Jump to content

U.S. Politics: Some Of Us Did Warn You, But It Can't Happen Here...


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

If you think someone is GOI g to one day get rid of the filibuster, the only logical path forward is to be the one that does it, and take every advantage possible.  Otherwise you know damn sure the GOP will.  

No, the only logical path is to crush the GOP and scatter their ashes in the wind.

4 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

No, that's just the reality of participating in politics.

If you vote for basically one party, and you volunteer for its candidates, you are a member of it, even if you don't want to say it. You're too old to hold on to this romanticized thought you're above the two party politics of this country. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

No, the only logical path is to crush the GOP and scatter their ashes in the wind.

If you vote for basically one party, and you volunteer for its candidates, you are a member of it, even if you don't want to say it. You're too old to hold on to this romanticized thought you're above the two party politics of this country. 

Huh?  No.  I dislike most of the end goals the Dems have, I just understand the opposition is far worse.  It's the opposite of romanticizing politics, it's just practical alignment of what you don't want to happen.  Which is essentially the corollary to the golden rule: don't treat other people how you don't want to be treated 

When the people closest to that are Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer versus the ghouls in the GOP, I'm with them everytime.  But only because they are the only other option that has power behind it.  In the meantime, i will make a point of trying to support candidates (like Ihan Omar) with viewpoints closer to my own, show up in the streets, and not just hand over power to authoritarians.  

Just a suggestion, but might be worth re-examining what participating in a democracy looks like in reality.  

ETA: so even though we have very different goals, we support the same people.  Doesn't mean I don't get a voice in a primary, or The Fury Resurrected doesn't because you disagree.  Democracy means your vote is worth the same as mine, even if I think your party is a Very Bad group of people.  I'm not happy to do it, there's nothing romantic about it.  It s literally pragmatism 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Otherwise you know damn sure the GOP will. 

I think this assumption that the GOP will abolish the filibuster the next time they have unified government is faulty.  If that were the case, why didn't they after Trump won?  I agree it's likely they will enough of them think it will benefit them long term, but the Dems aren't gonna stop that anyway.  And if the Dems abolish it that it goes from likely to the reality, which is an important difference.

10 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

i will make a point of trying to support candidates (like Ihan Omar)

It seems odd to frame your argument that you aren't a Democrat by citing your support for a Democratic Congresswoman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DMC said:

It seems odd to frame your argument that you aren't a Democrat by citing your support for a Democratic Congresswoman.

In a two party system, what choice of alignment do the Omars [and AOCs] have? Could they have initially run in their districts as independents [legit question, I don't know]

larry seems to be referring to the general thrust of her politics, which aren't typically Dem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JEORDHl said:

In a two party system, what choice of alignment do the Omars [and AOCs] have? Could they have initially run in their districts as independents [legit question, I don't know]

They basically don't if they want to get elected (other than in rare circumstances like Bernie or Angus King), but that's the point.  They are progressive Democrats, or leftist Democrats, or anti-establishment Democrats, or whatever qualifier you wanna put on it.  But they are still Democrats.  And the fact is if you vote for Democratic candidates at least 85% of the time, political operatives, pollsters, and scholars of political behavior all consider you a Democrat - whether you identify as one of not.  Hell, there are plenty of people registered as Independents - I myself was one of them until I registered in Florida - that are still considered Democrats.  The only substantive difference is they might not be able to vote in the primaries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the above is the heart of it. Local elections can work it a lot of different ways, but on a national level, you have two choices if you want to vote for someone that can win. There are rare exceptions, but if you vote for the same party over and over again and you celebrate a candidate who is a member of that party, you are too. Just pick a wing of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand the strategic thinking behind coming to a consensus that the minority portion of the country will become increasingly likely to hold on to power through the presidency and Senate (and by extension, the SC), and not trying to get out in front of that to mitigate it while you can. 

It's just doing the same shit because that's how it's always been done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I don't understand the strategic thinking behind coming to a consensus that the minority portion of the country will become increasingly likely to hold on to power through the presidency and Senate (and by extension, the SC), and not trying to get out in front of that to mitigate it while you can. 

It's just doing the same shit because that's how it's always been done.

Count the votes in the Senate. Then count the number of states with the smallest populations until you add them up to collectively equal the biggest. Then figure out how many votes from each side you get. Then make it worse and watch how the trends are going. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Count the votes in the Senate. Then count the number of states with the smallest populations until you add them up to collectively equal the biggest. Then figure out how many votes from each side you get. Then make it worse and watch how the trends are going. 

I would personally be in favor of abolishing the Senate and moving to a Parliamentary type system. 

But I also don't see why the trend of smaller states being more Republican has to last forever. Being small and rural doesn't mean a state has to be Republican. Look at Vermont. Having a small population also doesn't mean a state has to be predominantly rural. Idaho is now the fastest growing state in the country, The majority of that growth is taking place in the Boise metro area, which already has 40% of Idaho;s population. When Boise gets to 50% of the population, will Idaho stay Republican or will it move toward being more toward the Democrats as Colorado, Nevada, and Arizona have done? Not to mention that all four of the Atlantic coast states south of Virginia (NC, GA, FL, and yes even SC) seem to be moving demographically toward more "liberal" subgroups of the national population. 

