[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

A constitutional convention is a pretty pie in the sky thing to worry about. Even if they get 2/3s of the state legislators, 3/4 of the state legislator's have to ratify it. Also, state level Republicans in more traditionally blue states don't often share the same ideologies as the Federal Republican party.

Completely disagree. A constitutional convention is a great strategy to drive through radical change. You are also grossly under-rating this strategy, especially with the money that the Kochs have invested in state level politics. I also think you are missing the traction that the Kochs manage to get in their bought and paid for states. Traditional swings states have been the targets and the Kochs have been very successful at getting their guy elected. Brownback (KS), Walker (WI) and Christie (NJ) have been their biggest wins, but you add in Jindal (LA), Pence (IA), and Branstad (IO), you are seeing a major chunk of those soft states go their way. Four of those six are from states that have traditionally been swing states and left leaning in policy. As we have seen, once a Koch boy gets in office, that changes. And the Koch’s aren’t stopping there. They are going after Republicans they think are soft, so they can drive policy through. The Koch’s have already begun targeting two of those soft Republican governors in Haslam (TN), using Americans for Prosperity to hammer him on taking fed money to fund his state’s healthcare exchange, and Kasich (OH), using the American Future Fund to hammer him on conservative bonafides.

I think you may also be overlooking the importance of the American Legislative Exchange Council and their impact on policy formation. ALEC continues to pay dividends for the Koch brothers as the policy and legislation created in this body finds its way into law at the state level.

This is the way these guys think. They play the slow con, but they have a plan and they execute it well. I would not scoff at the suggestion of a constitutional convention to invoke their policy wishes. The Democrats have already suggested that certain amendments are needed, so owning the state legislatures makes controlling those amendments the easiest.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This is definitely an interesting point that really needs to be fleshed out. When you say that "liberals" need to unify - unify around what? What are the absolute crucial, central points of being a "liberal" that you think everyone should rally behind?

This is the tough part. Liberals have such a broad platform that it is difficult to find consensus on certain points and then expect policy and message discipline. Liberals need to do what conservatives have done and identify their core values and work to protect those. You can see that there are no identified true core values on the left as there is infighting over some of the most basic stuff.

I ask because I think this is where you're going to run into trouble. No one is going to want to "unify" under a banner that doesn't reflect the political beliefs they think are the most important or the ethic that speaks to them. Instead, most of the "liberals" you're admonishing - and I think you mean the left; a huge swath of them aren't liberals - are instead going to do what most Bernie supporters are likely to do. On election day, they'll either hold their noses and vote for the person who comes closest to representing their world view (read: Hillary), or they'll refuse to vote for anyone who doesn't reflect their most cherished beliefs. And each time they get a chance, they'll mobilize in favour of getting a candidate to vote for who does reflect those beliefs.

Completely agree with what you are saying. The problem is that liberals have not been able to have one of those Big Tent meetings where they can define these core values. Speaking in a generalization, liberals are very weak on defining what is important to them in the larger context, and then assuming ownership of it. They lack the discipline to dig in where required and wage the battles.

Maybe you think that'll lead to more Republican victory but that seems like exactly how the system is supposed to work and it's hard to fault them for it.

The Republicans are just better organized in this regard. It really is about making a decision on a values statement and then standing by that, through thick or thin.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Aren't we witnessing the unraveling of the conservative coalition?

If anything, small-l liberals across both parties need to stop letting the dogmatic ideologues at both extremes - the identity-politics left and the bible-thumping right - hijack their party policy, and propose moderate platforms that will be tolerable to Americans who are willing to accept compromise in the interests of actually getting stuff done.

It is funny, but I think we’re seeing the opposite. I think we’re seeing a kick in the nuts to the Republican party, but conservatives are sticking to their guns and rallying around their guy, even if that guy is an egocentric sociopath. The important thing to conservatives is he’s their egocentric sociopath. Interestingly enough, their candidate does not represent their core values, based on his actions and behaviors, but they still blindly support him in spades. Again, discipline is extremely important in politics, and the conservatives continue to show resolve in everything they do, regardless if it is right or wrong.

I agree with your take on what needs to be done, finding compromise and such, but the expectations of the conservatives is no on compromise. They want a flat out win at every turn. Anything less is a show of weakness. That is part of their core values and that is what they believe. That is where Trump is killing it. He tells them how great he is and how effective he is, and they believe it. He is the strong man they are hoping for. Reagan spins in his grave.