The DeSantis gambit

[Donal]

I fail to see the role reversal

[Norman Alexander]

Originally Posted by Brainster

The liberals around here haven't adjusted to the fact that largely due to Trump, the roles have reversed and right now in the US, the low-information voters tend to be Republicans. To be honest, I'm having a tough time adjusting to it myself.

Huh? They have ALWAYS been that way. Doesn't mean some Democrat voters are also low-info sometimes. Why do you think it can't be one and the other?

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

I think Crist should be seen as a poster boy for centrist politics, seeing as he can't even make up his own mind whose side he's on, and his failure speaks for itself.

It's a fine strategy in theory, I get it: so long as you're ever-so-slightly left of whatever Klan rally the GOP is raiding for candidates these days you should be able to grab all the left votes, all the center votes, and a fair number of non-deplorable right votes too. Against a fascist thug like DeSantis it should have been a landslide, if it worked that way. But it don't. Enough Democrats are never going to vote for a Republican, even one pretending to be a Democrat, even when the alternative is DeSantis, and enough Republicans are never going to vote for a Democrat, even one secretly Republican, even when the alternative is DeSantis, that the numbers falter. Hell I'd put money on there being more voters turned off just by Crist's cowardly fecklessness than turned on by DeSantis's arrogant authoritarianism. Running nearly-Republicans against actual-Republicans is a failing strategy no matter how many times it fails and the best you can think of is "oh so you think you could have done better?!"

What exactly that means for the party in terms of where its ideological preferences for candidates should be, I don't think we have enough data to say. Obviously I'd argue it'd be better for America in the long run if it was pushed as far left as possible to try and rebuild the social safety nets the GOP seems so eager to tear down, but all we have here is evidence that where we are right now is NOT where we need to be.

The milquetoast version of a political ideology is never going to win out against the full fat version (except in the case where the full fat version is presented by a worn out and obviously incompetent party). That's what the Anglo-American "left" haven't learnt yet, despite getting their rear ends handed to them for the last twenty years.

Originally Posted by Brainster

The liberals around here haven't adjusted to the fact that largely due to Trump, the roles have reversed and right now in the US, the low-information voters tend to be Republicans. To be honest, I'm having a tough time adjusting to it myself.

Low information voters have invariably voted right wing in much greater numbers than left wing, mainly because the right has always used fear as a get out the vote tactic.

[Nosi]

Originally Posted by Venom

I regard DeSantis as another shameless buffoon. He's done three things that have caught my eye recently though. He's put in work to protect the environment and natural resources of Florida, raised minimum teacher pay, and backed candidates not aligned with Trump. These are things the rightwing base do not normally crusade for. And IMO they provide an opening for liberals and Never-Trumpers to ingratiate themselves with the DeSantis coalition as it may turn out to be.

For me, the bad things DeSantis has done far outstrip whatever 'good' he may do. He is promoting book bans, and maybe book burning, but forcing teachers and librarians to strip shelves of books, passing anti-gay legislation designed to make Florida unsafe for LGBTQ+ children and adults alike. Florida is looking like Nazi Germany's early days.

[Nosi]

Originally Posted by bruto

I sort of get the point of the OP, but "should we start considering backing" seems a bit excessive. To be not as bad as Trump requires little virtue.

Virtue? It takes ONE brain cell.

[Nosi]

Originally Posted by Venom

Just to get the man over the initial ********* Trump will throw at him. It could also possibly hurt DeSantis to be pictured shaking hands with Radical Leftists and RINOs.

I'm hoping for a complete split of the GOP.

[Nosi]

Originally Posted by Lurch

If something is retruthed does that make it truthier?

Retruthing something is akin to retweeting it.

[Nosi]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

**** DeSantis and anyone else peddling the lie that grade school textbooks are teaching critical race theory.

Critical race theory? DeSantis isn't trying to eliminate critical race theory, he's targeting education. He went after a MATH book, for God's sake. He will keep "cracking down" until there are no words teachers can safely say in a classroom.

[Resume]

Originally Posted by Nosi

Critical race theory? DeSantis isn't trying to eliminate critical race theory, he's targeting education. He went after a MATH book, for God's sake. He will keep "cracking down" until there are no words teachers can safely say in a classroom.

Well, not all education.

Quote:

Top Florida officials have been holding talks with the founder and chief executive of an education testing company that backers have said is centered on the "great classical and Christian tradition," according to The Miami Herald.

The potential of such a test being used in Florida has come into closer view as Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis has tussled with the College Board in recent weeks over the curriculum of its pilot Advanced Placement (AP) African American Studies course, with the governor on Tuesday floating the idea that the state could pull its support for the rigorous, college-level AP courses.

The Classic Learning Test, which is billed by Classic Learning Initiatives as being "steeped in content that is intellectually richer and more rigorous than other standardized tests and college entrance exams," is largely utilized in private schools and home-school environments . . .

DeSantis has not specifically mentioned the Classic Learning Test as one of the sources he had in mind as a SAT alternative, but he stated that he'd like to look at "other vendors."

Florida Department of Education Senior Chancellor Henry Mack on Thursday expressed interest in using the Classic Learning Test.

"Not only do we need to build anew by returning to the foundations of our democracy, but CLT also offers the opportunity for all our colleges & universities to rightsize their priorities," he said on Twitter.

[dudalb]

We don't need all that evil science and math!
De Santis is destorying the FLorida education system.
Just visited that sito that test and it big thing is that SAT and ACT are evil and seclurists.
I got a feeling the few colleges of any quality are going accept the CLT...just a few "Christian" colleges and "Bible" COllages.
Maybe when parents in Florida find out their kids cannot be accepted by any college or any real repute they will begin to realise how much damage De Santis is doing to the state.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

Huh? They have ALWAYS been that way. Doesn't mean some Democrat voters are also low-info sometimes. Why do you think it can't be one and the other?

There used to be a pretty strong positive correlation between the level of education a person had and their likelihood of voting Republican. High school dropouts voted for the Democrats in strong numbers, high school grads in less strong numbers, while those with a college degree tended to go for the Republican. At the advanced degree level things did swing back to the Democrats, so if you want to raise the argument that the very highest and very lowest information voters were Dems, feel free.

My point is that since Trump, things have changed. High school dropouts are now reliable GOP voters and college grads have shifted over to the Democrats. I see no alternative to believing that now, in fact the low-information voters are more likely to be Republicans. As a partisan you may wish that was always the case, but remember the Democrats have always billed themselves as the party of the working man (well, until they substituted working family).

[TragicMonkey]

I admit I didn't see the revival of cuius regio, eius religio in an American state in the twenty-first century.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by dudalb

We don't need all that evil science and math!
De Santis is destorying the FLorida education system.
Just visited that sito that test and it big thing is that SAT and ACT are evil and seclurists.

Kind of amusing to hear that from the right; it's pretty non-controversial among the Affirmative Action left.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Brainster

There used to be a pretty strong positive correlation between the level of education a person had and their likelihood of voting Republican. High school dropouts voted for the Democrats in strong numbers, high school grads in less strong numbers, while those with a college degree tended to go for the Republican. At the advanced degree level things did swing back to the Democrats, so if you want to raise the argument that the very highest and very lowest information voters were Dems, feel free.

My point is that since Trump, things have changed. High school dropouts are now reliable GOP voters and college grads have shifted over to the Democrats. I see no alternative to believing that now, in fact the low-information voters are more likely to be Republicans. As a partisan you may wish that was always the case, but remember the Democrats have always billed themselves as the party of the working man (well, until they substituted working family).

You are absolutely correct.

[a_unique_person]

De Santis cancels Trump supporters from book launch.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...droidApp_Other

What a snow flake.

[Norman Alexander]

Originally Posted by Brainster

There used to be a pretty strong positive correlation between the level of education a person had and their likelihood of voting Republican. High school dropouts voted for the Democrats in strong numbers, high school grads in less strong numbers, while those with a college degree tended to go for the Republican. At the advanced degree level things did swing back to the Democrats, so if you want to raise the argument that the very highest and very lowest information voters were Dems, feel free.

My point is that since Trump, things have changed. High school dropouts are now reliable GOP voters and college grads have shifted over to the Democrats. I see no alternative to believing that now, in fact the low-information voters are more likely to be Republicans. As a partisan you may wish that was always the case, but remember the Democrats have always billed themselves as the party of the working man (well, until they substituted working family).

No I'm not a partisan. Far from it. See if you can figure out why...

And the stats seems to suggest that your categorizing party affiliation by education level is incorrect. It's marginally more likely that lower-educated people are Republicans, but VERY much more likely that rural people are Republicans especially the lower educated. But the biggest differentiators are religion, and the combination of ethnicity and education.

