US election 2020 poll

[Sheilbh]

I feel like you two are putting more thought into it than the Democratic Party has in the last four years

My theory in general: I think "us" works bettern than "them", negativity instill dejection and apathy (this is partly why I think Trump won) and you need a theory of change (why now and why you).

For someone like DS I've no idea. But my pitch would be we want politics where he can vote for the party he supports and get the policies he wants and the left can do the same, but this time that means backing Biden because that's the only way Republicans will ever get close to learning their lesson. And once they do he can vote for a conservative party doing conservative things and the left can vote for a left-wing party that doesn't have to pander to him

[Oexmelin]

What kind of misinformation would *you* emphasize?  Surely you have as much insight on psychology, party loyalty, political issues, group identity, and ideology as I do. 

You first

[Admiral Yi]

You first

This is a seminar, not a lecture.

[Oexmelin]

vthat's the only way Republicans will ever get close to learning their lesson. And once they do he can vote for a conservative party doing conservative things and the left can vote for a left-wing party that doesn't have to pander to him

But people like DS don't want the GOP to learn their lesson. Or the lesson they want it to learn is, "don't nominate a clown". The damage done to the Republic, or to democracy doesn't register at all. A similarly ruthless, but competent, President would gain their support.

There is a fundamental difference between people who have vague feelings about politics, and for whom a discussion is possible; people for whom party identification is personal identity; and people who are well informed and will still make the decision to vote Trump. For the first, you can have a pleasant conversation at a bar. The second, you have to fight the might of Fox-State propaganda on your own, and for the third, I just can't figure out what common ground there even could be. If you fundamentally disagree with the diagnosis that the current way of doing politics represents a fundamental danger to the Republic - indeed, if these words even mean anything to you - I just can't see where to begin.

[Oexmelin]

You first

This is a seminar, not a lecture.

No, it's not a lecture. It's also not a face-to-face conversation. But your MO is that you leave other people to make long, developed post, and then you snipe a laconic sentence here and there. This creates an imbalance in the conversation and you place your interlocutor in the position of justifying themselves all the time, while you limit yourself to commenting on their points.

[Valmy]

Or at least that we'll get more Corn Pop stories

More of those or something even better I can guarantee.

[merithyn]

Tell me Biden will appoint conservative USSC justices.  Or at least that we'll get more Corn Pop stories

So that is the acceptable price for a Trump government? It's all about Conservative justices?

I'd like to understand beyond wanting conservative justices for the sake of having them, what are the policies prevented or rolled back that every-day Republicans (aka the voters) would like to see that they see justices as sure fire protection for.

For derspiess, I'd guess abortion rights would be a big one.

[PJL]

At this point, what would be the best means of persuasion?

Something that appeals to their core values I would say.

Not possible if their core values are basically to be the exact opposite of what the Democrats are, regardless of their policy. And unfortunately, 40% of voters are of that mindset. The only thing I can think of that might work is to manoeuvre Trump into another government shutdown, that was the only time he was in danger of being unpopular with his core vote.

[grumbler]

I'd like to understand beyond wanting conservative justices for the sake of having them, what are the policies prevented or rolled back that every-day Republicans (aka the voters) would like to see that they see justices as sure fire protection for.

I'd think the strongest argument to make with a traditional Republican is that the judges that the current Republican leadership (heavily influenced by the Federalist Society) wants to install are terrible justices from the standpoint of what traditional Republicans wanted.  They are not "small government" advocates, they are Imperial Presidency advocates.  That may seem okay to traditional Republicans if the presidency stays in the hands of the Republicans, but will bite traditional Republicans in the ass when Democrats get that power.  Merrick Garland would have been a much better Associate Justice from the standpoint of traditional Republicanism than is Brett Kavanaugh.

[fromtia]

There are some Bulwarks and Lincoln Projects and Mitt Romney if you are feeling charitable, but it's a mistake to assume that the majority of Republicans think there's a problem with Trump. I mean a lot of them do, you know, think he's a bit uncouth but in terms of policy they are pretty happy. Taxes cut, judiciary packed, Lib tears, Lib media punished for it's Libness. What's not to like? Trump won the Republican primary fair and square and then about 63 million Republicans voted for him in the election. I realize that Trump isn't a true conservative idealogically, but I don't think that's important at all to most republican voters.

Republicans aren't wringing their hands in anguish worrying about finding a true conservative to vote for who loves the Republic and democracy and so on, they'll turn out absolutely reliably in November.

[The Brain]

They are not "small government" advocates, they are Imperial Presidency advocates.  That may seem okay to traditional Republicans if the presidency stays in the hands of the Republicans, but will bite traditional Republicans in the ass when Democrats get that power. 

They are GOP. If they have any principles at all they change with changes in the White House.

[HisMajestyBOB]

I'd like to understand beyond wanting conservative justices for the sake of having them, what are the policies prevented or rolled back that every-day Republicans (aka the voters) would like to see that they see justices as sure fire protection for.

I'd think the strongest argument to make with a traditional Republican is that the judges that the current Republican leadership (heavily influenced by the Federalist Society) wants to install are terrible justices from the standpoint of what traditional Republicans wanted.  They are not "small government" advocates, they are Imperial Presidency advocates.  That may seem okay to traditional Republicans if the presidency stays in the hands of the Republicans, but will bite traditional Republicans in the ass when Democrats get that power.  Merrick Garland would have been a much better Associate Justice from the standpoint of traditional Republicanism than is Brett Kavanaugh.

Counterpoint: they're also highly partisan justices who see no problem with immediately reversing themselves if it helps the GOP and hurts the Dems.

[grumbler]

For derspiess, I'd guess abortion rights would be a big one.

Yep.  That's why traditional Republicans have lost control of the Republican party.  The idea that the government should be given the power to determine that sex should be punished by the possibility of pregnancy is a puritan one, not a Republican one, and puritans vote more reliably than Republicans.

[Barrister]

Tell me Biden will appoint conservative USSC justices.  Or at least that we'll get more Corn Pop stories

So that is the acceptable price for a Trump government? It's all about Conservative justices?

I'd like to understand beyond wanting conservative justices for the sake of having them, what are the policies prevented or rolled back that every-day Republicans (aka the voters) would like to see that they see justices as sure fire protection for.

For derspiess, I'd guess abortion rights would be a big one.

Derspeiss doesn't actually strike me as a guy too worried about abortion.  I think he brings it up just to troll you.

[merithyn]

For derspiess, I'd guess abortion rights would be a big one.

Derspeiss doesn't actually strike me as a guy too worried about abortion.  I think he brings it up just to troll you.

That doesn't appear the case based on his comments when it comes up, but sure. It's possible.