|
Chomskyan posted:So the Republicans are out of touch with their base on this issue.
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 11:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:33 |
|
|
Chomskyan posted:I get the feeling you're not an expert on modern statistical theory and aren't really qualified to criticize polls carried out by professional statisticians, but go ahead and surprise me if I'm wrong. I get the feeling you're incapable of grasping that a pure "in favour/against" poll question is essentially irrelevant without putting it into context with an additional "does anyone care" poll question, but go ahead and surprise me if I'm wrong. You're being a strawman technocrat who wants to make metrics go up without first considering what these metrics mean.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 11:32
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Remember when we got to the answer on the first page but the op kept asking the question over and over trying to get it to not be guns? Its guns. An additional thing that would help would to have dems go pro privacy instead of leaving that to fringe republican candidates. People generally like the bill of rights.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
Is there any actual data to back up the idea that it's guns though? The argument that the pro-gunners are more motivated than anti-gunners, and consequently a change in the democratic platform would be a net positive, is still something I'm suspicious about. Like the #1 cause still seems to be gerrymandering, not necessarily policies. The democrats will keep losing as long as the electoral map is stacked against them. Oddly enough, part of the cause is the voting rights act, which requires minority-majority districts, but as a result actually helps more republican representatives get elected by reducing the distribution of minority votes. edit: So either the democrats get off their asses and start breaking poo poo, or they'll keep losing. It's as simple as that. Republicans aren't playing fair, they're not playing for the sake of the game, they're playing to win. rudatron fucked around with this message at 15:51 on Feb 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:I'll explain this step by step. The actual content of the bills is meaningless, of course - if you support something, you have to vote for it no matter how badly implemented or clumsily written the law is, after all. I mean, if you said pizza was your favorite food then you've got to eat every pizza put in front of you - even if the pizza has a turd across the top. Otherwise you're just a big pants-on-fire liar. Chomskyan posted:According to scientific polling their base is overwhelmingly in favor of universal background checks. So the Republicans are out of touch with their base on this issue. I always have to wonder about survey questions like this - are the people responding as well-versed in existing law? I ask, because I've run into people that vehemently, powerfully demand that Law X needs to be changed into Law Y - when the Law has always been Y. (Even on this very forum.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:The actual content of the bills is meaningless, of course - if you support something, you have to vote for it no matter how badly implemented or clumsily written the law is, after all. On the other hand, if you say that pizza is your favorite food, but call every pizza you see an attempt by jackbooted UN thugs to take away our freedoms, you might just be a loving liar?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
GyroNinja posted:On the other hand, if you say that pizza is your favorite food, but call every pizza you see an attempt by jackbooted UN thugs to take away our freedoms, you might just be a loving liar? Or maybe the pizzas just have a bunch of manky detritus sprinkled on top because it was delivered with your latest order of strawmen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
GyroNinja posted:On the other hand, if you say that pizza is your favorite food, but call every pizza you see an attempt by jackbooted UN thugs to take away our freedoms, you might just be a loving liar? More saliently, the poll is still wrong under this explanation. Either way it doesn't tell us the pro-gun control types prioritize it higher than gunners do so it doesn't tell us much on election day. anne frank fanfic posted:Remember when we got to the answer on the first page but the op kept asking the question over and over trying to get it to not be guns? I tried to bring up other issues. Ironically this thread has done a great job demonstrating why deep blue attitudes running the party has destroyed Dems in most positions besides the President.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
It's kind of endearing that gun owners in this thread are so convinced that they represent the crucial swing vote that delivers power in American elections. I guess it would be too modest to just admit that your particular hobby and interests make you more likely to vote Republican. Instead there has to be this entire elaborate explanation of why the vote of people exactly like you is the key to winning national elections or overcoming structural problems like jerrymandering and vote suppression. It really comes of like an unsubtle but probably unconscious attempt by people to assert that they are important. "Don't you see, if only the Democrats would cater more to me then they would win elections." It's also a way to attacking your equally irrelevant enemy on the other side of the debate, because now you can tell this person "the Democrats lose because of people like you!" As though someone who is demographically most likely to be an under employed college grad represents the source of Democratic campaign strategy misfires. Beneath all the pretend debating it just comes down to this: people like me are super important and the world would be better if we were listened to more. People who annoy me on the internet, meanwhile, are the direct cause of bad things. My place in the universe is consequential and my likes and dislikes closely align with the outcome of issues of national importance! The world revolves around whether people support or oppose my hobby of choice. Guns are hardly irrelevant to elections but if you listened to some of the posters in this thread you'd think they were the only issue that actually swayed any voters when really, anyone who has been watching politics for the last decade should know gun control is likely to be only a minor issue in this year's contest.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