Here's the 2018/18 stats: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...FxM/edit#gid=0

See lines 103-109, and 146-148.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by Brainster

The liberals around here haven't adjusted to the fact that largely due to Trump, the roles have reversed and right now in the US, the low-information voters tend to be Republicans. To be honest, I'm having a tough time adjusting to it myself.

Republicans have been the low information voters since the early 1990's when "repetition is reality" took over the party. Before that it was a mixed bag with idealists on the Democratic side and Libertarian pseudo-intellectuals on the Republican side both bringing a lot of bad "information" to the table.

[Lurch]

Originally Posted by Nosi

Retruthing something is akin to retweeting it.

I was making a play on words. "Truthiness" was a term coined by Stephen Colbert some years back. It means, essentially, that "feelings trump facts."

Hence my poking at the act of retruthing a 'truth' on that sad platform as being akin to making it 'truthier'.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

No I'm not a partisan. Far from it. See if you can figure out why...

And the stats seems to suggest that your categorizing party affiliation by education level is incorrect. It's marginally more likely that lower-educated people are Republicans, but VERY much more likely that rural people are Republicans especially the lower educated. But the biggest differentiators are religion, and the combination of ethnicity and education.

Here's the 2018/18 stats: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...FxM/edit#gid=0

See lines 103-109, and 146-148.

Your stats are from 2016-2018. But Brainster is correct that Republicans used to hold quite the large edge on voters with college degrees, but that has changed:

Quote:

GOP faces massive realignment as it sheds college-educated voters

Quote:

Data from the Pew Research Center show that, increasingly, different people are populating the two major political parties — with Republicans and Democrats moving in sharply different directions among college-educated voters.

At the beginning of this century, Republicans held an 11-point edge on party affiliation among college-educated voters.By the time Barack Obama was president, the figures had flipped to become a 4-point edge for the Democrats. And as President Donald Trump’s term was winding down, the numbers had come full-circle and the Democrats had a 13-point edge among college-educated voters on party affiliation.

[Norman Alexander]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Your stats are from 2016-2018.

Deliberately so. That was at the end of the Obama presidency. The stats show that the difference even then is not actually due to education but ethnicity & geography, and religion.

Quote:

But Brainster is correct that Republicans used to hold quite the large edge on voters with college degrees, but that has changed:

Or it could be the numbers of voters attaining college degrees has changed and where they live and who they are, not their political affiliation changing?

The rural population has generally been hard Republican, and a reasonable number of college graduates. Whereas city folks have always been Democrat but had fewer college graduates because attaining an education had problems. So total college graduate stats skew towards Republican.

Twenty years later, the rural population is still hard Republican but there is no real increase in rural kids going to college. Meanwhile, the city populations have grown and education is (somewhat) more attainable to college level. Still Democrat but many more of them. So no change in affiliations, but total college graduate stats now skew Democrat.

If you call that "losing the edge" then so be it.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by Brainster

There used to be a pretty strong positive correlation between the level of education a person had and their likelihood of voting Republican. High school dropouts voted for the Democrats in strong numbers, high school grads in less strong numbers, while those with a college degree tended to go for the Republican. At the advanced degree level things did swing back to the Democrats, so if you want to raise the argument that the very highest and very lowest information voters were Dems, feel free.

My point is that since Trump, things have changed. High school dropouts are now reliable GOP voters and college grads have shifted over to the Democrats. I see no alternative to believing that now, in fact the low-information voters are more likely to be Republicans. As a partisan you may wish that was always the case, but remember the Democrats have always billed themselves as the party of the working man (well, until they substituted working family).

Back in the 90's there was no clear edge for either side and it's been trending Democrat ever since.



It's also worth remembering that many people with some college or even an undergraduate degree form a special class of low information voter. Undergraduate level courses generally lack nuance and at times give students just enough knowledge to be dangerous.

Eg in Economics these early courses focus on basic free market theory while the more advanced courses look at how the basic theory breaks down and what can be done about it. Conservatives exposed to only the idealized basic theory don't know about the practical problems associated with it and are vulnerable to claimed the more nuanced practical implementations of free markets are "socialism" because they require regulation and government action. Thus these voters tend to reject functional implementations of free markets while believing themselves to be pro free market.

