drsmooth wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:I'm not sure the Dems can count on its equivalent.

This is the part I'm thinking is not as easily defended. Are you basing this on some particular historical example(s), or a general sentiment about lazy young hippies not voting intelligently on down-ballot choices?

TenuredVulture wrote:Also, I think it's really counterproductive to complain about gerrymandering. Is it a thing? Absolutely. But it's not as big a thing as people make it out to be. Dems lose elections because Dem voters don't show up for mid term elections, and they really don't show up in state legislative races. On top of that, until recently generic Congressional election polls showed a slight lean towards the R side.

To be sure, a lot of this can be laid at the feet of the DNC, which got away from a very successful strategy of expanding the playing field, contesting as many house races as possible. Instead, they lavish resources on defending incumbents, focusing only on the most winnable races. And, as far as I can tell, they have no game plan for winning state legislative races--there's no ALEC equivalent. Assholes like Bloomberg and people like the no labels fuck faces should focus on that rather than vanity campaigns for President, or engaging in pointless calls to end partisan bickering. Partisan bickering is democracy. Don't like it? Go to Russia. No partisan bickering there.

MoBettle wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Also, I think it's really counterproductive to complain about gerrymandering. Is it a thing? Absolutely. But it's not as big a thing as people make it out to be. Dems lose elections because Dem voters don't show up for mid term elections, and they really don't show up in state legislative races. On top of that, until recently generic Congressional election polls showed a slight lean towards the R side.

To be sure, a lot of this can be laid at the feet of the DNC, which got away from a very successful strategy of expanding the playing field, contesting as many house races as possible. Instead, they lavish resources on defending incumbents, focusing only on the most winnable races. And, as far as I can tell, they have no game plan for winning state legislative races--there's no ALEC equivalent. Assholes like Bloomberg and people like the no labels fuck faces should focus on that rather than vanity campaigns for President, or engaging in pointless calls to end partisan bickering. Partisan bickering is democracy. Don't like it? Go to Russia. No partisan bickering there.

I think a bigger issue than gerrymandering is that we have a system that breaks things down based on geography. And Democrats generally live in much more compact areas than Republicans.

I dont know how you fix that short of an amendment but it seems like a pretty outdated vestige of farmers having all of the money back in the 1700s.

TenuredVulture wrote:

MoBettle wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Also, I think it's really counterproductive to complain about gerrymandering. Is it a thing? Absolutely. But it's not as big a thing as people make it out to be. Dems lose elections because Dem voters don't show up for mid term elections, and they really don't show up in state legislative races. On top of that, until recently generic Congressional election polls showed a slight lean towards the R side.

To be sure, a lot of this can be laid at the feet of the DNC, which got away from a very successful strategy of expanding the playing field, contesting as many house races as possible. Instead, they lavish resources on defending incumbents, focusing only on the most winnable races. And, as far as I can tell, they have no game plan for winning state legislative races--there's no ALEC equivalent. Assholes like Bloomberg and people like the no labels fuck faces should focus on that rather than vanity campaigns for President, or engaging in pointless calls to end partisan bickering. Partisan bickering is democracy. Don't like it? Go to Russia. No partisan bickering there.

I think a bigger issue than gerrymandering is that we have a system that breaks things down based on geography. And Democrats generally live in much more compact areas than Republicans.

I dont know how you fix that short of an amendment but it seems like a pretty outdated vestige of farmers having all of the money back in the 1700s.

I mean, if I had my way, we'd get rid of the Senate altogether, but that's not happening, and I'm not wasting any time on that. Figuring out how you can use the rules to your advantage is a far better way to think about politics.

drsmooth wrote:

The Savior wrote:It would be the same if shoe was on other foot.

Pretty sure it wouldn't be "the same"

Not sure why people are up in arms.

It's simple. Let me explain it for you.

Elected Republican leaders of the body that has a role in passing on the President's nominations have said publicly - before they've been presented with such nominations - that they will reject them out of hand. I don't think there's even any need to probe their "thinking" about this tactical blunder. It's a tactical blunder in the national politics of the United States to publicly declare you'll use your position to have the institutional body you lead repudiate Constitutionally assigned governing responsibilities.

This is not a furtive, squalid, dead-of-night pact made by political ideologues in the wake of the election of a President they revile as much for his complexion as his views & intentions on governance. This is a considered declaration by people elected to public service in the Senate of the United States that they intend to disregard their Constitutional obligations.

It would be a blunder any time, but in an election year?

The Savior wrote:Did you not read my bit about determining whether the Republicans have the stomach for this?

It's an election season for 27 of their seats, 3 or 4 of which could be truly tight races. This isn't a zero-sum game for the Republicans.

If the Democrats think it's truly a foregone conclusion that Hilary/Sanders will win the White House, it's in their best interest for the Republicans to pump the brakes on an Obama nomination.

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:Just saw an article on fb that said in the next nine days Obaba can make a recess appointment that bypasses the senate which has been done 12 times before. Last done by Eisenhauer

The sudden death of Justice Scalia creates an immediate vacancy on the most important court in the United States.
Senator McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, they did — when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes.
Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says the President of the United States nominates justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate. I can't find a clause that says "...except when there's a year left in the term of a Democratic President."
Senate Republicans took an oath just like Senate Democrats did. Abandoning the duties they swore to uphold would threaten both the Constitution and our democracy itself. It would also prove that all the Republican talk about loving the Constitution is just that — empty talk.

Werthless wrote:Obama won 26 and 28 states in his 2 presidential elections. It's hard to see how the deck is stacked against Democrats in the Senate.

TenuredVulture wrote:Also, I think it's really counterproductive to complain about gerrymandering. Is it a thing? Absolutely. But it's not as big a thing as people make it out to be. Dems lose elections because Dem voters don't show up for mid term elections, and they really don't show up in state legislative races. On top of that, until recently generic Congressional election polls showed a slight lean towards the R side.

To be sure, a lot of this can be laid at the feet of the DNC, which got away from a very successful strategy of expanding the playing field, contesting as many house races as possible. Instead, they lavish resources on defending incumbents, focusing only on the most winnable races. And, as far as I can tell, they have no game plan for winning state legislative races--there's no ALEC equivalent. Assholes like Bloomberg and people like the no labels fuck faces should focus on that rather than vanity campaigns for President, or engaging in pointless calls to end partisan bickering. Partisan bickering is democracy. Don't like it? Go to Russia. No partisan bickering there.