You wouldn't know it from how we talk about politics, but this remains a mostly conservative country.
Rallying these people around a populist Republican who talks first and foremost about working class issues is my political goal. When people here dream of conservative mass defeat, I do too, but for different reasons.
I have hope it remains possible. A slim hope, but having the legacy of a very popular President among conservatives along with the most popular conservative media figure essentially on board with this agenda is not nothing.
Just going to use this opportunity to highlight the tortured analysis required to reach this conclusion. The size, geographic shape and number of states has nothing to do with the political alignment of the country.
It's important to remember the history of how states entered the union and how that dictated their location and size. There was no unified identity in territories before their entrance into statehood. In fact, in many territories this was the opposite. Instead, pre-Civil War states were almost always admitted on a one-for-one basis. One slave state for one free state. So that slavery would not be outlawed.
If you look at a map there is one curious state that fully bisects the Missouri Compromise line that runs across the Western US -- the conservative boogeyman California. Why is this state so geographically large and not split along that line? Because its early settlers rejected slavery and did not want one free California and one slave California. Their reward for that forward thinking? Reduced representation in the Senate and Electoral College and in conservative analyses of the country.
I knew it would cause a defensive reaction. Any time you mention that the entire country is not, in fact, populated entirely by people like you, you tend to get one.
For all your hand waving and irrelevant tangents about slavery and state sizes, conservatives outnumber liberals nationally by about 9 points. The only "tortured analysis" is one that tries to paint over that fact.
You constantly say slavery is "irrelevant" to these discussions when it has been pointed out on numerous occasions that when it comes to the Electoral College and the admission of new states to the union, it was not only relevant, but a CENTRAL component of what took place in both cases. Even if you disagree to the EXTENT slavery was the deciding factor (and in the later case it was literally the main cause of the Civil War), saying it had no bearing whatsoever is just completely historically inaccurate. The EC is quite literally why African-Americans were considered 3/5ths of a human being. The 3/5ths Compromise. The history of "working across the aisle" in the US.
You're someone who believes in the power of "culture". Imagine how long it takes to shake the perception that your people are only 60% human when that was a founding principle of the country. Because when you see nearly EVERY place Republicans are saying ballots were fraudulent, the answer to this question is clearly, "more than 150 years".
The short answer to this is that you are engaging in a genetic fallacy, but I hate to be "that guy" who labels things as fallacious without explaining why.
No, the Electoral College was not designed with slavery in mind. Even if it was, which it is not, it says precisely zero about its current day applications. This is a lie, and in the Federalist Papers they explain the thought process behind the electoral college. Some of it holds up, some doesn't, but slavery is not on the list. They wanted Presidents to be decided with "the esteem and confidence of the whole Union", as well as it being an anti corruption measure for the time, by only allowing citizens without political power to be electors. Never was "we need to make people less represented" a part of the equation when it was formed.
You wouldn't know it from how we talk about politics, but this remains a mostly conservative country.
Rallying these people around a populist Republican who talks first and foremost about working class issues is my political goal. When people here dream of conservative mass defeat, I do too, but for different reasons.
I have hope it remains possible. A slim hope, but having the legacy of a very popular President among conservatives along with the most popular conservative media figure essentially on board with this agenda is not nothing.
Just going to use this opportunity to highlight the tortured analysis required to reach this conclusion. The size, geographic shape and number of states has nothing to do with the political alignment of the country.
It's important to remember the history of how states entered the union and how that dictated their location and size. There was no unified identity in territories before their entrance into statehood. In fact, in many territories this was the opposite. Instead, pre-Civil War states were almost always admitted on a one-for-one basis. One slave state for one free state. So that slavery would not be outlawed.
If you look at a map there is one curious state that fully bisects the Missouri Compromise line that runs across the Western US -- the conservative boogeyman California. Why is this state so geographically large and not split along that line? Because its early settlers rejected slavery and did not want one free California and one slave California. Their reward for that forward thinking? Reduced representation in the Senate and Electoral College and in conservative analyses of the country.
