5 ms·

Republicans abandoned people who are in favor of abortion. Republicans abandoned liberal Republicans like Bill Weld. Every party abandons people. Democrats c

by suture 4y ago

Republicans abandoned people who are in favor of abortion. Republicans abandoned liberal Republicans like Bill Weld. Every party abandons people. Democrats consistently hold majority views on a wide range of policy issues and consistently have more votes in national elections. Gerrymandering so that urban centers lose their voting power and other election rigging techniques is what is holding back Democratic policies. The Democratic Party should not abandon its highly popular core principles to cater to the deranged apportionment that the U.S. has.

rayiner 4y ago
> Republicans abandoned people who are in favor of abortion. Republicans abandoned liberal Republicans like Bill Weld. Every party abandons people. Sure. My point is that the party made this choice deliberately. Trying to pin the blame on Joe Manchin, who is doing yeoman’s work holding onto a key part of the old FDR coalition, is disingenuous. > Democrats consistently hold majority views on a wide range of policy issues and consistently have more votes in national elections. The views of the party leadership and donor base and closely affiliated NGOs do not have consistent majority support. For example, Dems have basically allowed NARAL, etc., to be the voice of the party on abortion. But a strong majority of Americans oppose second trimester abortions, which are guaranteed by Roe, and a quarter of democrats identify as “pro life.” That’s more than ones who identify as “very liberal.” The party used to get that, carving out a space for folks like Manchin in WV and Tom Daschle in SD. > Gerrymandering so that urban centers lose their voting power and other election rigging techniques is what is holding back Democratic policies. Republicans have won the Congressional popular vote slightly more than half of the time since 1990. They’re about to do it again. Gerrymandering doesn’t affect that. Even in the electoral college, it benefitted Democrats not only throughout the 1960s-1980s, but as recently as 2012. Obama would have been able to win a second term even if he lost the popular vote. > The Democratic Party should not abandon its highly popular core principles to cater to the deranged apportionment that the U.S. has. Democratic leaders and donors are deeply confused about what those “core principles” are, and who is in their coalition. The coalition is one of urban liberals who vote democrat for ideological reasons, and minorities and immigrants who vote Democrat out of self interest. My parents are the type of immigrant who turned Virginia blue. They care about Obamacare. They’ll accommodate some things the urban liberals want to get that. But that doesn’t mean they agree with college educated urban white people about what kids should learn in schools. The fact is that a big chunk of the Democratic coalition has social values closer to Republicans than to liberal Democrats. Moreover, those are the party’s marginal votes in states like Arizona and Nevada and Georgia. Urban Democrats should live in that reality.
- suture 4y ago
  You are absolutely wrong in thinking Gerrymandering does not affect Congressional popular vote. It absolutely does. Especially in non-Presidential years. There are secondary effects you are ignoring with this incorrect belief. In recent years, since SCOTUS abandoned voting rights, the closure of polling stations also affects voting numbers. We do not have proportional representation in the House, and the person with the most votes for President lost in 2000 and in 2016. The way Congressional districts are made and the weirdness of the Senate representation is such that we will soon be governed by a minoritist party. Who cares how things were in the 60s and 70s when the topic at hand is about the present day? EDIT: The Republican Party has overtly attempted to subvert the political norms of the country and continues to do so. Arguing about this or that policy is meaningless unless the messed up way the Senate and House seats are allocated is fixed. That won’t be addressed anytime soon so the situation is essentially hopeless. Oh, and Manchin sabotaged voting rights legislation.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    > You are absolutely wrong in thinking Gerrymandering does not affect Congressional popular vote. Gerrymandering does not even consistently hurt democrats in the number of House seats. Dems in 2020 won the same number of seats as their share of the Congressional popular vote. > There are secondary effects you are ignoring with this incorrect belief. In recent years, since SCOTUS abandoned voting rights, the closure of polling stations also affects voting numbers. This is the Democrat equivalent of believing the Big Lie. > The way Congressional districts are made and the weirdness of the Senate representation is such that we will soon be governed by a minoritist party. What’s Biden’s approval rating again? > Who cares how things were in the 60s and 70s when the topic at hand is about the present day? Because Democrats still claim to be the party of FDR, who stitched together a winning coalition. The electoral system benefited that coalition—when Biden became a Senator, Democrats had 10 percentage points more House seats than their share of the Congressional popular vote. That coalition is still viable. Obamacare was enacted on that coalition. Urban Dems have chosen deliberately to prioritize other things instead.
