Quo Vadis GOP?

[Berkut]

I can see why you would think that.  But if the Dems just want to be another party of the right, why bother?

*shakeshead*

SO YOU DON'T ELECT TRUMP AGAIN AND END AMERICAN DEMOCRACY YOU FOOL!

If Trump is such an existential threat (and I think he is) - act like it.  Do whatever it takes to defeat him, even if it means shelving some progressive ideas for the moment and making common-cause with the political centre.

THis is the problem with the left now.

They are following the right down the path of ideological purity politics.

[Berkut]

After all that's been demonstrated about the GOP's intentions, actions and methods, it's really amazing to me how Democrat voters just don't show up on election day.

My understanding from afar is that Republican Youngkin won in Virginia by pushing issues around schools and education, while democrat McAuliffe relentlessly tried to tie Youngkin to Trump.

What I mean is there's a big chunk of ppl who voted for Biden and Kane etc. who then stayed home when another rich white guy pushing lies about CRT was on the ballot.

Either they were not properly informed, did not care or a combination of both. Kinda depressing.

I have really become rather pessimistic about US politics.

I think the authoritarian right has figured out a method that works. It is downright evil in its manipulation of the worst in human tendencies.

And the left is not willing or able to respond. Maybe that is because the reality is that there *isn't* a good way to respond, other then to become just as bad.

(and yes....it was a necessary condition to the success of the rights strategy to just embrace lying and appealing to the worst in humans that they first destroy the very idea of a credible and free press. mission accomplished)

[crazy canuck]

I can see why you would think that.  But if the Dems just want to be another party of the right, why bother?

*shakeshead*

SO YOU DON'T ELECT TRUMP AGAIN AND END AMERICAN DEMOCRACY YOU FOOL!

If Trump is such an existential threat (and I think he is) - act like it.  Do whatever it takes to defeat him, even if it means shelving some progressive ideas for the moment and making common-cause with the political centre.

How many non knuckle draggers remain on the right of the American political spectrum?  There are not many.  The Dems are not going to win by appealing to only the Berkuts and Yis of the American population.  If anything they would face electoral disaster.  No, the way to beat Trump is not to support the same policies the Republicans would.  The better way to find policies that appeal to a broader base.  Those policies also have the benefit of being the better policies.

[Barrister]

I can see why you would think that.  But if the Dems just want to be another party of the right, why bother?

*shakeshead*

SO YOU DON'T ELECT TRUMP AGAIN AND END AMERICAN DEMOCRACY YOU FOOL!

If Trump is such an existential threat (and I think he is) - act like it.  Do whatever it takes to defeat him, even if it means shelving some progressive ideas for the moment and making common-cause with the political centre.

How many non knuckle draggers remain on the right of the American political spectrum?  There are not many.  The Dems are not going to win by appealing to only the Berkuts and Yis of the American population.  If anything they would face electoral disaster.  No, the way to beat Trump is not to support the same policies the Republicans would.  The better way to find policies that appeal to a broader base.  Those policies also have the benefit of being the better policies.

You're not appealing to Republic politicians you dunderhead - you're appealing to occasional Republican voters.  You know, the ones who voted for Obama twice, then voted for Trump.  You don't push the same policies as Republicans - but you do push policies that would appeal to moderate suburban voters.  You know the same voters that voted for Joe Biden one year ago, but then voted for Youngkin earlier this week.

CRT may be a red herring, but you don't go saying parents have no say in what's taught in their kids schools.

Joe Biden won election because of voters who voted for him at the top of the ticket in 2020, but then voted Republican down-ballot.  If those voters had voted for Trump, Trump would have won the election fair and square.

You could pretty easily come up with a platform that would be different than the GOP (to the extent they even have a platform), but that runs a centre-left direction.  And explicitly rejecting "defund the police" should be one of those policies.

[DGuller]

I think that's a good reminder of what happened in 2020, Beeb.  People who compare the results of 2021 candidates against the Biden margin forget that even 2020 candidates underperformed the Biden margin.  It seems like voters are only marginally less scared of Democrats than they are of Trump, at least the marginal ones (in more ways than one).

[Berkut]

I can see why you would think that.  But if the Dems just want to be another party of the right, why bother?

*shakeshead*

SO YOU DON'T ELECT TRUMP AGAIN AND END AMERICAN DEMOCRACY YOU FOOL!

If Trump is such an existential threat (and I think he is) - act like it.  Do whatever it takes to defeat him, even if it means shelving some progressive ideas for the moment and making common-cause with the political centre.

