Jump to content
270soft Forum

Which Political Issues Are Most Important to You?


Which Political Issues Are Most Important to You?  

24 members have voted

  1. 1. Which Political Issues Influence Your Political Beliefs? (Do not check those that have relatively little impact on your political beliefs)

    • Electoral Issues
    • Immigration Issues
    • Social Issues
    • Healthcare Issues
    • Education Issues
    • Foreign Policy Issues
    • Environmental Issues
    • Science Issues
    • Economic Issues
    • Criminal Issues
    • National Security Issues
    • Domestic Policy Issues
  2. 2. How could Democrats improve their image?

    • Listening more to their moderate supporters, and centrist independents rather than to the more left-wing segments of their party
    • Finding more populist politicians like Bernie Sanders
    • Focusing less on traditional liberal talking points, such as equality, climate change, gun control, and raising taxes
    • Refraining from demonizing unlikely Democratic voters, such as Trump's base
    • Finding politicians that are younger than 65, and unattached to the DNC-Clinton/Pelosi establishment
    • Be more cut throat and aggressive
    • Spending more time in rural areas and the suburbs, and less time focusing on cities and educated populations.
    • Adopt most of the Green Party Platform
    • Other (please list in the comments below)
    • The party is perfectly fine without "improvements"
      0
  3. 3. How Could Republicans improve their image?

    • Listening more to their moderate supporters or centrist independents, and less from the more right-wing segments of their party
    • Finding more populist politicians like Donald Trump
    • Focusing less on traditional conservative talking points, such as guns, religion, domestic budget cuts, military budget increases, and strict immigrantion
    • Focusing more on improving the cost of living and quality of life of economically impoverished/poor/struggling American citizens
    • Promoting their politicians that are under the age of 65, and that are unattached to the RNC-McConnell/Ryan establishment
    • Strongly disavowing Donald Trump when he's wrong, and working to find new candidates without his behavioral flaws.
    • Spending more time with non-traditional Republican voters, such as inner city urbanites, liberal public universities, union workers, immigrant communities, etc.
    • Adopt most of the Libertarian Platform
    • Other (please list in the comments below)
    • The party is perfectly fine without "improvements"
      0


Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I'll list my "other" things later. 

I do also have "others," but it would likely degenerate into another rant attacking the flaws and failures fundamental to the very existence of the two-party system, so I thought I'd spare you all yet another one of those - I've made my opinion there very clear already. Instead, I filled out the options I felt would be most constructive with accepting (grudgingly) that the party duopoloy isn't going anywhere in the near future.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm torn on the GoP on having an issue with needing you politicians. Tom Cotton is fairly popular, and so is Been Sasse. Yet Rubio did extremely poor is the primary, last year, despite the GoP hailing him as their Wonderboy. 

The bulk of the GoP are elderly and their issues and concerns differ from the youth. And seeing how successful the state of the GoP is in raw number of seats, I doubt they'll begin to court youth voters anytime soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

I'm torn on the GoP on having an issue with needing you politicians. Tom Cotton is fairly popular, and so is Been Sasse. Yet Rubio did extremely poor is the primary, last year, despite the GoP hailing him as their Wonderboy. 

The bulk of the GoP are elderly and their issues and concerns differ from the youth. And seeing how successful the state of the GoP is in raw number of seats, I doubt they'll begin to court youth voters anytime soon.

A success in number of seats largely nowadays because of gerrymandering in House seats and the equal representation in the Senate giving them the advantage of a larger number of small-population, more-rural, economically poorer, very socially conservative states to dominate Senatorial elections in, keep in mind. In others words, their dominance in seats is not truly representative.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

I'm torn on the GoP on having an issue with needing you politicians. Tom Cotton is fairly popular, and so is Been Sasse. Yet Rubio did extremely poor is the primary, last year, despite the GoP hailing him as their Wonderboy. 

The bulk of the GoP are elderly and their issues and concerns differ from the youth. And seeing how successful the state of the GoP is in raw number of seats, I doubt they'll begin to court youth voters anytime soon.

the youth vote in the '60s were considered an ultra-liberal constituency then and now they're a very republican one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

the youth vote in the '60s were considered an ultra-liberal constituency then and now they're a very republican one.