    - 4y ago
lesuorac 4y ago
> Gerrymandering so that urban centers lose their voting power and other election rigging techniques is what is holding back Democratic policies. I mean gerrymandering doesn't help but the Democrats aren't one cohesive unit otherwise they'd have no issue doing stuff right now. Sure people claim they only have 50+1 in the senate so they can be filibustered but they can just remove the filibuster with 50+1 and then do w/e they want. Democrats don't achieve their "party position's" because they're not the position that each member of the party has. The same is true for Republicans. Look at Trump's campaign promises [1] which were often parroted by Republicans in congress but they only major thing they achieved was the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act [2]. ACA was not repealed because some Republicans voted no. One thing news orgs commonly bring up with Trump is he appointed a bunch of judges but that's just because Republicans changed the filibuster so they could; if RBG retired when Obama told her too or Democrats made the same changes, Obama would have appointed a bunch more judges. [1]: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/list/?promise_group=trumpometer&ruling=promise-broken| https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/list/?prom... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act_of_2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act_of_2017
- suture 4y ago
  Republicans were never going to get rid of ACA; it’s their plan after all. Republicans were never going to build a wall. These were just talking points. What Republican lawmakers are great at is being united in thwarting Democratic policies and doing what it takes to enhance their own power. Republican lawmakers are much more united when it comes to core principles: 1. Thwart Democrats 2. Oppose abortion 3. Tax cuts 4. Cut/freeze non defense spending
  - lesuorac 4y ago
    1. This is kind of vague but Republicans do vote on Democrat-lead bills [1] which is a pretty poor way of thwarting them. 2. I did forget about mentioning that one. Republicans could have easily restricted it in 2016 if they as a cohesive unit wanted to. They do not. It's much more useful to leave it in the current state where it can constantly be brought up every election cycle as a way to drum up supporters who have no object permanence. 3. You got me here but that's also the thing I listed as their only accomplishment. 4. This one is very bi-partisan. The military has no issue with losing funding and especially wants to optimize funding by doing things such as closing low-utilized bases and moving those staff to other under-utilized bases. However doing so affects congressional districts and their congress representative have no interest in losing jobs (money) for their region. The lack of awareness of defense spending as a jobs program is a big pet peeve of mine :/ > What Republican lawmakers are great at is being united in thwarting Democratic policies and doing what it takes to enhance their own power. 5. Sure but Democrats have this issue as well. There have long been calls for things such as Ranked Choice Voting, Approval Voting, etc and Democrats and Republicans have long tried to even overturn those efforts even when decided by voters as a ballot measure. Both of them know that allowing this will degrade the "both sides" situation going on as other parties will gain a foothold. However it also leads to situations where voting for your first choice (a 3rd party) in close elections (i.e 2016 [2] vs 2020 [3] and 2000 [4]) can allow your second favorite candidate to lose but Democrats collectively are ok with losing every 3rd presidency (~1/10yr) as long as it doesn't eat into their powerhold (every other elected position). There really is no reason to argue about the Republicans here. We have a bunch of states such as North AND South Dakota strictly to increase the number of republican senators [5]. Or more recently, in 2000 when Republicans in US Supreme Court overruled Florida's Supreme Court about if a recount should occur [6] (so much for states rights!). SO yes, it's a moot point that Republicans are power hungry and don't care about consistency only power. [1]: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2016/senate/cosponsored-other-party https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2016/s... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_Pennsylvania#By_county https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidentia... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_Pennsylvania#Results_by_county https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidentia... [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida#Results_by_county https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidentia... [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Territory#Statehood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Territory#Statehood [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore

by suture 4y ago

rayiner 4y ago

> Republicans abandoned people who are in favor of abortion. Republicans abandoned liberal Republicans like Bill Weld. Every party abandons people. Sure. My point is that the party made this choice deliberately. Trying to pin the blame on Joe Manchin, who is doing yeoman’s work holding onto a key part of the old FDR coalition, is disingenuous. > Democrats consistently hold majority views on a wide range of policy issues and consistently have more votes in national elections. The views of the party leadership and donor base and closely affiliated NGOs do not have consistent majority support. For example, Dems have basically allowed NARAL, etc., to be the voice of the party on abortion. But a strong majority of Americans oppose second trimester abortions, which are guaranteed by Roe, and a quarter of democrats identify as “pro life.” That’s more than ones who identify as “very liberal.” The party used to get that, carving out a space for folks like Manchin in WV and Tom Daschle in SD. > Gerrymandering so that urban centers lose their voting power and other election rigging techniques is what is holding back Democratic policies. Republicans have won the Congressional popular vote slightly more than half of the time since 1990. They’re about to do it again. Gerrymandering doesn’t affect that. Even in the electoral college, it benefitted Democrats not only throughout the 1960s-1980s, but as recently as 2012. Obama would have been able to win a second term even if he lost the popular vote. > The Democratic Party should not abandon its highly popular core principles to cater to the deranged apportionment that the U.S. has. Democratic leaders and donors are deeply confused about what those “core principles” are, and who is in their coalition. The coalition is one of urban liberals who vote democrat for ideological reasons, and minorities and immigrants who vote Democrat out of self interest. My parents are the type of immigrant who turned Virginia blue. They care about Obamacare. They’ll accommodate some things the urban liberals want to get that. But that doesn’t mean they agree with college educated urban white people about what kids should learn in schools. The fact is that a big chunk of the Democratic coalition has social values closer to Republicans than to liberal Democrats. Moreover, those are the party’s marginal votes in states like Arizona and Nevada and Georgia. Urban Democrats should live in that reality.

suture 4y ago
You are absolutely wrong in thinking Gerrymandering does not affect Congressional popular vote. It absolutely does. Especially in non-Presidential years. There are secondary effects you are ignoring with this incorrect belief. In recent years, since SCOTUS abandoned voting rights, the closure of polling stations also affects voting numbers. We do not have proportional representation in the House, and the person with the most votes for President lost in 2000 and in 2016. The way Congressional districts are made and the weirdness of the Senate representation is such that we will soon be governed by a minoritist party. Who cares how things were in the 60s and 70s when the topic at hand is about the present day? EDIT: The Republican Party has overtly attempted to subvert the political norms of the country and continues to do so. Arguing about this or that policy is meaningless unless the messed up way the Senate and House seats are allocated is fixed. That won’t be addressed anytime soon so the situation is essentially hopeless. Oh, and Manchin sabotaged voting rights legislation.
- rayiner 4y ago
  > You are absolutely wrong in thinking Gerrymandering does not affect Congressional popular vote. Gerrymandering does not even consistently hurt democrats in the number of House seats. Dems in 2020 won the same number of seats as their share of the Congressional popular vote. > There are secondary effects you are ignoring with this incorrect belief. In recent years, since SCOTUS abandoned voting rights, the closure of polling stations also affects voting numbers. This is the Democrat equivalent of believing the Big Lie. > The way Congressional districts are made and the weirdness of the Senate representation is such that we will soon be governed by a minoritist party. What’s Biden’s approval rating again? > Who cares how things were in the 60s and 70s when the topic at hand is about the present day? Because Democrats still claim to be the party of FDR, who stitched together a winning coalition. The electoral system benefited that coalition—when Biden became a Senator, Democrats had 10 percentage points more House seats than their share of the Congressional popular vote. That coalition is still viable. Obamacare was enacted on that coalition. Urban Dems have chosen deliberately to prioritize other things instead.
  - 4y ago

