2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[Solecismic]

Who knows what will work. I find it discomforting that I'm strongly considering voting Republican for president for the first time in my life.

I tend toward Jefferson's "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" mentality. Particularly when it comes to the First Amendment. I think the Republicans get that for the most part. I also think they get a raw deal on race relations - no one party should take the blame for the fact that Jefferson's words didn't apply to all Americans for the majority of our country's history.

If Trump weren't around, I think we'd be looking at a different road map for the Republicans. The same way Al Sharpton helped elect George Bush, Trump is the Democrats' best friend right now. The rest of the Republicans need to repudiate what he's saying. At least more effectively.

The most disturbing piece of this puzzle is that surveys indicate that almost half of people under 35 think the First Amendment should be removed or significantly altered. In the "old" days, older people worried that younger people were too wild and free. Today, older people worry that younger people are too fragile and have no sense of humor.

I don't think it's as simple as positions on a right/left scale or a white/black thing. Republicans are looking for someone who can articulate a strong platform where there's equal opportunity and a government that knows when to get out of the way.

Trump appeals to only part of that. No one else has a monopoly on any of the pieces. Cruz is probably the "best" conservative, but I'm not sure he wants to move forward. Rubio paints the best pictures and exudes a positive attitude, but I'm not sure how he'll govern.

I'm not sure what I'll do, but I am certain that this entire election cycle has already been negatively affected by the reality-television host whose grasp of the issues seems unusually shallow - even for today's world.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by revrew

Perhaps it is.

But then, after McCain and Romney, nominating a moderate would be tripling down on a losing strategy.

I don't get this argument. The country voted for someone on the left and you think the answer is to go farther to the right? The farther you go to the left or right the less likely you are to win a general election.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I tend toward Jefferson's "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" mentality. Particularly when it comes to the First Amendment. I think the Republicans get that for the most part.

Um. What?

[nol]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Um. What?

He means the "I can say whatever I want without being criticized" version of the First Amendment, not the one that is theoretically meant to prohibit peaceably assembled protesters from being arrested or government funding from being withheld for religious reasons.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I tend toward Jefferson's "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" mentality.

That's the thing that really makes me think I'm living in bizarro world. GOP is purportedly for increased personal freedoms, but whenever I look at actual voting records on issues I care about, it seems the GOP is always voting in stark contrast to that ideal (NSA / FISA / patriot act / military funding / abortion all come to mind).

[ISiddiqui]

Don't forget about LGBT rights or drug issues (falls under the pursuit of happiness as well).

[Solecismic]

And that has been my long-term problem with the Republican party. But I think the Democrats are turning too far toward totalitarianism these days. So I'm left hoping that the side of the Republicans that went too far in that direction in the past doesn't go that route if given power. I don't trust Cruz.

If someone had told me 25 years ago that I was seriously considering a Republican for president, I would have laughed. I've given up hoping for a moderate third party.

Anyway, that's as much as I'm going to say on this issue. It's tiring dealing with a left that genuinely thinks that anyone who doesn't agree on everything is a bad person.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Anyway, that's as much as I'm going to say on this issue. It's tiring dealing with a left that genuinely thinks that anyone who doesn't agree on everything is a bad person.

From the 4 responses about your original post, which of them has anything to do with anyone thinking you're a bad person?

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

That's the thing that really makes me think I'm living in bizarro world. GOP is purportedly for increased personal freedoms, but whenever I look at actual voting records on issues I care about, it seems the GOP is always voting in stark contrast to that ideal (NSA / FISA / patriot act / military funding / abortion all come to mind).

The above is what has pretty much driven me away from voting for Republican candidates.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Don't forget about LGBT rights or drug issues (falls under the pursuit of happiness as well).

Well I guess chasing the dragon is one form of pursuing happiness.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

And that has been my long-term problem with the Republican party. But I think the Democrats are turning too far toward totalitarianism these days. So I'm left hoping that the side of the Republicans that went too far in that direction in the past doesn't go that route if given power.

