Back in October 2013, Stanley Greenberg and James Carville’s Democracy Corps did a few focus groups of Republican voters to see what was driving them. It’s the kind of research that we need to see more of, and it’s worth revisiting some of their findings as we try to understand why the Republican primaries aren’t unfolding the way most “knowledgeable people” expected them to. I might do a deeper dive into their analysis of Tea Party Republicans and Evangelicals at a later date when I have more time. I’m traveling today, so this will have to be brief.
I’m more interested at the moment is what moderate Republicans were saying back in late 2013. Among other things, they were saying that they can’t sell the GOP to their kids.
“I can’t sell my kids on this party. I agree with…some of their positions. But the stupid things… for instance, the rape crap they were saying… I can’t sell them on my party. These kids are smart, they know these stupid politicians are saying crap. And these guys are representing us and they show their ignorance often. And just shut their mouth and do – again, get out of our bedrooms, get out of our lives and do what they’re supposed to do.” (Moderate man, Colorado Springs)
They were more inclined to see undocumented workers as go-getters than as drug dealers and rapists.
“And they work hard and they actually realize the American dream. And a lot of us Americans complain, we won’t do what we think we’ll do. (Moderate man, Colorado)
“Many immigrants come into our country do better than we do… they don’t complain.” (Moderate man, Colorado)
“I need more customers. I need more people to sell things to. I need more people to do business with. And I can see that these people are potential customers. And the jobs they did… we won’t do… We just flat won’t do it…We don’t have some of the worth ethic they have…I want it to all be legal… I don’t mind that they’re customers. They can pay taxes.” (Moderate man, Colorado)
They were generally supportive of gay marriage:
“It just doesn’t really make any sense why they shouldn’t be allowed to…have that kind of special bond.” (Moderate woman, Raleigh)
“I mean they’re together anyway. You know? The world is going to change anyway. And it is changing anyway every way.” (Moderate woman, Raleigh)
“That’s what I don’t understand, is like a have houses together and they do everything that a married couple would do together and I just don’t understand.” (Moderate woman, Raleigh)
“I don’t understand why you can regulate what the hell I think and do. This is a free fricken country. There’s been homosexuals since the Roman times and before. What the hell are you scared of them? Are you scared they’re going to get you? Are you? Are you scared they’re going to get your kids?” (Moderate man, Colorado)
They were willing to acknowledge that climate change is a problem and also supportive of a federal role for conservation:
“I’m glad we’re starting to do [more on] energy standards, I wish it was higher…I’m glad that we’re seeing more efficient cars. I’m glad they passed that to where in 2015, we have to have cars that run more efficiently.” (Moderate man, Colorado)
“Watching landfill and watching vehicle emissions, watching what we’re pumping into our rivers, that’s very, very smart, period. Regardless of climate change.” (Moderate man, Colorado)
“I mean, that’s just part of good stewardship of the earth that we’ve been given. And I think that you find a lot of Republicans will feel that way too because a lot of Republicans hunt. They’re very sensitive to what the environment does to the hunting, you know, the changes that they see and anything like that.” (Moderate man, Colorado)
Perhaps most interesting, though, was their attitude toward Hillary Clinton. At least among the moderate Republican women in one focus group, they preferred her to a generic Republican male candidate:
In the group of moderate women in Raleigh, participants were very supportive, surprisingly so, of a Hillary Clinton presidency. Weighing the option of voting for Hillary Clinton versus a Republican male, the moderate Republican women in Raleigh chose Clinton, on balance. One woman said, “I don’t consider myself a Democrat but… if she was the nominee…I would seriously consider…voting for her more than a Democratic male candidate.”
As a blogger with a consistently progressive audience, I see a lot of comments about Republicans. These comments rarely distinguish between different types of Republicans. There just doesn’t seem to be much appreciation that there are a lot of moderately conservative people in our country who are feeling uncomfortable about and unwelcome within the modern iteration of the party. According to this study, these moderates make up a full quarter of self-identified Republicans.
I believe the number would be bigger except that a lot of these folks already left to vote for Barack Obama, especially in 2008. They have a lot of values that are hard to reconcile with progressivism or even mainstream Democratic thinking, but they’re getting pushed out by candidates like Trump, Cruz, Carson and even third-tier candidates like Santorum and Huckabee.
The GOP needs to pick up moderate Democrats, but they’re so out of step with the moderates in their own party that they haven’t even begun to make progress in the middle of the electorate.
And these were apparently all white voters in these focus groups. We’re already familiar with demographic challenges the GOP is facing with minority voters.
If there is going to be a landslide election in 2016, a lot of the moderate voters in this study are going to be crossing over.
Without pandering to their conservatism, the Democratic nominee would be well advised to make their passage as easy as possible.
Evidently, they vote in mid-terms as much as Democrats do.
