Fucking NJ Dems

The BBQ Pit
#1

So, the NJ Democrats have decided to take a page out of the Republican playbook and are trying to put themselves permanently in power through a bullshit redistricting measure. Even the lamestream :rolleyes:, blindly partisan :rolleyes:, left wing rag :rolleyes:, the NY Times is firmly against it:

Look, Democrats, I don’t want you doing the same dirty tricks as the Republicans. You’ll never be as good at it, and you’ll lose tons of support. There’s a thread in Elections about how Republicans with a moral sense are leaving their party and coming to the Democrats – why pull this bullshit and turn them away? Even national Democrats are against it.

I want non-partisan boards creating districts. I’d love a constitutional amendment that required that so that neither party can get an advantage through these shenanigans. In the meantime, even if it means being disadvantaged in some states, I want the Democrats to take the high ground.

If you have a lock on power, you just become more and more corrupt until there’s a wave election against you. NJ Democrats don’t need any more temptation to become more corrupt – they are plenty corrupt to begin with. (Exhibit A: Bob Menendez) This measure must not pass.

Anyone here involved with NJ politics? What’s the best way to express my extreme displeasure?

#2

Yes. And of course, the difference is that you can count on a meaningful proportion of “left wing” news sources and coters to call this kind of bad behavior out when it happens, instead of doubling-down on evil just because it comes from “your side.”

#3

Here’s prominent Democrat and former Obama official Eric Holder cheering this proposal on, since it helps his side:

No, wait, he’s against it. Sorry.

Here’s Slate, which I imagine is part of the liberal, lamestream media cheering it on:

Sorry, my bad again. They call it diabolical.

This is weird, since I’ve been told over and over that both sides are the same. Very strange. Anyway, I don’t want to use this to beat on on Republicans, but rather beat up on NJ Democrats, or at least the majority that want this to happen – there are other state Dems opposing this as well.

I mean, we’re not as bad as Illinois when it comes to corruption (most of our governors don’t end up in jail), but we’re pretty bad. Who was that Senator that bowed out at the last minute and had to be replaced (somewhat dubiously) on the ballot by someone who already retired? Also, I think Newark politics has had its, uh, ups and downs. All this would do is make it worse. Fucking corrupt hypocrites.

#4

As long as it’s legal, it’s cool right? Ha-ha, caught myself thinking like a Republican there. The only way to lead is by example, and NJ Dems have fucked up.

#5

Kevin Drum points to one potential silver lining: it might get the Supreme Court to make an anti-gerrymandering decision. Somehow I doubt that’s what the NJ Dems had in mind, though. (If they did and it works, is this an actual case of “heightening the contradictions” tactics succeeding?)
I’m inclined to think that scummy anti- democratic stuff like this has really bad effects, not least because it’s a great way to steer voters toward apathy and cynicism.

#6

Sure seems like a gift to the “both sides do it” crowd.

#7

That article is all kinds of fucked up. He’s cheering it on so that, maybe, someday, the conservative majority in the Supreme Court will do something about it? And, he also points out that there’s already a court case going to the Court that will make them face it, so this “appalling” bill (his word) will not even accomplish his goal. They wouldn’t take on another gerrymandering law after just addressing it.

At least Mother Jones calls it appalling, I guess.

#8

Kinda, except the most reviled lame-stream media source, the NY Times, is actually against it, as are other pundits and citizens.

Both sides have people who do bad/wrong things, and I don’t think anybody reasonable has suggested otherwise. The difference is how each “side” treats their bad apples.

If anything this is an excellent example of how both sides are not the same.

#9

While I don’t think Drum’s blue-sky scenario is likely, I think the piece is not so fucked up — not “all kinds of fucked up,” anyway. Sorry, Ritter, but I think you’re reading it wrong.

  1. I think Drum’s laying on the authorial irony pretty heavily — he’s presenting a fucked up argument to make a larger point.

Partisan hacks don’t introduce their hack arguments by being explicit about their hackery. (Well, professionals don’t. Okay, some do. But I don’t think Drum’s really presenting “let’s own the cons” as his main point here — he’s just warming up his audience with a joke. Also drawing attention to the anti-democratic actions of GOP legislatures.)
2) Drum thinks that the Supreme Court’s rulings split not just ideologically, but in a partisan way — and that the Republican justices are especially prone to rule as partisans, overriding ideology when necessary. I don’t think that’s outrageous — see Bush v Gore or the statements by our newest justice during his confirmation hearing. Maybe that judgement’s wrong, but it’s not outrageous.
3) If our highest court is prone to partisan judgements, one more example of Dem gerrymandering might help some of the conservatives see the light about the problems with gerrymandering.

TLDR: the piece is more nuanced than you’re giving it credit for — IMHO. (Even if it’s blue-sky scenario is, as I suspect, not gonna happen.)

#10

The Times is a prime example of the both-sides-do-it crowd! They’re probably the president of the club!
(Yes, they employ great reporters who do great journalism. And yes, Trump attacks them when they write about the bad things he’s done. But they also bend over backwards to be “fair.” See this headline: https://twitter.com/imillhiser/status/1070520028758454272?s=21 “Wisconsin Republicans Defiantly ‘Stand Like Bedrock’ In Face of Democratic Wins.” Later edited to read: “Wisconsin Republicans Defiantly Move to Limit the Power of Incoming Democrats.”)

#11

I honestly don’t know how I feel about this.

I feel if the GOP cheats and the democrats do not, the democrats will be at a permanent disadvantage.

I also feel like if both sides do it, that will make the courts more willing to overturn it on a national level.

Right now the GOP are not incentivized to be anti-cheating in the legislatures or courts. If the democrats cheat too, the GOP may oppose cheating more.

Basically, I think I support this because it’ll end this behavior sooner on both sides. As long as only the GOP cheats then it’ll keep going on longer and it’ll take longer to be overturned.

#12

Anything that prevents Republicans from holding any amount of electoral power is a good thing.

#13

Believe me, I agree with that. But, I want it to be because the people finally figured out they are being conned, not through bullshit like this. I don’t want the country to go further down this path.

Turns out that my state senator is pretty approachable so I’m going to give him a call on Monday. Wish me luck!

#14

Ha! The bill has been shelved, effectively killed:

My state senator, Codey, was one of the more powerful voices opposed to it. I think this is a great quote:

(Emphasis mine)

Those were progressive activists protesting a bill that, if passed, would have given them more sway. Democratic Governor Phil Murphy, who would have benefited, was also opposed. It was a good day for democracy!

Next time someone mentions how both sides are at fault for today’s shitty political environment, feel free to link to this thread. I should ask a mod to change the thread title to “NJ Democrats come through for democracy” and ask to have this move to MPSIMS, but I won’t.

All it took to get this bill killed was a Pit thread at the SDMB! Who knew we were so powerful.

#15

I hear the big bands are making a comeback, too.

#16

No, back then half the Democrats were racists. Since then, those Dems have moved to Republican party and locked up the South for the Rs.

#17

On a related note, has anybody proposed having the legislative and congressional districts drawn by an independent bi-partisan or non-partisan commission every ten years?

#18

Bi-partisan doesn’t necessarily do it. PA’s districts were last redrawn by a “bipartisan” board, and it still came out hideously gerrymandered and heavily tilted to keep Republicans in power. I want a nonpartisan board or, better yet, get a computer program to do it that is optimized to draw districts based on the smallest area needed to contain the requisite number of people and none of those stupid sprawly mutated amoebas.

#19

Oh, but that would result in the voice of the people being heard.

#20

THIS. It makes me seriously bereft to see all these namby-pamby liberals being too nice to play hardball. This is war, FFS!