Um what, indeed.

Let's parse this. The GOP has gone too far in curtailing personal freedoms, for Jim. Yet he worries that Democrats are trending in that same direction (presumably because they haven't disbanded the NSA?). So, uh, he'll vote Republican and hope they don't do the things they campaigned on. Which is somehow better than voting for the Democrats who might do something they didn't campaign on.

I think I have it.


Let's say I frequent, over the course of a few years, two restaurants. One, let's call it the Grand Olde Restaurante, started off OK, but steadily the quality of the meals got worse and worse. One, let's call it the Big Tent Emporium, has had, in general decent food, with the occasional stinker here and there. On your average night, at this point, am I better off going to the first, and hope they buck their multi-year trend towards suckage, or the other, where I'm more likely to have a decent meal? For the sake of argument, let's say there are only two restaurants in town.

[cuervo72]

Ooh, I had that logic puzzle in elementary school. Choose the barber with the bad haircut.

[JPhillips]

First the came for the Canadian yoga instructors and I said nothing...

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't get this argument. The country voted for someone on the left and you think the answer is to go farther to the right? The farther you go to the left or right the less likely you are to win a general election.

Democrats are pushing left of a platform that's lost them the House, the Senate, and 60%+ of state legislatures. Both sides bases are just sitting in echo chambers discussing how to pass their platform instead of discussing where to compromise to actually capture the middle and represent the majority.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Who knows what will work. I find it discomforting that I'm strongly considering voting Republican for president for the first time in my life.

So...is this a "I voted 3rd party for the last 20 years thing" or a "I voted for Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry and Barack Obama but Hillary or Bernie are a bridge too far" thing?

I tend toward Jefferson's "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" mentality. Particularly when it comes to the First Amendment.

The thing is, as others have pointed out, the First is about government restriction of speech. That's different from the media, protestors, whoever saying HEY BOB YOU'RE A JERK FOR SAYING THAT AND YOU SHOULDN'T SAY THAT. Or boycotts. Or whatever. A newspaper getting shut down for criticizing a piece of legislation is a First Amendment issue. Someone getting called to account by the rest of society for saying something ill-considered isn't, frankly.

I think the Republicans get that for the most part. I also think they get a raw deal on race relations

They really don't, though. The modern Republicans bear little resemblance to the early days of the GOP. There are reasons for that change, but the reason for the shit the Republicans get for race relations today is almost entirely because of the things modern Republicans say and do with regard to racial politics. The Southern Strategy kind of fucked them over on that. If they don't spend the last fifty years pandering to the white rural vote (with everything that implies), they'd probably be near as Teflon with the black community as Democrats are today. They'd be able to call themselves the party of Lincoln without people laughing behind their hands.

But when you say the sort of things Republicans have spent two generations saying and pursue the sort of legislation Republicans have spent two generations pursuing, you can't really claim to have gotten a raw deal. You did it to yourself. Pete Wilson killed the Republican Party in California with his support of Prop 187. Yes, Arnold Schwarzenegger was a "Republican," but he wasn't a Republican anybody in Orange County would have recognized.

no one party should take the blame for the fact that Jefferson's words didn't apply to all Americans for the majority of our country's history.

While true, that also doesn't have much to do with whether Republicans get a raw deal on race politics. Of course, the question of whether Jefferson's words apply to all Americans in more than a lip-service fashion even today is probably questionable. There's the ideal and there's the reality and we've spent 230+ years trying to close that gap. We aren't there yet.

If Trump weren't around, I think we'd be looking at a different road map for the Republicans. The same way Al Sharpton helped elect George Bush, Trump is the Democrats' best friend right now. The rest of the Republicans need to repudiate what he's saying. At least more effectively.

