Beth Fukumoto switching parties

[smoltchanov]

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...

[SATW]

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.

[smoltchanov]

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.

[The Arizonan]

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.

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

[Heisenberg]

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.

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.

[Pandaguineapig]

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...

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

[Deblano]

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.

[hopper]

FF! Hope she gives Gabbard a nice primary challenge.

Tulsi should also switch parties.

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

[hopper]

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 she didn't leave the Party due to idealogical differences she left or is leaving because of Trump. I respect her decision.

[SATW]

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.

[hopper]

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.

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.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

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.

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.

[SATW]

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.

[hopper]

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.

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.

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

[hopper]

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 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.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

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.

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.

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

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.

[hopper]

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

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..

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.

[nclib]

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...

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

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.

[hopper]

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...

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

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.

[Figueira]

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

[Green Line]

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

[Lachi]

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

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

[hopper]

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.

[hopper]

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

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.

[smoltchanov]

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

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