5 ms·

Exactly. One party rule is bad. The failurs of the GOP to put up viable local candidates in SF and the the Democrats in deep red states are not good for the hea

Exactly. One party rule is bad. The failurs of the GOP to put up viable local candidates in SF and the the Democrats in deep red states are not good for the health of the country

lotsofpulp 3y ago
Exactly why we need ranked choice voting.
hotpotamus 3y ago
I used to hear conservatives lament that large cities were unwinnable for Republican candidate, and these days I don't even hear that; it seems that they just accept it as a law of nature that they will be governed by Democrats. And as an example, Jacksonville, Florida just flipped that way. And I wonder - what would Republicans offer a city? My assumption is that they'd just blow a hole in any city budget with tax cuts for the wealthy, thereby achieving defunding of city services, but that's my bias. Still it doesn't seem like anyone in a big metro is buying what they're selling to the point where the Republicans don't even seem to try selling it anymore.
- throwaway6734 3y ago
  > what would Republicans offer a city? There are a lot of local policies that are in the vein of the traditional GOP politics (small govt, personal freedom, less regulation, etc.) that are very applicable to urban living but do cut against national GOP politics. If they could separate the local from the national they'd do great. Some examples: * Cutting land use regulations to encourage more housing development. Urban areas suffer from ridiculously high housing prices due to overburdensome regulation * Give parents more input into how their children's education via school choice. * Reduce red tape/bureaucracy for accomplishing things in cities like slow permitting processes and starting businesses
  - hotpotamus 3y ago
    From what I see in the comments about San Francisco (I'm a neophyte about it, never having even visited), it does not seem like people are desirous of less regulation. It seems that a tent city/open drug market is about as unregulated as it gets. (I get that ignoring regulations is different from removing them, though the practical difference seems small). I'm also suspicious of the idea that there's some great supply of land or buildings available for cheap housing if only it was deregulated; isn't San Francisco a small place?

Exactly. One party rule is bad. The failurs of the GOP to put up viable local candidates in SF and the the Democrats in deep red states are not good for the health of the country

lotsofpulp 3y ago

Exactly why we need ranked choice voting.

hotpotamus 3y ago

I used to hear conservatives lament that large cities were unwinnable for Republican candidate, and these days I don't even hear that; it seems that they just accept it as a law of nature that they will be governed by Democrats. And as an example, Jacksonville, Florida just flipped that way. And I wonder - what would Republicans offer a city? My assumption is that they'd just blow a hole in any city budget with tax cuts for the wealthy, thereby achieving defunding of city services, but that's my bias. Still it doesn't seem like anyone in a big metro is buying what they're selling to the point where the Republicans don't even seem to try selling it anymore.

throwaway6734 3y ago
> what would Republicans offer a city? There are a lot of local policies that are in the vein of the traditional GOP politics (small govt, personal freedom, less regulation, etc.) that are very applicable to urban living but do cut against national GOP politics. If they could separate the local from the national they'd do great. Some examples: * Cutting land use regulations to encourage more housing development. Urban areas suffer from ridiculously high housing prices due to overburdensome regulation * Give parents more input into how their children's education via school choice. * Reduce red tape/bureaucracy for accomplishing things in cities like slow permitting processes and starting businesses
- hotpotamus 3y ago
  From what I see in the comments about San Francisco (I'm a neophyte about it, never having even visited), it does not seem like people are desirous of less regulation. It seems that a tent city/open drug market is about as unregulated as it gets. (I get that ignoring regulations is different from removing them, though the practical difference seems small). I'm also suspicious of the idea that there's some great supply of land or buildings available for cheap housing if only it was deregulated; isn't San Francisco a small place?