Back to how we can work together....good question. I know many friends and relatives are more involved right now, and I know more are giving money.....but can that momentum be sustained? Can we actually overcome the gerrymandering (good luck with that)? Can we overcome the blind faith in capitalism as the most holy thing ever, and that somehow science is bad/wrong/evil?

 

For years, the right has been using fake news to convince people that smart people don't really care about them. Hell, Bush mispronounced nuclear.....this is a strategy, a strategy that is working somehow. How do we either message to those on the edge of that strategy, or do better at turning out those that never vote? 

 

With the electoral college, rural voters get more votes, and until we outnumber them more, or change their minds about the evil city folks stealing their money and jobs (neither of which are true), good luck, people.

So Mitch McConell and the Republicans have invoked a rule to keep Elizabeth Warren from conversations in the Jeff Sessions hearings.

 

Warren had the gall to read a letter by Coretta Scott King written in the 1980's opposing Session's appointment to federal judgeship.

Here is a link.  Everyone but the very bottom sees a tax increase, including the middle class.

I don't care enough anymore to look into it but that is absolutely ****ing brutal, not to mention pointless, counterproductive, near certain political death, etc. I'm wondering if this was misreporting, or he would have revised or explained it, or whatever.

 

I don't care enough anymore to look into it but that is absolutely ****ing brutal, not to mention pointless, counterproductive, near certain political death, etc. I'm wondering if this was misreporting, or he would have revised or explained it, or whatever.

 

He would have had to explain it away, somehow.  But it's that sort of thing that has doomed further left candidates for decades.  You can't run on tax increases, no matter how sweet you promise the returns will be.  That's just not how people think and it will take a long time, here in America, to change that.

 

With the electoral college, rural voters get more votes, and until we outnumber them more, or change their minds about the evil city folks stealing their money and jobs (neither of which are true), good luck, people.

 

The votes are there, the key is keeping the momentum and passion up so they turn out.  I read an interesting study on the Rust Belt that claimed it wasn't so much flipped or gained voters that put Trump over, but the total collapse of the electorate turning out that really doomed Clinton.

 

He would have had to explain it away, somehow.  But it's that sort of thing that has doomed further left candidates for decades.  You can't run on tax increases, no matter how sweet you promise the returns will be.  That's just not how people think and it will take a long time, here in America, to change that.

And that's why he wouldn't run on tax increases.  The electorate doesn't need policy to add up.  I mean Trump got away with saying Mexico will pay for the wall.   Bernie's message that the rich will pay for everything would have had a similar echo effect, whether true or legitimate.  Again, that Trump would have been his opponent insulates Bernie from substantive policy attacks... 

 

 

 

 

The votes are there, the key is keeping the momentum and passion up so they turn out.  I read an interesting study on the Rust Belt that claimed it wasn't so much flipped or gained voters that put Trump over, but the total collapse of the electorate turning out that really doomed Clinton.

 

Well, I'm also talking the House, Senate, and state governments....

 

Well, I'm also talking the House, Senate, and state governments....

 

That only reinforces the same issue, IMO.  That's where those reluctant voters show up (or don't, as it applies here) are felt even more.

 

And that's why he wouldn't run on tax increases.  The electorate doesn't need policy to add up.  I mean Trump got away with saying Mexico will pay for the wall.   Bernie's message that the rich will pay for everything would have had a similar echo effect, whether true or legitimate.  Again, that Trump would have been his opponent insulates Bernie from substantive policy attacks... 

 

If you think an identified socialist can escape examination on whether he'd raise taxes, we're well into a fantasy land now.  

And that's why he wouldn't run on tax increases.  The electorate doesn't need policy to add up.  I mean Trump got away with saying Mexico will pay for the wall.   Bernie's message that the rich will pay for everything would have had a similar echo effect, whether true or legitimate.  Again, that Trump would have been his opponent insulates Bernie from substantive policy attacks...

 

The electorate that voted in Donald Trump doesn't need policy to add up. That much is true.

 

But that doesn't mean Bernie would have been insulated from attacks.

 

We'll never know, but my opinion is Sanders would have lost in a landslide.

 

Well, I'm also talking the House, Senate, and state governments....

 

Much easier to rally opposition than to rally support. A President being in power generally loses everything else. Obama seemed worse mostly because Dems were in a really strong position in 2016, nowhere to go but down.

 

These trends will flip, and flip bigly, starting in 2018.

 

The electorate that voted in Donald Trump doesn't need policy to add up. That much is true.

But that doesn't mean Bernie would have been insulated from attacks.

We'll never know, but my opinion is Sanders would have lost in a landslide.

 

Agree with the last sentence.

 

Much easier to rally opposition than to rally support. A President being in power generally loses everything else. Obama seemed worse mostly because Dems were in a really strong position in 2016, nowhere to go but down.

