Jump to content
DMC

U.S. Politics: Phantom of the Emergency

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

I don't know exactly how to fill this out.

It's definitely a broad strokes kind of thing anyway.  I just slapped percentages on there to give a clearer picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So, the Senior Senator from South Carolina is now encouraging Trump to use “Emergency Powers” to strip money from the DOD to “build the wall”.  Lindsey Graham already doesn’t believe in individual liberties (he thinks the State should be able to search closed mail to look for terrorists).  Now, he has demonstrated that he fundamentally doesn’t care how a Representative Republic is supposed to operate.  Graham needs to go:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/10/politics/lindsey-graham-government-shutdown/index.html

Yah, he's also the Judiciary Chairman who just tweeted that one of his priorities is confirming "conservative judges".  Huh, I thought judicial appointments wereb't supposed to be political.  At least he's dropping the pretext of being a public servant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DMC said:

Nate Silver just came out with an article articulating "the 5 corners of the Democratic primary."  This is basically a sequel to his "5-ring circus" depiction of the Republican primary in 2016 - which I enjoyed even if in hindsight it seems entirely pointless.  Still, it's intuitive to split up the primary electorate into these type of factions and then estimate each candidate's constituency(ies).  Plus I think it's informative to organize the candidates in such a way at this point in the cycle. 

I found it interesting that according to Silver, Kirsten Gillibrand is basically perfectly balanced between his five constituencies of the Democratic primary electorate.  Right now, if I'm being honest, I lean toward Harris, but I think Gillibrand is almost a sleeper at this point considering her relative lack of hype - and I expect her to outperform expectations (or at least current expectations).

Anyway, since almost everyone here leans left, or is at least is clearly anti-Trump, I thought it be interesting to see everyone's self-placement on these "5 corners" of the Democratic primary electorate.  The 5 constituencies are party loyalists, the left, "millennials and friends," black voters, and hispanic voters.  Obviously, there's overlap for virtually every individual between these five factions.  How do you think you fit? 

For me, I'd split it 40% party loyalist, 40% millennial, and 20% leftist.  Electability is of primary importance to me, which generally aligns with party loyalists.  I also strongly prefer a more youthful candidate, which speaks to the millennial in me.  But, I also think there should be a more distinct and aggressive "leftist" (or progressive or liberal or whatever) platform for the candidate, which accounts for the remaining 20%.

85% leftist, 15% party loyalist. I'm excluded by definition from each of the three other groups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kind of hate those 5 corners. Apparently I'm a leftist plain and simple. Hate that label and not sure why it was given to that broad demographic with the most independent voters. I'd say I'm a moderate in that group and for sure am an independent and no party loyalist. Gonna say it again - I really hate that breakdown and the labels.

edit: This is why I hate it, I think. Looking at the Republican circles, there are clear ideological groups. The Dem circles are so very much defined by identity - who you are and not what you believe. It's not even that he can say that millenials, while grouped together by age, all tend to value this, He's vague and admits we don't really know what they value as a group. Kind of the same with Latino/Asian voters. It's vaguely insulting?

Edited by Gertrude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

Looking at the Republican circles, there are clear ideological groups. The Dem circles are so very much defined by identity - who you are and not what you believe.

The idea that the GOP is an ideological movement while the Dems are a coalition of social groups is literally the scholarly consensus right now.  I agree it's somewhat insulting on a personal level, but that's pretty much how the respective constituencies of each party are structured currently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, yeah, I get it. It still doesn't feel any less weird? wrong? to me. I don't know how it can be wrong when there is no 'right' structure, but there it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Yah, he's also the Judiciary Chairman who just tweeted that one of his priorities is confirming "conservative judges".  Huh, I thought judicial appointments wereb't supposed to be political.  At least he's dropping the pretext of being a public servant?

Dude, it’s only liberals that can be activist judges. Conservative activist judges are simply interpreting the Constitution in an appropriate way. Because of course we should read a 229 year old document literally as it was written.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Holy crap, AOC quoted Rorshach from Watchmen.

 

I always wondered what a recognizable-as-an-normal-person getting elected to Congress would look like, and now we know. 

I'm pretty good with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Dude, it’s only liberals that can be activist judges. Conservative activist judges are simply interpreting the Constitution in an appropriate way. Because of course we should read a 229 year old document literally as it was written.