lesuorac 4y ago

> Gerrymandering so that urban centers lose their voting power and other election rigging techniques is what is holding back Democratic policies. I mean gerrymandering doesn't help but the Democrats aren't one cohesive unit otherwise they'd have no issue doing stuff right now. Sure people claim they only have 50+1 in the senate so they can be filibustered but they can just remove the filibuster with 50+1 and then do w/e they want. Democrats don't achieve their "party position's" because they're not the position that each member of the party has. The same is true for Republicans. Look at Trump's campaign promises [1] which were often parroted by Republicans in congress but they only major thing they achieved was the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act [2]. ACA was not repealed because some Republicans voted no. One thing news orgs commonly bring up with Trump is he appointed a bunch of judges but that's just because Republicans changed the filibuster so they could; if RBG retired when Obama told her too or Democrats made the same changes, Obama would have appointed a bunch more judges. [1]: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/list/?promise_group=trumpometer&ruling=promise-broken| https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/list/?prom... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act_of_2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act_of_2017

suture 4y ago
Republicans were never going to get rid of ACA; it’s their plan after all. Republicans were never going to build a wall. These were just talking points. What Republican lawmakers are great at is being united in thwarting Democratic policies and doing what it takes to enhance their own power. Republican lawmakers are much more united when it comes to core principles: 1. Thwart Democrats 2. Oppose abortion 3. Tax cuts 4. Cut/freeze non defense spending
- lesuorac 4y ago
  1. This is kind of vague but Republicans do vote on Democrat-lead bills [1] which is a pretty poor way of thwarting them. 2. I did forget about mentioning that one. Republicans could have easily restricted it in 2016 if they as a cohesive unit wanted to. They do not. It's much more useful to leave it in the current state where it can constantly be brought up every election cycle as a way to drum up supporters who have no object permanence. 3. You got me here but that's also the thing I listed as their only accomplishment. 4. This one is very bi-partisan. The military has no issue with losing funding and especially wants to optimize funding by doing things such as closing low-utilized bases and moving those staff to other under-utilized bases. However doing so affects congressional districts and their congress representative have no interest in losing jobs (money) for their region. The lack of awareness of defense spending as a jobs program is a big pet peeve of mine :/ > What Republican lawmakers are great at is being united in thwarting Democratic policies and doing what it takes to enhance their own power. 5. Sure but Democrats have this issue as well. There have long been calls for things such as Ranked Choice Voting, Approval Voting, etc and Democrats and Republicans have long tried to even overturn those efforts even when decided by voters as a ballot measure. Both of them know that allowing this will degrade the "both sides" situation going on as other parties will gain a foothold. However it also leads to situations where voting for your first choice (a 3rd party) in close elections (i.e 2016 [2] vs 2020 [3] and 2000 [4]) can allow your second favorite candidate to lose but Democrats collectively are ok with losing every 3rd presidency (~1/10yr) as long as it doesn't eat into their powerhold (every other elected position). There really is no reason to argue about the Republicans here. We have a bunch of states such as North AND South Dakota strictly to increase the number of republican senators [5]. Or more recently, in 2000 when Republicans in US Supreme Court overruled Florida's Supreme Court about if a recount should occur [6] (so much for states rights!). SO yes, it's a moot point that Republicans are power hungry and don't care about consistency only power. [1]: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2016/senate/cosponsored-other-party https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2016/s... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_Pennsylvania#By_county https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidentia... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_Pennsylvania#Results_by_county https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidentia... [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida#Results_by_county https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidentia... [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Territory#Statehood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Territory#Statehood [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore