AP Reports that Oregon overturned Drivers License for Illegals law.

[Savannahmann]

One ballot measure in very blue Oregon went largely unnoticed in the shellacking that the Democrats took nationally. While Oregon bucked the national trend and extended the Democratic Majority in the State Houses, one ballot measure did not fare quite so well.

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — The fate of a little-noticed ballot measure in strongly Democratic Oregon serves as a warning to President Barack Obama and his party about the political perils of immigration policy.

Even as Oregon voters were legalizing recreational marijuana and expanding Democratic majorities in state government, they decided by a margin of 66-34 to cancel a new state law that would have provided driver's licenses to people who are in the United States illegally.

That means for every person who supported the measure, two voted against it. Two to one majority of people voted to overturn the law while at the same time electing more democrats to office. Some would call that a mixed message, but I think it's pretty consistent. Polling has shown pretty consistent support for an immigration fix from Congress.

Now, I've posted before that exit polls showed 57% support for congressional action on Immigration. While one poll asked the question asking about support for Executive action, and that one showed 20% support. I'd reference another, but there just isn't one that I can find.

I've read here how people will support the President, because he's doing what they want. But I can't find any reason to believe that except perhaps wishful thinking. That sort of wishful thinking led to our losing control of the Senate and giving the Republicans the largest majority in Congress since Herbert Hoover.

My message for a long time now has been the same. I want the Democratic Party to become more responsive to the public, and to listen to what they say. I want the Democratic Party educating the people on what we believe and what we want to do. I don't want us to keep running into the brick wall full speed screaming we're popular and we're going to win. Because your friends and family agree doesn't mean a majority of the people, or a majority of the voters agree with you.

I'm asking that we stop doing the Republicans job and destroying ourselves. Because if I'm right, and the Immigration move is going to be that bad for the party, we'll lose the White House in the next election, and that won't be anything good for us. Even if it isn't quite as bad as I fear, then it puts the likelihood of taking the Senate back into far more improbable territory. However, even two days before the election, I was predicting that we would see a Republican Senate with 52 seats, instead of 53 looking at 54. So If I'm wrong, and it's worse than I suspect, then we may well see the Democratic Party in the minority for the next decade for minimal gain.

We need to take a long hard look. A brutally honest look at the last election, and see why we were not supported by the public. Because until we do that, we have no hope of gaining the majority. I'm talking about reading the polling information, and listening to the people. I'm talking about arguing that what we're doing is right because of well considered factors. Not just saying that we're doing it and if you disagree you're a racist/sexist/homophobic asshole. That doesn't win us support, it drives those fence sitters who give us victory, or defeat, away.

I don't want a Republican President in 2016, and I don't believe anyone here does either. We need to take a minute and catch our breaths. Because we are gambling with the future of this party for the next decade if we're wrong.

[randome]

1. Right. Like Obama never considers nuance and effect on anything.

'Take a deep breath' means don't do anything that might upset a few people!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

[Savannahmann]

10. Quite to the contrary.

It means seriously considering your actions. If the public is not behind you, begin educating them on the need, and the benefits of your proposal.

I hate to do this, but one of the most effective in this vein was Ronald Reagan. Take his Trickle down you back economic plan. He took to the airways to sell it to the people. He made speeches, and had his supporters out explaining it. Despite a Democratic Congress led by Tip O'Neil the public pressure was so great that the Congress acted on it.

Another example, if you like. Bill Clinton and the Welfare Reform. He stood fast by Vetoing the bill three times I think (I can't remember and don't have time to look it up right now) before he signed off on one he could live with. It wasn't good, but it was better than the first versions of the legislation with more protections in it.

It was a victory, and he told the people why he was fighting for it. President Carter and the Three Mile Island disaster. He told the people that it would not explode, and he appeared in person to demonstrate his faith in the pronouncement.

There are other examples of Presidents swaying public opinion. But Reagan is arguably the best example of the modern era. Every economist said it wouldn't work. But the public demanded it because he sold it. President Obama is an equally powerful speaker, when he's given something to work with. But one must remember that Politics is the art of the possible, and that we can never forget that we serve the people. When we forget that, they remind us at election time.

The Democratic Party will exist after the Presidency of Obama ends. The shape it is in depends largely on how we approach the next two years. If we become more attuned to the desires of the public, we can win the elections. That means populist issues have to matter. We have to look at the NSA, we have to address the economy, and we have to look at the militarization of the police. These are but the first of a long list of populist issues we have to examine, because ignoring them is not helping us, our party, or our nation. I call them populist because a majority of the people agree with the ideas I've just laid out.

Here's the brick you know is about to drop. Because if we don't, Rand Paul will run on them, and win the nomination. Then we'll be left running as the Conservative alternative to the Libertarian/Republican vision put forth by him. We'll lose badly in that case.

[Faux pas]

2. The measure took up about

15 pages in the voter's manual. If people voted against it, it was probably because it was too complicated.

[Bandit]

3. Explain to me why people in this country illegally should be given driver's licenses?

I as a Liberal have to agree with Oregon on this issue.

[Faux pas]

5. I don't think they should.

I voted against it. I suggested that most people didn't want to bother trying to translate it. The more involved a measure/law/proposition, the more f-ed it must be. Just my humble opinion.

[rocktivity]

6. It would allow the insurance companies to cash in on the car owners

Last edited Mon Nov 17, 2014, 11:38 PM - Edit history (1)

and the state governments to cash in on the fees.

But I don't think that's enough -- a few months ago, I came up with a much more comprehensive immigration plan...


rocktivity

[pampango]

7. Several states do it. They seem to consider it a public safety issue related to

keeping unqualified drivers off the roads to the extent possible.

[Luminous Animal]

9. So that they can get auto insurance so that if you get hit and

injured by an undocumented resident, you'll have your medical bills taken care of.

[bhikkhu]

12. Because people drive, and it shouldn't be a crime to drive

Along the same vein, people eat. What if we required citizenship to buy food?

In both cases, normal activity could be criminalized as an additional penalty on being here illegally, but criminalizing more things is hardly a solution to the problem.

[tularetom]

14. They're gonna drive anyway

At least if they have licenses they can be traced and held accountable for accidents they may have caused. What are you going to do-bust them for driving illegally? Big fuckin deal they're in the country illegally to begin with.

Actually I take a very libertarian position on this. I don't think anybody should have to have a license in order to drive. But if we're going to require citizens to acquire driver's licenses then we should do the same for non citizen drivers.

[Bluenorthwest]

4. I'm a CA transplant well versed in the reasons that it is good to license people who are going to

drive either way, but I knew it was going to fail here. Most average voters I talked to saw it purely as a competition for jobs issue. It was also a really long bill.

[LittleBlue]

8. The Republicans are hoping he does it

They're sitting back and hoping we light the fuse on the dynamite planted right underneath our feet.

[bhikkhu]

11. I think many people here saw that as putting the cart before the horse

...as in, legalize first, then give driver's licenses to legal resident as normal. I voted for it because I don't have much confidence in the immigration policy being addressed, but I'd much rather see the policy fixed than have a clunky work-around on the books.

[alcibiades_mystery]

13. "Illegals"

Poof: ignore.

[hunter]

15. Yep. What does being a responsible licensed driver have to do with immigration status?

Turning traffic cops into "papers please" immigration officers is a stupid idea that only makes it harder for them to do their job, which presumably is keeping the roads safe.

Of course maybe it's really their job to harass black and brown people (documented or not) and raise revenue by writing tickets.