I don't know why people agreeing to these polling questions is surprising. The charactization of Democrats that is regularlly printed in the media and even the Dispatch is so far out that its unbelievable. Sure there are people for whom gender identity is important and they may even be Democrats, but that all Democrats think is important or even think about it at all is not realistic. Same with defunding the police. Some far left Pol in Minnesota or some other state made that comment and the media ran with it, and said it was a major Democratic position. No it isn't and never was. I'm not in the least surprised by this poll.
Unfortunately anybody who runs on Ruy's platform guarantees an election where there's 24% turnout. The people want bread and Circus. They must be entertained.
If Ruy can get five Republican members of Congress to say any two of the quoted poll questions out loud in front of a camera, I'll buy into his repeated scolds of Democrats. Until then, I'll be unconvinced that doing what he advises would influence any significant bloc of voters, and least of all anyone from the GOP rank and file, to move to the Dem column.
I’m a scientist and actually took a class that had a section on writing good questions. The questions in the Teixeira poll are *not* well written. 1) They were written to see whether or not his thesis that Democrats are more extreme than their Republican counterparts who believe in certain supposedly *common sense* comments is flawed because the “common sense - no rational person could disagree with this” statements were worded in a way that reads differently if you’re a Democrat. But unlike what Texeira believes based on his priors - it’s *not* because there are fewer Democrats who believe in “centrist/moderate views”.
This comment would be too long if I went through all the questions with problematic wordings but here’s a hypothetical:
Question: “Even though Black Lives Matter, since there is no inherent difference between races, would you say it’s fair to say that “All lives matter?”
Teixera would probably say the answer should be a no brainer, common sense *YES*” and if fewer Dems answer “yes” than “no”, he would consider that proof that Republicans are more “centrist/moderate” on common sense positions but you would need to be either ignorant or disingenuous to deny that such a question is badly worded and drops a lot of context.
Ruy is a con man. Don’t buy his stuff even if Charlie feels the need to lap it up to justify supporting him.
If conservative writers and journalists and Republican Politicians actually talked to Demicrats across the country, you would not be surprised that the vast majority of Democrats are very reasonable, thoughtful people. I am an Independent, but have many Democratic friends and acquaintances and I'm surprised by the things they say about Democrats, and what I hear and from Republican journalists, politicians and talking heads about Democrats.
Why are the three most popular governors Republicans in deep blue states? Because they would agree with every majority answer to the Centrist Survey!!!!
\My great wish is that there would be 2024 Presidential lane for Charlie Baker or Larry Hogan --- but, sadly, there isn't.
Been a Bulwark fan for a while but never read the comments. Not sure I'm coming back - my God the cognitive dissonance is screaming in here.
First off, the poll is accurate and informative because unless you assume there's a bunch of typos or someone is lying, real people were asked real questions and they answered them in the way that's described. You may not like the questions or the answers but to say "bullshit" or "useless" or "whatever poll" just means you don't agree with it and makes you no better than the right wing idiots you're complaining about.
Second, this poll is like a knife that cuts directly to what is wrong with our democracy at this point in time. All of these people agree with these statements but no legislator has the courage to write any actual laws that model what these vast majority of people agree with. Several of you say that it's impossible to do just that and in response I quote the most useful idiot Tommy Tuberville - bullshit.
Let's take immigration. The quote is “America benefits from the presence of immigrants, and no immigrant — even if illegal — should be mistreated. But border security is still important, as is an enforceable system that fairly decides who can enter the country.” This isn't anodyne or pie in the sky - it's simple, basic stuff. But two years of all Democratic control under Obama and two years of all Republican control under Trump with both sides screaming about immigration and there wasn't a single decent effort at actually doing immigration reform. Why? Because any compromise in any legislation doesn't work in the primaries required to get elected. It's really that simple. I could sit down and write legislation today that both beefed up southern border security (it's pennies relative to our overall budget), set appropriate targets for immigration and provided a path to citizenship for those that are here. It's just not that hard.
Mike, literally the questions are completely anodyne. You can’t make heads or tails from the questions. You can’t get an immigration bill out of this? People saying they like immigration could literally mean 100 things. I like refugees. I like h1b visas. I like chain migration. I like 1 immigrant per year. Who knows.
