Thursday, February 15, 2018

MN a GOP State?

David Schultz posted and interesting possibility at the MinnPost Community voices section.
"This most Democratic of states in 2018 could finally turn Republican, following the path of Wisconsin and other Midwestern states. What happens in Minnesota this year could also decide which party controls the U.S. House and Senate."
Now I find it hard to believe, however it is an interesting concept. Will the rural and suburban MN voters say enough is enough, and vote for:
  • more personal responsibility / control
  • less government mandated wealth transfer
  • more improvement expectations for welfare recipients
  • smaller government and fewer mandates
  • more pay for performance / job complexity
  • less pay for unions, seniority and degrees
  • less regulation and lower taxes
  • better roads and less light rail
  • more religious freedom
  • a more business friendly environment
  • less enabling of illegal workers
I am not going to hold my breath the way the National GOP party is behaving, and with the poor candidates that the MN GOP seems to field, but it is an interesting idea.  Thoughts?

Here are some interesting links.
Wiki Right to Work States Grow (including Mich, Wisc, Indiana, etc)


John said...

From MP

""For example, just think of the controversial things that have been said about rural voters when it comes to the Illegal Immigration, LGBT Rights, Mining / Farming Regulations, Abortion Rights, etc. Just to name a few."

Why is it controversial to disagree on social issues? Should we just keep quiet about anti-Muslim fora on communities? Is it wrong to call out those who oppose illegal immigration while relying on that immigration for a cheap workforce.

In any event, I thought voters chose Republicans because of economics and that the demagoguery on social issues was not all that important. This is the line that is used to try to convince suburban and even urban voters to go Republican--it's not about the gay bashing or the Muslim hating, it's about free markets! On the other hand, we've heard that the rural parts of the state abandoned the DFL because issues like LGBT rights and abortion have been "forced down their throats." Which is it going to be?" RB

"To disagree regarding issues is fine, however just think how often Liberals here have referred to people that they disagree with as bigots, xenophobes, misogynists, racists, ignorant, hypocrites, polluters, irredeemable deplorables, etc. Now Janell made the claim that the educated urban Liberals she knows do not do put down the folks in the Conservative tribe, unfortunately it seems that many do though.

And yes Conservatives do vote for more personal responsibility, lower taxes, less government mandated wealth transfer, more religious freedom, etc. However they also vote against people and candidates who insult and threaten then. They are just normal people after all." G2A

Sean said...

The GOP hasn't won a statewide race in 12 years, so I'm a little hesitant to throw up the white flag as a Democrat. And the rural-urban sniping goes both ways, and needs to be cut out on both sides of the equation.

John said...

I don't disagree with you. But with DEMs so focused on non-citizens, the tiny LGBT minority, the welfare recipients, adding burdens to employers, etc it is a possibility...

Sean said...

I don't think you have any idea what Democrats are actually focused on.

John said...

Mostly I just go by their Platform, the ads they run and the speeches their candidates give...

John said...

Let's just use immigration since it is in the news...

The DEMs seem to want:
- to resist spending on border security
- to resist qualification focused immigration
- to resist deporting illegal workers
- to promote giving border violators and visa over stayers a pardon and path to citizenship

How is any of this working to support normal US citizens?

Sean said...

"The DEMs seem to want:
- to resist spending on border security"

Nope. Democrats voted for an additional $25B in security yesterday.

- to resist qualification focused immigration

Nope. Democrats supported eliminating the visa lottery and limiting family migration. The 2013 bipartisan bill (authored by Chuck Schumer) moved the U.S. to a points-based system.

- to resist deporting illegal workers


- to promote giving border violators and visa over stayers a pardon and path to citizenship

For some, sure, subject to conditions. For instance, the 2013 bill required: registration with the government, pay a fine and back taxes, and pass a background check.

So, yeah, you really nailed it!

John said...

Oh come now... If they believed as you claim the Grassley bill would have passed and sanctuary cities and states would not exist.

And before you say sanctuary cities are there to protect the community.. Please remember that if we deported all illegals ASAP, they would not be here to be victimized, commit crimes and or be witnesses... So no "sanctuary" would be required.

Sean said...

The Grassley bill guts legal immigration. That's not a tradeoff Democrats are going to make.

"Please remember that if we deported all illegals ASAP"

Nobody favors doing what it would take to rounding up and deport all the illegals.

Laurie said...

I think you are mistaken when you take the reasons you vote a certain way and use it as an explanation for how conservatives vote. I think there are other reasons
so I googled What Makes People Vote Republican?

It seems to me your list leaves out most of the conservative morality that impacts voting preferences.

John said...

Did you read the WHOLE PIECE? It was actually pretty good.

"Morality is any system of interlocking values, practices, institutions, and psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress or regulate selfishness and make social life possible. "

"If Democrats want to understand what makes people vote Republican, they must first understand the full spectrum of American moral concerns. They should then consider whether they can use more of that spectrum themselves. The Democrats would lose their souls if they ever abandoned their commitment to social justice, but social justice is about getting fair relationships among the parts of the nation. This often divisive struggle among the parts must be balanced by a clear and oft-repeated commitment to guarding the precious coherence of the whole. America lacks the long history, small size, ethnic homogeneity, and soccer mania that holds many other nations together, so our flag, our founding fathers, our military, and our common language take on a moral importance that many liberals find hard to fathom.