Like what? And what is mainstream Democratic thinking? Is it increasing Social Security benefits? Medicare-for-all?
Middle of the electorate? Who defines that? How is that defined? That’s such a nebulous term.
How would they do that? I bet a fair number of them have kids who can’t even afford their own homes. Stuff like that. Why wouldn’t Sanders appeal to them? If they actually knew what he stood for.
The long standing problem is to reconcile socially liberal suburban voters (more women than men) with downscale voters who are socially conservative but might be open to appeals on economics.
As long as national security is the primary issue, this will be tough.
Last Monday I heard a report on NPR on Kentucky. They interviewed several white women who were going to lose health insurance if Kinnect is repealed. All of the voted GOP, citing the primacy of social issues.
Of course, this is all anecdotal, but it suggests the fundamental problem Democrats have with downscale voters.
“Moderate” is kind of a bullshit word meaning very little.
“moderate” for a Republican means accepting the right to an abortion, accepting equality of the races, and maybe today (but not yesterday) accepting gay rights.
“moderate” does not mean anti-war, anti-military, or anti-business, nor pro-union, definitely not pro-criminal. Everyone today is anti-bank, except the DLC.
So the difference between moderate Republicans and the DLC is that moderate Republicans hate the banks.
Bullshit. “Moderate” Republicans don’t “hate” the banks anymore than anyone else. The people who “hated the banks now were okay with then as long as they were restricting their bad practices to “Those People”
>>”Moderate” is kind of a bullshit word meaning very little.
agree with this 100%.
thanks for posting.
“These comments rarely distinguish between different types of Republicans..”
When the “moderate” Repulicans are represented by LINDSEY GRAHAM … at the kiddie table … you CAN’T distinguish between different types of Republicans. Because there AREN’T any.
If you don’t say that’s wrong, that says its right.
if I understand correctly, moderate republicans here means voters, not politicians. the politicians are not speaking to moderate republicans
My comment stands. If there were any moderate Republican VOTERS left, Lindsey Graham would not be standing at 0% support.
Not that Graham is any great moderate, but he projects well.
Bernie wanted to debate a Republican (didn’t matter which one) during the primary. The DNC and DWS put a stop to that with the new rule that anyone debating in a non-sanctioned DNC debate would be excluded from any other DNC sanctioned debates. Hillary got her last bump debating the Republicans over her emails promoting the idea that only she could effectively stand up to the Republicans. Hillary gets the opportunity, Bernie doesn’t. Nicely done.
You say one quarter of the registered Republicans are ripe for picking and you want that to happen by offering them nothing to vote for? Which Democratic candidate offers something to vote for that would inspire large numbers of cross over voters for that landslide election?
You take the King’s shilling — or enter the King’s primaries and caucuses — you fight the King’s wars.
Don’t want DWS’ debate terms? Run as an independent.
Maybe you should have said take the Queen’s shilling – enter the Queen’s primaries – fight the Queen’s wars. These were DNC rules dictated without a vote by former Hillary 2008 campaign co-chair Debbie Wasserman-Shultz.
The Democratic Party is near dead. If you doubt that just look around to see who controls most of the state houses plus both houses of congress. It will stay that way unless we stand together to demand real changes to once again make the Democrats the Party of the People. For Bernie to run as Independent would do nothing to help the Democrats find their way.
He is from Massachusetts, the
Empireparty looks fine there. You and I are from the Marches, we see that the barbarians are at the gate.Yeah, but this started happening the moment Obama took over. He was more than happy to burn down the infrastructure we’d built. You know, for a party that is supposedly a vehicle to reign in the elites, the democratic elites have way more power than the GOP.
“Progressives” & Conservatives have one thing in common: Blame Obama for anything they don’t like. Change the record already sport.
Rmoving Dean in favor of Tim Kaine who Virginia Democrats said right out had let the state party wither away on his watch right away?
Ill stop blaming Obama when it stops actively being his fault.
Which for you, will be never but chin up you only have to suffer one more year under the inadequate Black Male and then your White Progressive Savior St. Bernie Sanders will save us all with his mighty populist rhetoric!
You do know that when a Democrat is in the White House that said Democrat is in charge of the DNC too, right? That means that Obama can chose whomever he wants to lead it. He’s picked Tim Kaine and DWS. How has that worked out?
Don’t worry champ. He’s gone in a year. You won’t have to be bothered his not delivering you rainbows and unicorns anymore. Your beloved White Progressive Savior Bernie will fix everything.
You’re hilarious on 2 counts. Bernie is not my savior, sorry. Now, if you had said Jeremy Corbyn you might be getting somewhere. But then I wonder if you know what the differences between the two are. And there are some major differences. Second, you’re obviously telling me that Obama can do no wrong even when there are legitimate things to criticize him on. The problem isn’t just that Democratic voters don’t show up in the mid-terms, it’s that the Democrats recruit crap candidates.
