U.S. Politics: Rs Stand Around While Ds Try to Rescue Them

[DMC]

22 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I think there is a real movement among the GOP to vote on election day rather than early.

It should be noted that even in 2020, it was Republicans who held an advantage in in-person early voting - 41.6 to 35.5 nationally, and 46.1 to 30.5 in Nevada, so I don't think we can even conclude this.

[Week]

12 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Wake up buddy. It's mainstream to undermine faith in our electoral process in Republican politics. 

It's more than mainstream, it's the cost of entry.

The party isn't normalizing. It's worst people and ideas -- MTG, Ticket, DeSantis -- are metastasizing. One cannot separate them from the future of the party with limited action. I mean, one *can* delude oneself -- as some are -- but you're just as complicit in supporting the crazies that are taking over. 

[Maithanet]

55 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

That is true in general, but Nevada is special in that only ~10% of the final vote was done on election day, with 40% being in-person early voting and the rest by mail. These are 2020 numbers where, GoP won in-person early voting by 80k (raw), and in-person election day by only 10k. The Democrats won mail-in by 140k.

For other states what you say is absolutely correct. I dont think these numbers from 2020 will dramatically skew though (as in having something like 50% show up in person on election day)

I'm quite confident the % of the vote on election day will be significantly higher in 2022 than it was in 2020.  And we simply have no way of knowing how much higher.  Could be 15% of the total vote, could be 20%, could be more.  And considering I fully expect Republicans to win the election day voting decisively, it makes reading the tea leaves on the rest of early voting extremely difficult.  Ralston will try, but this year I'm pretty doubtful that we're going to have a clear picture in Nevada based on early voting alone. 

[maarsen]

3 hours ago, Stark Revenge said:

You’re correct of course, there is nothing ILLEGAL in these actions. What it is is a serious breach of NORMS for a blatant power grab from the left. 

Was McConnell wrong to hold open Scalia’s seat during the end of Obama’s term? Yes, I would say so. I understand why Dems are upset, they want that seat back. But if we start responding to a violation of norms with more violations, we’re simply playing power politics and SCOTUS will become another legislative body. What’s to stop the next GOP President from stacking the Court with more justices? The answer is of course nothing. The more honest people on the Left will admit that reality and acknowledge this is all about making a power grab for power‘s sake. Anything else is a statement made in denial. 
 

Talk of eliminating the filibuster and adding DC and Puerto Rico as states stem from the same issue, the Senate. As recently as 2010, Democrats were competitive nationwide in the Senate with Obama having a supermajority. And yet, as political realignment has taken place, Dems have seen heartland seats slip away from them. Rather than attempt to appeal to these voters, Dems responded by demonizing them and doubled down on appealing to their urban coastal constituents. This has of course resulted in greater GOP advantages in the Senate. Rather than attempt to moderate their positions and win back these seats (which they held merely more than a decade ago), Dems have decided that if the system as it is is not propelling them to power, they must change the system.
 

Again none of this is illegal. This is merely a power play from the Left who seeks to cement their grip on power. I’m all for having a legitimate conversation of adding Puerto Rico as a state, if that’s what they want, they should be added. But pretending that is the sole motivating cause here is asking me to play the fool, and I will not do so. 
 

I detested Trump and his demagoguery and believe he was unfit for office from the start and was indeed a threat to democracy. But pretending that responding to the norms he shattered with more shattered norms is in the best interests of democracy is a laughable proposition. 

Violating norms by creating new states? Can you count past 13? 

[DMC]

3 hours ago, Stark Revenge said:

What it is is a serious breach of NORMS for a blatant power grab from the left. 

While Dems certainly have a self-interest in both expanding the court and DC/PR statehood, what you seem to elide is each is also the right thing to do.  The court needs to be expanded both for pragmatic reasons and to ensure it is more representative, while the normative reasons for statehood are self-evident. 

And abolishing the filibuster is not so much "breaking norms," but rather the GOP (and frankly both parties at this point) weaponizing it to the point that the only way to get anything significant through the Senate is through reconciliation and/or the budget.  McConnell and the GOP were the first to "break the norms" of the filibuster. 

So as mentioned above, you're asking the Dems to not do the right thing AND play by the rules when their opponent hasn't for decades.

