The 2020 thread....

Not wrote:
the ACA (albeit a weak version) and averting the depression are pretty good achievements in my book

that they didn't get more done when they had congress and the executive is a little nuts tho…
Dems are just too damn nice

If Hillary is elected in 2008, we have Medicare for All. But it was more important that we felt inspired seeing Oprah cry.

Julian, wrote:

If Hillary is elected in 2008, we have Medicare for All. But it was more important that we felt inspired seeing Oprah cry.

We would have still had a republican controlled congress….so no we would not have had M4A

Not wrote:

Julian, wrote:

If Hillary is elected in 2008, we have Medicare for All. But it was more important that we felt inspired seeing Oprah cry.

We would have still had a republican controlled congress….so no we would not have had M4A

I mean, minus the part where the Dems took both the Congress and Senate in 2008, which is an unarguable fact, you’re absolutely right.

I was also thinking you meant if hil became president in 2016….but you meant 2008
so in that case it's more likely…but not a slam dunk

Julian, wrote:

sweetcell wrote:

Julian, wrote:
I mean Beto was also there and displayed no understanding on any topic brought up but he sure inspired the Vansmack/voted-for-Hillary-instead-of-Bernie fringe of the party by making them feel good about how “inspiring” he is.

FTFY

Not sure what you fixed?  Edit: oh you changed Barack to Bernie.

that's part of the edit, the other part is voting for hillary instead of bernie (as in, had bernie been chosen in 2016, he had a better chance of beating trump… instead, we got the imperfection that was hillary because, well, we needed to feel inspired by voting for a woman).

So what did you think bitches?

Not wrote:
finally some good news

I'm torn on this one, as states should govern how they do voting, but the problem is it such a sham

Why should states govern how they do voting?  Isn't that why we needed a civil rights act?  Isn't it a much stronger principle that everyone should be allowed a vote that counts?

Except when a State Supreme Court orders a recount as in Florida 2000

The Supreme Court makes it up as they go along. Shameful

gavroche wrote:

Not wrote:
finally some good news

I'm torn on this one, as states should govern how they do voting, but the problem is it such a sham

Why should states govern how they do voting?  Isn't that why we needed a civil rights act?  Isn't it a much stronger principle that everyone should be allowed a vote that counts?

that's why I said I'm torn
we are the united STATES of America and I do believe in some sovereignty on how states do things free from the federal gov't.  I do think that is some of the genius of the founding fathers with the whole checks and balances thing

problem is its been used to implement jim crow laws and other heinous things with the code word "states rights"

but you are mixing two issues,
I don't think gerrymandering invalidates "that everyone should be allowed a vote" what it does do is give unequal representation of the state in the federal government of one party over the other
but the state got the correct amt of reps still (although trump is trying to change census stuff to favor his team)

So I do think there are two different things
as I feel electing the president is a federal issue, not a state issue and I think that should be wholly separate …this is my opinion, not my interpretation of the constitution, which I'm not sure on that point

The inequities on that level are huge and that's why I'm for national popular vote
as I don't think that someone should win the presidency with 3mil less votes
and the winner takes all in some states REALLY invalidates peoples votes
this system discourages voters in extremely partisan states from even voting
Say you were a dem in AL…what's the point of voting for president
same if you were a republican in NY/CA, why vote

I think that has to stop

I wanna say "can you believe' …but I'm still shocked that a siting congressperson would say this

Lindsey Graham
@LindseyGrahamSC
·
Jun 26
After tonight’s #DemocraticDebate…….that whole Trump 3rd term thing is looking better and better.

Not wrote:

but you are mixing two issues,
I don't think gerrymandering invalidates "that everyone should be allowed a vote" what it does do is give unequal representation of the state in the federal government of one party over the other
but the state got the correct amt of reps still (although trump is trying to change census stuff to favor his team)

I think you are arguing form over function.  Gerrymandering is packing individuals into districts with like minded people in order to nullify their votes.  It's functionally no different than banning them from the polls.

State boundaries are fundamentally different.  They are a result of historic and geographic accidents that by and large have nothing to do with voting.  There is no intentionality there and while intentionality is hard to measure, it seems important to me.

The Constitution applies beyond federal elections.  Otherwise Alabama would be able to only have white men vote for governor.  Instead it has to get creative.

The Supreme Court can do whatever they want and do

They could easily limit gun right, limit gerrymandering etc

But they have a long history of horrible decisions which is why we needed the Scalia replacement and must win next year. RBG made a huge mistake not retiring while Obama was in office and now we are up against it.

Without some big luck the Supreme Court will be very conservative for the rest of our lives.

The Supreme Court was right that there is nothing in the constitution from preventing political parties from giving themselves an advantage with voting districts.  It was a failed strategy.

File the same case showing how it disproportionately impacts voters for certain races and the outcome is wholly different.   

Ha ha… that is cause there weren’t any political parties when they wrote the Constitution!!!


The framers loathed political parties and saw them as a big threat to our system of government

vansmack wrote:
File the same case showing how it disproportionately impacts voters for certain races and the outcome is wholly different. 

Interesting…that's how recreational Pot became legal in dc
I have got to imagine this has been tried before

I like turtles.

vansmack wrote:
The Supreme Court was right that there is nothing in the constitution from preventing political parties from giving themselves an advantage with voting districts.  It was a failed strategy.

File the same case showing how it disproportionately impacts voters for certain races and the outcome is wholly different. 

The argument is that it isn't enough to have the right to vote, but you also have to have the right to vote meaningfully.  Getting packed into a district takes away that right.  I think it's a strong argument, and would have won with a different Supreme Court.  Kennedy actually was receptive to it, but had issues with how to weight it. 

Functionally, if you can argue that you are allow to pack voters based on politics, it is a back door to eliminating minority voting power as well.

gavroche wrote:, it is a back door to eliminating minority voting power as well.

but wait, aren't they the minority voting power…

caucuses…on paper they seem like a Greek ideal democracy…but in reality they kinda suck
this is an interesting turn on this front

Democrats in Iowa and Nevada will be able to vote over the phone

MeddleHatch wrote:
caucuses…on paper they seem like a Greek ideal democracy…but in reality they kinda suck
this is an interesting turn on this front

Democrats in Iowa and Nevada will be able to vote over the phone

Caucuses are terrible and raises the “price of admission” on voting. It’s no surprise that Bernie Sanders limited success in 2016 came on the backs of caucus states. Fuck caucuses.