Since 1976, following the DNC's purge of "McGovernite" progressives, the DP wins presidential elections simply as a reaction against Republicans who've worn out their welcome (Nixon/Ford; GHW Bush; GW Bush; Trump). Sometimes they drag a Democratic Congress into the majority, but that's usually squandered in the following mid-term election.
The pattern repeated: Democrats won back the House in '18, but failed to take back the Senate. In '20, when more people voted against Trump (but not Republicans) than for Biden (but not Democrats), the DNC won the presidency, but lost over a dozen House seats (mostly Wall Street liberals who won in '18), and "won" the Senate, but only on paper (thank you Manchin and Sinema!); and still came within four states and 77K votes of losing the electoral college.
Even without Republicans gerrymandering and Jim Crowing the shit out of their states, Democrats were still on track to lose the House by 15-20+ seats next year, and, if they're lucky, maintain their "on paper only" majority in the Senate (the only pick-up might be PA, but Manchin and Sinema will still be there). This, I submit, is purely a function of running (and tilting the primaries towards) center-right, corporate-funded candidates against progressive challengers; and prioritizing Republican voters in the better educated, more affluent, white suburbs, at the expense of their natural constituencies, the working class, the working poor, the poor, younger (Millennial, Gen-Z), and older progressives.
Yep--I think it's hard to go from the old way of doing things where a Democrat and Republican could be good friends (like Ron Swanson and Leslie Knope on Parks and Rec, or Alex Keaton and his whole family on Family Ties) because hey, decent people could differ on tax policy or social spending and still have dinner together. That's just over now.
Let's just hope TFG keeps it up with his Klan rallies. It sickens me he won't go away, but maybe it's a blessing in disguise, we don't want anyone to forget.
I agree and I don't. If by "unilaterally disarm" you mean "let the Republican party roll all over us, and by extension democracy", then no, obviously we can't do that. But if by that you mean we absolutely need to f everything up the same way the Republicans are, then no, we don't, that would just muddy things even worse.
At this point, the Republican party is just brazenly trying to cheat, I've heard way too much "both sides are the same", and all we have to do at this point is make it extremely clear, as the Republican party goes even further towards the fascist death cult that they are already proving themselves to be, and then actually make sure peoples' votes are counted *fairly*. It's still depressing that only a fairly small majority of the population would vote against the absolute craziest of nutjobs in a fair election, but still. In a fair election, a majority of people *would* vote against the absolute craziest of nutjobs (i.e. anyone Trump has ever campaigned for.)
What I'm saying is, we don't need to gerrymander, we just need to *anti*-gerrymander. Same way we don't want to fight Republican attempts at disenfranchisement by disenfranchising them, we don't want to disenfranchise *anyone*!
Until the economy crashes because he blocked all progress (or even basic legislature, like keeping the country from falling over on its face), at which point what's that going to do for him?
In a fair election, a majority of people *would* vote against the absolute craziest of nutjobs (i.e. anyone Trump has ever campaigned for.)
I don't think you've been paying attention. The GOP candidates get Trumpier, but their vote share does not go down. Sure, you might not consider presidential elections fair because of the Electoral College, but they are fair, and Trumpist/ know-nothing/ science denying/ reality denying/ "fuck you, I've got mine" GOPers not only win, but get more of all of that stuff over time.
Gerrymandering accelerates this process. By presenting the Marjorie Taylor Greenes to the world as elected Republicans, Paul Gosar's worst characteristics get hidden because there are only so many column inches. Not to mention all the other wingnuts who are just a little less reality-denying and authoritarian than MTG. In the end, this means that in a non-gerrymandered state (or reasonably drawn district in a heavily GOP state where other portions of the state are gerrymandered) Trumpists are already winning fair elections.
Yes, gerrymandering accelerates the normalization of Trumpist know-nothings. No, gerrymandering isn't solely responsible, nor is it impossible to elect these jerks in a fair race.
I think this comes down to your faith in the average US voter. IMO you're giving them far too much credit.
The problem is that Republicans have no incentive to ever stop gerrymandering if it benefits them and not Democrats. We could go the CA route and use nonpartisan districting, while Republicans pick up net seats in other states and enjoy a national advantage--but our example won't convince Republicans that what they're doing is bad. Only by Democrats using this tool wherever they can could it ever create a situation where Republicans would be willing to make a deal to end gerrymandering on a national level, knowing the tool could end up hurting them more than helping them.
Since 1976, following the DNC's purge of "McGovernite" progressives, the DP wins presidential elections simply as a reaction against Republicans who've worn out their welcome (Nixon/Ford; GHW Bush; GW Bush; Trump). Sometimes they drag a Democratic Congress into the majority, but that's usually squandered in the following mid-term election.
