The Sad, Unprincipled Political Shifting of Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA)

[RINO Tom]

he has at least retained more of a pro-life position than most national Democrats who once held it.   many more politicians have abandoned it completely.

Fun fact about Northeastern Catholic Democrats: Ted Kennedy was pro-life until he wasn't.

Slightly OT, but this is a good example of why I think we should always be skeptical of people claiming that a random Republican/Democrat from decades ago would clearly be a Democrat/Republican today because of his stance on some hot button issue like abortion ... I would say there is much more historical precedent for that politician to adapt his views on the issues to stay in line with the party that more closely matches his philosophies and motives.

Aren’t there studies which show that voters don’t shift parties but instead shift on issues to stay in the same group?
I don’t remember where I saw it so don’t take it as gospel, but I wouldn’t be surprised.

I'm not sure, but from my experience, many ~Romney-Clinton voters~ now just spout out basic Democratic talking points, and older people that I know who were ~Obama-Trump voters~ sound like pretty generic right wingers on economic stuff now ... which is why I'm incredibly skeptical that our current trends will have any type of lasting ideological impact on the parties.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

"Casey also supports over-the-counter sale of emergency contraception."


....is this a thing that is supposed to be controversial and some people are opposed to. Why? I've had to, um, help pay for Plan B for uh, a friend. I am thankful that Plan B can be sold over-the-counter. Why should it not be sold over the counter?

This is the equivalent of an abortion for those who adhere to the "life begins at conception" position so it's not surprising that it's controversial. That's in part why my position when I was pro-life was "implantation".

I am not reading a Fuzzy Bear post these days because I will learn nothing new from it, but I'm going to guess this is not an unprincipled shift but a fairly similar position to my own from a man I am proud to have represent me.

[TJ in Oregon]

"Casey also supports over-the-counter sale of emergency contraception."


....is this a thing that is supposed to be controversial and some people are opposed to. Why? I've had to, um, help pay for Plan B for uh, a friend. I am thankful that Plan B can be sold over-the-counter. Why should it not be sold over the counter?

This is the equivalent of an abortion for those who adhere to the "life begins at conception" position so it's not surprising that it's controversial. That's in part why my position when I was pro-life was "implantation".

I am not reading a Fuzzy Bear post these days because I will learn nothing new from it, but I'm going to guess this is not an unprincipled shift but a fairly similar position to my own from a man I am proud to have represent me.

It would be if Plan B prevented implantation rather than ovulation, but it most likely does not. You are confusing it with Mifepristone.

[Anti-Trump Truth Socialite JD Vance Enjoying Juror]

Fuzzy, an honest question: Why can't a person identify as (personally) pro-life yet support abortion being legal?

It is not hard for me at all to imagine a libertarian style argument along the lines of "I'd never get an abortion and I think it is immoral to get one; but it is not the job of the state to regulate morality".

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I'm with Fuzzy on this one. I don't have much respect for the political stance of being "personally pro-life" but thinking it's "not the state's job to regulate morality." People who are pro-life believe that life starts before birth, and that ending that life pre- or post-birth is murder. If a politician is "personally pro-life," but wants abortion to be legal what does that say about that politician? That they think murder is fine? That murder is a minor problem, not worth risking public disapproval over? I don't see how the position makes sense.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Thank you for the correction; I did mix up the drugs. I withdraw my comment and concur with DTC's original comment that it seems to make almost no sense as part of the pro-life absolutist position.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

"Casey also supports over-the-counter sale of emergency contraception."


....is this a thing that is supposed to be controversial and some people are opposed to. Why? I've had to, um, help pay for Plan B for uh, a friend. I am thankful that Plan B can be sold over-the-counter. Why should it not be sold over the counter?

This is the equivalent of an abortion for those who adhere to the "life begins at conception" position so it's not surprising that it's controversial. That's in part why my position when I was pro-life was "implantation".

I am not reading a Fuzzy Bear post these days because I will learn nothing new from it, but I'm going to guess this is not an unprincipled shift but a fairly similar position to my own from a man I am proud to have represent me.

It would be if Plan B prevented implantation rather than ovulation, but it most likely does not. You are confusing it with Mifepristone.

Liberal arts major here. Can you define both concepts and distinguish them in relation both to theology and to the drugs mentioned?

