What are Dem litmus tests?

[Vosem]

As a whole, the party can and WILL purge members associated with the NRA. They will get Robin'd. That's the one thing the Dems will purge the party entirely of. Not pro-gun Dems, just NRA affiliated members.

No. Because the NRA automatically prefers incumbents over challengers if scores are identical, the NRA has been used by many rural and swing-state Democrats to hold seats for the Democratic Party. Ted Strickland comes to mind as a prominent example. This would be giving up an extremely important source of support for many rural Democrats and, to put it simply, it just won't happen. The NRA will remain beloved by the entirety of the Republican Party and a very large minority of the Democratic Party, which may turn into a majority over the next decade or so as America continues to get more and more pro-gun.

LOL

Undisputable fact. Here's Gallup polling: http://www.gallup.com/poll/159569/americans-stricter-gun-laws-oppose-bans.aspx

You can see after Sandy Hook support for gun control skyrocketed...back to 2005 levels. Before that it had been higher, but it had been declining extremely rapidly. (Other polling companies have shown that there is always a 'bump' for gun control after massacres, but it returns to regular levels quickly). You can see that even Sandy Hook was only enough to slow, not reverse, opposition to a ban on handguns. Look at the trend, though.

America is getting more pro-gun, very fast, year after year. Denying this makes you like the folks who decried skewed pro-Obama polling -- you're just wishfully thinking.

[Ogre Mage]

Same-sex marriage and a path to citizenship will be litmus tests in 2016.  Support for abortion rights has long been a litmus test, but restrictions in the third trimester are considered fine with a health/life exception.  There is a reason why Social Security is considered a third rail of politics -- anyone saying they are open to cutting it would get fried in the context of a Democratic Primary and possibly the general election too.  Medicare comes close to being a litmus test, but I think there is a little more wiggle room than with Social Security.  It's a more complex program and many recognize that its budgetary outlook is more problematic than Social Security's.

[Obamanation]

As a whole, the party can and WILL purge members associated with the NRA. They will get Robin'd. That's the one thing the Dems will purge the party entirely of. Not pro-gun Dems, just NRA affiliated members.

No. Because the NRA automatically prefers incumbents over challengers if scores are identical, the NRA has been used by many rural and swing-state Democrats to hold seats for the Democratic Party. Ted Strickland comes to mind as a prominent example. This would be giving up an extremely important source of support for many rural Democrats and, to put it simply, it just won't happen. The NRA will remain beloved by the entirety of the Republican Party and a very large minority of the Democratic Party, which may turn into a majority over the next decade or so as America continues to get more and more pro-gun.

LOL

Undisputable fact. Here's Gallup polling: http://www.gallup.com/poll/159569/americans-stricter-gun-laws-oppose-bans.aspx

You can see after Sandy Hook support for gun control skyrocketed...back to 2005 levels. Before that it had been higher, but it had been declining extremely rapidly. (Other polling companies have shown that there is always a 'bump' for gun control after massacres, but it returns to regular levels quickly). You can see that even Sandy Hook was only enough to slow, not reverse, opposition to a ban on handguns. Look at the trend, though.

America is getting more pro-gun, very fast, year after year. Denying this makes you like the folks who decried skewed pro-Obama polling -- you're just wishfully thinking.

Ludicrous comparison is ludicrous.

[Vosem]

As a whole, the party can and WILL purge members associated with the NRA. They will get Robin'd. That's the one thing the Dems will purge the party entirely of. Not pro-gun Dems, just NRA affiliated members.

No. Because the NRA automatically prefers incumbents over challengers if scores are identical, the NRA has been used by many rural and swing-state Democrats to hold seats for the Democratic Party. Ted Strickland comes to mind as a prominent example. This would be giving up an extremely important source of support for many rural Democrats and, to put it simply, it just won't happen. The NRA will remain beloved by the entirety of the Republican Party and a very large minority of the Democratic Party, which may turn into a majority over the next decade or so as America continues to get more and more pro-gun.

LOL

Undisputable fact. Here's Gallup polling: http://www.gallup.com/poll/159569/americans-stricter-gun-laws-oppose-bans.aspx

You can see after Sandy Hook support for gun control skyrocketed...back to 2005 levels. Before that it had been higher, but it had been declining extremely rapidly. (Other polling companies have shown that there is always a 'bump' for gun control after massacres, but it returns to regular levels quickly). You can see that even Sandy Hook was only enough to slow, not reverse, opposition to a ban on handguns. Look at the trend, though.

America is getting more pro-gun, very fast, year after year. Denying this makes you like the folks who decried skewed pro-Obama polling -- you're just wishfully thinking.

Ludicrous comparison is ludicrous.

Both groups deny(ed) polling data because it doesn't fit the preestablished narrative. The idea that being antigun will be a national litmus test in either party in the near future is quite ludicrous, though. (Who knows -- until Todd Akin came along, I would've said Senate candidates declaring rape babies are a myth is ludicrous.)

[BluegrassBlueVote]

Sandy Hook's effects aren't going away anytime soon, dude. Virginia Tech, Tucson, Aurora, etc. didn't galvanize nearly the amount of movement in Washington as this did.

Regardless, as the polls you posted show, calls for deregulation have never gained much traction at all. America wasn't becoming so much "pro-gun" as it was treating gun control, the death penalty, and the crime rate as less prevalent issues as they were in the early 90s.

