|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 08:55 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Seriously. Do you have any evidence that Democrats would control the house if they decided to abandon their base on this issue and all become devout anti-regulation advocates?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
Democratic politicians don't support gun regulation because of election calculus as much as because democrats believe in gun regulation and doubly so for activists. It gets included in state platforms not to woo minorities, but because activists and the establishment both support it in the platform committees. Attacking this issue as if it was only political ignores the real emotional depth to this topic in the Democratic Party.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
This is such a joke that being anti-regulation on guns would do anything to win back the House. Allowing anti-regulation Democrats to run, sure that's one thing, but no one has named a single district where an anti-regulation Democrat can't win, but magically could if California went anti-regulation.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
Whitecloak posted:The party needs to be effective in elections outside of California. Guns don't help the Dems all that much in places like Ohio-- toning down on the guns and taking on lunch pail issues might help win back the industrial heartland. Sneers and jeers at rust belt rubes while pushing evermore offshoring doesn't win many votes round here. A challenger who pushed protectionism in a serious and muscular way, regardless of party, would secure the entire region. I completely agree with your premise, but I believe your strategy is the current strategy. The Democratic Party across the South is more conservative, anti-regulation, pro-liberty, whatever. Pick a state that was once a Blue Democratic stronghold and is now a strong Republican state then look at the elections where that state's congressional delegation switched. Look up those elections and you will find that the vast majority don't involve gun rights as a campaign issue. Guns effect turnout, sure. Guns effect donations and lobbying. But at the end of the day there are very few districts left where a true anti-regulation Democrat (see campaign ads shoot bills) can't win because of the national party's gun control policies. I do really agree with the central tenant that it is incredibly hypocritical the way the left treats rural America. Guns included. I just don't think the guns part of it is the key to the house.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 08:55 |
|
|
falcon2424 posted:They could declare that overcrowding-related problems are violations of prisoners' federal rights. I'm pretty sure the President can't do it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2016 23:36
|
|