Chances of VA House of Del flipping Dem?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t buy into to whole “I’m a Democrat, but I can’t vote for a Republican because transgender blah blah.” It is part of the Republican playbook. It’s one of many narratives they have crafted.

You can say that all you want. But that won’t change the fact that I used to vote democrat and will now vote republican. Whether I pass your democrat purity test is of non relevance to this fact.

You’re willing to give away women’s rights for what exactly?

So that my kids aren’t subjected to gender ideology in schools (which is destroying women rights as well). I know you hate TERFS as you probably call them but you can’t deny the fact that they view themselves as feminists and women rights activists. They may not meet your definition of feminism but they meet mine. Also what you think is irrelevant to the fact that I am no longer voting for democrats.

A “feminist” who is willing to throw away women’s rights because of a tiny # of transgender kids?

Not transgender kids but gender ideology which affects kids in general. I understand I don’t fit your definition of a feminist but again that is irrelevant to the fact that I used to vote democrat and will no longer be voting democrat, along with every other Muslim I know.

Is your desire to follow strict gender roles driven by your religion?

No since I’m not religious. But you are losing my coreligionists who may be religious. It’s the gender ideologues who ironically believe in strict gender not me. Any boy who exhibits any interest in what are supposedly traditionally girl interests are suddenly labeled as gender nonconforming. I don’t believe in strict gender roles whatsoever. But I believe in protecting female spaces. Look at the entire controversy about the rapist who after being convicted of rape was placed in a female prison because he suddenly decided to identify as a woman. These are the issues that concern me.

No, you are not well informed about modern thoughts in gender roles. It’s very fluid, not strict at all.

I certainly don’t consider you a feminist for throwing away women’s rights over a manufactured issue that you don’t even understand.

Oh I’m very well informed. I just disagree, completely. I don’t care if you don’t consider me a feminist. I consider myself a feminist and that’s all that matters to me. What matters to everyone else though is the fact that I used to vote democrat and I wont any longer. There are many people like me that are exiting the Democratic Party. Now people like you might not consider us “real democrats” or “real feminists” but in the end that doesn’t matter. What matters is we all used to vote Democrat and we wont be voting Democrat any longer. You can say good riddance which is fine, but you will need to find new voters. Because if enough of us exit the Democratic Party, Democrats will lose.

If you believe that "gender ideology" has strict gender roles then you definitely misunderstand it.

You are willing to throw away women's rights for 100% of women in VA (and surrounding states that have already severely restricted abortion) over the possibility that some tiny # of people may pretend to be transgender. That's not feminism in any book.

DP.
What you don't seem to understand is that "women's rights" encompass a helluvalot more than the ability to have an abortion.
And, the whole transgender issue tramples on women's rights.
You know the Biden admin wants to redefine Title IX to allow people who "identify" as a particular gender to participate in sports?

That is a HUGE slap in the face to women.
Women have a right to privacy in the locker room and a right to fair competition in sports.

Wait … conservatives care about Title IX now? And women’s sports?

Weren’t they just big mad about the women’s soccer team?

Not all of us are conservatives. I know this is difficult for you to understand.

If someone is anti-LGBTQ and anti-woman then they don't sound very liberal...

And your point is what exactly?

If it walks like a duck...

It doesn’t matter what you label me though. That’s what you don’t seem to get. What matters is how I, and the many people like me vote.

If you are anti-woman and anti-LGBTQ I question why you ever “voted D” in the past.

You voted for McAuliffe?

I didnt vote for McAuliffe because he was corrupt and I didn’t vote for Youngkin. But for the rest of the ticket I voted democrat. I know it’s hard for you to understand but I identified as a liberal and progressive for the following reasons:

- pro-union
-pro public education
- pro - universal healthcare
- strong belief in the 1st amendment
- pro-gun control
- anti-war
-pro-choice
- believe in expanding the social safety net
- pro universal free lunch

Democrats care about none of the above and the base has become more pro-war and anti freedom of speech than many republicans (though republicans are hypo critical in this regard).

I can go on and on about my positions but I don’t expect you to understand. Complex thoughts are difficult for you since you labeled me as anti women and anti lgbt without having a deep discussion with me about my views. What I do expect you to understand though is I have never voted republican in my life and will be voting republican in local elections.

Bull crap.

If you vote for the candidates promising to take away women's rights then you are certainly anti-woman.

