Pure Politics: A thread about a better way in Politics

[j44ke]

I think that the Republicans have figured out that the smaller the election, the more powerful the marginalized voter. Then once that marginalized voter is motivated and engaged in the process, you just have to keep them engaged all through progressively larger prizes to the top.

Democrats have been gunning for the Presidency with the belief that a successful Presidential candidate will carry Democrats in the lower strata to wins. And they've just never learned the lesson that you should always run a candidate on every ballot. Never let the other party run unopposed.

Democrats like Rep. Ocasio-Cortez figured out that approach erodes support among grassroots constituencies - essentially makes historically loyal liberal voters feel marginalized and ignored (which they are unfortunately) - and motivating them with demands for change & attention within the party pays dividends politically for progressive candidates. That hasn't translated into enough success at the upper strata of government, but I think that's coming.

[bigbill]

I think that the Republicans have figured out that the smaller the election, the more powerful the marginalized voter. Then once that marginalized voter is motivated and engaged in the process, you just have to keep them engaged all through progressively larger prizes to the top.

Democrats have been gunning for the Presidency with the belief that a successful Presidential candidate will carry Democrats in the lower strata to wins. And they've just never learned the lesson that you should always run a candidate on every ballot. Never let the other party run unopposed.

Democrats like Rep. Ocasio-Cortez figured out that approach erodes support among grassroots constituencies - essentially makes historically loyal liberal voters feel marginalized and ignored (which they are unfortunately) - and motivating them with demands for change & attention within the party pays dividends politically for progressive candidates. That hasn't translated into enough success at the upper strata of government, but I think that's coming.

Good point, lack of a candidate makes it look like they've given up on that race. Definitely not the way to fire up your base. In East Texas, there were many elections where the democrat was basically a placeholder on the ballot because the republican was the overwhelming favorite. I would typically vote in the republican primary, more against certain candidates instead of for. In the general, I voted for some democrats, especially the county judge because the republican was a turd. Full disclosure, the republican judge candidate coached little league and I was an umpire, I absolutely hated calling his team's games. I ejected him four times one season but he never served his two game suspension, ever. In my six years there, I ejected coaches seven times, he was six of them.

[spopepro]

They also had an unconstrained Newt who fully recognized the potential of wedge issues; that frames everything now.

Now there's an interesting name. And one that I think has a lot to do with where we are and indirectly answer's some of toot's questions. Alvin and Heidi Toffler put forth the idea that it really shouldn't be (and won't be) republican v. democrat, or conservative v. liberal in the way that we still think of it now but rather "traditionalist/regressive" v. "futurist/progressive". The idea being that the real battle will be between those who will fight to the core to return things to how they were because the present and future are wildly different, opaque, and frightening and those who embrace the change and will push it forward. Sounds about right, yeah?

The effusive forward of that 1995 book was penned by Gingrich who saw himself completely on the progressive side. This was peak "Contract with America" Gingrich, which specifically proclaimed to avoid wedge issues and was about aspirational federal reforms in transparency and accountability. This was the rising speaker of the house Gingrich who soundly put the power back in the legislative branch through *policy*, not rhetoric.

Of course we know now how it played. The "contract" bills didn't happen or died in the senate, the things that got through were bullshit crime bills* and stuff full of wedge issues, Gingrich became a pantomime villain and I'm still not 100% sure how we got from that forward in the book to the person today.

Not completely dissimilar, there was the turning point of John McCain. A person who ran an incredibly principled career... until he got annihilated by Rove and Bush II in South Carolina in 2000. The message was "if you want the GOP, you've got to play ball" and suddenly new-McCain was running on evangelical platforms instead of the federal and corporate reform platform. Looking back on this one--it's wild to clearly see where Trump got fed his talking points about McCain. It's also wild that most folks were outraged all over again like 2000 didn't exist.

I'm not sure it's so much that the people at the top are making wedge issues to divide people. There seems to be something of a funnel that is shaped by powerful donors, think tanks, and strategists that aren't at all apparent until after the fact. But the control seems to be absolute.


*that's bullshit *bipartisan* crime bills to you

[bironi]

*This thread is a seed. Please share similar currents in politics which have a positive influence on our lives.

Georgie boo did something commendable the other day. He did not "own" anyone or speak for the sake of causing outrage. Mr. Bush talked to the world in a way that gave us options. You can think for yourself, even hold true your opinions out loud with respect to others held beliefs. Common politics is a sport not doubt about it and it is also a very serious play to gain your thoughts.
I offer this not to denigrate Politicals. This is how conversations are created which lead to better outcomes.


George W. Bush reminds us that Republicans once believed in democracy
https://wapo.st/3zcpEpX << The first 10 readers get it for free after that paywall yo.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...ump-democracy/ << subscribers
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c49765...e-pennsylvania << full speech no paywall
WaPo excerpted:
In his first inaugural address, Thomas Jefferson forecast that the young nation would “unite in common efforts for the common good” after the bitter election of 1800.
“Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle,” he said in the new Senate chamber. “We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists.”
Americans have, at our best, upheld that creed over two centuries. We are all republicans. We are all democrats.
George W. Bush reminded us of those sacred ties in his magnificent speech Saturday

Pure Politics:
A thread about a better way in politics.
Yeah, I can accept responses to what follows the colon.

[72gmc]

Full disclosure, the republican judge candidate coached little league and I was an umpire, I absolutely hated calling his team's games. I ejected him four times one season but he never served his two game suspension, ever. In my six years there, I ejected coaches seven times, he was six of them.

I'd say this kind of behavior says something about a person, and it's fair to presume that it's consistent in other facets of their life.