My whole life it seems like Dems have been getting smacked by voters and the courts everytime they get serious about gun regulation, plus alienating pro-gun Dems in the West, and making it even more difficult to make inroads into Dixie. Plus a lot of the regulations wouldn’t have stopped the latest mass shooting anyway. It’s like they’re determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Maybe this time is different because of the terrorism bogeyman.
Ref this recent thread we see approximately zero percent of gun owners think anything like you suppose. The No-Fly List and the 2nd Amendment - In My Humble Opinion - Straight Dope Message Board
Vehement fundamentalist opposition to every syllable of every word in every idea is more like it.
Politically the smartest thing by far for the Dems to do is ignore gun control from end to end. And start a new chant of “how many more times are you folks going to let the gun manufacturers invent a false crisis so they can double prices and you rubes keep falling for it. We (Dems) are not the boogey man here.”
That, Sir, is damned brilliant! 
LSLGuy, not sure that such represents what gun owners as a group think.
Here’s the thing … the responses to the proposals (which I think a solid majority would agree are fairly weak sauce as far as gun control goes) are as predictable as they are knee jerk by all involved on all sides.
It revs up the group that supports Cruz and Trump. And I think that Democratic leadership would rather run against one of them than Rubio. A blip in turnout of that base right now? From that calculus perhaps a good thing.
Also it baits all the GOP candidates to oppose demanding expanded background checks that by far most actually think are a good idea. Or even better forces them to state that it is a good idea. The latter is death in the primary and depresses the White less educated vote even more than usual but the former minimally gains them no one they did not already have.
Will it lose them anyone?
On the gun rights side there are indeed a reasonable number of single issue voters who see any additional control, even … no way they were going to vote for a Democrat and if they did not come out to vote against Obama are they going to come out to vote against Hillary? That group overlaps highly with the group of less educated White voters that at least usually have very low turn out in a general election. A Trump or a Cruz will revving them or not will not be based on demonizing a call for background checks or even in response to calls for removing the gun manufacturer protection from some classes of lawsuits.
Last checked most Republicans of all sorts felt the GOP did a better job on gun issues even if most were deciding on that issue alone. Saying no to expanded background checks might change that for those non rural more educated Republicans.
And obviously it helps Clinton in the primaries with her playing the part of taking on the NRA endearing her to some who might otherwise be attracted to Sanders.
How about its impact on the true swing/undecided voters? Well, it seems that
It’s just not the big issue for swaying the undecided voters either way and they are potentially convincible if one side gets successfully painted as radically extreme.
My first impulse, as expressed in the op, was the same as LSLGuy’s - better to just ignore the issue and focus on issues that can make rural voter inroads. But after reading more I am becoming convinced that forcing the GOP candidates to come out against policies that most, even within their own party, actually think are good things to do, is politically a good move after all.
There is absolutely nothing inconsistent about wanting to improve the mechanism by which we identify people for the no-fly list and provide a reasonable appeals process and wanting to deny weapons to people on that list. You’re searching for hypocrisy that does not exist.
I’m willing to believe that Obama has a personal stake in this, but as discussed in this thread, it’s naive to believe there isn’t a political calculation here, too.
This is a meme on the right, but it doesn’t have any traction in the real world. While Republicans keep suing, Obama’s won in court much more than he’s lost. The only issue where courts seem to be holding that he’s overstepped has been the immigration enforcement prioritization, and it’s still reasonable to see the administration’s position prevailing in the end. I know conservatives want to believe that the President has been lawless, but it isn’t supported by facts.
The President could have reformed the list anytime over the last seven years and can do it alone, since it the criteria was created by the Bush administration in the first place.
This sounds to me like an attempt to use as broad as possible a list to deny people the right to own a gun. Especially if they are Muslim.
According to wikipedia, there were 47,000 people on the no-fly list as of 2013. It doesn’t mention how many are actually Americans, but just for fun, let’s say they all are. That would makes it 0.016% of Americans. I think Obama could have come up with a broader list than that if he’d really wanted to.