[Battista Minola 1616]

The USCCB is famous (among Catholics) for interpreting teachings like this in a more "abortion-first" way than other bishops' conferences. That's their prerogative, since bishops' conferences do have teaching authority. Especially since the USCCB is Casey's own bishops' conference (obviously), to the extent that he lacks principle on this, that is a problem. This is also reason #2 why I'd never be a Democratic officeholder above the local level myself, reason #1 being my impatience with things like protocol and rules of order. However, it's not really a sound basis for an Evangelical to tell Catholics which of their beliefs are more and less central.

Leaving aside whatever differences between the CEI and the USCCB may there be (and likely there are some), I can't express how much Fuzzy's comments on the subject boggle my mind as an Italian. I guess that by his logic every devout Catholic in Italy should vote The People of the Family (oof) or whatever similar crankish outlets? What the heck.

[TJ in Oregon]

The USCCB is famous (among Catholics) for interpreting teachings like this in a more "abortion-first" way than other bishops' conferences. That's their prerogative, since bishops' conferences do have teaching authority. Especially since the USCCB is Casey's own bishops' conference (obviously), to the extent that he lacks principle on this, that is a problem. This is also reason #2 why I'd never be a Democratic officeholder above the local level myself, reason #1 being my impatience with things like protocol and rules of order. However, it's not really a sound basis for an Evangelical to tell Catholics which of their beliefs are more and less central.

Leaving aside whatever differences between the CEI and the USCCB may there be (and likely there are some), I can't express how much Fuzzy's comments on the subject boggle my mind as an Italian. I guess that by his logic every devout Catholic in Italy should vote The People of the Family (oof) or whatever similar crankish outlets? What the heck.

On the contrary, I don't really see how any devout Catholic can regularly vote for politicians who support abortion to positions where they have an influence on abortion policy. If life begins at conception, then it's legalization is absolutely catastrophic (the US has ~800k abortions every year), so bad it makes very little sense to care at all about most other issues in comparison.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Fuzzy, an honest question: Why can't a person identify as (personally) pro-life yet support abortion being legal?

It is not hard for me at all to imagine a libertarian style argument along the lines of "I'd never get an abortion and I think it is immoral to get one; but it is not the job of the state to regulate morality".

This is sort of a weaksauce moderate-hero position to take on abortion specifically (ironically, given that it's one of the issues it's trotted out for most often). It comes across as a threadbare excuse given the extremely grave nature of abortion if indeed it's the sort of act that pro-lifers believe it is, and even more so given that the state already regulates morality in all sorts of other ways. (Technically, all laws seek to regulate morality since all laws express legislators' opinions about the way the world ought to be; even a law naming a post office after someone expresses the moral judgment that that person ought to be memorialized.) A far better personally-pro-life-but argument is a flatly consequentialist consideration that banning abortion would foster even greater social evils. That is a genre of argument that I think is very robust and on which I go back and forth over time, whereas the "legislating morality" argument is one for which I have nothing but contempt.

On the contrary, I don't really see how any devout Catholic can regularly vote for politicians who support abortion to positions where they have an influence on abortion policy.

I refused to vote for my current state senator this cycle even though she was running unopposed because one of her top priorities since first getting elected has been abortion policy liberalization and it's an issue on which she's been very influential, but for federal offices I apply a remote material cooperation standard the same way I do for candidates who promote other intrinsic evils.

[Battista Minola 1616]

The USCCB is famous (among Catholics) for interpreting teachings like this in a more "abortion-first" way than other bishops' conferences. That's their prerogative, since bishops' conferences do have teaching authority. Especially since the USCCB is Casey's own bishops' conference (obviously), to the extent that he lacks principle on this, that is a problem. This is also reason #2 why I'd never be a Democratic officeholder above the local level myself, reason #1 being my impatience with things like protocol and rules of order. However, it's not really a sound basis for an Evangelical to tell Catholics which of their beliefs are more and less central.

Leaving aside whatever differences between the CEI and the USCCB may there be (and likely there are some), I can't express how much Fuzzy's comments on the subject boggle my mind as an Italian. I guess that by his logic every devout Catholic in Italy should vote The People of the Family (oof) or whatever similar crankish outlets? What the heck.

On the contrary, I don't really see how any devout Catholic can regularly vote for politicians who support abortion to positions where they have an influence on abortion policy. If life begins at conception, then it's legalization is absolutely catastrophic (the US has ~800k abortions every year), so bad it makes very little sense to care at all about most other issues in comparison.

