These people are demented. Power-mad. Insane. So question is...

 

Democrats: "Of course, because all four are great analysts of complex issues!  'Perceptive!'  Rational.  Even better, ouah great leaders (the four above are among ouah best) do NOT have huge egos--unlike Orange Hitler."

I'd ask conservatives for their answer but there's no point, cuz after all Democrats start voting for Democrat Socialists of America, conservatives won't win any more national elections.  That'll begin around 2032, so...enjoy the next six years.

Ah, I hear y'all saying that's crazytalk.  Just un-possible!  So let me explain:

For decades white Americans have been split roughly equally between R and D.  The flood of 11 MILLION illegal immigrants during bribem's ghastly 4 years didn't change that much because virtually none of those illegals became citizens.  Most apparently elected to wait until a Democrat prezzy and congress simply gifted all of them citizenship, with no effort. 

But they have far higher birthrates than whites, and all their children will be U.S. citizens.  So as soon as six years from now the first of their citizen-kids will be voting.  That and the black vote should decisively tip the balance to the Dems. 

But wait, it gets worse--cuz for the past 20 years the "total fertility rate" (TFR)--the average number of children born to each woman over her life--for white women has been steadily dropping.  You need an average of 2.15 or so children per female needed to keep any population level.  (The fraction over 2.0 is needed because a small percentage of females don't survive to childbearing age.) 

For white women that rate is now about 1.4--FAR below the level needed to keep the number of whites from decreasing. 

But illegals and Muslims have a far higher TFR--roughly 3.5 for Hispanics and 4.4 for Muslims.  So the percentage of whites will fall even faster in the future.  

The much higher TFR for Muslims and Hispanics is partly offset by the fact that on average, conservatives seem to be having more children than liberals.  I've never been able to find published numbers, and I suspect that's because no large study has been done--or even proposed, since it would almost certainly confirm the point here.  My guess is that the TFR for liberals is about 1.2, compared to about 1.6 for conservatives.  That certainly helps, but not nearly enough to keep the percentage of whites from continuing to fall.

One other note on that:  The Media, Dems, communists and pro-illegal groups will try to fool you by pointing to census numbers showing that the actual number of whites is NOT dropping.  Yes but what matters in elections is what percentage of the population is on each side.  When your percentage falls, you lose almost every election.   

People who study demographics for a living have long had a saying: "Demography is destiny."  What that means is, if you invite foreigners into your country who want to take over, they can do that simply by waiting, because having more kids than the native population means eventually the faster-breeding foreigners end up in the majority.

In the past, when almost all immigrants to America wanted to assimilate instead of rule, this wasn't a problem.  But in the last 40 years the Dem-ruled school establishment has lied to students SO thoroughly and deviously that most American students now say they believe socialism is better than capitalism--despite never having lived under communism!  It's obviously irrational: the rational answer would be "I can't answer that since I've never lived under communism."  But as happened when the transgender craze hit, only a tiny fraction of kids can resist the social pressure to be one of the "cool kids." 

The communists call the belief that communism is superior to free markets "demoralization," and by that they don't mean mass drug use and perversion.  Rather,  young people become demoralized in the same sense as troops who believe their situation is hopeless.

People in that mental state are far less likely to vote, since they believe it won't (can't) help.  And who would ever fight for a country they've been taught was evil from its very founding?  We saw hints of this last part around 1970, with huge protests against continued U.S. involvement in Vietnam.

So there are ample historic examples for every point that's coming. 

Now for the hundredth time, I don't have kids, and my six nieces and nephews were raised by liberal Democrats, so while I'll be sorry for them being forced to suffer, I can't save 'em.  So as the old saying goes, I've got no dog in this hunt.  

The loss of freedom of speech or the right to bear arms won't bother 'em a bit.  Yes, Democrat-ordered taxes will be higher, but good party members will know how to sign up for more "free stuff" to offset the higher taxes.  Yes, steak will cost $40 a pound, so will be a once-a-year treat for working families, but Bill Gates will be selling a delicious meat-substitute, and "reporters" at the NY Times will gush that it tastes every bit as good as the best steak they ever had!  And everyone will nod and agree.

Yes, it too will cost $40 a pound, BUT it'll reduce Global Wa Climate Change. 

Because everyone they know will be in the same boat, my nieces and nephews won't realize their lives are less free.  And in any case, it's because their liberal Democrat parents supported whatever happens.