[Martell Spy]

It's not just that Democrats are being held up to impossible standards in regards to breaking norms, it's not a possible goal to stop norms from being broken. In the Garland case it's not just that the norm was broken, but that it's forever broken. There's no chance a political party will again hold back Senate rules for maximum political benefit in regards to the SC ever again. Yes, leading to polarization. And it's all McConnell's fault.

I think what some people want to see is Democrats only break norms after the Republicans have already done so and taken the political benefits.

Also, packing the Supreme Court is not violating a norm. It's been done multiple times. Unlike say, the storming of Congress. I believe that is a genuine first.

 

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

It's been done multiple times.

Also, historically, changes in the number of SC justices often (albeit not always) were enacted to align with the number of US Courts of Appeal.  We have now had 11 circuit courts for forty years (not counting the Federal and DC circuits).

[Varysblackfyre321]

5 hours ago, Stark Revenge said:

You’re correct of course, there is nothing ILLEGAL in these actions. What it is is a serious breach of NORMS for a blatant power grab from the left. 

If the US citizens of PR and DC hold a referendum to become states by what moral case would you deny them statehood?

[Stark Revenge]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

While Dems certainly have a self-interest in both expanding the court and DC/PR statehood, what you seem to elide is each is also the right thing to do.  The court needs to be expanded both for pragmatic reasons and to ensure it is more representative, while the normative reasons for statehood are self-evident. 

And abolishing the filibuster is not so much "breaking norms," but rather the GOP (and frankly both parties at this point) weaponizing it to the point that the only way to get anything significant through the Senate is through reconciliation and/or the budget.  McConnell and the GOP were the first to "break the norms" of the filibuster. 

So as mentioned above, you're asking the Dems to not do the right thing AND play by the rules when their opponent hasn't for decades.

Puerto Rico has a good case for statehood, DC not so much. The seat of the federal government should not gaining any additional powers than it already holds. If the argument is about representation, then the size of DC should be reduced to the core administrative buildings and Maryland should absorb the rest of the district. 

The Court has no reason to be representative of anyone. They are jurists, not representatives. 

The GOP is not blameless in creating the tension that surrounds the filibuster, but it was Harry Reid that first nuked it for lower court judicial appointments that kicked off this mess. Pointing fingers and trying to find an original sin for justification is a pointless endeavor because it only leads to the system writ large unraveling.

As for the “weaponization” of the filibuster, I don’t think it’s a weaponization at all, but the Senate acting to safeguard its institution power. If a bill can’t reach 60 votes, then it has not mustered enough nationwide support to become law and should not become law. Bills with far reaching implications in a country of 330 million plus citizens should not be lightly passed with a narrow 50+1 majority. The parties would be better off watering down their goals and bills and focusing on finding legislative solutions that can achieve broad nationwide support. The filibuster exists to promote consensus and is the system working as intended.

[Varysblackfyre321]

Just now, Stark Revenge said:

 The seat of the federal government should not gaining any additional powers than it already holds.

What powers do you feel it already  holds that would make statehood unfair?

2 minutes ago, Stark Revenge said:

The Court has no reason to be representative of anyone. They are jurists, not representatives. 

They are political appointees.

3 minutes ago, Stark Revenge said:

The GOP is not blameless in creating the tension that surrounds the filibuster, but it was Harry Reid that first nuked it for lower court judicial appointments that kicked off this mess

True. It was really stupid of him not have gotten rid of it completely when he had the chance.

4 minutes ago, Stark Revenge said:

As for the “weaponization” of the filibuster, I don’t think it’s a weaponization at all, but the Senate acting to safeguard its institution power.

At best it serves as a way for members of both parties to not have to worry about voting for a policy that may conflict with their own political and/or financial ambitions.

6 minutes ago, Stark Revenge said:

If a bill can’t reach 60 votes, then it has not mustered enough nationwide support to become law and should not become law.

Gay marriage has a 65+ Percent approval rating. As does marijuana legalization.

The reason why they’re not law is because of that 30-35 percent of people who’d string up Republican congressmen for voting to codify such things into law.

9 minutes ago, Stark Revenge said:

Bills with far reaching implications in a country of 330 million plus citizens should not be lightly passed with a narrow 50+1 majority.

Why not have 99 senators before anything is signed off?

Why not have it be neutered to what it back was before the 1970s?

12 minutes ago, Stark Revenge said:

The parties would be better off watering down their goals and bills and focusing on finding legislative solutions that can achieve broad nationwide support. T

Define broad.

60 percent? 70 percent? 
 