[7,052,770]

Gay marriage is the only one that the 2016 nominee is guaranteed to support.  The others all have negotiable details.

[courts]

obviously the first 4 and possibly puerto rico statehood as well. seriously coming out for policies like defense cuts and ending drone warfare would of course disqualify any candidate as a Serious Person by the media and establishment. to say nothing of how much more the defense lobby and other interests would donate to their opponent.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

I'd vote for a Dem who supports same sex marriage, some gun restrictions, legal abortion (preferably not federally subsidized), path to citizenship for law abiding immigrants, legal marijuana, cutting defense spending, DC + PR statehood, drone review as well as more progressive taxation.

I'm neutral on SS + Medicare (though I'd prefer not to cut), death penalty and the carbon tax.

[Fritz]

I'd vote for a Dem who supports same sex marriage, some gun restrictions, legal abortion (preferably not federally subsidized), path to citizenship for law abiding immigrants, legal marijuana, cutting defense spending, DC + PR statehood, drone review as well as more progressive taxation.

I'm neutral on SS + Medicare (though I'd prefer not to cut), death penalty and the carbon tax.

I thought you were a Republican?

[Maxwell]

I'd vote for a Dem who supports same sex marriage, some gun restrictions, legal abortion (preferably not federally subsidized), path to citizenship for law abiding immigrants, legal marijuana, cutting defense spending, DC + PR statehood, drone review as well as more progressive taxation.

I'm neutral on SS + Medicare (though I'd prefer not to cut), death penalty and the carbon tax.

I thought you were a Republican?

I don't think he is anymore. I think he's a Democrat from Virginia now.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

I'd vote for a Dem who supports same sex marriage, some gun restrictions, legal abortion (preferably not federally subsidized), path to citizenship for law abiding immigrants, legal marijuana, cutting defense spending, DC + PR statehood, drone review as well as more progressive taxation.

I'm neutral on SS + Medicare (though I'd prefer not to cut), death penalty and the carbon tax.

I thought you were a Republican?

I don't think he is anymore. I think he's a Democrat from Virginia now.

Independent from Pennsylvania...

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Opposing so-called "right-to-work" laws and opposing school uniforms ought to be obligatory for any Democrat.

[TNF]

Opposing so-called "right-to-work" laws and opposing school uniforms ought to be obligatory for any Democrat.

This is my litmus test.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Opposing so-called "right-to-work" laws and opposing school uniforms ought to be obligatory for any Democrat.

The first is part of my litmus test. The second is an absurd non-issue.

[Sol]

As much as I hate to say it, the conservatives are right when it comes to America trending pro-gun, although it seems like most people are moderates on the issue.

[Dave from Michigan]

how about increase minimum wage? Especially if no increase is passed before the 2016 election. Every Democrat should support this, the amount of the increase can be up for debate.

[Blue3]

I'm a pretty liberal/progressive Democrat, and I still don't understand why the party opposes right to work.

[LastVoter]

Opposing so-called "right-to-work" laws and opposing school uniforms ought to be obligatory for any Democrat.

The first is part of my litmus test. The second is an absurd non-issue.

Exemplary fascism is anon-issue to you?

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I'm a pretty liberal/progressive Democrat, and I still don't understand why the party opposes right to work.

Because it violates the constitutional right to freely bargain.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Opposing so-called "right-to-work" laws and opposing school uniforms ought to be obligatory for any Democrat.

The first is part of my litmus test. The second is an absurd non-issue.

Exemplary fascism is anon-issue to you?

Calling school uniforms 'exemplary fascism' is flatly ridiculous. I'm having a hard time imaging a pettier 'issue'.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Opposing so-called "right-to-work" laws and opposing school uniforms ought to be obligatory for any Democrat.

The first is part of my litmus test. The second is an absurd non-issue.

Exemplary fascism is anon-issue to you?

Calling school uniforms 'exemplary fascism' is flatly ridiculous. I'm having a hard time imaging a pettier 'issue'.

Uniforms violate the Tinker v. Des Moines ruling.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Opposing so-called "right-to-work" laws and opposing school uniforms ought to be obligatory for any Democrat.

The first is part of my litmus test. The second is an absurd non-issue.

Exemplary fascism is anon-issue to you?

Calling school uniforms 'exemplary fascism' is flatly ridiculous. I'm having a hard time imaging a pettier 'issue'.

Uniforms violate the Tinker v. Des Moines ruling.

All right then. Good to know. Moving on.

[Blue3]

I'm a pretty liberal/progressive Democrat, and I still don't understand why the party opposes right to work.

Because it violates the constitutional right to freely bargain.

Right to work just doesn't force people to belong to and pay unions. They still can, it's just not forced.

But I don't want to turn this thread into a debate on that.

[LastVoter]

I'm a pretty liberal/progressive Democrat, and I still don't understand why the party opposes right to work.

Because it violates the constitutional right to freely bargain.

Right to work just doesn't force people to belong to and pay unions. They still can, it's just not forced.

But I don't want to turn this thread into a debate on that.

RIght to work allows people to freeride on union contracts without paying the dues.

[Blue3]

If too many people free-ride, the union becomes irrelevant and collapses, and then workers see the cost of their free-riding and form a new union.

Unions were essential to creating many things we enjoy and take for granted today. But they're not much more than partisan machinery now, at least in most places it seems. If they feel like they need to work to win the support of the workers they're supposed to represent again, then that's a good thing.


But anyways, this is for a different thread.