This.
Anti-Trump conservatives aren’t looking for a Democrat to vote for; they’re looking for a “sane” Republican to vote for.
The only difference between “My faith tells me homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to adopt children” and “God Hates Fags” is one of word choice. Handel’s a creep who thinks her belief in fairy tales justifies her bigotry. So strange.
Serious question–can you clarify what progressive would mean in that context?
From my perspective, a good approach would include both cultural and economic progressivism. Give clear examples of programs that would help struggling working class families, while not throwing LGBTQ folks and folks of color under the bus. Different aspects of the platform could be emphasized in different areas.
Probably because he would have voted for her, or could conceive of voting for her. Would you vote for someone you thought was horrible? And I don’t mean in some wild-ass hypothetical*, but in the US today as it is.
*If you had to choose between Hitler and someone who was only 90% as bad as Hitler.
[QUOTE=Fotheringay-Phipps]
And there is plenty of evidence that some Republicans voters have been having second thoughts. This evidence would be in the form of Trump’s approval ratings, plus various other polls (including the GA race ones).
[/QUOTE]
Well, maybe.
I mean, imagine somebody who voted for Trump because HELL YEAH let’s build that wall with Mexico and HELL YEAH let’s ban all them Muslim furriners and HELL YEAH let’s lock her up; Lock Her Up! Lock Her Up! Lock Her Up! HELL, YEAH!
What would that guy say if you asked him about Trump’s administration? Well, he might have some less-than-flattering things to say. But that doesn’t mean he wants to throw in with the Democrats; he figures they’ll do even less about the enemies of America; his only regret is that the Republicans ain’t doing more.
What percent of Republicans fall in that category, though?
Again, the issue isn’t whether all Trump voters are having second thoughts. The issue is whether some are.
The way it works in this country (& probably most democracies - other than those where votes are based on ethnicity or religion or the like) is that there are some hard-core supporters of either side and some people in the middle who could go either way.
FWIW, I myself am what you might call a hard-core conservative, and I’ve never voted for a Democrat above the local level. (I voted for Kasich as a write-in.) There are a lot of people like me out there, but there are also a lot of people who could go either way. The people in the middle are the ones who tip the elections.
Actually, recent studies seem to show that the number of voters who “waver” in their voting choices is fairly small: about 5 - 8% of the voting population. The vast majority of “undecided” or “unaffiliated” voters actually vote fairly catholically for one party or the other, despite how they portray themselves.
And yet, here is the actual evidence: In the primary, Ossoff won 48% of the vote; in the run-off, he won 48% of the vote. So despite turnout being increased by 35%, the results were identical to what would have happened had every opponent in April voted for Handel.
This, despite all the money poured into the election.
Which goes to show that there simply wasn’t this huge swing of voters going on. In the fall election, Democrats gained 120K votes for their candidate. Yesterday, Ossoff got 125K votes. The Republican numbers were down, but that, to me, simply shows that most Republicans were unworried about the result, and stayed at home, not that there was this tremendous swing. And even if there WAS some swing, the extent of the swing was already clear in the primary, and it wasn’t enough to create a path to a win in the run-off.
Spin it however you like. He lost, he was gonna lose, and there’s precious little evidence that the country is ready to kick out the Republicans they have voted into power. Partly that’s because the noise about Trump and Co. is being over-played by the left and the media (because it makes for good viewing), and partly that’s because most Republicans understand that, even if they don’t like Trump, they still want to vote Republican.
Yeah, that’s goofy. There is no way that a super progressive ticket would get anywhere near a win in GA. There simply aren’t a bunch of super-liberals there waiting for a candidate of their dreams before they deign to vote.