I know it’s hard for you to understand but women rights aren’t all about abortion. But again it doesn’t matter what you think about me. All it matters is how I vote. Good luck being persuasive with voters like me. Calling me anti-women isn’t going to make me vote Democrat which, if you want to win, is all what should matter in the end. All that matters is how many people you persuade to vote democrat. Calling me and others names isn’t really helping.

There aren’t other voters like you. If you’re real (which I doubt) you are complete outlier with a very peculiar single issue outlook. You’re a voting bloc of one.

+1

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:you mean for trisomy-13 etc or down’s?

anomaly scan @20 weeks only predicts 50% of down’s
Older mothers really need the blood test screening test for Down syndrome, trisomy 13 and trisomy 18.

This screening test, offered to women with the highest risk for having a child with Down syndrome, (35+ yo mothers) is 99 percent accurate in screening for Down syndrome.

This means if 100 women were to have this test, 99 of the 100 would be detected. The test can be performed as early as 10 weeks of pregnancy.

There are all sorts of fetal anomalies, many that aren’t detected by blood test screening.

So, you want abortion on demand with no restrictions. Just stop tiptoeing and admit it. It’s okay to be honest when your mind has been made up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:you mean for trisomy-13 etc or down’s?

anomaly scan @20 weeks only predicts 50% of down’s
Older mothers really need the blood test screening test for Down syndrome, trisomy 13 and trisomy 18.

This screening test, offered to women with the highest risk for having a child with Down syndrome, (35+ yo mothers) is 99 percent accurate in screening for Down syndrome.

This means if 100 women were to have this test, 99 of the 100 would be detected. The test can be performed as early as 10 weeks of pregnancy.

There are all sorts of fetal anomalies, many that aren’t detected by blood test screening.

So, you want abortion on demand with no restrictions. Just stop tiptoeing and admit it. It’s okay to be honest when your mind has been made up.

“Abortion on demand”? WTF does that R talking point even mean?

The current laws in VA (26w6d) allows for women to get the anatomy scan and have time to get more info and look at options. It’s reasonable.

Women should be able to work with their doctors on medical care.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Don’t buy into to whole “I’m a Democrat, but I can’t vote for a Republican because transgender blah blah.” It is part of the Republican playbook. It’s one of many narratives they have crafted. [/quote]

You can say that all you want. But that won’t change the fact that I used to vote democrat and will now vote republican. Whether I pass your democrat purity test is of non relevance to this fact. [/quote]

You’re willing to give away women’s rights for what exactly? [/quote]

So that my kids aren’t subjected to gender ideology in schools (which is destroying women rights as well). I know you hate TERFS as you probably call them but you can’t deny the fact that they view themselves as feminists and women rights activists. They may not meet your definition of feminism but they meet mine. Also what you think is irrelevant to the fact that I am no longer voting for democrats. [/quote]

A “feminist” who is willing to throw away women’s rights because of a tiny # of transgender kids?
[/quote]

Not transgender kids but gender ideology which affects kids in general. I understand I don’t fit your definition of a feminist but again that is irrelevant to the fact that I used to vote democrat and will no longer be voting democrat, along with every other Muslim I know. [/quote]

Is your desire to follow strict gender roles driven by your religion?
[/quote]

No since I’m not religious. But you are losing my coreligionists who may be religious. It’s the gender ideologues who ironically believe in strict gender not me. Any boy who exhibits any interest in what are supposedly traditionally girl interests are suddenly labeled as gender nonconforming. I don’t believe in strict gender roles whatsoever. But I believe in protecting female spaces. Look at the entire controversy about the rapist who after being convicted of rape was placed in a female prison because he suddenly decided to identify as a woman. These are the issues that concern me. [/quote]

No, you are not well informed about modern thoughts in gender roles. It’s very fluid, not strict at all.

I certainly don’t consider you a feminist for throwing away women’s rights over a manufactured issue that you don’t even understand.
[/quote]

Oh I’m very well informed. I just disagree, completely. I don’t care if you don’t consider me a feminist. I consider myself a feminist and that’s all that matters to me. What matters to everyone else though is the fact that I used to vote democrat and I wont any longer. There are many people like me that are exiting the Democratic Party. Now people like you might not consider us “real democrats” or “real feminists” but in the end that doesn’t matter. What matters is we all used to vote Democrat and we wont be voting Democrat any longer. You can say good riddance which is fine, but you will need to find new voters. Because if enough of us exit the Democratic Party, Democrats will lose.
[/quote]

If you believe that "gender ideology" has strict gender roles then you definitely misunderstand it.

