tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post8488268712673673788..comments2024-03-28T12:50:25.792-04:00Comments on The Philosopher's Stone: A PASSING THOUGHTRobert Paul Wolffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-38363576718569067032018-02-09T15:00:24.724-05:002018-02-09T15:00:24.724-05:00Prof Wolff, your recommendation to stick to gettin...Prof Wolff, your recommendation to stick to getting the democratic voters out instead of trying to lure more republicans makes sound Bayesian sense as well. I don't know if you intended it that way or not, your approach indicates that. Hope more take this approach seriously. Thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-68056134989575438862018-02-08T21:51:37.057-05:002018-02-08T21:51:37.057-05:00Lubell no doubt is correct when he says there’s no...Lubell no doubt is correct when he says there’s no big independent middle out there. But I think his most important point is that voters have fixed views on a number of hot button issues. The parties do take sides on these issues, but many voters have positions that overlap the parties, e.g., someone may be anti-abortion and in favor of gun control or single payer health care.<br /><br />The parties themselves are not monolithic and necessarily adopt positions not favored all of their members, including elected officials. So you can see the Republicans struggling with the Freedom Caucus, the Democrats with government shutdown vs. DACA relief.<br /><br />There may indeed be few true independents out there, but there are those to the right of most Democrats and to the left of most Republicans who agree with each party’s positions on some issues and disagree with them on others. The task of the parties is to convince those voters that the issues where they agree are more important than those where they disagree. For example, I would argue to someone who is anti-abortion but pro-gun control that abortion is not an issue that will be decided by elected politicians. It’s a matter for the Supreme Court, whereas gun control is something that can be decide (within constitutional limits) and they should vote accordingly. <br />David Palmeterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01895092366685079046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-91786640935262197522018-02-08T18:45:12.691-05:002018-02-08T18:45:12.691-05:00Wasn’t Clinton’s strategy to woo vast numbers of R...Wasn’t Clinton’s strategy to woo vast numbers of Republican’s who were supposed to be utterly repulsed by the GOP candidate? That didn’t turn out so well, if I recall.<br /><br />All the hopeful analysis says that Dems are itching to get into the voting booth like never before, while just enough T***p voters are disillusioned by him that they’ll stay home. Let’s hope that holds up. Ed Barrerashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00245166137503830356noreply@blogger.com