Historically, something similar has happened a lot on the Liberal side as well, with students learning about social issues first but not getting into the more advanced topics on the complexities of resolving these issues. This leads them to support simplistic but unworkable fixes to complex issues.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

I think Crist should be seen as a poster boy for centrist politics, seeing as he can't even make up his own mind whose side he's on, and his failure speaks for itself.

It's a fine strategy in theory, I get it: so long as you're ever-so-slightly left of whatever Klan rally the GOP is raiding for candidates these days you should be able to grab all the left votes, all the center votes, and a fair number of non-deplorable right votes too. Against a fascist thug like DeSantis it should have been a landslide, if it worked that way. But it don't. Enough Democrats are never going to vote for a Republican, even one pretending to be a Democrat, even when the alternative is DeSantis, and enough Republicans are never going to vote for a Democrat, even one secretly Republican, even when the alternative is DeSantis, that the numbers falter. Hell I'd put money on there being more voters turned off just by Crist's cowardly fecklessness than turned on by DeSantis's arrogant authoritarianism. Running nearly-Republicans against actual-Republicans is a failing strategy no matter how many times it fails and the best you can think of is "oh so you think you could have done better?!"

What exactly that means for the party in terms of where its ideological preferences for candidates should be, I don't think we have enough data to say. Obviously I'd argue it'd be better for America in the long run if it was pushed as far left as possible to try and rebuild the social safety nets the GOP seems so eager to tear down, but all we have here is evidence that where we are right now is NOT where we need to be.

We don't need no stinking centrists. That is a winning strategy for the Dems.
And you idea of making ACO de facto dictator of the US. How is that working out for you?

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Brainster

There used to be a pretty strong positive correlation between the level of education a person had and their likelihood of voting Republican. High school dropouts voted for the Democrats in strong numbers, high school grads in less strong numbers, while those with a college degree tended to go for the Republican. At the advanced degree level things did swing back to the Democrats, so if you want to raise the argument that the very highest and very lowest information voters were Dems, feel free.

My point is that since Trump, things have changed. High school dropouts are now reliable GOP voters and college grads have shifted over to the Democrats. I see no alternative to believing that now, in fact the low-information voters are more likely to be Republicans. As a partisan you may wish that was always the case, but remember the Democrats have always billed themselves as the party of the working man (well, until they substituted working family).

I also think the power that religious fundies have gained in the GOP has a lot to do with this. The 'Preachers" as Barry Goldwater called them, frown on secular learning, and have a basic dislike of science since it clashes with the Bible.
One of Goldwater's last statments was to warn the GOP against allowing the religous right to domnate the party since he learned as Senator there was no working with them. They considered all compromise evil. Goldwater predicted if they came t dominate the party, they would ultimately ruin it.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I admit I didn't see the revival of cuius regio, eius religio in an American state in the twenty-first century.

De Santis is one of a new breed: Raised as Catholics, but bending over backwards to kiss the butt of Protestent Fundies, despite the fact that most Protestent Fundies ,deep down, still hate the "Papists".
Though I would not put it above DeSantis to convert to a Proteetent Fundy church if he thought it would help him politically.
Yes, I think the man has no real principals. he only belief is in De Santis. He is like Trump in that respect.

[Donal]

Originally Posted by dudalb

We don't need no stinking centrists. That is a winning strategy for the Dems.
And you idea of making ACO de facto dictator of the US. How is that working out for you?

That's what you got out of Beelzebuddy's post?

[tyr_13]

A new bill in Florida would make 'bloggers' register with the state before writing about DeSantis or members of his administration or face fines. (NBC News link)

Speedrunning Fascism

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

A new bill in Florida would make 'bloggers' register with the state before writing about DeSantis or members of his administration or face fines. (NBC News link)

Speedrunning Fascism

DeSantis is a dorkwad. He's a stain on this state and the sooner he's out of office th--

(Record scratch, sound of a struggle)

--DeSantis is a glorious leader, intelligent, and might I had add handsome. Sincerely Signed - The Guy who was sitting at this computer.

[Donal]

what if they are writing from out of state? What if the piece is published on servers not hosted in Florida?

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Donal

what if they are writing from out of state? What if the piece is published on servers not hosted in Florida?

I 100% personally absolutely guarantee you they did not think that far ahead.

[Donal]

Obviously, this is not about what they can legally do. These bills or initiatives or what you want to call them serve 2 main purposes

1) a trial balloon to see what they can get away with. What will the public stomach and what can the courts twist the law to make legal?