Is being Muslim one of the criteria for being on the list? Seems to me that if you’re on the list and shouldn’t be, there should be an appeal process. If you’re on the list and should be, you have no business owning a gun, no matter what your religion. How amusing that you should accuse Obama of anti-Muslim bias.
Great post and analysis. I could readily agree with either my POV or your different one in the snip quoted.
But …
IMO this election hinges totally on turning out the base for both sides. Both in the primaries and in the general. And as I said in other threads, the Rs have a huge structural advantage in ruralia, whereby the popular vote is massively amplified in the Electoral College.
As such, IMO *the *most important tactical consideration for the Ds is to avoid inciting the R’s rural base to actually vote versus just posture & noise as they usually do.
If some gun-related machinations by either the Ds or the mainstream Rs caused 2% of urban/suburban voters to move D-ward and 1% more rural R voters to actually vote R, that would be a losing strategy for the Ds and the mainstream Rs.
I may be playing checkers here when others are playing 3D chess. But overall and thinking longer term I’m a lot more concerned about the know-nothing voters discovering their actual oversized power than I am about any other issue.
I suspect my POV is the obverse of the wailing by the mainstream Rs after Obama’s first election that “now that the black (dog-whistle for “useless takers”) voters have realized their power, the social giveaway juggernaut will be unstoppable and the country is doomed.”
I don’t think today rural voters are giving Republicans a structural advantage in the Electoral College (as opposed to in the House). There are a lot of rural voters in states like mine (Washington) who play two roles: one, they’re numerous enough to increase our number of EVs; and two, they’re not numerous enough to actually turn the state red. I’m not sure what additional state the Republican nominee can win if you assume a 2% shift Democratic from urban/suburban voters + a 1% increased turnout from rural voters. Conversely, I’m pretty sure this shift would lock in Virginia, Ohio, and Florida, and possibly lead to a NC pickup.
The electoral aspects of the gun debate are not really about winning or losing voters. Its about voter turnout.
I don’t know anyone who was inclined to vote for Obama who voted for McCain over the gun issue. I don’t know anyone who was inclined to vote for McCain who voted for Obama over the gun issue. What I see are people who generally don’t vote at all getting off their asses when someone proposes gun control. There are a lot more gun rights folks who sit on their ass on election day unless gun control is an issue than there are gun control folks.
Obama barely won Virginia both times but if he had been stumping on gun control, he would have lost Virginia. No doubt in my mind.
There are half a dozen swing state that Obama could have lost if he stumped hard enough on gun control.
The Democratic party cannot give up rural votes the way that Republicans have given up minority votes. You can’t win elections with California and New England here are too rural purple states.
I fully expect Hillary Clinton to get “caught” duck hunting in Virginia.
The theory AFAICT is to create momentum and a shift in public sentiment. The reason they chose Assault Weapons is not because they are dangerous or are responsible for a lot of gun murders. It is because there is a huge gun culture and that gun culture frankly did not include modern style rifles until the last ten years of so. But the facts on the ground have changed (just like the facts on the ground changed WRT handguns a few decades ago and the National Council to Control Handguns became the Brady Center.
Their roadmap has an endpoint of banning firearms so they do things that don’t make much sense if all you want to do is reduce gun violence.
Its one of those issues that might win Democratic primaries but will lose a general election.
I doubt that would lock in Virginia.
It is widely believed that the Virginia state senate is Republican controlled because gun control became an issue during the last election.
I was reflecting yesterday how this could be a political plus for the Democrats.
Put aside any debate over the demerits and merits of guns and just focus on gun control as a political issue - one that affects how people vote.
Most people who already feel strongly about the issue are already committed to one party. Generally speaking, if gun control is an issue that decides how you vote, you’re going to vote Republican if you oppose gun control and you’re going to vote Democratic if you support gun control. These voters aren’t likely to move one way or the other.
But the majority of voters don’t normally regard gun control as an issue that influences their vote. They’re going to decide how they vote based on other issues.
