Caddell: Democrats Have ‘Lost Control of Their Base’

Breitbart: Democrats “have lost control” of their base and membership, said veteran pollster Pat Caddell while commenting on the day’s “government shutdown.”

Caddell’s remarks came in a Friday interview with Breitbart News’s Senior Editor-at-Large Rebecca Mansour on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight.

“They have got themselves locked in on this question about DACA,” said Caddell, pointing to broad Democrat prioritization of pursuing legislative amnesty for illegal immigrants styled after the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy.

Democrats will politically damage themselves by prioritizing pursuit of a DACA-style amnesty bill while neglecting border security, said Caddell. Widespread Democrat support for “sanctuary cities,” he added, is an unpopular position across the broader public.

“Yes, DACA itself is very popular, but so are the positions that Trump has laid out that also need to be part of any deal,” said Caddell. “Those are also popular. Sanctuary cities are not popular. Simply amnesty by itself is not popular. Most of all, protecting the border is popular, whether people like the idea of a wall or not.”

“Democrats certainly understood in December that this was not a good idea to shut the government down over DACA,” said Caddell. “They’ve lost control of their base.”  read more

21 Comments on Caddell: Democrats Have ‘Lost Control of Their Base’

  1. The GOP lost control of its base too. That’s why Trump is POTUS. Both the parties suck. And at least some of the reason that the government shut down is because McConnell required 60 votes for something the Constitution doesn’t require 60 votes for. Supermajority vote requirements are bullshit 90% of the time.

  2. In his State of the Union Address, Trump needs to keep emphasizing that he is for American citizens first. That he does have empathy for actual immigrant children but the best place for these children is with their families. And if these families reside in another country that is where these children should be, with their families!

  3. The analogy of the scorpion and the rabbit has never been more true regarding the democrats. It is their nature to do this crap and act this way – it’s why they need adult supervision not peer support from repubs who still don’t get it.

    President Trump gets it.

  4. McConnell wouldn’t know a supermajority if it bit him in the ass.
    Does he realize what % of Americans would love to stomp him face first into wet cement?

  5. @TheMule January 20, 2018 at 5:33 pm

    Actually, what that photo reminds me of is the evil (not idiocy, but genuine evil) of seniority rules. And, of course, the idiocy of local elections for federal positions.

    Most of the “Big Xen” in that picture, are from little areas run as Mexican (and to be inclusive one Puerto Rican) gang colonies. Of course their local bangers elect them. Of course they look out for their bangers’ interests. The beauty of a republic, is that the rest of us get to serve their, personal, bangers’ interests, as well.

  6. @Bob January 20, 2018 at 6:13 pm

    > The DEMS are socialist

    Socialists who enforce their will at gunpoint are (pedantically) “communists”.

  7. @ Anonymous,

    Not to be too pedantic, but wouldn’t something like “patently” better fit your statement?

    “Speaking the truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act.” Geo. Orwell

  8. Considering all things of the democrat (prog/socialist/commie scum) party; if that’s their base, they might want to re-think their platform.

  9. @jellybean

    The deporables are the third party, and we will seize the Republican Party. The GOP establishment will become the third party.

  10. There never was going to be a future for identity politics if you need to import low skill immigrants from third-world shitholes to fill the contiually depleting ranks.

    I think that was the reason for the BHO economic stagnation. Upward mobility sound the death knell for the Democrat Party.

  11. @Mortgages for the Masses January 21, 2018 at 12:13 am

    > There never was going to be a future for identity politics if you need to import low skill immigrants from third-world shitholes to fill the contiually depleting ranks.

    I don’t disagree with the conclusion. I do disagree with the reason.

    When your communal rules require more than one worker over producing to support the non-producing rulership structure you demand to rule that worker, your Ponzi scheme demands an ever expanding number of over producing workers. If your rules reduce the over production of those workers, then you must expand the number of over, but still less over, producing workers at an even greater rate.

    The workers that over produce the most (there will always be some) will be the least satisfied with your communal rules. However, they are the most valuable to your rulership. The least over productive (often under productive, relative to what they consume) are the most important to your rulership, as they know that without your ruling the communal rules, they will necessarily have less, themselves. Possibly to the point of extinction.

    Convincing the under producers to violently support your continued rulership over a continually per ruled decline in resources, requires their loyalty to you, as the ruler, of an ever expanding number of lesser, but still over, producing workers. If the total production goes negative, the under producers don’t benefit from your communal rulership. Eventually they’ll fail faster with you skimming first, than by just looting for themselves, and keeping everything they can take.

    Convincing them to further divide themselves is the only way to have each, individual under producing (new sub-) group, still benefit more from having your (relatively) stable sized regime dividing the entire haul, as the head count of the ranch ever increases.

    And the agreement with your conclusion: Eventually you must run out of expansion (global communalism still fails, unless we “Go to space”). When you hit that limit (if you can keep ruling that long) you can still kite your rulership, as long as you can keep subdividing the ruled. But, again, you come to a point where the (now even) smaller groups will still have more for themselves scavenging for themselves, rather than allowing you to skim first and redistribute.

  12. And the “that was already too long, but it means something else, as well” addenda:

    Under producers are not acting against their own interests, violently supporting rulers that skim first for themselves, and then redistribute what’s left. Trying to “educate” them about supporting their own interests by regime change is a waste of time, when the change will actually result in the aggregate being redistributed from the over producers being reduced. And the supermajority of over producers have an actually negative trust value when they try to tell everybody else “Trust me. If you let me decide how to divide what I produce, rather than the regime, I’ll give you more than they will. Every time. Honest.”. Increasing under producers output to over production will change their, individual, point of view (the math is so not hard, it’s instinctual). But over producers under a communal regime are already competing, under the regime, with under producers, to keep as much of what they produce as they can. The majority of them, individually, will not benefit from increased competition with more over producers for the regime’s attention.

    If the regime rules an island, and most islanders actually eat more than they farm, the current over farmers reducing the size of their individual farms, and teaching others to over produce on the new subdivisions, will increase the number of over producers, while decreasing the demands each individual over producer can expect to make against the regime (as they are valuable to the regime as over producers). In addition, unless their new means of over production on smaller plots is greater with the new over producers next door, their individual over production will also be reduced.

    It’s “almost like” selfish over producers actually benefit more from the rulers expanding the number of under producers, while keeping the number of over producers stable. (None dare call it cronyism.)


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!