To be fair, the question was “What do Republicans have to do to win Democratic votes?”
Seriously, though, my real proposal was back in Post #30. That’s a Republican Party I could seriously consider.
Only if you consider nearly two thirds to be not ‘all that widespread’.
a) Probably not. Since spending bills like that have to arise in the House, and since most Dems aren’t as crazy/innumerate as AOC. Eliminating the military budget in its entirety wouldn’t eliminate the deficit, so almost all of it would have to come from tax increases. There aren’t enough ‘wealthy’ to get the money just from taxing them, so it would almost necessarily mean raising taxes on the middle class. And the Dems aren’t going to do that. See the Bush era tax cuts.
And the Dems aren’t going to support the bill, because they also want to increase spending - not on the military, but on everything else. So it’s [ul][li]Cut military spending to address the deficit, []Spend the money on something else, []Raise taxes on the wealthy to address the deficit, []Spend the money on something else, []Talk about how the GOP doesn’t want to address the deficit.[/ul][/li]b)He would never get the chance.
Sorry, no magic in politics.
Regards,
Shodan
She wasn’t talking about cutting spending - she wanted to spend it on something else.
And you did notice the $720 billion figure, didn’t you? (Also the $21 trillion one). I assume you know roughly how much the US spends on the military - AOC apparently does not.
Regards,
Shodan
Remember my question from post #62?
You’re right, the magic bill to increase taxes and cut military spending would totally die because of Democrats. It’s always the Democrats fault that the budget isn’t balanced.
Truly you live in a reality that I don’t exist in, and if this is the reality that other Republicans live in, it will be very difficult for them to ever attract my vote.
Have a nice day.
Sure, and I already mentioned a couple of things I would find reasonable and that I think would appeal to Democrats, at least moderate Democrats. I also mentioned that, for some, there is nothing the GOP can do to reach out to them.
“If the Republicans stop being Republicans, I still won’t vote for them” is not a Democrat the Repubs have much chance of reaching. So I have nothing to suggest in that case - I am more interested in policies that might appeal to people who can be appealed to.
Regards,
Shodan
Amazing the resistance to the idea “stop enabling, supporting, and celebrating racists, misogynists, and abusers of women”. You’d think that might be a no-brainer, or at the very least a no brainer to say “yeah, that’s a reasonable idea”. That it’s not shows us how far apart we are, IMO.
Yes, we are pretty far apart.
And even if you do, I still won’t vote for you. That’s pretty far.
Regards,
Shodan
But that’s not what I said. I used some nuance in my earlier posts, including describing when I would consider voting for a Republican. I understand responding to nuance with nuance probably takes more effort than snark, especially for someone as naturally gifted in snark-skills as yourself, but I think it can be quite rewarding, and I always enjoy our discussions when you choose to go to this effort.
Is that a reason not to do it?
Wouldn’t “stop enabling, supporting, and celebrating racists, misogynists, and abusers of women” be a good idea on its own merits?
Sure it would be a good idea. Accepting your political opponents’ worst mischaracterizations as if they were true - not so much.
Look, I get it - the SDMB as a group isn’t listening, and there isn’t anything the Republicans can do that they won’t condemn. But this is a group that thinks this is “nuance”. But, as with the voter ID issue and third-trimester abortion, there are Democrats who are actually capable of listening. Republicans should reach out to them.
Regards,
Shodan
So I guess you totally ignored the post I made (and similar sentiments in other posts) in which I described circumstances in which I could support an honest and decent Republican? Is it possible that you’re missing some actual nuance from your fellow Dopers, and many of us are actually relatively complex thinkers who just strongly disagree with you on a host of issues?
The Republican Party has ventured so far to the right they make GHW Bush look liberal. But then he did not govern as he campaigned which was straight out of the Lee Attwater dirty playbook. The last Republican who campaigned in a way I could have voted for was Gerald Ford (who also governed fairly moderately…lots of vetoes on spending bills but before the evangelical takeover of the party). Separation of Church and State, a willingness to talk rather than blast the other side as Godless commies.
If I’m following your argument correctly, you’re saying you are opposed to “racists, misogynists, and abusers of women”. And on that basis you have chosen to support the Republicans over the Democrats.
That’s the kind of disconnection with reality that conservatives need to address if they want to appeal to rational voters.
It’s probably worth noting here that Republicans are already winning over some fraction of blue voters. In 2016, President Trump received a vote from 8% of self-identified democrats.
What would it take to increase that a few % points? I don’t know for sure, but an emphasis on policies where the GOP candidate and the moderate dems are in alignment (and the dem candidates are out of alignment with their more moderate self-identified party members) seems like a good starting place. A few examples:
- opposition to elective late-term abortions
- support for manufacturing & energy jobs
- opposition to (and highlighting the extremity of) the more radical gun control proposals
- support for voter ID laws
- support for the census citizenship question
Was she talking about this year’s figure, or next year’s? I’ve noticed that politicians will often discuss budgetary matters and will cite their cumulative cost over some time period (ten years is a popular span); perhaps Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez used that assessment to come up with the $21 trillion figure. What is the projected total defense budget over the next decade, at its current rate of growth? I did a web search, but couldn’t find it.
Regardless of the actual numbers, if she wants to spend money on one thing and tries to offset it by cutting spending on something else, that at least shows a grasp of basic mathematics. Raising spending, and trying to pay for it by cutting revenue, is a Republican fantasy.
This is a textbook case of ad hominem. If a honest and decent Republican says, “A low corporate income tax rate attracts foreign investment in America,” that is no different than if a racist bigot misogynist Republican says, “A low corporate income tax rate attracts foreign investment in America.”
It is tantamount to saying, “If Einstein says 4+4=8, I’ll believe him, but not if Hitler tells me the same thing.”
I suppose it’s a personal flaw of mine. I have a lot of trouble seriously considering the arguments of bigots, misogynists, and abusers of women. There are plenty of folks who aren’t bigots, misogynists, and abusers of women, who make a variety of arguments on almost all sides of most issues. So I still can reasonably consider all of these arguments without having to listen to bigots, misogynists, and abusers of women.
Maybe you’re immune to such personal flaws, but I’m not.
I’d say they could sway a lot of young Dem millennial voters if there was a way that the crushing student loan debt could be addressed in a way that would actually change people’s lives. I’m not saying a complete forgiveness of all loans but surely something short of that could be done.
The corporations get plenty of bailouts when needed. Something like 44 million Americans have student loans and honestly maybe the whole federal student loans thing that can’t be discharged in bankruptcy is something that needs more regulations, because there are whole new generations that are mired in a debt they’ll never be free of, it’s beginning to look like the baby boomers will be the last generation to enjoy a better standard of living than their parents.
Talking about what Republicans could do to win Democratic votes is a waste. They don’t want Democratic votes; they want to take away democratic power and shove their agenda up their asses. Full stop. They’re not interested in democracy, so wondering what they could do to win more progressive support is like wondering what Southern Democrats could have done to make themselves more appealing to Radical Republicans during Reconstruction. The Southern Democrats never made themselves more appealing to Radical Republicans; in fact their solution to get Radical Republicans out of the South was to double down using violence and mayhem to wear down the Republicans’ will to commit themselves to the cause of equality. And it worked. In fact, violence and the myth of the lost cause were so effective that there are still monuments to the confederacy in places like…Minnesota
Republicans are NOT interested in your democracy; they’re more interested in destroying it -completely.