 

[Tywin et al.]

19 minutes ago, Stark Revenge said:

As for the “weaponization” of the filibuster, I don’t think it’s a weaponization at all, but the Senate acting to safeguard its institution power. If a bill can’t reach 60 votes, then it has not mustered enough nationwide support to become law and should not become law. 

Tell that to the 90% of Americans, including the majority of Republicans, who support background checks.

[DMC]

28 minutes ago, Stark Revenge said:

Puerto Rico has a good case for statehood, DC not so much. The seat of the federal government should not gaining any additional powers than it already holds. If the argument is about representation, then the size of DC should be reduced to the core administrative buildings and Maryland should absorb the rest of the district. 

Apparently you are unaware that the bill(s) passed by the House do retain the core administrative buildings as the seat of the federal government.  See here:

Quote

The bill would turn most of present-day Washington, DC, into a new state called Washington, Douglass Commonwealth. The new state would be on equal footing with the existing 50, with the same level of control over its own affairs and full voting representation in Congress, with two senators and one representative. A small capital district comprising the Capitol complex, White House, National Mall, and other federal grounds would remain under congressional authority as the seat of the federal government.

As for retrocession, you are ignoring the fact that neither the citizens of DC nor Maryland approve of such a plan.

28 minutes ago, Stark Revenge said:

The Court has no reason to be representative of anyone. They are jurists, not representatives. 

The highest court in the land should absolutely be more representative of the people it presides over.  As opposed to the current composition of 4 white males, 2 white women, 1 African American male, 1 African American female, and 1 Latina.  But this is a normative point I don't expect you to agree with.  Regardless, the pragmatic reasons for handling the case load remains.

28 minutes ago, Stark Revenge said:

The GOP is not blameless in creating the tension that surrounds the filibuster, but it was Harry Reid that first nuked it for lower court judicial appointments that kicked off this mess. Pointing fingers and trying to find an original sin for justification is a pointless endeavor because it only leads to the system writ large unraveling.

The GOP is absolutely to blame for first destroying the norm of only using the filibuster in extraordinary circumstances - especially concerning judicial nominations.  This is an empirical fact.  Frankly, Reid waited too long in abolishing it for lower court judicial appointments.

And it's not a "pointless endeavor" when it highlights that the GOP is never going to "normalize" and play by the rules if the Dems just do so and pray they will.  The GOP has been unconcerned with breaking norms for at least this entire century.  It's absurd to ask the Dems to not respond.

28 minutes ago, Stark Revenge said:

As for the “weaponization” of the filibuster, I don’t think it’s a weaponization at all, but the Senate acting to safeguard its institution power.

No, this is empirically and historically wrong.  The filibuster was not used anywhere near to the extent it is now.  If a party was aligned against a bill, they would vote against it, but they would not force a cloture vote.  Again, THAT was the norm.  And then, beginning with the Clinton administration it started to rise exponentially.  Then during the Obama administration it went off the charts.  See here.

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Tell that to the 90% of Americans, including the majority of Republicans, who support background checks.

Or the majority of people Americans who’d like to gay marriage to be Nationalized and sodomy laws revoked.

@Stark Revenge I get you personally care for democracy, rule of civility, and consensus  you have to understand the party does not and cannot win nationally through proposing policies that would appeal to broad swaths of Americans.

Unless forced to reform they’ll rely on the Zeal MTG types to win the day and eventually move America away from democracy when in control.

You must find it worrying that multiple Republican  Congressmen can say we’re not a democracy with no backlash right?

[Stark Revenge]

I would consider these points more in depth if it wasn’t apparent that these concerns stem from the fact that Dems are not continually benefitting from the structure of government as it stands. The points about the Senate largely came after the 2016 election when Dems lost the electoral college, but won the popular vote. Talk about the filibuster and DC/Puerto Rico obscures the larger point that the left has an existing disdain for federalism as a whole. All of these proposals enlarge the power of the federal government and minimize the power of the states. There’s only so much credence I’m willing to give to these arguments when it’s evident that the end goal of these proposals is to cement the rule of the left in power. Remember, it was only in 2010 that Dems had a supermajority in the Senate. But the second voters shifted away from Dems, it was apparent that if the people would not naturally come to the proper conclusions, the system would have to be altered so that those results would be achieved. Democracy only works when both parties are willing to lose and accept the outcome as provided by the existing governmental system, and I see no evidence that is in vogue right now on the left*. 