Its funny that you don't disparage the posters in this thread claiming that supporting gun control is one of the most important issues for the Democratic party. Its almost as if your insistence on ideological purity trump any other logic or reasoning. As if you have different standards based on identity politics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:More saliently, the poll is still wrong under this explanation. Either way it doesn't tell us the pro-gun control types prioritize it higher than gunners do so it doesn't tell us much on election day. I admit, it's probably true that "generic gun control law" polls better than any specific law in the same way that "generic Republican/Democrat" usually outpolls any specific candidate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Its funny that you don't disparage the posters in this thread claiming that supporting gun control is one of the most important issues for the Democratic party. Its almost as if your insistence on ideological purity trump any other logic or reasoning. As if you have different standards based on identity politics. Not one of the posters arguing for dropping gun control have posted any surveys/statistics/demographic data to support their position. I and others haves made arguments in favor of keeping gun control backed by at least some evidence. I think maybe it's the posters who keep repeating the same point without even attempting to provide evidence that care more about their ideology then strategy's that will actually win Dem's the house back. I'll repeat for the third time, 35% of the Dems base is black or hispanic, both groups overwhelmingly support gun control. The black and hispanic vote will be the largest voting bloc in the next few decades. Dropping gun control is not an option if the Dems want to be relevant in the future. Also, we get it, survey's aren't perfect. But you guys have yet to provide a single piece of evidence to support your position, nor have you provided any evidence that gun control is a bigger wedge issue than abortion/minimum wage/whatever. Seriously, please either shut the gently caress up about guns or make a coherent argument backed by actual evidence that goes beyond "guns are cool and republicans don't like gun control, so let's drop gun control!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Its funny that you don't disparage the posters in this thread claiming that supporting gun control is one of the most important issues for the Democratic party. Its almost as if your insistence on ideological purity trump any other logic or reasoning. As if you have different standards based on identity politics. That's because the arguments aren't really symmetrical in the way you're implying. I don't see any Democratic posters claiming that if the party would just introduce even harsher and more sweeping gun control legislation then they would somehow get more votes. Instead they're making the fairly reasonable point that a lot of Democratic voters and donors support gun control, meaning that de-emphasizing it as a policy might cost as many or more votes and donations as it would win. I hope you can see how this is a relatively modest and conventional argument: de-emphasizing policy that the party base has long championed may cost the party as much as it benefits. Contrast that with the argument several gun advocates have made: "adopting radically new policy that alienates the base and which is premised on attracting swing voters who haven't actually been proven to exist will be the key to victory". Those gun control arguments may or may not be wrong, but they aren't really comparable to the multiple gun owners who have actually argued that gun control is a bigger issue than economics or gerrymandering in explaining why Democrats lose. One side here is making an argument that may or may not be wrong, the other side is basically talking gibberish. Since I'm not an American I can't say I'm hugely invested in how much you guys restrict guns. I don't tend to think gun ownership should be illegal but when I observe Americans debating gun control I find the policy details are less striking than the amount of raw tribalism on display. So far as I can tell there aren't any other liberal democracies that have anything resembling what passing mainstream discourse on guns in America. Anyway, as I said repeatedly upthread I think the best reason to de-emphasize gun control as an issue is that it is unlikely to gain traction and the entire spectacle of the gun debate makes it harder for the Dems to focus on positive areas where they could make actual progress and attain new votes. But the idea being pushed in this thread that gun control is a super consequential issue in its own right is, as I said above, a very transparent attempt for a couple of posters here to try and assert that their personal priorities somehow provide the key for how national elections are fought and won.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
skeet decorator posted:Not one of the posters arguing for dropping gun control have posted any surveys/statistics/demographic data to support their position. I and others haves made arguments in favor of keeping gun control backed by at least some evidence. I think maybe it's the posters who keep repeating the same point without even attempting to provide evidence that care more about their ideology then strategy's that will actually win Dem's the house back. The evidence posted is absolutely worthless for proving what is being argued. Worthless evidence is not better then no evidence. Also I did post evidence, we literally saw this all play out during the first term of Clinton's presidency. Helsing posted:That's because the arguments aren't really symmetrical in the way you're implying. I don't see any Democratic posters claiming that if the party would just introduce even harsher and more sweeping gun control legislation then they would somehow get more votes. Instead they're making the fairly reasonable point that a lot of Democratic voters and donors support gun control, meaning that de-emphasizing it as a policy might cost as many or more votes and donations as it would win. I hope you can see how this is a relatively modest and conventional argument: de-emphasizing policy that the party base has long championed may cost the party as much as it benefits. Contrast that with the argument several gun advocates have made: "adopting radically new policy that alienates the base and which is premised on attracting swing voters who haven't actually been proven to exist will be the key to victory". The tribalism is exactly the point of why dems should stop pushing this issue.