You are willing to throw away women's rights for 100% of women in VA (and surrounding states that have already severely restricted abortion) over the possibility that some tiny # of people may pretend to be transgender. That's not feminism in any book.
[/quote]

DP.
What you don't seem to understand is that "women's rights" encompass a helluvalot more than the ability to have an abortion.
And, the whole transgender issue tramples on women's rights.
You know the Biden admin wants to redefine Title IX to allow people who "identify" as a particular gender to participate in sports?

That is a HUGE slap in the face to women.
Women have a right to privacy in the locker room and a right to fair competition in sports. [/quote]

Wait … conservatives care about Title IX now? And women’s sports?

Weren’t they just big mad about the women’s soccer team?[/quote]

Not all of us are conservatives. I know this is difficult for you to understand. [/quote]

If someone is anti-LGBTQ and anti-woman then they don't sound very liberal...
[/quote]

And your point is what exactly?[/quote]

If it walks like a duck...
[/quote]

It doesn’t matter what you label me though. That’s what you don’t seem to get. What matters is how I, and the many people like me vote. [/quote]

If you are anti-woman and anti-LGBTQ I question why you ever “voted D” in the past.

You voted for McAuliffe?

[/quote]

I didnt vote for McAuliffe because he was corrupt and I didn’t vote for Youngkin. But for the rest of the ticket I voted democrat. I know it’s hard for you to understand but I identified as a liberal and progressive for the following reasons:

- pro-union
-pro public education
- pro - universal healthcare
- strong belief in the 1st amendment
- pro-gun control
- anti-war
-pro-choice
- believe in expanding the social safety net
- pro universal free lunch

[b]Democrats care about none of the above[/b] and the base has become more pro-war and anti freedom of speech than many republicans (though republicans are hypo critical in this regard).

I can go on and on about my positions but I don’t expect you to understand. Complex thoughts are difficult for you since you labeled me as anti women and anti lgbt without having a deep discussion with me about my views. What I do expect you to understand though is I have never voted republican in my life and will be voting republican in local elections.[/quote]

Bull crap.

If you vote for the candidates promising to take away women's rights then you are certainly anti-woman.
[/quote]

I know it’s hard for you to understand but women rights aren’t all about abortion. But again it doesn’t matter what you think about me. All it matters is how I vote. Good luck being persuasive with voters like me. Calling me anti-women isn’t going to make me vote Democrat which, if you want to win, is all what should matter in the end. All that matters is how many people you persuade to vote democrat. Calling me and others names isn’t really helping. [/quote]

There aren’t other voters like you. If you’re real (which I doubt) you are complete outlier with a very peculiar single issue outlook. You’re a voting bloc of one. [/quote]

+1[/quote]

No there aren’t. But there are a lot of voters that used to vote democrat that will no longer vote democrat. The reasons may be different but the important thing to note is the number of people leaving the Democratic Party. I don’t think this necessarily will translate into a Republican win. A lot of these voters are disillusioned and won’t vote for either party - perhaps they will withdraw from politics all together. I think that’s the majority. Then you will have some voters switching to the Republican Party and an even fewer percentage voting for third party. That’s my analysis of the situation anyways. Democrats will probably still win but maybe by a lesser margin. I think most of the people leaving the Democratic Party are working class whites and immigrants. The Democratic Party is increasingly becoming the party of the top 10%, the credentialed class as people like to call them. The Republican Party is still the party of the top 1%. What about the other 90%? I don’t think anyone represents them.

I found this interview with Peter Turchin to be really good. Aaron Bastani is a British progressive. I think Peter Turchin basically has a good explanation on what’s going on in US politics.

https://youtu.be/C7rLZejDznI?si=nsySrFewk2tcKV_t

You can also read his article in the Atlantic (if you have access):

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/06/us-societal-trends-institutional-trust-economy/674260/

[Anonymous]

Dems have objectively been supportive of:
- unions
- public education
- universal healthcare
- gun control
- pro choice
- social safety net
- universal free lunch

It’s BS (or delusional?) to say otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dems have objectively been supportive of:
- unions
- public education
- universal healthcare
- gun control
- pro choice
- social safety net
- universal free lunch

It’s BS (or delusional?) to say otherwise.