How many non knuckle draggers remain on the right of the American political spectrum?  There are not many.  The Dems are not going to win by appealing to only the Berkuts and Yis of the American population.  If anything they would face electoral disaster.  No, the way to beat Trump is not to support the same policies the Republicans would.  The better way to find policies that appeal to a broader base.  Those policies also have the benefit of being the better policies.

You're not appealing to Republic politicians you dunderhead - you're appealing to occasional Republican voters.  You know, the ones who voted for Obama twice, then voted for Trump.  You don't push the same policies as Republicans - but you do push policies that would appeal to moderate suburban voters.  You know the same voters that voted for Joe Biden one year ago, but then voted for Youngkin earlier this week.

CRT may be a red herring, but you don't go saying parents have no say in what's taught in their kids schools.

Joe Biden won election because of voters who voted for him at the top of the ticket in 2020, but then voted Republican down-ballot.  If those voters had voted for Trump, Trump would have won the election fair and square.

You could pretty easily come up with a platform that would be different than the GOP (to the extent they even have a platform), but that runs a centre-left direction.  And explicitly rejecting "defund the police" should be one of those policies.

It's interesting how the rhetoric from the far left sounds almost exactly like the rhetoric from the far right.

"The same policies as the Republicans". This is common cause with the radical right who calls anyone not as radical as them "RINOS".

The idea that everyone must be 1 or the other - if you are not a radical progressive, you might as well be a radical Trumper.

[crazy canuck]

I can see why you would think that.  But if the Dems just want to be another party of the right, why bother?

*shakeshead*

SO YOU DON'T ELECT TRUMP AGAIN AND END AMERICAN DEMOCRACY YOU FOOL!

If Trump is such an existential threat (and I think he is) - act like it.  Do whatever it takes to defeat him, even if it means shelving some progressive ideas for the moment and making common-cause with the political centre.

How many non knuckle draggers remain on the right of the American political spectrum?  There are not many.  The Dems are not going to win by appealing to only the Berkuts and Yis of the American population.  If anything they would face electoral disaster.  No, the way to beat Trump is not to support the same policies the Republicans would.  The better way to find policies that appeal to a broader base.  Those policies also have the benefit of being the better policies.

You're not appealing to Republic politicians you dunderhead - you're appealing to occasional Republican voters.  You know, the ones who voted for Obama twice, then voted for Trump.  You don't push the same policies as Republicans - but you do push policies that would appeal to moderate suburban voters.  You know the same voters that voted for Joe Biden one year ago, but then voted for Youngkin earlier this week.

CRT may be a red herring, but you don't go saying parents have no say in what's taught in their kids schools.

Joe Biden won election because of voters who voted for him at the top of the ticket in 2020, but then voted Republican down-ballot.  If those voters had voted for Trump, Trump would have won the election fair and square.

You could pretty easily come up with a platform that would be different than the GOP (to the extent they even have a platform), but that runs a centre-left direction.  And explicitly rejecting "defund the police" should be one of those policies.

That is the sort of thinking that has the Conservatives winning only occasionally in Canada.  The problem with US politics is that with rare exceptions politicians rarely try to fight the right. 

[grumbler]

You're not appealing to Republic politicians you dunderhead - you're appealing to occasional Republican voters.  You know, the ones who voted for Obama twice, then voted for Trump.  You don't push the same policies as Republicans - but you do push policies that would appeal to moderate suburban voters.  You know the same voters that voted for Joe Biden one year ago, but then voted for Youngkin earlier this week.

There aren't enough of those voters to matter.

CRT may be a red herring, but you don't go saying parents have no say in what's taught in their kids schools.

No one has ever said that parents have no say in what's taught in their kid's schools.  That's just yet another right wing red herring.  What McAuliffe said was that "I don't think parents should be telling schools what they should teach," which is perfectly true.  Parents have a voice, but it's not a personal voice in directing a school's curriculum.

Joe Biden won election because of voters who voted for him at the top of the ticket in 2020, but then voted Republican down-ballot.  If those voters had voted for Trump, Trump would have won the election fair and square.

Where do you get the idea that the seven million votes that Biden out-polled Trump by voted Republican down-ticket?  [/quote]  If that had happened, the Democrats would have lost the House and the Senate.

[Eddie Teach]

I'm not sure how the McAuliffe quote you gave differs from Barristers interpretation. I don't think that hair can be split.