Unity is not the great need of the hour, it is the eternal struggle of our immigrant nation. The three Durkheimian foundations of ingroup, authority, and purity are powerful tools in that struggle. Until Democrats understand this point, they will be vulnerable to the seductive but false belief that Americans vote for Republicans primarily because they have been duped into doing so."

John said...

Yes Grassley did impact legal immigration, and the DEMs are resisting as I said above.

"- to resist qualification focused immigration"

John said...

After looking at this table again, the "common sense" proposal does seem pretty weak. It looks like it even tells ICE to stop bothering illegals who aren't criminals. Really?

And it does pretty much nothing with regard to prioritizing "qualification specific" legal immigration. So it seems we have made some progress on the first 2. But according to the table it seems 3 & 4 are still correct.

The DEMs seem to want:
1. to resist spending on border security
2. to promote giving border violators and visa over stayers a pardon and path to citizenship

3. to resist qualification focused immigration
4. to resist deporting illegal workers

Laurie said...

I think conservative voters don't identify with dem support for immigrants, LGBTQRS, and black lives matter. Dems are too closely identified with these groups and not with policies that benefit everyone such as universal healthcare or affordable college etc.
I do think sometimes dems over reach like with a free college proposal.

John said...

I think your article said in essence that DEMs need to learn to protect the fringe without threatening the stable society.

In my words, if you want to make progress helping immigrants, poor blacks and LGBTQ folks. (what is RS?)

Don't do it by supporting illegal workers, attacking the police and demanding that florists attend / work at LGBTQ weddings.

As for helping poor people with healthcare and higher education, our society already spends trillions a year on this... How about we hold the recipients of all that money accountable for higher performance and better results before we double down with more money?

Laurie said...

I added the RS as an expression of mild annoyance with too many letters for groups wanting to be recognized and protected. I still don't understand the Q affiliation and don't care enough to google it.

As for making college affordable it wasn't for my 2 children except for generous support from their grandmother. Not that many kids have grandparents ready and able to pay for their education.

Also florists are not required to attend or approve of anyone's weddings they just need to sell flowers to everyone.

John said...

I thought Q was for tranvestites...

If you did not qualify for pell grants work study etc, apparently the government thinks you should have been able to save more for college costs.

As I said, keep rocking the status quo and some folks will see DEMs as a threat, not a benefit.

John said...

So do you really think we should all be taxed more so college would be even less expensive for kids like yours?

I mean the tax payers already paid for the vast majority of their k - 12 expenses plus even a food subsidy for every day they ate at school. How much is enough?

Especially when the Liberal view is that the successful should pay most of the bill.

Laurie said...

the state supported your college education at a higher level than they are supporting college for your children. How about some generational fairness.

the financial aid office thinks kids should go deeply into debt for their college degree. U of M grads owe about $30,000, which is about how much Grandma gave each of my kids.

John said...

I think generational fairness has left the building, the boomers and my generation seem to have no problem demanding low taxes and high benefits while it is being put on the "national credit card".

Maybe the costs will fall soon...

John said...

Another related link

What is funny is that all of the schools I visit with my girls are short of dorm space and adding on ASAP. Those being Iowa State Univ, U of MN Twin Cities, UW Eau Claire, South Dakota State Univ, etc.

In fact SDSU is twice the size of when I went there.

So is it really too expensive when they are brimming over with students?

Laurie said...

yes -I am guessing that you have little experience with paying off student loans. It took me over 20 years to pay off my loans

Measuring College (Un)affordability
As many as 95 percent of schools are out of reach for low-income students.

John said...

I am not sure what to make of that article.

It seems to me that poor families would have their kids stay at home and attend community college for the first 2 years. And the kids should qualify for grants, loans, etc.

Are you saying that every student should be subsidized so they can stay in the dorms and attend any school they prefer?

John said...

As for loans, I only had about $10,000 and I took them on during my Masters Engrg program. My wife had more, but thanks to my good job and cheap lifestyle they were paid off very quickly.

Fortunately I had lots of old Grand Uncles, Grand Aunts, Grand Parents, etc who left me a little, and Parents who had prioritized saving for my education. And therefore we have done the same for the girls.

That idea of saving ahead for big purchases is core to the belief system I was raised with. I have always held off buying a car until I can pay cash.

Sean said...

"- to resist qualification focused immigration"

The Grassley bill doesn't create qualification-focused immigration. It just cuts other kinds of legal immigration and doesn't do anything to make up the gap. Your own links from the other thread make that point.

"After looking at this table again, the "common sense" proposal does seem pretty weak."

The problem is the goalposts have moved. When this began, it was about finding a solution for the dreamers. Now, Republicans are demanding a comprehensive immigration reform package instead of a narrow solution.

John said...

I am pretty sure Trump and crew would be happy to pass qualification criteria.

Now the DEMs may like to claim the goal posts have moved, but as I showed earlier... Trump has been pretty consistent for a long time