Unions: Since Bill Clinton, Democrats have constantly passed legislation to make unions weaker. Unions in the US are corrupt, bought and ineffective. A lot of it has to do with the system by which unions in the US operate (compare this to unions in Europe). There is no denying that voters in the rustbelt no longer vote democrat.

Public Education: Sure, on paper, Democrats support giving more money to schools. But progressives have pushed ineffective education pedagogies that lead to kids performing below grade level in math, reading and writing. The fallout from Lucy Calkins, balanced literacy and whole language has only just begun. Closing schools was probably not a good idea either. The majority of voters now believe that republicans are better when it comes to education. Also democrats love focusing on fluff as opposed to core subjects. I am a progressive who will be voting for republican school board members because of this.

Universal Healthcare: Democrats have done nothing on this. Obamacare is a boon to insurance companies and big pharma. Critics from the left and right correctly said that Obamacare would make healthcare more expensive. They were right.

Pro-choice: Democrats paid lip service to being pro choice for years but never bothered to codify Roe v Wade.

Obviously on abortion, the social safety net and gun control democrats are better than republicans. But they are ineffective so who cares? I am gonna be supporting republican candidates for the school board and local stuff. Not sure what I will do for everything else - I will either suck it up and vote democrat or not vote at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dems have objectively been supportive of:
- unions
- public education
- universal healthcare
- gun control
- pro choice
- social safety net
- universal free lunch

It’s BS (or delusional?) to say otherwise.

Unions: Since Bill Clinton, Democrats have constantly passed legislation to make unions weaker. Unions in the US are corrupt, bought and ineffective. A lot of it has to do with the system by which unions in the US operate (compare this to unions in Europe). There is no denying that voters in the rustbelt no longer vote democrat.

Public Education: Sure, on paper, Democrats support giving more money to schools. But progressives have pushed ineffective education pedagogies that lead to kids performing below grade level in math, reading and writing. The fallout from Lucy Calkins, balanced literacy and whole language has only just begun. Closing schools was probably not a good idea either. The majority of voters now believe that republicans are better when it comes to education. Also democrats love focusing on fluff as opposed to core subjects. I am a progressive who will be voting for republican school board members because of this.

Universal Healthcare: Democrats have done nothing on this. Obamacare is a boon to insurance companies and big pharma. Critics from the left and right correctly said that Obamacare would make healthcare more expensive. They were right.

Pro-choice: Democrats paid lip service to being pro choice for years but never bothered to codify Roe v Wade.

Obviously on abortion, the social safety net and gun control democrats are better than republicans. But they are ineffective so who cares? I am gonna be supporting republican candidates for the school board and local stuff. Not sure what I will do for everything else - I will either suck it up and vote democrat or not vote at all.

So much false information. Ridiculous.

When I read “The majority of voters now believe that republicans are better when it comes to education” I realized you were just trolling.

[Anonymous]

Lots of TRUE facts, not “false information” as you claim.

Why did Youngkin win the gubernatorial election, then, considering Terry M brought Randi Weingarten out to campaign for him?
🤡

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lots of TRUE facts, not “false information” as you claim.

Why did Youngkin win the gubernatorial election, then, considering Terry M brought Randi Weingarten out to campaign for him?
🤡

Because there are a bunch of spiteful fools in VA.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:you mean for trisomy-13 etc or down’s?

anomaly scan @20 weeks only predicts 50% of down’s
Older mothers really need the blood test screening test for Down syndrome, trisomy 13 and trisomy 18.

This screening test, offered to women with the highest risk for having a child with Down syndrome, (35+ yo mothers) is 99 percent accurate in screening for Down syndrome.

This means if 100 women were to have this test, 99 of the 100 would be detected. The test can be performed as early as 10 weeks of pregnancy.

There are all sorts of fetal anomalies, many that aren’t detected by blood test screening.

So, you want abortion on demand with no restrictions. Just stop tiptoeing and admit it. It’s okay to be honest when your mind has been made up.

“On demand”? It’s not a vending machine.

Doctors should make the call on the best medical care for their patients. Not you or me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Womp womp

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Hopefully they lay the blame squarely where it belongs-the GQP