How? How do you repudiate, as someone running for President, the sort of things that the base is eating up with a spoon? And that's ANOTHER reason why Republicans don't get a raw deal on race politics - when the things he says resonate that strongly with the base, that's not an accident. That's not those goshdarn MSM liberals pushing a narrative. If Republicans were taking undeserved crap, Trump would probably not be leading the primary pack right now.

The most disturbing piece of this puzzle is that surveys indicate that almost half of people under 35 think the First Amendment should be removed or significantly altered. In the "old" days, older people worried that younger people were too wild and free. Today, older people worry that younger people are too fragile and have no sense of humor.

40% is a sizeable plurality, but the other takeaway from that is that 60% of people under 35 don't feel that way. And, y'know, there are an awful lot of bad ideas that you can find 30-40% support for in the general population. Even at his low point, George W. Bush still had 30% of the country behind him.

But I guess the better question is WHY do 40% of those under 35 think curtailing or removing the First Amendment is a good idea? What is it about the speech they hear from the 36+ crowd that makes them go "you know, we need the government to step in and regulate certain speech"? Whether or not government supression of "offensive" speech is a good idea (it's not), it's probably worth investigating what the root cause behind that mindset is.

I don't think it's as simple as positions on a right/left scale or a white/black thing. Republicans are looking for someone who can articulate a strong platform where there's equal opportunity and a government that knows when to get out of the way.

That's kind of an idealized notion of Republicans. "Equal opportunity" doesn't exist when capitalism is unregulated. It's hard to argue honestly that everybody has equal opportunity to scale Everest when some people start 100 feet from the peak, others start from the bottom of the mountain, and still others can't even afford basic climbing gear.

And, y'know, I say that as someone who grew up Republican and was nearly 30 before he voted for a Democrat for so much as dogcatcher. What the party idealizes and what policies they actually pursue are pretty fundamentally incompatible with one another.

Trump appeals to only part of that. No one else has a monopoly on any of the pieces. Cruz is probably the "best" conservative, but I'm not sure he wants to move forward. Rubio paints the best pictures and exudes a positive attitude, but I'm not sure how he'll govern.

I don't think "shut down the government if it doesn't do what I want" really counts as being a good conservative.

I'm not sure what I'll do, but I am certain that this entire election cycle has already been negatively affected by the reality-television host whose grasp of the issues seems unusually shallow - even for today's world.

No argument with that.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Democrats are pushing left of a platform that's lost them the House, the Senate, and 60%+ of state legislatures. Both sides bases are just sitting in echo chambers discussing how to pass their platform instead of discussing where to compromise to actually capture the middle and represent the majority.

And again, Obama was willing to cut SS and Medicare and the GOP said no. Sure people on blogs are extreme everywhere, but only one party refuses to compromise on legislation.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

And again, Obama was willing to cut SS and Medicare and the GOP said no. Sure people on blogs are extreme everywhere, but only one party refuses to compromise on legislation.

We're talking about campaign rhetoric, and Hillary is running vs Bernie Sanders. But maybe that is part of the problem - people just assume that no one will actually be able to implement their policies so we don't even question, let alone actually hold politicians accountable for, ridiculous campaign promises.

[nol]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

The thing is, as others have pointed out, the First is about government restriction of speech. That's different from the media, protestors, whoever saying HEY BOB YOU'RE A JERK FOR SAYING THAT AND YOU SHOULDN'T SAY THAT. Or boycotts. Or whatever. A newspaper getting shut down for criticizing a piece of legislation is a First Amendment issue. Someone getting called to account by the rest of society for saying something ill-considered isn't, frankly.

Yes, and somehow it feels like the majority of this type of sentiment is based on some type of "kids these days just don't have a sense of humor" rhetoric.

News flash: with the proliferation of the Internet, people 1) have more contact with minority viewpoints than they wouldn't have had otherwise and see that several types of jokes considered harmless in a vacuum perpetuate stereotypes that result in very real instances of discrimination (whereas a generation or two ago these types of people would have been afraid to speak up for fear of retaliation) and 2) realize that >95% of this type of humor is just unoriginal, hackish work.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

investigating what the root cause behind that mindset is.

