El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Mar 16, 2018 10:33 am
...Anyway, more generally the Democrats *are* backing widely popular policies - specific gun control measures, the ACA (which is now popular), opposing regressive tax cuts, DACA (which *is* popular amongst voters), protecting Medicare/Medicaid, etc. etc. Of course it's easy to back popular policies when the Republicans are focused on backing hugely unpopular ones.
So, in other words, even though the Dems have less power and hold fewer offices than they have in a century, and despite the fact that they continue to lose blue collar and working class voters to the GOP, they should just stick to the "same old same old"? That, IMHO, is what is killing the party now. Just because an issue polls well doesn't mean it's going to motivate voters to get out and vote for the Democrats. On the other hand, the GOP is masterful at getting its base fired up and to the polls.
The party has become too focused on voters in large metropolitan areas and those in academia, and has completely lost its appeal to almost everyone else. But as long as we have a wealthy San Francisco liberal as the party's de facto leader, you can relax. I'm sure we'll continue to do what we've been doing and getting the same things we've always gotten.
El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Mar 16, 2018 10:33 am
...Anyway, more generally the Democrats *are* backing widely popular policies - specific gun control measures, the ACA (which is now popular), opposing regressive tax cuts, DACA (which *is* popular amongst voters), protecting Medicare/Medicaid, etc. etc. Of course it's easy to back popular policies when the Republicans are focused on backing hugely unpopular ones.
So, in other words, even though the Dems have less power and hold fewer offices than they have in a century, and despite the fact that they continue to lose blue collar and working class voters to the GOP, they should just stick to the "same old same old"? That, IMHO, is what is killing the party now. Just because an issue polls well doesn't mean it's going to motivate voters to get out and vote for the Democrats. On the other hand, the GOP is masterful at getting its base fired up and to the polls.
The party has become too focused on voters in large metropolitan areas and those in academia, and has completely lost its appeal to almost everyone else. But as long as we have a wealthy San Francisco liberal as the party's de facto leader, you can relax. I'm sure we'll continue to do what we've been doing and getting the same things we've always gotten.
What's the evidence that they are "continu[ing] to lose blue collar and working class voters to the GOP", or that they're not appealing anywhere other than large cities and academia? They lost big among those groups in 2016, but they're improving pretty much everywhere across the board in 2017 and 2018 (see, e.g., PA-18).
Remember that Obamacare barely got through - the Democrats had to cut back on some of what they wanted in order to get the 60 votes to get it passed. Obamacare was a major achievement that previous presidents couldn't accomplish. Unfortunately, it came at a cost, costing Democrats in the midterms.
Also, Single Payer isn't nearly as popular as you make it out to be. From what I remember of polling, about a third of people want single payer, a third wanted a hybrid of government and private programs to try to achieve universal healthcare, and a third wanted government out of healthcare. Also, there are some downsides to single payer - apart from the expense, it would mean a major shift in our economy and could mean things like not being able to select your own Doctor or longer wait times.
Also worth pointing out that only a handful of countries have single payer - the vast majority of countries people point to actually have hybrid systems to achieve universal healthcare.
"Single payer" polls better if you call it "Medicare for all" and worse if you call it "government insurance" or (god forbid) "socialized medicine." It's largely about branding, and it seems like the GOP is better at making names stick (consider how the "American Care Act" is more popular than "Obamacare").
Kraken wrote: ↑Fri Mar 16, 2018 12:50 pm
"Single payer" polls better if you call it "Medicare for all" and worse if you call it "government insurance" or (god forbid) "socialized medicine." It's largely about branding, and it seems like the GOP is better at making names stick (consider how the "American Care Act" is more popular than "Obamacare").
You also just have the challenge that people are risk averse. People don't love paying for health insurance, but the vast majority of people in the country have some kind of health insurance, and value that insurance at least somewhat (as an alternative to no insurance, at least). People aren't going to understand the details, and are going to be susceptible to any sort of argument about what scary fate might await them on government insurance.
Don't get cocky about the GOP's support. The Republicans in 2016 benefitted from 25 years of smearing Hillary and the white working class conveniently blamed NAFTA while ignoring its economic benefits. It was easy to pin the blame on Hillary with her husband's trade legacy and her own international expertise.
