Dems Rebuild

[BigRedBuster]

7 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

Unless I'm missing a decent argument out there, the Democrats are being very biased on the citizenship question on the Census. The goal of adding the question is obvious, but that doesn't make it illogical.

 

Non-citizens can't vote and they shouldn't be counted when it comes to representation.

 

The problem is there are plenty more illogical and unfair things that favor the GOP. But I don't think fighting for this is a good look.

 

I basically don't have a problem with the question on the census due to it being an important statistic that could be useful....and for the bolded part.

 

I am concerned about the reasoning why this administration wants it on there.  One thing is that even if they (God forbid) win a second term, they would be almost out of office before any of the data could be used nefariously.  

[Moiraine]

4 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

I basically don't have a problem with the question on the census due to it being an important statistic that could be useful....and for the bolded part.

 

I am concerned about the reasoning why this administration wants it on there.  One thing is that even if they (God forbid) win a second term, they would be almost out of office before any of the data could be used nefariously.  

 

 

For sure it's to reduce the # of Democratic House seats, which would effect the House make up thru 2030. Same with the Electoral College.

 

And maybe to pick places for ICE to focus on. E.g. if they have a sudden drop from the ACS population to the 2020 Census population on a block, they might find non-citizens there.

 

 

I would be fine with this if they fixed Gerrymandering. Likewise I'd be fine with requiring an ID to vote if all citizens were given free IDs. But there's always a hidden agenda to all of these things that sound reasonable.

Edited March 27, 2018 by Moiraine

[Danny Bateman]

37 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

For sure it's to reduce the # of Democratic House seats, which would effect the House make up thru 2030. Same with the Electoral College.

 

And maybe to pick places for ICE to focus on. E.g. if they have a sudden drop from the ACS population to the 2020 Census population on a block, they might find non-citizens there.

 

 

I would be fine with this if they fixed Gerrymandering. Likewise I'd be fine with requiring an ID to vote if all citizens were given free IDs. But there's always a hidden agenda to all of these things that sound reasonable.

 

This is correct.

 

There is no way I trust this administration or the GOP to use this information responsibly. After seeing what they did in 2010 with gerrymandering, why would anyone?

[HS_Coach_C]

9 minutes ago, Clifford Franklin said:

 

This is correct.

 

There is no way I trust this administration or the GOP to use this information responsibly. After seeing what they did in 2010 with gerrymandering, why would anyone?

I don't trust them a bit, nor do I trust the Democrats.  It's the game they both play to try to get an advantage and keep power.

[Danny Bateman]

Just now, HS_Coach_C said:

I don't trust them a bit, nor do I trust the Democrats.  It's the game they both play to try to get an advantage and keep power.

 

Which is why I'm against anybody doing it.

 

Gerrymandering is wrong both ways. The Supreme Court has a chance to bring the hammer down this summer before Kennedy retires. I REALLY hope they do so.

[HS_Coach_C]

2 minutes ago, Clifford Franklin said:

 

Which is why I'm against anybody doing it.

 

Gerrymandering is wrong both ways. The Supreme Court has a chance to bring the hammer down this summer before Kennedy retires. I REALLY hope they do so.

 

Me too. 

 

I'd also like to see something changed to reduce filibustering so maybe Congress could actually get something done once in a while...

[Danny Bateman]

30 minutes ago, HS_Coach_C said:

 

Me too. 

 

I'd also like to see something changed to reduce filibustering so maybe Congress could actually get something done once in a while...

 

This is an interesting topic. 

 

It's something Trump has expressed interest in. Conversely, I saw it promoted by a liberal publication last night to promote the type of gun control reforms the Parkland kids are looking for.

 

A lot of current Senators seem to view the filibuster as the final bulwark against rash legislation without debate. They truly view themselves as the world's greatest deliberative body. For instance, imagine what the GOP would have already passed had they not needed to get to 60 votes in the Senate...

 

However, McConnell already blew apart the filibuster on SC justices. Is the regular Senate legislative filibuster next? (Should it be?)

[BigRedBuster]

55 minutes ago, Clifford Franklin said:

 

Which is why I'm against anybody doing it.

 

Gerrymandering is wrong both ways. The Supreme Court has a chance to bring the hammer down this summer before Kennedy retires. I REALLY hope they do so.

 

 

1 hour ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

For sure it's to reduce the # of Democratic House seats, which would effect the House make up thru 2030. Same with the Electoral College.

 

And maybe to pick places for ICE to focus on. E.g. if they have a sudden drop from the ACS population to the 2020 Census population on a block, they might find non-citizens there.