Idiots raised by idiots in many cases. And a great endorsement for not only birth control but retroactive birth control.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Idiots raised by idiots in many cases. And a great endorsement for not only birth control but retroactive birth control.

A great description for the current southern dominated, Republican ideology.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Democrats are pushing left of a platform that's lost them the House, the Senate, and 60%+ of state legislatures. Both sides bases are just sitting in echo chambers discussing how to pass their platform instead of discussing where to compromise to actually capture the middle and represent the majority.

That's kind of a problematic statement. First of all, two of those three things are strongly influenced by census results. Guess who stayed home in a census year? Guess who got to redraw state legislature district maps and House district maps as a result?

That's not about ideology or platforms. That's about being either straight fucking lazy or self-immolating pouters, depending on how you want to describe Democrats staying home in 2010. Abandon the vote in a census year, as Democrats did in 2010, and you can literally win 60% of the ballots cast in your state and have that turn into 40% representation in the state legislature.

That, uh, is what we have in Wisconsin. Nearly 60% of the ballots cast in 2014 went to Democrats, but Republicans won 60% of the seats up for election. That's not ideology. That's structural. Is that an extreme example? I don't know. You'd have to ask someone who lives in another state where Democrats lost control of the apparatus in the last five years, see what things look like for them there.

But that's 2/3 of the picture. The other 1/3 is that Democrats lost a LOT of seats in the Senate in 2010, and all of those seats are up for re-election in 2016. And some of them (looking at you, Ron Johnson) are probably not going to remain in Republican hands.

Again...all three of the things you're pointing at can be traced back pretty easily to 2010, rather than to any specific dissatisfaction with Democratic ideology.

[Ryche]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

That's kind of a problematic statement. First of all, two of those three things are strongly influenced by census results. Guess who stayed home in a census year? Guess who got to redraw state legislature district maps and House district maps as a result?

That's not about ideology or platforms. That's about being either straight fucking lazy or self-immolating pouters, depending on how you want to describe Democrats staying home in 2010. Abandon the vote in a census year, as Democrats did in 2010, and you can literally win 60% of the ballots cast in your state and have that turn into 40% representation in the state legislature.

That, uh, is what we have in Wisconsin. Nearly 60% of the ballots cast in 2014 went to Democrats, but Republicans won 60% of the seats up for election. That's not ideology. That's structural. Is that an extreme example? I don't know. You'd have to ask someone who lives in another state where Democrats lost control of the apparatus in the last five years, see what things look like for them there.

But that's 2/3 of the picture. The other 1/3 is that Democrats lost a LOT of seats in the Senate in 2010, and all of those seats are up for re-election in 2016. And some of them (looking at you, Ron Johnson) are probably not going to remain in Republican hands.

Again...all three of the things you're pointing at can be traced back pretty easily to 2010, rather than to any specific dissatisfaction with Democratic ideology.

A big part of that too though is just the patterns of where people live. When you have inner cities that are 75% Democrat while suburbs and rural areas are probably 55% Republican you actually have to draw some crazy lines to make the districts properly reflect the population.

[albionmoonlight]

Redistricting is too important to be left to people: http://rangevoting.org/SplitLR.html

This method has a slight GOP bias because it has a slight rural bias. But it is at least completely objective. I can live with a slight GOP bias.

[flere-imsaho]

National Proportional Representation for the House. No districts.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

We're talking about campaign rhetoric, and Hillary is running vs Bernie Sanders. But maybe that is part of the problem - people just assume that no one will actually be able to implement their policies so we don't even question, let alone actually hold politicians accountable for, ridiculous campaign promises.

I think there is also the secondary consideration. Presidential candidates can issue their plans, but they also have to pass it through Congress, which may be dominated by the opposition party. So the campaign promise may not go through, or may be watered down. That has to be somewhat taken into account, I think.

