Red state voters support progressive policies

[japman40]

Go to minute 29

Looking at ballots from red states, when it comes to propositions, most voted in favor of progressive policies.

Yes on legalizing marijuana, expanding Medicaid, increasing minimum wage, police accountability policy, independent redrawing of congressional maps, non violent felons voting rights back in conservative florida, same day voting registration, etc..

Looks like populist left ideas are the way to go, doesn't matter if it's a red state or blue state.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Michigan went nuts, we kicked out the R, legalized the evil weed, and elected a Muslim woman.

 

[japman40]

Goes to show you how popular progressives policies are.

Progressive/ justice democrats are the wave of the future for the democrats if they want to win(Tulsi Gabbert, Ro Khanna, etc)

 

[MMAViewer]

Michigan went nuts, we kicked out the R, legalized the evil weed, and elected a Muslim woman.

Here in Colorado we have had the evil weed for a bit but still had to kickout the R and elected a gay man. Baby steps. And we are bordered by NM were a gay woman mma fighter won a house seat. And,oh my, look at kansass.

 

[japman40]

Im talking about progressive policies not identity politics lol.

Who cares what ethnicity or gender they are.

 

[Fluffernutter]

Are those really progressive issues?

It feels like some of those were laws in the past, but we're changed over time.

Marijuana used to be legal.
Minimum wage in the 60s had more buying power than today.
I am not sure where in the constitution it states fellow can't vote.

Besides, these initiatives seem rather libertarian. Look like people want people to decide.

 

[Gunny]

No surprise really. I’m all for things like weed legalization, prison reform, UHC and, in sensible times, the trade war would have been seen as a progressive issue as well (kind of a mixed bag at this point). My issue is I just can’t stand the democrats. They’re all in on this notion of a 100 year ruling coalition based on demographics alone - re. Identity politics.

I also believe those priority point above have to be implemented very carefully with absolute sobriety. Many conservative objections are valid and need to be wrestled with in good faith. Democrats have no interest in that. It’s just hysterical moralism with no regard for unintended consequences. After all, why deal with the tough management questions when you can just scream “literally hitler!”

 

[BangersAndSmash]

Im talking about progressive policies not identity politics lol.

Who cares what ethnicity or gender they are.

This situation basically proves that many conservative voters in those red states vote for identity politics over all other issues. They want the progressive policies, but only if you take the candidates out of the equation.

Take Florida for example, they voted for the ban on off-shore drilling, but they voted for the candidate who is most likely to try to figure out a way to lift that ban. They voted for restoring voting rights to felons, but they voted for the Governor who was against it.

 

[hiphopnazi]

Im talking about progressive policies not identity politics lol.

Who cares what ethnicity or gender they are.

Most do and that's one of the major problems.

 

[n...not crazy]

Republicans aren't as crazy as they're made out to be. All the info we get is trash. It doesn't affect the person in the voting booth.

 

[BangersAndSmash]

Are those really progressive issues?

It feels like some of those were laws in the past, but we're changed over time.

Marijuana used to be legal.
Minimum wage in the 60s had more buying power than today.
I am not sure where in the constitution it states fellow can't vote.

Besides, these initiatives seem rather libertarian. Look like people want people to decide.

Even if it seems like common sense, raising the minimum wage is decidedly not a libertarian policy position.

Marijuana legality is an issue favored by libertarians and progressive alike, but it took the early adoption by a handful of blue states in order to jump start the whole discussion of its legality across the country.

 

[Fawlty]

It's nice to see that we've made some progress, and a shame it doesn't show up in many R candidates (have to wait for ballot measures that don't force people to defend a party), which leaves a lot of red voters in a bad spot when selecting leaders.

 

[nac386]

If the Democratic party could effectively distance themselves from fringe elements and run a reasonably capable candidate then they would probably win the next election in a landslide. The issue I have the Democratic party is that they do not seem to have a strong, no nonsense candidate who will absolutely refuse to pander to some of the current silliness. That alienates a lot of people who would otherwise agree with most of the Democratic platform. The Republicans do a great job of associating fringe ideas with the Democrats, and the Democrats need to do a better job of changing that perception.