They're not going to have that anymore, plus Trump will turn out to be and albatross in the long run.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein "I don't stand by anything." - Trump “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867 “It is the impractical things in this tumultuous hell-scape of a world that matter most. A book, a name, chicken soup. They help us remember that, even in our darkest hour, life is still to be savored.” - Poe, Altered Carbon
A lot of what the Democrats have to do to ensure more of a long-term shot at having power in D.C. is change the political structures - fight back on gerrymandering (depending in part on how the SCOTUS decision goes), fight back on voting restrictions, and compete everywhere at the state and local level now and in 2020. Currently the Republicans have an estimated +7 vote advantage in the House (that is, if the Democrats win the overall House vote by 7 points, they would have about a 50% shot at taking the majority). They have a good shot at beating that in 2018 (though it's far from certain), but they're not going to be able to consistently do that. Some of that advantage is due to geographic sorting (which I think there isn't much that they can do about realistically), but they need to at least trim that.
Zarathud wrote: ↑Fri Mar 16, 2018 1:24 pm
Don't get cocky about the GOP's support. The Republicans in 2016 benefitted from 25 years of smearing Hillary and the white working class conveniently blamed NAFTA while ignoring its economic benefits. It was easy to pin the blame on Hillary with her husband's trade legacy and her own international expertise.
They're not going to have that anymore, plus Trump will turn out to be and albatross in the long run.
That was less my point. People (OK, not in this thread) have said how much millennials are leaning towards Democrats and against Republicans, and how millennials are now a bigger population than baby boomers and how theyre going to be this big new force they are. And they have the potential to be, but it doesn't mean a thing if baby boomers are 14 times as likely to go out and vote.
Last edited by Defiant on Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Defiant wrote: ↑Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:16 pm
That was less my point. People (OK, not in this thread) have said how much millennials are leaning towards Democrats and against Republicans, and how millennials are now a bigger population than baby boomers. And they are, but it doesn't mean a thing if baby boomers are 14 times as likely to go out and vote.
Voting in primaries is almost always much lower than in general elections.
Defiant wrote: ↑Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:16 pm
That was less my point. People (OK, not in this thread) have said how much millennials are leaning towards Democrats and against Republicans, and how millennials are now a bigger population than baby boomers. And they are, but it doesn't mean a thing if baby boomers are 14 times as likely to go out and vote.
Voting in primaries is almost always much lower than in general elections.
Yes, but the Millenials voter turnout in this primary (in Chicago) was 3%, while the 54-74 age turnout was 42%. One would presume that primary related voter apathy would be somewhat consistent across age brackets, but not in this case.
Defiant wrote: ↑Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:16 pm
That was less my point. People (OK, not in this thread) have said how much millennials are leaning towards Democrats and against Republicans, and how millennials are now a bigger population than baby boomers. And they are, but it doesn't mean a thing if baby boomers are 14 times as likely to go out and vote.
I was more referring to your statement about people depending on millennials (turning out to vote) to "save us" (I assume from Trump). Point is that there's no real indication that we need to depend on turnout exactly to save us.
gilraen wrote: ↑Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:28 pm
Voting in primaries is almost always much lower than in general elections.
Oh, absolutely (though we are seeing higher than normal turnout in all of these elections, likely because Democrats are enthusiastic). The issue here is the relative turnout between the different ages. Yes, I expect we'll see much higher turnout among millennials come November, but I also expect turnout among older voting groups is *also* going to go up.
Millenials, when it comes to turning out to vote, are no different than other generations were when they were the new kids on the block. People really should start voting in all elections, including primaries. Even if there's no one you're excited for, or even if it's a done deal or even if it's an election for dogcatcher. It's a good habit to have, and when you don't go out to vote, it completely entitles me to gripe about you. Preventing me from doing so should be more than enough reason to go vote, if you need another.
65-and-olders support Trump by a significant margin, so I'll blame them long before I blame Millennials for the electorate undermining democratic norms.
We could have a thread about "Decrepit Boomers and their Rage Space," but I suppose it would be all about Fox News.
Last edited by Holman on Wed Mar 21, 2018 7:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
To be fair, with Trump as an example of democracy (and, of course, the potential risk of interference), technocracy is looking pretty damned good.
That said, I would prefer technocracy within a democracy (eg, experts in the positions of advisors and other career civil servants and appointed positions, and leaning towards voting for the politicians with more experience and a better track record for the elected positions).
