Keith Ellison (D-MN) vs. Justin Amash (R-MI)

[anthonyjg]

Easy vote for Ellison and Amash would botch this election, hard. He can't benefit off of Ellison's religion without losing a lot of his appeal, but he also can't win without backing from nationalists. Meanwhile, Ellison would find it fairly easy to consolidate Democratic support and would spend the campaign stitching the Obama coalition back together while Amash would try to appease all parts of his base. Ellison would lose to a Trumpist but someone like Amash wouldn't be able to capitalize on his religion to the point that it would probably help Ellison.

[RINO Tom]

Easy vote for Ellison and Amash would botch this election, hard. He can't benefit off of Ellison's religion without losing a lot of his appeal, but he also can't win without backing from nationalists. Meanwhile, Ellison would find it fairly easy to consolidate Democratic support and would spend the campaign stitching the Obama coalition back together while Amash would try to appease all parts of his base. Ellison would lose to a Trumpist but someone like Amash wouldn't be able to capitalize on his religion to the point that it would probably help Ellison.

Can we stop acting like Trump COMPLETELY replaced the human beings who make up the American and Republican electorates?!  Amash can ABSOLUTELY win without the backing from "nationalists."  Just because Trump said nationalist things and won does not make his supporters nationalists.

[Santander]

Easy vote for Ellison and Amash would botch this election, hard. He can't benefit off of Ellison's religion without losing a lot of his appeal, but he also can't win without backing from nationalists. Meanwhile, Ellison would find it fairly easy to consolidate Democratic support and would spend the campaign stitching the Obama coalition back together while Amash would try to appease all parts of his base. Ellison would lose to a Trumpist but someone like Amash wouldn't be able to capitalize on his religion to the point that it would probably help Ellison.

Can we stop acting like Trump COMPLETELY replaced the human beings who make up the American and Republican electorates?!  Amash can ABSOLUTELY win without the backing from "nationalists."  Just because Trump said nationalist things and won does not make his supporters nationalists.

The vast majority of Americans in both parties are nationalists. In fact, the majority of human beings on the planet are nationalists.

[anthonyjg]

Easy vote for Ellison and Amash would botch this election, hard. He can't benefit off of Ellison's religion without losing a lot of his appeal, but he also can't win without backing from nationalists. Meanwhile, Ellison would find it fairly easy to consolidate Democratic support and would spend the campaign stitching the Obama coalition back together while Amash would try to appease all parts of his base. Ellison would lose to a Trumpist but someone like Amash wouldn't be able to capitalize on his religion to the point that it would probably help Ellison.

Can we stop acting like Trump COMPLETELY replaced the human beings who make up the American and Republican electorates?!  Amash can ABSOLUTELY win without the backing from "nationalists."  Just because Trump said nationalist things and won does not make his supporters nationalists.

No, he couldn't and no, Trump didn't change the make up of the electorate. Nationalism and social conservatism are far bigger rallying cries for the GOP than economic conservatism.

The American right has historically found success by being able to speak the language of many working and middle class voters. Under the right rhetoric, those on the economic left can be susceptible to some arguments by social authoritarians. There's a reason that Trump talked up "social" issues, that Nixon ran with the "amnesty, acid, and abortion" charge against McGovern, and that Bush 43 used religious rhetoric to his advantage. Nationalists make up a big part of the Republican base and Amash just wouldn't be able to appeal to them.

Some positions of social authoritarians, such as opposition to gay marriage, require religious belief for justification. This devout belief is separate from economics and there can be no reasonable connection between the two. However, and I'm sure there are fellow lefties who will disagree with me on this, one doesn’t need to be a theocrat to be opposed to taking in refugees or anti-illegal immigration. If the issue is framed as maintaining opportunity for an American or as protecting people's lives, then that fits right in with the compassionate capitalism embraced by many who traditionally vote for the left. Which, to be clear, is not me trying to say that I think that sort of framing is accurate in any way, but I do think that it's an effective strategy.

There is no crossover appeal to economic conservatism and it has even hurt many who are now a part of Trump's coalition, my coal mining family from Eastern Kentucky comes to mind. Amash would appeal to the #NeverTrump crowd, but that's about it and that group isn't sizeable anyway or Trump wouldn't be the President. Republicans can't rely on societies elites to carry them to victory, it's just too small of a group. There needs to be some sort of way for the GOP to attract working middle class voters, even if they lose workers as a whole, for them to have a chance of winning.

[RINO Tom]

Easy vote for Ellison and Amash would botch this election, hard. He can't benefit off of Ellison's religion without losing a lot of his appeal, but he also can't win without backing from nationalists. Meanwhile, Ellison would find it fairly easy to consolidate Democratic support and would spend the campaign stitching the Obama coalition back together while Amash would try to appease all parts of his base. Ellison would lose to a Trumpist but someone like Amash wouldn't be able to capitalize on his religion to the point that it would probably help Ellison.

Can we stop acting like Trump COMPLETELY replaced the human beings who make up the American and Republican electorates?!  Amash can ABSOLUTELY win without the backing from "nationalists."  Just because Trump said nationalist things and won does not make his supporters nationalists.

The vast majority of Americans in both parties are nationalists. In fact, the majority of human beings on the planet are nationalists.

What are we defining as "nationalist," then?  I wouldn't call someone who is patriotic and wants what's best for America a "nationalist" by any stretch.

[Santander]

Easy vote for Ellison and Amash would botch this election, hard. He can't benefit off of Ellison's religion without losing a lot of his appeal, but he also can't win without backing from nationalists. Meanwhile, Ellison would find it fairly easy to consolidate Democratic support and would spend the campaign stitching the Obama coalition back together while Amash would try to appease all parts of his base. Ellison would lose to a Trumpist but someone like Amash wouldn't be able to capitalize on his religion to the point that it would probably help Ellison.

Can we stop acting like Trump COMPLETELY replaced the human beings who make up the American and Republican electorates?!  Amash can ABSOLUTELY win without the backing from "nationalists."  Just because Trump said nationalist things and won does not make his supporters nationalists.

The vast majority of Americans in both parties are nationalists. In fact, the majority of human beings on the planet are nationalists.

What are we defining as "nationalist," then?  I wouldn't call someone who is patriotic and wants what's best for America a "nationalist" by any stretch.

The last 3 GOP campaign slogans were: "Make America Great Again", "Believe in America", and "Country First". All three were nationalist slogans for campaigns with nationalist themes. Mitt Romney said he would "never apologize for America". Granted, two of them were losing campaigns, but you don't need to look any further to see that the GOP is a nationalist party that places value on American identity, whereas Democrats place value on the shared human experience.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Amash is less bad on Israel from what I know, so he'd have my vote.

Maybe you should care more about America than israhell.

Dude, you're an open anti-semite. You've thoroughly discredited yourself on this issue already.

[Santander]

We just need someone to stay out of Middle Eastern wars, although the military-industrial complex and the Israel/Jewish lobbies will find that unacceptable.

Right, because we Jews love starting wars everywhere! Go away, antisemite,

Jews tend to support the Zionist entity, including its wars. Oh, and calling us anti-Semites is pointless because we (anti-Zionists) wear that name as a badge of pride these days.

Yes, I seem to have missed this gem... not only an anti-Semite, but a proud one at that.

[darklordoftech]

Amash would definitely win. Not only is Ellison Muslim, he was affiliated with the Nation of Islam. Social conservatives might not like Amash that much, but social conservatives tend to see Islam as a greater threat than social liberalism. A trans person would defeat Ellison. Ellison winning would be like Al Smith winning during the height of prohibition's popularity.