In 2014 – with no message other than “we suck less than Republicans and Obama.” Seems to be what they’ll try again next year.
When facts do not matter and character attacks are all you’ve got left.
Let me know when you can handle legitimate criticism of someone you support.
Let me know when you have some that doesn’t dovetail back to the same tired “I didn’t get my pony from the Black man” nonsense we’ve had to put up with from your type since 1/20/09 sport.
Do you really think I wouldn’t have opposed the exact same actions by HRC or Joe Biden because they’re not black? Why did I choose Obama over HRC in 2008? If so then you must not have been here very long but if thats what you need to tell yourself to sleep at night go ahead and call me a racist.
Same with the ‘pony’ Atrios bullshit. Its a cover to discussion of whether diffetent tactics or goals could have accomplished more. For example, would the country be better off today if we’d let the collapse go on in 2009 to get a better deal? Would we have goten a better deal? What if Obama hadn’t made noises about cutting soial security? What if Obama and the Dems hadnt spent time trying to woo Republicans on Obamacare and instead focused on getting the Democrats in line? Would the resultant bill be better (since it ended being dems negotiating with themselves anyway)?
To some extent we can’t ever know, but I’m not going to shy away from saying I think thise decisions were mistakes if I do. Especially when in the case of the DNC, the chairperson who is had picked by the president has demonstranly declined.
Mention shilling? How deliciously ironic. Well played.
He should it anyway and leaving her debating an empty chair. Then the DNC would be exposed for what they are: a Hillary for President campaign committee.
What a great idea!
O’Malley would still show up (he is angling for the VP slot), and then partisan DEMs would be able to more credibly say, “See, told ya, Bernie isn’t a Democrat.”
Your suggestion would be like Sanders going for a “hail Mary” with close to zero odds of connecting. The deck is stacked for Clinton, but there really is no viable alternate for Sanders but to play the game according to the rules.
I like the idea because it’s the last thing the DNC would have ever expected. O’Malley would continue his rather clever attack on Hillary and if he didn’t it would be even worse. If he thinks Hillary would ever choose him as VP he’s even dumber than I give him credit for being. Besides, O’Malley would never get any real traction because too many people have watched `The Wire.’ Without Bernie the DNC would be outed as the Hillary campaign event that it really is.
While this will never happen I smile when I think of the shit storm inside the DNC if Bernie even threatened to do this. Remember, they would have to take action to enforce their unfair rules. Calling their bluff would indeed be sweet.
Some things are best in an imaginary space that makes one smile. Too many potential outcome scenarios from this move, most of them negative for Sanders’ campaign, to even project the odds other than it is very high risk.
At this point, I like Sanders odds in the GE more than Clinton’s because he will be less vulnerable to negative events or revelations, either involving herself or the Obama administration. Are the odds for Sanders significantly better if nothing changes in the next eleven months? Doubtful. He’s slightly less vulnerable to the frequent impulse — time for a change — after one party has held the WH for eight years. OTOH, the Obama Administration could have a fabulous eighth year, and in that event, Clinton would have an easier GE than Sanders.
Sometimes I wonder if we’re really up to the fight to overcome our party’s Blue Dog leadership, defeat the Republicans, then move our country in a Democratic Socialist direction improving the lives of all our people. It was O’Malley who called the DNC out on this debate limiting issue. From there it was easy to see that Hillary got the Democratic Establishment to install a former 2008 Hillary campaign co-chair into a key DNC position to once again ratfuck the progressives. Bernie said next to nothing. Why?
Bernie understands that elections are about winning the argument and which argument is the most important. Progressives getting ratfucked by the DNC is not one of those arguments since once Bernie wins the nomination he becomes the new head of the Democratic Party. Bernie’s popular agenda is the real argument to win.
Bernie also understands that achieving real change is done through satisfying the Nash Equilibrium. Even the most rich and nasty people will give up power so they don’t lose even more power in order to satisfy the Nash Equilibrium by agreeing to things they don’t want to agree to because it is was demonstrated to be in their best interest to do so. This is where we come in because all we really have is the vote. Once we all stand together under Bernie’s leadership it will become clear to the DNC, Democratic Establishment and every Democrat who has sold out to their corporate masters that it’s time to change their ways or look for another line of work. Of course the Republicans will be reduced to a fringe minority after we peel of a quarter of their base plus we swell the ranks of the Democrats with people who had given up on democracy but now find there is finally something to vote for.
At this time in answer to your question, no, I don’t think we’re up to the fight against the DEM neoliberalcon leadership. In part because those leadership decisions are made behind closed doors and in part because it’s been going on since 1993 with one key exception.