I evidently disagree (and well, so do many other people) but I'm not competent enough for a grand rebuttal, although it could be said that 'having influence on abortion policy' is a point that is entirely dependent on the political circumstances, and whatever other arguments.
In any case I have a question - although it will probably sound stupid. I've just found some article citing an OCSE report according to which some 75,000 deaths a year in Italy could be avoidable with better public health policy and healthcare assistance. Now, I couldn't gather in any more specific sense what was meant by that, but if one thinks certain politicians are going to do exactly that, would this for example not be just as equally important of an issue (in your opinion)? 75,000 is quite close to the number of abortions performed in Italy every year.

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

This is sort of a weaksauce moderate-hero position to take on abortion specifically (ironically, given that it's one of the issues it's trotted out for most often). It comes across as a threadbare excuse given the extremely grave nature of abortion if indeed it's the sort of act that pro-lifers believe it is, and even more so given that the state already regulates morality in all sorts of other ways. (Technically, all laws seek to regulate morality since all laws express legislators' opinions about the way the world ought to be; even a law naming a post office after someone expresses the moral judgment that that person ought to be memorialized.) A far better personally-pro-life-but argument is a flatly consequentialist consideration that banning abortion would foster even greater social evils. That is a genre of argument that I think is very robust and on which I go back and forth over time, whereas the "legislating morality" argument is one for which I have nothing but contempt.

But given pro-life premises, it seems hard to argue 800,000 deaths (or whatever sizable fraction of it would not have happened if abortion is made illegal) is less of a social evil than whatever would replace it should abortion be made illegal.

[Fuzzy Bear]

This is sort of a weaksauce moderate-hero position to take on abortion specifically (ironically, given that it's one of the issues it's trotted out for most often). It comes across as a threadbare excuse given the extremely grave nature of abortion if indeed it's the sort of act that pro-lifers believe it is, and even more so given that the state already regulates morality in all sorts of other ways. (Technically, all laws seek to regulate morality since all laws express legislators' opinions about the way the world ought to be; even a law naming a post office after someone expresses the moral judgment that that person ought to be memorialized.) A far better personally-pro-life-but argument is a flatly consequentialist consideration that banning abortion would foster even greater social evils. That is a genre of argument that I think is very robust and on which I go back and forth over time, whereas the "legislating morality" argument is one for which I have nothing but contempt.

But given pro-life premises, it seems hard to argue 800,000 deaths (or whatever sizable fraction of it would not have happened if abortion is made illegal) is less of a social evil than whatever would replace it should abortion be made illegal.

What RFayette said.

Abortion is an act that sheds innocent blood. 

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This is sort of a weaksauce moderate-hero position to take on abortion specifically (ironically, given that it's one of the issues it's trotted out for most often). It comes across as a threadbare excuse given the extremely grave nature of abortion if indeed it's the sort of act that pro-lifers believe it is, and even more so given that the state already regulates morality in all sorts of other ways. (Technically, all laws seek to regulate morality since all laws express legislators' opinions about the way the world ought to be; even a law naming a post office after someone expresses the moral judgment that that person ought to be memorialized.) A far better personally-pro-life-but argument is a flatly consequentialist consideration that banning abortion would foster even greater social evils. That is a genre of argument that I think is very robust and on which I go back and forth over time, whereas the "legislating morality" argument is one for which I have nothing but contempt.

But given pro-life premises, it seems hard to argue 800,000 deaths (or whatever sizable fraction of it would not have happened if abortion is made illegal) is less of a social evil than whatever would replace it should abortion be made illegal.

It does, which is why I don't see this argument as dispositive.

[TJ in Oregon]

The USCCB is famous (among Catholics) for interpreting teachings like this in a more "abortion-first" way than other bishops' conferences. That's their prerogative, since bishops' conferences do have teaching authority. Especially since the USCCB is Casey's own bishops' conference (obviously), to the extent that he lacks principle on this, that is a problem. This is also reason #2 why I'd never be a Democratic officeholder above the local level myself, reason #1 being my impatience with things like protocol and rules of order. However, it's not really a sound basis for an Evangelical to tell Catholics which of their beliefs are more and less central.

