Talk Elections

I feel this is relevant because this is the second time in a little over two years the Hawaii house minority leader has jumped ship. The republican party of Hawaii is turning into a small rump party

http://bigislandnow.com/2017/02/02/rep-fukumoto-seeks-to-switch-parties-after-trump-criticism/

Whatever, won't miss her. Not like we will compete anytime soon in Hawaii.

Granted she was to the left of the entire caucus( and many members of the Hawaii democratic caucus) it's never a good sign when all your "rising stars" leave the party

Yes, but not because she left. Its because she should never have been the face of the party. I am not a RINO-hunter - in fact, i usually defend moderate repubs - but Fukumoto has always been pretty left-leaning even by HI standards (as you noted).

The party has a lot of structural issues - including not having any real agenda.

It sounds like she had been planning to leave for a while, she bashed Trump and his voters at the Hawaii state GOP convention and flirted with leaving the party during her speech, when she trashed the federal gop and participated in the women's march it was the last straw for the Hawaii gop and they removed her from her position. She's using that as her excuse to leave

FF! Hope she gives Gabbard a nice primary challenge.

This.

The Hawaii democratic party has become a big tent party that is not really seen in other states. There are very conservative members of the democratic caucus who are democrats solely to get elected( Tulsi Gabbard is an example).

yea, she's clearly motivated by electoral opportunism in her moves, imo.

Tulsi should also switch parties.

Dear god, and I thought ultra red state Democrats had it bad. 6 out of 51 seats in the house and no seats in the senate? I never thought I'd feel pity for a Republican state party in the age of Trump.

Soon to be five.

It's amazing, some Hawaii Republicans would be Montana Democrats.

Whenever I feel depressed about being a Utah Democrat, I look at the Hawaii Republicans and laugh.

And to think, when Hawaii was admitted as a state, there was an assumption that it would be a Republican-leaning state that would offset the anticipated Democratic-leaning state of Alaska.

The talk of primarying Tulsi is self defeating if she loses she will just run as a Indie and then caucus with the Republicans.

That's probably not legal in Hawaii (it's not in most states, it's just that Connecticut in 2006 was one of the few that didn't have such a law) and even it is it's a huge assumption that she'd win the general as an indie.

Yeah. You value right-wingers only. Religious bigots, Trumpish idiots and their like. 40 years ago Republicans had Jacob Javits and Clifford Case, while Democrats - Bob Stump and Phil Gramm. And it was good and interesting. Now - yawn. In most cases there are 2 hordes of fanatics..

Republicans in Hawaii will have to evaluate ways to distinguish themselves in the near future and create a little bit of distance from the Democratic party in order to grow their party. Fukumoto still hasn't switched parties, the HI GOP should be shutting its mouth imo though and not risk losing another seat they would have to fight to get back just to get a little less irrelevant.

What for do you need to artificially create this distance? Among few remaining in Hawaii legislature Republicans there is couple of relatively "solid" conservatives (Ward and McDermott), couple of clear moderates (Fukumoto, Thielen) (and, again, IMHO - it's good that they may be to the left of some Democrats), and so on. Party's ideological "purity" if absolutely fine under European parlamentary system with at least 5-6 parties (say, 2-3 - conservative, 1-2 - moderate, and couple - liberal and socialist), but in US??? With ONLY 2 parties???? I will not even mention that there is no "party of center", and that extreme polarization has many dire consequences for political process..

Someday the moderates in the Hawaii Democratic Party are going to become Republicans.  After the Northern Strategy phase is over the GOP will be competitive there again.

Not sure. They have no stimulus for that. Just as Southern conservatives win nothing now from becoming Democrats, or Massachusetts (or Rhode Island or Vermont) moderates - from becoming Republicans. It's much more profitable for southern conservatives to remain Republicans, and for Massachusetts (and other) moderates - Democrats. The same in Hawaii

The Democratic Party will eventually move too far left and will alienate the moderate Democrats in Hawaii.

For the record, I'm predicting this to happen after 2040.

And Republican - move too far to the right to alienate relatively moderate Republicans in South Carolina?????

I doubt it.  After Republicans realize the Northern Strategy was a bad idea, they will drop the anti-immigration rhetoric and will be more inclusive in some respects.

What the actual...?

If you are going  to be condescending to me...at least be right. I am indeed conservative, but I'm hardly far-right. My only litmus test in on foreign policy - a test which many moderate republicans are actually better on then arch conservatives.

Susan Collins, Shelley Moore-Capito, Mark Kirk, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, George Pataki, Christine Todd Whitman, Kay Bailey Hutchison are all moderate by today's GOP standards and I am a huge fan of all them.