How many DEMs noted, much less screamed, about the Clinton camp assuming control of the party in the wake of the 2000 election? Gore, who did win, was immediately stripped of any power in the party. (And I’m not sure that Ed Rendell who was the Chair in 2000 was a friend of Gore’s) Terry McAuliffe (a total Clintonista) took over and guided the party through two loser election cycles. (What was McAuliffe’s real assignment?) After the second one, enough activists noted and screamed loudly enough that Dean was appointed. Doubt that any of the elites expected Dean to be too ethical to put his thumb on the 2008 primary election scale.
Was handing back control of the party to the Clintonistas Obama’s conciliatory act? Did the decision pre-date the 2008 general election? Was it demanded of him or freely offered by him? Considering that he also rejected Dean for any position in his administration, I’d lean more towards the demand scenario. And honestly don’t think that Dean appreciates why he was frozen out.
Was handing back control of the party to the Clintonistas Obama’s conciliatory act? Did the decision pre-date the 2008 general election? Was it demanded of him or freely offered by him? Considering that he also rejected Dean for any position in his administration, I’d lean more towards the demand scenario.
When has Obama showed he cared about growing the party? You don’t grow the party by putting hacks in charge, especially one(DWS) who already has a day job.
That loser parade was clearly the decade of the Blue Dogs. Is it really any surprise when you look at who was in Obama’s first administration that it was his choice to hand control of the party to the Blue Dogs? I think he also appointed Hillary as Secretary of State only to give her enough creditability to succeed him. I agree that Dean had no clue to what happened to him if it even mattered at that point.
No one cared about who controlled the party because all we had for Democrats were Blue Dogs only marginally better than Republicans. That is until now because we have a real choice for someone who is not bought off by the corporatists, possess a lifetime of political skill with enough passion to make a real and lasting difference.
Thank you for the almost perfect case of why we need a political revolution from the inside of the Democratic Party if we are ever to have any hope of making the changes so many people so desperately need.
The only way it could “connect” is if Trump agreed to debate him 1-on-1. He would have to start framing the argument that he is the only one that can be assured of beating Trump in the GE and then prove it in the debate.
In racing if you get into a race and you figure out that you don’t have the fastest the car – you need to change the strategy – tires, full mileage, lurking in the draft saving your car (a la Cruz)… something to give yourself a chance.
What gives him a better chance to win? This Hail Mary or slugging it out with HRC for months?
he’ll get to debate Trump if they’re both the nominees of their parties, that’s how it works
Good point. Not likely that any leading GOP candidate would agree to debate Sanders during the primary season. Those that would are irrelevant and would depreciate instead of enhance Sanders public standing.
There would be one way to change it from a Hail Mary into a rational and potential effective strategy and that would be if means and methods existed to convert INDs and GOPs into registered DEMs. That doesn’t exist. So, I remain unconvinced that Bernie has any chose other than to continue slugging it out for the DEM nomination.
Bernie wants to change the conversation? It’s real easy, he needs to win. The good thing about early states is that hard work and people on the ground make the difference.
It doesn’t help when the umpire is your opponent’s employee.
why would the DNC want anyone other than the nominee debate a Republican?
not really some vast conspiracy, that’s how it works
At the time Bernie said it was because the Republicans get away with murder because we never challenge their bullshit. It would never be practical for the DNC or the RNC to set up this kind of debate. This would have been within the rules in 2008 but not now under the new DNC rules. Just imagine if one of the Republicans trying to break out from Trump agreed to debate Bernie in some third party forum. Our media would find that irrespirable and report on it 24/7. The real reason for the new DNC rule to prohibit any non-DNC sanctioned debates was to limit Bernie’s message from reaching a large number of people. Blue Dogs must do what they do in secret to get away with it.
still think you’re over stating it a little bit, just because it wasn’t specifically prohibited before doesn’t mean it happened
It sounds like the same thing the GOP is doing with the filibuster, it was never used like they are using it or used it but it’s not outlawed by the Senate rules.
If the Senator wants more people to pay attention to him all he has to do is win, and the good news is that the early states allow him to pretty much bypass the media anyway. Winning will solve most of the problems you say he’s having right now
No, I am not overstating anything. Comparing what’s going on inside the DNC with tactics used by the GOP with the filibuster is just ridiculous.
What did indeed happen with the rules in 2008 were 26 debates instead of our 6. Why did this make such a difference you might ask? Debbie Wasserman-Shultz watched her candidate’s inevitable lead evaporate as the unknown Obama reached the Democratic base. DWS learned that lesson well and was determined to not let that happen again during this cycle. What she didn’t learn was that such a stunt has real potential to hurt the Democratic Party. The DNC above all others must remain neutral going out of its way to avoid any hint of trying to tilt the primaries to a favored candidate. When things become unfair the big tent becomes smaller and winnable elections are lost.
If Bernie wins the problem is solved because both Hillary and Debbie can find a new line of work.
