Democrat has a frank discussion with his party

[beej]

https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/the-democratic-party-left-vs-the

On Tuesday, John Halpin introduced our new survey project on the important issues and political ideas shaping the 2024 presidential election. He recounted some of the findings from our initial 3,000 voter survey, the first of five we plan to do over the next year or so.

I'll do the same here, focusing on a set of questions we asked to tap voters' views on three culturally freighted issues that are sure to loom large in the impending campaign: immigration, climate, and transgender controversies. The data strongly indicate that Democrats' positions on these issues appear to correspond closely to the views of the left of the party but not to the views of the rest of the electorate, especially those voters who occupy the electorate's center ground.

Taking immigration first, we asked voters to choose from three options:

    People around the world have the right to claim asylum and America should welcome more immigrants into the country;

    America needs to secure its borders and create more legal and managed immigration paths to bring in skilled professionals and workers to help our economy grow; or

    America needs to close its borders to outsiders and reduce all levels of immigration.

Under a quarter (24 percent) chose the first option, emphasizing the right to asylum and admitting more immigrants, which is closely associated with the Democratic Party. By far the most popular option was the second one, emphasizing border security and skilled immigration, which 59 percent favored. The draconian third option, which favors just closing the border and reducing all immigration was chosen by 17 percent. The latter two positions outnumber the permissive first position by three to one.

Among moderates, the second position was chosen by an overwhelming 66 percent and just 18 percent favored the permissive first position, not much more than the 16 percent who favor the draconian third position. Among the swing-y pure independent group, the story was similar: 62 percent chose the second position and the same number—19 percent—chose the first and third positions.

It's clear Democrats do not occupy the center ground here.

Turning to climate and energy, we offered voters these three choices:

    We need a rapid green transition to end the use of fossil fuels and replace them with fully renewable energy sources;

    We need an "all-of-the above" strategy that provides abundant and cheap energy from multiple sources including oil and gas to renewables to advanced nuclear power; or

    We need to stop the push to replace domestic oil and gas production with unproven green energy projects that raise costs and undercut jobs.

Once again, the Democratic-identified first position, emphasizing ending the use of fossil fuels and rapidly adopting renewables, is a distinctly minoritarian one, embraced by just 29 percent of voters. The most popular position is the second, all-of-the above approach that emphasizes energy abundance and the use of fossil fuels and renewables and nuclear, favored by 46 percent of voters. Another 25 percent—not far off the number backing the first position—flat-out support production of fossil fuels and oppose green energy projects.

Moderates are even more heavily skewed toward the all-of-the-above approach, favoring it by 58 percent, compared to 23 percent support for the rapid green transition and 19 percent for fossil fuels production. Similarly, 54 percent of independents support the all-of-the-above, energy abundance approach, with a mere 18 percent favoring a rapid green transition away from fossil fuels and a larger 27 percent group backing continued fossil fuels production.

Once again, Democrats seem out of touch with the median American voter on a critical issue.

This distance from the center is even more obvious when we take a look at voter views on transgender controversies. Here are the three choices we offered voters:

    States should protect all transgender youth by providing access to puberty blockers and transition surgeries if desired, and allowing them to participate fully in all activities and sports as the gender of their choice;

    States should protect the rights of transgender adults to live as they want but implement stronger regulations on puberty blockers, transition surgeries, and sports participation for transgender minors; or

    States should ban all gender transition treatments for minors and stop discussion of gender ideology in all public schools.

The first position here, emphasizing availability of medical treatments for transgender children (euphemistically referred to as "gender-affirming" care) and sports participation dictated by gender self-identification, is unquestionably the default position of the Democratic Party today. Indeed, to dissent in any way from this position in Democratic circles is enough to earn one the sobriquet of "hateful bigot"—or worse. Yet only about a quarter (26 percent) of voters endorse this position. Indeed, the most popular position of the three is the most draconian: that medical treatments for transgender children should simply be banned, as should discussion of gender ideology in public schools. That's embraced by 41 percent of voters; another third of voters favor the second position, advocating stronger regulation on puberty blockers, transition surgeries, and sports participation for transgender minors. Together, the latter two positions make it three-to-one among all voters against the Democratic position.

A mere 18 percent of moderate voters back the Democratic position. In contrast, a healthy 47 percent favor the stronger regulation of transgender medical treatments approach and another 35 percent want transgender medical treatments banned for children. And only 15 percent of independents are in favor of the "gender-affirming" Democratic position while roughly equal proportions (42 and 43 percent, respectively) back the middle regulatory approach and the total ban approach.

The rather startling unpopularity of Democratic positions in these areas and their obvious distance from the views of the electoral center raises the question of where these unpopular views came from. Part of the answer is that not all Democrats have been enthusiasts for these positions, but the ones that have been punch way above their weight in the party.

[Smit]

You are a hoot Beej. 

[beej]

You are a hoot Beej. 

just seeing if you're a woke. 

[YoDoug]

It is the inevitability of a two party system. Both parties will continually shift towards their more extreme stances, even if the electorate is more moderate. The other aspect of this is the pseudo perception painted by each opposing party. The extremes of each party create hyper-partisan views of the their opposition to keep the "us or them" strategy in play.   

[beej]

https://nypost.com/2023/07/13/i-was-a-democratic-state-representative-heres-why-i-joined-the-gop/

On Tuesday, I took a significant step to leave the Georgia Democratic Party, the party of my family and friends, to join the Georgia Republican Party.
Broken Dem ideas

As a lawmaker for the past three years, I realize more each day that the principles of Democrats are not always aligned with those of black people.