These are mother an apple pie questions. You can be far right and look at the immigration question and think “of course immigrants shouldn’t be treated terribly” or far left and say “of course immigration is good.” They mean nothing when put together. Put them separately and you will see widely different perspectives. How can you make policy based on any of this?
Reminds me of those surveys that ask the same question multiple times in different ways to try and get to the subtle differences. I don't see any of that here. All I see is a bunch of questions designed to elicit broad agreement and confirm what the poll set out to confirm.
Of course things can be read into the differences between one party at 60% and the other at 90%, but yeah, not too much that you could base anything on. Maybe if these questions were then combined with a host of other, more direct questions you might be able to get some insight.
"The Speaker of the House and the Senate majority leader of the 111th Congress pledged to take up comprehensive immigration reform legislation, the most controversial piece of which concerns unauthorized aliens in the United States. Although the 111th Congress did not take up a comprehensive immigration bill, it did consider a narrower DREAM Act proposal to legalize the status of certain unauthorized alien students. On December 8, 2010, the House approved a version of the DREAM Act as an amendment to an unrelated bill, the Removal Clarification Act of 2010 (H.R. 5281). A cloture motion in the Senate to agree to the House DREAM Act amendment failed on a 55-41 vote on December 18, 2010.
The 111th Congress also considered other immigration issues and enacted a number of targeted immigration provisions. It passed legislation (P.L. 111-8, P.L. 111-9, P.L. 111-68, P.L. 111-83) to extend the life of several immigration programs—the E-Verify electronic employment eligibility verification system, the Immigrant Investor Regional Center Program, the Conrad State J-1 Waiver Program, and the special immigrant visa for religious workers—until September 30, 2012.
Among the other subjects of legislation enacted by the 111th Congress were border security (P.L. 111-5, P.L. 111-32, P.L. 111-83, P.L. 111-230, P.L. 111-281, P.L. 111-376), refugees (P.L. 111-8, P.L. 111-117), and Haitian migrants (P.L. 111-212, P.L. 111-293)."
You literally read the poll and said that it was wrong and couldn't possibly be right. There's a back slapping echo chamber in here that I'm not going to join into again either.
America benefits from the presence of immigrants, and no immigrant — even if illegal — should be mistreated. But border security is still important, as is an enforceable system that fairly decides who can enter the country.”
Let’s say you are far right. You hate immigrants but you don’t want them to be mistreated.
Let’s say you are far left. You love immigrants but you want “open borders”.
How do you answer this question? It literally appeals to both sides because you can agree with one part and not the other. You cannot make policy on this
*Rolls eyes* on the centrist bull crap. As Teixeira notes himself the statements are too broad to disagree with. That doesn't make them common sense it makes them worthless. How do you make policy from that drivel? I agree with all of those statements but I'm very much sure that I'll disagree with many on how to act on them. The only way to capitalize on them is to do nothing except speak supportive generalities. That way everyone can fill in their own specifics and no one can be disabused. Hard pass on taking that page out of the Republican playbook. I actually want some changes in order to make some of those statements a reality, not just winning for winning's sake.
Side note: America is pushing hard toward my tipping point on patriotism. If that statement is supposed to mean anything more than, "I was born here so I'm going to root for it regardless," then the country actually has to continue to be worthy of pride. If Jan 6th had been successful then it would have stopped. That threat continues to loom.
Yeah I actually have no idea what the point of the poll was/is? It is literal drivel. What is a politician suppose to do with this poll. “Man did you see that ice cream is good and that it should come in a variety of flavors.”
David - If the questions are all drivel, pick any one - for the sake of argument, pick the one on immigration and tell us what your policy would be - also tell us if you were designing a poll that seeks to find a consensus middle ground, how would you word the question? I'm intensely curious.
Sure, lets take the immigration one. Here it is for reference:
“America benefits from the presence of immigrants, and no immigrant — even if illegal — should be mistreated. But border security is still important, as is an enforceable system that fairly decides who can enter the country.”
Great most American's agree on that statement but now we have to work out specifics in order to implement a useable system of laws and institutions to carry out that nebulous thought. Lets break it down piece by piece.
