US Politics: A Feast for Crows

[Ormond]

10 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

DMC,

I’m not saying the Senate is something that should be above change.  I’m simply pointing out that equal representation in the Senate is literally the only thing in the US Constitution that would require unanimous ratification to change.

Why can't you first have an amendment to get rid of the sentence that says no state can be denied equal representation in the Senate without its consent, and then have another amendment changing that? I don't see why that particular sentence in the constitution is ultimately any more unchangeable by amendment than any other. 

[Paladin of Ice]

A topic that got ignored yesterday to gossip about Occasio-Cortez has rapidly come true: Wisconsin Republicans gutted the power of the governor and state Attorney General to spite Democrats, who won both positions in the midterms.

State Legislators had openly admitted they did this largely to prevent Democrats from being able to make changes to the agenda Republicans had set over the prior years.

Quote

“Most of these items are things that either we never really had to kind of address because, guess what? We trusted Scott Walker and the administration to be able to manage the back-and-forth with the legislature,” Wisconsin Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R) said Monday in an interview with conservative radio host Jay Weber. “We don’t trust Tony Evers right now in a lot of these areas.”

Pretty high quality contempt for Democracy and the people right there. The sort you don't usually see outside of actual dictatorships.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Ormond said:

Why can't you first have an amendment to get rid of the sentence that says no state can be denied equal representation in the Senate without its consent, and then have another amendment changing that? I don't see why that particular sentence in the constitution is ultimately any more unchangeable by amendment than any other. 

You’ve raised that before.  It’s an interesting twist.  It would absolutely be challenged if attempted and I suspect it would fail.  But, hey anything is possible.

[Maithanet]

This Wisconsin news is really depressing.  The only good news is that it'll get challenged in court (obviously), and there's hope there. 

Wisconsin was the tipping point state in 2016, and looking ahead to the 2020 Presidential election, it looks like the best bet to be the tipping point state again.  Of course, Democrats have the southern path, to try and win one of NC/GA/FL/TX/AZ to replace a loss in WI.  But it seems pretty obvious to me that the easiest path for Republicans or Democrats to win the Presidency hinges on Wisconsin. 

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

20 hours ago, DMC said:

It's not backed up by research either.  There's one article I recall that was panel data asking the same people for 30 years, and there was little change.  Gen X actually was pretty split on partisanship as youths, but once the millennials begin to dominate the GOP is clearly in trouble.

Incidentally, though anecdotal, both of my own parents (born in '56) have become more liberal with age. My mother was a lifelong Democrat, but George W. Bush was a breaking point for my father, who switched parties from Republican to Democrat in '04 and has increasingly embraced liberal politics ever since.

[Fez]

41 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

This Wisconsin news is really depressing.  The only good news is that it'll get challenged in court (obviously), and there's hope there. 

Wisconsin was the tipping point state in 2016, and looking ahead to the 2020 Presidential election, it looks like the best bet to be the tipping point state again.  Of course, Democrats have the southern path, to try and win one of NC/GA/FL/TX/AZ to replace a loss in WI.  But it seems pretty obvious to me that the easiest path for Republicans or Democrats to win the Presidency hinges on Wisconsin. 

With all the fuckery the state legislatures are trying to pull right now, Democrats should not be pinning their presidential hopes on Wisconsin or North Carolina at this point. Voter suppression in both is going to be off the charts in 2020.

I think the easiest Democratic path at this point is the Clinton states+PA+MI+AZ. Sinema's final victory margin was 2.4%, and that was against a pretty generic Republican who ran a pro-Trump campaign. Arizona is ready to elect statewide Democrats again, at least in the current Trump era (Ducey did win re-election in a landslide, but he was running as a pro-business moderate against an underfunded opponent). Plus, Arizona also just elected a Democrat to be state secretary of state (another statewide win), who will be able to block most attempts at voter suppression and even be able to expand voting access.

[Ice Queen]

30 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You’ve raised that before.  It’s an interesting twist.  It would absolutely be challenged if attempted and I suspect it would fail.  But, hey anything is possible.