[stevew]

Look at how f'd up PA is. 5 vs 13. Everyone wins by a ton. Yet we've voted Democrat in every national election in awhile and typically state wide races lean democrat.

[cartman]

That's why I've been saying for quite a while that there should be some GIS method that does something to carve up districts just based on population densities and geographic considerations only. Take out voting history, racial info, financial info, etc. Come up with a few maps, and pick from one of those. It is hard to introduce bias when you get to that level of abstraction. I'm not looking to create 50/50 districts, but ones that when you look at them make better sense than the tortured ones that get created today.

[Arles]

A point I haven't seen made very often is to question the logic on a high democrat turnout for Hillary or Bernie. Obama got a ton of minority support, but also got a huge young person vote. He was hip, an engaging person and gave people the feeling they were doing something great for the future of our country. I can't see Hillary or Bernie engendering that level of support.

While I do think there are fewer "whites" to support the GOP, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Democrat turnout dipped more than the white % drop since the last election.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Arles

A point I haven't seen made very often is to question the logic on a high democrat turnout for Hillary or Bernie. Obama got a ton of minority support, but also got a huge young person vote. He was hip, an engaging person and gave people the feeling they were doing something great for the future of our country. I can't see Hillary or Bernie engendering that level of support.

While I do think there are fewer "whites" to support the GOP, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Democrat turnout dipped more than the white % drop since the last election.

I think it's been questioned, though it probably hasn't been as prominent because the GOP race is sucking up all the oxygen in the news cycle. I mean, I think we've even talked about it here.

Turnout absolutely has to be a concern for Democrats. Obama drove very large turnout both through a) a good GOTV operation and b) being an inspirational candidate. I'm sure Clinton can duplicate the first, but it seems unlikely she can do the second. The best bet, it seems to me, to drive turnout among Democrats would actually be fear, which will be easier if someone like Trump or Cruz gets the GOP nomination.

[flere-imsaho]

FiveThirtyEight is making the point that the GOP race is still very much up for grabs in a large part because the electorate doesn't really start paying attention (and making up their minds) until about 1-2 weeks before Iowa. The idea here is, as it has been since the beginning, that Trump will eventually falter under scrutiny, when that scrutiny actually arrives.

The anti-Trump argument is that he's probably reached his ceiling. Sure, he might pick up some folks from Carson & Cruz when/if they drop out, but those supporters will likely go to others as well. When the field finally consolidates, one of these guys is going to go past him. Plus, he might shed some supporters when either a) some take a closer look and realize they can't really bring themselves to vote for him or b) he says something off the cuff that inadvertently ostracizes some of his current supporters.

The pro-Trump argument is that, well, if you look at RCP's graph of the 2012 GOP nomination, and their graph for the 2016 nomination, you know whose line looks most like Trump's? Romney. I know, I was surprised too. Of course Trump & Romney are two completely different candidates. Moderates aren't going to go to Trump, and other voters whose preferred candidate aren't necessarily going to go with him as the "hold my nose" option. Plus, as per the above, while the race may eventually consolidate around one candidate, the question is when? Rubio, Bush & Cruz all have enough monetary support to run well into the primary season. Carson could conceivably get votes with a shoestring operation, and if he's in it for publicity, there's no real reason for him to drop out. And Paul could go just as far as his Dad did in 2008, with a solid core of support to run the mechanics in each State.


My current prediction is that we see maybe only one dropout before Iowa, at this point, but that after NH the field narrows to Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Paul and maybe Carson. At that point the first four all have, theoretically, solid bases within the GOP, respectively: anti-establishment, evangelical, establishment, libertarian. This could allow all four to go deep into primary season.

If the GOP establishment really doesn't want Trump, however, their best bet (besides trying to smear him away), would be to get the other candidates to bow out in support of a solid middle candidate like Rubio. But can we really see Cruz or Paul really striking a deal with Establishment GOP?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I think it's been questioned, though it probably hasn't been as prominent because the GOP race is sucking up all the oxygen in the news cycle. I mean, I think we've even talked about it here.