Well, yes.  If we can make the 229 year old document say anything we want things we want to protect like, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, right to counsel, and right to trial by jury are much less concrete.  You cannot say “only the parts of the Constitution we don’t like are open to fluid interpretation”.

I would love to see a real Constitutional Convention called to address all the things people want to change rather than working though the courts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny how the story of Mitch McConnell is playing out. Most politicians’ goal is to one day become president. Not McConnell. He wanted to be Senate Majority Leader, and he wanted to reshape the courts. Sadly there is no doubt that he has achieved that goal, but at what cost? He, more than any other modern Senator, has contributed to the breakdown of norms and traditions, and in many ways he has straight up broken the Senate. And now he has effectively turned the greatest legislative body to have ever existed into the beaten servile puppy dog of the President.

Congrats, Mitch. Hope it was worth it. History will not remember you kindly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Well, yes.  If we can make the 229 year old document say anything we want things we want to protect like, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, right to counsel, and right to trial by jury are much less concrete.  You cannot say “only the parts of the Constitution we don’t like are open to fluid interpretation”.

I would love to see a real Constitutional Convention called to address all the things people want to change rather than working though the courts.

I’d argue that what is explicitly articulated in a cut and dried sense should be adhered to,  but much of the document is not. It’s ridiculous to me to say the Constitution is not a living document.  Textualists/Originalists are not intellectually honest IMO, and they love to pick and choose when to apply those views.

Also, I would love to see a unicorn, but I’ve got as much a chance at that as you do with your convention.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm about 50/50 Millenial and AA in my voting habits, at least based on those things. Electability matters a lot to me, but actual holding to norms that haven't worked well aren't that interesting, and I'm very interested in systems that are better and swinging for them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm in a bubble, but I feel like a Nate's five corners is missing an corner (which is only going to grow in size if the 2018 flipped suburbs stay blue) which I guess I'd call "Moderate Whites." In terms of policy views and concerns, its sort of like Party Loyalists, but there's no particular loyalty to the party itself or party elites. And they sometimes are downright conservative on some issues, but despise Trump (and in some cases despised the GOP long before him for its anti-LGBT or anti-minority views) to the point where they willing vote Democratic. Other times they are relatively liberal, but are skeptical of full-on left-wing politicians.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Fez said:

Maybe I'm in a bubble, but I feel like a Nate's five corners is missing an corner (which is only going to grow in size if the 2018 flipped suburbs stay blue) which I guess I'd call "Moderate Whites." In terms of policy views and concerns, its sort of like Party Loyalists, but there's no particular loyalty to the party itself or party elites. And they sometimes are downright conservative on some issues, but despise Trump (and in some cases despised the GOP long before him for its anti-LGBT or anti-minority views) to the point where they willing vote Democratic. Other times they are relatively liberal, but are skeptical of full-on left-wing politicians.

 

You're in a bubble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

I’d argue that what is explicitly articulated in a cut and dried sense should be adhered to,  but much of the document is not. It’s ridiculous to me to say the Constitution is not a living document.  Textualists/Originalists are not intellectually honest IMO, and they love to pick and choose when to apply those views.

Also, I would love to see a unicorn, but I’ve got as much a chance at that as you do with your convention.  

Look, anything can be called grey.  Any word definition can be argued over.  As such if we accept the Constitution as “living” the protections written in are pretty meaningless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Fez said:

I always wondered what a recognizable-as-an-normal-person getting elected to Congress would look like, and now we know. 

I'm pretty good with it.

Definitely find her relatable, which is not a critical requirement for my support of a politician, but it's a nice-to-have.

Mostly I'm just jazzed she's read something like Watchmen. That puts her at least one book ahead of our President.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Fez said:

Maybe I'm in a bubble, but I feel like a Nate's five corners is missing an corner (which is only going to grow in size if the 2018 flipped suburbs stay blue) which I guess I'd call "Moderate Whites."

Sure suburban whites damn well better be at least a somewhat substantial portion of the Dem vote in the general, but for the primary electorate?  I think that's a little premature - those we can count on voting in the primary would probably be encapsulated by the party loyalists.  Be great if that's not the case though, of course.

31 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Look, anything can be called grey.  Any word definition can be argued over.  As such if we accept the Constitution as “living” the protections written in are pretty meaningless.

Considering the brevity and vagueness of the Constitution, it's absolutely preposterous to suggest anyone's not "interpreting" the constitution when attempting to apply it to law and government action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×