Well, some are Republican, anyways. Bill Clinton and John Kerry had their activities in the '60's brought up in their respective election campaigns, much like, to a much lesser extent, George W. Bush did.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Patine said:

Well, some are Republican, anyways. Bill Clinton and John Kerry had their activities in the '60's brought up in their respective election campaigns, much like, to a much lesser extent, George W. Bush did.

What I wonder is how many Republican politicians were part of the "ultra-liberal youth vote" that @NYrepublican talks about. I can't think of any off the top of my head. If those voters changed during that time, it seems the politicians are among those that were Republicans or conservative in their youth. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

ok not exactly ultra-liberal(I exaggerated a bit) but a reliably democratic constituency.

Ok, well then I just want to know which Republican Senators, Governors, US Reps were at least Democrats (not counting conservative Southern Democrats) in the 1960s as part of the Youth Vote. 

In the 1960s, I know that Hillary Clinton was a Republican. Elizabeth Warren was a Republican. Rick Perry was a Democrat (Southern Democrat, so that doesn't count). Who knows what Trump was then. Elizabeth Dole was a Democrat in the 1960s. Leon Panetta was a Republican. That's all I can think of. Of politicians who would have been youth vote in the 1960s, it seems there was more of a shift from Republican to Democrats after the 1960s. I can't think of any others than these, but maybe more examples could make it more convincingly the other way. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, vcczar said:

Ok, well then I just want to know which Republican Senators, Governors, US Reps were at least Democrats (not counting conservative Southern Democrats) in the 1960s as part of the Youth Vote. 

In the 1960s, I know that Hillary Clinton was a Republican. Elizabeth Warren was a Republican. Rick Perry was a Democrat (Southern Democrat, so that doesn't count). Who knows what Trump was then. Elizabeth Dole was a Democrat in the 1960s. Leon Panetta was a Republican. That's all I can think of. Of politicians who would have been youth vote in the 1960s, it seems there was more of a shift from Republican to Democrats after the 1960s. I can't think of any others than these, but maybe more examples could make it more convincingly the other way. 

why would southern democrats not count they were moderately liberal on everything expect for civil rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

why would southern democrats not count they were moderately liberal on everything expect for civil rights.

No they weren't. They opposed voting rights in general. They opposed infrastruture. They opposed big government. They opposed national banks. They opposed child labor laws. They opposed unions. They opposed the Pure Food and Drug Act and other progressive legislation. They only reason they weren't Republicans any earlier was that Republicans were still "The party of Lincoln" in their eyes until LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, and even then some of them continued to support Democrats. They had very little voice until Nixon and Reagan gave them a platform, so they were Democrats by default of having been Democrats when Republicans leaned abolitionist and argued for strict reconstruction. They're Democratic party was much different from the national party, using it primarily as a vehicle for control in their states, and suppressing votes. No state should ever vote 90% for anyone in a presidential election. You occasionally got liberal Southern Democrats (on most issues) like Ralph Yarborough of Texas and Huey P. Long of Louisiana, but they were fairly rare. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vcczar said:

No they weren't. They opposed voting rights in general. They opposed infrastruture. They opposed big government. They opposed national banks. They opposed child labor laws. They opposed unions. They opposed the Pure Food and Drug Act and other progressive legislation. They only reason they weren't Republicans any earlier was that Republicans were still "The party of Lincoln" in their eyes until LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, and even then some of them continued to support Democrats. They had very little voice until Nixon and Reagan gave them a platform, so they were Democrats by default of having been Democrats when Republicans leaned abolitionist and argued for strict reconstruction. They're Democratic party was much different from the national party, using it primarily as a vehicle for control in their states, and suppressing votes. No state should ever vote 90% for anyone in a presidential election. You occasionally got liberal Southern Democrats (on most issues) like Ralph Yarborough of Texas and Huey P. Long of Louisiana, but they were fairly rare. 

