2024 Elections Thread

[ciao_yall]

Jimbogumbo: "Fun California fact: it voted R for prez in every election from 1952 thru 1988. Didn't switch to D until Clinton in 1992."

If you look at CA governors its even more R centric. Starting with Reagan (1967-75), there have been 8 different governor terms (Jerry Brown twice). Only half of those terms were Dems.. Jerry twice, Grey Davis (recalled), and now Gavin.

California brand Republicans did VERY well in the state for a very long time. Unfortunately for the rest of the country, CA Republicans would be considered solidly Dem most other places because of social views.

As a Californian, the only Rs I see are total MAGA types. I think it's hard to be a moderate R in this state when the D party is so large and there has been a moderate wing for quite some time.

[ciao_yall]

^^^ Hopefully they are doing a little more than winging it. Lots of internal polling should be going on right now to figure out where the marginal benefits will be most helpful - AZ or PA. But in general, yes there is going to be a lot of guesswork.

Btw, AZ has a Democratic governor so I think she'd be able to appoint a replacement for Kelly.

I'd also add NC to the list of states that Harris could put into play, although the VP probably doesn't matter much in that context. And it would be a reach for the Dems.

And the NC governor would automatically be Mark Robinson. Yikes.

[ciao_yall]

Jimbogumbo: "Fun California fact: it voted R for prez in every election from 1952 thru 1988. Didn't switch to D until Clinton in 1992."

If you look at CA governors its even more R centric. Starting with Reagan (1967-75), there have been 8 different governor terms (Jerry Brown twice). Only half of those terms were Dems.. Jerry twice, Grey Davis (recalled), and now Gavin.

California brand Republicans did VERY well in the state for a very long time. Unfortunately for the rest of the country, CA Republicans would be considered solidly Dem most other places because of social views.

Also adding that through the 1970's the D party was the home of Southern white segregationists. Not that CA was exactly a bastion of racial equity but we didn't have blatant Jim Crow laws.

Oh and Governor Ronald Reagan legalized abortion in 1967.

[marshwiggle]

The extreme progressive stuff that the Democrats have assented to in order to please the activists do not sit well with lots of middle-of-the-road voters.

Really curious as to what you believe some of these are.

Someone else expressed it well.

But Marshie is right.  If the D's don't quiet down their SJW wing on trans rights, Free Palestine, BLM, and similar hot button social issues, they're going to have a problem. 

For example, I don't think banning bump stocks or AR type weapons is an example, nor would I class single payer health care in that vein.

This illustrates my point; by ignoring the issues noted by secundem_artem and pretending the issues are only the ones listed above, the centrist voter who is worried about the first group is unfairly and inaccurately painted as a radical who objects to the latter group.

Note to parties: YOU DON'T GET TO TELL VOTERS WHAT ISSUES THEY HAVE TO PRIORITIZE. YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT ISSUES THEY PRIORITIZE.

[Ruralguy]

Yes, if you want to win and go on to represent them.

[jimbogumbo]

marsh: I completely understand, but it still frustrates me. Specifically, when people have an issue with something that doesn't really exist (like my migrant crime example). I probably should have asked on a different thread, because I'm still trying to wrap my head around real issues people actually agree to disagree on (or work to solve) versus ginned up fake stuff to score talking points.


FWIW, I don't think many people are thing about BLM, and Free Palestine went from a topic really only seen on college campuses to something I would term real due to all the destruction and actual death. Whether or not the Israeli response to Oct. 7 is justified or not really does cross party lines.

[Ruralguy]

I for one would like to work to solve many problems, including migration and the border, and I thought many politicians across parties id too, and then it got demagogued.

I won't get into particulars of foreign policy, but I'll just say, once people are willing to die for a cause (and take others with), you are probably screwed for a really really long time (as in *millenia*). How do you reason with that?

[marshwiggle]

marsh: I completely understand, but it still frustrates me. Specifically, when people have an issue with something that doesn't really exist (like my migrant crime example). I probably should have asked on a different thread, because I'm still trying to wrap my head around real issues people actually agree to disagree on (or work to solve) versus ginned up fake stuff to score talking points.


FWIW, I don't think many people are thing about BLM, and Free Palestine went from a topic really only seen on college campuses to something I would term real due to all the destruction and actual death. Whether or not the Israeli response to Oct. 7 is justified or not really does cross party lines.

Issues that people are really concerned about are things like men in women's sports and changing rooms (and prisons). Even more important is that Dems will disparage peoples' character for even expressing concern about these issues.

Cowtowing to the extreme activists instead of telling them when they have gone too far does not go well with centrist voters.

(And it doesn't matter what I think; if I'm wrong, everything I say is irrelevant. But if I'm right, then unless and until any party wanting to be in power actually pays attention to voters, rather than trying to tell them what to think, they will be out in the cold.)

 

[ciao_yall]

marsh: I completely understand, but it still frustrates me. Specifically, when people have an issue with something that doesn't really exist (like my migrant crime example). I probably should have asked on a different thread, because I'm still trying to wrap my head around real issues people actually agree to disagree on (or work to solve) versus ginned up fake stuff to score talking points.


FWIW, I don't think many people are thing about BLM, and Free Palestine went from a topic really only seen on college campuses to something I would term real due to all the destruction and actual death. Whether or not the Israeli response to Oct. 7 is justified or not really does cross party lines.

Issues that people are really concerned about are things like men in women's sports and changing rooms (and prisons). Even more important is that Dems will disparage peoples' character for even expressing concern about these issues.

Cowtowing to the extreme activists instead of telling them when they have gone too far does not go well with centrist voters.

(And it doesn't matter what I think; if I'm wrong, everything I say is irrelevant. But if I'm right, then unless and until any party wanting to be in power actually pays attention to voters, rather than trying to tell them what to think, they will be out in the cold.)

Because it's Not. An. Issue.

Fox News has people so freaked out about the occasional trans person who, trust me, doesn't want to make a big deal of their presence, that they are convinced Trump is the only person protecting their daughters from some perv in a wig.

I just moved to the suburbs and the neighborhood Facebook group had a post from a local mom with a rising middle schooler worried about whether there were "furries."

Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick.

[marshwiggle]

marsh: I completely understand, but it still frustrates me. Specifically, when people have an issue with something that doesn't really exist (like my migrant crime example). I probably should have asked on a different thread, because I'm still trying to wrap my head around real issues people actually agree to disagree on (or work to solve) versus ginned up fake stuff to score talking points.


FWIW, I don't think many people are thing about BLM, and Free Palestine went from a topic really only seen on college campuses to something I would term real due to all the destruction and actual death. Whether or not the Israeli response to Oct. 7 is justified or not really does cross party lines.

Issues that people are really concerned about are things like men in women's sports and changing rooms (and prisons). Even more important is that Dems will disparage peoples' character for even expressing concern about these issues.

Cowtowing to the extreme activists instead of telling them when they have gone too far does not go well with centrist voters.

(And it doesn't matter what I think; if I'm wrong, everything I say is irrelevant. But if I'm right, then unless and until any party wanting to be in power actually pays attention to voters, rather than trying to tell them what to think, they will be out in the cold.)

Because it's Not. An. Issue.

Fox News has people so freaked out about the occasional trans person who, trust me, doesn't want to make a big deal of their presence, that they are convinced Trump is the only person protecting their daughters from some perv in a wig.

I just moved to the suburbs and the neighborhood Facebook group had a post from a local mom with a rising middle schooler worried about whether there were "furries."

Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick.

If voters think it's an issue, it's an issue. That is the point.
Telling them they're stupid and out of touch won't get their votes.

[Parasaurolophus]

marsh: I completely understand, but it still frustrates me. Specifically, when people have an issue with something that doesn't really exist (like my migrant crime example). I probably should have asked on a different thread, because I'm still trying to wrap my head around real issues people actually agree to disagree on (or work to solve) versus ginned up fake stuff to score talking points.


FWIW, I don't think many people are thing about BLM, and Free Palestine went from a topic really only seen on college campuses to something I would term real due to all the destruction and actual death. Whether or not the Israeli response to Oct. 7 is justified or not really does cross party lines.

Issues that people are really concerned about are things like men in women's sports and changing rooms (and prisons). Even more important is that Dems will disparage peoples' character for even expressing concern about these issues.

Cowtowing to the extreme activists instead of telling them when they have gone too far does not go well with centrist voters.

(And it doesn't matter what I think; if I'm wrong, everything I say is irrelevant. But if I'm right, then unless and until any party wanting to be in power actually pays attention to voters, rather than trying to tell them what to think, they will be out in the cold.)

Because it's Not. An. Issue.

Fox News has people so freaked out about the occasional trans person who, trust me, doesn't want to make a big deal of their presence, that they are convinced Trump is the only person protecting their daughters from some perv in a wig.

I just moved to the suburbs and the neighborhood Facebook group had a post from a local mom with a rising middle schooler worried about whether there were "furries."

Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick.

If voters think it's an issue, it's an issue. That is the point.
Telling them they're stupid and out of touch won't get their votes.

Voters don't care about it.

[evil_physics_witchcraft]

marsh: I completely understand, but it still frustrates me. Specifically, when people have an issue with something that doesn't really exist (like my migrant crime example). I probably should have asked on a different thread, because I'm still trying to wrap my head around real issues people actually agree to disagree on (or work to solve) versus ginned up fake stuff to score talking points.


FWIW, I don't think many people are thing about BLM, and Free Palestine went from a topic really only seen on college campuses to something I would term real due to all the destruction and actual death. Whether or not the Israeli response to Oct. 7 is justified or not really does cross party lines.

Issues that people are really concerned about are things like men in women's sports and changing rooms (and prisons). Even more important is that Dems will disparage peoples' character for even expressing concern about these issues.

Cowtowing to the extreme activists instead of telling them when they have gone too far does not go well with centrist voters.

(And it doesn't matter what I think; if I'm wrong, everything I say is irrelevant. But if I'm right, then unless and until any party wanting to be in power actually pays attention to voters, rather than trying to tell them what to think, they will be out in the cold.)

Because it's Not. An. Issue.

Fox News has people so freaked out about the occasional trans person who, trust me, doesn't want to make a big deal of their presence, that they are convinced Trump is the only person protecting their daughters from some perv in a wig.

I just moved to the suburbs and the neighborhood Facebook group had a post from a local mom with a rising middle schooler worried about whether there were "furries."

Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick.

OMG. That's hilarious! Oh no! Not the furries! What's the world coming to? Sheesh!

[marshwiggle]

If voters think it's an issue, it's an issue. That is the point.
Telling them they're stupid and out of touch won't get their votes.

Voters don't care about it.

According to that survey, only 5% said abortion was most important,  (and only 2% said civil liberties), and yet apparently that's one of the issues Dems seem to feel is good for them to campaign on. (I suppose it's possible that it falls under "healthcare", which 14% thought most important, but it's odd that it wouldn't show up in "civil liberties".)

If the survey just gave people a list to choose from, then that would only present things in the terms of the survey, which comes back to the same problem of trying to dictate to people what choices they should (and therefore should not) have. Like the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

[dismalist]

If voters think it's an issue, it's an issue. That is the point.
Telling them they're stupid and out of touch won't get their votes.

Voters don't care about it.

According to that survey, only 5% said abortion was most important,  (and only 2% said civil liberties), and yet apparently that's one of the issues Dems seem to feel is good for them to campaign on. (I suppose it's possible that it falls under "healthcare", which 14% thought most important, but it's odd that it wouldn't show up in "civil liberties".)

If the survey just gave people a list to choose from, then that would only present things in the terms of the survey, which comes back to the same problem of trying to dictate to people what choices they should (and therefore should not) have. Like the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

The survey can be somewhat misleading. It asks what is most important to the voter. But there are many issues, and some will be less important to voters. And ranking is not the same as intensity of belief.

What the parties are doing is picking issues their supporters feel are most important and ignoring those their opponents think most important. It is not so much about convincing the opponents but mobilizing the supporters, and that in simple emotive ways. I expect the parties know what they are doing.

To make this really simple, the major issue for Democratic voters is Trump! Forget the weeds of policy. For Republicans it's probably culture and economics. There, too, forget the weeds of policy.

Forget the weeds, for voters are rationally ignorant.

[Puget]

If voters think it's an issue, it's an issue. That is the point.
Telling them they're stupid and out of touch won't get their votes.

Voters don't care about it.

According to that survey, only 5% said abortion was most important,  (and only 2% said civil liberties), and yet apparently that's one of the issues Dems seem to feel is good for them to campaign on. (I suppose it's possible that it falls under "healthcare", which 14% thought most important, but it's odd that it wouldn't show up in "civil liberties".)

If the survey just gave people a list to choose from, then that would only present things in the terms of the survey, which comes back to the same problem of trying to dictate to people what choices they should (and therefore should not) have. Like the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

As someone who uses questionnaires extensively in research, I've always thought the "most important" question was super bad and useless. People care about a lot of things, and they will basically always say that economic factors are most important, but that doesn't mean their vote isn't *also* influenced by other factors, or even that other factors aren't *more* important (e.g., you can think something is really important but not think there is much difference between the candidates on it, in which case it won't impact your vote). There is pretty clear empirical evidence since Dobbs that when measures to preserve/restore reproductive rights are on the ballet, it helps Democrats, even if people aren't saying it is their most important issue in surveys.