U.S. Politics: Can't Stand It, I Know Ya Planned It, Gotta Set It Straight this Morongate

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

23 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Has there been any attempt at all to find out how many people were denied their right to vote in states like Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania due to GOP vote suppression bullshit? When a state is lost by a few thousand votes, and there was less than expected turnout in major cities, with Republicans openly disenfranchising as many people as they can get away with, it's hard to escape the idea that the entire country got swindled and fucked over by a few corrupt state officials.

I can’t speak for each state you mentioned, but I believe the number for Wisconsin was something like 200,000 voters that were purged from the voting rolls before the election (someone correct me if I’m wrong, just going off of memory). But going forward, the problem will not be a few corrupt states. Check this out. Kobach’s committee has now been proven to be a backdoor attempt to achieve widespread national voter restrictions.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a12819768/trump-kobach-voter-fraud-commission/

[Morpheus]

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

This is how democracies die. And this tweet is in response to several networks reporting that Trump wanted to expand our nuclear arsenal tenfold.

The increasing demands for media control (the NFL is already caving, ESPN too) and the fact that Steve Bannon and even people currently working for the Trump admistration think that Congress' first loyalty should be to Trump and defectors should be purged (or as Bannon suggested of Corker, resign immediately) are very worrying.

[Zorral]

So many friends' health, their homes, their pets, are threatened by the latest round of California wildfires.

One by one  it looks as though Climate Collapse will certainly help out the Destroyers in the mid-term elections  as so many regions that are bastions of environmental protection and progressive action of all kinds are taken out, and people have to re-locate out of their voting districts, and rebuild their lives -- if they can.

There is a lot of speculation, of course, that the relocations of at least a million Puerto Ricans to the mainland, where they CAN vote in presidential elections, so many of them in Florida, may have an impact on that election, perhaps.  But that's not the midterms.

 

[Ice Queen]

56 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I can’t speak for each state you mentioned, but I believe the number for Wisconsin was something like 200,000 voters that were purged from the voting rolls before the election (someone correct me if I’m wrong, just going off of memory). But going forward, the problem will not be a few corrupt states. Check this out. Kobach’s committee has now been proven to be a backdoor attempt to achieve widespread national voter restrictions.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a12819768/trump-kobach-voter-fraud-commission/

I think PA was somewhere around 345,000. 

[DanteGabriel]

58 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I can’t speak for each state you mentioned, but I believe the number for Wisconsin was something like 200,000 voters that were purged from the voting rolls before the election (someone correct me if I’m wrong, just going off of memory). But going forward, the problem will not be a few corrupt states. Check this out. Kobach’s committee has now been proven to be a backdoor attempt to achieve widespread national voter restrictions.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a12819768/trump-kobach-voter-fraud-commission/

I just came across something that excerpted part of a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article that reported roughly 20,000 voters turned away by Wisconsin's voter ID law in one county alone. There are a few voter suppression points here:

https://journalisms.theroot.com/did-voter-suppression-give-trump-the-election-1819356154

Kobach is an obvious fraud whose mere presence should have everyone checking their wallets. And it's roughly 100% likely that Trump intends to rob Americans of their voting rights in order to keep power. But it doesn't seem like Democrats are even paying attention.

[Fez]

11 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

I just came across something that excerpted part of a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article that reported roughly 20,000 voters turned away by Wisconsin's voter ID law in one county alone. There are a few voter suppression points here:

https://journalisms.theroot.com/did-voter-suppression-give-trump-the-election-1819356154

Kobach is an obvious fraud whose mere presence should have everyone checking their wallets. And it's roughly 100% likely that Trump intends to rob Americans of their voting rights in order to keep power. But it doesn't seem like Democrats are even paying attention.

Some Democratic groups are (Holder's voting rights organization for one), the problem is that most left-leaning activist groups completely ignore this kind of nitty, gritty stuff and focusing on the latest shiny objects; random special elections and one-off policy issues that don't have a huge impact (so much wasted energy on the Keystone pipeline that could've been better served elsewhere).

If it weren't for the fact that there some extremely dedicated lawyers working behind the scenes trying their best to protect civil rights, the left in this country would be completely crushed at this point (as opposed to being very down, but not out yet).

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

That feels like a secondary problem, Fez. I think the main one is that Democrats don’t understand the game they’re playing. They still think this is a fair fight.  And they’re dead wrong.

[Fez]

23 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That feels like a secondary problem, Fez. I think the main one is that Democrats don’t understand the game they’re playing. They still think this is a fair fight.  And they’re dead wrong.