I knew it would cause a defensive reaction. Any time you mention that the entire country is not, in fact, populated entirely by people like you, you tend to get one.
For all your hand waving and irrelevant tangents about slavery and state sizes, conservatives outnumber liberals nationally by about 9 points. The only "tortured analysis" is one that tries to paint over that fact.
That is true, though the same source says Democrats used to describe them as moderates more often than as liberal. From what you usually write on here, I've the feeling you would consider most of those moderates to be liberals, and the liberals to be far left.
The people who describe themselves as moderates are, in my opinion, swing voters. People who can go either way and are usually heavily contested for every election. My point in bringing up the map itself is to show the value in trying to appeal to, and alter, the GOP to fit working class ends rather than a rejection of it. Given the conservative tendency to reject mainstream candidates or build movements to pressure the GOP from the outside, like the Tea Partiers, I see this as not only realistic but easily achievable. A conservative party has a natural appeal to a majority of voters in most states, exactly the kind of thing you need to win elections.
I was making the point earlier, that the Democratic Party wins elections by appealing to centrists. The dream of a permanent progressive or democratic coalition is just that, a pipe dream. We have been talking a lot about the potential for bipartisanship, and that map makes it more or less clear that a one party state isn't coming up any time soon. Bipartisan consensus is the only way forward.
I agree about the need to work together, but I'm not convinced the analysis you refer to says that much about political convictions. The idea that over a third of the country are swing voters seems unlikely to me - as does the idea that since 2004 the real gap between the number of "conservatives" and "liberals" has narrowed by 12 percentage points (something which doesn't seem to have been reflected in polling data). I suspect that rather than accurately reflecting political views, the figures are strongly influenced by the social acceptability of the labels. "Liberal" has in the past been a label sometimes used to imply extremist views, but that may be less the case now. Conversely "conservative" has started to become less acceptable than in the past. I started to write a sentence here about my suspicion that most Democrats would not now want to be labelled "conservative" and then wondered if Gallup had any data on that - you can find that here and I've pulled out the graph about Democrats' ideology below.
Nearly EVERYTHING about how the original states were apportioned power, and ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING about how they were admitted to the Union thereafter was colored by slavery. And in an electoral system that is wholly predicated on regional geography and population, saying it had no bearing on where we are is absurd. Being slave or free was the central issue for many of them, and there would have been no agreement about national elections had the Southern states not been placated by letting them count their "property" as partial population. Pretty neat deal.
How is any of this "irrelevant" (which is what a genetic fallacy implies)?? It's only irrelevant because you don't want it to be relevant. This didn't happen 1000 years ago. This is why the United States is divided into the territories it is (what we call states) and those lines on the map, without question, grant power based on location and square mileage based on where there borders are relative to their population.
Nearly EVERYTHING about how the original states were apportioned power, and ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING about how they were admitted to the Union thereafter was colored by slavery. And in an electoral system that is wholly predicated on regional geography and population, saying it had no bearing on where we are is absurd. Being slave or free was the central issue for many of them, and there would have been no agreement about national elections had the Southern states not been placated by letting them count their "property" as partial population. Pretty neat deal.
Spamming a bunch of links to journalists and utterly irrelevant wikipedia articles rather than any founding texts or documents is very telling. They base their entire argument on a single Madison quote- which doesn't even mention the Electoral College- rather than the explanations offered to states, and wrote down for posterity, in regards to why the EC exists and has merit. It is a shamelessly cherry picked way of arguing, so I can see why media likes it so much and history doesn't.
It's all so tiresome since the argument is based on a fallacious premise as is. They lack good arguments for representation and the health of the country so the very last stand is in attacking the origins with revisionist history rather than the content.