"America benefits from the presence of immigrants"
My immediate thought, "Is this all immigrants or ones from specific countries or with specific skills," but we can explore that in a later part of the breakdown. For now I wonder is there a limit to the number we can accept before this benefit becomes an hinderance and if so what is that limit? Where are we going to set the limit on yearly immigration? Will it be an absolute number we have to revisit in time or should it be relative to total population at the last census? Perhaps we should base it on revenue since we'll need resources to process, settle, and integrate them? Are asylum seekers included in that limit? If not are they unlimited if they meet the criteria to be considered an asylum seeker or do they have a different limit? What should be the criteria to be considered an asylum seeker?
"no immigrant — even if illegal — should be mistreated."
For ongoing immigration, is child separation mistreatment? Most would likely say yes but I bet there are some Republicans and maybe even some Democrats who would melt from the approve column if we said no. Should they wait outside our borders for processing in tent encampments if they don't have the proper paperwork? Should they wait in jail? How long is too long for them to wait for their cases to be heard? Even if we somehow managed to select a set of policies and institutions to fix and enforce ongoing immigration with this government system and this environment there are decades worth of illegal immigrants already here. How do we fix that legacy issue, amnesty? Is deporting all of them mistreatment, even ones that have been here since they were very small children or haven't been in their country of birth for decades or face severe persecution at home?
"But border security is still important"
What does border security look like? Do we need a 40 foot border wall? Should Mexico pay for it (sorry, couldn't help myself)? Do we need that on the Canadian side too? Do we need radar and sonar nets monitoring the coastline? How many border agents do we need? What should their duties and restrictions be? Are they geared towards combating smuggling and intimidating illegal immigrants or are they geared towards finding people, dispensing aid, and getting them to the first stage of processing?
"as is an enforceable system that fairly decides who can enter the country.”
Are we going to restrict access from majority Muslim countries like Trump and his supporters obviously wanted or from Asian countries like we have in the past? If we are going to accept from everywhere, including "shithole countries," are those Republican approval numbers going to hold? If we are going to try to limit who can come to people from countries that have a western European culture will the Democratic approval numbers hold? Regardless of those choices are we going to prioritize people with specific skills or with family already here or with lots of money or make it more of a random draw?
Lots of specifics to dive into and I'm sure there is more I don't know about. Which of those choices are "centrist?" How much will approval soften when even that centrist outline of specifics is chosen and will it still have majority support in both parties? Most will cost more money than we currently allocate to run well. Are we willing to increase taxes to ensure we have a robust enough infrastructure to process everyone and, if necessary, deport them in a timely manner?
I would assume you need a full suite of polling questions on just this one question to get enough specifics to even attempt to implement it and once you do I doubt the approval will be nearly as high and I severely doubt there will still be majorities from both parties that approve. Given that, the original question was fluff to give centrists warm fuzzies that can't actually be used in a meaningful way unless the plan is to go with platitudes over functioning government like Republicans do.
On such happy agreement between Rs and Ds: “why do so many Democrats have trouble saying these things?”
The answer to that is in the questions asked - they are all “on one hand this but on the other hand that”. The devil is always in the details. Saying something like “there are still many things to be decided” or “still questions that need answering” are anodyne because it is in the details where the two parties disagree.
The takeaway is that there is a lot of general agreement that could be the beginning of negotiating bi-lateral deals if partisanship didn’t poison the waters.
I would argue that equality of opportunity is not possible, though it may be a reasonable and good principle. The same thing for meritocracy.
Both are ideals, but are rarely, if ever, realized. Our modern technological society has widened the opportunities for a large number of people--even if it has not equalized them--and there is a difference between wide opportunity and equal opportunity.
There is a very high degree of randomness in success--moreso than people realize or want to admit (especially the successful people). People wish to believe that they succeeded because of who and what they are, noit because of random factors (including things like who their parents are or because a teacher or professor or boss took a liking to them, etc).
Of the common people who rise, it seems to me (and it would be interesting if data could be collected on it) that while many who rise have merit/skill that there is an equal or greater number who have the same merit/skill but do not rise. The interesting question is why is this so? Why this person and not that person.
My supposition is that it largely comes down to random or contingent factors--what you might call the right place/right time factor. You bumped into the right person. Your job interview was before this other person's interview. Somebody liked your look or outfit or whatever.
In order to more closely approach equality of opportunity you would have to do something similar to the Spartan child-rearing structure, where children are not raised by their parents but are raised in a collective/collegial fashion.