I think if Democrats showed the same of political engagement (state and local races count!), dedication (contest hostile territory races, you never know when you'll get a break), and understanding (there is literally nothing more important than SCOTUS seats) as Republicans it would be a fair fight even now.

The rules haven't changed that much yet; but they probably will if Democrats keep losing.

[Ice Queen]

3 minutes ago, Fez said:

I think if Democrats showed the same of political engagement (state and local races count!), dedication (contest hostile territory races, you never know when you'll get a break), and understanding (there is literally nothing more important than SCOTUS seats) as Republicans it would be a fair fight even now.

The rules haven't changed that much yet; but they probably will if Democrats keep losing.

Well, Democrats at the local level know that their districts are gerrymandered to death and they know their votes won't count. No matter how many Democrats turn out to vote, they will not win. It's not that they're not engaged but that they feel the futility of showing up except in presidential elections. 

[Fez]

6 minutes ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

Well, Democrats at the local level know that their districts are gerrymandered to death and they know their votes won't count. No matter how many Democrats turn out to vote, they will not win. It's not that they're not engaged but that they feel the futility of showing up except in presidential elections. 

Not every local district is gerrymandered; some states have no gerrymanders at all, a few are even gerrymandered in favor of Democrats. But they pretty much all have this problem.

Also, the most effective gerrymanders are ones where the party that did them is just barely safe, that way the maximum number of seats can be gerrymandered. Which means when the wave is big enough, which in most states it regularly would be if Democrats voted at the same frequency as Republicans, the gerrymander falls apart.

Finally, senate and governor races are not gerrymandered at all, but the same problems arise there as well.

[Ice Queen]

28 minutes ago, Fez said:

Not every local district is gerrymandered; some states have no gerrymanders at all, a few are even gerrymandered in favor of Democrats. But they pretty much all have this problem.

Also, the most effective gerrymanders are ones where the party that did them is just barely safe, that way the maximum number of seats can be gerrymandered. Which means when the wave is big enough, which in most states it regularly would be if Democrats voted at the same frequency as Republicans, the gerrymander falls apart.

Finally, senate and governor races are not gerrymandered at all, but the same problems arise there as well.

I live in PA and I can tell you right now that there is NO WAY the Democrats will take Tim Murphy's seat even if every Democrat in western PA turned out to vote. They packed as many Democrats as they could into the 12th and 14th districts (which covers the city of Pittsburgh). In District 18 (which is Murphy's district and mine), there are 70,000+ more Democrats than Republicans. 70,000. Statewide there are 900,000 more Democrats than Republicans, but Democrats simply can't win. Democrats in PA 18 know their votes don't count for anything. It's even worse in districts like PA 7.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

Well, Democrats at the local level know that their districts are gerrymandered to death and they know their votes won't count. No matter how many Democrats turn out to vote, they will not win. It's not that they're not engaged but that they feel the futility of showing up except in presidential elections. 

All the more reason the Dems should be focused on off-year/cycle state and local elections - to put as many Dems as possible in governor seats and state legislatures to prevent the same type of gerrymandering from happening next time around.

[Red Tiger]

1 hour ago, dmc515 said:

All the more reason the Dems should be focused on off-year/cycle state and local elections - to put as many Dems as possible in governor seats and state legislatures to prevent the same type of gerrymandering from happening next time around.

But how? At this point it seems to me like the Republican = State authority and Democrat = federal government narrative is way too strong. People are eating that shit up.

[Ice Queen]

33 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

All the more reason the Dems should be focused on off-year/cycle state and local elections - to put as many Dems as possible in governor seats and state legislatures to prevent the same type of gerrymandering from happening next time around.

Heh. That's even worse. Our state government is run by Republicans (although the governor is a Democrat). And it's the state government that draws the map. 

From Wiki:

The General Assembly has 253 members, consisting of a Senate with 50 members and a House of Representatives with 203 members, making it the second-largest state legislature in the nation (behind New Hampshire) and the largest full-time legislature. As of 2014, members' base pay was $85,356,^[1] making it the costliest state legislature per capita in the U.S.^[2] Republicans hold a 31-19 majority in the Senate and a 120-83 majority in the House.

Keep in mind that there are nearly a million more registered Democrats than Republicans statewide. 

I really don't know what other states experience, but it seems to me that the only fair way to do it, so that all people are represented, is to have a computer draw the lines. 

[Ice Queen]

9 minutes ago, Red Tiger said:

But how? At this point it seems to me like the Republican = State authority and Democrat = federal government narrative is way too strong. People are eating that shit up.