I think the number of Senators from each state is set in stone and it's never going to change.

The HoR is another story. When was the last time the number of representatives was increased? The early 20th century? The population has grown exponentially since then but there are still the same number of representatives.

[Maithanet]

2 minutes ago, Fez said:

With all the fuckery the state legislatures are trying to pull right now, Democrats should not be pinning their presidential hopes on Wisconsin or North Carolina at this point. Voter suppression in both is going to be off the charts in 2020.

Won't the democratic governors in both be able to keep that down?  I know that's exactly what the WI and NC legislatures were attacking, but that was when they weren't in office yet.  The NC case is still in court, and thus far the rulings look favorable to Democrats, and the 2020 legislative map will be revised to be less egregious.  The WI case will go to court, and there's hope there as well, although with only 2 years I'm not sure there's time to get a decision prior to Nov 2020. 

I think Arizona is unlikely to come through as a tipping state for Democrats.  Yes, Sinema won against a competent Republican in McSally, but that was in a wave year for Democrats.  I suspect that if the election is close, Arizona is going red.  I honestly hold out more hope that somehow, someway, Florida comes through. 

Bonus - can you imagine the shitstorm if the Democrats pick up PA, MI and ME-2 (or NE-2), giving a 269-269 split?  We could have a Democratic President and Vice President Pence.  *

* Just kidding, Trump would declare a state of emergency before letting the House of Representatives pick a Democratic President. 

[Guest]

Well, in addition to the chicanery that went on in Bladen County, NC during the 2018 election for NC's 9th District, we have more news regarding Republican vote fraud/election tampering:

Long Island, NY election workers and party officials charged with forging signatures

Quote

A local Republican party leader, Amos Goodman, is expected to be charged later this week on similar counts.

Election workers William Mann and Gregory Dickerson and party leader Patricia Mansir allegedly wrote false names, some belonging to dead people, on Green Party, Independence and Republican nominating petitions to try to increase the chances for the Republican candidates.

It seems odd that Republicans are so concerned about the sanctity of the vote, but only pass election security laws that don't interfere with their chosen method of cheating in elections. Can't imagine why that would be.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

52 minutes ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

I think the number of Senators from each state is set in stone and it's never going to change.

The HoR is another story. When was the last time the number of representatives was increased? The early 20th century? The population has grown exponentially since then but there are still the same number of representatives.

It was set early in the 20th Century, in part, because they ran out of space for new desks in the House chamber.  I strongly support increasing the number of House members.  I’d really love to do away with single member districts and elect on a state by state proportional representation system.

[lokisnow]

53 minutes ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

I think the number of Senators from each state is set in stone and it's never going to change.

The HoR is another story. When was the last time the number of representatives was increased? The early 20th century? The population has grown exponentially since then but there are still the same number of representatives.

The last time it was changed the size was increased so there’d be one representative for every 125,000 people, population growth and immigration in the prior ten years meant that the previous reapportionment of 100,000 per representative was now way off and they were more like every 160,000 people and that was viewed as unacceptably unrepresentative.

but there was a problem, they increased it to 435 because that is how many desks fit in the room. After this point politicians asked themselves what was more important: 

representation and democracy or antique desks? And for over a hundred years the desks have won that battle as being more important every time the question has been asked.

reapportionment standards were supposed to be in the bill of rights but it was one of the only amendements in that package which didn’t pass.

[lokisnow]

Things are simmering away in the 2020 pres primary. Two news stories out today involving insiders. Beto o rourke met with Barack Obama about running and deval Patrick subsequently dropped out of the race. Invisible primary season is upon us.

[Maithanet]

6 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Things are simmering away in the 2020 pres primary. Two news stories out today involving insiders. Beto o rourke met with Barack Obama about running and deval Patrick subsequently dropped out of the race. Invisible primary season is upon us. 

I feel like Deval Patrick could see that there really wasn't a path to the nomination for him.  I hope that a lot of the second and third tier contenders take a hard look at whether they really have a "niche" that they could exploit to gain a portion of the Democratic electorate while the winnowing occurs.  