I am probably too old to see states like South Carolina and Idaho become predominantly Democratic in my lifetime. But some of you are probably young enough to hope to see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to concur with Ormond. The largest component of the republican base is 'old white people' and they are dying in droves.  Next are the evangelicals, no few of whom are quietly disgusted with Trump's ethos, or lack thereof.  Additionally, democratic numbers appear to be growing in the emptier red states.  To me, that looks like an intermediate-future demographic nightmare for republicans.  They either moderate their positions or they become a minority in fact.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ormond said:

But I also don't see why the trend of smaller states being more Republican has to last forever. Being small and rural doesn't mean a state has to be Republican.

This is disputed by the current environment and clear demographic trends:

Quote

According to 2018 Census Bureau estimates, more than half of the US population lives in just nine states. That means that much of the nation is represented by only 18 senators. Less than half of the population controls about 82 percent of the Senate.

It’s going to get worse. By 2040, according to a University of Virginia analysis of census projections, half the population will live in eight states. About 70 percent of people will live in 16 states — which means that 30 percent of the population will control 68 percent of the Senate.

Currently, Democrats control a majority of the Senate seats (26-24) in the most populous half of the states. Republicans owe their majority in the Senate as a whole to their crushing 29-21 lead in the least populous half of the states. Those small states tend to be dominated by white voters who are increasingly likely to identify with the Republican Party.

Now of course this relationship isn't axiomatic - there's your Delawares, your Hawaiis, most of New England, but it is fairly intuitive that the more rural a state is the lower its population is going to be.  This is how it's basically always been.  And I have a very hard time believing the partisan rural/urban divide is going to subside anytime soon.  As the quote above emphasizes, it's because the more rural a state is, the more white it is, which benefits the GOP as they are increasingly solely the party of white people.  Just because the current crop of old white rural voters are dying off does not mean they won't be replaced by younger white rural voters that are also going to tend to be GOP more so than basically any other demographic.

2 hours ago, Ormond said:

Not to mention that all four of the Atlantic coast states south of Virginia (NC, GA, FL, and yes even SC) seem to be moving demographically toward more "liberal" subgroups of the national population. 

Three of these four states are among the 10 largest states in the country, so I don't see how this supports your argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ormond said:

I would personally be in favor of abolishing the Senate and moving to a Parliamentary type system. 

But again, how?

I don't disagree philosophically, but you need to give me something a little bit better than a sketch on a napkin to make me think you have anything close to a plan to work with. The Senate will not be abolished. We're not going to have a parliamentary type system. So what are we doing here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I don't disagree philosophically, but you need to give me something a little bit better than a sketch on a napkin to make me think you have anything close to a plan to work with. The Senate will not be abolished. We're not going to have a parliamentary type system. So what are we doing here?

Building public support for the idea seems like a reasonable first step. Until you've got agreement on the goal, how to achieve it is irrelevant (assuming you're wanting to achieve it by democratic means).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right now, Democrats have a 12-8 senate advantage in the 10 smallest states in the US. If Collins and Daines lose, and they easily could, Democrats will have a 14-6 advantage. It's a relatively durable advantage too. The theoretical 2 Montana seats you could argue are Republican turf (though the last time Republicans held both those senate seats was 1911), and only a few others are swing seats.

Meanwhile, Republicans actually hold an 11-9 senate advantage in the 10 largest states in the US. If Tillis loses, and he easily could, it goes 10-10. There's a few other Republicans that could lose, but I wouldn't count on any of them. And if they do, it's still pretty red turf, like Georgia or Texas, that could easily swing back. Also, Trump actually won 7 of the 10 largest states EC votes in 2016; though Obama won 7 of the 10 in 2012 (and 8 in 2008).

I don't think the issue with the senate is a large state vs. small state issue. There's simply more medium size Republican states than Democratic states (and California+New York is much, much larger than Texas+Florida, which evens out national popular vote totals), and I don't see how you solve that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DMC said:

This is disputed by the current environment and clear demographic trends:

Now of course this relationship isn't axiomatic - there's your Delawares, your Hawaiis, most of New England, but it is fairly intuitive that the more rural a state is the lower its population is going to be.  This is how it's basically always been.  And I have a very hard time believing the partisan rural/urban divide is going to subside anytime soon.  As the quote above emphasizes, it's because the more rural a state is, the more white it is, which benefits the GOP as they are increasingly solely the party of white people.  Just because the current crop of old white rural voters are dying off does not mean they won't be replaced by younger white rural voters that are also going to tend to be GOP more so than basically any other demographic.

Three of these four states are among the 10 largest states in the country, so I don't see how this supports your argument.

The inclusion of the information about the South Atlantic states was because the main argument seems to be that small White rural states are going to give the Republicans a perpetual lock on the Senate. If those four states go Democratic. plus either Alaska or Idaho, which states are left that would possibly fit this characterization? Utah, not because it would be rural but because of the LDS population. Then MT, WY, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, IA, MO, AR, LA, KY, TN, MS, AL, WV. Even if both AK and ID stay Republican that's only 19 states. Even if you throw Indiana back to the Republicans that's only 20, which makes 40 Senators. How does that add up to the Senate having to be almost always Republican when you need 50 even with a Republican V.P.?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...