*cough* Washington D.C *cough*

4 minutes ago, vcczar said:

No they weren't. They opposed voting rights in general. They opposed infrastruture. They opposed big government. They opposed national banks. They opposed child labor laws. They opposed unions. They opposed the Pure Food and Drug Act and other progressive legislation. They only reason they weren't Republicans any earlier was that Republicans were still "The party of Lincoln" in their eyes until LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, and even then some of them continued to support Democrats. They had very little voice until Nixon and Reagan gave them a platform, so they were Democrats by default of having been Democrats when Republicans leaned abolitionist and argued for strict reconstruction. They're Democratic party was much different from the national party, using it primarily as a vehicle for control in their states, and suppressing votes. No state should ever vote 90% for anyone in a presidential election. You occasionally got liberal Southern Democrats (on most issues) like Ralph Yarborough of Texas and Huey P. Long of Louisiana, but they were fairly rare. 

It was Nixon who began affirmative action as recognized today(Philadelphia Order), he also presided over the passing of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. Reagan appointed the first female supreme court justice.Here's what Reagan said on the topic of civil rights "America was founded by men and women who shared a vision of the value of each and every individual. We fought a terrible war to guarantee that one category of mankind--black people in America--could not be denied the inalienable rights with which their Creator endowed them. Abraham Lincoln warned of the danger we would face if we closed our eyes to the value of life in any category of human beings: "If one man says 'all men are created equal' does not mean a Negro, why not another say it does not mean some other man?"" (Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation)

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

*cough* Washington D.C *cough*

It was Nixon who began affirmative action as recognized today(Philadelphia Order), he also presided over the passing of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. Reagan appointed the first female supreme court justice.Here's what Reagan said on the topic of civil rights "America was founded by men and women who shared a vision of the value of each and every individual. We fought a terrible war to guarantee that one category of mankind--black people in America--could not be denied the inalienable rights with which their Creator endowed them. Abraham Lincoln warned of the danger we would face if we closed our eyes to the value of life in any category of human beings: "If one man says 'all men are created equal' does not mean a Negro, why not another say it does not mean some other man?"" (Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation)

Nixon and especially Reagan were much less liberal than Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, Carter (even though Carter campaigned as a moderate). You also have to keep in mind that as presidents Nixon and Reagan operated much more moderately than they campaigned, because they often worked with Democratic super majorities. On campaign, Nixon and Reagan were absolutely more conservative than their Democratic counterparts. 

However, what I'm talking about primarily as far as a platform, was the embrace of the Religious conservatives and States Rights philosophies by Nixon and Reagan (although, both increased government in most ways--but campaigned as if they weren't). Both parties favor Civil Rights for the most part, so the Southern Democrats---who have been historically conservative--went with Republicans, since Reagan and Nixon gave them a platform/influence in a party that they were not really allowed before (excluding possibly the 1920s for a brief moment, when the Klan was at their height). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Nixon and especially Reagan were much less liberal than Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, Carter (even though Carter campaigned as a moderate). You also have to keep in mind that as presidents Nixon and Reagan operated much more moderately than they campaigned, because they often worked with Democratic super majorities. On campaign, Nixon and Reagan were absolutely more conservative than their Democratic counterparts. 

However, what I'm talking about primarily as far as a platform, was the embrace of the Religious conservatives and States Rights philosophies by Nixon and Reagan (although, both increased government in most ways--but campaigned as if they weren't). Both parties favor Civil Rights for the most part, so the Southern Democrats---who have been historically conservative--went with Republicans, since Reagan and Nixon gave them a platform/influence in a party that they were not really allowed before (excluding possibly the 1920s for a brief moment, when the Klan was at their height). 

Nixon had a lot of conservative democrats from the south to potentially pass conservative legislation, there were few true liberal or progressive republicans by his day just moderates(like Rockefeller).

The only reason they shifted to the republicans was because their attempt at their own party(the american independence party) failed badly and the Dems were totally uninterested in the south's grievances (most of them unjustified) after the civil rights act.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, NYrepublican said:

the youth vote in the '60s were considered an ultra-liberal constituency then and now they're a very republican one.

It's complicated. The Democratic party was a very big tent in the 1960s to the 1990s. There were far left/left Democrats like the Kennedys and McGovern. But there were also center to right wing Democrats like Scoop Jackson and George Wallace. 

In 76, Ford won the youth (18- 25) vote. I believe it was 50%, and Carter won the 30s age group, yet they swung hard to Reagan in 80. I'm highlighting the latter because they would have been 18 in the 60s. So their loyalty to the Democratic party showed, despite the Republican party making serious headway. What happen?

