The Democrat Utopia

[Moiraine]

14 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Nope….still not for a majority taking away what little power the minority has. We will end up with ever wider extreme swings in legislation that I’m not for….either way.  

 

 

The problem is the Republicans are blocking un-extreme things like voting rights and an investigation into the insurrection. These are related to threats to democracy itself in this country. If they don’t go through we could be f#&%ed and then it won’t matter whether there is a filibuster or not. 

 

The Republicans are hell bent on painting Democrats as socialists/communists who will destroy the country and are the enemy of the people. Convincing their brainwashed base it’s ok if they take complete control would be simple. We are facing something potentially much scarier than having the majority be able to pass legislation that ensures elections are fair. 

[nic]

1 hour ago, knapplc said:

 

LOL

Actually, they won't need to. Starting in 2024, they will always have super majorities. 

[Archy1221]

9 hours ago, Moiraine said:

Republicans are blocking un-extreme things like voting rights

You mean a federal takeover of state elections. No one is having their right to vote taken away or being suppressed by any bill unless you can show otherwise.  This bill is a way for Democrats to pretend to be so outraged that they need to wipe out the filibuster.  
 

9 hours ago, Moiraine said:

The Republicans are hell bent on painting Democrats as socialists/communists who will destroy the country

And Democrats are hell bent on painting Republicans as Fascists who will destroy the country.   Both are wrong 

[commando]

54 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

 

And Democrats are hell bent on painting Republicans as Fascists who will destroy the country.   Both are wrong 

if the trumpian faction wasn't in control the shoe wouldn't ft

[Archy1221]

7 minutes ago, commando said:

if the trumpian faction wasn't in control the shoe wouldn't ft

It doesn’t fit

[commando]

2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

It doesn’t fit

unfortunately for all of us...it does.

[Dr. Strangelove]

22 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

I think this is the oversimplification.

 

There's no current evidence that would give the Republicans the majority, let alone for "a very long time." Republicans are pushing an unpopular agenda, tied to an unpopular political figure. Toomey is retiring, Johnson is vulnerable, and those are both from states Biden won outright. Biden narrowly lost North Carolina, where Burr is retiring. 

 

Republicans need to flip seats, but the most vulnerable Democrats like Warnock in Georgia and Kelly in Arizona have no true opponents yet. Herschel Walker may run in Georgia, but he has to establish residency first, and overcome the stank of trump. Warnock rode to victory on anti-trump sentiment. I know Walker is a local legend, but that's a lot to overcome. 

 

 

 

 

The PVI of the country is driving further and further to the right, making it more and more difficult to win the Senate.

 

Over time, as demographic shifts towards cities increases ever further, the majority of the population will live in a handful of select cities. Meanwhile, rural and stagnate states (Montana, Wisconsin, etc.) Become more conservative, nearly locking in 2 GOP Senators for each state.

 

A microcosm of this is essentially former purple states like Iowa and Ohio that are no longer competitive. At least for the Senate, there are more states drifting to the right than there are states drifting to the left (even if the overall population is drifting left). The end result is a Senate that is very conservative but a population that is liberal.

[nic]

5 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

You mean a federal takeover of state elections. No one is having their right to vote taken away or being suppressed by any bill unless you can show otherwise.  This bill is a way for Democrats to pretend to be so outraged that they need to wipe out the filibuster.  
 

And Democrats are hell bent on painting Republicans as Fascists who will destroy the country.   Both are wrong 

I would suggest that the reason this is so easy for Republicans to filibuster is because a vast majority of voters are in favor of voters needing IDs. 80% IF you believe the polls. I understand that polls these days are suspect, and you really have to read how the questions were framed. BUT...I am hearing (can’t always trust the media either) that even Stacey Abrams is now ok with voter IDs. I thought they were Jim Crow rules a few months ago. IF Dems are starting to accept IDs, then I suspect their internal polling is showing that IDs are a must to win this debate. I think we all just want easy ways to vote that do not make it easy to cheat.

[nic]

4 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

Over time, as demographic shifts towards cities increases ever further

 

The end result is a Senate that is very conservative but a population that is liberal.

I agree that it will be more difficult for Dems to hold the Senate, in general. Thus the push to make Puerto Rico and DC states. Do you think people will still migrate toward the cities though? The crap going on in cities this past year along with the possibility of remote work have seemed to lead to folks leaving cities, at least in the short term. Not sure about a liberal population. I tend to still see a bunch of folks in the middle. It seems like that will grow, with the extreme views getting worse. 

[BigRedBuster]

5 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

It doesn’t fit

Wrong

[Moiraine]

1 hour ago, nic said:

I would suggest that the reason this is so easy for Republicans to filibuster is because a vast majority of voters are in favor of voters needing IDs. 80% IF you believe the polls. I understand that polls these days are suspect, and you really have to read how the questions were framed. BUT...I am hearing (can’t always trust the media either) that even Stacey Abrams is now ok with voter IDs. I thought they were Jim Crow rules a few months ago. IF Dems are starting to accept IDs, then I suspect their internal polling is showing that IDs are a must to win this debate. I think we all just want easy ways to vote that do not make it easy to cheat.

 

 

I don’t think Democrats have been against voter IDs as long as they’re free. 

[BigRedBuster]

21 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I don’t think Democrats have been against voter IDs as long as they’re free. 

Over the years I've had discussions with some who are.

 

There are other issues other than just being free.  For instance, if you were born in the US and should be able to vote, but don't have a birth certificate.

[RedDenver]

9 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Over the years I've had discussions with some who are.

 

There are other issues other than just being free.  For instance, if you were born in the US and should be able to vote, but don't have a birth certificate.

I have don't have issues with the concept of a voter ID, but instead with the execution as it will inevitably be used as a poll tax by making it easier for some groups to get it and harder for others.

[nic]

1 hour ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I don’t think Democrats have been against voter IDs as long as they’re free. 

Georgia's is going to provide free IDs, but there seemed to be lots of anger over that requirement. Maybe that was just politics. 

[knapplc]

1 minute ago, nic said:

Georgia's is going to provide free IDs, but there seemed to be lots of anger over that requirement. Maybe that was just politics. 

 

The problem with requiring ID comes when they make it more difficult to get an ID in certain districts. Underserving a district is still serving a district, albeit disproportionately.

 

The fear is that even free IDs can be abused. And if a party can abuse something for political gain, they will.