5 ms·

I don't see how that's straightforward, especially numbers 3 and 4. Are you gonna vote out the president just for NN? Even if you don't think the other guy is g

by ikurei 9y ago

I don't see how that's straightforward, especially numbers 3 and 4. Are you gonna vote out the president just for NN? Even if you don't think the other guy is gonna be much different in that regard? Americans cast one single vote (in presidential elections) for one of two candidates, on a myriad of issues of every level of seriousness. Leaving aside the fight to convince a majority of americans, just deciding to vote against someone for NN is anything but straightforward. I don't see why the criticisms on the idea discussed in the article. We can try both routes, give them all the flak we can for this and also try alternative paths to NN. This is an extremely uphill battle, we should be looking for every remotely-viable path.

int_19h 9y ago
One reason to raise stink now is to make it clear to any candidates for 2018 and 2020 elections that this is an issue to which they can pander for the sake of good PR and votes. That applies also (and, perhaps, especially) to the primaries.
- sundaeofshock 9y ago
  This Congress has been trying to gut healthcare and is about to pass an extremely destructive and unpopular tax “reform” bill. It is obvious they don’t care about popular opinion or even their chances for re-election.
  - aaronbrethorst 9y ago
    They care very deeply about reelection. In order to get reelected, they need money and to survive a primary. They won't get money from their big $$$ donors if they don't pass the tax cut bill. They won't survive a primary if they're seen as being 'soft' on the ACA by the true believers in their party. They don't have any idea how they're going to make it through the general election, but that's a fight for another day. They have other priorities first.
    - sundaeofshock 9y ago
      They also have to make it past the general election. GOP House members in blue states voting for the tax bill are basically acknowledging they don’t care about re-election. I suspect they hope to get a good job with their donors in exchange for committing political suicide. I think the GOP knows they are going to get one bite at this apple, and they are taking advantage of it. Hello tax reform and good bye NN.
      - int_19h 9y ago
        Just because it's a blue state, doesn't mean that it doesn't have red districts. Washington and Oregon are pretty damn blue, but it's because the western parts are ultra-blue. Eastern ones are very conservative in comparison, though. So their representatives very much care about re-election - which is why they're voting for, and very visibly supporting, the Republican agenda, because that's what their electorate demands of them. The ones that are on shaky ground are those in areas that previously voted Republican primarily for economic rather than social reasons (i.e. for the sake of low taxes, not because they wanted to ban abortion etc), and are now flipping to blue because Republican social policies became intolerable. This is many suburban districts. And Republicans there are listening; for example, in my district (WA-8), Dave Reichert voted against AHCA. The catch is, Republicans in those districts know that even if they pander to the new electorate somewhat, there are still enough reasons why their Democrat opponent will likely get their vote. They'd basically need to be liberal on everything except taxes (and given the nature of the tax proposal that Republicans unveiled, not even on that, since it hurts the suburban mid/high-middle class dwellers most!), at which point they might as well just switch parties. So you see a bunch of guys saying they won't run for re-election at all, and then they treat their remaining term as a means to squeeze the few last things in while they can.
        aaronbrethorst 9y ago
        How're you feeling about the choice of (someone) vs. Rossi, out of curiosity? (also, I see we have a bunch of shared connections on LinkedIn. I'm ex-Visual Studio.)
  - int_19h 9y ago
    The vast majority of Congressional districts in US are non-competitive. This means that what matters in those is the primary, not the general election. So if you're a liberal in a solid red district, threatening your Republican elected representative probably won't do much good (unless it's a swing district - those guys actually listen to some extent, especially now that Dems won a bunch of special elections in the suburbs, and there's talk of a wave next year). But if you're a liberal in a blue district, then you should write your rep and let them know that 1) you will vote in the primary, and 2) having a firm public position on this issue will be your litmus test for who gets your vote.
aaronbrethorst 9y ago
Getting my elected officials to do stuff I want is hard. I guess I'll go build an autonomous vehicle instead. Millions of people who are registered to vote simply didn't turn out last November because they thought their vote wouldn't matter, that the candidates would be about the same, or...who knows what else. If just a few tens of thousands of them happened to have voted for Clinton last November, we wouldn't even be having this discussion right now. And for the record, I think the President should be voted out for a couple dozen things, one of which is NN.