So lets say gun control becomes an issue in this campaign. The Democrats get identified as the party that supports gun control and the Republicans get identified as the side that opposes gun control. If the election proceeds normally, it won’t be an issue that will influence how people vote.
But there’s an exception to what I said about the majority of voters not caring all that much about gun control. And that’s in the immediate aftermath of a major shooting. Anytime some lunatic goes out and shoots a bunch of people, there will be a short-term surge of public support for gun control.
So let’s say the parties spend the next ten months staking out their positions on the issue. And then imagine a major shooting occurs in the first week of November. There will be the usual surge of support for gun control but this time people will see a means to act on it - swing voters will vote Democratic instead of Republican.
The opposite side of this? Immigration. The two parties are staking out opposing sides on this issue as well. The Republicans are identifying themselves as the party that opposes immigration because they argue immigrants can be a threat. If there is a major crime or terrorist attack in the first week of November involving an immigrant, swing voters will vote Republican instead of Democratic.
I guess of one of the not “most”.
I haven’t voted for a Republican for president since Reagan. (I usually vote for the libertarian, or don’t vote for president.)
I detest the Republicans for their attempts to infuse religious beliefs into government, their brainwashing “news” sources, and their cultist attitude.
But this year, the mind-numbing stupidity and blatant dishonesty of the Democrats’ stance on gun control trumps all of that. I’m voting for anyone who is against this idiocy.
I’m not so sure about this. For example, I voted for Jerry Brown over Meg Whitman based solely on gun issues.
Excellent. Hopefully the Democrats can nominate a Brian Schweitzer soon on the national level.
The problem is that although individual Democratic candidates and politicians can be against gun control, the party as a whole is ideologically committed to gun control; someone who bucks the party platform isn’t going to be a player at the national level. Locally democrats can justify their stance to the party leadership by saying “Look, gun control is a dead horse issue in my district/state. Better to at least have a Democrat in office to support other issues”. But nationally the best the Democrats could do would be to have a Trojan Horse candidate who mouths vaguely reassuring words and then votes anti-gun once they’re in office. And the pro-gun lobby has a long memory.
I disagree with your analysis:
I think there are plenty of pro-gun Democrats, and there are far fewer pro-gun control Republicans.
I think it might swing a few votes depending on how thoughtful or idiotic the proposals are but the swing isn’t in people changing their votes, the swing is in turnout. I would say there are FAR more pro-gun folks who don’t bother showing up to the polls unless guns are an issue than there are gun control folks who don’t bother to show up unless guns are an issue.
This is also when the gun rights crowd digs in. The only time I have seen the dynamic you are talking about was after Sandy Hook. There was an opportunity for real gun control during that brief window but the gun control crowd gave the reins to Feinstein and she went for an assault weapons ban.:rolleyes:
An October surprise can always change everything.
I agree and I thought I was clear on that.
My point was that for most people, gun control isn’t an issue on which they decide how they’re going to vote. Which is why the people like you describe exist.
But can you imagine a person for whom gun control is the most important issue voting in one of the ways you describe? Can you imagine a voter saying “I feel protecting our Second Amendment rights is the most important thing a politician can do. So I’m voting for the Democrat because I feel the Democratic Party are the ones who will protect those rights.”? Or a voter saying “Gun violence is the worst problem America is facing and it should be our number one priority. So I’m voting Republican because I think the Republicans will be the ones who will enact strong gun control laws.”? Both of these hypothetical positions seem absurd. They demonstrate that if a person feels gun control is their top priority, for or against, they’re going to vote for one party. The two parties have become identified as being on opposite sides of this issue.
Now I acknowledge that nothing is universal. There may be specific elections where the two individuals involved happen to be the reverse of their party’s overall image on an issue. Bone mentioned the 2010 California gubernatorial race between the Democrat Jerry Brown and the Republican Meg Whitman. Brown was not seen as a major supporter of gun rights but Whitman had a reputation as being strongly in favor of gun control. So some people voted against Whitman (and for Brown by default) because of the issue of gun control. But this was a very rare exception to the general rule.