That’s a comical assessment coming from someone who thinks the Great Progressive Awakening merely awaits the die-off of “boomers”, who in their youth were the despair of their parents for having such leftist views.
Think about it.
Speaking of discredited folk wisdom:
Whatever differences exist are far more subtle than the usual stereotypes.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/07/health/millennials-conservative-generations/index.html
You’re kinda making my argument for me. Boomers’ parents thinking that Boomers were lefties demonstrates the relative nature of generations. Boomers voted for Nixon and Reagan as yutes; they still lean toward center right candidates. A substantial number of their parents didn’t think that black people should be allowed to vote.
I’ll question my thoughts when zoomers stop voting Democratic by almost a two to one margin.
If there were any silver linings in these results, the politicians and Fox News would be trumpeting them. All I’m reading about so far is despair, disbelief, and anger, and very few, if any, voices trying to tell conservatives that they actually won.
I wish I could believe this. Voters have short term memory problems and Democrats are often their own worst enemy.
Do we know that? Once again, it seems white women voted whelmingly (yes I meant to use that) Republican. It may just be a white privilege thing, where they think they can get an abortion whether it’s legal or not.
I’ve been hearing that for even longer, it’s always an election cycle away. I may start to feel that way if Democrats get 2/3 majority in the House and Senate. I’ll even buy the drinks.
Again, I’ve been hearing about this for ages now. Races are much too close to think that 10 years will accomplish that goal when the last forty have not.
Happy Birthday @Voyager! Feeling old yet? 
This is the big thing. This midterm should have sucked for Democrats. It ended up being pretty good news all around. I’m happy right now considering what I was expecting.
You’re probably right. As long as the Republicans merely talked about their policies they were safe to ignore, but as soon as they began implementing them voters showed up in droves to vote them out.
I guess their best long-term strategy is to never implement anything. Or, and hear me out on this, because I know it sounds crazy, they could change their policies to ones supported by a majority of the electorate. Of course, that would make them Democrats.
This phrase might mislead a reader to seriously mistake just how old that word is.
It’s not fair to ask someone to change their position to something they grossly disagree with. And do you really want someone elected to do things they grossly disagree with just so they can keep their position? At that point they’re beyond hacks. They are whores. I would rather my side lose elections than to massively comprimise their principals. You would probably say the same about your side as well.
I’m having a hard time squaring this thread with this other thread:
Another thought: Putin has been busy destroying his own economy for the foreseeable future so he has not had time to meddle in this mid-term.
I do think this was a big part of it. Wasn’t there a lot less misinformation floating about this time?
You were just saying as much yourself—that it was ridiculous to go the “no exceptions” route. The lack of exceptions would seem to indicate gross disagreement. (Unless, of course, they are already “hacks.”)
And the solution to not having people in office going against their personal views would be for those people to not run. That is what I expect in the Democratic party. I don’t expect them to fake their belief that, say, Black Lives Matter. I just don’t want those who disagree to run.
It’s not asking people to change their position, it is asking the party to change its. And then it would select members of its party that do not grossly disagree with the majority of the American people, as the ones they currently run do.
They’ve always been that, all you are doing is negotiating the price.
I, too would rather your side lose elections as long as they refuse to compromise with what the majority of Americans want.
Sure, if a Democrat ran on a Republican platform, I wouldn’t vote for them, as they would be the same as a Republican. I can understand why a Republican would refuse to vote for a Republican who is running on the issues that the majority of Americans want.
You said it right there in your post, “Compromise”. It is Republicans’ refusal to compromise, to childishly play all or nothing games all day, that is what is really to blame for their failure in these midterms.
They seek power, but have no interest in governing, that’s a bad combination, and more and more Americans are waking up to that fact.
On the issue of pro-life candidates, I wonder how many politicians thought it was safe to play to the base (regardless of their personal views) knowing Roe v. Wade would never be overturned. Be honest everyone, if abortion were still protected, you would be more worried about inflation, Russia & China, climate change or oil, housing prices, etc. than whether or not your candidate were pro-choice/life when you went to the polls.
And then with Dobbs those politicians are in, “Oh crap!” mode. Our Pub House candidate was “No Exceptions!” until Dobbs came out then backpedaled but the damage was already done and I think she lost because of that. If Boebert ends up losing I think it is the same thing. SCOTUS has made abortion rights at the state and Federal level a real issue.
I’d still prefer Roe wasn’t overturned. I can’t believe that abortion is now illegal in much of this country, just as it is becoming more legal elsewhere.
It certainly could have changed some of my priorities.
It wouldn’t have changed any of my votes.
With the possible exception of housing prices (because I really don’t see what the Federal government has to do with those), none of my votes would have changed because the QOP has dangerous stances on all of those issues.
I haven’t read the thread yet: The Republicans and their total inability to have policy or respect for the people they represent or the law.
All they care about is power, tax cuts for the rich, and destroying Social Security. They’re totally ok with strangling the institutions and functioning of the government. Their contempt for government is pretty solid until it can be used for removing rights and money from the vulnerable. It’s also useful for funneling that money into their own pockets or those of their donors.
Trump just enabled the base to display their stupid gullibility and hatred of anyone who isn’t “one of them.” He fulfilled their pathetic need to submit to a slimy, con artist, bully who they perceive as “strong”.
The party members and leaders who went along with it 'cause it seemed to be working are all responsible. It couldn’t have happened to a more deserving crowd.
Right, so the politician’s stance on abortion is correlated to who you did or did not vote for. This year (I believe) for many it was the cause of who you did or did not vote for.
I didn’t mean it was ridiculous to go that route. It was ridiculous at the time to broadcast it. There is a time to be strategic and keep certain things to yourself and know when and which fights to pick. Directly after the ruling too many sounded off on the no exceptions stance even though the majority disagree with it. They didn’t have to change their stance, but there comes a time to shut up about it for a while. The proverbally “remain silent and be thought a fool”.
As I said in that thread, those numbers are way premature. They haven’t yet counted a large number of votes from California.