Turnout absolutely has to be a concern for Democrats. Obama drove very large turnout both through a) a good GOTV operation and b) being an inspirational candidate. I'm sure Clinton can duplicate the first, but it seems unlikely she can do the second. The best bet, it seems to me, to drive turnout among Democrats would actually be fear, which will be easier if someone like Trump or Cruz gets the GOP nomination.

I do think that Hillary Clinton won't make the same mistake that Al Gore did, namely running away from the charismatic 2 term President he's trying to succeed. I think Clinton will make sure that both, Obama and Bill Clinton are on the campaign trail for her and run on the successes of both. That should help matters in terms of turnout (and yes, help with GOTV based on 'fear' - 'you liked what Obama did, well do you want it reversed' type stuff)

[Arles]

I don't see Paul being much of a factor moving forward. He's been right with Kasich in the 3-5% range. I expect that it will come down to Rubio and Cruz once the dust settles. Rubio seems like a more palatable option to moderates as Cruz seems a little too preachy. Trump will play a role, but I can't see him being a legit option in 6 months time.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

If the GOP establishment really doesn't want Trump, however, their best bet (besides trying to smear him away), would be to get the other candidates to bow out in support of a solid middle candidate like Rubio. But can we really see Cruz or Paul really striking a deal with Establishment GOP?

I think if Paul doesn't rise much after NH, he'd be willing to 'play ball' and back Rubio. Cruz may try to go as long as he can.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Arles

A point I haven't seen made very often is to question the logic on a high democrat turnout for Hillary or Bernie. Obama got a ton of minority support, but also got a huge young person vote. He was hip, an engaging person and gave people the feeling they were doing something great for the future of our country. I can't see Hillary or Bernie engendering that level of support.

While I do think there are fewer "whites" to support the GOP, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Democrat turnout dipped more than the white % drop since the last election.

Three comments:

1) Obama didn't outperform typical Democratic support from the youth vote so much as he drove more of it to the polls. And even when that youth vote dipped in 2012, he still won comfortably. Hillary or Bernie may not get 2008-level youth support, but they also may not need it.

2) You might be surprised what level of support Bernie Sanders would get from the 18-25 crowd in the general election. I mean, he may or may not do as well as Hillary Clinton with any OTHER Democratic demographic. I'm not saying he wins the general election if nominated. But I think his rhetoric on college debt would turn into 18-25 turnout that would surprise you.

3) I'm not sure relying on youth and minority turnout to dovetail with the GOP pushing all the white voters to the polls is a terribly viable election strategy. Remember, a lot of the people who are the most pissed at Obama and his policies are in states which are reliably red in the first place. You don't get more electoral votes in Texas for whipping an extra 10% of the white population to the polls.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think there is also the secondary consideration. Presidential candidates can issue their plans, but they also have to pass it through Congress, which may be dominated by the opposition party. So the campaign promise may not go through, or may be watered down. That has to be somewhat taken into account, I think.

That's kind of my point though. Hillary and Bernie argue about how best to expand Obamacare when we already know there will be a Republican majority who will block either plan. Nobody is stepping up to say "This is all nice in theory, but why are we even talking about theoretical plans in a perfect world, when instead we should be talking about how to appeal to more voters?" How can something qualify as a "campaign promise" when it's a non-starter? (And that's a two-way street - no way Trump's give ID cards to all Muslims plan would ever fly, but people still let him say it.)

Originally Posted by SackAttack

That's kind of a problematic statement. First of all, two of those three things are strongly influenced by census results. Guess who stayed home in a census year? Guess who got to redraw state legislature district maps and House district maps as a result?

That's not about ideology or platforms. That's about being either straight fucking lazy or self-immolating pouters, depending on how you want to describe Democrats staying home in 2010. Abandon the vote in a census year, as Democrats did in 2010, and you can literally win 60% of the ballots cast in your state and have that turn into 40% representation in the state legislature.