I'm all for having a variety of candidates running in 2020, but if the list grows to 15+ people (as it's expected to), then some of those people are going to get completely crowded out. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Just now, lokisnow said:

Things are simmering away in the 2020 pres primary. Two news stories out today involving insiders. Beto o rourke met with Barack Obama about running and deval Patrick subsequently dropped out of the race. Invisible primary season is upon us.

There was also this other headline I stumblend upon.

Biden: I am the most qualified candidate to run.

Which somehow sent a chill down my spine. Nothing against crazy uncle Joe, but I think he is simply too old to run in 2020. His chance was 2016, but there things were simply not meant to be for him, with this death of his son and so on.

But him running in 2020 feels a bit like of a re-run of the Hillary 2016 campaign - in the sense of the political spirit of elections past shows up on stage. Feel free to call me an ageist on that matter; I won't be denying it.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

1 hour ago, lokisnow said:

The last time it was changed the size was increased so there’d be one representative for every 125,000 people, population growth and immigration in the prior ten years meant that the previous reapportionment of 100,000 per representative was now way off and they were more like every 160,000 people and that was viewed as unacceptably unrepresentative.

but there was a problem, they increased it to 435 because that is how many desks fit in the room. After this point politicians asked themselves what was more important: 

representation and democracy or antique desks? And for over a hundred years the desks have won that battle as being more important every time the question has been asked.

reapportionment standards were supposed to be in the bill of rights but it was one of the only amendements in that package which didn’t pass.

I'm strongly against expanding the House as I believe that increasing the size of the body would (further) diminish its power and further empower the executive branch.  I actually think it is already probably already too big to be all that effective.  That said, I don't agree with how Senators are apportioned either.

[Maithanet]

2 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

But him running in 2020 feels a bit like of a re-run of the Hillary 2016 campaign - in the sense of the political spirit of elections past shows up on stage. Feel free to call me an ageist on that matter; I won't be denying it.

I agree completely, although I think there's more than just age working against him.  He is an old white man seeking to lead a political party that is angry at the disproportionate power of old white men.  His treatment of women is sometimes questionable, and I've no doubt that Trump will take whataboutism to a new level to cover up his own crimes.  He represents the old guard of the Democratic party in a way that even other older candidates such as Sanders does not. 

He missed his moment, just like Warren did.  I think either Biden or Warren would have had a good chance of beating Clinton in 2016, and in all likelihood would have run slightly stronger than Clinton in the general. (Although who can tell, really?) 

[Zorral]

8 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I feel like Deval Patrick could see that there really wasn't a path to the nomination for him.  I hope that a lot of the second and third tier contenders take a hard look at whether they really have a "niche" that they could exploit to gain a portion of the Democratic electorate while the winnowing occurs.  

I'm all for having a variety of candidates running in 2020, but if the list grows to 15+ people (as it's expected to), then some of those people are going to get completely crowded out. 

Biden's broadcasting his desperation, flatly insisting HE IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE CHOICE. (Though why he should even be considered he doesn't even bother to inform anyone -- he's Biden!)  And um, suddenly, in the so-called mainstream more sane liberal media stories appear overnight that Beto's peaked and is over.

Masculine fragility -- so much, so everywhere, so in everything!  

[Ormond]

3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You’ve raised that before.  It’s an interesting twist.  It would absolutely be challenged if attempted and I suspect it would fail.  But, hey anything is possible.

I believe this sort of thinking has you back in the 19th century instead of putting yourself in what the world would be like IF the first amendment passed.

Since it takes 3/4 of the states to pass an amendment, IF the amendment deleting the sentence about states' equal representation in the Senate were passed, that would mean that the majority of the states that would be "hurt" by the amendment would have voted for it.

And that means that support of the change would surely be overwhelming among voters, including voters in the smaller states. After all, the class of people in the "small" states most "harmed" by the change would be the politicians in the state legislatures themselves, since it would diminish their personal chances of ever being able to be part of the "prestigious" body the federal Senate is seen to be.  

