Imagine it’s 1948 and the Dixiecrats of the Old South find a supposedly neutral way to keep desegregationist candidates off their ballots. How would you feel about such a stunt then?
Great. Then have it take effect in 2024.
I don’t think that slippery slope fallacies are a great reason to avoid good policy.
Would you have said the same thing about Harry Reid eliminating the filibuster for most presidential nominees? It was a move that, I think, most Democrats would agree has bitten them in the ass. This one seems similarly foolish and short-sighted.
I agree
Reid’s partial elimination of the filibuster was inevitable – it’s good that the Democrats at least got some benefit out of it. Should have done it many years before. There are no more “norms” that can’t or shouldn’t be broken, in terms of political strategy, as long as it’s technically within the rules. McConnell has proven that absolutely anything goes. The Democrats should fight with the same rules (or lack therof). Reid was wise to at least begin to recognize this… if only he had done so from the beginning, Obama would have gotten several more nominations through the Senate.
The idea that the Republicans are holding back, and would only go further if the Democrats did, is just so laughable that’s it not even worth considering.
The filibuster helps the party that doesn’t want to get things done. That’s usually the party that doesn’t really believe in using government to get big things done. The only reason the Republicans haven’t gotten rid of the entire filibuster is under the desperate hope that the Democrats are afraid to when they get power… because the Republicans recognize that once we have universal health care, and a higher minimum wage, and some other would-be-popular policies, they’ll never be able to get rid of them.
IMO, anyway.
The idea that Reid made McConnell remove the filibuster for other nominees or SCotUS nominees or that Reid had anything to do with McConnell obstructing Obama’s nominees or the unprecedented multiyear “We’re going to obstruct every things thing” period of McConnell’s filibusters or the removal of blue slip rules or any of the other norms McConnell has torn down in a desperate grasp for power while the rest of the GOP sits and whistles is hilariously naive or disingenuous. McConnell hasn’t let a single chance to claw power at the expense of the Senate go past him and the sole reason why we still have a legislative filibuster right now is because there’s no good reason to burn that bridge while Democrats hold the house. Had the GOP held on in 2018, I have zero belief that McConnell wouldn’t have torched that as well to pass Trump’s agenda and seen zero evidence that I might be wrong.
If there’s anything the past ten years has taught me, it’s that the GOP will cry their eyes out over any supposed transgression and then do something ten times worse the second they get a chance.
NOT doing something that’s good policy because the GOP might do something antidemocratic and shitty just means that you don’t have the good policy in place when the GOP does something antidemocratic and shitty regardless. Not passing this law regarding taxes and ballots will make zero difference on whether or not the GOP legislature of some other state does their damnedest to restrict ballot access or voting to gain a political advantage.
Right. Trump bitches and moans about every god dam thing. He’s a child as are most of his supporters. I really don’t care how much they complain. Go right ahead and throw your tantrums, we won’t be a country run by 5 year olds because they don’t want to follow simple rules.
If you are afraid that scrutiny of your tax returns might expose crimes, don’t run for office. Easy peasy. Or please do and face the appropriate consequences.
Who knows what’s in Trumps returns. He hires idiots, so there could be a lot. Or perhaps nothing. I’m leaning towards nothing other than his lies about how rich he is. I’m guessing THAT is why he won’t release them (not that he should have a say in the matter).
That means everyone, D/R or independent.
Yeah, it probably doesn’t matter how good a candidate runs against Trump. Now that he’s president, there’s little to stop social media propaganda from getting him a win. He won’t win because the Democrats don’t have a good candidate. He’ll win because the same thing that happened in 2016 is now likely to happen again on steroids. Kicking Trump off the ballot is too obvious, and will look bad. The Democrats need their own propaganda machine.
This has nothing to do with getting a good candidate or “bread and butter issues.” This is about manipulating stupid people who see the world through the lens of Facebook and Trump’s twitter.
I think we are getting off-topic…
Back to it, I suppose we are going to see a Supreme Court ruling at some point on just how much control states have over who can appear on the ballot as a candidate and who cannot. I do wonder if, if blue states were to deny Trump appearance on the ballot, and SCOTUS ruled against the states, but the ruling came right before Election Day (not enough time to get Trump re-balloted?), what would happen?
I would hope that SCOTUS would be savvy enough to leave enough time for their ruling to be implemented (as they are with the census citizenship question), or at least provide guidance on how the situation should be dealt with. Perhaps just not counting those states’ electoral college votes or something.
I fail to see how this easily-satisfied condition is somehow more onerous than “Voter ID” laws, redistricting to the extent of eliminating the other party, and closing eliminating polling places only for your opponents, then saying crap like “Don’t like him? Vote him out” after eliminating that possibility and enforcing it with a stolen judiciary.
But sure, let’s pretend this is worse.
I can see the individual parties making that rule though. No legal problems there. Maybe the Democrats can make a unilateral first move and impose it on themselves.
I agree. The big issue Democrats should be pushing is voting rights. It’s a fundamental issue that people can relate to.
I don’t know if you’re being ironic here. But there were, in fact, proposals made by some conservatives to make this a requirement for running for President.
It didn’t go far because some of the more intelligent conservatives understood that all their stories about Obama’s birth were lies and that all they would achieve by such a law would be to give Obama a forum to prove they were lying.
I agree. This is not a good look, tinkers with democracy and could backfire in spectacular ways. But I’m not surprised.
ETA: And the idea that Trump could win anyway is horrifying.
None of these were presidential norms and were thus unreasonable requests. Releasing taxes is a presidential norm, and one Trump agree to do during the campaign.
The Democrats, like any other American, have the primary responsibility of defending the US from threats to democracy, of which Trump is a big one due to his corruption and incompetence. Focusing on anything else would accomplish much less.
Where I disagree is in the idea that doing this would in any way help fight off Trump. It’s not that it has political downsides that I see as the problem so much as it having no actual upsides.
Now, on the other hand, promoting this but not getting it might be useful to rally the base, and overcome any problems with the other side being incensed it was ever an option. And if that can be later used to next time make a bigger push towards requiring one, then I’m okay with it.
As for the legal thing: I don’t see how having requirements to appear on the ballot would be a legal issue. I can’t see the argument that would be used to declare it unconstitutional. If the court won’t block gerrymandering, which is much more clearly political, why would they get involved here?
If the Court did find it unconstitutional, I would definitely assume political bias. You’d have two opposing decisions that both help one side.
There are a number of swing states, I believe, in which the Republicans hold both the governorship and legislature. In theory, they could ban a Democrat from the ballot as a retaliatory measure (doesn’t violate race/religion/gender) and that would have a much more serious effect on the election than a solid-blue state such as Massachusetts or Hawaii banning Trump.
Technically correct, but McConnell’s strategy of obstructionism is what led to Harry Reid nuking the filibuster in the first place. Just like McConnell’s decision to prevent Merrick Garland from having a hearing may well lead to court packing. But that’s what McConnell and the Republicans have wanted: the opposite of a healthy democracy and instead a democracy that is determined by which side can use its majority to political neuter the other.