That, uh, is what we have in Wisconsin. Nearly 60% of the ballots cast in 2014 went to Democrats, but Republicans won 60% of the seats up for election. That's not ideology. That's structural. Is that an extreme example? I don't know. You'd have to ask someone who lives in another state where Democrats lost control of the apparatus in the last five years, see what things look like for them there.

But that's 2/3 of the picture. The other 1/3 is that Democrats lost a LOT of seats in the Senate in 2010, and all of those seats are up for re-election in 2016. And some of them (looking at you, Ron Johnson) are probably not going to remain in Republican hands.

Again...all three of the things you're pointing at can be traced back pretty easily to 2010, rather than to any specific dissatisfaction with Democratic ideology.

It's been brought up and discussed over in the Democratic Primary thread. Just look at the map in this article Democrats are in denial. Their party is actually in deep trouble. - Vox (specific map here - https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/n1H...tion-GIF.0.gif) of what happened in the 2014 elections at the state level. Control of at least one half of the state legislature flipped from Democratic to Republican control in 9 different states, 0 went the other way, and Republicans already controlled the majority before that election. Washington, Maine, Minnesota and New York now have split legislatures. This isn't something you can blame on re-districting. It IS platform and ideology-based.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

It's been brought up and discussed over in the Democratic Primary thread.

I'm going to respond to this in the other thread (when I can find it).

[wustin]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

2) You might be surprised what level of support Bernie Sanders would get from the 18-25 crowd in the general election. I mean, he may or may not do as well as Hillary Clinton with any OTHER Democratic demographic. I'm not saying he wins the general election if nominated. But I think his rhetoric on college debt would turn into 18-25 turnout that would surprise you.

That's all he ever does. Everyone knows (including Bernie) that he isn't going to get the nomination over Hillary. So what he's doing is rounding up the young voters for her next year.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by wustin

That's all he ever does. Everyone knows (including Bernie) that he isn't going to get the nomination over Hillary. So what he's doing is rounding up the young voters for her next year.

Why can't he win? Right now he's polling better than what Obama did on Nov 25 2007.

And why is this thread turning into a discussion about democrats?

[wustin]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Why can't he win? Right now he's polling better than what Obama did on Nov 25 2007.

And why is this thread turning into a discussion about democrats?

And he's getting his ass kicked by Hillary in those polls.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by wustin

And he's getting his ass kicked by Hillary in those polls.

So was Obama. IIRC.

[Ben E Lou]

Donald Trump mocks reporter’s disability | myfox8.com

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Donald Trump mocks reporter’s disability | myfox8.com

I keep reminding myself that it's still very early in the primary process and polls today have very little to do with what they will look like when most people start paying more attention.

Howard Dean undid his candidacy with only one scream. But it wasn't until the nation was tuned in. Most people don't want a president who doesn't behave with dignity. Now Trump as the head of the RNC... that would be interesting.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

So was Obama. IIRC.

YRC

http://www.gallup.com/poll/102799/cl...tion-race.aspx

[albionmoonlight]

This may be a function of people still not paying attention. Or it may be a function of folks's preferences being more baked-in than in the past, but it looks like the Paris attacks has no effect on the GOP race, which surprises me. I am not sure what effect it would have been expected to have, but no effect surprises me:

The Paris Attacks Had Zero Impact on the Republican Race | Mother Jones

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

This may be a function of people still not paying attention. Or it may be a function of folks's preferences being more baked-in than in the past, but it looks like the Paris attacks has no effect on the GOP race, which surprises me. I am not sure what effect it would have been expected to have, but no effect surprises me:

The Paris Attacks Had Zero Impact on the Republican Race | Mother Jones

just because candidates were on a particular trajectory before the attacks and continued that trajectory after the attacks does not mean the attacks had no effect.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

That's kind of my point though. Hillary and Bernie argue about how best to expand Obamacare when we already know there will be a Republican majority who will block either plan. Nobody is stepping up to say "This is all nice in theory, but why are we even talking about theoretical plans in a perfect world, when instead we should be talking about how to appeal to more voters?" How can something qualify as a "campaign promise" when it's a non-starter? (And that's a two-way street - no way Trump's give ID cards to all Muslims plan would ever fly, but people still let him say it.)