People like Al D'Amato, Kelly Ayotte, Pat Toomey and Rob Portman - all conservative in my book - are considered to be somewhat moderate by actual party purists. I support all of these republicans, not the purists.

You are right that I don't value people like Jacob Javits and Clifford Case - even for me they were a bit too liberal - but I still liked people like Thomas Dewey.

I'm hardly a "religious fanatic" and I'm often at odds with the religious right on LGBT rights.

I have always supported a broad spectrum - ideologically - of Republicans. But, certain politicians will always be exceptions to the rule. Beth Fukumoto seems to be one of those exceptions.

You gave no explanations what wrong she did? Dared to criticize Trump, and reserved her right to do so in the future? IMHO, she was absolutely correct. May be that's because i have absolutely no respect for him, but i don't see anyone as standing above the criticism, being it Trump, Obama, Clinton. What else???? That she conducted politics in bipartisan way? Again - absolutely correct by me, especially in Hawaii, where Republican presence in legislature is neglidgeable. What else????

And i sincerely dislike that "we" (i saw a lot of it on DKE too). Who "we", and why these "we" decide for everybody?????

There are points in your post i agree with, but not these one...

Considering I was an ex-NeverTrumper, I thought it would be apparent that I'm not against those who criticize him.

I guess it wasn't as clear as I thought.

I don't care if people break from the party line, but she was the minority leader of the HI GOP House caucus. The leaders of the party don't have as much leeway as regular members of the state house or senate.

There has to be some party uniformity for any electoral coalition or ideological coalition to function. She had her career ahead of the party's. You don't think the speech at the women's march was well-planned? I think she wanted to switch for a while and this gave her a reason to do so.

I don't hate her, she seems like a very nice person and someone who cares about public service, but she did not have any real attachment to her party.

Our disagreement is on what a party's function is in a political process.

Yes. Let's agree to disagree.

Why was Hawaii expected to be Republican-leaning and Alaska Democratic-leaning?

Probably due to the heavy military presence in the state. Alaska was probably thought to be Democratic-leaning due to the large Eskimo/Native population, before a lot of oil workers moved in.

It went beyond criticizing trump(there are several gop governors and senators who do so) it's the constant grandstanding against her own party and appearing at far-left rallies that went too far

Very sad that the GOP is becoming increasingly homogenous in it's thinking, background, and makeup.

Moderate/Pragmatic Republicans are being stabbed to death with a rusty knife.

No Tulsi is a Democrat in that she is Center-Left.

No she didn't leave the Party due to idealogical differences she left or is leaving because of Trump. I respect her decision.

She left for purely opportunistic reasons. As literally almost all party switchers do.

She is clearly a rising star in Hawaii but she'd never win a federal or statewide office as a Republican.

Most dropped the anti-Immigration Rhetoric after 2014 except for Trump. What is the Northern Strategy anyway? Its not like Republican Presidential Candidates are going to be winning a lot of Northeastern States anytime soon.

The Northern Strategy involves dropping traditional social issues and becoming populist.  The idea is that immigrants are eternal enemies of the GOP, and that instead of minority outreach, Republicans need to appeal to white Democrats.

Yea, the Northern Strategy is not one I support. It may have worked in 2016, but it won't long term.

Minority Outreach is a must have for a future GOP.

Well you want to appeal to some White Democrats so that isn't a bad idea.

Well I call that "The Rust Belt Strategy" in 2016 and not a "Northern Strategy" since that sounds like you want to win Northeastern States which the GOP has no interest in unless its PA(a Rust Belt State) or NH.

Of course it's not a bad idea, but that was almost exclusively what Trump did.  As SATW said, it worked this time but eventually it will stop working.

I'm going to create a thread explaining exactly what the Northern Strategy is sometime.

Yeah call it the "missing middle" if you will in both parties but activists on both the right and left control both parties right now.

LOL at Women's Marches being far-left. Women's Marches happened in every state and in plenty of conservative cities/towns. It's not like Trump has only insulted and harmed far-left women.

As for the topic, I have mixed feelings (though it may not affect other states noticeably). It is very good that plenty of Republicans are alienated from the GOP because of Trump since Trump is repulsive beyond his far-right political beliefs, and most of the GOP defends him. On the other hand since the U.S. House, the U.S. Senate, the Presidency, soon the Supreme Court, most Governors, and most state legislatures are in Republican hands, it is good to have some anti-Trumpers in the Republican Party.

He is not far-right but he acts like a dofus at times.

Some women marched because of Trump and some didn't.

