I had always heard that Oregon was distinctly more Democrat/left wing than most States, so I was surprised when I visited Corvallis, Albany, Salem, McMinnville, Bend and even some of the Portland suburbs and found out how Republican and Evangelical large parts of the State were.
Oregon has an old history of being a bit of a …
The divide in the US is less regional than urban/rural. “Blue” states are typically those with more urban dwellers than rural dwellers.
A less-PC way to put it is no less true: Go twenty miles outside of any US city and you’re in Alabama.
Except Alabama has black people in it, and Oregon really doesn’t.
I consider this a prerequisite for me to support a politician. :)
-Tom
Where the fuck are the Democrats?
Both parties though, and her emails, etc.
That’s a cool story. More of this, please.
I really like Corey Booker. I wish he was a bit more progressive in his fiscal politics.
The AP scrutinized the outcomes of all 435 U.S. House races and about 4,700 state House and Assembly seats up for election last year using a new statistical method of calculating partisan advantage. It’s designed to detect cases in which one party may have won, widened or retained its grip on power through political gerrymandering.
The analysis found four times as many states with Republican-skewed state House or Assembly districts than Democratic ones. Among the two dozen most populated states that determine the vast majority of Congress, there were nearly three times as many with Republican-tilted U.S. House districts.
Traditional battlegrounds such as Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida and Virginia were among those with significant Republican advantages in their U.S. or state House races. All had districts drawn by Republicans after the last Census in 2010.
The AP analysis also found that Republicans won as many as 22 additional U.S. House seats over what would have been expected based on the average vote share in congressional districts across the country. That helped provide the GOP with a comfortable majority over Democrats instead of a narrow one.
I ran across this article in my news feeds and found it interesting.
Two major points. First, what the Republican brand consist of:
[quote]The Republicans have done an excellent job of defining their party in terms of class and social status. This status is primal and tribal. It is not easily shaken. Here are four components that underlie Republican Party affiliation:
- Perceived Affluence—If you were born into wealth, Republicanism is a family tradition and, frankly, an obligation. If you weren’t, voting Republican suggests an economic class status that is free to obtain.
- Power Association—If you are a Republican, you need no one. The brand conveys that you are quite capable of going it alone and succeeding. The feeling of strength that comes with that is intoxicating, even if it is not remotely true.
- Economic Justice—Republicans are convinced that Democrats want to take taxpayers’ hard-earned resources and give them to the undeserving out of misguided sympathy. The favor in this perceived redistribution effort is intolerable to Republicans.
- Faith Fortification—The Republican Brand is seen as an imprimatur of the faithful. It is a stamp of Christian fidelity, regardless of any actual ascription to Christian principles.[/quote]
By comparison, the Democrat brand…
Logical? Of course not. But I don’t think anyone should need much convincing that many (probably most) voters aren’t primarily using logic in their voting decisions.
The author suggests that Democratic messaging should…
In theory I agree with this, but I think it’s more difficult than she’s making it out to be. There’s already a lot of well-reasoned material out there explaining how Republican policies hurt everyone except the top 1%, while more progressive policies are better for everyone else, but it’s not reaching the masses. What’s needed is a way to make that argument at a visceral level, without running afoul of the “keep government out of mah pockets” argument, and I haven’t seen that yet.
Unfortunately the only way this could happen is if there was a left wing equivalent to Fox News. There isn’t at any scale. Even the so called ‘liberal mainstream media’ is feckless and pathetic, and nothing even approaching liberal. Plus the opiate addled masses have proved utterly incapable of absorbing anything that can’t be conveyed in 5 seconds.
I believe that the way to appeal to those voters, is to appeal to their sense of justice and fair play. Not justice in the abstract SJW bullshit angle, but rather, “This guy is ripping you off. He is a criminal. He is stealing from other people to enrich himself.”
Democrats should change their basic message from “stronger together” to “what’s best for your family.” Too many people don’t care about the welfare of anyone else, so appeals for economic justice for all and fair play only capture those folks who are already progressives/ liberals.
It should be easy to show that, under Democratic proposals, the middle class will be better off at the end of each year. It should be easy to show that, under GOP policies, everyone but the very rich will be worse off. Focus on that, and I think we recapture a whole lot more votes.
I’d like to see the Democrats nominate some firebrand economic populists. Younger versions of Bernie, not tainted by a “socialist” party label. Also, someone with no ties whatsoever to the Clintons.
Democrats won’t demonize the rich people fucking over this country because they need that money too, just like Republicans. That is the problem.
When you talk about what’s best for you in the Democratic party, they tell you how selfish you are, how your views are not important, and if you have resources fuck you for trying to keep them. The Democratic party is barely open to input from the upper-middle class and rich despite the Republicans successfully labeling them as the lapdogs of Wall Street.
Also, the SJW label is a bullshit label that shouldn’t be used.
But it’s so much more succinct than “virtue-signaling keyboard commando”.
I think this is a smarter strategy for the Democrats. Trying to prove that Trump committed a “high crime or misdemeanor” for impeachment is far tougher, than showing that Trump has dementia or some other mental illness.
I think Republicans would find it easier to go along with this.
Lately I’ve been thinking the 25th might be the best way to go, but there is no way Pence would ever go for it.
Personally I think there’s a 95% chance Trump lasts until 2020. The remaining 5% is resignation or death.
Do you honestly believe this?
Nobody is trying to demonize the wealthy, they just are tired of politicians solely representing them and ignoring everyone else. Any time people worry politicians being given large amounts of money to vote certain ways it is considered an “attack on the wealthy.”
After the last election and everything we’ve seen until now, i find it amusing that you think the Democratic Party has done anything except actively work against progressives at every turn. Sadly for us all, i think this is going to come back to bite them in 2020 when history repeats itself.
Yes I do because I was that person demonized for that very thing on this very board… albeit not by someone who posts very regularly. He is also not the first person to say that to me as well.
The Democrats don’t have much room for voices of moderates, and are very dismissive of those voices… you know, how you kind of dismissed what I said as just bs you think I read somewhere instead of actual experience.
That depends heavily on where you live. Here, the moderates are the main voices, and the progressives sometimes get marginalized. (less so right now)