Are you saying the 26-year old special needs man isn’t getting free healthcare under Medicare for all. He doesn’t have job so he pays no payroll taxes. What about the grandma who accompanied the family from Honduras? You requiring her to get a job before she is eligible for Medicare for all. The sick undocumented child no healthcare for her either?
I missed all those subtle exclusion on the debate stage.
We do, but when we do we also have to pretend that it has never happened and circularly refer to our side never getting to expand the Overton Window in future debates, discussions and arguments.
I see your usual snideness is in fine fettle today.
I don’t think this is actually true. The percentage of voters who have actually voted for both parties in major elections is smaller than that. More people call themselves ‘independent’, but most of them are still reliable votes for one party or the other.
Timex
3502
But that plurality is only slight, as there are almost as many catholics.
I agree that, as a voting block, Evangelicals are often seen as more active than other Christians, but when I talk about speaking in the language of the Christian faith, I’m actually talking about appealing to Christians as a whole in our country. Because there are a lot of Christians who care about their faith, but maybe don’t wear it on their sleeves as much… but whom are often sucked into the GOP bullshit hypocrisy. A lot of Catholics, I suspect, fall into this area.
I think that there’s room for a discussion with them, that Pete could have, which points out how the GOP doesn’t represent what their faith teaches any more.
Remember, up until Reagan, even the Evangelicals were reliably Democratic voters. The Democrats don’t need to just yield those voters to the GOP without a fight, especialy given how overtly immoral the GOP has become.
Sharpe
3503
There’s a wrinkle here in that many conservative Christians strongly combine religious and political views, feeling that religious views must or should affect politics, while many less conservative Christians actually consider religion more of a personal values issue that should not be projected onto other via politics. It’s related to the concept of “evangelism” at its heart: by definition, evangelicals believe in spreading their religious view (I would say imposing it in many cases) whereas the more ecumenical Christians tend to view that as overreach. I feel that core difference in approach to religion carries over into politics so I feel like the “Christian Left” will never be as strongly political or powerful as the Christian Right.
I agree with you that there are good appeals to Christianity from the left and those should be made as appropriate; I just don’t think it’s ever going to yield the raw voting power that it does on the right.
Oghier
3505
Yep, it was a poorly worded question. Some of the candidates do mean free healthcare for everyone, including the undocumented. Bernie is in that camp. Others mean it’s a buy-in program. Buttigieg clarified that’s what he meant – they can buy in to a public option.
If the Dem nominee does run on “100m people lose their current insurance and illegal immigrants get free health care,” they’ll get stomped. And they’ll deserve it.
I wonder do you actually read the articles you post? First of all that article written two days before an election which saw, normally reliable Wisconsin, Michigan, and Penn, flip from D to R, along with the normal swings states FL, OH flip is pretty funny thing to cite. Especially when 2,600 counties voted for Obama and then Trump last election.
Second, the chart shows the number of stand patters at approximately 60%, implying that 40% aren’t reliably voting for the same party each election. The number of flippers is around 10%, who voted differently in two different elections. That’s per election.
My statement was that “~20% who have voted for both Republicans and Democrats presidents in the past.” I’d be will to bet that’s even true among highly partisan QT3 P&R folks 20% of you have at some point voted for a different party. Care to take the other side?
Yes, I know we are becoming more partisan and prior to the 2016 election you could say swing voters are dying, but they aren’t dead and they ultimatelywill decide the 2020 election.
Timex
3507
He also pointed out that when people say they’re for this stuff, they really should explain exactly what they mean, which was a good part of the answer.
I think there’s a big part of the far left, including folks here, who don’t understand this.
Me too! I think it’s the likeliest outcome. How election interference and the corporate media treat the eventual Democratic nominee is a wildcard, but I’m hoping this analysis proves out regardless. In any event, going to be a really long 16 months.
Something like 4.5% of the voting electorate voted for Obama in 2012 but Trump in 2016; about 2.5% switched from Romney to Clinton. These are not large pools of voters, but in razor-thin elections like 2016 they can be decisive.
The real problem is targeting them effectively. It’s not like there’s a magic single issue that the Dems can adopt that will bring back every single Obama-Trump voter. And if Dems try to get all the swing voters by capitulating on every issue that might appeal to the swing voters, then they lose their base.
TLDR: swing voters are rare and idiosyncratic, so it’s better to drive turnout among your base than to throw the dice on a small group that’s inherently fickle and unpredictable.
One thing I don’t see reported a lot is how much Wall Street utterly seems to loathe Donald Trump as President. I say this based on working with a number of financial investment institutions that are fairly famous, and fairly path-setting as far as influence go.
And without revealing any part of any NDA, I can tell you that the general impression I get is that what we euphemistically call “domestic political volatility” is the biggest concern that money managers and investors have right now. Specifically, they can work with how things go in a left-leaning White House and with a right-leaning White House. They know they can figure it out and adjust how they react on the buy/sell side.
They don’t know which side to be on with the current administration, like, ever, and it drives them bonkers.
Menzo
3511
Please, let’s not forget that not only are there Republicans in disguise in the media who want to convince Democrats that in order to win they have to become Republicans, but there are those same people on this message board.
Republicans didn’t win by becoming Democrats, so let’s just dismiss that notion off hand.
What Dems need is an inspiring candidate who offers more than just “not Trump.” If we can get that, we’ll win, easily.
Oghier
3512
Great, but don’t assume this is some kind of trick or con-game. Everyone thinks that the winning position is whatever they and their friends think.
What was the % change by flippers in those states? Bet good money it wasn’t 20%.
See, the normal thing to do here is back up your claim with some data. Why are you trying to make a wager instead?
Why are you trying to make a bet?
I never claimed that it was 20%, nor anything close to that. I claimed what I wrote nothing more.
Matt_W
3516
The winning position is to collaborate with Russian hackers to spread misinformation on social media platforms and dupe the media into disseminating illegally obtained documents on your opponents. So, it is a trick and a con-game.
