeps on happening.)
But since the Electoral College is determined via population, if Red States keep growing at the expense of Blue States, then one side is gonna shrink and the other will grow:
Deeply conservative Texas and Florida could gain a total of five congressional seats, and the red states of Utah and Idaho are each expected to add a seat.
Those gains will come at the expense of major Democratic states like New York and California, according to a New York Times analysis of population projections by Esri, a nonpartisan company whose mapping software and demographic data are widely used by businesses and governments across the world.
Midwestern states like Minnesota and Pennsylvania could lose a seat. [emphasis added]
The population shift is radically redefining the electoral map for national elections. Political strategists think in terms of combinations: What collection of states do we need to win? But when the math changes, so must your map.
Across all of the possible scenarios in the nine states that would be considered battlegrounds in the 2032 election, Democrats would see about a third of their current winning Electoral College combinations disappear if population projections hold. However, when looking only at the most feasible winning combinations based on voting behaviors in the 2024 election, the outlook is far worse. Of Democrats’ 25 most plausible paths to victory in 2024, only five would remain. [emphasis added]
Remember, this is entirely independent of all the other cultural shifts, including the political migration of Latinos, black men, and young people away from the Dems and into the GOP. This is something far more meaningful: We’re rewriting the value of the map itself.
Suddenly, a touchdown is worth 10 points and a field goal only two — and what do ya know, Team Trump was built to score touchdowns. Meanwhile, the Dems blew their budget on kickers.
Which means, things could get lopsided in a hurry.
Reason #2: The Wrong Side of the Crime Issue
Ever since 2015, when “literally Hitler” descended the escalator of Trump Tower and announced his presidential bid, the Democrats have operated under a simple calculus: If Trump is for it, we’re against it! Nay, not just against it: WE HATE IT!
It’s put them on the wrong side of way too many issues, including immigration, biological men in women’s sports, the Woke agenda, and countless more.
The latest example is crime.
The Democrats are howling over President Trump’s “military takeover” of liberal cities like Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. To them, it’s proof positive that “literally Hitler” really is (checks notes) “literally Hitler”:
NBC News: Black mayors and leaders decry Trump’s threats to deploy National Guard in cities
PBS: Trump’s DC rhetoric echoes history of racist narratives about urban crime
The Atlantic: For Trump, This Is a Dress Rehearsal
Newsweek: Bill Maher Is Right. There Is a Slow-Moving Coup
Robert Reich: How to Stop Trump’s Second Coup
The Washington Post: Trump has brilliantly orchestrated a legal coup
MSNBC: ‘Soft Coup’: The Weeknight panel slams Trump’s move to federalize D.C. police
The Independent: Is Trump’s America in the middle of a coup?
Which is why the early polling data is so compelling. This ran in The Hill yesterday: “54 percent of voters say Trump’s actions in DC are justified: Poll”
From the article:
“It’s clear Trump is moving from immigration to crime as a major focus and his efforts are receiving strong Republican and independent support,” said Mark Penn, co-director of the Harvard Caps-Harris poll.
The poll also found that 51 percent of voters said they believed the increased presence of the National Guard would make D.C. “more safe,” while 22 percent said they believed it would make the city “less safe.” Another 27 percent said it would have “no impact.”
This is significant because Trump can bring a winning, popular issue directly to the doorsteps of the Democrats’ top 2028 presidential contenders, decapitating ‘em one by one.
And, as fate would have it, the Dems’ hopes and dreams are invested in three Blue State governors with cities amuck with crime: Gavin Newsom (Los Angeles), JB Pritzker (Chicago), and Wes Moore (Baltimore).
If the Dems were smart, they’d try a constitutional argument against the federal takeover of U.S. cities. Somewhere, somehow, there’s a winning argument that could be made — one that could (potentially) appeal to non-liberals and (gasp!) actually broaden their base.
But they’re not smart. So instead, they’re countering Trump by declaring: THERE IS NO CRIME!
And it’s just not a credible argument. It’s quite literally the stupidest argument possible. But, Lord help us, the Dems are trying — and the media is doing their damndest to carry their water:
Axios: Trump’s D.C. crime claims don’t match the data
The Guardian: ‘Hyperbolic and false’: Trump’s portrayal of crime in Washington DC has little to do with facts
New York Post: Migrant crime and carjackings ‘don’t matter to that many Americans,’ left-wing think tank VP tells Democrats
AP News: Trump exaggerates, misstates facts on Washington crime
MSNBC: Trump’s reckless claims about D.C. crime stats are a threat to democracy
CNN: Fact check: Trump’s barrage of false claims about crime in Washington, DC
Doubling down on a stupid argument only makes you lose twice as fast.
Which is why, this week, we’re seeing headlines like The Hill’s “Massive crime drop in DC — city sees zero-murder week” and the New York Post’s “Washington, DC goes 12 straight days without a murder following Trump’s capital crime crackdown,” coupled with NPR’s HILARIOUSLY sour grapes lament: “As Trump touts D.C. arrests, experts caution they’re not the best indicator of public safety.”