Nearly EVERYTHING about how the original states were apportioned power, and ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING about how they were admitted to the Union thereafter was colored by slavery. And in an electoral system that is wholly predicated on regional geography and population, saying it had no bearing on where we are is absurd. Being slave or free was the central issue for many of them, and there would have been no agreement about national elections had the Southern states not been placated by letting them count their "property" as partial population. Pretty neat deal.
Spamming a bunch of links to journalists and utterly irrelevant wikipedia articles rather than any founding texts or documents is very telling. They base their entire argument on a single Madison quote- which doesn't even mention the Electoral College- rather than the explanations offered to states, and wrote down for posterity, in regards to why the EC exists and has merit. It is a shamelessly cherry picked way of arguing, so I can see why media likes it so much and history doesn't.
It's all so tiresome since the argument is based on a fallacious premise as is. They lack good arguments for representation and the health of the country so the very last stand is in attacking the origins with revisionist history rather than the content.
I don't know how you can continue to say "lack of good arguments for representation and health of the country" with a straight face, when I just proved yesterday that even in the House of Representatives, which is supposed to be based on population, California is over a DOZEN seats short of what they should have. It would be more honest if you just admitted you think certain people should have more power, and that you're ok with that because it aligns with your political goals. I admit that we want to abolish the EC for those reasons. But at least it's based on a concrete, fair principle in which everyone's vote is equal.
But just for fun, even if we grant (and we have to because it is what it is right now) that the EC and Senate are fair to "balance" out the power of states like California, you would AT LEAST have to admit that California deserves to be fully represented in the ONE chamber where population matters, which is the House. The ONLY way to fairly apportion this is by taking the population of the smallest state (Wyoming) and extrapolating out from their 1 House member.
Population of Wyoming is 580,000. Population of California is 39 million. Divide 39 million by 580,000. California should have 67 House members. They have 53. This isn't disputable. You cannot possibly argue the system is fair when even the HOUSE isn't properly representative.
As much as I love hearing you two go at it, I have to interrupt with a question pertinent to me. What do both of you see as the role of the Central Government (ie: Washington) as opposed to the roles of the State governments? It seems to me that there needs some defining of this before I can really understand where either of you are coming from. I know you probably both have mentioned this in past posts, but this thread is enormous!
@WarChiefZeke *Complains about handwaving ("For all your hand waving and irrelevant tangents...")*
also @WarChiefZeke - *Handwaves any argument he finds "tiresome"*
One of the incredibly obvious underpinning flaws of the EC and those who defend it, is that we seldom see complaints or concerns about state-wide offices being run using a simple popular vote metric (Sans Mississippi, I believe). Apparently I'm supposed to believe that Redding California and Los Angeles are fine to share statewide officials. but that California and Nevada should be separated by an artificial state-line delimiting the voting power between the two.
I agree about the need to work together, but I'm not convinced the analysis you refer to says that much about political convictions.
You were convinced the polls were right and wouldn't even listen to arguments to the contrary pre-election before the polls were largely discredited, so this newfound skepticism is a healthy change. I, too, think polls are often limited in their ability to tell us the whole picture. I think they often present true, but very limited, snapshots.
The idea that over a third of the country are swing voters seems unlikely to me - as does the idea that since 2004 the real gap between the number of "conservatives" and "liberals" has narrowed by 12 percentage points (something which doesn't seem to have been reflected in polling data).
Not every self-described moderate is a swing voter, but I would bet most self-described swing voters are moderates. The idea that it is the political extremes who are swing voters seems far less likely to me.
I suspect that rather than accurately reflecting political views, the figures are strongly influenced by the social acceptability of the labels.
I think it is not the case from having lived here that "conservative" is a much more popular label than "liberal" across the whole of the country, especially in the Trump era. If this were the case you would expect these numbers to be largely flipped.
Rather, I think when people think "conservative" and "liberal" they think in cultural, and not economic, terms. I've mentioned this before but many members of the Democratic voting coalition, including hispanics and blacks, tend to have social views closer to conservatives than they do with white liberals, who are the outlier on many of these things, and are even closer to republicans on things like immigration.
