3 ms·

^this. Yes while it may be true that media will benefit from this, it almost virtually guarantees no more Republican presidents. Given that the House is also tr

^this. Yes while it may be true that media will benefit from this, it almost virtually guarantees no more Republican presidents. Given that the House is also trending in that direction, the only real place where power still remains with the Republicans is the Senate. Too many mega corporations benefit from keeping the Dems out, (taxes, employee rights, minimum wage, etc.) and they will fight tooth and nail to maintain the status quo.

pmoriarty 6y ago
"the only real place where power still remains with the Republicans is the Senate" And the Supreme Court, and many lower courts, which have been packed with Republicans. Not to mention the military and the police, and probably the intelligence agencies too.
- yokaze 6y ago
  Technically, they are judges at court and should rule according to the law not their political leanings. I am aware that is not necessarily true, but it is also in the self-interest of the judges to be perceived as impartial, otherwise they loose their authority. Police, military and intelligence agencies are government agencies, and are part of the executive. They should do their job irregardless of who is in power. A lot of high ranking people have worked through several administrations because they simply do their job, irregardless of their political leanings. Partisanship is harmful for those people, as it threatens their job security.
  - pmoriarty 6y ago
    "Technically, they are judges at court and should rule according to the law not their political leanings." If that were true you wouldn't have liberals appointing liberal judges and conservatives appointing conservatives, and fighting tooth and nail over it. Also, the Supreme Court effectively makes the law, not just follows it, and that's true to some extent of lower courts as well, as most cases never make it to the SC. It's not a coincidence that now that we have a conservative Supreme Court it's widely expected that Roe v Wade is going to get overturned soon. The law didn't change, but who's on the SC did. "They should do their job irregardless of who is in power." They have a lot leeway as to how to do their job, and many of them will use their power to pursue vendettas against people they don't like, as we saw with Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, Bagram, black sites around the world, and all the torture and murder that the police engage in. Prison guards and employees of ICE and Homeland Security are also probably mostly Republicans, and it's hard to argue that their politics and world view doesn't affect the way they do their job or why they are in those jobs in the first place.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> it almost virtually guarantees no more Republican presidents. No, it doesn’t, unless the Republican Party doesn’t adapt to changing conditions as it has continuously since it’s founding. It probably guarantees the Republican Party will realign slightly around some peripheral issues to shift it's geographic focus slightly while retaining it's core economic message, and continue on without breaking stride.
- rendall 6y ago
  There will always only be Democrats and Republicans, and because the system is a duopoly, when people get sick of one they will exercise their choice to revolve again to the other, round and round and round. Republicans are no more "finished" by Trump than Democrats were finished by Clinton. Dislodging the duopoly (that is, opening the electoral system to 3rd parties) will require proportional representation full stop. Nothing else will do.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > There will always only be Democrats and Republicans, and because the system is a duopoly, Maybe, but people probably thought that about Democratic-Republicans and Federalists, or Democrats and Whigs. The subsequent realignments have so far been more gradual adaptations within the existing major parties, but a radical and suddenly realignment destroying (and replacing, either immediately or in short order) one of the majors is still possible. > Dislodging the duopoly (that is, opening the electoral system to 3rd parties) will require proportional representation full stop. Something like that, yes. (Not necessarily party-list PR, but electoral systems with greater proportionality than FPTP.)
    - rendall 6y ago
      I don't think we disagree. Fair point about "Democrats" and "Republicans" not always helming the Duopoly, but I do maintain that FPTP + winner take all will always and inevitably lead to only 2 dominant parties, whatever they're called. If you disagree with that last point, I sincerely hope you're right, but one need only cite the weight of history and Duverger's law to support it.
maxerickson 6y ago
Republicans gained 10 seats in the house and lost several in the Senate (and also lost the majority). Typically the house moves away from the President in the first election after they take office, so there is a fair chance that more seats will go Republican in 2022 also.

pmoriarty 6y ago

"the only real place where power still remains with the Republicans is the Senate" And the Supreme Court, and many lower courts, which have been packed with Republicans. Not to mention the military and the police, and probably the intelligence agencies too.

yokaze 6y ago
Technically, they are judges at court and should rule according to the law not their political leanings. I am aware that is not necessarily true, but it is also in the self-interest of the judges to be perceived as impartial, otherwise they loose their authority. Police, military and intelligence agencies are government agencies, and are part of the executive. They should do their job irregardless of who is in power. A lot of high ranking people have worked through several administrations because they simply do their job, irregardless of their political leanings. Partisanship is harmful for those people, as it threatens their job security.
- pmoriarty 6y ago
  "Technically, they are judges at court and should rule according to the law not their political leanings." If that were true you wouldn't have liberals appointing liberal judges and conservatives appointing conservatives, and fighting tooth and nail over it. Also, the Supreme Court effectively makes the law, not just follows it, and that's true to some extent of lower courts as well, as most cases never make it to the SC. It's not a coincidence that now that we have a conservative Supreme Court it's widely expected that Roe v Wade is going to get overturned soon. The law didn't change, but who's on the SC did. "They should do their job irregardless of who is in power." They have a lot leeway as to how to do their job, and many of them will use their power to pursue vendettas against people they don't like, as we saw with Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, Bagram, black sites around the world, and all the torture and murder that the police engage in. Prison guards and employees of ICE and Homeland Security are also probably mostly Republicans, and it's hard to argue that their politics and world view doesn't affect the way they do their job or why they are in those jobs in the first place.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> it almost virtually guarantees no more Republican presidents. No, it doesn’t, unless the Republican Party doesn’t adapt to changing conditions as it has continuously since it’s founding. It probably guarantees the Republican Party will realign slightly around some peripheral issues to shift it's geographic focus slightly while retaining it's core economic message, and continue on without breaking stride.

rendall 6y ago
There will always only be Democrats and Republicans, and because the system is a duopoly, when people get sick of one they will exercise their choice to revolve again to the other, round and round and round. Republicans are no more "finished" by Trump than Democrats were finished by Clinton. Dislodging the duopoly (that is, opening the electoral system to 3rd parties) will require proportional representation full stop. Nothing else will do.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > There will always only be Democrats and Republicans, and because the system is a duopoly, Maybe, but people probably thought that about Democratic-Republicans and Federalists, or Democrats and Whigs. The subsequent realignments have so far been more gradual adaptations within the existing major parties, but a radical and suddenly realignment destroying (and replacing, either immediately or in short order) one of the majors is still possible. > Dislodging the duopoly (that is, opening the electoral system to 3rd parties) will require proportional representation full stop. Something like that, yes. (Not necessarily party-list PR, but electoral systems with greater proportionality than FPTP.)
  - rendall 6y ago
    I don't think we disagree. Fair point about "Democrats" and "Republicans" not always helming the Duopoly, but I do maintain that FPTP + winner take all will always and inevitably lead to only 2 dominant parties, whatever they're called. If you disagree with that last point, I sincerely hope you're right, but one need only cite the weight of history and Duverger's law to support it.

maxerickson 6y ago

Republicans gained 10 seats in the house and lost several in the Senate (and also lost the majority). Typically the house moves away from the President in the first election after they take office, so there is a fair chance that more seats will go Republican in 2022 also.