Democrats have left moderate voters behind

[JamieDimonsBalls]

Trump broke the Democrats’ thermostat

The American left was sent spinning in 2016 and is yet to recalibrate

www.ft.com

Whether or not progressives are ready to accept it, the evidence all points in one direction. America’s moderate voters have not deserted the Democrats; the party has pushed them away.

 

[Spartans9312]

Trump broke the Democrats’ thermostat

The American left was sent spinning in 2016 and is yet to recalibrate

www.ft.com

Whether or not progressives are ready to accept it, the evidence all points in one direction. America’s moderate voters have not deserted the Democrats; the party has pushed them away.

With New Support Base, Obama Doesn't Need Right-Leaning Whites Anymore

For decades, Democrats shaped their policies around fears of the culturally conservative white voters to the GOP. But Obama's winning coalition has altered that calculus.

www.theatlantic.com

This was the plan

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

On certain issues, I totally agree with this.

On other issues, Republicans need to be careful not to do the same thing. The first and most obvious one is abortion.

 

[td75]

This is EXACTLY why they're in the process of losing the Union vote!! They suck!

 

[TDHoosier]

On certain issues, I totally agree with this.

On other issues, Republicans need to be careful not to do the same thing. The first and most obvious one is abortion.

Putting abortion in the hands of each state is where it needs to be and Republicans need to leave it there (which I think they will).

I watched a portion of the Vance interview with I believe ABC where the reporter was schooled regarding the labor work force. She was advocating for "undocumented" immigrants in order to keep building homes. When Vance said there were millions of prime age males and females who have taken themselves out of the workforce she basically said you want them to do construction work? It was like her saying that kind of work is for non-Americans. The left is way left these days, better pull back and get rid of quacks like AOC and her group.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

On certain issues, I totally agree with this.

On other issues, Republicans need to be careful not to do the same thing. The first and most obvious one is abortion.

I've been saying this for years - if they dropped the Abortion debate (and I acknowledge why many won't, for religious reasons and otherwise), it would be a red landslide for several elections, but more importantly, would force Dems to move back towards more moderate stances.

 

[snarlcakes]

On certain issues, I totally agree with this.

On other issues, Republicans need to be careful not to do the same thing. The first and most obvious one is abortion.

I've been saying this for years - if they dropped the Abortion debate (and I acknowledge why many won't, for religious reasons and otherwise), it would be a red landslide for several elections, but more importantly, would force Dems to move back towards more moderate stances.

Abortions are immoral, stupid, and always should have been against the law. They will eventually be illegal (or cut back to 6ish weeks) in the West when governments realize we have a depopulation problem, globally.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Abortions are immoral, stupid....

...but not unpopular.

Republicans love to contrast Florida with California -- and, mostly, with good reason. While Florida has some growing problems that may (or may not) be due to climate change, for the most part it's been bustling for the past couple decades. Republicans love to point to how Florida's population has grown, while California bleeds not just people...but many billions of taxable income. And as this has happened, Florida has morphed from the quintessential battleground state 24 years ago into a "red" version of "blue" California.

Many Republicans cheered when Florida voters failed to pass a ballot initiative which would've added a right to abortion to their state constitution's Declaration of Rights. What they tend to leave out is that it takes a 60% vote to prevail, and Amendment 4 "only" got 57%.

So...57% in a solidly red state believe that people should have a protected right to abortion. Granted, Florida is a different kind of "red" state than, say, Mississippi is. But measures to restrict abortion access have mostly faltered and measures to protect it have mostly flourished.

I agree entirely that abortion is an issue that belongs in the states. I think Roe was poorly constructed law and the court was right to scrap it in Dobbs. The Constitution is silent on abortion, doesn't empower Congress to regulate it, and it is thus an issue that belongs in the states....

...where Republicans would be smart to tread lightly.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

Abortions are immoral, stupid, and always should have been against the law. They will eventually be illegal (or cut back to 6ish weeks) in the West when governments realize we have a depopulation problem, globally.

View embedded media

They were an effective way to reducing the birth rate of the poor, which has long become a major problem of developed nations. Tax incentives ought to factor children in with income. Maybe that won't move the needle, but there needs to be some reawakening around the declining birth rates.