So yeah, I think these do reflect political views, but not voting patterns, which is important. To give just one example:
"Liberal" has in the past been a label sometimes used to imply extremist views, but that may be less the case now. Conversely "conservative" has started to become less acceptable than in the past.
Agreed.
"I started to write a sentence here about my suspicion that most Democrats would not now want to be labelled "conservative" and then wondered if Gallup had any data on that - you can find that here and I've pulled out the graph about Democrats' ideology below."
I imagine that is also largely the case with Republicans.
As much as I love hearing you two go at it, I have to interrupt with a question pertinent to me. What do both of you see as the role of the Central Government (ie: Washington) as opposed to the roles of the State governments? It seems to me that there needs some defining of this before I can really understand where either of you are coming from. I know you probably both have mentioned this in past posts, but this thread is enormous!
I personally find arguments about federalism fairly meaningless because it has become clear to me over the years that the only time Republicans care about it is when it's about limiting the rights of minority groups. They had no problem suing California telling them they couldn't have STRICTER fuel standards for cars. Because it might hurt auto workers in Michigan. So it's abundantly clear to me the right doesn't ACTUALLY believe in state's rights, despite it being pretty much one of the 2 or 3 central tenants of conservatism for decades.
I can't think of a single reason the left should even TRY to be consistent on this issue when the right's belief in it (despite selling themselves, explicitly, as just that) is total hogwash and goes out the window on any issue that isn't voting rights, gay rights, or abortion. And only ONE party has EVER used the concept as a branding exercise (post-Civil Rights Act, obviously, it was the clarion call of Dixiecrats, who, of course, ALL switched parties with Nixon).
As much as I love hearing you two go at it, I have to interrupt with a question pertinent to me. What do both of you see as the role of the Central Government (ie: Washington) as opposed to the roles of the State governments? It seems to me that there needs some defining of this before I can really understand where either of you are coming from. I know you probably both have mentioned this in past posts, but this thread is enormous!
We have a country that is the size of a continent, and moves beyond it into Alaska and Hawaii. People are also very polarized and will have very different opinions and views depending on where you live. State governments should be given as much autonomy as possible. It is the only way to fairly represent a diverse coalition of many different groups, with everyone having some measure of power over their own lives. To rule from Washington alone is to reject the concept of state sovereignty, and more importantly, to govern in a manner that does not take the differences between individuals, living conditions, and cultures into account.
@Grond0 already posted this image from another Gallup poll, but I think it needs to be expanded upon.
The fact that self-described Democrats do not consistently describe themselves as liberals shows us that liberal, left, and Democrat are not synonymous. If only half of all Democrats call themselves liberal, then the word "liberal" isn't a reliable predictor of one's views--and yes, this is precisely because the term has been used to demonize folks on the left for decades. It's no surprise at all that "liberals" don't make up the majority of the population if Democrats don't consistently call themselves that.
You wouldn't know it from how we talk about politics, but this remains a mostly conservative country.
I have hope it remains possible. A slim hope, but having the legacy of a very popular President among conservatives along with the most popular conservative media figure essentially on board with this agenda is not nothing.
"Conservatives Greatly Outnumber Liberals in 19 U.S. States", impressive?
The choices respondents were given were
are you a Conservative or Moderate or Liberal. I don't know about you but I wouldn't call myself a liberal. It's become a dumb term means nothing pretty much because Conservatives have strawmanned it to death for years and policy wise there's pretty much none but keep on the middle of the road pro-corporare status quo. So if you called yourself a moderate in this poll, the liberal numbers (and conservative numbers) go down.
