The effect of repealing Roe vs. Wade would be to leave it up to States to determine their policies towards state funded abortions. In other words, the states that vote Dem would continue state funded abortions, and some states that vote Red would not.
As a result, this issue may get people all riled up, but it would not flip a single state.
That's not right because what is Red or Blue in a national election is not the same in terms of state legislature.
Also, repealing Roe v Wade means the Federal government can ban abortion should it choose to.
That's not even getting into the idea that fundamental rights should be contingent on what state you live in isn't something we should go back to.
Right. LOL! Elected representatives fulfilling the election pledges is the end of democracy. You should speak the words as you type them to hear how ridiculous you sound.
I'm sorry, are you under the impression the GOP is trying to make things more democratic?
Because I hate to break this to you, they aren't.
I agree with my learned friend, the Captain on these points. Trump marks a clear break from the policies that the "patrician republican" establishment espoused and ran with. Romney, McCain and even Bush were traditional conservatives.
I agree with this. But the question is whether or not those were ever conservative policies or values that any of them actually held since the late 80s.
They gave lip service to them, but the base didn't care about them and the few vaguely "patrician republicans" who were still around have left.
So the questions is whether or not the "patrician Republicans" get to be the real conservatives or if the actual people in the conservative movement now and running it get to be called conservative.
Trump relies on sloganeering, racism and anti-immigrant rhetoric and a thinly veiled approval of armed vigilante groups. This always lurked in the shadows with GOP politics, but no leading politician espoused them. Trump's GOP is anti immigrant, anti Black, anti Hispanic, anti urban and caters to the lunatic fringe. This DOES bring a new element into politics. It also loses Trump the centre and I disagree with JTK that it's a winning strategy beyond 2016.
I disagree it is new. This has been a core part of the appeal to the base for a generation or more. There have been GOP politicians dogwhistling about it for ages at the national level and saying it flat out at the local level this whole time.
It has been key to their electoral strategy.
The only real difference is that the GOP leaders thought you had to no say the quiet parts loud at the national level and Trump proved you could.
That is an acceleration, and it shifts the nature of the game, but it's a tipping point, not a brand new thing.
There is little of substance in Trump's politics. He throws bones to whatever group will support him, including evangelicals and the rich. There is no long-term philosophy of government, national or international strategy or any intent beyond remaining in power as long as he can and - I would guess - letting his kids milk it in terms of business deals while the going's good.
Yes. Presidenting is work and he doesn't like work.
But there is a philosophy of government here.
The King gets to do what he wants, because he is King.
The problem for Trump is that there just aren't enough bigots and nutjobs, even in the USA to quite sustain him in office.
Not in an election that actually represents the votes of the people, but the US doesn't have that.
And the downside is not only that he loses the political centre, but he scares it so much that it will remain mobilized for the foreseeable future. That's likely to fuck the GOP in the short term and demographics will take care of fucking it in the long term.
Only if there is a chance to alter the current system.
The GOP can happily stay in power in the Senate and have strong chances to get the Presidency with a minority.
The additional attempts at voter suppression and disenfranchisement makes that more likely.
The Supreme Court is in favor of GOP minority rule and will strike down laws that can fix that.
The idea that Trump's populist approach is a winning coalition in the sense that it works for getting more votes is wrong. That it can create a coalition sufficiently well distributed to take advantage of the counter-majoritarian aspects of the US system is a valid argument.