So if the first amendment passes, for the courts to then invalidate it would be completely flying in the face of what was perceived by the huge majority of the population as a small-d democratic reform. That's the point when "packing the Supreme Court" would become a completely viable option to the majority of the electorate. So I really don't see how at that historical moment the courts would go against the will of the people -- which again, by then would include the will of the majority in the small population states. 

 

[Fez]

2 hours ago, Maithanet said:

Won't the democratic governors in both be able to keep that down?  I know that's exactly what the WI and NC legislatures were attacking, but that was when they weren't in office yet.  The NC case is still in court, and thus far the rulings look favorable to Democrats, and the 2020 legislative map will be revised to be less egregious.  The WI case will go to court, and there's hope there as well, although with only 2 years I'm not sure there's time to get a decision prior to Nov 2020. 

I think Arizona is unlikely to come through as a tipping state for Democrats.  Yes, Sinema won against a competent Republican in McSally, but that was in a wave year for Democrats.  I suspect that if the election is close, Arizona is going red.  I honestly hold out more hope that somehow, someway, Florida comes through. 

Bonus - can you imagine the shitstorm if the Democrats pick up PA, MI and ME-2 (or NE-2), giving a 269-269 split?  We could have a Democratic President and Vice President Pence.  *

* Just kidding, Trump would declare a state of emergency before letting the House of Representatives pick a Democratic President. 

I don't know the details of Wisconsin, other than that the Republican party there is a pack of snakes. But the latest news out of North Carolina (overshadowed by Wisconsin, and to a lesser extent Michigan) is that Republicans are trying, while they still have the votes to override vetoes, to pass a bill requiring that county election chairs be Republican in election years* (and also trying to force the NC-9 race to be certified despite the fraud).

*The literal language is a new statute that in even-numbered years all county election chairs be members of the party with the second most registered members in the state.

As for the 269-269 split, Trump would probably still come out on top. The House votes, but its not a normal vote, each state delegation gets a single vote and whichever candidate gets a majority of the 50 delegations wins. If its a tie, no one wins and instead whoever the Senate votes to be Vice President becomes President instead. Delegations that deadlock don't cast a vote. And the thing is, even though Democrats have a 235-200 majority going into the new Congress, Republicans will still have a 26-22-2 majority in delegations. I believe it will be the 2020-elected Congress that would vote, not the incoming one, and it is possible Democrats get to a majority of delegations. There's a bunch of combinations of winning just 4 seats that'd do the trick, but most of them (like winning 1 additional Florida seat) probably only happen if the Democratic nominee is already winning.

[Fragile Bird]

1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

There was also this other headline I stumblend upon.

Biden: I am the most qualified candidate to run.

I only had time this morning to watch the start of the Bush funeral, moving the casket to the hearse and then the wait in the cathedral. But one of the commentators talked about HW saying he was the most qualified candidate to run in the election, and that he had been very bitter at first over losing to Clinton for that reason. Biden’s comment is like an echo of that, and I would not be too surprised if the results were the same.

Clinton eventually became good friends with the Bush clan, and apparently that was because of the outreach by WH, who got them together for charitable causes.

That reminds of something I’ve been meaning to say about hatred for HW. Whoever you thought was the low man on the presidential totem pole, Trump is setting a new standard that presidents will be measured against.

Can you in your wildest dreams imagine Trump signing the Americans with Disabilities Act? More likely he’d say it was regulation gone wild.

And when West Germany announced plans for reunification with East Germany, both the UK and France were strongly opposed. Not only were they worried about an economic powerhouse getting bigger, some even claimed re-uniting the two Germanies was laying the foundation for WW III. It was Bush’s support that paved the way for reunification happening. Imagine Trump and his America first policy. Do you think he would have supported a reunited Germany, or would he have decided it was in the US’s best interests to have a divided Germany?

Imagine what the situation would be in Europe today if East Germany had been basically abandoned and left to pull itself up by it’s bootstraps? It would be a Russian satellite by now.