It's been brought up and discussed over in the Democratic Primary thread. Just look at the map in this article Democrats are in denial. Their party is actually in deep trouble. - Vox (specific map here - https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/n1H...tion-GIF.0.gif) of what happened in the 2014 elections at the state level. Control of at least one half of the state legislature flipped from Democratic to Republican control in 9 different states, 0 went the other way, and Republicans already controlled the majority before that election. Washington, Maine, Minnesota and New York now have split legislatures. This isn't something you can blame on re-districting. It IS platform and ideology-based.

I really don't think it is. The voters who most reliably turn out in midterm elections are older, whiter, and more conservative. 2014 was...hang on, carry the one...hey, that was a midterm election, wasn't it?

Here's the thing. Some of those "split legislature" states you refer to? New York has had a Republican majority in the Assembly for much of the last couple-few generations. Minnesota? Reputation for being liberal, but their House of Representatives flips from DFL to Republican control (and vice versa) seems like about every six years. Neither party has held monolithic control of that chamber. Maine, like Vermont and New Hampshire, is kind of weird politically. Please don't ask me to try to label any of those three states as being "conservative" or "liberal" because I don't think either of those labels really apply to any of the three in any conventional way.

Washington State is a little more of a surprise, but even there Republicans can and have controlled at least one branch of the legislature. That's probably the one state you cited whose legislature has been reliably "blue" for much or most of Barack Obama's Presidency.

TL;DR: you can write the narrative however you want, but your examples don't do much to support your assertion that state elective results in the last 5 years have been ideological rather than structural.

And then, y'know, midterm elections almost never favor the party in the White House in the first place, even at the state level. Above and beyond that, though? The Republican base, being older, whiter, and more conservative, is more likely to turn out in midterm elections, which 2014 was. And which 2010 was.

And the two are linked. The abdication of Democratic voters in 2010 enabled sweeping Republican victories just two years after they'd been written off for dead. And that was a crucial year to win, because it enabled them to write the rules at the state level for at least the next decade.

And that's something the Republicans understand that I don't think the Democrats have ever fully grasped: if you control statehouses, you can effect your agenda piecemeal even if you can't make it happen on a national level. Republicans have been very, very good at winning control of down-ballot offices while Democrats focus on the "sexy" races.

But the fact that they still struggle in federal races even in states where they otherwise control the apparatus of government suggests quite strongly to me that their victories in those states owe more to structural issues than ideological issues.

[Thomkal]

Good luck with that Donald:

Trump mulls charging CNN $5 million for debate appearance | Fox News

Might have been a nice idea, but then he had to stroke his ego by reminding people that he has been a big ratings draw for the debates.

[flere-imsaho]

I just realized, this thing about videos on TV about Muslims celebrating 9/11, that was the video CCN (or whomever) showed on 9/11 itself which turned out to be stock footage of Palestinians of Lebanese celebrating something else months or years earlier, right? Does anyone remember this?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I just realized, this thing about videos on TV about Muslims celebrating 9/11, that was the video CCN (or whomever) showed on 9/11 itself which turned out to be stock footage of Palestinians of Lebanese celebrating something else months or years earlier, right? Does anyone remember this?

I do remember that, as I would think anyone with half a brain that followed the news then would, but that video was clearly from the Middle East, not the United States.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I do remember that, as I would think anyone with half a brain that followed the news then would, but that video was clearly from the Middle East, not the United States.

In the 14 years that have passed, it seems to me that the events are now pretty easily conflated & misunderstood, especially if one wanted to do it on purpose, or if one was speaking extemporaneously.