The pattern repeated: Democrats won back the House in '18, but failed to take back the Senate. In '20, when more people voted against Trump (but not Republicans) than for Biden (but not Democrats), the DNC won the presidency, but lost over a dozen House seats (mostly Wall Street liberals who won in '18), and "won" the Senate, but only on paper (thank you Manchin and Sinema!); and still came within four states and 77K votes of losing the electoral college.
Even without Republicans gerrymandering and Jim Crowing the shit out of their states, Democrats were still on track to lose the House by 15-20+ seats next year, and, if they're lucky, maintain their "on paper only" majority in the Senate (the only pick-up might be PA, but Manchin and Sinema will still be there). This, I submit, is purely a function of running (and tilting the primaries towards) center-right, corporate-funded candidates against progressive challengers; and prioritizing Republican voters in the better educated, more affluent, white suburbs, at the expense of their natural constituencies, the working class, the working poor, the poor, younger (Millennial, Gen-Z), and older progressives.
Yep--I think it's hard to go from the old way of doing things where a Democrat and Republican could be good friends (like Ron Swanson and Leslie Knope on Parks and Rec, or Alex Keaton and his whole family on Family Ties) because hey, decent people could differ on tax policy or social spending and still have dinner together. That's just over now.
Sad to read this about my Congress Rep😢
Those could be some pretty cool designs!
True, but the point is that a redistricting commission didn't do as much to help Republicans become competitive again as they thought it would.
Is that too hilarious to be true, or too hilarious not to be true...? 🤔
Wisconsin wasn't mentioned. Dems consistent win 54% to 56% of the vote but control only about slightly more third of the lege here.
Let's just hope TFG keeps it up with his Klan rallies. It sickens me he won't go away, but maybe it's a blessing in disguise, we don't want anyone to forget.
Those Galilean Popular Peoples Front guys are the worst..right?
The Pax Romana had it's downsides, but you have to give them props for achieving some durable infrastructure in a pre-industrial society.
I hadn't thought of it that way. Good point.
I agree and I don't. If by "unilaterally disarm" you mean "let the Republican party roll all over us, and by extension democracy", then no, obviously we can't do that. But if by that you mean we absolutely need to f everything up the same way the Republicans are, then no, we don't, that would just muddy things even worse.
At this point, the Republican party is just brazenly trying to cheat, I've heard way too much "both sides are the same", and all we have to do at this point is make it extremely clear, as the Republican party goes even further towards the fascist death cult that they are already proving themselves to be, and then actually make sure peoples' votes are counted *fairly*. It's still depressing that only a fairly small majority of the population would vote against the absolute craziest of nutjobs in a fair election, but still. In a fair election, a majority of people *would* vote against the absolute craziest of nutjobs (i.e. anyone Trump has ever campaigned for.)
What I'm saying is, we don't need to gerrymander, we just need to *anti*-gerrymander. Same way we don't want to fight Republican attempts at disenfranchisement by disenfranchising them, we don't want to disenfranchise *anyone*!
Right, but the fix is: STOP ALL THE FRELLING CHEATING!
Until the economy crashes because he blocked all progress (or even basic legislature, like keeping the country from falling over on its face), at which point what's that going to do for him?
In a fair election, a majority of people *would* vote against the absolute craziest of nutjobs (i.e. anyone Trump has ever campaigned for.)
I don't think you've been paying attention. The GOP candidates get Trumpier, but their vote share does not go down. Sure, you might not consider presidential elections fair because of the Electoral College, but they are fair, and Trumpist/ know-nothing/ science denying/ reality denying/ "fuck you, I've got mine" GOPers not only win, but get more of all of that stuff over time.
Gerrymandering accelerates this process. By presenting the Marjorie Taylor Greenes to the world as elected Republicans, Paul Gosar's worst characteristics get hidden because there are only so many column inches. Not to mention all the other wingnuts who are just a little less reality-denying and authoritarian than MTG. In the end, this means that in a non-gerrymandered state (or reasonably drawn district in a heavily GOP state where other portions of the state are gerrymandered) Trumpists are already winning fair elections.
Yes, gerrymandering accelerates the normalization of Trumpist know-nothings. No, gerrymandering isn't solely responsible, nor is it impossible to elect these jerks in a fair race.
I think this comes down to your faith in the average US voter. IMO you're giving them far too much credit.
The problem is that Republicans have no incentive to ever stop gerrymandering if it benefits them and not Democrats. We could go the CA route and use nonpartisan districting, while Republicans pick up net seats in other states and enjoy a national advantage--but our example won't convince Republicans that what they're doing is bad. Only by Democrats using this tool wherever they can could it ever create a situation where Republicans would be willing to make a deal to end gerrymandering on a national level, knowing the tool could end up hurting them more than helping them.