Put aside the football metaphor and what you’re doing is arguing against democracy.
FDR appointed a lot of justices, because he was in office a long time, and he was in office a long time because he did a lot of things that people liked, instead of just one of them, and so the people kept on re-electing him. And Eisenhower, in case you didn’t notice, was a Republican.
No there isn’t. Or at least, no good reason. And you don’t need 60 votes any more, anyway, unless you’re trying to accomplish something actually helpful to the country: Anything destructive can be done with only 50.
I don’t know why you’d want to play a game you are losing all night. Or are you playing the not reading your own cite game?
Roosevelt’s 1937 chicanery has given court-packing a bad name, but it is a hallowed American political tradition participated in by Republicans and Democrats alike.
All of this is beside the point because the stacking/packing distinction is a silly side show. Republicans have succeeded in populating the judiciary with judges that are well outside of mainstream legal thought and who are out of step with the American people. This is the problem and this needs to be undone by all available legal means whether they be stacking, packing or anything else.
This fringe legal group is now using its outsized and unearned power to deprive people of rights they’s had all their lives and more importantly to make it so they can hold onto power by anti-democratic means.
So the very idea that the Dems shouldn’t try to fix this because, “you wouldn’t like it if the shoe was on the other foot,” is ludicrous because the shoe is already on the other foot. The method is not as important as the result, and the result we have now is 30 years of successful Republican efforts to give a group well outside the mainstream way more power than they could get honestly.
Changing the subject. Good move.
Well, good attempt. Since I’m the guy who wrote - in this thread…
… I’m demonstrably more anti than thou.
And way ahead of you. How to solve the problem you mention? Look up the thread. I gave that solution in detail. You seem to agree. That’s good. We all want the same thing and that means working with people who … are also Democrats.
You’re Candian, IIRC. First of all, congratulations on having a political system that isn’t dogshit like ours… And for having Tim Horton’s…
Do you mean presidents? Which Democratic presidents have promised “sweeping changes”? The filibuster is a problem with our dogshit undemocratic institution called the Senate, not something that particular presidents face when making big promises. The filibuster means we can’t get anything done, not just extreme things. And when did Democrats last “change the rules”? We should be changing a lot more!
Not ping-ponging is good, I suppose, but not being able to change anything at all is not so good. Our political system is completely moribund.
The president can change whatever can be changed by executive order, which is the only way anything can get done any more. I think “completely flip” is an exaggeration. As much as I think Trump was garbage, he didn’t change all that much concretely (he mostly just degraded the nation with his mouth and coup attempt). Biden has not even reversed much of what Trump did, either (for better or for worse)
Wait, so do they actually change things–or not? I’d say definitely not. The US is frozen in place right now, at least at the federal level.
But couldn’t the GOP run a sane conservative candidate, which would lead to more independent and suburbanite votes, and still pick up most of the racist yahoos who would grumble but be happy enough to vote for any Republican??
There are only two parties that matter in this country. You pick one or the other. Only thing else you can do is vote for some third-party or not vote at all.
GOP’s not gonna let any third-party split their vote like Stein did the Dems in 2016, and the “I’ll just stay at home then!” folks will be few because GOP voters always vote.
The following is a little bit of an aside but a big deal anyway: we have to find a way to eliminate the two-party system. And if it’s presented in the right way we can get arch-conservatives to join us in enacting that change.
This results from having a rigid two-party system. Everyone goes for broke every election.
They demand those extreme changes because their choice is purely binary. You either win totally or lose completely. The US desperately needs a multi-party system and multiple coalitions in Congress. Otherwise this violent see-sawing every 2 or 4-years will continue.
It cannot be repeated enough. The modern Republican party has come completely unmoored from ethics and conscience. What you perceive as a tailspin, they consider to be an enthusiastic gallop toward disenfranchisement of the majority and the installation of a permanent governing minority. And they are winning. Setbacks here and there, sure, but in the aggregate and the long run, they continue to pull ahead.
This is the fundamental question underlying your OP of which you seem unaware and with which you must grapple if you are to understand the modern political reality: What could possibly incentivize the Republicans to change the tactics that are slowly bringing them ever closer to victory?
I just finished reading that book (again).
They are not in control, they would have done this already if they could. The crazy wing is in charge, and safely protected by extremely gerrymandered districts.
There are two kinds of voters, sane and crazy.
There used to be an approximate equality of the two in each party. In fact, calling ‘virulent racist’ a species of the crazy, maybe more of them in the Democratic Party than in the GOP. (I’m sure I would have voted R in the days after the Civil War and before FDR, at least sometimes.)