And THAT, boys and girls, is why Republicans win elections and Democrats lose them. Look at that list of most popular governors: only ONE is a (D).
You know, every time Bernie Sanders spoke, I resonated emotionally with his words. But I would not vote for him because I saw him as the crazy uncle of the Senate. (I would vote for Eliz Warren but not if there was a centrist also in the primary.) I have always thought America was basically centrist. And I cannot vote for an extreme on either end. But I still wonder why Democrats seem so damn clueless about what it takes to win elections!
Mm. This a list of most popular Republican governors in blue states. Not a list of most popular governors in general. Illinois is a Democratic state with a Democratic governor that most residents think highly of, and has worked hard to right the sinking financial ship left to him by predecessors D and R.
No it isn't. See the link. Those are the three most popular governors. Pritzker has 52% favorable and 43% unfavorable. He's actually in the bottom half.
You're right, I misread this. Thanks for the correction, knowltok. As for Pritzker, I believe the polls are wrong; I lived in Illinois until this year and we thought pretty highly of him. But, that doesn't matter.
It is interesting because almost all of the governors are over 50%.
There are probably some interesting insights going on beneath the surface of these things. I can imagine that in a Dem dominated state with a Dem governor almost all republicans would vote disapproval. I'd expect the same out of a Republican dominated state with a republican governor. At the same time, those of the governor's party feel safer to express disappointment with this or that aspect of performance.
What would be interesting to see is the approval broken out by party and then set next to the partisan lean of the state.
Agree with all this, knowltok. Plus, governors are lightning rods for everything a voter likes or dislikes about his or her state. What the governor actually DOES may not be relevant.
I tried to look up Arizona's abortion law. It's terribly confusing. It looks like there is an old almost complete ban on the books that has been supplanted by a newer 15 week ban. Probably 95% of abortions take place before the 15th week of pregnancy. Most industrialized countries have drawn the gestational line banning after which abortion is banned (except for the traditional exceptions) at 12 to 15 weeks. I think that's ultimately where the law ends up in most states. But before that happens, the Republicans are going to act stupid on the issue by demanding complete bans. Once they get push back electorally on that position, Democrats will overreach, arguing for no gestational limits and public funding for abortion. Then, after public blowback, we will end up at 15 weeks, with exceptions.
Yep. AZ has long had a total abortion ban on the books. it was designed to take effect if and when Roe was overturned. Last year, the state legislature passed a new law that made abortions legal up till 15 weeks. They assumed the new law would make the old null and void, which is what most anyone with a brain would assume . . .
. . . enter an Arizona judge, who, in the wake of the Roe overturn, ruled the old law valid because it wasn't repealed and the new law valid because it was passed. Now there are two: no abortions, and abortions legal until 15 weeks. Doctors and women here don't know how to avoid breaking the law.
Legislature needs to cream that old law ASAP ... but right-wing election-year politics means leaving the twin mess till next year. Sigh.
Why is public funding of abortion an overreach? Why shouldn't a poor woman on Medicaid, or a veteran with Tricare, not have their insurance pay? My tax dollars go toward LOADS of things for which I have a moral objection - trump's kidnapping of immigrant children, off the top of my head, for instance.
Exactly. The Hyde Amendment that bans public funding of abortions is obscene. As you said, we all pay taxes for things we personally detest but are legal. Why not abortions?
.
Sykes: "And, as it turns out, his argument was tested in a remarkable poll in Wisconsin.
"The survey by Public Policy Polling was conducted in early May, and included the responses of 675 GOP and 746 likely Dem primary voters."
A poll consisting wholly of facile sound-bites is not scientific, and of little worth
.
I don't know why people agreeing to these polling questions is surprising. The charactization of Democrats that is regularlly printed in the media and even the Dispatch is so far out that its unbelievable. Sure there are people for whom gender identity is important and they may even be Democrats, but that all Democrats think is important or even think about it at all is not realistic. Same with defunding the police. Some far left Pol in Minnesota or some other state made that comment and the media ran with it, and said it was a major Democratic position. No it isn't and never was. I'm not in the least surprised by this poll.
Unfortunately anybody who runs on Ruy's platform guarantees an election where there's 24% turnout. The people want bread and Circus. They must be entertained.