6 weeks is ridiculously stupid. Plenty of women wouldn't even know they are pregnant. There's no reason to ban anything inside of first trimester. I'm open to arguments for 12-18 weeks. Beyond that, I generally don't support it, but it's far less important to me (and you) than other topics, as it should be.

 

[snarlcakes]

...but not unpopular.

Republicans love to contrast Florida with California -- and, mostly, with good reason. While Florida has some growing problems that may (or may not) be due to climate change, for the most part it's been bustling for the past couple decades. Republicans love to point to how Florida's population has grown, while California bleeds not just people...but many billions of taxable income. And as this has happened, Florida has morphed from the quintessential battleground state 24 years ago into a "red" version of "blue" California.

Many Republicans cheered when Florida voters failed to pass a ballot initiative which would've added a right to abortion to their state constitution's Declaration of Rights. What they tend to leave out is that it takes a 60% vote to prevail, and Amendment 4 "only" got 57%.

So...57% in a solidly red state believe that people should have a protected right to abortion. Granted, Florida is a different kind of "red" state than, say, Mississippi is. But measures to restrict abortion access have mostly faltered and measures to protect it have mostly flourished.

I agree entirely that abortion is an issue that belongs in the states. I think Roe was poorly constructed law and the court was right to scrap it in Dobbs. The Constitution is silent on abortion, doesn't empower Congress to regulate it, and it is thus an issue that belongs in the states....

...where Republicans would be smart to tread lightly.

I agree in the medium term Republicans should continually say it's a State's issue. Long term, abortion will become illegal or limited to 6 weeks for the reasons I said in my opinion.

 

[TDHoosier]

I agree in the medium term Republicans should continually say it's a State's issue. Long term, abortion will become illegal or limited to 6 weeks for the reasons I said in my opinion.

Find a middle ground which is where I believe it is now.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I agree in the medium term Republicans should continually say it's a State's issue. Long term, abortion will become illegal or limited to 6 weeks for the reasons I said in my opinion.

It is a states issue. Not because of political expediency (even if it is politically expedient for Republicans) -- but because the Constitution is silent on it and nothing in Article 1 (or elsewhere in the text) empowers Congress to regulate it. When that's the case, that's why we have a 10th amendment.

 

[snarlcakes]

Find a middle ground which is where I believe it is now.

I agree. State's rights is a reasonable excuse for the GOP and the most rational currently, as well. Assuming someone'e objective is to limit as many abortions as possible.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I agree. State's rights is a reasonable excuse for the GOP and the most rational currently, as well. Assuming someone'e objective is to limit as many abortions as possible.

You guys sound like Dems -- although I'd be willing to bet that you'd object to that and so would most of our resident Dems.

The crux of your discussion isn't about where the issue actually belongs, but why you'd prefer to have it here or there for reasons of preferred outcome.

I think the issue belongs in the state legislatures (permanently), because that's where the text says it belongs. The 10th amendment exists for the sole purpose of delegating those matters which are not assigned to the 3 branches of the federal government to the states. That's for constitutional reasons.

For political reasons, I also think state legislators would be wise to keep it legal with some reasonable restrictions.

However, if voters in a state elect governments who wish to prohibit abortion entirely, I'm fine with that too. That's how representative government is supposed to work.

 

[SqueakyClean]

You guys sound like Dems -- although I'd be willing to bet that you'd object to that and so would most of our resident Dems.

The crux of your discussion isn't about where the issue actually belongs, but why you'd prefer to have it here or there for reasons of preferred outcome.

I think the issue belongs in the state legislatures (permanently), because that's where the text says it belongs. The 10th amendment exists for the sole purpose of delegating those matters which are not assigned to the 3 branches of the federal government to the states. That's for constitutional reasons.

For political reasons, I also think state legislators would be wise to keep it legal with some reasonable restrictions.

However, if voters in a state elect governments who wish to prohibit abortion entirely, I'm fine with that too. That's how representative government is supposed to work.

I guess I don't have a problem with a state deciding to make it illegal. I have a problem with states making laws that punish people that then go out of state to have the procedure done. If it is a state issue, then you control your own state.

 

[Ohio Guy]

Abortions are immoral, stupid, and always should have been against the law. They will eventually be illegal (or cut back to 6ish weeks) in the West when governments realize we have a depopulation problem, globally.

