Thanks again. I think your last part (Reps "overturning efforts by citizens . . .) only applies to public (taxpayer) money, not to private money.

For instance, Repubs argue for states rights - but then Repub state legislators overturn efforts by citizens to create things like cooperative internet access because it impacts cable companies and phone companies. So Repubs will overturn (and they have in multiple cities around the country) citizen will by force if they don't like it.

So again, Repubs want freedom to spend for themselves, but not those who want to spend differently.

I think the construction you offered is flawed because it wants to create a perfectly balanced opposition - black vs. white, no grey.

The key word in there is "control" and a more accurate set of statements would be:

Repubs/CONS want total freedom to do what they want with THEIR money, unconstrained by law or morality.

Repubs/CONS want control over other people's bodies - not mere control over how people use their own bodies. There's a good block of CONS who want to be able to molest others with impunity. Some of them literally want to be allowed to have slaves. They want to be able to force women to bear children.

Republicans want control.

Democrats want as much freedom as possible for people within the limitations imposed by cooperation. Dems recognize that functioning societies depend on a degree of willingness by members to moderate self-interest to benefit the group. Cooperation includes the sharing of resources. Democrats favor reasonable sharing of resources.

The notion that Dems want to control how others spend their money is incorrect. Dems recognize that collective uses of money is the best way to deal with certain aspects of society. The arguments erupt about WHICH and TO WHAT EXTENT. Both Rs & Ds agree the nation's defense should be handled collectively. But Rs dispute the notion that healthcare should be handled collectively. Etc.

Dems believe in live and let live so long as no one's "living" actively hurts another's. Where the lines are isn't always clear - Dems accept the existence of grey areas and changing views. Repubs resist both.

Repubs want control over others and "freedom" for themselves, including freedom from responsibility. Repubs embrace force to impose their control.

Dems want freedom for all within the limitations imposed by the collective good. The Dem concept accepts responsibility because it recognizes human choice is required and with choosing comes responsibility for choices made.

I can't bring it down to a couple of simple sentences beyond: Republicans/CONS want control; Dems/Libs/Progs want as much individual freedom as a functioning society can sustain.

Re your [11] generous response to my request for an explanation of what you feel the parties "stand for", or what it is that differentiates them, allow me to share a response I got many yrs ago from a former U.S. senator.

His (substantially more succinct and less detailed) explanation ran as follows: "Reps/Cons grant you total freedom to do as you want to with your money, but they seek control over what you are permitted to do with your body. Dems/Libs grant you total freedom to do anything you wish with your body, but they seek control over what you do with your money."

Any thoughts? Thanks in advance.

Paula is right about one thing: Democrats have always had a reputation for never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity. I'd like to think that we've changed, but the way we dropped the Mueller ball doesn't give me hope.

Please see Appendix D (heavily redacted) beginning on page 443 of the report at the link below and rest soundly in the knowledge that the "Mueller ball" rolls on.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5955379-Redacted-Mueller-Report.html

Surprise! Turns out that being an asshole is worse than being a republican. NOW Trump is worried!

*laughs*

But should you ever decide to actually cover reality instead of shilling the two party (that is actually one) big money deception feel free to use my clever play on words from yesterday's comments:

"Yes, Virginia, there is a Satan Clause."

I'll cut right to the chase and address reality, Don. No matter how much you believe it in your tiny little brain and no matter how many times you type it out on this forum (and then claim like a moron afterward that you never meant it): There are two major parties in America that aren't "actually one," and there is nothing whatsoever clever about your continued ignorance regarding that fact.

Further, thoughts & ideas need not be entertained or taken seriously when they're malicious and/or based on falsehoods. Intellectual honesty is required.

Finally, Dems enter into uncharted waters where Repubs refuse to go. Dems are grappling with white privilege, for example, and MeToo - both areas that are intensely delicate and difficult to navigate. They make for some unpleasant encounters and often uncover other hidden biases, etc. - people aren't perfect, justice can be murky, we all operate with assumptions we're not even aware we have. But over time we make progress.

I don't claim we're a bunch of saints over here on the left - we're not perfect and we get just as invested in turf and our own grievances as do Repubs. Those are human failings all experience. But I think we try to muddle through them and we try to live our beliefs.

And I think, broadly speaking, we are more free to explore ideas and ourselves in ways that are prohibited on the right, causing a lot of repression over there, which leads to many bad outcomes.

Well stated, and much appreciated. You do come across as more than a little biased (to be expected naturally, folks from the other side would be the same) and I wish there were a good way to take some of those concepts beyond the abstract, and get more into the realm of how they actually translate into practice in the real world.

You realize of course that you could never get ANYBODY, Rep or Dem, to admit to not "believing in education"!

I'm intrigued by your take on how they (both groups) feel about "diversity". Do you think the Dem's embrace of diversity includes diversity of thoughts and diversity of ideas, or only diversity of skin color?

Quick and dirty: Dems stand for people first and honor the intrinsic value of human beings. They believe in diversity; they believe in equality of people and equality before the law. They believe in the law, in good government, in using government to better the lives of citizens. They believe in honesty. They believe in separation of church & state and checks and balances. They believe in protecting the weak from abuse by the strong. They believe in human rights. They believe in education. They accept responsibility and try to improve. They try to develop/enact policies that accurately reflect their stated values. They believe in progress.

Do they uphold all these values perfectly? No. Dems are human; Dem leaders fail, have failed etc. But that's the starting point.