I the list for the “26” debates in 2008, many of those I question being called a debate and there were a bunch after the primaries started. Who knows if there will be more beyond the 6 if the primary turns out to be competitive which isn’t really guaranteed right now
My main problem with these so-called (or self-identified) “moderates” who remain Republicans is this: They remain Republicans!!! Despite what the GOP has steadily, functionally (and to a significant degree, semi-officially) been becoming as it’s been taken over by its most vile and extreme elements over multiple decades, now: the Reality-Denial and Bigotry party, whose other most salient defining characteristics are the deeply immoral, end-justifies-any/all-means, facts-be-damned, truth-doesn’t-matter full embrace of dishonest propaganda (including blatant lying — see, e.g., blood-on-her-hands Fiorina) and the scorched-earth politics of dishonest character assassination. (All this enabled by the worse-than-useless corporate media, of course.)
In the face of all of which, the very kindest, most generous thing I can find to think about anyone still continuing to self-associate with the GOP is that they are guilty-by-that-association enablers of very great harm (frankly, “evil” doesn’t seem too strong for what they enable).
And yes, I get that you’re about the pragmatically political lesser-of-evils approach to preventing even worse harm/evil, and there’s something to be said for that (in fact it’s what I do when voting or engaging in other political activism where I can detect some likelihood of making at least some small difference for good). And I get that if everyone were as jaded, cynical, pessimistic, etc. as I, there would indeed be little/no reason for any hope.
But it mostly looks like mostly futile tinkering at the margins to me. Adopting Daniel Quinn’s terminology from his Ishmael books (which I find a very compelling analysis of “how things came to be this way”) I doubt anything short of an anti-Totalitarian-Agricultural-Revolution counter-revolution could suffice to save “us” (specifically, our now-totally-dominant “Taker” culture) from ourselves; not to mention saving the few remaining “Leaver” cultures we haven’t yet managed to stamp out or absorb, along with the innumerable species and ecosystems we are poised to take down with us, in addition to those we’ve already waged “successful” war against and annihilated.
That’s because all of this “issue politics” is nonsense. People don’t vote on issues. They vote on their overall perception of the other party, and a teensy bit on the “issue of the day”, which is yet to be identified.
So, you can find all of these issues that “moderates” seem like Democrats, and it still doesn’t have the value of good dump in the morning. Remember “What’s the matter with Kansas?” which is about the “fact” that Kansas voters don’t vote for the Democrats who express their “values”?
So this nonsense that the D Party will attract a bunch of “moderates” is nonsense, in my opinion.
“A bunch of interest groups” =Those annoying Latinos, Blacks, and LGBTs..
Gotcha champ.
Don’t forget women.
Exactly.
This is correct. I know quite a few people who used to consider themselves Republicans but now consider themselves independents. They are furious about GOP stances on social issues and consider most of their current candidates crazy.
But, their brains have been bathed in years of GOP thinking. Even with all that they still automatically buy into whatever the GOP is selling about the Democrats. Obama dramatic overspending? Check. Guns prevent crime? Check. Global warming, if not quite a myth, is overstated by the DFHs in order to force people to drive subcompacts? Check.
This is why the biggest weakness of the Democrats is the lack of a unified message. For the GOP, the approved slogans and buzzwords have been used consistently for decades. Everyone knows what they stand for, EVEN IF THEY DON’T ACTUALLY STAND FOR IT. “Everyone” knows that the GOP is for a balanced budget, regardless of the evidence or Reagan and Dubya’s reigns of terror. Small government, personal responsibility (read: no welfare payments for lazy blahs and immigrants), freedom, strong defense, pro-business. We can all recite it.
By contrast each Democrat is on her/his own, establishing her/his positions. What does Sanders stand for? Or Clinton? Read their policy papers to get the full story. But for a GOP candidate they have the GOP brand – you read their policy papers (if they have any) to get the finer details.
Worse, by failing to stand for anything as a party, they’ve let the GOP define them in the eyes of most of the voters. Not all voters believe these things, but most have heard them and believe them to be somewhat true: soft on crime, tax-and-spend, pro-welfare, soft on terrorism, anti-business, tree huggers, budget busters.
Thus, in 2014 Colorado votes for a Dem Governor and a GOP Senator based on personalities, with the GOP guys having a huge advantage of branding for them and against the Dems. The Dem governor won re-election, mostly by riding on his accomplishments. But a Senator can’t do that – there aren’t a lot of accomplishments that the public cares about for an individual Senator. So Udall instead tried a 100% negative campaign but it wasn’t enough to change minds about a guy the press painted as “nice” – it couldn’t overcome the branding advantage.
The Placebocrats won’t be a majority party again until/if they stand – as a party, not individuals – for something. The fact that a bunch of them are now breaking with the Washington concensus on Social Security is a great sign, as is the fact that the Dem leadership now seems to have gotten over the idea that if they pretend abortion doesn’t exist (“safe, legal, and rare”) it will go away. But that’s far from enough.