2) the intimidation. Sure, a blogger can sue if they are punished under these laws and probably win, but at what cost?

Think of all those people arrested for "voter fraud" last year who were validated by DeSantis appointees to vote. His base doesn't care and the general public probably doesn't even know how those cases turned out. There's just that image of DeSantis fighting "voter fraud".

[JoeMorgue]

"Let's so how far I can take this before I get stopped" could not be the point more if they put it on the front of the t-shirts.

[sackett]

If this charming bill became law and a paid blogger complied, then what? Would he be free to excoriate the Mob, 'scuse me, the Republicans? Or would he and his employers start receiving special attention, like tax audits, licensing reviews, sewer downgrades, building inspections (w/ discovery of unsuspected violations, perhaps rather novel ones), very frequent traffic tickets, and stuff that I can't think of?

[JoeMorgue]

"Then what" would be the same as the Texas "Abortion Harassment is Just Super" law from a couple three years back.

It's not about making a new law exactly. It's giving people permission to be an *******.

[Donal]

They wouldn't even need to be registered for most of that. Government officials at every level already do that stuff to people who piss them off.

At first, probably nothing would happen to people who register and still criticize the GQP in Florida. This way, DeSantis supporters and centrists can talk about how overblown the problem was. Eventually, people who do run afoul of the republicans will see their license revoked or not renewed and the ones who comply will be given special access to make even more favorable pieces.

[sackett]

Originally Posted by Donal

They wouldn't even need to be registered for most of that. Government officials at every level already do that stuff to people who piss them off.

At first, probably nothing would happen to people who register and still criticize the GQP in Florida. This way, DeSantis supporters and centrists can talk about how overblown the problem was. Eventually, people who do run afoul of the republicans will see their license revoked or not renewed and the ones who comply will be given special access to make even more favorable pieces.

I think you're saying that DuhShmattis & crew already have an enforcement mechanism. I think you're right.

Here I've been expecting -- rather hopefully -- that he'd organize outright action squads in brown shirts. That would be easier to fight.

Howsomever, if DeBigGuy isn't up for political violence, good. Maybe he's smarter than that, maybe he lacks the stones for it.

ETA: Or maybe he's seen how that worked out for King Trumphff.

[tyr_13]

The defense is going to be 'you only have to register if you're being paid, you libs are lying again like with don't say gay!'

Of course how are you going to know if someone is being paid? Right, you can investigate. Anyone saying anything about you. The threat of investigation is to have a chilling effect in addition to being pretext for fishing for other charges. 'Oh we were investigating them for not being registered and see if they were paid, and look at all the evidence we found they are a groomer! No, we're not just locking up our political opponents, they're groomers!'

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by lomiller

Back in the 90's there was no clear edge for either side and it's been trending Democrat ever since.

My point was mostly about the low-information voters. Here's an archived NY Times page with exit polling from the 1980-1996 elections. In 1980, Jimmy Carter lost among male high school dropouts by 4 points but won among female dropouts by 15 points, while overall he lost by 10 points, so clearly he did quite a bit better among low-information voters than he did in general. In 1984, Mondale lost among male dropouts by 5 points but won the female dropout contingent by 14, again in an election where Mondale got swamped overall by 19 percentage points. In 1988, Dukakis actually won the male dropouts by a point, while racking up a huge 24-point win among gals with no diploma, in an election he lost overall by 8 points. In 1992 Clinton won the election over Bush by 5 points, but among male dropouts his margin was 18 points and among women dropouts he smoked Bush by 30 points. In 1996, Clinton beat Dole by 8 points, but won male dropouts by 26 points and female dropouts by 38.

These days, high school dropouts are apparently not a significant demographic, as they get lumped into "high school or less." In 2016, Trump won that demo by 7 points, significantly better than his loss by 2 points in the popular vote. And in 2020, Trump won that group by 15 points while losing the general election by about 4.5 points.

So it seems to me pretty plain that low-information voters (using education level as a proxy) have switched parties in the last 30 years.

[bruto]

I think it would be hilarious if it's under the "don't say anything against De Santis" law that Donald Trump finally finds someone who will prosecute him.

[Donal]

It would be funny if he is exactly who this was targeted at. Like, DeSantis knows he has a ton of Trump sympathizers working around him, so he targets the outlets they are most likely to gossip to.

[Norman Alexander]

For a guy who is SO in love with the US constitution, DeSantis sure seems to dislike the First amendment.