I completely agree. I think that Democrats got all scared after '84 and '88, and felt like trying to articulate solid Democratic Party principles would get them smacked down. Clinton won by being the “anti-Bush” centrist; had Ross Perot not been running that year, it might well not have been enough. Republicans handed the WH to the Dems in '96 by running Dole. Since then, the Democrats have struggled, with the exception of Pres. Obama’s efforts, which were focused on the hope of a change. Still, even with Obama, could most of the population articulate the Democratic position on Education? Welfare? Social Security (beyond: don’t you dare touch it!)? Foreign Policy with Russia? A solution for the situation with immigration? The danger of no retirement reserves for most of Gen-X?
These are policies that the Democratic Party must get out in front of and lead with. They are crucial to our country. And they are issues on which Democratic answers can be very attractive, especially for Gen-X and Millennials.
5%-8% was more than enough to swing the election (even assuming those numbers are correct - I suspect it’s more like 15%-20%).
That’s all probably true in hindsight. The question we’re discussing is whether this should have been obvious upfront. I don’t think so.
Well, to be fair, in GA-04 (Hank Johnson) and GA-05 (John Lewis) a super-progressive ticket could work, but no where else in the entire state. Including the northern suburbs of Atlanta.
I think that a “progressive” set of politics would emphasize government becoming even more involved in the collectivization of responsibility for health and welfare of our population. So, for example, progressive politics would be “single-payer” health care, “free” (meaning state paid) college/trade school, etc. I see these as very popular notions among certain segments of the population. But I see them as non-starters for the more middle-of-the-road America you find in suburbs and rural towns/cities.
To me, Democrats have to offer programs that are not based upon a yielding of the basic principle of American economics: that the forces of the market are what drive what we get, and what we can afford. Thus, I think Democrats need to re-adjust their approach to health care slightly. The trouble with the ACA wasn’t that it relied upon an insurance model (though I personally think we need to reject that model to really solve the issue); it was that it relied upon forced behavior by Americans (the requirement to buy the insurance) without allowing for any solid mechanism whereby the economic behavior of the citizens on this could evolve over time. When California went to mandatory auto insurance, it didn’t just slam down the requirement and punish everyone who didn’t have it right away. Over time, the government increased the coercive measures that forced those who might have forgone the product to purchase it. Now, almost everyone accepts that it’s a given you have to have it. But the stick for coercion in the ACA was, God help us, TAXES. Can you imagine a worse way to gain compliance than to threaten Americans with taxes?? :smack:
So instead, focus on ways to fund an insurance product that covers those in the “gap” between Medicare and employer-provided insurance, funding that doesn’t have to come at the expense of states budgets, or at the expense of the average taxpayer. Then go strongly after the root causes of increased healthcare costs: malpractice laws and drug company pricing. And accept that some form of health-care rationing is inevitable; what we want available for everyone is a basic health-care product, with emphasis upon ongoing preventative care, rather than after-the-fact emergent care. This is where California’s attempt at single-payer is going to come acropper (or bankrupt the state): they haven’t figured out how to ration care reasonably.
Similarly, state-funded college/trade school makes sense, but let’s face it: it’s not happening without a massive influx of new taxes. When California offering to let me attend University of California in 1977 at no cost other than some minor fees, there were a limited number of people going to college, and the state had fewer other social programs it spent money on. If you really want almost everyone to get some sort of post-secondary education for “free”, that’s a LOT of money you have to come up with.
So how about lowering the expectations there? The trouble with post-secondary education is not that students are having to pay for it. Rather, the trouble is that so many of them are unable to pay for it without getting in debt up to their ears. That’s a drag on the economy going forward. Republicans have no answer for this except to suggest that fewer people should go to college, I guess, because they certainly aren’t offering anything positive in the way of debt-reduction. So Democrats should be offering different, creative ways to handle that cost. I’m not sure what that would look like (it’s not exactly my area of expertise). But it definitely is going to have to be something that reduces the effect of long-term education debt, without significantly impacting state budgets. And while they are at it, Democrats could offer to do something about the size of the federal Education Dept., because that thing is waaaay too big for something that isn’t really a responsibility of the federal government.