Leaving aside whatever differences between the CEI and the USCCB may there be (and likely there are some), I can't express how much Fuzzy's comments on the subject boggle my mind as an Italian. I guess that by his logic every devout Catholic in Italy should vote The People of the Family (oof) or whatever similar crankish outlets? What the heck.

On the contrary, I don't really see how any devout Catholic can regularly vote for politicians who support abortion to positions where they have an influence on abortion policy. If life begins at conception, then it's legalization is absolutely catastrophic (the US has ~800k abortions every year), so bad it makes very little sense to care at all about most other issues in comparison.

I evidently disagree (and well, so do many other people) but I'm not competent enough for a grand rebuttal, although it could be said that 'having influence on abortion policy' is a point that is entirely dependent on the political circumstances, and whatever other arguments.
In any case I have a question - although it will probably sound stupid. I've just found some article citing an OCSE report according to which some 75,000 deaths a year in Italy could be avoidable with better public health policy and healthcare assistance. Now, I couldn't gather in any more specific sense what was meant by that, but if one thinks certain politicians are going to do exactly that, would this for example not be just as equally important of an issue (in your opinion)? 75,000 is quite close to the number of abortions performed in Italy every year.

No, provided the 75,000 who die from less than ideal healthcare policies are not being killed intentionally. It is the difference between murder and something that is likely short of, but potentially rising to negligent homicide.

[Catholics vs. Convicts]

Bishop Barron said that it is morally permissible for American Catholics to vote for either Democrats or Republicans. A vote for a candidate of one party must be in spite of a morally unacceptable position they hold, not because of said unacceptable position. While abortion is arguably the most important issue as an American Catholic, trump's GOP being on the wrong side of basically every other issue by my estimation outweighs the Democrat's position on abortion.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Bishop Barron said that it is morally permissible for American Catholics to vote for either Democrats or Republicans. A vote for a candidate of one party must be in spite of a morally unacceptable position they hold, not because of said unacceptable position. While abortion is arguably the most important issue as an American Catholic, trump's GOP being on the wrong side of basically every other issue by my estimation outweighs the Democrat's position on abortion.

From a Catholic perspective, what issues is Trump on the wrong side of?  Do these issues really rise to the level of importance abortion holds from a Catholic perspective?

[Kingpoleon]

Fuzzy, an honest question: Why can't a person identify as (personally) pro-life yet support abortion being legal?

It is not hard for me at all to imagine a libertarian style argument along the lines of "I'd never get an abortion and I think it is immoral to get one; but it is not the job of the state to regulate morality".

I will assume ignorance rather than malignancy, not out of charity but out of probability.

If you view terminating the unborn as many theologians, ethicists, and doctors do - as equivalent to doing so to an adult - you don’t want to “legislate morality.” You just don’t want the law to allow us to murder one another unless you are a totally nihilistic anarchist. It is the foremost duty of government to protect the powerless from the powerful, and it is my highest obligation to be a voice for the voiceless. When the elephant steps upon the mouse’s tail, even the most virtuous mouse will despise your neutrality as a bystander. But rest assured: at least you have not taken sides in right and wrong. I am sure Satan himself appreciates such neutral enablers.

[Former President tack50]

The USCCB is famous (among Catholics) for interpreting teachings like this in a more "abortion-first" way than other bishops' conferences. That's their prerogative, since bishops' conferences do have teaching authority. Especially since the USCCB is Casey's own bishops' conference (obviously), to the extent that he lacks principle on this, that is a problem. This is also reason #2 why I'd never be a Democratic officeholder above the local level myself, reason #1 being my impatience with things like protocol and rules of order. However, it's not really a sound basis for an Evangelical to tell Catholics which of their beliefs are more and less central.

Leaving aside whatever differences between the CEI and the USCCB may there be (and likely there are some), I can't express how much Fuzzy's comments on the subject boggle my mind as an Italian. I guess that by his logic every devout Catholic in Italy should vote The People of the Family (oof) or whatever similar crankish outlets? What the heck.

