I've posted on this before, but I just saw this story and if it's correct it is an example of what I'm talking about.
The DFL is a coalition of a lot of disparate groups, some of which have goals that are opposed to others.
The most obvious is organized labor (not government employee unions). Clearly the interests on the UAW and Greenpeace will reach the point where their differences can't easily be bridged.
Now we see a Nevada union who is being attacked by Bernie supporters because they don't want to give up their health insurance for "Medicare for All". They've gone to great lengths to negotiate what sounds like amazing health insurance for their members and for some reason they (selfishly) don't want to sacrifice their gains for others.
At some point, it seems logical that organized labor will realize that they have as much space in the DFL as he Pro Life folks, the School Choice folks, and a few other groups.
As before, how many millions of voters can the DFL exclude from their platform, yet still expect them to automatically vote straight DFL? If the 21 million pro life dems sit out, can the DFL candidate win? What happens if the 14 million plus union members decide to sit out? Can the DFL really lose up to 35 million voters and win national elections? Beyond that, what happens if the black vote goes from 95% DFL to 85% DFL?
Obviously, I'd prefer a GOP candidate to win in any presidential race, but politics in generally interesting and I can't see how long any party can hold together a coalition of groups with such differing agendas.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/powerful-nevada-union-says-its-members-were-viciously-attacked-by-bernie-supporters?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=mattwalsh
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/12/bernie-sanders-nevada-culinary-union-114687
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/2/12/1918805/-Powerful-Nevada-union-says-Sanders-supporters-viciously-attacked-it-over-health-care-differences
Multiple links to blunt the "biased source" criticism that is so often used to ignore news that's unpleasant.
Not exactly related, but it's been announced that the US led the entire world in reducing CO2 emissions. Despite this good news, I suspect we'll continue to hear that it's all our fault and that we should do more, and Paris. The problem is that profit (which means willing consumers) is a much better motivator than threats of government punishment.
I’ve seen multiple videos this morning showing people destroying GOP voter registration tents. Saying that the left is nonviolent is simply a lie.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Depends upon their level of hatred for Trump. It's part of the reason Trump won, in fact...the horror of a possible President Hillary Clinton. Fortunately, the platform upon which Trump ran wasn't a problem for me. HE was. But he's assured me that he knows what he's doing.
But with all the various factions as your describe it, the leaders are in conflict with many of them, and possibly enough to have no chance, save that potential hatred of Trump.
The problem is that this scenario goes beyond 2020. Even if TDS is enough to keep some or all of the voters I mentions in line, how does that work when there is no more Trump?
I think that the pro lifers are currently the group most likely to sit out in 2020. The message from the DFL is that there is absolutely nothing short of "virtually unrestricted abortion through DOB" that they'll settle for. Whether or not the DFL will admit it, the pro life position is usually one of deep moral conviction. Given the current position, it's hard to see pro life folks engaging in a "compromise" that has them getting absolutely nothing, now or in the future in return for their 2020 votes.
I don't expect many defections to the GOP, I think its more likely that they'll sit out entirely or only vote the down ticket races.
I ran the numbers for an earlier post and (assuming everything else stays the same) the loss of the 21 million pro life democrats would be disastrous.
What's most amusing is that they could have won in 2016 and probably could win in 2020 if they just ran a reasonable center-left candidate. Fortunately, it looks like they're headed toward a old, white, rich, crazy, socialist instead.
Regarding C02 emissions, it shows we didn't need to be a part of that Paris accord, that's for sure. We do on our own, without international treaties, what others only talk about doing and won't if they can't get US dollars sent their way. It seems I recall something around the time GW Bush refused to sign on to a similar treaty, the Kyoto Protocol, that we were also demonstrating a reduction in pollution. Why others can't do it without group hugs I don't know.
I agree. It has nothing to do with the accords. There are a bunch of really smart people who are going to figure out ways to limit CO2 because it benefits them or their business, not to meet an artificial goal. This is one more thing that the left should be celebrating, but won’t because it goes against their narrative.
Post a Comment