The GOP has a unified message on only a few issues issues/policies: tax cuts, privatization, and robust displays of US military might. Otherwise, they vary quite a bit.
The DEMs with any real power are essentially unified on those same issues but the “lite” version. It’s the “third way” that has been championed for over two decades by the Clintons. On social issues, they’ve always been against changes (or doubling down such as DOMA) until the war is won by progressives and/or egalitarians. Check out all the 2014 DEM losing Senate races; pure “third way” campaign bs. What’s happening is that those policies aren’t attractive to liberals that aren’t sufficiently partisan DEMs for them to show up and vote.
you are in a state with a strong dem party, good candidates who speak to the voters’ issues. not true elsewhere, as Tarheel dem often points out
Latest GOP Poll Nationally.
Done AFTER Trump’s ‘ close the country to Muslim’ comments.
The newly released Monmouth poll on the state of the GOP race nationally.
The rest of the Republican field is at 3% or lower.
And the comment that “Hillary is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands” because she “worked with Obama – they were a team” is only going to increase his lead.
And rather than call it the bullshit that it is you’ll be sitting there silently agreeing. Like I said earlier..
Gotcha champ.
Ah, I now see. You have confused me with the Emperor Jones. My modest opinion and whatever I can do would change nothing.
But as to Hillary, I wouldn’t lift a finger to help her under any circumstance. She’s going to win the D primaries, and lose the general. I don’t vote for the Senator from Punjab, as Mr. Obama called her.
when did he call her that? why? was it about carpetbagging?
Actually, she called herself that. HRC is a huge supporter of work visas, which makes her totally unacceptable to me. She appeared at some Indian expat function, and said that she could win if she ran as Senator from Punjab. Obama agreed. Of course, Obama has done much more for H-1B scabs than he has done for US IT workers, who have gotten nothing but the back of his hand from Day 1. The current horrible proposal to extent OPT training, the H-4 visa where he by executive fiat extended work permits to 100,000 spouses of H-1Bs, and so forth, have done NOTHING to help US IT/STEM workers get jobs, and done everything for the low-wage STEM/IT lobby (Zuckerberg, Ellison, Gates, etc) giving them more indentured scab slaves to exploit, and more reasons to not hire American IT workers.
You probably do not know that hiring an OPT person can be done with a $10,000/year tax break – certain taxes are not paid. Thanks, Obama.
Piece about “D-Punjab”:
http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2007/06/dpunjab_funny_d.html
thanks
“Gotcha champ?”
You’ve used this retort twice now and I have no idea what you mean.
He’s aiming that at me. He believes that I am reporting my opinion. I am actually reporting the news, and he is confusing the messenger with the believer.
Well, as long as he is civil, no problem.
I am, as most people here know, highly skeptical or openly hostile to many Democratic Party notions. But since the Democratic Party is the Party of the Big Tent, I am sure that I am still welcome.
If not exactly cuddly.
It means I see through Dataguy’s BS. He’s just as bad if not worse than a RWNJ because he’s an enabler (and that applies to more than a few posters here). Just like them he wants People Of Color to “know their place”. While the rest of us have to contend with the GOPs racism, xenophobia, misogyny etc. Folks like Dataguy are too busy whining “But what about the poor oppressed White folks?” to give a shit. And it’s tiresome.
Dataguy’s not got BS … he doesn’t believe in data at all. He has NEVER quoted a link for any of the shit he spews forth. He has denied interest in polls because “the way they ask the questions determines the results”. He thinks that links to references supporting positions are “…simply verbiage. Anyone can find them…”, he has no interest in what is real, simply what he can troll on this site.
He is a Republican.
Since you don’t know shit about polls yourself, and it’s an area of my professional compentence, I’ll hold with my opinion. Polls don’t mean shit until 7 days before the vote, and the questions are almost determinative of the outcome. That’s not my opinion, BTW; that’s a general consensus.
That Trump has yet to plumb the fathomless depths of entitled white resentment and willful, tribal ignorance. Consider:
How do you win a general election that way? Hence my suspicion that the rank-and-file are just giving the GOP the finger.
as you call them, aka ‘the Base’ (fair?), those (loons) driving the GOP Clown Show (aka ‘primary contest’) seem completely bought in to the delusion (flogged endlessly by the Clown Show’s clowns) that they are the majority, that their Reality-Denying delusions are representative of the thoughts, beliefs, and opinions of ‘the American people’ (how often have you heard that phrase from one of the clowns?).
Remember the consternation of Romney et al. upon learning the hard way that the polls were mostly correct and it was not, in fact, a razor’s edge contest. They’ll fall for ‘unskewed polls’ (and similar) bullshit every time.