 

[BangersAndSmash]

If the Democratic party could effectively distance themselves from fringe elements and run a reasonably capable candidate then they would probably win the next election in a landslide. The issue I have the Democratic party is that they do not seem to have a strong, no nonsense candidate who will absolutely refuse to pander to some of the current silliness. That alienates a lot of people who would otherwise agree with most of the Democratic platform.

That could probably help a presidential candidate to a decent degree, but it wasn't enough for Gillum in Florida. Gillum campaigned on the issues and basically left out the identity politics, but it didn't matter in the end. DeSantis didn't outline any platforms, he just attached himself to Trump who called Gillum a socialist thief.

 

[Jack V Savage]

If the Democratic party could effectively distance themselves from fringe elements and run a reasonably capable candidate then they would probably win the next election in a landslide.

The conflation of the party with fringe elements on the left (who mostly hate Democrats, BTW) is not a result of the action of Democrats. The GOP knows that it's policy agenda is very unpopular, which is why they run exclusively on identity politics (among other strategies--such as lying about their policies, making it harder for people to vote, and sowing cynicism), and part of that effort is getting gullible people to believe nonsense like this: "They’re all in on this notion of a 100 year ruling coalition based on demographics alone."

 

[nac386]

That could probably help a presidential candidate to a decent degree, but it wasn't enough for Gillum in Florida. Gillum campaigned on the issues and basically left out the identity politics, but it didn't matter in the end. DeSantis didn't outline any platforms, he just attached himself to Trump who called Gillum a socialist thief.

That's unfortunate. I think the GOP runs very effective smear campaigns, and I think a lot of Republican voters get too much information from memes. That is reflected on this forum.

But it's up to the Democrats to combat that by having an equally compelling message, and forcefully resisting the smears. I know it seems bizarre and hopeless sometimes though.

 

[Roaming East]

Actual title of this should be 'Red States want nice things; Continue to vote against them'

 

[nac386]

The conflation of the party with fringe elements on the left (who mostly hate Democrats, BTW) is not a result of the action of Democrats. The GOP knows that it's policy agenda is very unpopular, which is why they run exclusively on identity politics (among other strategies--such as lying about their policies, making it harder for people to vote, and sowing cynicism), and part of that effort is getting gullible people to believe nonsense like this: "They’re all in on this notion of a 100 year ruling coalition based on demographics alone."

Oh I know. It's frustrating to watch it happen in real time.

Trump: Hilary wants open borders.
Hilary: I do not want open borders.
Trump's base: Hilary wants open borders.

But the Democrats can't change the GOP approach. All they can do is find a way to combat those smears more effectively, and I think part of the way that they can achieve that is by not tip-toeing around issues as much as they do.

For example, Hilary always wanted more barriers on the border. But as soon as Trump wanted a wall, she backed away from those claims to distance herself from it. That was dumb, because she actually had the more popular view all along, which is, "Barriers in some spots, more security in others, and a more secure border." She could have made that message much more clear and fared much better.

 

[machidafan99]

I'm only for weed if we over-charge stoners and use the money to pay down the debt and take care of the elderly

 

[Jack V Savage]

Oh I know. It's frustrating to watch it happen in real time.

Trump: Hilary wants open borders.
Hilary: I do not want open borders.
Trump's base: Hilary wants open borders.

But the Democrats can't change the GOP approach. All they can do is find a way to combat those smears more effectively, and I think part of the way that they can achieve that is by not tip-toeing around issues as much as they do.

For example, Hilary always wanted more barriers on the border. But as soon as Trump wanted a wall, she backed away from those claims to distance herself from it. That was dumb, because she actually had the more popular view all along, which is, "Barriers in some spots, more security in others, and a more secure border." She could have made that message much more clear and fared much better.

She also supported e-Verify. Anyway, I obviously agree that Democrats should try to get their message out, but it's also part of the territory that the other side will try to misrepresent their positions and that many people will believe it, and the MSM will not help.