Gender plays a big role on attitudes about gun control. Not surprising to see political groups that identify with being female moving the needle. The Second Amendment movement has a share of female adherents but I think they underestimate this challenge. The more the SC is stacked the likelier it is that a Dem president expands the court to dilute prior appointments.
If you look at all the Kentucky state wide elections, Republicans won by wide margins almost all double digits. Only the governor lost. That looks more like they were anti-Bevin than anti-Trump. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/kentucky-election-results
I cannot imagine the type of controversy and discord that would cause. FDR (possibly the most powerful President ever) even had to back down on this strategy. The configuration of the Court is a big deal. It isn't the only concern obviously but it is a major one with long term implications.
KY is a deep red state. That fact that a Democrat won especially at the statewide election is very out of the ordinary for whatever reasons.
Agreed - but it tells us that it was a referendum on Bevin, not Trump. It also worth noting that a huge part of Bevin's unpopularity was that he was dogmatic and picked fights with endless different constituencies not worrying about political consequences or realities, and ultimately alienated too many people - even in a deeply red state. It's a good lesson to consider for people like Warren and Sanders who are pursuing similar philosophies on the other side.
There is no doubt that Kentucky is a Republican controlled state but Trump's appeal may have played some part as he rallied for Bevin and specifically stated that a Bevin loss would be bad for Trump. Still, it was a very close election and can the libertarian candidate not ran, it is very possible Bevin would have won. If the new governor does indeed allow convicted felons to vote in the future, the composition of Kentucky voter preference will likely change. If you look outside of just Kentucky, but view Mississippi and Virginia..... there are some very clear indicators. The town/country divide is only becoming more pronounced in terms of party loyalty as the democrats strengthened their % in urban areas and republicans did the same in rural areas. The elections were decided in the suburban areas, and that is where the democrats made more gains than polling or political scientists anticipated. The Kentucky governorship was won in the suburbs. The Mississippi governors race was as close as it was, because the democrats won the suburbs. It was even more pronounced in Virginia where the seats they picked up were all in the suburbs. The local elections echoed the same sentiment as well and were even more pronounced. The concern for Trump is that the suburban voters are going to decide states like Florida and Wisconsin and Michigan and Pennsylvania and Ohio. He has to win half or more of those voters to win the election and it appears he may have a disconnect with those voters at this point. As for Kentucky....... Bevin lost in large part because he went TOO far to the right. His extreme positions on abortion and same sex marriage and made absurd statements like 2016 in Kentucky is the year of the bible. He cut medicaid benefits for 500,000 people in his state and has been so combative to the poor and women and minorities that it came off as spiteful to a lot of people even in Kentucky. He went after the teaches as well....... in short he made a lot of enemies when he didn't need to. So I agree with you that in large it wasn't Trump that caused Bevin to lose...... he lost because he was extreme enough to cause some moderate Republicans to vote for the libertarian candidate or for the democrat.
It wasn't just that he was against gay marriage or ex convicts voting or teacher unions or separation of church and state or against abortion clinics of any sort or medicaid for the poor.......... it was to the degree he was against all of these groups and it rubbed people the wrong way and made him come across as extremely spiteful.
Picking fights with different constituencies is right out of Trump's playbook. I disagree that Warren is necessarily picking a fight with endless constituencies. I don't consider holding big businesses accountable as picking endless fights. She has dealt with realities and accomplished what people said couldn't be done for most of her political career. What it shows is that even in a deep red state it is possible for Democrats to win in the current
She's not doing it directly - but take M4A, for example. Her "pay for" includes massive cuts to reimbursement rates to doctors and hospitals. That means job cuts or wage cuts to doctors, nurses, support staff, etc. There's no way around that. It's that kind of thing that alienates her from lots of potential constituencies. It's what Bevin did turning many people who'd otherwise support him into opposition, not on ideological grounds, but on how-does-it-affect-my-life grounds. It's not just big business that she's alienating - it's all the people affected by all the changes she's proposing. She's proposing so many massive changes to so many sectors of society that lots of people will be negatively affected.
I see what you're saying. Yes, she's proposing changes. I believe that is her challenge. She will need to find a way to show the benefits for everyone.
Sure, it'd be a big deal. But we've been in nothing but controversy in all 3 branches since the Garland nomination. And a 6-3 or even 7-2 conservative majority in the USSC would be a big deal all by itself. I doubt many would make the calculation to pack the court to overcome a 5-4 disadvantage -- but I doubt either party would tolerate a 7-2 split, especially if they are hyper-partisan appointments.
What she wants to do would have major life altering changes for people employed in the insurance industry, medical industry, pharmacy industry, investment sector, banking industry, oil & gas industry and military/defense industry. There are a lot of people employed in those huge industries and they would rightfully be concerned with the employment status. That doesn't even get into alienating large corporations and the super rich. I am not saying she shouldn't pursue her policies but the facts are that the level of change she strongly supports will likely alienate her from many possible voters and motivate others to spend more time and effort on ensuring that she isn't elected.
Good reminder. In Kentucky, the maps are drawn by the bicameral Legislature, and both chambers are solidly Republican. But, the governor has veto power. So, we can probably expect something pretty fair. Virginia has the same arrangement. But, with Democrats holding both chambers and the governorship -- and maybe still bitter about the racial gerrymandering the Republicans tried to pull in 2010 -- we can probably expect something that favors Democrats pretty strongly. Of course, the 2020 elections can change the state legislatures, especially the lower chambers, so things may change a little bit. But the democratic governors will be there through the redistricting process.
Agreed. I think we are also in agreement that nobody's proposal will go through as they currently propose it. That said there are different things that get overlooked in the change. As has been pointed out, companies not having to pay for insurance for their employees will be beneficial to them or be not really a change because of the extra taxes they will pay. But, theoretically, in return, they will have a healthier workforce, pay less themselves for their own prescriptions, etc. While the proposal would mean a reduction in fees paid to doctors, they will be able to make up some of that loss because they will have a larger pool of clientele. Without the co-pays, premiums, and added expenses people will visit their doctors more regularly, there will be an increase in preventative care. A healthier workforce would help productivity in all areas of the workforce. If we could do something for mental healthcare as well that would help homelessness as well. There are upsides to all of it that may lessen or make some of the changes easier to swallow. Again the proposal won't pass the same way it will be put forward, but it is worthwhile to talk about, and in addition to the changes and costs, the areas of savings and benefits should all be discussed as well.
There is no question that there are positives to what she wants to do. I don't debate that........ I am only pointing out that what she is trying to do will have substantial ripple effects and that can cause people to not want the apple cart knocked over.