by ikurei 9y ago

int_19h 9y ago

One reason to raise stink now is to make it clear to any candidates for 2018 and 2020 elections that this is an issue to which they can pander for the sake of good PR and votes. That applies also (and, perhaps, especially) to the primaries.

sundaeofshock 9y ago
This Congress has been trying to gut healthcare and is about to pass an extremely destructive and unpopular tax “reform” bill. It is obvious they don’t care about popular opinion or even their chances for re-election.
- aaronbrethorst 9y ago
  They care very deeply about reelection. In order to get reelected, they need money and to survive a primary. They won't get money from their big $$$ donors if they don't pass the tax cut bill. They won't survive a primary if they're seen as being 'soft' on the ACA by the true believers in their party. They don't have any idea how they're going to make it through the general election, but that's a fight for another day. They have other priorities first.
  - sundaeofshock 9y ago
    They also have to make it past the general election. GOP House members in blue states voting for the tax bill are basically acknowledging they don’t care about re-election. I suspect they hope to get a good job with their donors in exchange for committing political suicide. I think the GOP knows they are going to get one bite at this apple, and they are taking advantage of it. Hello tax reform and good bye NN.
    - int_19h 9y ago
      Just because it's a blue state, doesn't mean that it doesn't have red districts. Washington and Oregon are pretty damn blue, but it's because the western parts are ultra-blue. Eastern ones are very conservative in comparison, though. So their representatives very much care about re-election - which is why they're voting for, and very visibly supporting, the Republican agenda, because that's what their electorate demands of them. The ones that are on shaky ground are those in areas that previously voted Republican primarily for economic rather than social reasons (i.e. for the sake of low taxes, not because they wanted to ban abortion etc), and are now flipping to blue because Republican social policies became intolerable. This is many suburban districts. And Republicans there are listening; for example, in my district (WA-8), Dave Reichert voted against AHCA. The catch is, Republicans in those districts know that even if they pander to the new electorate somewhat, there are still enough reasons why their Democrat opponent will likely get their vote. They'd basically need to be liberal on everything except taxes (and given the nature of the tax proposal that Republicans unveiled, not even on that, since it hurts the suburban mid/high-middle class dwellers most!), at which point they might as well just switch parties. So you see a bunch of guys saying they won't run for re-election at all, and then they treat their remaining term as a means to squeeze the few last things in while they can.
      - aaronbrethorst 9y ago
        How're you feeling about the choice of (someone) vs. Rossi, out of curiosity? (also, I see we have a bunch of shared connections on LinkedIn. I'm ex-Visual Studio.)
- int_19h 9y ago
  The vast majority of Congressional districts in US are non-competitive. This means that what matters in those is the primary, not the general election. So if you're a liberal in a solid red district, threatening your Republican elected representative probably won't do much good (unless it's a swing district - those guys actually listen to some extent, especially now that Dems won a bunch of special elections in the suburbs, and there's talk of a wave next year). But if you're a liberal in a blue district, then you should write your rep and let them know that 1) you will vote in the primary, and 2) having a firm public position on this issue will be your litmus test for who gets your vote.

aaronbrethorst 9y ago

Getting my elected officials to do stuff I want is hard. I guess I'll go build an autonomous vehicle instead. Millions of people who are registered to vote simply didn't turn out last November because they thought their vote wouldn't matter, that the candidates would be about the same, or...who knows what else. If just a few tens of thousands of them happened to have voted for Clinton last November, we wouldn't even be having this discussion right now. And for the record, I think the President should be voted out for a couple dozen things, one of which is NN.