If Ruy can get five Republican members of Congress to say any two of the quoted poll questions out loud in front of a camera, I'll buy into his repeated scolds of Democrats. Until then, I'll be unconvinced that doing what he advises would influence any significant bloc of voters, and least of all anyone from the GOP rank and file, to move to the Dem column.
That Teixiera survey assumes Republicans can read complex sentences, and that they don’t just see the word “police” and mark “hell yeah!”
I’m a scientist and actually took a class that had a section on writing good questions. The questions in the Teixeira poll are *not* well written. 1) They were written to see whether or not his thesis that Democrats are more extreme than their Republican counterparts who believe in certain supposedly *common sense* comments is flawed because the “common sense - no rational person could disagree with this” statements were worded in a way that reads differently if you’re a Democrat. But unlike what Texeira believes based on his priors - it’s *not* because there are fewer Democrats who believe in “centrist/moderate views”.
This comment would be too long if I went through all the questions with problematic wordings but here’s a hypothetical:
Question: “Even though Black Lives Matter, since there is no inherent difference between races, would you say it’s fair to say that “All lives matter?”
Teixera would probably say the answer should be a no brainer, common sense *YES*” and if fewer Dems answer “yes” than “no”, he would consider that proof that Republicans are more “centrist/moderate” on common sense positions but you would need to be either ignorant or disingenuous to deny that such a question is badly worded and drops a lot of context.
Ruy is a con man. Don’t buy his stuff even if Charlie feels the need to lap it up to justify supporting him.
Is my perception accurate that Mona keeps moving slowly, quietly leftward?
If conservative writers and journalists and Republican Politicians actually talked to Demicrats across the country, you would not be surprised that the vast majority of Democrats are very reasonable, thoughtful people. I am an Independent, but have many Democratic friends and acquaintances and I'm surprised by the things they say about Democrats, and what I hear and from Republican journalists, politicians and talking heads about Democrats.
Why are the three most popular governors Republicans in deep blue states? Because they would agree with every majority answer to the Centrist Survey!!!!
\My great wish is that there would be 2024 Presidential lane for Charlie Baker or Larry Hogan --- but, sadly, there isn't.
That is BAD for AMERICA!
Been a Bulwark fan for a while but never read the comments. Not sure I'm coming back - my God the cognitive dissonance is screaming in here.
First off, the poll is accurate and informative because unless you assume there's a bunch of typos or someone is lying, real people were asked real questions and they answered them in the way that's described. You may not like the questions or the answers but to say "bullshit" or "useless" or "whatever poll" just means you don't agree with it and makes you no better than the right wing idiots you're complaining about.
Second, this poll is like a knife that cuts directly to what is wrong with our democracy at this point in time. All of these people agree with these statements but no legislator has the courage to write any actual laws that model what these vast majority of people agree with. Several of you say that it's impossible to do just that and in response I quote the most useful idiot Tommy Tuberville - bullshit.
Let's take immigration. The quote is “America benefits from the presence of immigrants, and no immigrant — even if illegal — should be mistreated. But border security is still important, as is an enforceable system that fairly decides who can enter the country.” This isn't anodyne or pie in the sky - it's simple, basic stuff. But two years of all Democratic control under Obama and two years of all Republican control under Trump with both sides screaming about immigration and there wasn't a single decent effort at actually doing immigration reform. Why? Because any compromise in any legislation doesn't work in the primaries required to get elected. It's really that simple. I could sit down and write legislation today that both beefed up southern border security (it's pennies relative to our overall budget), set appropriate targets for immigration and provided a path to citizenship for those that are here. It's just not that hard.
Mike, literally the questions are completely anodyne. You can’t make heads or tails from the questions. You can’t get an immigration bill out of this? People saying they like immigration could literally mean 100 things. I like refugees. I like h1b visas. I like chain migration. I like 1 immigrant per year. Who knows.
These are mother an apple pie questions. You can be far right and look at the immigration question and think “of course immigrants shouldn’t be treated terribly” or far left and say “of course immigration is good.” They mean nothing when put together. Put them separately and you will see widely different perspectives. How can you make policy based on any of this?
Reminds me of those surveys that ask the same question multiple times in different ways to try and get to the subtle differences. I don't see any of that here. All I see is a bunch of questions designed to elicit broad agreement and confirm what the poll set out to confirm.
