No, I’d say evil gained ground. But nothing goes on forever.
That was Evil vs lesser evil.
If you’re not registered to vote and you would vote Democratic if you were, shame on you.
We best not overreach. Number one priority is to stop the Republican agenda in its tracks. Number two is to end gerrymandering. Republicans took advantage of outrage over having a black president and endless lies about the ACA to take control of many state houses in 2010, then used that coincidence that it was a census year to try to stack the deck for a decade. We need to erase that- not to gerrymand in our favor, but to level the playing field for all. Everything else can wait until Jan 21, 2021.
Damn straight. One step at a time. Greed leads to destruction, here.
Dunno 'bout dat. Overcaution breeds contempt. Fortune favors the bold.
As an experienced risk-taker I’ve always known that fortune does no such thing. The vast majority of people who throw the dice - business starts, running for office and what-have-you - fail. Believing otherwise is only confirmation bias at work.
In a *sane *environment, that’s true, but not in electoral politics, among others. There’s a good argument that Trump’s win was due in part to his aggressive, take-no-shit, get-things-done persona, however juvenile that may be, and that much of the contempt for Clinton was that she’d be more of the same cautious, prudent, creature-of-the-system-that’s-failed-us image.
I used to think democrats shouldn’t gerrymander, but I’ve changed my mind. If the SCOTUS won’t overturn gerrymandering on a national level, then the democrats need to gerrymander as much as possible to negate the impact of GOP gerrymandering.
We should still be pushing to overturn the entire practice nationwide, but until then gerrymander away.
Conducting legitimate investigations into Trump and the republicans needs to be a high priority. If the democrats win the house we need legitimate investigations into Russia, Trump’s sex crimes and sexual history, Trump’s financial history, Trump’s violations of endless privacy, security and ethics laws, etc.
Precisely. I was going to say those things.
I can see gerrymandering as an issue. Both sides feel wronged by it so it can be a good issue to run on. The Voting Rights stuff is something for after we have majorities. Running on it can strengthen the resolve of our opposition and I don’t want that. We’ve got 'em on the run, no sense making 'em turn and fight.
Mind you, as a moral issue, I think voting rights should be a priority. But for a specific election I’d prefer to go with others that have a higher chance of winning us seats.
I think states should use impartial if possible but more likely bi-partisan panels drawing up districts. That would be a good ballot initiative. But as a practical matter, has anyone cross referenced states that allow ballot initiatives with those having gerrymandering issues?
I might favor bi-partisan panels, if such a thing existed. Nobody seems to have any clue how to create one, though.
And I wasn’t aware that there was any state that didn’t allow ballot initiatives, though some make it much easier than others.
I think Democrats should be careful about ballot issues. As a rule, ballot issues motivate “no” voters to come out, rather than motivating “yes” voters to ensure passage. In a year where winning close elections is important, it may be best to focus on obtaining as many new incumbents as possible, rather than pushing issues which will motivate the conservatives to turn out when they won’t be motivated by the actual politicians up for re-election.
Really? According Ballotpedia, only about half do and there is a variety of what can go on a ballot.
Wisconsin, for instance, does not have ballot initiatives so the current court case will be the end of the story. And Maryland, site of the Dem’s most outrageously gerrymandered district, only has “veto referendums”, used to vote a law off the books.
OK, I stand corrected on that.
DSYoungEsq, how does that square with the Republicans putting anti-gay measures on the ballot to turn out their base? They’ve done that multiple times.
Yeah it was a bit of surprise me considering how Americans generally like to have a vote for a tonne of ridiculous positions but there you have it.
I am rather confident we won’t see much of a defence of his “As a rule…” assertion.
Id love for the voters of California to make it a Class A felony to send unsolicited junk mail (I’m looking at you, AARP!). And I’d like the law to target the CEO and members of the Board of Directors. The fines can be paid by the corporation. The people who signed off on the mailings go to jail for a goodly stretch.
^^^ yeah preach it.
A rule against gerrymandering should pick up some support from non-Democrats. It’s just fairness. A future gerrymander could well be a Democratic-party gerrymander. Having a rule against it that says “let’s do districts fairly” should appeal to indepdendents and more than a tiny handful of Republicans, as well as to Democrats.
It will be only a tiny handful of Republicans, that vanishing breed of them that actually has some ethics. The rest don’t give a damn about the future, they figure they’ll just cheat that too.
Also, there’s no guarantee that ballot issues will come out as expected. For example, Proposition 8 in California, the anti-same sex marriage initiative, passed in 2008 – in the very same election where Barack Obama overwhelmingly received California’s electoral votes.