General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHortensis
(58,785 posts)Their own research found that "there's a very large chunk of conservatives" "who were as supportive as the general public when they read the neutral description of HR 1."
Reportedly, part of the dark-money freak is that they can't figure out a way to convince enough people the reforms aren't necessary or shouldn't happen. (Maybe resuscitating Hillary's emails would work?)
Occurs to me that, n that context, the GA legislature's like a criminal who started throwing the loot around before it was safe.
Hugh_Lebowski
(33,643 posts)You know ... THOSE people ... to stop with their whole 'Running the Whole World' thing they have going on.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)in large part inept rebellions against their party's fealty to the new ultrawealthy classes, instead of them. They knew they were being screwed.
Most trumpists really want the progressive government programs they grew up with, such as Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, to continue. At least for them.
(Most drawn to populist movements, both right and left, combine varying portions of social conservatism and economic progressivism. On the economic side, both Trump and Sanders ran on promises to replace the ACA with a program with much better coverages for much less.)
NJCher
(35,670 posts)As you so vividly described it in your last paragraph.
Smug smile here. 😽
The utter cruelty of denying food and water didnt help their cause, either. That hits at a visceral level.
applegrove
(118,658 posts)Ford_Prefect
(7,897 posts)In public, Republicans have denounced Democrats ambitious electoral-reform bill, the For the People Act, as an unpopular partisan ploy. In a contentious Senate committee hearing last week, Senator Ted Cruz, of Texas, slammed the proposal, which aims to expand voting rights and curb the influence of money in politics, as a brazen and shameless power grab by Democrats. But behind closed doors Republicans speak differently about the legislation, which is also known as House Resolution 1 and Senate Bill 1. They admit the lesser-known provisions in the bill that limit secret campaign spending are overwhelmingly popular across the political spectrum. In private, they concede their own polling shows that no message they can devise effectively counters the argument that billionaires should be prevented from buying elections.
A recording obtained by The New Yorker of a private conference call on January 8th, between a policy adviser to Senator Mitch McConnell and the leaders of several prominent conservative groupsincluding one run by the Koch brothers networkreveals the participants worry that the proposed election reforms garner wide support not just from liberals but from conservative voters, too. The speakers on the call expressed alarm at the broad popularity of the bills provision calling for more public disclosure about secret political donors. The participants conceded that the bill, which would stem the flow of dark money from such political donors as the billionaire oil magnate Charles Koch, was so popular that it wasnt worth trying to mount a public-advocacy campaign to shift opinion. Instead, a senior Koch operative said that opponents would be better off ignoring the will of American voters and trying to kill the bill in Congress.
Kyle McKenzie, the research director for the Koch-run advocacy group Stand Together, told fellow-conservatives and Republican congressional staffers on the call that he had a spoiler. When presented with a very neutral description of the bill, people were generally supportive, McKenzie said, adding that the most worrisome part . . . is that conservatives were actually as supportive as the general public was when they read the neutral description. In fact, he warned, theres a large, very large, chunk of conservatives who are supportive of these types of efforts.
As a result, McKenzie conceded, the legislations opponents would likely have to rely on Republicans in the Senate, where the bill is now under debate, to use under-the-dome-type strategiesmeaning legislative maneuvers beneath Congresss roof, such as the filibusterto stop the bill, because turning public opinion against it would be incredibly difficult. He warned that the worst thing conservatives could do would be to try to engage with the other side on the argument that the legislation stops billionaires from buying elections. McKenzie admitted, Unfortunately, weve found that that is a winning message, for both the general public and also conservatives. He said that when his group tested tons of other arguments in support of the bill, the one condemning billionaires buying elections was the most persuasivepeople found that to be most convincing, and it riled them up the most.
The New Yorker article by Jane Mayer is the source of this analysis. You can read it here:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/inside-the-koch-backed-effort-to-block-the-largest-election-reform-bill-in-half-a-century
NJCher
(35,670 posts)I think Rachel said Jane Mayer would be on Tuesdays show.
smb
(3,471 posts)Outside the core cultist base, even Republicans are pissed off at the idea that politicians want to make them get out and stand in line (even the short lines typical of lily-white suburbs) instead of just filling out the form and dropping it in the mail.