Of course things can be read into the differences between one party at 60% and the other at 90%, but yeah, not too much that you could base anything on. Maybe if these questions were then combined with a host of other, more direct questions you might be able to get some insight.
So classic. So you know that all the R respondents didn't read the question or perhaps did and just lied for the sake of the exercise. Nice.
And can you send me a link to the immigration reform bill that was put in front of the Senate during Obama's two years of complete Democratic control?
As you say, it's just common sense. I'd rather you say "I don't agree with these questions" and "I don't want these solutions" - it'd be more honest.
DREAM Act of 2010:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-immigration/house-passes-dream-act-immigration-bill-idUSTRE6B80MD20101209
Here's a whole Congressional Research Services Report on the Immigration actions of the 111th Congress.
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/homesec/R40848.pdf
The TLDR is:
"The Speaker of the House and the Senate majority leader of the 111th Congress pledged to take up comprehensive immigration reform legislation, the most controversial piece of which concerns unauthorized aliens in the United States. Although the 111th Congress did not take up a comprehensive immigration bill, it did consider a narrower DREAM Act proposal to legalize the status of certain unauthorized alien students. On December 8, 2010, the House approved a version of the DREAM Act as an amendment to an unrelated bill, the Removal Clarification Act of 2010 (H.R. 5281). A cloture motion in the Senate to agree to the House DREAM Act amendment failed on a 55-41 vote on December 18, 2010.
The 111th Congress also considered other immigration issues and enacted a number of targeted immigration provisions. It passed legislation (P.L. 111-8, P.L. 111-9, P.L. 111-68, P.L. 111-83) to extend the life of several immigration programs—the E-Verify electronic employment eligibility verification system, the Immigrant Investor Regional Center Program, the Conrad State J-1 Waiver Program, and the special immigrant visa for religious workers—until September 30, 2012.
Among the other subjects of legislation enacted by the 111th Congress were border security (P.L. 111-5, P.L. 111-32, P.L. 111-83, P.L. 111-230, P.L. 111-281, P.L. 111-376), refugees (P.L. 111-8, P.L. 111-117), and Haitian migrants (P.L. 111-212, P.L. 111-293)."
And what happened to that bill?
"A cloture motion in the Senate to agree to the House DREAM Act amendment failed on a 55-41 vote on December 18, 2010."
What can I say? I'm a giver.
You literally read the poll and said that it was wrong and couldn't possibly be right. There's a back slapping echo chamber in here that I'm not going to join into again either.
Mike, here is the statement
America benefits from the presence of immigrants, and no immigrant — even if illegal — should be mistreated. But border security is still important, as is an enforceable system that fairly decides who can enter the country.”
Let’s say you are far right. You hate immigrants but you don’t want them to be mistreated.
Let’s say you are far left. You love immigrants but you want “open borders”.
How do you answer this question? It literally appeals to both sides because you can agree with one part and not the other. You cannot make policy on this
*Rolls eyes* on the centrist bull crap. As Teixeira notes himself the statements are too broad to disagree with. That doesn't make them common sense it makes them worthless. How do you make policy from that drivel? I agree with all of those statements but I'm very much sure that I'll disagree with many on how to act on them. The only way to capitalize on them is to do nothing except speak supportive generalities. That way everyone can fill in their own specifics and no one can be disabused. Hard pass on taking that page out of the Republican playbook. I actually want some changes in order to make some of those statements a reality, not just winning for winning's sake.
Side note: America is pushing hard toward my tipping point on patriotism. If that statement is supposed to mean anything more than, "I was born here so I'm going to root for it regardless," then the country actually has to continue to be worthy of pride. If Jan 6th had been successful then it would have stopped. That threat continues to loom.
Yeah I actually have no idea what the point of the poll was/is? It is literal drivel. What is a politician suppose to do with this poll. “Man did you see that ice cream is good and that it should come in a variety of flavors.”
David - If the questions are all drivel, pick any one - for the sake of argument, pick the one on immigration and tell us what your policy would be - also tell us if you were designing a poll that seeks to find a consensus middle ground, how would you word the question? I'm intensely curious.