We all saw how Democrats chose to handle the "illegal" immigration of Haitians during the Clinton administration, leaving black people drowning in the ocean without so much as an arm of support.

We saw Democrats put nearly $10 billion into building more prisons, which made it possible to house more black people and for longer sentences with the 1994 Crime Bill.

What about now, in 2023?

I am asking black Americans to ask themselves, "What has a Democrat done for you lately?"

I don't know what Janet Jackson would say, but let me take a stab it.

Black children cannot read or perform simple math in marginalized communities.

In my district, some of the stats show as little as 2% to 3% academic proficiency.
see also
Why Barack Obama and other progessives loathe black conservatives

The criminal-justice system led by black Democratic leadership is functioning at an all-time low.

Recently, the US Department of Justice initiated an investigation into the Fulton County Jail, reportedly after a man died from being eaten alive by bed bugs.

Crime is rampant, and Atlantans are afraid to leave their homes out of fear for their lives.

Democrats supported defunding the police. I did not.

I voted with the Republican Party to keep local law-enforcement agencies intact to protect communities.

I voted to protect victims and families over lawless prosecutors that may use their office for personal gain versus advocating for the people they serve.

I also voted to support children that attend failing schools with parental or school-choice options.

The misconception that vouchers are for the wealthy is rhetorical nonsense magnified by opponents of school choice — often Democrats — who support the teachers unions over children.

I am content with my votes and my decision to switch parties, and I will run on the Republican ticket when I seek re-election.

Exodus 9:9-14 shows us that a slave mentality is normalized when you are suppressed and oppressed into thinking failure and hopeless is better than the unknown.

I pray I am able to show those who may be unintentionally shackled in spirit that macro-politics is nothing more than sensationalism meant to alarm and scare you from truths.

[Smit]

It is the inevitability of a two party primary system. Both parties will continually shift towards their more extreme stances, even if the electorate is more moderate. The other aspect of this is the pseudo perception painted by each opposing party. The extremes of each party create hyper-partisan views of the their opposition to keep the "us or them" strategy in play. 

The primaries are the problem. The more moderate electorate doesn't have a say who gets the nomination from the parties. They only choose between the lesser (in their view) of the two evils.

[YoDoug]

The primaries are the problem. The more moderate electorate doesn't have a say who gets the nomination from the parties. They only choose between the lesser (in their view) of the two evils.

Even worse for you lefties. Bernie should have won in 2016, then the DNC said nope, super delegates say your primary vote doesn't mean crap. 

[beej]

The primaries are the problem. The more moderate electorate doesn't have a say who gets the nomination from the parties. They only choose between the lesser (in their view) of the two evils.

just curious where you stand on those questions from  Ruy Teixeira. I could side with the moderate answer on those questions. but I am sure, that I would be far right on questions he didn't ask.

[gcode]

The more moderate electorate doesn't have a say

of course they do... they just have to get off their ass and vote in the primaries.

[beej]

It is the inevitability of a two party system. Both parties will continually shift towards their more extreme stances, even if the electorate is more moderate. The other aspect of this is the pseudo perception painted by each opposing party. The extremes of each party create hyper-partisan views of the their opposition to keep the "us or them" strategy in play. 

republicans have nominated moderates for presidential elections in the past, to no avail. Bob Dole, McCain, Romney.

[YoDoug]

republicans have nominated moderates for presidential elections in the past, to no avail. Bob Dole, McCain, Romney.

That is exactly my point. The two party system inevitably pushes both sides to their extremes. 

[Smit]

just curious where you stand on those questions from  Ruy Teixeira.

My stance is he asks questions worded to elicit the answers he wants, then claims the results he produces are meaningful.

Since you asked.

[gcode]

Even worse for you lefties. Bernie should have   won in 2016,

but the Dem party leadership made a backroom deal
nominate Biden and get a black woman VP
that's racist all the way down, but the Dem party always has been racist.

[beej]

My stance is he asks questions worded to elicit the answers he wants, then claims the results he produces are meaningful.

Since you asked.

That was how I knew he was a real democrat.  Seriously though, you're response caught me off guard. I thought the questions were pretty straight forward. I'm wondering how I'd rephrase them to be better suited for an honest look at it.

[Smit]

I'm wondering how I'd rephrase them to be better suited for an honest look at it.

Just be fair and honest. Suggesting that everybody come and live here is Democrat policy just isn't true. If that is associated with the Dems it would be equally fair to say the third option is associated with Republicans. So why doesn't he say that? So the second question was supported by both moderate dems, independents, and moderate Republicans.

Regardless, neither of the extremes is policy. Just the opinions of people doing the voting.

It's also not dem policy to stop all oil right now. Suggesting it is is misleading. The same can be said for the third option there, is climate denial a Republican policy? At least as good an argument could be made for that, but he didn't bother. Bottom line is most people think the middle question was more reasonable and rational. Except for the nuclear option, I haven't heard of anybody, Dem or Republican, suggesting that option. Even though maybe they should.

The last question was the worst. Suggesting that the first question is a Dem policy is ridiculous. 

Maybe something like "States should leave health care decisions to patients and health care professionals" and variations of that. Except for the last one so anti big government Republicans will have something to vote for. It would be much more accurate to state the third question is Republican policy.

I wonder why he didn't suggest that the Republicans don't occupy the center ground. Don't you? 

I know the QANON peole here are gonna go psycho about this.