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Also I did post evidence, we literally saw this all play out during the first term of Clinton's presidency. Is this the evidence you're talking about? Jarmak posted:Clinton signed two major gun control bills in his first two years in office, both bills passed along party lines, the fact Reagan became rather pro control in his later years doesn't change this fact. Then within less then a year the democrats then suffered what was at that point the worst electoral defeat in in US history, losing majorities in the house and senate. Gun control was a major part of the democratic party platform in the 90s and they only stopped pushing it because they got curb stomped repeatedly over it. That's not really evidence so much as a logical fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc Jarmak posted:The evidence posted is absolutely worthless for proving what is being argued. Worthless evidence is not better then no evidence. What are your issues with the evidence I provided? Do you disagree with the assertion that blacks and hispanics are 35% of the dems base? Do you have evidence to suggest that gun control isn't widely supported among black and hispanic voters?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
This whole argument is based on the idea that appealing to voters on issues they already know and care about is the key to winning elections.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
skeet decorator posted:Is this the evidence you're talking about? Did the Colorado recalls not happen in your timeline? It's entirely possible Hispanics for example continue to be in favor of gun control but you're making a similar assumption about future politics as anti-immigration types. At one time the Irish were an immigrant demo who were totally going to destroy American values... and then they became more successful and accepted. Now they're considered white by everyone in America. Political views aren't racially inherited and change based on how people (and post 1st-gen immigrants especially) feel they're doing over time. I shouldn't have to tell you this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Seeing how even Goons say it would take a decade of deregulating guns before they could trust Democrats again, I don't think being pro-deregulation wins any congressional seats. Seriously, which specific districts do people think could be swung D if "only" the Democratic challenger was anti-regulation? It makes no sense to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
skeet decorator posted:I'll repeat for the third time, 35% of the Dems base is black or hispanic, both groups overwhelmingly support gun control. The black and hispanic vote will be the largest voting bloc in the next few decades. Dropping gun control is not an option if the Dems want to be relevant in the future. Yeah it's a great way to pretend that you care about issues that affect them, without doing anything that remotely endangers the actual oppressive systems they want to see changed. Maybe they won't find your flogging of pet issues nakedly patronizing!
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
skeet decorator posted:Is this the evidence you're talking about? Yes you're right, tying elected officials election results to the actions they took as elected officials during their term immediately preceding the election is totally a post hoc on it's face, that's not hand-wavey at all. Also for the loving millionth time the argument has never been "gun control doesn't have support". It has been "support for gun control doesn't drive people to the polls the way opposition to gun control does". So responding "but but look, I told you there was support for gun control" is not only utterly worthless data, but betrays the fact that after pages of this poo poo you still doesn't even grasp the basic core of what we're even arguing about.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
Oh wow, the democrats have come out in favor of a path to citizenship and police reform but when was the last time they put out a bill to ban flash hiders? Clearly they don't care about minorities, I'm staying home.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
GUN. Gun, gun gun. Gun gun GUN. GUNNNNN
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
blowfish posted:GUN. Gun, gun gun. Gun gun GUN. GUNNNNN Looks like Democrats don't care about the issue of gun control! Or at least they tire of it quickly. Maybe this IS an issue that could be dropped from the platform.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Looks like Democrats don't care about the issue of gun control! Or at least they tire of it quickly. Maybe this IS an issue that could be dropped from the platform. "But we just want common sense regulations like background checks" in comes a different Democrat pitching another AWB.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
As a far leftist gun owner living in a red state, I would gladly