Last edited by Defiant on Thu Mar 22, 2018 9:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
As the article says, there's some grumbling in GOP circles about the pick, in large part because she was a democrat until fairly recently. She's going to run in the special election to fill the rest of Cochran's term, along with professional tea partier / nutjob Chris McDaniel (and others).
This appointment is about step #3 in the 53 part causal chain for a democrat to get elected to the Senate from Mississippi. Mississippi has a jungle primary, so top two finishers in November advance to a run-off in December if no one gets >50% (likely). Republican dissatisfaction with Hyde-Smith could easily lead to McDaniel and the lead Democrat to be the top 2. Then the run-off will be between the Democrat (who is a serious guy) and a lunatic. Now, at least McDaniel isn't an accused child molester, but at the same time Mississippi is solidly Republican but not super incredibly Republican like Alabama, so...
Also of note, Hyde-Smith will be the first woman Senator from Mississippi.
I am aware that the leaders of the party don't actually want the nazi.
But couldn't muster up anyone else? I'm sure there a real good excuse.
I mean, I think the excuse is that the district is super democratic, and no one serious wanted to spend their time and money getting massacred in a super democratic district in a super democratic year.
I guess what I'm not sure about is whether there's anything they can do to keep him from running as a Republican.
I am aware that the leaders of the party don't actually want the nazi.
But couldn't muster up anyone else? I'm sure there a real good excuse.
It's really a lost cause there. The district has been D forever, and has been represented by a moderate/conservative Democrat to boot, so there was little room for a legit R to gain a foothold.
After they realized what happened, the R party actually campaigned that people should not vote for him to try to save some face, and they say they're going to run a candidate as an independent in the general election. There's a lot to criticize the Republican party for, but this is pretty low on the list.
(In retrospect they really should have run a moderate R, because the incumbent got primaried by a liberal/progressive D who ran a very tight race. Had she won, they might have been able to get some traction with a moderate R candidate.)
I am aware that the leaders of the party don't actually want the nazi.
But couldn't muster up anyone else? I'm sure there a real good excuse.
I mean, I think the excuse is that the district is super democratic, and no one serious wanted to spend their time and money getting massacred in a super democratic district in a super democratic year.
I guess what I'm not sure about is whether there's anything they can do to keep him from running as a Republican.
They could have tried to get someone to run just to block him. He's been blocked 5 times in the past, I think, but you still have to find someone willing to be the sacrificial lamb.
I mean, they could have run anyone on the I'm not a Nazi platform to avoid the optics. Yeah, sacrificial lamb and all but at least you wouldn't have a god damn Nazi as your party rep. I know, I know. Crazy talk.
tjg_marantz wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 12:28 pm
I mean, they could have run anyone on the I'm not a Nazi platform to avoid the optics. Yeah, sacrificial lamb and all but at least you wouldn't have a god damn Nazi as your party rep. I know, I know. Crazy talk.
Right, but someone has to be willing to actually do it.
There are many local races where an entrenched incumbent runs unopposed. What deters a grifter from jumping into the opposing primary in the hopes of profiting from some fund-raising?
I know it has happened, but it seems to be less common than it could be.
Holman wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 1:01 pm
There are many local races where an entrenched incumbent runs unopposed. What deters a grifter from jumping into the opposing primary in the hopes of profiting from some fund-raising?
I know it has happened, but it seems to be less common than it could be.
I don't think you get money just for running - the IL Republican party is not providing any money or fundraising assistance of any kind to this guy. In fact, they're spending money campaigning against their own candidate.
The problem with the Illinois Republican party is that (a) they din't have many leaders and (b) the party activists care only for their pet issue(s). Governor Rauner is so ineffective that his opponent called him a "traitor" to conservative values and nearly beat him in the primary.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein "I don't stand by anything." - Trump “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867 “It is the impractical things in this tumultuous hell-scape of a world that matter most. A book, a name, chicken soup. They help us remember that, even in our darkest hour, life is still to be savored.” - Poe, Altered Carbon
I mean, I think the excuse is that the district is super democratic, and no one serious wanted to spend their time and money getting massacred in a super democratic district in a super democratic year.