 

These trends will flip, and flip bigly, starting in 2018.

 

I think you underestimate the power of gerrymandering.

 

I think you underestimate the power of gerrymandering.

 

Fair, but I also think people underestimate the opportunity in gerrymandering in a wave election.

 

Fair, but I also think people underestimate the opportunity in gerrymandering in a wave election.

 

Oh, there is hope for sure......but some of these districts are downright unwinnable without a ton of GOP voters not voting, or switching sides, imo.

 

That only reinforces the same issue, IMO.  That's where those reluctant voters show up (or don't, as it applies here) are felt even more.

Hence the GOP moves to make it harder to vote--Photo ID, registration scrubbing, limiting polling places and hours.

 

Fair, but I also think people underestimate the opportunity in gerrymandering in a wave election.

 

Gerrymandering, the neutralization of the Voting Rights Act, making it more difficult to vote in districts that tend to vote democratic all have chipped away and helped the GOP.  When you look at how little it would have been to flip WI, MI etc. every bit makes a difference.

 

The Democrats are also bad about being motivated to vote when there is no Presidential candidate to vote for, which has hurt them in the midterms or when they aren't motivated to vote for the Presidential race.  The gerrymandering and other issues would not be as effective if they had a better voter turn-out.

 

Hence the GOP moves to make it harder to vote--Photo ID, registration scrubbing, limiting polling places and hours.

 

I agree, but the only way to fight those is to find a way to get people into office.  So it's an uphill fight for sure, but it has to happen.  It's the only way to reverse some of those things.

 

And these aren't new problems, it's how the House became a ****-show for crazies.

Edited February 8, 20179 yr by TheLeviathan

 

Gerrymandering, the neutralization of the Voting Rights Act, making it more difficult to vote in districts that tend to vote democratic all have chipped away and helped the GOP.  When you look at how little it would have been to flip WI, MI etc. every bit makes a difference.

 

The Democrats are also bad about being motivated to vote when there is no Presidential candidate to vote for, which has hurt them in the midterms or when they aren't motivated to vote for the Presidential race.  The gerrymandering and other issues would not be as effective if they had a better voter turn-out.

 

I agree with the first point. It absolutely confers an advantage when it is a normal election year. But one of the "problems" with gerrymandering is that it is susceptible to a wave election. If the Dems can flip the election 5 points it could flip 30-40 seats. Not a huge firewall.

 

I don't necessarily buy the second point. Dems did just fine in 2006. It is not a Dem/Rep problem as much as it is a party in/out of power problem. Much easier to rally around opposition than it is to rally around in support.

Random observation.  I noticed he uses the word "unfair" a lot.  I remember my nieces and nephews using that a lot when they were 5 and under.  They eventually grew out of it and also were not president of a country at the time.  He really does have the mentality of a spoiled child.

A rich entrepreneur could fix gerrymandering and the "swing counties" we see in swing states that tilt elections.

 

Build a factory in the key area. Hire minorities. Build affordable housing in the district for them to live. And of course give everyone the day off to vote. Give a bonus to people who come back to work with proof that they voted.

 

Sure, Republicans will adjust and gerrymander again. But the new boundary won't be far away. Build new housing in the new district. Provide public transport if necessary.

 

To the Buffets and Gates of this world, this would be nothing to do. And it might just be the only thing that can save us from ourselves.

Yay, Sessions. The trainwreck continues.

I wonder which cabinet member will have to step down first due to some scandal or gross incompetence  and when.  

Edited February 9, 20179 yr by D. Hocking

Kelly will leave first, but not because of incompetence.

 

In reality, only 4 cabinet positions really matter - State, Defense, Treasury and Attorney General, with Homeland Security a maybe. None of them strike me as grossly incompetent.

Which isn't to say I want any part of Sessions as AG.

 

Kelly will leave first, but not because of incompetence.

In reality, only 4 cabinet positions really matter - State, Defense, Treasury and Attorney General, with Homeland Security a maybe. None of them strike me as grossly incompetent.

Conflicts of interest aside.

Conflicts of interest aside.

That ship pretty much sails after confirmation.

That ship pretty much sails after confirmation.

that shipped sailed in November.

 

That ship pretty much sails after confirmation.

Well, of course, there's no action to be taken because of such conflicts of interests.  But conflicts of interest (whether imposing liability or not) do speak to competency, and fiduciary duties.  There's plenty of reason to disqualify each and every one of them. 

 

If American citizens had the same rights as shareholders they'd have standing to sue. 

Edited February 9, 20179 yr by PseudoSABR

So the senate needs 60 votes to confirm a scotus nominee. 52 republicans in senate. Trump has said if enough democrats dont confirm his nominee, he has recommended senate republicans change longstanding rules to allow the confirmation by a simple majority. Why are there rules in the house and Senate at all if they can just be changed whenever a party feels like it?