*And the right as well to be fair, but that’s another set of issues. 

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, Stark Revenge said:

Remember, it was only in 2010 that Dems had a supermajority in the Senate. But the second voters shifted away from Dems, it was apparent that if the people would not naturally come to the proper conclusions, the system would have to be altered so that those results would be achieved. Democracy only works when both parties are willing to lose and accept the outcome as provided by the existing governmental system, and I see no evidence that is in vogue right now on the left*. 

This simply isn't true.  "Taxation without Representation" has been DC's unofficial motto nearly since its inception; and it's been on their license plates since 2000.  The electoral college being completely meritless has also been a movement since at least 2000 (obviously) and well before that as well.  Puerto Rico statehood has a long history as well.  Even expanding the court has, albeit only among court observers/journalists/scholars, which is admittedly a small group.

[Varysblackfyre321]

18 minutes ago, Stark Revenge said:

I would consider these points more in depth if it wasn’t apparent that these concerns stem from the fact that Dems are not continually benefitting from the structure of government as it stands.

That doesn’t mean the current structure of government is good or at least a necessary evil.

18 minutes ago, Stark Revenge said:

The points about the Senate largely came after the 2016 election when Dems lost the electoral college, but won the popular vote.

Even if that was true so what?

18 minutes ago, Stark Revenge said:

Talk about the filibuster and DC/Puerto Rico obscures the larger point that the left has an existing disdain for federalism as a whole.

You need to justify keeping PC/DC from statehood and the filibuster as is.

 

18 minutes ago, Stark Revenge said:

All of these proposals enlarge the power of the federal government and minimize the power of the states.

So was making it illegal to own slaves and making segregation illegal.

18 minutes ago, Stark Revenge said:

There’s only so much credence I’m willing to give to these arguments when it’s evident that the end goal of these proposals is to cement the rule of the left in power.

With the proposals offered the  republicans  could and would still win, they’d just  have to moderate away from the maga tendencies of their party.

You know stop talking about how we need patriotic education and banning abortion nationwide.

18 minutes ago, Stark Revenge said:

Democracy only works when both parties are willing to lose and accept the outcome as provided by the existing governmental system, and I see no evidence that is in vogue right now on the left*. 

Hillary Clinton on the night of the 2016 concurred to trump. Most democrats when asked acknowledged trump legitimately won.

It is blasphemy for a republican to state the fact Trump lost.

Hell even Desantis—who you admire—cannot say this simple thing.

Dude, you’re entire rational for why these proposals should be rebu

[Varysblackfyre321]

27 minutes ago, Stark Revenge said:

*And the right as well to be fair, but that’s another set of issues. 

When the left loses they try to make it easier for people to vote, and give more equal representation in terms of votes(a-la talk of reforming the EC having a federal standard for voting).

When the right loses they try to lynch Congress now.

[Varysblackfyre321]

19 minutes ago, DMC said:

This simply isn't true.  "Taxation without Representation" has been DC's unofficial motto nearly since its inception; and it's been on their license plates since 2000.  The electoral college being completely meritless has also been a movement since at least 2000 (obviously) and well before that as well.  Puerto Rico statehood has a long history as well.  Even expanding the court has, albeit only among court observers/journalists/scholars, which is admittedly a small group.

It should also be noted again(as you’ve already done so)  even if they’re (sorry if I misgendered you Stark.) right that still doesn’t mean any of the proposals shouldn’t be accepted.

People can do and do good things for self-serving reasons.

That doesn’t mean x good thing shouldn’t be done.

[mormont]

Summing up: Stark's Revenge has the position that the Democrats must respect norms even as the Republicans shred them. He insists Dems must moderate their position even as Republicans become more extreme. He admits that Republicans have done the things he's criticising Dems for doing, but will not criticise the Republicans equally. Any mention of the Republicans' sins gets a response demanding that people defend the Democrats. And after all this, he insists that even if the Dems did respect norms, moderate their policies, and refrain from all the things he's complaining about, he'd still vote Republican.

Doesn't seem like a position worth engaging with to me, but that's just me.

[SeanF]

Abolish the filibuster, pack the Supreme Court with judges who vote the way you want, create new States that vote the way you agree with.  That’s fine.

But, what happens when the other side wins, and does exactly the same?

It all seems moot, in any case, as the Democrats don’t have the votes to achieve these things.