View embedded media

I don't think abortions are always immoral, stupid and should be against the law.

Lucky for you to have never known anyone who has struggled with the very real life threatening situation of a distressed and troubled pregnancy. I hope abortion is always legal and as safe as possible for anyone facing a gut-wrenching and life threatening situation like that. I know two families who faced horrible situations that haunt them to this day. Glad none of them are on here to have to read your absolute bullshit.

 

[snarlcakes]

You guys sound like Dems -- although I'd be willing to bet that you'd object to that and so would most of our resident Dems.

The crux of your discussion isn't about where the issue actually belongs, but why you'd prefer to have it here or there for reasons of preferred outcome.

I think the issue belongs in the state legislatures (permanently), because that's where the text says it belongs. The 10th amendment exists for the sole purpose of delegating those matters which are not assigned to the 3 branches of the federal government to the states. That's for constitutional reasons.

For political reasons, I also think state legislators would be wise to keep it legal with some reasonable restrictions.

However, if voters in a state elect governments who wish to prohibit abortion entirely, I'm fine with that too. That's how representative government is supposed to work.

My honest opinion is you’re playing mental gymnastics to justify killing human life. I don't give a shit what your argument is for it. It’s still dumb and wrong. We’re obviously not going to agree on it.

 

[snarlcakes]

I don't think abortions are always immoral, stupid and should be against the law.

Lucky for you to have never known anyone who has struggled with the very real life threatening situation of a distressed and troubled pregnancy. I hope abortion is always legal and as safe as possible for anyone facing a gut-wrenching and life threatening situation like that. I know two families who faced horrible situations that haunt them to this day. Glad none of them are on here to have to read your absolute bullshit.

For 9,785th time on here. I am talking about the 90+% of abortions that happen because Johnny got Jane pregnant and they don’t want the kid.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I guess I don't have a problem with a state deciding to make it illegal. I have a problem with states making laws that punish people that then go out of state to have the procedure done. If it is a state issue, then you control your own state.

I couldn't agree more. In fact, if those proposed laws were as they were described, then that's Orwellian.

It's not any of a state's business to dictate what residents of their state do when they leave the state. That would be like saying that a state where marijuana is illegal could charge a resident with a crime if they left the state to consume marijuana somewhere that it's legal...even if they didn't bring any back.

But, yeah, if voters in a state elect governments (or pass ballot initiatives, etc.) prohibiting abortion, that's fine. I don't agree with it -- but (a) I'm a huge fan of federalism, and (b) I genuinely believe the Constitution allows a state to do that. And it's point (b) that is most important here.

 

[Ohio Guy]

For 9,785th time on here. I am talking about the 90+% of abortions that happen because Johnny got Jane pregnant and they don’t want the kid.

I personally agree with you on that front. I'm not personally in favor of abortion as birth control. That said, I'm in favor of some sort of national law being codified and putting this issue to bed for once and for all. Federal protections for the other 10% need to be forever cemented and be done with.

And for what it's worth, you should write out what you mean.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

My honest opinion is you’re playing mental gymnastics to justify killing human life. I don't give a shit what your argument is for it. It’s still dumb and wrong. We’re obviously not going to agree on it.

I'm not doing that at all. I'm doing the opposite of that. You think somebody who opposed Roe v. Wade, supported Dobbs, believes it belongs in the states, but favor states keeping it legal is doing "mental gymnastics"?

Now, I actually do support restrictions on abortion. And we can have that argument -- on what, if any, restrictions should exist. But that's not the topic of this discussion: which is where the issue rightly belongs. And I believe it rightly belongs in the states....because there's nothing in the Constitution saying otherwise. And the federal government only has the powers granted to it by the text.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I'm in favor of some sort of national law being codified and putting this issue to bed for once and for all.

The problem with this is that Article I really lends no support to the notion of Congress regulating abortion.

I'm sure Congress will try to do so. And they may eventually succeed at getting it signed into law. But I strongly doubt such a statute would survive the Roberts court. I think they (appropriately, IMO) take a much narrower view of Congressional authority than preceding courts have.

