Page 6 of 6
Re: SOTU 2024
Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2024 10:07 pm
by DCHawk1
Re: SOTU 2024
Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2024 8:07 am
by Shirley
Biden team brings in $10 million in the 24 hours after the State of the Union
“Ten million dollars in 24 hours. To quote the boss, that’s a BFD,” Biden campaign manager Julie Chavez Rodriguez said in a statement, referencing Biden’s off-color hot-mic moment celebrating the passage of Obamacare when he was vice president...
Re: SOTU 2024
Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2024 8:32 am
by Shirley
Re: SOTU 2024
Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2024 8:45 am
by jfish26
DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 7:02 pm
jfish26 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 4:00 pm
DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 3:05 pm
What if they go to the voters and tell them the truth, i.e. "The court overreached and we addressed that overreach through the legislative process"?
And this is exactly my point. All you achieve there is drawing attention on the margins to an issue that is poisonous at the core; for example, Judge Seven Mountains is still right where we left him.
That’s why I say, as someone interested in the GOP losing and losing and losing until it breaks up or breaks with MAGA, by all means please do try to convince voters that things aren’t as bad as they seem.
Part of the problem here, I think, is that you're conflating terms and sub-ideologies.
You think "traditional Republicans" -- i.e. those who opposed Roe v Wade for 50 years, who coined the label "Pro-Life," and who use the phrase "from conception to natural death" -- will IMPROVE their electoral status by breaking up with Donald Trump, who has said explicitly that he favors a 15-week ban, which polls significantly better than either of the two extremist positions (including Biden's position, restoring the Roe status quo)?
That’s not what I said.
I think you’re conflating policy positions with strategy.
I’m talking about the latter; if the color blue was generally a toxic issue for one side, I think it would be very poor strategy for that side to call voters’ attention to a specific house that some people will consider to be blue and others will consider to be gray.
Unless of course if convincing voters that the house is gray would help you, at scale, with the blue issue. That is not, in my opinion, anywhere close to the case here.
Re: SOTU 2024
Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2024 10:07 am
by twocoach
jfish26 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 4:00 pm
DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 3:05 pm
jfish26 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 1:21 pm
And in my opinion, trying to rehabilitate the GOP’s reputation with that subset of voters by saying “well,
actually, the Alabama court’s decision was only SOMEWHAT as bad as you think” is creating a battle on ground the GOP can’t even play to a draw on (and certainly cannot begin to recover ground on without doing something it ALSO can’t do, which is punting whackadoo religious right money into outer space).
What if they go to the voters and tell them the truth, i.e. "The court overreached and we addressed that overreach through the legislative process"?
And this is exactly my point. All you achieve there is drawing attention on the margins to an issue that is poisonous at the core; for example, Judge Seven Mountains is still right where we left him.
That’s why I say, as someone interested in the GOP losing and losing and losing until it breaks up or breaks with MAGA, by all means please do try to convince voters that things aren’t as bad as they seem.
What the Alabama Supreme Court managed to do is poison two wells. The GOP scrambled to try to show that they still support IVF but the situation just highlights what the collateral damage can be when religious people vote into office and courts religious people who apply religion to policy and legislation.
Once you move something from the overdramatized slippery slope "what-if" column to it actually happening it can't be moved back.
Re: SOTU 2024
Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2024 10:20 am
by DCHawk1
You must have me confused with someone who thinks Trump isn't grotesque.
Re: SOTU 2024
Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2024 10:38 am
by Shirley
Re: SOTU 2024
Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2024 10:44 am
by KUTradition
just watched the opening
did not disappoint
Re: SOTU 2024
Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2024 12:27 pm
by Sparko
Heh!
Re: SOTU 2024
Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2024 12:46 pm
by jfish26
twocoach wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 10:07 am
jfish26 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 4:00 pm
DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 3:05 pm
What if they go to the voters and tell them the truth, i.e. "The court overreached and we addressed that overreach through the legislative process"?
And this is exactly my point. All you achieve there is drawing attention on the margins to an issue that is poisonous at the core; for example, Judge Seven Mountains is still right where we left him.
That’s why I say, as someone interested in the GOP losing and losing and losing until it breaks up or breaks with MAGA, by all means please do try to convince voters that things aren’t as bad as they seem.
What the Alabama Supreme Court managed to do is poison two wells. The GOP scrambled to try to show that they still support IVF but the situation just highlights what the collateral damage can be when religious people vote into office and courts religious people who apply religion to policy and legislation.
Once you move something from the overdramatized slippery slope "what-if" column to it actually happening it can't be moved back.
I agree with this.
Damage control on the IVF item inadvertently (but unavoidably) shines a very bright light on things that that are electorally poisonous. From a strategic standpoint, it does not matter if some portion of those things is overdramatized.
Re: SOTU 2024
Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2024 12:51 pm
by jfish26
Now now, she might prefer Scarlett Jost.
