And would you care to name those “certain issue”? Are you saying we should run Mike Johnson candidates to appeal to the base nature of the politics of theocracy? Please stop the code speak and tell me what you mean to say.
And would you care to name those “certain issue”? Are you saying we should run Mike Johnson candidates to appeal to the base nature of the politics of theocracy? Please stop the code speak and tell me what you mean to say.
Immigration, trans, gun control, crime, and in some locales, abortion.
And yes, directionally speaking. The Dems should run pro-democracy candidates with politics tuned to the constituency that they're running for. This means running tough-on-border candidates in AZ, TX, etc. This means running anti-gun control candidates in areas where gun ownership is high. This means tough-on-crime mayors. And it means running presidential candidates with politics tuned to the preferences of (and ideally from) the Rust Belt and Sun Belt. When the Dems had large majorities in the House and Senate, how did they do it? They had a lot of Joe Manchin types. They had people like Mark Pryor, Blanche Lincoln, Heidi Heitkamp, etc. in addition to Manchin and Tester.
I live in Arizona and the immigration issues were only a crisis in people’s minds in states that did not have borders with Mexico. What people have wanted on a national basis aligns with seriously reforming our immigration system. This is not what the MAGAs want. They have found electoral solidarity in the southern states whose theocratic culture does not sit well with diversity of our nation. It is not just trans, or immigration, it is white nationalism, and I would rather see it burn than relent.
Oh really? Then why did Gallego run so many ads about how tough he'd be on the border? And MAGA wouldn't be a national problem if it were just the southern states. This "white nationalist" movement also sure has a whole lot of non-whites supporting it as well (in fact, his margin of victory this time was provided by working-class non-whites, mostly Latinos), so I think there's more to it than that.
Because in the absence of meaning legislation border politics are the McGuffin of contemporary issues. Conservatives always demonize progress, meaningful or otherwise. There really isn’t more to the issue than that. They are not eating out dogs, eating our cats, eating our pets.
And would you care to name those “certain issue”? Are you saying we should run Mike Johnson candidates to appeal to the base nature of the politics of theocracy? Please stop the code speak and tell me what you mean to say.
Immigration, trans, gun control, crime, and in some locales, abortion.
And yes, directionally speaking. The Dems should run pro-democracy candidates with politics tuned to the constituency that they're running for. This means running tough-on-border candidates in AZ, TX, etc. This means running anti-gun control candidates in areas where gun ownership is high. This means tough-on-crime mayors. And it means running presidential candidates with politics tuned to the preferences of (and ideally from) the Rust Belt and Sun Belt. When the Dems had large majorities in the House and Senate, how did they do it? They had a lot of Joe Manchin types. They had people like Mark Pryor, Blanche Lincoln, Heidi Heitkamp, etc. in addition to Manchin and Tester.
I live in Arizona and the immigration issues were only a crisis in people’s minds in states that did not have borders with Mexico. What people have wanted on a national basis aligns with seriously reforming our immigration system. This is not what the MAGAs want. They have found electoral solidarity in the southern states whose theocratic culture does not sit well with diversity of our nation. It is not just trans, or immigration, it is white nationalism, and I would rather see it burn than relent.
Oh really? Then why did Gallego run so many ads about how tough he'd be on the border? And MAGA wouldn't be a national problem if it were just the southern states. This "white nationalist" movement also sure has a whole lot of non-whites supporting it as well (in fact, his margin of victory this time was provided by working-class non-whites, mostly Latinos), so I think there's more to it than that.
Because in the absence of meaning legislation border politics are the McGuffin of contemporary issues. Conservatives always demonize progress, meaningful or otherwise. There really isn’t more to the issue than that. They are not eating out dogs, eating our cats, eating our pets.