 

[Spartans9312]

https://www.cato.org/video-series/faces-globalization

 

[NPT]

With New Support Base, Obama Doesn't Need Right-Leaning Whites Anymore

For decades, Democrats shaped their policies around fears of the culturally conservative white voters to the GOP. But Obama's winning coalition has altered that calculus.

www.theatlantic.com

This was the plan

And they don't appear to be coming back to the center if these are their choices in 2028. Note that McM's favorite person (Buttigieg) is on the list. 😊 A couple of those might be okay... a lot better than Harris, Newsom,etc.

https://www.newsnationnow.com/politics/ranking-the-democrats-heres-who-the-party-could-nominate-next-as-president/

 

[td75]

The last time the democratic party was somewhat moderate would've been the Clinton era, IMO. Bill would qualify as a conservative nowadays!!

The democrats lost the moderate tag when they elected Obama. What a lazy and lousy president he was.

 

[hoot1]

...but not unpopular.

Republicans love to contrast Florida with California -- and, mostly, with good reason. While Florida has some growing problems that may (or may not) be due to climate change, for the most part it's been bustling for the past couple decades. Republicans love to point to how Florida's population has grown, while California bleeds not just people...but many billions of taxable income. And as this has happened, Florida has morphed from the quintessential battleground state 24 years ago into a "red" version of "blue" California.

Many Republicans cheered when Florida voters failed to pass a ballot initiative which would've added a right to abortion to their state constitution's Declaration of Rights. What they tend to leave out is that it takes a 60% vote to prevail, and Amendment 4 "only" got 57%.

So...57% in a solidly red state believe that people should have a protected right to abortion. Granted, Florida is a different kind of "red" state than, say, Mississippi is. But measures to restrict abortion access have mostly faltered and measures to protect it have mostly flourished.

I agree entirely that abortion is an issue that belongs in the states. I think Roe was poorly constructed law and the court was right to scrap it in Dobbs. The Constitution is silent on abortion, doesn't empower Congress to regulate it, and it is thus an issue that belongs in the states....

...where Republicans would be smart to tread lightly.

Craze, you bring up a key question when mentioning The Constitution is silent on abortion. You then conclude it was The Founders decision that this silence means they wanted the states to decide this issue.

It can be argued The Founders purposely left issues undecided knowing future generations would have to address them. Such issues such as slavery and right's issues such as the right for women to vote were left unresolved.

Another issue along with the individual rights of We the People which haunts us to this very day is how to balance the powers , between the federal government and the states.

In my view deciding the rights issue on an issue such as abortion should be left to the states is more of a political resolution than a constitutional resolution. Democrats tend to want a federal solution, and the Republicans definitely want it to be decided on a state by state basis.

Did the Founders really want the states to determine whether women have the right to an abortion or the rights of the unborn should prevail?

Personally, I don't think so. Furthermore, the Dobbs decision by the Supreme Court in deciding it is a decision to be made by the states is more of a political decision than a Constitutional reading of what The Founders wanted.

 

[dbmhoosier]

The last time the democratic party was somewhat moderate would've been the Clinton era, IMO. Bill would qualify as a conservative nowadays!!

The democrats lost the moderate tag when they elected Obama. What a lazy and lousy president he was.

They might run AOC in 28. If not her good chance it’s Newsom.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Craze, you bring up a key question when mentioning The Constitution is silent on abortion. You then conclude it was The Founders decision that this silence means they wanted the states to decide this issue.

It can be argued The Founders purposely left issues undecided knowing future generations would have to address them. Such issues such as slavery and right's issues such as the right for women to vote were left unresolved.

Another issue along with the individual rights of We the People which haunts us to this very day is how to balance the powers , between the federal government and the states.

In my view deciding the rights issue on an issue such as abortion should be left to the states is more of a political resolution than a constitutional resolution. Democrats tend to want a federal solution, and the Republicans definitely want it to be decided on a state by state basis.

Did the Founders really want the states to determine whether women have the right to an abortion or the rights of the unborn should prevail?

Personally, I don't think so. Furthermore, the Dobbs decision by the Supreme Court in deciding it is a decision to be made by the states is more of a political decision than a Constitutional reading of what The Founders wanted.

They laid out what functions the federal government would serve. And they were very explicit about it.

The 10th amendment exists simply to say that everything they didn’t explicitly assign to the federal government was delegated to the states or the people. As such, this is where the bulk of police power ends up.