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Nobody is saying that dropping gun control would swing an election, only that it would begin the slow process of signaling to rural whites that Democratic leaders do not see them as yokels with one tooth and overalls, but no shirt. Of course since Democratic leaders do think that, there probably is no point trying to pretend they don't--their passive-aggressive contempt will manifest in plenty of other ways.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Nobody is saying that dropping gun control would swing an election, only that it would begin the slow process of signaling to rural whites that Democratic leaders do not see them as yokels with one tooth and overalls, but no shirt. Of course since Democratic leaders do think that, there probably is no point trying to pretend they don't--their passive-aggressive contempt will manifest in plenty of other ways. Go to see you admit trying to abandon the base and shill for anti-regulation positions on guns won't help the Democrats win back the House. Kinda amazing it took so many posts. Things that would help more: investing in mayoral and county level elections, investing in data collection and analysis, somehow synthesizing a believable and interconnected progressive policy platform, supporting conservative Democrats candidates for conservative districts, etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Go to see you admit trying to abandon the base and shill for anti-regulation positions on guns won't help the Democrats win back the House. That's not what I said. It would, but it would probably take more than one cycle. Might as well keep loving it up forever if you can't fix it instantly, right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:That's not what I said. It would, but it would probably take more than one cycle. Might as well keep loving it up forever if you can't fix it instantly, right? Why waste time and money on betraying the base to lose races in +10 R districts? Anti-regulation Democrats run all the time as is. The idea that we need to use national resources to stop Californian Democrats from supporting some gun regulation so that maybe it might impact elections a decade later in Colorado isn't a winning strategy in any way. Instead, we need to spending those resources on building better local candidates and machines. Any effort on flipping the base to be anti-regulation would be better spent building local cadres in those rural districts instead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Why waste time and money on betraying the base to lose races in +10 R districts? How does it waste time or money to stop writing stupid gun control bills?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:How does it waste time or money to stop writing stupid gun control bills? Because the Democratic party is not monolithic. When you say "stop writing stupid bills" you're talking about the national party getting local parties to stop doing things. That requires resources. You'll find that the Democratic Party across the south is rather different about guns then the Democratic Party in the rest of the country, but yet the south is not overrun with Democratic strongholds.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Is there any actual data to back up the idea that it's guns though? No. Arguing with gun nuts is like arguing with creationists, you are never going to change their 'minds' because their positions are not based on the rational analysis of evidence. At least one poll has been posted that shows that gun control is a winning issue, the usual bad faith/insane arguments against it were thrown against the wall to see if any would stick. Bonus question: If someone posted a poll showing strong support for a generic loosening of gun laws, how many of the gun nuts would reject it because it was not specific enough in its wording? SedanChair posted:Nobody is saying that dropping gun control would swing an election, only that it would begin the slow process of signaling to rural whites that Democratic leaders do not see them as yokels with one tooth and overalls, but no shirt. Of course since Democratic leaders do think that, there probably is no point trying to pretend they don't--their passive-aggressive contempt will manifest in plenty of other ways. It amuses me that your unslaked gunlust causes you to abandon your usual half-assed pretense of being progressive on racial issues to repeat the 'Democrats need to court jittery shut-ins waiting for RAHOWA' line so beloved of hardcore NAMGLA members. Now tell us Democrats should propose mining the border so those poor misunderstood white supremacists will feel respected by Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yes you're right, tying elected officials election results to the actions they took as elected officials during their term immediately preceding the election is totally a post hoc on it's face, that's not hand-wavey at all. It kind of is when there were so many other unusual factors playing into the 94 election including a failed attempt to implement universal healthcare. The preceding period had also seen a Democratic President going against a large part of his voter base, including key constituents like labor unions, to push for the implementation of NAFTA, something many Democratic representatives in the House were against. Tom Foley, Speaker of the House at the time, famously went against his own colleagues and sided with Clinton, which probably contributed to his unprecedented defeat the next year when he became the first House Leader to be defeated in a re-election campaign since 1862. There are less spurious ways to support your case. A few Democrats like Bill Clinton have actually mused about whether gun control cost them that election. I think the reason Clinton would argue that is really because it helps cover up the damage he and the DLC did to the party by largely abandoning key Democratic voter groups like African Americans and trade unionists. But at least if you were bringing up Clinton's statements then at least we'd be having a debate with some kind of evidence attached to it instead of some very tenuous grasping at straws. I'll add to this that it's very interesting how DLC New Democrats and Gun Owners can find a common cause in this particular area: they might be on different sides of the issue, but both groups really want to make the 1994 election somehow have an explanation other than Bill Clinton's realignment of the party toward the right. quote:Also for the loving millionth time the argument has never been "gun control doesn't have support". It has been "support for gun control doesn't drive people to the polls the way opposition to gun control does". So responding "but but look, I told you there was support for gun control" is not only utterly worthless data, but betrays the fact that after pages of this poo poo you still doesn't even grasp the basic core of