1) Little thread: First, thanks to all of you for following. Unreal that 68,000 people care what I have to say.

2) My analysis is almost solely done on actual data. A poll is a person SAYING what they PLAN to do in the FUTURE. Too many gaps there.

3) People lie. Plans change.

4) So I prefer "hard data." Over time, we have found that voter registration is the single best indicator of a vote.

What I have found is that two factors are at work:
a) registration aggregates and b) trends.

The latter can be as important as the former.

5) For example, North Carolina has a DemoKKKrat advantage in registrations---but its TREND is overwhelmingly red. Republicans have chopped over 100,000 off the D advantage in the last four years. In FL, it's even more pronounced. Rs knocked a couple of hundreds thousand off.

6) So despite the "actual" numerical advantage, I see both FL and NC as red states.

7) The opposite is true of CO, where Ds have only a 1% lead . . . but just five years ago Rs had a 5% statewide lead. That is a major shift.

8) So I follow registrations & trends.

9) Special elections and state elections are also good barometers. In 2017, Rs held a few special election seats, but at levels far under those carried the districts by. State offices overwhelmingly shifted to Ds.

10) Since 2018, DemoKKkrats have scarcely won a seat.

11) In the House, Jeff Van Drew (NJ) left the Ds during impeachment, Mike Garcia took a heavily D district in CA25, and Rs won WI7 back. In WI, they won one State Supreme Court race and lost one. Overall since 2018, the shift has been significantly R.

12) The hardest calls are the House races, because they are extremely local, depend a lot more on the candidate than on money, and can be completely apart from national issues unless the managers are good at tying them together.

13) I nailed the Trump win ("between 300 and 320 electoral votes"--final 306); called the GOP win in the senate in 2018 ("between 4-8 pickups---final was three net and one decided by 1/2%). But I missed the House. I said DemoKKKrats would have to run the table. And they did.

14) 30 races were decided by less than 2 points, 20 by under 1 point.

15) Anyway, that's not what this thread is about. I think Trump will win easily in November (320-340 EVs, could go higher if Biteme melts down). I think he'll win the pop vote by a couple million.

16) Here's what this thread is about: WHEN that happens, esp. now that we will have another USSC seat, I expect the left to shatter.

17) I think you'll see the end of the modern DemoKKKrat Party. This is nothing new.

18) It happened to the Federalists, when they lost touch with the people in 1816.

19) It happened to the Whigs when they ignored the overriding issue of slavery in the 1850s.

20) And it will happen to the DemoKKKrats because they are really two parties.

21) Probably the larger of the two DemoKKKrat parties is the Socialist Party. After this fracture, I fully expect there will be a "Socialist Party."

22) The other is the rump of what used to be the DemoKKKrats. Not sure they can even hang onto the name. They may become . . .

22) contd . . . the "American DemoKKKrat Party," some such variation. They will comprise about 25-30% of today's party; the Socialists, about 70-75%.

23) Most of the so-called "moderate" DemoKKKrats have already left for "independent" status or to join the GOP.

24) This fracture will be REALLY hard, because if you've read "A Patriot's History of the United States," you know that the basis of the modern party system is jobs.

25) To be able to offer jobs, a party has to be within striking distance to win. The rump "American DemoKKKrat Party" won't be close---but neither will the Socialists, cuz they're freakin nuts.

26) If you go to 1896, no DemoKKKrat would have held office from 1896 to 1932 . . .

26) contd . . . if Taft and TR hadn't split the GOP vote in 1912.

27) You could very much be looking at a new "Age of Republican Ascendancy." Obviously, so much will depend on how the GOP uses its power.

28) And even more will depend on Trump's successor. A year ago I thought that could be Kanye West. He had the drive. He was NOT a politician (I don't think a straight line pol can ever get elected president again in the "age of celebrity.")

29) Kanye's "run" this year, I thought, was a self-imposed test to see if he could actually run.

Sad to say, I think he failed. He proved disorganized, failing to meet the FL deadline and missing WI by 17 freakin' seconds.

30) But we'll see. American politics is full of more astounding revivals (think Nixon 1962-28 or Lincoln after his numerous failures). As I say, Kanye's competition MUST come from an outside celebrity source, as I think that's where the electorate is heading.

31) Unfortunately, I think @DonaldJTrumpJr would be the most qualified, but I do not believe in dynasties (especially after W and the Bushes). Too bad. Don, Jr. is a helluva businessman in his own right.

32) But if Trump proves as successful in his second term as he did . . .

32) contd . . . his first, it will be very hard to ever go back to a traditional politician again, and people will begin scouring the ranks of business, sports, movie stars (Reagan) etc. for their next Chief Executive.