Not sure any of this is really responsive to what you want, but it highlights the point I was trying to make: going truly progressive has some attraction for those who believe that government’s role should include doing everything that can be done to improve the welfare of every citizen. But the costs involved, and the methodologies used will make such solutions unpalatable for the TWINKs, the soccer moms, and the rural townfolk of America.
That may well be true. But Bricker said he was “confident” in his prediction of a Republican Speaker. Which to me suggests that he thinks the odds are considerably higher than the very minor edge that PredictIt shows, and that there’s value to be picked up on the Yes side of that bet.
That’s what I’m trying to do! Didn’t you read that he’s quadrupled his stake in less than a decade? He already told us where the market is, now I just need to bet like Bricker does. There’s gold in them thar posts. 
Right, all this was far from obvious. There were 2 big factors to be settled… would there be a big Democrat turnout? Unsurprisingly, yes. That shouldn’t be discounted because it could have made a big difference in a different race with a different candidate.
To me the really interesting thing is seeing decisively that Trump isn’t turning off Republicans from turning out and voting like Republicans. If that’s true, Democrats desperately need a populist message other than “Trump is bad”.
That said, it’s possible (as many have been arguing) that Trump did cost the Republicans votes, just not enough to lose this particular district. I’m not as sure that the lean of this district is as strong as people have been claiming (as discussed earlier) but it’s certainly possible.
Interestingly, the 538.com guys floated a theory that the Democrats may have undermined themselves in making the election a high profile big spending campaign. The theory is that Democrats are more worked up right now, so they have a natural edge in that regard. But if the race becomes a Big Deal, then even Republicans get into it as well, which dulls that edge. Thus, the high turnout hurt the Dems, in that less strongly committed people (most of whom lean Republican) turned out in addition to the more motivated Democrats. They suggested that the evidence of special elections since Trump suggests that the Democrats beat their polls by a greater margin in low profile elections, which supports the above. Interesting.
Related to the above, I saw a different writer suggest that late night comedians won the election for Trump. He (or she) argued that by ruthlessly mocking him incessantly, they provoked a backlash from people who saw themselves being mocked. While Trump has obvious flaws that most people wouldn’t admit to themselves that they share, much of the mockery was about characteristics or opinions that other people do share with Trump, and this got people more fired up than they otherwise have been. Implication of the theory (if not the “late night” part specifically) is that attacking Trump can backfire if people see you as attacking them. Even if they agree with you about some criticisms of Trump, they may sense that you’re really attacking them too, and react negatively.
You really think a significant number of people heard a comedian and said “You calling me dumb?!? Ok I wasn’t going to but now I WILL vote for Trump!” Not very believable.
Very few people think that way consciously. But people’s emotions sometimes work like that.
That said, I don’t “really think” so. It’s an interesting theory.
I don’t think many voters who would have voted for Hillary, switched sides because of the mockery against Trump. But some undecided voters may have been pushed to the Trump side because of it. And some leaning-Trump voters may have become strongly-Trump. Etc.
And it wasn’t just comedians mocking Trump either. It was the media, it was social media, it was celebrities, etc.
People don’t need a *valid *reason to vote for Trump, or any other candidate for that matter. They only need a reason.
This is something, IMHO, the political left sometimes fails to grasp. They will ask, “Why did people vote for (Trump/Bush/Romney/McCain/insert-Republican)?” Answer: “Because (Reason X).” Liberal: “But that’s not a (valid/logical/good) reason!” It doesn’t *have *to be a good reason.
Trump is an issue that transcends political fine points like party affiliation. He is a disaster on wheels. And a grim portion of our electorate not only does not see that, but is wildly supportive of utter rot. I can understand that tighty-rightys infected with the Rand pox could see him as a paragon of the virtue of grasping ambition, but how do evangelicals see him as a Christian? How do they manage to see Nancy Pelosi as a fanged demon from the outer Darkness?
How do we talk to them at all, much less persuasively? How do we advance an agenda for equality and empathy in the language of fear and hatred? Hell, if I knew how, I still wouldn’t!