 

 

I would be fine with this if they fixed Gerrymandering. Likewise I'd be fine with requiring an ID to vote if all citizens were given free IDs. But there's always a hidden agenda to all of these things that sound reasonable.

Gerrymandering needs to be fixed and we need to have a better handle on the population of eligible voters to be able to assign representation.  I really don't care what party is hurt or helped.  Everyone should support these efforts AND hold our government accountable to not use the information in bad ways.

[Danny Bateman]

Wisconsin elects the liberal candidate over the conservative to a 10-year state SC seat, moving the court to a 4-3 majority for conservative justices.

 

 

Scott Walker freaks out but struggles to grasp what's really going on. Someone like Scott Walker complaining about special interest money in politics is really rich.

 

 

[funhusker]

7 hours ago, Clifford Franklin said:

Wisconsin elects the liberal candidate over the conservative to a 10-year state SC seat, moving the court to a 4-3 majority for conservative justices.

 

 

Scott Walker freaks out but struggles to grasp what's really going on. Someone like Scott Walker complaining about special interest money in politics is really rich.

 

 

I get a kick out of how he says "the far left is driven by anger and hatred".  It's not like the "far right" is driven by unicorns and rainbows (definitely not rainbows )

 

edit: at the risk of "whataboutism", I just wish politicians would vocalize to their constituents that not everyone from the other party is a crazy person and the world will end if they don't get elected.  Now, there are some really bad candidates; but would it be the end of the world if Walker made a comment to congratulate the new justice and just make a comment about how he will do his best as governor to make sure he continues to accomplish what he ran on?

Edited April 4, 2018 by funhusker

[knapplc]

The Democrats got ambushed in the 2016 election, as Trump came just about out of nowhere to take the White House.  That would seem to warrant quite a bit of soul-searching and rebuilding, much like the Republicans did in 2012 when they failed to unseat Obama.

 

I mean, that would be simple pragmatism, right? 

 

LOL no we're just gonna wing it!

 

Quote

 

Democrats “didn’t even attempt” a 2016 autopsy

Pod Save America host and former Obama aide Jon Favreau said the Democratic Party had failed to properly reflect on the reasons for its loss in the 2016 presidential election in a post on Crooked Media, announcing a plan for his popular podcast network to tackle the topic over the summer and asking for listeners' thoughts:

"The party shouldn’t just hang its hopes on the current wave of anti-Trump sentiment. We have to understand our weaknesses and correct them so that we can build a lasting majority that helps us withstand future Donald Trumps."

 

 

[QMany]

On that topic:

 

 

[Landlord]

That's not a burn at all. That's part of the problem.

 

They're 'winning' because of unity against something worse. Not because they're something noble. They're just less bad. Notice how her tweet says 'Correction' - correction of what? There was no assertion in the tweet she's quoting, other than the question of what's wrong with the Democratic Party? What are you correcting? The idea that there is anything wrong with your party? You're proving the problem.

[QMany]

She explains it was not meant to be a burn, but I think it is an indictment of Favreau who is throwing stones while he was part of the problem. Downballots were somewhat ignored by the Obama Administration (Favreau).

I agree they shouldn't just hang their hopes on anti-Trump sentiment. But you have the one of the most corrupt and awful human beings ever in the White House. It would be gross negligence to not use that as the #1 argument and catalyst for these midterms.  

 

Their messaging for the next Presidential Election needs to be much better. 

Edited April 19, 2018 by QMany

[Danny Bateman]

It's actually one of the most accurate, stinging rebukes of the Democratic Party structurally under Obama, IMO.

 

I like the Pod Save guys, and listen to their stuff quite frequently, but they caught a lot of crap for that tweet, and I'm not sure it's not totally undeserved.

 

It seems like we're at a point in politics where people are attempting to build credibility by denouncing both parties, in particular their own. Some genuinely feel neither party represents them. Others legitimately want parties to make changes that will allow them to better represent people like themselves. Some folks just try to say the right things and pander to the right people for self-promotion and popularity.

 

I'm not sure which their initiative is yet. I hope it's not the latter. It sure feels like a slap in the face to all the Dems who've run and won (or are running) on campaigns focused on local issues that their constituents care about. Those Democrats didn't win by running against Trump. That's not going to move many votes in downballot races.

 

Democrats seemed to have mostly learned the lesson that they can't simply tell people how unacceptable Republicans are and ask people to vote for them instead. And you can't use a top-down approach that neglects or actively hurts state/local politics when you don't have an Obama leading your party. It's not the right approach even if you do.