Wouldn't Lega or Fratelli be pro-life? (though even if they did get into power I wouldn't expect them to criminalize abortion; such a policy tends to be horribly unpopular in most European countries outside of like Poland and 1-2 others)

[Battista Minola 1616]

The USCCB is famous (among Catholics) for interpreting teachings like this in a more "abortion-first" way than other bishops' conferences. That's their prerogative, since bishops' conferences do have teaching authority. Especially since the USCCB is Casey's own bishops' conference (obviously), to the extent that he lacks principle on this, that is a problem. This is also reason #2 why I'd never be a Democratic officeholder above the local level myself, reason #1 being my impatience with things like protocol and rules of order. However, it's not really a sound basis for an Evangelical to tell Catholics which of their beliefs are more and less central.

Leaving aside whatever differences between the CEI and the USCCB may there be (and likely there are some), I can't express how much Fuzzy's comments on the subject boggle my mind as an Italian. I guess that by his logic every devout Catholic in Italy should vote The People of the Family (oof) or whatever similar crankish outlets? What the heck.

Wouldn't Lega or Fratelli be pro-life? (though even if they did get into power I wouldn't expect them to criminalize abortion; such a policy tends to be horribly unpopular in most European countries outside of like Poland and 1-2 others)

Lmao no.
The contemporary right-wing has never given a damn about it and I'm pretty sure the topic isn't even mentioned in their platforms. In fact I once read an article by Tommaso Scandroglio, a quasi-famous guy who writes for niche crankish right-wing Catholic outlets, that was all about praising Trump on the subject and deprecating Lega and FdI because they never even pretend to do anything about law n. 194.

But to be fair I'm not sure that even the Democrazia Cristiana planned to do anything substantive on the subject after 1981 (for pretty obvious reasons - you don't try to pass a bill to repeal a law after a referendum to repeal that same law was turned down 66-34, especially when you are the largest governing party and have a gazillion other things to occupy yourself with) which to be fair also begs the question of whether inaction entails remote cooperation and at what levels, which I'm not qualified to answer.

In any case sorry to add to the dunkfest but your "not legislating morality" thing was rather silly. Pretty much whatever you do is legislating morality especially on a topic with huge moral implications like this one.

[Brittain33]

Bishop Barron said that it is morally permissible for American Catholics to vote for either Democrats or Republicans. A vote for a candidate of one party must be in spite of a morally unacceptable position they hold, not because of said unacceptable position. While abortion is arguably the most important issue as an American Catholic, trump's GOP being on the wrong side of basically every other issue by my estimation outweighs the Democrat's position on abortion.

From a Catholic perspective, what issues is Trump on the wrong side of?  Do these issues really rise to the level of importance abortion holds from a Catholic perspective?

He insulted the Pope on Twitter, that seems kind of unCatholic.

[It’s so Joever]

Bishop Barron said that it is morally permissible for American Catholics to vote for either Democrats or Republicans. A vote for a candidate of one party must be in spite of a morally unacceptable position they hold, not because of said unacceptable position. While abortion is arguably the most important issue as an American Catholic, trump's GOP being on the wrong side of basically every other issue by my estimation outweighs the Democrat's position on abortion.

From a Catholic perspective, what issues is Trump on the wrong side of?  Do these issues really rise to the level of importance abortion holds from a Catholic perspective?

Literally everything that isn’t abortion?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Fuzzy, an honest question: Why can't a person identify as (personally) pro-life yet support abortion being legal?

It is not hard for me at all to imagine a libertarian style argument along the lines of "I'd never get an abortion and I think it is immoral to get one; but it is not the job of the state to regulate morality".

I missed this yesterday.

The issue for me, of course, is the humanity of the fetus.  A fetus is a human being at a stage of human development you and I were at.  It also contains, from conception onward, an eternal soul.  To kill an unborn human being is the taking of INNOCENT life; the shedding of INNOCENT blood.

Abortion isn't Birth Control.  Whatever one thinks of Birth Control, it's not something that takes an innocent life.  The Libertarian argument applies there.  Abortion involves taking something that is not yours to take, and granting the right to take the innocent life of an unborn human being is granting something that is not yours to grant.

This is why I can't side with the so-called "Libertarian" stance on this.  It undermines the most basic human right; the right to live.  The unborn have this right, but cannot defend it without adult humans acting on their defense.  This right, the right of the unborn, comes into conflict with other rights.  How we resolve the conflicts between rights determines how humane a society we are.  The right to life is the most fundamental human right, and the most fundamental Constitutional right.  What does it say when a society cancels the fundamental human right to life in favor of another's right to make a temporal choice?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

he has at least retained more of a pro-life position than most national Democrats who once held it.   many more politicians have abandoned it completely.