Sure, lets take the immigration one. Here it is for reference:
“America benefits from the presence of immigrants, and no immigrant — even if illegal — should be mistreated. But border security is still important, as is an enforceable system that fairly decides who can enter the country.”
Great most American's agree on that statement but now we have to work out specifics in order to implement a useable system of laws and institutions to carry out that nebulous thought. Lets break it down piece by piece.
"America benefits from the presence of immigrants"
My immediate thought, "Is this all immigrants or ones from specific countries or with specific skills," but we can explore that in a later part of the breakdown. For now I wonder is there a limit to the number we can accept before this benefit becomes an hinderance and if so what is that limit? Where are we going to set the limit on yearly immigration? Will it be an absolute number we have to revisit in time or should it be relative to total population at the last census? Perhaps we should base it on revenue since we'll need resources to process, settle, and integrate them? Are asylum seekers included in that limit? If not are they unlimited if they meet the criteria to be considered an asylum seeker or do they have a different limit? What should be the criteria to be considered an asylum seeker?
"no immigrant — even if illegal — should be mistreated."
For ongoing immigration, is child separation mistreatment? Most would likely say yes but I bet there are some Republicans and maybe even some Democrats who would melt from the approve column if we said no. Should they wait outside our borders for processing in tent encampments if they don't have the proper paperwork? Should they wait in jail? How long is too long for them to wait for their cases to be heard? Even if we somehow managed to select a set of policies and institutions to fix and enforce ongoing immigration with this government system and this environment there are decades worth of illegal immigrants already here. How do we fix that legacy issue, amnesty? Is deporting all of them mistreatment, even ones that have been here since they were very small children or haven't been in their country of birth for decades or face severe persecution at home?
"But border security is still important"
What does border security look like? Do we need a 40 foot border wall? Should Mexico pay for it (sorry, couldn't help myself)? Do we need that on the Canadian side too? Do we need radar and sonar nets monitoring the coastline? How many border agents do we need? What should their duties and restrictions be? Are they geared towards combating smuggling and intimidating illegal immigrants or are they geared towards finding people, dispensing aid, and getting them to the first stage of processing?
"as is an enforceable system that fairly decides who can enter the country.”
Are we going to restrict access from majority Muslim countries like Trump and his supporters obviously wanted or from Asian countries like we have in the past? If we are going to accept from everywhere, including "shithole countries," are those Republican approval numbers going to hold? If we are going to try to limit who can come to people from countries that have a western European culture will the Democratic approval numbers hold? Regardless of those choices are we going to prioritize people with specific skills or with family already here or with lots of money or make it more of a random draw?
Lots of specifics to dive into and I'm sure there is more I don't know about. Which of those choices are "centrist?" How much will approval soften when even that centrist outline of specifics is chosen and will it still have majority support in both parties? Most will cost more money than we currently allocate to run well. Are we willing to increase taxes to ensure we have a robust enough infrastructure to process everyone and, if necessary, deport them in a timely manner?
I would assume you need a full suite of polling questions on just this one question to get enough specifics to even attempt to implement it and once you do I doubt the approval will be nearly as high and I severely doubt there will still be majorities from both parties that approve. Given that, the original question was fluff to give centrists warm fuzzies that can't actually be used in a meaningful way unless the plan is to go with platitudes over functioning government like Republicans do.
The GOP has become the party of Nihilism cosplaying in in Traditionalist American values. There's no there there.
On such happy agreement between Rs and Ds: “why do so many Democrats have trouble saying these things?”
The answer to that is in the questions asked - they are all “on one hand this but on the other hand that”. The devil is always in the details. Saying something like “there are still many things to be decided” or “still questions that need answering” are anodyne because it is in the details where the two parties disagree.
The takeaway is that there is a lot of general agreement that could be the beginning of negotiating bi-lateral deals if partisanship didn’t poison the waters.
I would argue that equality of opportunity is not possible, though it may be a reasonable and good principle. The same thing for meritocracy.
Both are ideals, but are rarely, if ever, realized. Our modern technological society has widened the opportunities for a large number of people--even if it has not equalized them--and there is a difference between wide opportunity and equal opportunity.
There is a very high degree of randomness in success--moreso than people realize or want to admit (especially the successful people). People wish to believe that they succeeded because of who and what they are, noit because of random factors (including things like who their parents are or because a teacher or professor or boss took a liking to them, etc).