Yes, and local governments are starting to rebel now that they're realizing that the state governments want their sticky little fingers in local pies and overreaching on their attempt at controlling those cities. 

http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2017/01/25/expect-more-conflict-between-cities-and-states

[DMC]

16 minutes ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

Heh. That's even worse. Our state government is run by Republicans (although the governor is a Democrat). And it's the state government that draws the map. 

Keep in mind that there are nearly a million more registered Democrats than Republicans statewide. 

I really don't know what other states experience, but it seems to me that the only fair way to do it, so that all people are represented, is to have a computer draw the lines. 

Well, first, having a Democratic governor should help (Corbett was governor during the last redistricting) as he can veto any plan - so make sure to reelect Wolf in 2018!  Second, in terms of the assembly, a lot of that gap between registration numbers and partisan makeup is precisely because of who turns out for local elections, that's the entire point.  Third, PA actually has one of the oldest and least "partisan" redistricting methods for state legislature seats:

Quote

State legislative district lines are drawn by a politician commission. Established in 1968, the commission comprises five members:^[33]

1. The majority leader of the Pennsylvania State Senate appoints one member.
2. The minority leader of the Pennsylvania State Senate appoints one member.
3. The majority leader of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives appoints one member.
4. The minority leader of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives appoints one member.
5. The first four commissioners appoint a fifth member to serve as the commission's chair. If the commission is unable to reach an agreement, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court must appoint a commission chair.^[33]

The Pennsylvania Constitution requires that state legislative districts be contiguous and compact. Further, state legislative districts should "respect county, city, incorporated town, borough, township and ward boundaries." There are no such requirements in place for congressional districts.^[33]

 

25 minutes ago, Red Tiger said:

But how? At this point it seems to me like the Republican = State authority and Democrat = federal government narrative is way too strong. People are eating that shit up.

By turning out in greater numbers!

[S John]

3 minutes ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

Yes, and local governments are starting to rebel now that they're realizing that the state governments want their sticky little fingers in local pies and overreaching on their attempt at controlling those cities. 

http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2017/01/25/expect-more-conflict-between-cities-and-states

There's been a lot of tit for tat lately between Texas Gov. Greg Abbot and Texas cities, with the City of Austin as a particularly favorite target.  Not only about sanctuary cities but also about local ordinances that Abbot wants state law to override, including a recent one over city tree ordinances in Texas.  The cherry on top of that one is Abbot was personally pissed that an Austin ordinance prevented him from cutting down a Pecan tree in his yard about 5 or 6 years ago, so it was also a weird fulfillment of a personal vendetta that changed law state wide.    

I kinda get the states rights arguments from a 'local government is the best government' kind of perspective, but to then go and prove yourself totally full of shit by imposing the state government's will onto city government concerns comes off as insanely hypocritical.  In the case of Austin it seems that most of it has to do with the state government taking any opportunity it can to give the finger to the famously liberal capital of a famously conservative state.  There's been pushback from the Austin mayor and other officials against the governor, but there's little that can be done other than complain because conservatives dominate the state government.  

[Jace, Extat]

4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

This is how democracies die. And this tweet is in response to several networks reporting that Trump wanted to expand our nuclear arsenal tenfold.

Nah.

 

[Paladin of Ice]

2 hours ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

Well, Democrats at the local level know that their districts are gerrymandered to death and they know their votes won't count. No matter how many Democrats turn out to vote, they will not win. It's not that they're not engaged but that they feel the futility of showing up except in presidential elections. 

Hopefully the Supreme Court will curtail political gerrymandering, and sharply. Honestly, the system of American politics is increasingly becoming so antiquated, sclerosed, and polarized that I've increasingly come to believe that without such nudges towards reform from the courts the system will simply grow worse and break down a piece at a time until things get so bad that Constitution 2.0 is unavoidable.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, Fez said:

I think if Democrats showed the same of political engagement (state and local races count!), dedication (contest hostile territory races, you never know when you'll get a break), and understanding (there is literally nothing more important than SCOTUS seats) as Republicans it would be a fair fight even now.

The rules haven't changed that much yet; but they probably will if Democrats keep losing.

You’re absolutely correct from a campaigning perspective, but that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about the mentality of the Democratic party. We’ve got to get tougher and show some spine. Take the Resistance movement as an example. It’s been effective so far, but I fear that Democrats might start caving because it’s more in their nature to want to have legislative achievements. Now that’s not to say that Democrats should behave like the Republicans did and obstruct everything, but they need to be a lot tougher than they’ve been in the past and be willing to play hardball when it’s called for.