New Report Shows Democrat Party In Shambles In Trump Era
We all know by now that President Donald Trump won the 2024 election by some pretty big numbers, but a new study from the Pew Research Center gives us an even better look at who those numbers represent.
According to the analysis, voters who backed Trump in 2024 are “far more racially and ethnically diverse” than they were in either 2020 or 2016.
With Hispanic voters. Trump and Kamala Harris were basically tied. Back in 2020, Biden carried the Hispanic vote 61 to 36. In 2024, Harris only beat Trump by three points — 51 to 48.
As for the black vote, Trump pulled in 15 percent compared to just 8 percent in 2020, and he also made some serious progress with Asian voters. In 2020, Biden dominated with the Asian vote 70 to 30. This time around, Harris managed just 57 percent while Trump jumped to 40 percent, Sarah Anderson of PJ Media
Trump also did very well with immigrants who are now naturalized citizens. According to Pew, they make up about 9 percent of the voting population. In 2020, they went for Biden 59 to 38.
But in 2024, that lead shrank fast. Harris got 51 percent, and Trump was right behind at 47.
Trump doubled his margin with non-college-educated voters compared to 2016. He beat Harris with rural voters by a whopping 40 points. Among voters who attend religious services regularly, Trump won 64 to 34.
In 2020, men were basically split. In 2024, Trump dominated — 55 to 43. He especially gained with younger men under 50.
The report shows that Democrats are losing their grip on the very groups they claim to represent. And this report also punches a hole in something a lot of people say, that higher turnout means a win for Democrats,” Anderson reported.
The theory has been that when more people vote, Democrats benefit because low turnout voters are supposed to be people who lean left and just do not always show up.
But in 2024, that narrative collapsed. Pew said, “…if all Americans eligible to vote in 2024 had cast ballots, the overall margin in the popular vote likely would not have been much different.”
This is good news for Republicans, but that does not mean the party can relax.
“First of all, Trump isn’t your average politician. His appeal goes beyond party lines because he’s unlike anyone we’ve had run for office in most of our lifetimes.
He’s afraid of no one and largely does what he says he’s going to do. He’s a unicorn. We’ll likely never see anything like it again, and we can only move forward on his momentum. We must,” Anderson said.
“Second, I’ve been alive long enough to see the Republicans in office, especially in Congress, screw up any sort momentum that’s handed to them on a silver platter like this.
We’re always the team on defense, and Trump has given this party the gift of finally getting our hands back on the ball.
On top of that, we’re playing a team that can’t even find a third-string quarterback, and half of its receivers are too busy trying on the cheerleader’s skirts to know there’s even a game going on,” the writer said.
“Even so, I don’t trust Republicans in Congress not to throw an interception, and I don’t think I’m alone in that.
The Grand Old Party must pull its Grand Old Head out of its a**, take advantage of this gift, and prove to these people who voted for them for the first time in their lives that it’s truly something better than anything Democrats have to offer.
We must prove to these new voters that we see them as individuals who can do great things for themselves, not as groups over whom we just want power and control,” she added.
Seditious Six' Mark Kelly Does It AGAIN - Pete Hegseth Promises A Legal Response
Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a retired U.S. Navy captain, drew criticism after discussing details from a classified Pentagon briefing during a live interview on CBS News. In the segment with anchor Margaret Brennan, Kelly described the impact of U.S. military operations in the Middle East on American weapons stockpiles. He specifically referenced munitions including Tomahawk cruise missiles, ATACMS, SM-3 interceptors, THAAD rounds, and Patriot systems, stating it was “shocking how deep we have gone into these magazines.”
Kelly attributed the depletion to decisions made by the current administration, saying the president acted “without a strategic goal, without a plan, without a timeline,” which he argued left the United States less prepared for potential conflicts elsewhere, including a hypothetical scenario involving China and Taiwan. He noted that replenishing the stockpiles would take years.
The comments followed a classified briefing provided to members of Congress on the effects of recent U.S. involvement in the Iran conflict. National security experts and administration officials have expressed concern that public discussion of specific munitions levels and readiness timelines could compromise operational security and provide adversaries with actionable intelligence.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth responded swiftly, stating that the Department of Defense’s legal counsel would review Kelly’s remarks to determine whether they constituted a violation of his oath or improperly disclosed classified information. Hegseth wrote on social media: “Captain Mark Kelly strikes again. Now he’s blabbing on TV (falsely & dumbly) about a CLASSIFIED Pentagon briefing he received. Did he violate his oath…again? @DeptofWar legal counsel will review.”