But that has shifted, perhaps permanently for all practical purposes, to the vast majority of crazies having joined the GOP in recent decades.
Which presents a problem for sane Republicans: do they denounce their own positions and join the Dems as the best option of two hateful choices? Or do they stick with the GOP in the somewhat loopy hope of re-taking the party leadership?
You’ve got to figure there will be some attrition of the GOP based on this prospect alone, though it’s disheartening so far just how small the attrition rate is.
I too would love to see a sane person like Kinzinger represent the GOP. But I would never vote for him, if only because a President Kinzinger would nominate more Federalist Society conservative assholes to the SCOTUS. Without stacking or packing the court (NOT wading into that debate!) we need Dems in the White House (with a Senate majority) for at least another six years, maybe 10, to get it properly rebalanced.
Until then …
This. Living in Illinois, I’m at least somewhat familiar with him, and while he’s not a Trumpist, and (as far as I can tell) a reasonable human being, I’d likely disagree with him on most, if not all, of his political platform.
If I had to choose between Kinzinger and Trump (or DeSantis), I’d choose Kinzinger in a heartbeat. But, Kinzinger versus pretty much any Democratic candidate? No contest; unless the Democrat was a whack-job like RFK Jr., it’d be the Democrat every time.
I fully endorse this statement!
The last time I split my ticket was in 2008 (Obama + Mitch Daniels for governor in Indiana). I had despised George Bush, but I didn’t think of Republicans everywhere as necessarily awful.
Now, however, the party brand has been so tainted by Trump that I would never vote for any Republican at any level. No, not even for a never-Trumper, since just being in the party and running under its banner strengthens to some extent Trump and the currently fascist GOP.
The GOP was smart in giving Nixon the boot in 1974. Without that, I doubt Reagan could have won in 1980. Further, the GOP wasn’t chock full of crazies at that point.
Look at who is in the party now. How they can recover in the next 20 years is beyond my imagination. So no, I don’t think there is any way that a Kinzinger can lead the party to sanity and the country to unity.
They could, but said sane Republican would have to win the R primary first, and that’s not going to happen anytime soon.
This isn’t a fair comparison, because both parties have realigned on their platforms and values. The racist Dems post Civil War are now the Repubs, and calling the Repubs “the party of Lincoln” is a vicious irony, as Lincoln fought a war against the insurrectionists in his day.
Yes! As long a Party Leadership caters to the crazies because they need the base, and as long as they are going whole-hog on anti-democracy polices, the only way I would vote R is in a Primary to try to tilt the tide. In the general. It’s dems, greens, or even Libertarians over the R party candidate - and Libertarians used to be the nutjobs.
In my lifetime (I’m pretty old) the Dems in the Senate were the worst, and most powerful, racists in the country: Stennis, Russell, Eastland and their ilk. To their credit, the Dems slowly disengaged from them, as they and their ilk found a comfortable home in the GOP, but very much contrary to their credit, they took their sweet time doing so.
This was Nixon’s Southern Strategy. The racists could have been driven out of national politics after the Democrats stopped totally appeasing them. The Republicans didn’t have to accept them. Without a place in either, the capital B Bigots might have broken off into a third party like Strom Thurmond and George Wallace did. A few states might have swung that way but I doubt that would be feasible long-term.
But Nixon gave them a place in the Republican Party. Just switch over, he said. We’ll accept you. And they did, slowly but surely.
The slowly part is atrocious but reality couldn’t work otherwise. Congress was dominated by veteran Southerners who had loads of seniority and committee chairs. Some deals could be made for them to keep their perks but an instant transfer would never be voted for by veteran Republicans. Same in the states. People who had been one-party leaders in one-party states couldn’t simply flip a switch. The very idea of Republicanism had to filter through ancient prejudices. Some people switched parties, others were younger and made the choice at the beginning of their careers.
Nevertheless, the process was the most successful deliberate party drive to power in American history. The Democratic Solid South became a Republican Solid South. Even as late as Eisenhower that would have blown minds. Today, demographic changes and in-migration from northern states are developing sufficient opposition that blueness can be detected. The South is not quite Solid. It’s more like raspberry jello with blueberries. We’ll see which set of berries comes to dominate the flavor.
Oh, no question. I might not have been very clear on the timeline. These realignments happened in the mid twentieth century.
My point is that Lincoln would scream at the idea of who is in “his party” and what they stand for now.
The process took decades.
Rick Perry was a Dixiecrat from a family of Democrats until switching parties when it was time to run for high office in Texas. And that was in 1989