Just imagine the despair that descended on the Republican establishment when they realised that even if they take out Trump they are just paving the way for Ted f*cking Cruz; their worst nightmare who wants to make them all his bitch. A candidate who the press is already fluffing expectantly. Despair is not a strong enough word for the anguish that must wrack their tortured souls. This is a moment to savour, truly. Scylla or Charybdis? They are completely screwed either way.
A doomed Bush staggering through $100M worth of public humiliation with no exit strategy? An ‘SEC’ primary whirlwind through the heart of Tea Party country? Draft Romney? Oh, spare me… No good can come of me enjoying this so profoundly.
OT:
Didn’t Jesse Jackson, Jr. just finish a stint in the federal pen..
FOR DOING THE SAME THING??!?!
……………..
Ed O’Keefe ✔ @edatpost
Sen. @BobCorker failed to properly disclose about $2M in income since 2007 – until @wsj’s Brody Mullins called: http://on.wsj.com/1O3T2WE
No.
At least not from what has been discovered and reported on so far. (The Congressional financial disclosures don’t require very precise figures.) The question now is if Corker reported those earning on his income tax filings. If not, can he get away with and oopsie and file amended returns with checks to the IRS?
Jackson, who I did like very much, basically embezzled campaign funds and spent it on flashy, expensive crap.
You could list the GOP’s extreme policy positions and then credibly say that the Democratic Party is the real conservative party in the US.
No need. Just nominate Hillary and we are the real conservative party, once again, just don’t expect any Republicans to vote for that.
(including by the corporate media, those who so self-identify, and even the likes of booman hizownself and many lefty bloggers) for people and ideological dogma that are not remotely conservative (see, e.g., the oxymoronic ‘conservatives against conservation’ that is a defining characteristic of modern so-called ‘conservatism’) is a long-standing pet peeve of mine.
Why is that “Raleigh woman” and “Colorado man” in their views make it look like the sample n=2?
One thing to notice is that moderate Republicans generally appear apolitical. Until something stirs them up and they sudden sprout bumper stickers. I’ve been floored with who was mobilized in the last two Presidential elections among people who I thought were better.
I totally buy the argument that children of moderate Republicans are turned off by the current Republicans. I have seen that become quite visible and expressed as the parents departing from the values their parents taught them.
Moderate Republicans are exposed to the same Wall Street media as the general public and however much of Fox they can stand. And the TV media (witness the leaked comments by the CBS chief) don’t do news anymore the way that most folks over 40 grew up absorbing it. Educating the public in what is actually going on is a huge effort to break the enthrallment.
Also, it is going to be huge resistance from moderate Republicans to admit that Goldwater’s conservative project has indeed led to fascist tendencies in the current candidates. And to get beyond labels after buying the socialist=communist equivalence for so long.
OT: WATCH: Ohio gun nut oozes white privilege as he explains his `right’ to terrorize black neighborhood
Travis Gettys TRAVIS GETTYS
13 DEC 2015 AT 22:53 ET
A White gun owner and a black barbershop owner sat down to discuss their differences after an angry confrontation that was captured last week in a viral video.
Daniel Kovacevic said he was just exercising his legs and his rights by strolling around a black neighborhood with a rifle strapped to his back and a pistol holstered to his belt — but Deone Slater said the armed man made him nervous.
“He could have turned around and run loose like Rambo on the building,” said Slater, who owns Kangaroo Kutz in Akron.
Ohio allows for the open carry of firearms, and both Kovacevic and legal experts said he broke no laws because he did not point either of his weapons at Slater or verbally threaten him.
“I walk up and down the street for exercise — it just happens that I have guns with me,” Kovacevic said.
The 25-year-old Kovacevic has been stopped by police multiple times — including a recent incident near the University of Akron — after alarmed residents called authorities and posted photos of him walking around their mostly black neighborhood.
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/watch-ohio-gun-nut-oozes-white-privilege-as-he-explains-his-right-to
-terrorize-black-neighborhood/
Jeezus Frog. I wonder how many steps a black man strolling around a white neighborhood “with a rifle strapped to his back and a pistol holstered to his belt” would be able to make before some law-abiding cop shot him 35 times.
We already know, in Ohio itself. Just ask John Crawford or Tamir Rice. That’s right, we can’t. Because both were shot dead.
You don’t even have to be Black. Remember Bob Dylan being arrested in New Jersey.
http://www.alternet.org/culture/bob-dylan-arrested-rookie-cop-who-never-heard-him
So Latino residents called the cops on a scruffy white guy who was treated the same as everyone else by kaw enforcement.
I like everything about that story!
Seems to me that the right thing to do would be for two gentlemen who live in the neighborhood, and who are legally entitled to open-carry, should walk behind him while he is on his little constitutional. Have two more in front. Can’t never tell when one of these open-carry folks are gonna go off like a firecracker, and that way, folks would be ready.