Kelly has faced previous scrutiny for a video earlier this year in which he and several Democratic colleagues encouraged military members to evaluate the legality of orders from President Trump, remarks some critics labeled as seditious. As a former naval aviator and astronaut, Kelly has frequently drawn on his military background when discussing national security issues.
The senator’s office has not issued a direct response to Hegseth’s statement. In the interview, Kelly framed his comments as part of legitimate congressional oversight, noting that members of Congress receive classified briefings to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities.
The episode highlights ongoing tensions between the executive and legislative branches over the handling of sensitive national security information. Legal analysts note that members of Congress are generally protected by the Speech or Debate Clause when discussing matters related to their official duties, but the public disclosure of classified details can still trigger internal reviews and potential referrals to the Department of Justice.
The Pentagon has declined to confirm or deny the accuracy of Kelly’s description of stockpile levels. Officials have previously warned that public speculation about munitions readiness can embolden adversaries and complicate deterrence strategy, particularly with respect to China’s military posture in the Indo-Pacific.
The incident occurs against the backdrop of heightened U.S.-Iran tensions and broader concerns about military readiness. Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers have expressed worries about the pace of munitions replenishment following sustained operations in multiple theaters. However, the public nature of Kelly’s remarks has intensified partisan debate over congressional responsibility and the boundaries of classified information.
As the Department of Defense legal review proceeds, the matter is likely to fuel further discussion about the balance between transparency, oversight, and national security in an era of heightened geopolitical competition.
Former General Milley Says Armed Forces Must Serve the Constitution Above Politics
Mark Milley Issues Stark Warning at Arlington National Cemetery — “Military Must Serve the Constitution, Not a President”
In times of political strain and national uncertainty, the most enduring principles of a democracy are often reaffirmed not through legislation or elections alone, but through the voices of those entrusted with its defense. The statement attributed to Mark Milley, delivered at Arlington National Cemetery, speaks directly to one of the foundational pillars of the United States: the subordination of military power to constitutional authority rather than individual leadership.
At the heart of Milley’s message lies a principle that distinguishes democratic systems from authoritarian ones—the military’s oath is sworn to the Constitution, not to a person. This idea, while deeply embedded in American civic tradition, gains renewed significance in moments when political divisions intensify and questions of loyalty arise. By emphasizing this distinction, Milley reinforces a core safeguard against the concentration of unchecked power: that no leader, regardless of position, stands above the constitutional framework.
The setting of Arlington National Cemetery adds a profound symbolic dimension to the statement. It is a place where the cost of preserving constitutional ideals is made visible in rows of white headstones, each representing a life given in service to something larger than individual ambition or political allegiance. Speaking in such a setting transforms a statement into a moral reflection, linking present concerns to a legacy of sacrifice. It reminds the nation that the principles under discussion are not abstract—they have been defended at the highest possible cost.
This message arrives amid ongoing debates about the relationship between civilian leadership and military responsibility. In any democracy, the military must remain under civilian control; yet that control is exercised through lawful authority rooted in constitutional order, not personal loyalty. The distinction is subtle but critical. It ensures that the armed forces operate as an institution of the state rather than as an instrument of any one leader’s will. When this balance is maintained, it protects both democratic governance and the integrity of the military itself.
Criticism of Milley’s remarks, particularly from allies of Donald Trump, reflects the broader polarization shaping contemporary political discourse. Some view such statements as overreach by military figures into political territory, raising concerns about the appropriate boundaries between military leadership and public debate. Others interpret them as necessary clarifications during a time when those boundaries may appear blurred. This divergence of interpretation underscores the difficulty of navigating institutional roles in a highly charged environment.
Yet beyond the immediate controversy, Milley’s words serve a broader purpose. They invite reflection on the nature of allegiance in a constitutional democracy. Loyalty, in this context, is not directed toward individuals but toward enduring principles—rule of law, separation of powers, and the rights enshrined in the Constitution. These principles provide continuity even as leaders change, ensuring that the nation’s identity is not tied to any single figure.
Ultimately, the significance of this moment lies not in partisan reactions but in the reaffirmation of a fundamental truth: the strength of a democracy depends on the clarity of its commitments. By reiterating that the military serves the Constitution above all, Milley echoes a tradition that has helped sustain American governance through crises both past and present.
In the quiet solemnity of Arlington, where history is etched in stone, such a reminder carries particular weight. It speaks not only to those currently in positions of power but to future generations, emphasizing that the preservation of democratic ideals requires constant vigilance—and, at times, the courage to restate what should never be forgotten.
