Tuesday, June 16, 2015

Are Social Issues Hurting Democrats?

From the letters to the editor, at the Wall Street Journal, "Do Social Issues Hurt Democrats?":
Karl Rove asks, “Are Social Issues Hurting Republicans?” (op-ed, June 4). I wonder why his question is rarely, if ever, asked about Democrats. Do they not lose as well as gain votes by the positions they take on sociocultural issues? Are the political platforms of the Democrats less laden with these concerns than those of the GOP? I wonder how many votes the Democrats lose because of their position on such issues as late-term abortion, same-sex marriage, their encouragement of dependency on government, their opposition to school choice through vouchers and charter schools, limits on religious freedom, distribution of contraceptives and referrals for abortion to school children without parental consent. Are these social issues hurting Democrats?

Edward Maillet
Charlottesville, Va.
Great questions.

Democrats got hammered last November in the congressional elections, and not just on the economy. I expect we're reaching the tipping point on many of the social issues addressed at the letter, and if the Democrats struggle to mobilize commensurate numbers of voters from 2012, the party's nominee could get hammered in 2016. Immigration, especially, is bound to be a hot-button issue, as it raises both economic and social issues. Homosexual marriage continues to be explosive, even more so with so much uncertainty going forward on constitutional grounds. (Folks like the lying sack Michael LaCour aren't doing the Democrats any favors either.) On racial issues in particular, don't be surprised if the Democrats get tagged with unflattering connections to Rachel Dolezal, especially on racial preferences in the workplace and campus political correctness.

The Democrats are the fringe party of American politics. The media elite also happen to be fringe whackjobs, which is why Hillary can count on a least a two-to-three point handicap going up against the generic GOP nominee, and perhaps even more.

0 comments: