Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 14:48:32 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2021 15:47:30 GMT
wins...despite NOT reflecting the views of America or sometimes even the GOP. From 2015, still relevant, in light of the coming "NOTHING" to be done by this Congress. "In the 25th anniversary issue of this magazine, Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson offered an explanation of what they call the "no-cost extremism" of current Republican politics. How does the GOP continue to move rightward and still win, they ask, despite the American public's opposition to much of the party's agenda? "Poll after poll," they point out, "shows that major GOP positions are not all that popular. Among swing voters, there has been nothing like the party's right turn. … On many social issues, such as gay marriage, middle-of-the-road voters have actually moved left. Yet the Republican Party keeps heading right. … In a 50-50 nation, Republicans have learned how to have their extremist cake and eat it too."... The U.S. Senate was designed to over-represent small states, but only recently has that bias been a Republican advantage. During the mid-20th century, the GOP regularly elected senators from large states such as California, Illinois, and New York. But during the past half-century, as a result of the GOP's dominance of small states and loss of big states, the party has consistently held a higher share of Senate seats than the share of American citizens who vote for its candidates. Meanwhile, on the other side of Capitol Hill, Republicans have also been able to outperform their share of the vote. In 2012, House Speaker John Boehner maintained his majorities even though Republican House candidates received a million-plus fewer votes nationwide than Democratic House candidates captured. As Hacker and Pierson correctly note, despite losing the national popular vote in that year's presidential race, Mitt Romney carried more House districts than Barack Obama did. This gap between national totals and district outcomes reflects two developments, one demographic and the other political. Democratic voters are now "inefficiently" distributed because they have become increasingly concentrated in cities, and the GOP has been able to capitalize on population patterns through the strategic use of partisan gerrymandering.... In a country where registration is voluntary and voting takes place on a workday, the party with older and more-affluent voters enjoys a boost at the polls. It's no coincidence that Republicans tend to oppose early or same-day registration but support stricter voter-ID laws to solve the phantom problem of voter fraud. ... Faced with this policy intransigence, Democrats often turn to the courts as a savior institution that can break legislative logjams and deliver liberal policy outcomes. But Republicans do not necessarily suffer when Democrats win in court; in fact, the GOP often benefits electorally and politically from landmark liberal court victories. As constitutional scholar Mark Tushnet argues in his book Why the Constitution Matters, the value for many elected officials of landmark court rulings is that these edicts often absolve legislators and executives of having to resolve controversial policy disputes. Elected politicians can simply say the courts forced their hands." prospect.org/power/republican-structural-advantage/Money, gerrymandering, money, racism, money, voting hurdles, money, gerrymandering... They're doing what they were designed to do. Keep the mostly white mostly male minority in power over the rest of us. ""Nothing" is the result American politics is best geared to deliver. Nothing is easy to achieve because of checks and balances in the American system and the generally awesome staying power of the status quo. If a series of attempts to change law or policy fail and nothing is done, the status quo "wins.""
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Jun 8, 2021 18:45:57 GMT
No one can effectively argue that the GOP does not have a redistricting advantage. However, we cannot win red/purple states with progressives. That’s not a GOP talking point; that’s reality. That gives me no joy to say because I lean progressive on the main issues (it’s no secret I supported Warren, and when she dropped out I voted for Sanders in the primary).
We did well in 2018 because we were united and we had one strong message: We will stop the repeal of Obamacare. We will protect people with pre-existing conditions. Healthcare…one of the most critical issues to voters.
2020 came along and we got rid of Trump. But we lost almost a dozen seats in the House, we screwed up in some Senate races and ended with a one-vote (Harris) majority, and lost in state legislatures. We flipped four Senate seats with three who are moderates and one who occasionally leans progressive. We even lost districts that are POC majority. Us. How is that even possible when it’s our party that has always advocated for POC? And that’s with having more money than the GOP. As NPR succinctly put it: “Biden had no coattails."
Not every red state can be a Georgia (and we couldn’t have had GA without the work of Stacey Abrams). What will be our message in 2022? Rethink the strategy and veer to the center for these states or we’ll once again be relegated to helplessly watching from the wings.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Jun 8, 2021 18:47:09 GMT
No one can effectively argue that the GOP does not have a redistricting advantage. However, we cannot win red/purple states with progressives. That’s not a GOP talking point; that’s reality. That gives me no joy to say because I lean progressive on the main issues (it’s no secret I supported Warren, and when she dropped out I voted for Sanders in the primary). We did well in 2018 because we were united and we had one strong message: We will stop the repeal of Obamacare. We will protect people with pre-existing conditions. Healthcare…one of the most critical issues to voters. 2020 came along and we got rid of Trump. But we lost almost a dozen seats in the House, we screwed up in some Senate races and ended with a one-vote (Harris) majority, and lost in state legislatures. We flipped four Senate seats with three who are moderates and one who occasionally leans progressive. We even lost districts that are POC majority. Us. How is that even possible when it’s our party that has always advocated for POC? And that’s with having more money than the GOP. As NPR succinctly put it: “Biden had no coattails. Not every red state can be a Georgia (and we couldn’t have had GA without the work of Stacey Abrams). What will be our message in 2022? Rethink the strategy and veer to the center for these states or we’ll once again be relegated to helplessly watching from the wings. This 💯%.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 14:48:32 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2021 18:48:24 GMT
However, we cannot win red/purple states with progressives. If we would make voting easier, that might not be true. We can't win w/progressives AND the current voting laws that make it harder for kids, minorities, etc to vote. See above. Catch-22.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Jun 8, 2021 19:05:36 GMT
However, we cannot win red/purple states with progressives. If we would make voting easier, that might not be true. We can't win w/progressives AND the current voting laws that make it harder for kids, minorities, etc to vote. See above. Catch-22. Chicken or the egg. You can’t change voting laws without first winning. You can’t win without first changing the voting laws. As of today, June 8, our agenda is stalled. It doesn’t matter that we think our ideas are better. Keep repeating the Pyrrhic victory of 2020 when progressives were trounced and refuse to face the reality that until we put more bodies in seats in Congress and in state legislatures, our grand ideas will just be that—ideas.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jun 8, 2021 19:20:20 GMT
However, we cannot win red/purple states with progressives. If we would make voting easier, that might not be true. We can't win w/progressives AND the current voting laws that make it harder for kids, minorities, etc to vote. See above. Catch-22. You're ignoring the demographics of the red/purple states - Wyoming 91% white, West Virginia 93% white, Tennessee 88% white... etc etc. Georgia is actually much lower than most with 58% and with a powerful advocate - made a difference - you might have a prayer in Mississippi or Maryland with similar demographics - but you can't argue voting laws making it harder for minorities to vote in a whole swath of states where there just aren't very many minorities and whites make up 75%+ of the voters.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 14:48:32 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2021 19:44:00 GMT
If we would make voting easier, that might not be true. We can't win w/progressives AND the current voting laws that make it harder for kids, minorities, etc to vote. See above. Catch-22. Chicken or the egg. You can’t change voting laws without first winning. You can’t win without first changing the voting laws. As of today, June 8, our agenda is stalled. It doesn’t matter that we think our ideas are better. Keep repeating the Pyrrhic victory of 2020 when progressives were trounced and refuse to face the reality that until we put more bodies in seats in Congress and in state legislatures, our grand ideas will just be that—ideas. We might be able to win by changing the voting laws - if we had some Dems in there w/the same fire in their belly, no holds barred, power-grabbers, as the GOP has. We're our own worst enemies.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jun 8, 2021 19:49:46 GMT
If we would make voting easier, that might not be true. We can't win w/progressives AND the current voting laws that make it harder for kids, minorities, etc to vote. See above. Catch-22. You're ignoring the demographics of the red/purple states - Wyoming 91% white, West Virginia 93% white, Tennessee 88% white... etc etc. Georgia is actually much lower than most with 58% and with a powerful advocate - made a difference - you might have a prayer in Mississippi or Maryland with similar demographics - but you can't argue voting laws making it harder for minorities to vote in a whole swath of states where there just aren't very many minorities and whites make up 75%+ of the voters. My state, NH is purple and 97% white. Instead of passing voter suppression laws aimed at minorities, our state legislature is trying to pass voter suppression laws aimed at young people and college students by tightening voter ID laws. Voter suppression laws are aimed at other demographics that tend to vote more liberally, not just minorities.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Jun 8, 2021 19:54:44 GMT
Chicken or the egg. You can’t change voting laws without first winning. You can’t win without first changing the voting laws. As of today, June 8, our agenda is stalled. It doesn’t matter that we think our ideas are better. Keep repeating the Pyrrhic victory of 2020 when progressives were trounced and refuse to face the reality that until we put more bodies in seats in Congress and in state legislatures, our grand ideas will just be that—ideas. We might be able to win by changing the voting laws - if we had some Dems in there w/the same fire in their belly, no holds barred, power-grabbers, as the GOP has. We're our own worst enemies. How? We need 60 votes for either the John Lewis Act or the For the People Act. By eliminating the filibuster? There are about ten or eleven Democrats against it. You think a red state or swing state Dem will just sign off on that? Even Feinstein is against it (just like Manchin; no to abolishment, yes to reforming). We could have a filibuster-proof majority, yes. Now tell me, in this present time, how do we accomplish that by running progressives in red and swing states. Primary the moderates out? The DNC doesn’t primary a moderate in a red or swing state because that’s self-defeating. (Not to mention stupid.) Do that and we’re more likely to end up with Rs in those seats.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 14:48:32 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2021 20:01:32 GMT
Now tell me, in this present time, how do we accomplish that by running progressives in red and swing states. I'm talking about running progressives in blue and some purpse districts and running moderates in the rest. I don't believe progressives can win in red districts either. What I'm saying is, we have the opportunity to enact voting law changes that would make it possible for Congress to be more representative of the will of the people. But many of the current Dems can't seem to see past their old-school ideology and their slavish devotion to the status quo. I'm fairly sure once the GOP takes back the Senate they'll blow the filibuster sky high so they can establish their theocratic/populist will on the US. They have no such slavish devotion to the status quo - unless it benefits them (holding up a Supreme Court nominee for almost an entire year comes to mind). The article at the OP was meant to show just how difficult it is to make progress in the US. Even when popular opinion is on its side.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Jun 8, 2021 21:19:41 GMT
Now tell me, in this present time, how do we accomplish that by running progressives in red and swing states. I'm talking about running progressives in blue and some purpse districts and running moderates in the rest. I don't believe progressives can win in red districts either. What I'm saying is, we have the opportunity to enact voting law changes that would make it possible for Congress to be more representative of the will of the people. But many of the current Dems can't seem to see past their old-school ideology and their slavish devotion to the status quo. I'm fairly sure once the GOP takes back the Senate they'll blow the filibuster sky high so they can establish their theocratic/populist will on the US. They have no such slavish devotion to the status quo - unless it benefits them (holding up a Supreme Court nominee for almost an entire year comes to mind). The article at the OP was meant to show just how difficult it is to make progress in the US. Even when popular opinion is on its side. Ideology? Slavish devotion to the status quo? Again, how? How do you change that? You already typed out the problem in your OP: Money. Democrats throughout the spectrum are funded by corporate money, industries, trade groups, unions, lobbyists, Wall Street, etc just like Republicans. I think it was McConnell (?) who said the three most important words in politics are “cash on hand.” That’s because it’s how American politics work—the one who spends the most money has a higher chance of winning. Again, reality. Our party, whether moderate or progressive, old school or new school, is not that noble when it comes to money (only Sanders can pass that purity test). We just like to think it is. Turn off the spigot and we’re road kill. Will that ever change? I don’t know.
|
|
sassyangel
Drama Llama
Posts: 7,456
Jun 26, 2014 23:58:32 GMT
|
Post by sassyangel on Jun 8, 2021 21:25:43 GMT
wins...despite NOT reflecting the views of America or sometimes even the GOP. From 2015, still relevant, in light of the coming "NOTHING" to be done by this Congress. "In the 25th anniversary issue of this magazine, Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson offered an explanation of what they call the "no-cost extremism" of current Republican politics. How does the GOP continue to move rightward and still win, they ask, despite the American public's opposition to much of the party's agenda? "Poll after poll," they point out, "shows that major GOP positions are not all that popular. Among swing voters, there has been nothing like the party's right turn. … On many social issues, such as gay marriage, middle-of-the-road voters have actually moved left. Yet the Republican Party keeps heading right. … In a 50-50 nation, Republicans have learned how to have their extremist cake and eat it too."... The U.S. Senate was designed to over-represent small states, but only recently has that bias been a Republican advantage. During the mid-20th century, the GOP regularly elected senators from large states such as California, Illinois, and New York. But during the past half-century, as a result of the GOP's dominance of small states and loss of big states, the party has consistently held a higher share of Senate seats than the share of American citizens who vote for its candidates. Meanwhile, on the other side of Capitol Hill, Republicans have also been able to outperform their share of the vote. In 2012, House Speaker John Boehner maintained his majorities even though Republican House candidates received a million-plus fewer votes nationwide than Democratic House candidates captured. As Hacker and Pierson correctly note, despite losing the national popular vote in that year's presidential race, Mitt Romney carried more House districts than Barack Obama did. This gap between national totals and district outcomes reflects two developments, one demographic and the other political. Democratic voters are now "inefficiently" distributed because they have become increasingly concentrated in cities, and the GOP has been able to capitalize on population patterns through the strategic use of partisan gerrymandering.... In a country where registration is voluntary and voting takes place on a workday, the party with older and more-affluent voters enjoys a boost at the polls. It's no coincidence that Republicans tend to oppose early or same-day registration but support stricter voter-ID laws to solve the phantom problem of voter fraud. ... Faced with this policy intransigence, Democrats often turn to the courts as a savior institution that can break legislative logjams and deliver liberal policy outcomes. But Republicans do not necessarily suffer when Democrats win in court; in fact, the GOP often benefits electorally and politically from landmark liberal court victories. As constitutional scholar Mark Tushnet argues in his book Why the Constitution Matters, the value for many elected officials of landmark court rulings is that these edicts often absolve legislators and executives of having to resolve controversial policy disputes. Elected politicians can simply say the courts forced their hands." prospect.org/power/republican-structural-advantage/Money, gerrymandering, money, racism, money, voting hurdles, money, gerrymandering... They're doing what they were designed to do. Keep the mostly white mostly male minority in power over the rest of us. ""Nothing" is the result American politics is best geared to deliver. Nothing is easy to achieve because of checks and balances in the American system and the generally awesome staying power of the status quo. If a series of attempts to change law or policy fail and nothing is done, the status quo "wins."" Why is it the GOP dominates some smaller states now? It didn’t use to, I’m talking my corner of ND, SD, MT and even WY. It’s like the Dems have just conceded them all to the GOP now. I mean, granted you would have to run specific types of candidates to be competitive in them, like not super progressive, but they weren’t unwinnable. People would vote both tickets here depending on the candidates. A rhetorical question, yeah - but one I’ve been wondering. It’s not like gerrymandering is a factor in them either. Except for MT now, they each have only one house rep a piece.
|
|
sassyangel
Drama Llama
Posts: 7,456
Jun 26, 2014 23:58:32 GMT
|
Post by sassyangel on Jun 8, 2021 21:30:33 GMT
No one can effectively argue that the GOP does not have a redistricting advantage. However, we cannot win red/purple states with progressives. That’s not a GOP talking point; that’s reality. That gives me no joy to say because I lean progressive on the main issues (it’s no secret I supported Warren, and when she dropped out I voted for Sanders in the primary). We did well in 2018 because we were united and we had one strong message: We will stop the repeal of Obamacare. We will protect people with pre-existing conditions. Healthcare…one of the most critical issues to voters. 2020 came along and we got rid of Trump. But we lost almost a dozen seats in the House, we screwed up in some Senate races and ended with a one-vote (Harris) majority, and lost in state legislatures. We flipped four Senate seats with three who are moderates and one who occasionally leans progressive. We even lost districts that are POC majority. Us. How is that even possible when it’s our party that has always advocated for POC? And that’s with having more money than the GOP. As NPR succinctly put it: “Biden had no coattails." Not every red state can be a Georgia (and we couldn’t have had GA without the work of Stacey Abrams). What will be our message in 2022? Rethink the strategy and veer to the center for these states or we’ll once again be relegated to helplessly watching from the wings. 100%. I lean much more progressive than the mean here, but I know my state - and AOC or anyone remotely in that vein wouldn’t have a prayer here.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 14:48:32 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2021 21:54:09 GMT
That's the 64 million dollar question. To me it comes down to money too. But in the other direction - starve the companies who fund the lunacy. We've got a start (in the thread on the money boys walking away from some of the more unhinged in Congress). Will it last? Only if we keep paying attention and keep the pressure on. Cancel culture. Boycotts. Call it whatever you want to. But money makes the system go run and LACK of money can kill it. But only if people care enough to be informed and vote/spend accordingly. I don't know any other way. I'm happy to learn others.
|
|