what we're even arguing about. Yeah but the counter argument is that since perception massively trumps reality here the idea that gun nuts will be less motivated to vote based on something the Democrats say or do in the real world is dubious at best. There are already huge numbers of people convinced, contrary to any evidence, that the government is on the verge of outlawing and confiscating guns. The idea that the Democrats could put out a press release saying "we're not going to touch guns" and that this would somehow help them electorally just doesn't have much support whatever way you want to slice it. If you want to just argue that you should be allowed to have your guns go ahead. I do not understand this stubborn and almost farcical conviction so many of ya'll have that this particular issue is super important for deciding national elections. Seems more like an existential cry asserting your importance than an actual reasoned political position.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:It amuses me that your unslaked gunlust causes you to abandon your usual half-assed pretense of being progressive on racial issues to repeat the 'Democrats need to court jittery shut-ins waiting for RAHOWA' line so beloved of hardcore NAMGLA members. Now tell us Democrats should propose mining the border so those poor misunderstood white supremacists will feel respected by Democrats. Maybe you should direct this criticism at Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:NAMGLA made me laugh
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:
Or, alternatively, the Dems can stick to the path they are on, and continue to get slaughtered at the state and local levels. The DNC plan for taking and holding the house and senate has been a complete and utter failure, I think we can all agree.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:Or, alternatively, the Dems can stick to the path they are on, and continue to get slaughtered at the state and local levels. The DNC plan for taking and holding the house and senate has been a complete and utter failure, I think we can all agree. The solution is to invest in local candidates, local cadres and local political machines, not to waste time trying to chase voters who'll always find another reason not to vote Democratic while pissing off the base in the states that fund progressive national politics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The solution is to invest in local candidates, local cadres and local political machines, not to waste time trying to chase voters who'll always find another reason not to vote Democratic while pissing off the base in the states that fund progressive national politics. Barring some magic supreme court ruling that fixes gerrymandering this is the only solution. As usual all the gunchat is a distraction.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yes you're right, tying elected officials election results to the actions they took as elected officials during their term immediately preceding the election is totally a post hoc on it's face, that's not hand-wavey at all. Yes it is absolutely a post hoc rationalization when there are tons of other factors and you haven't posted any evidence to support your position. In fact I'm willing to make the argument that Dems pushing welfare reform and all but abandoning its minority base in 1992 had a much larger affect on them losing subsequent elections than gun control. In fact other people have made the same argument, and there is actually data to back up that argument: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/the-changing-outlook-for-black-voters/403975/ posted:In 1988, the late Ed Brown, then-executive director of the Voter Education Project, watched as the Democratic Party ignored blacks’ growing displeasure with Massachusetts Governor and Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis. The party assumed blacks had little choice but to support Dukakis since the only alternative would be to defect and vote Republican—an option ostensibly more unattractive than an inattentive Dukakis campaign. The party was wrong: Black voter turnout rate plummeted by nearly 5 percent, the second largest decline for this bloc ever observed. Oh, and you do know that gun control was part of Clinton's platform leading up to the 1992 election right? Do you have an explanation for why it tanked the Dems in 1994 but won them the election two years prior? Jarmak posted:Also for the loving millionth time the argument has never been "gun control doesn't have support". It has been "support for gun control doesn't drive people to the polls the way opposition to gun control does". So responding "but but look, I told you there was support for gun control" is not only utterly worthless data, but betrays the fact that after pages of this poo poo you still doesn't even grasp the basic core of what we're even arguing about. No I get what you're arguing for, what I don't understand, and what I have yet to see is any evidence whatsoever that supports your arguments. Just so you're clear on what I'm actually arguing. Support for gun control is strong among black and hispanic Dems, both groups which have historically low voter turn out. Both groups are poised to form the largest voting bloc over the next few decades. There is evidence to suggest that when Dem's ignore their minority base they lose elections, because the minority voters simply don't vote (see 1994 midterms). You have not presented a single piece of evidence to suggest that dropping gun control from the platform will prevent more Republican voter turnout than it will discourage minority Dems from turning out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:33 |
|
|
smg77 posted:Barring some magic supreme court ruling that fixes gerrymandering this is the only solution. As usual all the gunchat is a distraction. Now I do grant the gun-chatters, that supporting local cadres also means being tolerant of anti-regulation (and anti-abortion) Democrats in our party. We can't expect to grow the base if we demand ideological purity in conservative districts. The Blue Dogs were bad not because they were conservatives, but because they were willing to stab the party in the back, rather than work within it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 22:36
|
|