The GOP believes in an aristocracy - with them as the aristocrats and everyone else as serfs. Repubs believe might = right. They believe they deserve power and are willing to do anything to get it and keep it. They are abusive. They believe THEY have rights; non-repubs don't. They hate and fear diversity. They value money over people. They consider people not-like-them expendable/disposable. They embrace dishonesty and cheating as means to maintaining power. They support "authority" without checks. They use "Christianity" to control and fool the rubes who's votes they need to maintain a veneer of "democracy" when they'd really prefer fascism if they're in the driver's seats. (They lie about EVERYTHING related to abortion.) They refuse responsibility for their own acts or for damage caused by their policies. They don't like education/critical thinking - stupid people are easier to fool & control. They are nativists and white supremacists. They try to develop & enact policies that enrich the rich and dis-empower everyone else, with special emphasis on dis-empowering POC, LBGTQ folks, women, non-Christians. They prefer mythical pasts to positive futures.

Are there "good" Republicans? Sure, there are individuals who are decent, honest, etc. But they bow to leaders who are not. They vote for leaders who are not.

When Republicants get beat in 2020, they have only themselves to blame.

When you're not doing anything important, recap for me what it is you feel the two parties actually do "stand for". Thanks.

I came to this blog years ago in a state of simmering dissatisfaction with the Dem party. I have never been attracted to the GOP because I disagree with what they claim to stand for and even more so what they actually stand for. The Democratic Party's "values" are much more in line with mine but institutionally Dems were blowing it. CW was writing talking points that I wanted to be able to hammer into Dem leaders who seemed constitutionally incapable of fielding persuasive arguments or going on offense. Year after year Republicans grew more abusive and Dems more enabling and the political blogosphere grew as a result.

When Howard Dean commenced the 50-State strategy in 2005 I was thrilled. It paid off in 2006 but then it lost steam as key Dem leadership retreated back to a swing-state-focus. That was maddening. That lesson should have been fully absorbed then, but it took a decade of Dem back-pedaling and increasingly virulent GOP obstruction, culminating in Blotus, for Dems to internalize the need to contest every race and to build institutions that outlast individual election years.

And it took the Women's March, Indivisible, and the spontaneous rising of activists nationwide to ram home another realization: Dem party needed to harness the energy of grass-roots activists. The synergy began to happen - activists pushed the leadership - leaders began responding to Blotus/GOP more forcefully, giving the rank and file motivation to fight and resist and support Dem leaders who did so.

And Dems began to rise up from all corners and run for offices.

Blotus is a great motivator for Dems. My hope is that the energy on the Dem side - the appetite to serve in public offices of all sizes, doesn't drop too much after that scourge is gone. Because, like the vampires they are, Repubs may be forced to ground for awhile, but a few drops of blood will revive them unless people are metaphorically on the watch, hammers, stakes & holy water at the ready.

"The weird thing is the survey was only about 900 people across six states. That gets down to 150 per state, and 9% of them self identify as 'undecided' is about 13 people per state."

That's not an unusually small sample size, and gives a typical +/- 3% theoretical margin of error...which just the inherent sampling error in a population which won't/can't be sampled again. The fact that only 9% of the population self identified as "undecided" is what it is. It doesn't imply everybody else is firmly committed to a particular candidate right up until election day...or that they make to the polls.

The fact that this poll got written up in the NY Times simply reflects the fact that columnists have deadlines and need to write about something.

I'm of the opinion that ALL US elections are wave elections. Most states are strongly tilted Blue or Red. Only a rogue wave can divert their electoral votes from Blue to Red or Red to Blue. I think most pollsters and political scientists agree with this. Trump got lucky and caught a red wave. He was as surprised as anybody.

Hey, I grew up next door to VA, and I'm pretty astonished at the changes it has gone through of late, personally. It used to be dominated by the backwoods vote, but no longer...

This points up one of those lessons all Democrats can learn from Virginia that I was asking about in your last column, Watching Virginia's Returns.

What has brought about those astonishing changes you say have happened of late?

I just came across this piece in the NYTimes written by a progressive in Virginia who has been working tirelessly and relentlessly over the last many years building relationships with voters across the state that made it possible to elect Democrats to the state senate and house.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/06/opinion/virginia-election-democrats.html

Democrats need to reach out to voters in every corner of each state and not just during election campaigns, win or lose.

I hope it's not too late for 2020!

Your chipper analysis of the oncoming Blue Wave in 2020 due to the defection of GOP suburban women is welcome after reading the NY Times' latest piece about how Trump can win in 2020. According to the survey they report on, there are about 9% of voters in six swing states who are actually 'undecided'. They could, it is said, still actually vote either way, depending on the Democratic candidate and how the issues of the day unfold in the coming year. If they vote for Trump, he gets the electoral votes and wins even while being swamped in the national popular vote.

The weird thing is the survey was only about 900 people across six states. That gets down to 150 per state, and 9% of them being 'undecided' is about 13 people per state. Then the paper talked about how the undecided women (6 of them?) and the undecided blacks/minorities (1 or 2 of them?) all thought, in detail, about all the outstanding issues and the leading Dem candidates.

In other words, in your view millions of GOP women are defecting and leading the Dems to a massive victory in 2020. In the New York Times' view, a few thousand women, represented in the sample by half a dozen women in half a dozen states, will decide the election - and they don't hate Donald Trump and they don't like any of the Dems except maybe Joe Biden.

Ha ha ha ha hee hee *spews coffee on keyboard*