Neither Moore nor Trump is the The Problem, but they're both whale-sized problems.
Alabama Republicans picked the looniest and most obviously unfit candidate, just as Republicans did nationally with Trump. That's the problem, and it has no equivalent on the left.
You're absolutely right, the Republicans' problem is not the Democrats' problem. The Democrat's have a problem uniquely their own.
It does not matter what the local candidate believes, the GOP has people sold that the local Dem is identical in every way to Nancy Pelosi.
Cynical a bit, are we? That's not really true though, that is, you see examples all over the map of Democrats getting elected in red states. That said, even if true your fatalistic position doesn't help anyone so what do the Democrats have to lose by selecting local candidates? If nothing else, think long term. People change.
I agree false accusations can ruin some people's lives, but I'd be surprised if the Duke's players lives were impacted much. I may see if I can figure out what they are doing now. But my guess. Is they came from good families that supported them and they went on to high powered positions. I'm sure it affected them, but doubtful it ruined their lives.
The Dem in Alabama was down to a crazy guy by 8 points or so. Down to a Republican so crazy two of our posters that voted Trump said they could not vote for. I assume the Democratic candidate lives in Alabama and not San Francisco, making him local by definition. I do not know what else to say about the situation.
Wrong definition of local. See above. If you're a reasonably qualified candidate, being down 8 points to any candidate means you're not local enough.
Fighting the nationalizing of the parties is key for the Dems this cycle. They are paying lip service to Big Tent-ism. They need to follow through. Not letting voters confuse Joe Manchin with Nancy Pelosi is central to Dem success in 2018.
I think you're mixing up Alabama with Kentucky. Anyway, Lucy's evidently our resident expert on that.
Jones won a primary with 7 candidates by capturing over 60% of the vote. In the polls he was down 8 by, he led Moore by 40% with independents. How much more local could he be? It is probably not realistic to nominate a Democrat who will vote 85% with Trump. But given the sheer number of Republicans in Alabama that appears to be what it would take.
/insert necessary caveats about reading too much into one poll
Time will tell as far as this particular race goes.
I think a lot of that depends on the type of allegations. And like I pointed out earlier I felt Moore unfit for any office prior to these allegations. Truth or not the idiot should step down or be forced to do so if there is any way of doing this.
Do you think that’s what’s going on here — that these women who’d never met coincidentally concocted the same lies about Moore, then persuaded people from their pasts to say they’d talked about it long ago? If so, why do you think that? If not, why are you posting about false accusations?
Is this the same David Horowitz that were in bed with Huey Newton and Black Panthers, and now in bed with a pedophile? My, my, times have changed indeed!
Tribalism is just a pejorative term for ideology-based politics. Tribalism is to civilization as ideology is to science. Bitching about Them doesn't change anything. If you're asserting their game is tribalism, then stop playing Tribe versus Tribe. If you're offering the same ideology as yesterday, then you're just promulgating your tribe (which you claim is civilized). Change the game. Stop being a tribe. Stop pushing your ideology. You say you are scientific, roll up your sleeves, do your homework finally, and translate your ideology into science. Then find candidates who are scientific about how to run the country and make people's lives better.
No, it's not. Tribalism is based on social identity, not ideology. Hence the GOP Tribe's willingness to dump long-held moral stances to support "their guys."
No, it's not. I don't know how many times you have to be told, but the entire universe doesn't reduce down to your stupid ideology fetish.
FIFY.
You're exactly right about this. Tribalism is the antithesis of ideology.
Your example above doesn't support the definition of tribalism you claim to be using and it doesn't fit reality either. For Republicans the R has nothing to do with "social identity" but rather political ideology. What's changed for them is that their ideology has dumped long-held moral stances. Thus I say you're using tribalism to describe ideology-based politics.
If you're going to respond to my thoughts in good faith you need to make an attempt to understand how I'm using my terms. Otherwise you're committing the same act you criticized another for. Here is how I'm using pragmatism and ideology:
Well, it has to be real. The bottom line, in my book, is that the first party to adhere to honesty would dominate for eons. So far, a whole lot of chicken shits flying 'round.
Here's some pragmatism for you...
Lurker appears to suffer from something that seems to be common among wannabe geniuses - the conceit that his particular theory is not only self-evidently right, but is so important, that it subsumes all other investigation of the world and becomes a Theory of Everything. So much so that when he sees things that are exactly the opposite of ideology, he must find a way to turn them into ideology in order to make sense of them.