Now, that doesn’t mean they specifically had an issue like abortion in mind — as if their silence on that issue (or any other 10th amendment issue) was considered and deliberate. It’s just that it wasn’t among the powers and functions reserved for the federal government.

Congress doesn’t get to fill in the unfilled spaces. The states do.

 

[BadWakeboarder]

Abortions are immoral, stupid, and always should have been against the law. They will eventually be illegal (or cut back to 6ish weeks) in the West when governments realize we have a depopulation problem, globally.

View embedded media

I’d love to hear an argument on why global depopulation is an overall net negative. With our impact on climate and the advancing of AI and detrimental effects on labor, depopulation isn’t a bad thing.

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

Congress doesn’t get to fill in the unfilled spaces. The states do.

Or the people. Don't forget those last four words.

 

[Willdog7]

Nothing good comes from the States right. They will send us back 70 years to the Jim Crow days.

 

[Lucy01]

Nothing good comes from the States right. They will send us back 70 years to the Jim Crow days.

You’re being replaced with Illegals by the Democrat Party.

 

[snarlcakes]

I’d love to hear an argument on why global depopulation is an overall net negative. With our impact on climate and the advancing of AI and detrimental effects on labor, depopulation isn’t a bad thing.

The human race continuing to exist would be my main argument of why depopulation is a really bad thing.

Another major issue would be the economy. You don’t strike me as a Bitcoiner or sound money person. The current fiat system needs a growing population or it will collapse on its self. Also, the narrative that AI is going to save us, is wishful thinking in my opinion. We’ve never had more innovation than what we had the past 100 years, yet global debt levels are almost at 400%. Also, for the first time in U.S. history a person under 30 is worse off than the prior generation. Unfortunately, we can’t innovate faster than governments can spend and print.

 

[BadWakeboarder]

The human race continuing to exist would be my main argument of why depopulation is a really bad thing.

Another major issue would be the economy. You don’t strike me as a Bitcoiner or sound money person. The current fiat system needs a growing population or it will collapse on its self. Also, the narrative that AI is going to save us, is wishful thinking in my opinion. We’ve never had more innovation than what we had the past 100 years, yet global debt levels are almost at 400%. Also, for the first time in U.S. history a person under 30 is worse off than the prior generation. Unfortunately, we can’t innovate faster than governments can spend and print.

Not a sound money person. Ok toots.

 

[snarlcakes]

Not a sound money person. Ok toots.

You might want to ask yourself why major productivity gains (AI) wouldn’t be able to support more humans. You would think increases in productivity would lead to higher living standards and the ability to support larger populations.

 

[Spartans9312]

You might want to ask yourself why major productivity gains (AI) wouldn’t be able to support more humans. You would think increases in productivity would lead to higher living standards and the ability to support larger populations.

There’s only so much land available…unless you want to print your food

 

[BadWakeboarder]

You might want to ask yourself why major productivity gains (AI) wouldn’t be able to support more humans. You would think increases in productivity would lead to higher living standards and the ability to support larger populations.

To what end? Why? Why do we need more people?

 

[IUCrazy2]

To what end? Why? Why do we need more people?

Somebody's gotta pay my social security benefits when I retire.... 😉

 

[BradStevens]

They laid out what functions the federal government would serve. And they were very explicit about it.

The 10th amendment exists simply to say that everything they didn’t explicitly assign to the federal government was delegated to the states or the people. As such, this is where the bulk of police power ends up.

Now, that doesn’t mean they specifically had an issue like abortion in mind — as if their silence on that issue (or any other 10th amendment issue) was considered and deliberate. It’s just that it wasn’t among the powers and functions reserved for the federal government.

Congress doesn’t get to fill in the unfilled spaces. The states do.

If they want to do it, they'll come up with some study that shows the lack of uniformity in abortion laws is affecting interstate commerce in some way (female availability in certain labor markets?) Or try to ground it to the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.

Both sides might try to use the 14th. One for equal protection of women's healthcare the other for equal protection of the unborn.

 

[snarlcakes]

There’s only so much land available…unless you want to print your food

I can’t remember the exact stat, but if the entire world had the population of density of Japan we could fit inside Texas.