The 70s. Oil crisis, factory slow downs, New York was bankrupt, huge cultural changes like affirmative action and the push for the ERA helped shift many would be Democratic voters to the GoP on the national level.

For a much better take on why the nation swung hard, I recommend reading Rick Perlsteins "The Invisible Bridge". It details how the GoP shifted from a socially moderate party( Nixon, Ford and Rockefeller) to a much more Conservative one with Reagan at the helm. 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NYrepublican said:

Nixon had a lot of conservative democrats from the south to potentially pass conservative legislation, there were few true liberal or progressive republicans by his day just moderates(like Rockefeller).

The only reason they shifted to the republicans was because their attempt at their own party(the american independence party) failed badly and the Dems were totally uninterested in the south's grievances (most of them unjustified) after the civil rights act.

 

4 hours ago, vcczar said:

Ok, well then I just want to know which Republican Senators, Governors, US Reps were at least Democrats (not counting conservative Southern Democrats) in the 1960s as part of the Youth Vote. 

In the 1960s, I know that Hillary Clinton was a Republican. Elizabeth Warren was a Republican. Rick Perry was a Democrat (Southern Democrat, so that doesn't count). Who knows what Trump was then. Elizabeth Dole was a Democrat in the 1960s. Leon Panetta was a Republican. That's all I can think of. Of politicians who would have been youth vote in the 1960s, it seems there was more of a shift from Republican to Democrats after the 1960s. I can't think of any others than these, but maybe more examples could make it more convincingly the other way. 

I think we need to remember about where are the voters from. Since 88, no Republican has won the Northeast, nor has a Democrat won the south(hell Carter is the last one to win Texas, and Clinton is the last one for Georgia). 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently I think the conditions that be needed to turn the NY metro red would be a massive increase in crime under a democratic administration or a massive riot of some sort like the crown heights riot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

Currently I think the conditions that be needed to turn the NY metro red would be a massive increase in crime under a democratic administration or a massive riot of some sort like the crown heights riot.

I'm hoping you aren't hoping that happens. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

I'm sorry if that came across the wrong way. It was meant as a simple statement of fact.

Problem is, the ideal that a Republican government (Federally, State, or local) means a lower crime rate is an easily debunked myth. Crime rates fluctuate rapidly based on a number of factors, statistically, but there's no statistical hard evidence tying it to the party in power at the relevant level of government (sometimes the individual head of said government, but not just the party itself). Also, statistically (from statistics both from the U.S. and outside), the death penalty, "three strikes" laws, better armed police, arbitrary stop-and-search laws ("frisking," as I believe they're called in New York), and even racial/ethnic profiling are all proven NOT to be true deterrents to hardcore, dedicated, well-organized, or desperate criminals (who are of course the demographics of criminals who collectively commit, by far, the most serious crimes).

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Patine said:

Problem is, the ideal that a Republican government (Federally, State, or local) means a lower crime rate is an easily debunked myth. Crime rates fluctuate rapidly based on a number of factors, statistically, but there's no statistical hard evidence tying it to the party in power at the relevant level of government (sometimes the individual head of said government, but not just the party itself). Also, statistically (from statistics both from the U.S. and outside), the death penalty, "three strikes" laws, better armed police, arbitrary stop-and-search laws ("frisking," as I believe they're called in New York), and even racial/ethnic profiling are all proven NOT to be true deterrents to hardcore, dedicated, well-organized, or desperate criminals (who are of course the demographics of criminals who collectively commit, by far, the most serious crimes).

Crime was a mess during the Dinkins years when Dinkins adopted a relatively liberal criminal policy which allowed for things like the crown heights riots to happen.It went way down after the adopting of broken windows policing which was a republican espoused policy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

Crime was a mess during the Dinkins years when Dinkins adopted a relatively liberal criminal policy which allowed for things like the crown heights riots to happen.It went way down after the adopting of broken windows policing which was a republican espoused policy.

Still, you're using a specific instance to try to prove a broad, general, across-the-board point. I admit, it's a common tactic in debate nowadays - even high-level politicians use it - but it doesn't, in truth, prove the bigger, wider points outright.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...