Here's the list where Conservatives greatly outnumber liberals and population (millions)
Mississippi: 2.9
Alabama: 4.9
South Dakota: .8
Louisiana: 4.6
Wyoming : .5
West Virginia : 1.7
Tennessee: 6.8
Arkansas : 3
Utah : 3.2
South Carolina: 5.1
Oklahoma : 3.9
Idaho: 1.7
Alaska: .7
Indiana: 6.7
Kansas: 2.9
Montana: 1
North Dakota : .7
Missouri : 6.1
Georgia : 10.6
Combined population of those states: 67.8 million
Total US population: 328.2 million
Population of states where Conservatives do not greatly outnumber liberals: 260.4
What's this data show us? Conservatives are overrepresented in our government because they have many low population states where they greatly outnumber liberals are are probably going to blindly vote Republican. These 19 states get a guaranteed 38 senators for Republicans out of 100 total.
What should the headline be instead of "Conservatives Greatly Outnumber Liberals in 19 U.S. States"?
How about "The Vast Majority of Americans Do Not Live In States Where Conservatives Greatly Outnumber Liberals".
If you look up attitudes, for specific policy positions this conversation might get more interesting but you'll likely find that Americans do not value the things Conservatives typically push.
The point of having election district is to solve one huge problem of democracy. IE - Large urban centers making the opinions and demands of less populated rural areas irrelevant. USA is supposed to be a union of states and a republic, not a "pure" democracy.
What should be made is to increase the autonomy of states even further, so lefitists states can have all types of lefitists laws and policies implemented and those who don't wanna live there, can leave.
In countries with pure popular vote and ultra centralized, you have the case like on Brazil, where anyone who is popular on São Paulo probably wins the election and poliicians approve laws thinking only on Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo. Ignoring completely the will of the people in the south which has a stronger rural and cowboy culture. Politicians also don't care much about the will of the people. Over 90% of the population is in favor of reducing the "penal age", most Brazilians voted in a referendum AGAINST ultra draconian gun control but the government din't cared and passed the gun control anyway.
Democracy without checks and balances has a lot of problems. Is one reason which I consider monarchy superior and hope that the private city projects will succeed.
Just imagine living in private city with no state dictating everything that you can and cannot do. And if you don't like the "private laws", you can easily move to another private city.
As much as I love hearing you two go at it, I have to interrupt with a question pertinent to me. What do both of you see as the role of the Central Government (ie: Washington) as opposed to the roles of the State governments? It seems to me that there needs some defining of this before I can really understand where either of you are coming from. I know you probably both have mentioned this in past posts, but this thread is enormous!
I personally find arguments about federalism fairly meaningless because it has become clear to me over the years that the only time Republicans care about it is when it's about limiting the rights of minority groups. They had no problem suing California telling them they couldn't have STRICTER fuel standards for cars. Because it might hurt auto workers in Michigan. So it's abundantly clear to me the right doesn't ACTUALLY believe in state's rights, despite it being pretty much one of the 2 or 3 central tenants of conservatism for decades.
I can't think of a single reason the left should even TRY to be consistent on this issue when the right's belief in it (despite selling themselves, explicitly, as just that) is total hogwash and goes out the window on any issue that isn't voting rights, gay rights, or abortion. And only ONE party has EVER used the concept as a branding exercise (post-Civil Rights Act, obviously, it was the clarion call of Dixiecrats, who, of course, ALL switched parties with Nixon).
Well, Zeke answered my question while you evaded it. I sort of knew Zeke's opinion beforehand but wasn't as sure of your view. The ?? might be reaching the point where differences between states are irreconcilable. I was rather curious if you believe states should be able to leave the Union if they don't agree with progressive views. This isn't as clear-cut as it sounds either, because any way you slice up the states there are going to be people left in a politically powerless minority. Whether it's reactionaries in California, or progressives in Alabama, there's going to be a significant proportion of pissed off people that aren't represented if that happens.
Edit: Changed the word 'conservatives' to 'reactionaries' since I used 'progressives' instead of 'liberals'.
As much as I love hearing you two go at it, I have to interrupt with a question pertinent to me. What do both of you see as the role of the Central Government (ie: Washington) as opposed to the roles of the State governments? It seems to me that there needs some defining of this before I can really understand where either of you are coming from. I know you probably both have mentioned this in past posts, but this thread is enormous!