You don't have to be "far left" to oppose Trump or to hold liberal views on women's issues, haha.

She didn't leave the party.  The party left her.

Not so much left her, as literally forced her out.

She wasn't forced out she decided to leave.

I take it she is/was a Liberal Republican. That wing of the party mainly left during the Reagan Years anyway and that was a long time ago. Of course there were some Liberal Republicans hanging around in the 2000's like Connie Morella(R-MD) till redistricting killed her political career in 2002 and she was defeated by current US Senator Chris Van Hollen(D-MD.)

I do get what she is going through since I am a "tweener" between the 2 parties but lean towards the Republicans and I do not take a favorable view of Trump.

+100 And (mostly) became a gathering of fanatic right-wingers. Though the Democratic party is hardly better, experiencing mirror image evolution..

You can call yourself a Republican and have any viewpoint.

But  I was responding to someone who called the women's marches "far left."

You had that chance after 2012, you've lost that chance after 2016. The base hates minorities and the fiscal conservatives want to cut off all aid to anyone who's poor, especially minorities. Threatening to send in the Feds to minority areas isn't going to work.

Hate is a strong word but you are always gonna have people that have crazy views wether it be on the left or the right. The Republicans have had chances to cut off aid to the poor in the from 2001-2006 when they had control of the whole government and they didn't do it and I doubt Trump is gonna sign off on cutting aid to the poor.

The party then was much more mainstream conservatism. The Tea Party groups and fiscal crazies weren't in control then like they are now. They're starting on it in Wisconsin, to cut of people from welfare if they use drugs/can't find employment, even if they have children.

One of the Republicans that serves in my hometown just flipped as well....sucks.  :(

Who? What position?

From what I read, She hasn't left yet. She's only considering it. Regardless, she's more liberal than a lot of Hawaii Democrats...

So what?? Every Republican legislator must be more conservative then all Democrats??? Bull*hit...

Yes, the point of political parties is not to be erratic in ideology. I support having strong pragmatic and centrist wings in both parties. But I am 100% opposed to having arch-conservative Democrats and arch-liberal Republicans. Hyperpartisanship is horrible for a society, but some level of partisanship is necessary to have a coherent ideology.

The key word is some. Obviously Republican party will be mostly conservative, and Democratic - mostly liberal for conceivable future. But, as i said many times - US has only 2 big political parties, and so the keyword here is mostly. Not 5-6 parties (and even more), as in Europe, where there is an ample choice for voters of any  ideological sort - from communists to ultra-rightists. In US a people like me now have no party to vote for, because there is no "party of center" anymore (earlier more or less composed from minority wings of both parties), but a big gaping hole. For Democrats we are "too conservative", for Republicans -"way too liberal". So, i greatly prefer a situation of 1970th, when i began to study American poilitics (yes, with Javits and Case on one side, and with Gramm and Stump and even McDonald - on other) to present boring uniformity and "litmus tests". Not long ago Republicans were able, for example, to win seats in Marin county (California), and on Manhattan, while Democrats were quite competitive in Deep South (with proper candidates). What now??? Ideologically pure bubbles? Idiocy..

On social issues i believe it should be based on what states you represent.  So dems in south should be more socially conservative then republicans in the north east .

+100. I always said "district rules!". In South a Democrat with socially conservative and economically centrist (usually, sometimes even moderate conservative) views is perfectly natural, because considerable part (frequently - a majority) of district voters hold these views. In North-East an economivcally centrist and socially liberal Republican is as natural because of the same reason. But national parties often insist on "party purity and discipline" and run "loyal soldiers", who hold a views unacceptable to majority of district voters, and thus unelectable, but "fit national mold". BOTH parties...

Its only natural to switch because it opens up opportunities for advancement.

In Hawaii - yes. Mike Gabbard switched in 2007 (despite being rather socially conservative Republican before that), and, by the same logic - many Democrats switch to Republican party in the South. But there is a minus too: it leads to the above mentioned "ideologically pure bubbles" with, essentially, 1-party system almost of authocratic sort. Try to be a conservative Republican in SF, or a liberal Democrat in North Texas - you will need a lot of nerves, endurance and character..

The extent to which either of these existed, of course, is grossly exaggerated by high school history teachers so that they can explain to teenagers why the South and North once voted differently and fit it into a day-long unit, LOL.

Yeah. Even the most liberal Republicans (like those i mentioned) were closer to pragmatic moderate-liberal Democrats of their time then to "bold progressives" of today. And even the most conservative Democrats of post-World war II period (say, in House), with possible lone exception of Larry McDonald, were still somewhat more pragmatic and less ideologically conservative then truly conservative Republicans...