[Barrister]

You're not appealing to Republic politicians you dunderhead - you're appealing to occasional Republican voters.  You know, the ones who voted for Obama twice, then voted for Trump.  You don't push the same policies as Republicans - but you do push policies that would appeal to moderate suburban voters.  You know the same voters that voted for Joe Biden one year ago, but then voted for Youngkin earlier this week.

There aren't enough of those voters to matter.

CRT may be a red herring, but you don't go saying parents have no say in what's taught in their kids schools.

No one has ever said that parents have no say in what's taught in their kid's schools.  That's just yet another right wing red herring.  What McAuliffe said was that "I don't think parents should be telling schools what they should teach," which is perfectly true.  Parents have a voice, but it's not a personal voice in directing a school's curriculum.

Joe Biden won election because of voters who voted for him at the top of the ticket in 2020, but then voted Republican down-ballot.  If those voters had voted for Trump, Trump would have won the election fair and square.

Where do you get the idea that the seven million votes that Biden out-polled Trump by voted Republican down-ticket? 

If that had happened, the Democrats would have lost the House and the Senate.
[/quote]

I'm not going to fancy up the formatting, but:

-I've heard smart people say there are
-I don't think there's a meaningful difference between my summary and your exact quote
-I didn't say Trump would have won the popular vote, but rather that Trump would have won enough votes in enough states to win the electoral college

[grumbler]

I'm not sure how the McAuliffe quote you gave differs from Barristers interpretation. I don't think that hair can be split.

If you can't see the difference between:
a. "parents have no say in what's taught in their kids schools," and
b. "I don't think parents should be telling schools what they should teach,"
then I'm guessing reading comprehension just isn't your thing.  One is a prohibition on them having any power, and the other is a prohibition on them having complete power.

[grumbler]

I'm not going to fancy up the formatting, but:

-I've heard smart people say there are
-I don't think there's a meaningful difference between my summary and your exact quote
-I didn't say Trump would have won the popular vote, but rather that Trump would have won enough votes in enough states to win the electoral college

- I don't know how you can read my evidence-based analysis and discard it in favor of some word of mouth about what some unidentified "smart people say."
- If you can't see the difference, then I pity the Crown Service.
- Your unsupported assertions are unconvincing.  Even more so in light of the two points above.

[Eddie Teach]

I'm not sure how the McAuliffe quote you gave differs from Barristers interpretation. I don't think that hair can be split.

If you can't see the difference between:
a. "parents have no say in what's taught in their kids schools," and
b. "I don't think parents should be telling schools what they should teach,"
then I'm guessing reading comprehension just isn't your thing.  One is a prohibition on them having any power, and the other is a prohibition on them having complete power.

If parents aren't part of the decision process, then they have no say. If they are, that is "telling schools what they should teach". Being able to mouth off at a school board meeting doesn't count for anything.

[The Larch]

Wasn't the whole debate in the Virginia campaign about parents and school curriculums about a busybody mother who wanted his son's high school to remove Toni Morrison's Beloved from the school curriculum because it gave his 17 year old kid nightmares or somesuch?

To my euroweenie mind having parents tell their sons' school about what they can and can't teach seems most of the time a fig leaf for nutters and busybodies to impuse their nuttery on others while clutching their pearls and screaming "won't somebody think of the children?"

[grumbler]

If parents aren't part of the decision process, then they have no say. If they are, that is "telling schools what they should teach". Being able to mouth off at a school board meeting doesn't count for anything.

Well, if you think that parents only have a say if they can tell schools what to teach, then you have defined the issue in such an extremist way that you cut off any possibility of a reasonable take on the situation.

If you are right, then Youngkin can only keep his promise by telling schools that they must teach what each parent wants them to teach; which, of course, isn't a power of the governor, but let's pretend that your concept isn't completely impossible for a moment, as a thought experiment.  So, when one parent tells their school that it must teach only Mark Twain in tenth grade English, and another tells the school that it must teach only Charles Dickens in tenth grade English, the school must bifurcate into two schools, so that each parent gets their way.  Then a third parent tells the school it must teach creationism and a fourth tells the school it must not teach creationism, the two schools bifurcate into four, teaching each parents kid what the parent insists on.  Continue this process for 1,000 parents, and where are you?

So, if you are right, then schools are completely fucked. 

If I am right, then parents continue to have their current voice in school curricula, by electing the school board, serving on academic committees reporting to the school board, being members of the PTA, and, yes, speaking out at school board meetings.  You know; the system that worked for 200 years or so.