CA doesn’t need to gerrymander. The demographics are such that the Dems will win there with big state wide majorities without it. The gop needs to gerrymander in more and more states because of the precarious nature of their voting majorities. The whole point is there are going to be more and mroe states where the gop…
efcdons
efcdons
It’s pretty terrible. I think the only possible light in the distance is the demographic collapse of the gop’s voter base. And even gerrymandering can’t save them if their voters die off. But that’s years down the road and a lot of damage can be done between now and then. It would also require the Democratic party to…
Not really though. The reason we have trump even though Clinton won a greater absolute number of votes nation wide is the electoral college. Which would exist without gerrymandering. But I guess the voter suppression laws implemented in states which had a gop majority in the state legislature in part due to…
The point of gerrymandering, Sir Votesalot, is that it won’t matter if Dem turnout increases because the districts have been drawn such that they have a slight majority of gop voters. Greater turnout will only help in state-wide races. Which as NC and WI have shown us, the gop is more than happy to completely…
The problem is because of demographic trends the Democratic party doesn’t really need to gerrymander seats in order to stay in power in the states where they are already in power. They could maybe add seats to their majorities. But there aren’t many states where they could get the sort of coherent majorities in the…
What? You’re comparing accusations of forcible intercourse and uncomfortable physical touching to claims the someone on the candidate’s campaign staff (not the candidate himself in any way, shape, or form) might have been unpleasant to their female co-workers? Even trump couldn’t “both sides” that ridiculous…
That’s the whole point of the “electability” con. It’s to make people decide not to vote for the candidate who most aligns with their positions or values. Instead, the argument (which is totally made in good faith...) goes, people should ignore their own values and focus on which candidate aligns with the values of…
I am certainly not calling for, recommending someone engage in, or supporting any one who chooses to engage in, violence of any kind against any person or entity. Not in any way, shape, or form.
Exactly. All the rules and norms are only legitimate for the right for as long as they help achieve their goals. The rules and norms aren’t legitimate for the right in and of themselves. Their underlying ideology is at its core anti-democratic.
Did you read the article in New York magazine about the “children” of Ted Kaczinsky?
That’s one of the fucked up power imbalances with environmental policy and especially climate change. It’s like we are in a room with a ticking time bomb and the bomb can (currently) not be defused without both Democrats and republicans helping out. But republicans are much better able to get the Democrats to accede…
They probably should have. IANAL in OR, but I assume if the bill passed it would certainly be challenged in court because the vote was taken without a legal quorum present. At least then there would be a bill which could possibly declared legally binding by the courts if they decide what the gop senators did was…
Kagan is more than “low key” awful. She’s straight up “in your face” awful when it comes to rulings concerning corporate power. But she is a good example of the difference between republicans and Democrats when appointing justices. As if Merrick Garland was a fire breathing liberal.
Wait, Elena Kagan ruled for corporations yet again? Wow, thanks Obama! Good work on appointing such a good “liberal” justice. I bet the American people totally rewarded him for appointing such a Serious, Sensible, Pragmatic, Moderate justice who rules for corporations, prosecutors, the police, consistently.
But in the end people will need their nation’s currency to pay their taxes. That’s the ultimate reason none of these currencies can ever replace “fiat” money worldwide. Because the government, where ever you live, is never going to allow people to pay taxes in bitcoin or libra or whatever. So there will always be a…
Eastland was a Democrat his entire career! It’s not even making a point about bi-partisan compromise or party polarization. It’s really a mind-boggling choice.
Both of those particular social programs are literally examples of socialism. Both have the government owning and directing “capital”. Both have (well, Medicare less so since Part D under GW Bush) replaced formerly market based, private sector activities with centrally planned government control.
state level republicans saying they can’t do a Medicaid expansion because the republicans at the federal level might axe the funding is just mindblowing chutzpah. They are basically saying we can’t expand Medicaid because the politicians we support and want you to vote for might do something we want them to do.
I think it’s difficult to make comparisons and take lessons from the experience of right wing populist parties in Europe running on anti-Muslim immigrant sentiment vs. American versions running on anti-Black/anti-Latino sentiment.
And? In another world people could just live where they want without paying anything to anyone because there would be no government to force them to do so. That might mean there are fewer unused houses that in our world are rented out. But then demand for land would also go down as no one would be trying to claim land…