It's +6 Democratic, and Nate Silver said it's the 30-something most conservative Democratically held district. While it would be a challenge to win, and maybe a big stretch to win during a Democratic year, it's possible that circumstances align to make it more possible to win (eg, if a moderate Republican won the primary, and the Democrats had ended up going for the more leftwing candidate rather than the moderate).
tjg_marantz wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 12:28 pm
I mean, they could have run anyone on the I'm not a Nazi platform to avoid the optics. Yeah, sacrificial lamb and all but at least you wouldn't have a god damn Nazi as your party rep. I know, I know. Crazy talk.
Well, to be fair, there would be something worse than a Nazi running unopposed in a primary and winning the candidacy, and that is the party puts up a credible sane candidate to oppose the Nazi and that candidate ends up losing. And given the current state of the Republican party, I don't think I would be shocked if that does happen.
Holman wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 1:01 pm
There are many local races where an entrenched incumbent runs unopposed. What deters a grifter from jumping into the opposing primary in the hopes of profiting from some fund-raising?
Don't you have to report fundraising and spending to the FEC?
Zarathud wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 2:00 pm
The problem with the Illinois Republican party is that (a) they din't have many leaders and (b) the party activists care only for their pet issue(s). Governor Rauner is so ineffective that his opponent called him a "traitor" to conservative values and nearly beat him in the primary.
In introducing the challenger before she gave her concession speech, one of her donors (?) referred to Rauner as "despicable". Hardly the kind mend the fences and come back together moment that you typically see at the end of a primary. I wouldn't be surprised to see a far-right independent challenge (whether from Ives or someone else), even thought that would essentially hand the governorship to Pritzker.
Rauner basically got elected because he wasn't Pat Quinn (who was perceived to be ineffective and had a lot of Blago baggage, even if the two only had a working relationship in reality) and because he promised to ignore typical GOP social issues. That's the model of the Illinois Republican that can still work (it worked for a bit for Mark Kirk, even if he lost his seat in the last election). That got a lot of moderate Ds in Chicago and the collar counties to go for him.
Now he's got a record of being every bit as ineffective as Pat Quinn was, and he's demonstrated a remarkable lack of ability to lead a state. I think his only real hope is that scandals trip up Pritzker (either something more substantive on the Blago tapes or something with his financial dealings). I think if either Kennedy or Biss had got the nomination for the Ds, you could call this race over already.
I mean, I think the excuse is that the district is super democratic, and no one serious wanted to spend their time and money getting massacred in a super democratic district in a super democratic year.
It's +6 Democratic, and Nate Silver said it's the 30-something most conservative Democratically held district. While it would be a challenge to win, and maybe a big stretch to win during a Democratic year, it's possible that circumstances align to make it more possible to win (eg, if a moderate Republican won the primary, and the Democrats had ended up going for the more leftwing candidate rather than the moderate).
So "super" democratic is an exaggeration, but it's 2018, so given other results it would be pretty shocking if the Democrats didn't win it by double-digits even if they were running against Jesus.
Speaking of that district, a Sanders-endorsed candidate narrowly lost the Democratic primary because... the primary was open rather than closed.
During the 2016 Democratic presidential nominating contest, it became an article of faith among Bernie Sanders supporters that “closed” primaries that prevented non-registered-Democrats from participating were a key part of the “rigging” of the process in favor of Hillary Clinton
It is somewhat embarrassing to Berniecrats, then, that an open primary in Illinois may have materially contributed to the defeat of their very favorite insurgent candidate of the young 2018 election season
But what in the end may have saved the incumbent was crossover voting from Republicans, particularly anti-abortion Republicans, as Ryan Grim reports
A Wisconsin judge Thursday ordered Gov. Scott Walker to call special elections to fill a pair of legislative seats vacated by fellow Republicans, handing a victory to Democrats who have pushed for the elections to be held.
A national Democratic group led by former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder filed the lawsuit on behalf of voters who argued they were disenfranchised by Walker’s decision not to call elections to fill the vacancies that occurred on Dec. 29.
The case turned on interpretation of state law about when special elections must be called.
The law states elections must be called if they occur before the second Tuesday in May in an election year. Walker argued that only covers vacancies that happen after Jan. 1 of the same year as the election, and since these happened on Dec. 29, 2017, he’s under no requirement to act. Plaintiffs contend the requirement applies to vacancies at any point prior to the second Tuesday of May in the election year, not just the same year as the election.
Attorney Elisabeth Frost called Walker’s arguments “illogical.”
“That is textbook voter disenfranchisement,” Frost said. “I can’t imagine a more clear case of disenfranchisement of the right to vote.”