Of the common people who rise, it seems to me (and it would be interesting if data could be collected on it) that while many who rise have merit/skill that there is an equal or greater number who have the same merit/skill but do not rise. The interesting question is why is this so? Why this person and not that person.
My supposition is that it largely comes down to random or contingent factors--what you might call the right place/right time factor. You bumped into the right person. Your job interview was before this other person's interview. Somebody liked your look or outfit or whatever.
In order to more closely approach equality of opportunity you would have to do something similar to the Spartan child-rearing structure, where children are not raised by their parents but are raised in a collective/collegial fashion.
Your mom worked at IBM and got them to buy your operating system.
Your dad owns South African emerald mines.
Your dad owns a multibillion dollar real estate empire in NYC and gives you part of your inheritance early.
You know, meritorious things like that that are totally the result of your own brilliance.
One of the biggest pieces of luck there is is being born to rich and powerful parents.
And THAT, boys and girls, is why Republicans win elections and Democrats lose them. Look at that list of most popular governors: only ONE is a (D).
You know, every time Bernie Sanders spoke, I resonated emotionally with his words. But I would not vote for him because I saw him as the crazy uncle of the Senate. (I would vote for Eliz Warren but not if there was a centrist also in the primary.) I have always thought America was basically centrist. And I cannot vote for an extreme on either end. But I still wonder why Democrats seem so damn clueless about what it takes to win elections!
Mm. This a list of most popular Republican governors in blue states. Not a list of most popular governors in general. Illinois is a Democratic state with a Democratic governor that most residents think highly of, and has worked hard to right the sinking financial ship left to him by predecessors D and R.
No it isn't. See the link. Those are the three most popular governors. Pritzker has 52% favorable and 43% unfavorable. He's actually in the bottom half.
You're right, I misread this. Thanks for the correction, knowltok. As for Pritzker, I believe the polls are wrong; I lived in Illinois until this year and we thought pretty highly of him. But, that doesn't matter.
It is interesting because almost all of the governors are over 50%.
There are probably some interesting insights going on beneath the surface of these things. I can imagine that in a Dem dominated state with a Dem governor almost all republicans would vote disapproval. I'd expect the same out of a Republican dominated state with a republican governor. At the same time, those of the governor's party feel safer to express disappointment with this or that aspect of performance.
What would be interesting to see is the approval broken out by party and then set next to the partisan lean of the state.
Agree with all this, knowltok. Plus, governors are lightning rods for everything a voter likes or dislikes about his or her state. What the governor actually DOES may not be relevant.
I tried to look up Arizona's abortion law. It's terribly confusing. It looks like there is an old almost complete ban on the books that has been supplanted by a newer 15 week ban. Probably 95% of abortions take place before the 15th week of pregnancy. Most industrialized countries have drawn the gestational line banning after which abortion is banned (except for the traditional exceptions) at 12 to 15 weeks. I think that's ultimately where the law ends up in most states. But before that happens, the Republicans are going to act stupid on the issue by demanding complete bans. Once they get push back electorally on that position, Democrats will overreach, arguing for no gestational limits and public funding for abortion. Then, after public blowback, we will end up at 15 weeks, with exceptions.
Yep. AZ has long had a total abortion ban on the books. it was designed to take effect if and when Roe was overturned. Last year, the state legislature passed a new law that made abortions legal up till 15 weeks. They assumed the new law would make the old null and void, which is what most anyone with a brain would assume . . .
. . . enter an Arizona judge, who, in the wake of the Roe overturn, ruled the old law valid because it wasn't repealed and the new law valid because it was passed. Now there are two: no abortions, and abortions legal until 15 weeks. Doctors and women here don't know how to avoid breaking the law.
Legislature needs to cream that old law ASAP ... but right-wing election-year politics means leaving the twin mess till next year. Sigh.
Why is public funding of abortion an overreach? Why shouldn't a poor woman on Medicaid, or a veteran with Tricare, not have their insurance pay? My tax dollars go toward LOADS of things for which I have a moral objection - trump's kidnapping of immigrant children, off the top of my head, for instance.
Exactly. The Hyde Amendment that bans public funding of abortions is obscene. As you said, we all pay taxes for things we personally detest but are legal. Why not abortions?