BWAHAHAHAHA!! Yeah, good luck with that counterpunch.
(And best of luck to your 2028 gubernatorial triplets, Govs. Newsom, Pritzker, and Moore, ‘cause on this issue, they’re REALLY gonna need it.)
Recommended: ‘America First’ Republicans Vs. ‘Party First’ Democrats: The War for America’s Soul
Reason #3: Actually Fighting Fire With Fire
Question: If gerrymandering is so bad and so undemocratic, why do Democrats do it? After all:
- Trump received 1.25 million votes in Massachusetts, winning 36% of the vote. The state has zero Republicans in the House.
- Trump received 737,000 votes in Connecticut, winning 42% of the vote. The state has zero Republicans in the House.
- Trump received 423,000 votes in New Mexico, winning 46% of the vote. The state has zero Republicans in the House.
- Trump received 2.49 million votes in Illinois, winning 43.5% of the vote. Out of their 17 congressmen, there are only 3 Republicans.
- Trump received 3.6 million votes in New York, winning 43.3% of the vote. Out of their 26 congressmen, there are only 7 Republicans.
- Trump received 6.1 million votes in California, winning 38.3% of the vote. Out of their 52 congressmen, there are only 9 Republicans.
Which makes their howling, screaming, and hysterics over Texas’ redistricting plans rather suspect: Right now, Texas — which hasn’t voted for a Democratic presidential candidate in 50 years! — has 38 congressional seats, with 25 Republicans and 13 Democrats.
That’s a ratio far more forgiving than the RIDICULOUSLY gerrymandered districts in Blue States!
But this is the strategy that’s kept the Democrats afloat, in good times and bad. When Obama won the presidency in 2008, the Democrats won 52.9% of the votes in House elections… which somehow led to them controlling 59.1% of all the seats in the House of Representatives!
Finally, the Republicans got serious about fighting fire with fire. That’s one of Trump’s lasting legacies: We stopped waging political wars with one arm behind our back.
And the Democrats don’t like it one bit!
It’s led to twisted, tortured logic from the left, who continue to insist THEY are the ones “fighting fire with fire.” (It’s become Newsom’s best-known catchphrase.)
But that’s not what the stats say. Reread the gerrymandering numbers.
Meanwhile, liberals are doing mental gymnastics to decry the “new rules” of the political game. But back when federal agents (who were authorized to use deadly force, mind you) raided Mar-a-Lago, our friends at MSNBC took great pains to argue that it wasn’t actually a raid.
At the time, the outlet published an article called “The FBI search of Trump’s home in Mar-a-Lago isn’t a ‘raid’” (later changed to “Why the FBI’s search of Mar-a-Lago feels like a shift in the tectonic legal plates”) with the subheader assuring its readers, “The decision to request a search warrant was undoubtedly vetted through the uppermost ranks of the Justice Department.”
It’s clear that the judge agreed with the evidentiary assessments of both the agent and the prosecutor that there was reason to believe there was evidence of a crime at Mar-a-Lago. Hence, the judge authorized law enforcement agents to conduct the search.
This beat-by-beat breakdown of what goes into obtaining a search warrant is important to combat the disinformation already being put out by Trump. He issued a statement Monday, the content of which ranges from misleading to comical. He says the “raid” on his “beautiful home, Mar-a-Lago” was “unannounced.” First, it wasn’t a raid. It was a court-authorized search warrant. [emphasis added]
Of course, MSNBC quickly changed its tune with John “The Walrus” Bolton — a prominent anti-Trump critic (and frequent guest) — had his home “raided.”
MSNBC: The John Bolton search should be a wake-up call for every American
MSNBC: ‘We know Trump has a revenge agenda’: FBI searches home of Trump critic John Bolton
MSNBC: FBI’s search of Bolton will have ‘extraordinary chilling effect’
MSNBC: Pure retribution: Analysts warn Bolton FBI raid should ‘send shivers down everyone’s spines’ [emphasis added]
MSNBC: Lady Justice swaps blindfold for MAGA hat: Experts slam Bolton revenge raid [emphasis added]
When is a raid not a raid? Guess it depends on whose home is raided, eh?
New math, new issues, new tactics. The Democrats are in a world of trouble.
One Last Thing: The Democrats are on the ropes, but make no mistake: The donkeys are still dangerous. 2025 will either go down in history as the year we finally Made America Great Again — or the year it all slipped through our fingers. We need your help to succeed! As a VIP member, you’ll receive exclusive access to all our family of sites (PJ Media, Townhall, RedState, twitchy, Hot Air, Bearing Arms): More stories, more videos, more content, more fun, more conservatism, more EVERYTHING! And if you CLICK HERE and use the promo code FIGHT you’ll receive a Trumpian 60% discount!
Thank you for your consideration!