If the gentlemen are black, they will be shot by the police fairly quickly. Still, the Black Panthers openly carrying guns is what led to gun control in the sixties, and I wonder how long it will take the black community to decide that a few martyrs might be acceptable. God help us for putting them in the position of needing to.
If the neighborhood activists walk behind him, it might get on his nerves, and he might stop the walking eventually.
I call bull.
If they didn’t vote for Obama in 2012…then, there is no use for them.
They sit there like sheep, and make up every excuse in the book as to why they are still Republicans.
Say this again. If everyone else gets it why do they a special formula to get it.
Fuck em.
I touched on this over at Washington Monthly, but these voters certainly do exist and to me they are certainly ripe for the picking. I know because I work in a profession with a great many of them and I even married one of them. They are generally intelligent, buy not really interested in or excited by politics. Many of them got their politics from their fathers, and have never questioned the Republican Party. So while for those of us that pay attention to this stuff, it has been obvious for years that the American right wing is losing it’s grip on reality, some of these people needed to be hit on the head with Donald Trump.
I assume that you are not from South of the Ohio River.
Hey, same here.
I picked off a “Republican” non-voter, who now votes for the non-lunatic center-right Democratic party.
She and her family are from the panhandle area of Florida, i.e. Alabama.
Of course, she was in her early 20s and just did what mom and dad basically did, without thinking about it. One of her sisters is still essentially a Fox News Republican, while her much younger sister is definitely not a voter or a Republican who describes herself as not knowing anything at all about politics.
Those are the “moderates” you pick off.
Let’s be clear.
The pigpeople are long, long gone. If they voluntarily turn on Fox News, they are not going to be picked off. They may play a good “moderate” in public, but their neurons have been welded closed by Fox News. Period.
Find people who never paid attention at all to politics, who aren’t clearly racists, and you can make inroads. BTW, she’s a Christian, anti-abortion, and owns a gun. And her favorite candidate, as is mine, is Bernie Sanders.
My mother was this type of “Republican” while my dad was alive. I can guarantee that a lot of those women are open to voting for Hillary. They won’t tell their husbands they did so, but their daughters will know.
If there’s a landslide in the offing, it won’t be necessary to pick up moderate Republican votes, ripe or not. Effort spent on trying to pick them up would be wasteful, wouldn’t it?
Hillary’s going to need them, of course. But not because she’s riding a wave.
If there’s a landslide to be had, it’s going to be built by a Democratic candidate getting new voters to participate. Not an easy task, but better, and more likely, than getting Republicans to switch.
OT: This is one evil azz soulless muthaphucka.
period.
h/t BJ
………………………..
Pharma Bro’s Latest Move Targets Latinos
The infamous pharmaceutical executive is jacking up the price of a treatment for Chagas disease, which in the U.S. affects mainly Latin American immigrants.
After dropping $2 million on a Wu-Tang Clan album, the pharmaceutical executive Martin Shkreli has found a new project: making an essential treatment unaffordable for poor immigrants from Latin America.
Shkreli, otherwise known as “pharma bro,” gained notoriety earlier this year when his company, Turing Pharmaceuticals, increased the price of a drug used to treat AIDS patients from around $13.50 to $750. He’s now the CEO of KaloBios Pharmaceuticals, which recently announced its plans to submit benznidazole, a treatment for Chagas disease purchased earlier this month, for Food and Drug Administration approval next year. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that about 300,000 people in the United States have the deadly disease. Most of them are immigrants from Latin America, where as many as 8 million people are infected
………………….
Right now, doctors in the U.S. obtain benznidazole free of charge through the CDC. According to Rachel Cohen, the regional executive director of the Drugs for Neglected Disease Initiative in North America, the drug sells in Latin America for somewhere between $60 and $100 for each course of treatment. Both of these would change the moment the FDA approved benznidazole from any company–and Shkreli, in particular, seems determined to price this drug out of reach of the people who need it. In filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, KaloBios wrote that it expects to price the Chagas drug similarly to antivirals for Hepatitis C, which can cost almost $100,000 for a single course of treatment in the United States.
“You’re talking about a 100,000 percent or 150,000 percent price increase” from the current cost in Latin America, Cohen said.
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/12/pharma-bro-martin-shkreli-chagas-fda/420249/
wow! this is a horrible disease, didn’t even know there was a treatment.
The free market at work.
btw why is that guy called pharma bro?
Moderate Republicans, eh?
I be so old, I remember when the consensus on the left was that we didn’t need no stinkin’ moderate Republicans barging in to drag our party to the right. Screw them! We need to shoot the Blue Dogs and release an agile, ideologically coherent Progressive Party to dominate the political landscape.
Ah, the Good Old Days of 2013 – seems like it was just two years ago.
Now, of course, Bernie’s puttin’ the band back together so we can rock like FDR was yet president. Woo them moderate Republicans, them southern white racists, so we can build a winning coalition and have Socialism for everyone but the darkies.