Jul 31, 2017 Everything it currently is... except sometimes you don't demand an A+ rating from Planned Parenthood when you're running in Ohio's 6th district lol
Jul 31, 2017 wow strong anti-trans overtones!!!!!!!! i think you are, though. you've been making the argument that broader economic initiatives can and should take precedence over abortion in certain districts--sure. but emphasizing other things does not necessarily have to include literally becoming anti-choice.
Jul 31, 2017 You were just questioning what the Democratic Party stands for though lol And - as a party - they aren't anti-choice. They're giving specific members/candidates the ability to not be treated like fundraising pariahs because their district isn't SF, Boston, NYC, St. Louis Park Minn
Jul 31, 2017 so here's a follow-up: what makes you confident that if a voter who is so anti-abortion as to vote republican SOLELY because of that issue, will flip to a candidate from a party that, even if they welcome an anti-abortion candidate into the fold, will never on the whole vote that way?
Jul 31, 2017 I think, taking a step back, it's more about enabling local parties grow talentstock without ridiculous pre-conditions that play on the coasts, but not in the heartland. You just read the hamburger piece - which, while not a prescription - has highlighted the cultural issues preventing voters from connecting with Democrats. Why are Union workers voting Trump? We can't constantly draw lines in the sand, especially when abortion remains such a defining, repellent cultural issue. A Pew poll shows about 3 in 10 Democrats say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases. Huge pockets of Hispanic and Black voters are pro-life. That really doubles down my logic here -- which, initially, was more about God-fearing married women.
Jul 31, 2017 first of all, LOLLLLLLLLLL @ protecting abortion rights being a "ridiculous pre-condition that plays on the coasts, but not in the heartland." that's insanely hyperbolic and i suspect you know that. let's define the terms here. can we agree that for our purposes here, being anti-abortion can be equated to supporting the reversal of roe v wade? if that's the case, only three in ten americans are anti-abortion (as of dec '16). the same polling data shows that 84 percent of democrats nationwide oppose a roe v wade reversal. so what are we really talking about here? risking the alienation of tens of millions in the party for a few theoretical voters who, again, i argue will not see an anti-abortion democrat as a viable alternative to the gop?
Jul 31, 2017 Labor unions have been on the decline in this country for decades, and the democrats have advocated for the same economic policies that benefited from that. Not much difference there compared to the right.
Jul 31, 2017 Republicans have historically been far more antagonistic toward unions, and proactively weakened them over the years. Not simply trade policy, which I see your point -- culturally, unions were/are Democratic base. First off, don't LAUGH AT ME. [stabs] And second, see, you ARE conflating things. Encouraging the election of pro-life backbenchers isn't the same as actively hurting abortion protection rights. I've stated how and why previously. Internalize my talking points, make them your own. We can play poll v poll all day. How many Republican congressmen are in districts that voted for HRC, or vice versa? There are absolutely purple districts that are prime to elect a Democrat under the right conditions. I've spelled this out already. That said: Hillary Clinton "lost the white Catholic vote by 23 points. In heavily Catholic states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, she lost by a hair — the last by less than 1 percent. A handful more of Catholic votes per parish in those states would have won her the election." There's just too much nuance floating the issue to be strident 100% of the time. Most Americans — and most likely a higher percentage of Catholics — oppose abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy, etc.
Jul 31, 2017 There's not much of a base there anymore. The late 1970s and 1980s proved especially brutal for Big Labor, with unionization rates halving during the period. The nation’s journalists and intellectuals covered this phenomenon extensively, linking union decline to the transition to a postindustrial economy increasingly open to global trade. Recent trends have garnered less press attention, yet private- sector unionization rates nearly halved again between 1990 and 2009, settling fi rmly in the single digits.1 The country’s unionization rate is lower than at any point since the early de cades of the twentieth century. And the contemporary American labor movement stands alone in its smallness. As labor activist Richard Yeselson recently recounted, “There has never been an advanced capitalist country with as weakened and small a union movement as today’s United States.” Jake Rosenfeild, What Unions No Longer Do, Harvard Press (2014)
Jul 31, 2017 Right and at the same time, the number of union workers (which, yes, has shrunk to an all time low) is also increasingly not voting for Democrats... at least in presidential contests.
Jul 31, 2017 Yeah, we already addressed that. Unions have no reason to back either party. Neither party is pro-labor. The US isn't pro-labor.
Jul 31, 2017 You asked why unions weren't voting for the democrats anymore. It's because democrats aren't pro-labor. Not a mystery.
Jul 31, 2017 Ok that's enough from you. Banned. It's also a cultural divide between party elite and the working class.
Jul 31, 2017 Yeah, unions left because of baristas and Tumblr, not because dems were complicit in destroying the working class.
Jul 31, 2017 Ok the snark isn't appreciated. Pls sit And broadly - yes, you are right. But pretty well documented the culture wars sent a lot of traditional conservative families into the Republican Party. Economics played a role too like cmon. I get this is your thing but you're just being annoying