Fun fact about Northeastern Catholic Democrats: Ted Kennedy was pro-life until he wasn't.

Slightly OT, but this is a good example of why I think we should always be skeptical of people claiming that a random Republican/Democrat from decades ago would clearly be a Democrat/Republican today because of his stance on some hot button issue like abortion ... I would say there is much more historical precedent for that politician to adapt his views on the issues to stay in line with the party that more closely matches his philosophies and motives.

Yes and in virtually every case where the opposite has happened, it is because the partisan lean of the area in which he is has also shifted thus leading to the "resist, compromise, succumb" dynamic I have talked about in regards to areas experiencing such shifts. This is why in the 1970s there was little in the way of party changers, whereas in the 1990s there were several.

While it is not my objective to belittle the mindset of a Fuzzy Bear or even a Torie when it comes to the doctrine "The Party left me", because their gripes are legitimate. That said, when this happens you often see a myopic view of a given party in ones own image and thus when the party evolves or discards certain issues to facilitate success on the main cause, you get people who feel left behind. The reality is though, the Party hasn't really changed in its relative positioning in decades (or in some cases ever), it has just remade its coalition and math for facilitating those objectives and in doing so people get "left behind" and then have to square how they were supporting a previous decades/cycles Democrats and Liberals. The strength and comforting nature of Party Flip theory flows right into this chasm and saves one from a lot of difficult questions. It also feeds off of a culture group's sense of superiority relative to the other regardless of the positions they were in effect facilitating as a result. That is why party flip is so popular with WASP Democrats and with Southerners.

Republicans have been a pro-business Conservative Party since at least 1896 (arguably before but I don't want to hash that out in here), but cultural identity and perception of elitism versus populism is often more powerful and often overrides ideological parameters in determining affiliation. Its why a lot of Conservatives today like to try and claim JFK even though if he had been alive later, he would have likely followed the same path as his brother Ted and would have agitated and annoyed Republicans and Conservatives to no end. But there are a lot of people, especially Catholics, who supported JFK then supported Nixon, Reagan and later Republicans, though at the same time a number of these people had also supported Ike. The fact that JFK died and died before the late 60s and early 70s when a lot of this shook itself out, opens the door to such misguided analysis that JFK would be a Republican today or Democrats would be more socially conservative if he had lived.

There are many examples where this also applies like with say HHH who was pro-life, but I don't think anyone would claim HHH is a conservative.

What it comes down to is that the Party's feed off cultural and tribal rivalries and these have often determined support levels in various groups, regardless of that party's ideology and many positions taken are done so to smooth over the relationship with said group and since people and populations are constantly moving and shifting and changing in generational terms, it means that the party's are constantly having to adapt to this shifting landscape.

A lot of the people who supported Bob Casey Jr. in 2006 are Trump Republicans now. A lot of the people that supported Bob Casey Jr in 2018 were probably Arlen Specter Republicans in 2004. This cultural sorting has an impact and what worked for Casey two decades ago, would not work now. As a loyal Democrat that he is and yes liberal on most issues that he is and has always been, he is sticking to the core group that his family has always adhered to back to the Depression and before and adapting to match its current cultural base.

[RINO Tom]

^ Great post.  While also not trying to diss Fuzzy or Torie, the fact is they were both putting up with the same types of disagreeable Democrats and Republicans, respectively, for YEARS while in their former parties, and it was only after they left that this belief that they could never be in a party with those types of voters becomes part of their political identity, leading them - just IMO - to then reframe what their former parties actually were and what their new parties actually are in a falsified manner.  The fact is, the Democrats of 2012 are incredibly similar to the Democrats of 2020, and how Elliott County, KY or Orange County, CA voted in any given election is but a blip on that radar.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

^ Great post.  While also not trying to diss Fuzzy or Torie, the fact is they were both putting up with the same types of disagreeable Democrats and Republicans, respectively, for YEARS while in their former parties, and it was only after they left that this belief that they could never be in a party with those types of voters becomes part of their political identity, leading them - just IMO - to then reframe what their former parties actually were and what their new parties actually are in a falsified manner.  The fact is, the Democrats of 2012 are incredibly similar to the Democrats of 2020, and how Elliott County, KY or Orange County, CA voted in any given election is but a blip on that radar.

Perception is often a lagging indicator of reality.