I personally find arguments about federalism fairly meaningless because it has become clear to me over the years that the only time Republicans care about it is when it's about limiting the rights of minority groups. They had no problem suing California telling them they couldn't have STRICTER fuel standards for cars. Because it might hurt auto workers in Michigan. So it's abundantly clear to me the right doesn't ACTUALLY believe in state's rights, despite it being pretty much one of the 2 or 3 central tenants of conservatism for decades.
I can't think of a single reason the left should even TRY to be consistent on this issue when the right's belief in it (despite selling themselves, explicitly, as just that) is total hogwash and goes out the window on any issue that isn't voting rights, gay rights, or abortion. And only ONE party has EVER used the concept as a branding exercise (post-Civil Rights Act, obviously, it was the clarion call of Dixiecrats, who, of course, ALL switched parties with Nixon).
Well, Zeke answered my question while you evaded it. I sort of knew Zeke's opinion beforehand but wasn't as sure of your view. The ?? might be reaching the point where differences between states are irreconcilable. I was rather curious if you believe states should be able to leave the Union if they don't agree with progressive views. This isn't as clear-cut as it sounds either, because any way you slice up the states there are going to be people left in a politically powerless minority. Whether it's reactionaries in California, or progressives in Alabama, there's going to be a significant proportion of pissed off people that aren't represented if that happens.
Edit: Changed the word 'conservatives' to 'reactionaries' since I used 'progressives' instead of 'liberals'.
I'm saying there is absolutely no consistency on the issue from either side, but only one side ever used it as a selling point. I don't personally care if the outcome is just. If you held a gun to my head, I'd come down on the side of the federal government because state governments have, on many occasions sought to enshrine certain people as second-class citizens. I mean, Kennedy was not the bad guy went he sent in the National Guard to force integration of schools.
As much as I love hearing you two go at it, I have to interrupt with a question pertinent to me. What do both of you see as the role of the Central Government (ie: Washington) as opposed to the roles of the State governments? It seems to me that there needs some defining of this before I can really understand where either of you are coming from. I know you probably both have mentioned this in past posts, but this thread is enormous!
I personally find arguments about federalism fairly meaningless because it has become clear to me over the years that the only time Republicans care about it is when it's about limiting the rights of minority groups. They had no problem suing California telling them they couldn't have STRICTER fuel standards for cars. Because it might hurt auto workers in Michigan. So it's abundantly clear to me the right doesn't ACTUALLY believe in state's rights, despite it being pretty much one of the 2 or 3 central tenants of conservatism for decades.
I can't think of a single reason the left should even TRY to be consistent on this issue when the right's belief in it (despite selling themselves, explicitly, as just that) is total hogwash and goes out the window on any issue that isn't voting rights, gay rights, or abortion. And only ONE party has EVER used the concept as a branding exercise (post-Civil Rights Act, obviously, it was the clarion call of Dixiecrats, who, of course, ALL switched parties with Nixon).
Well, Zeke answered my question while you evaded it. I sort of knew Zeke's opinion beforehand but wasn't as sure of your view. The ?? might be reaching the point where differences between states are irreconcilable. I was rather curious if you believe states should be able to leave the Union if they don't agree with progressive views. This isn't as clear-cut as it sounds either, because any way you slice up the states there are going to be people left in a politically powerless minority. Whether it's reactionaries in California, or progressives in Alabama, there's going to be a significant proportion of pissed off people that aren't represented if that happens.
Edit: Changed the word 'conservatives' to 'reactionaries' since I used 'progressives' instead of 'liberals'.
I'm saying there is absolutely no consistency on the issue from either side, but only one side ever used it as a selling point. I don't personally care if the outcome is just. If you held a gun to my head, I'd come down on the side of the federal government because state governments have, on many occasions sought to enshrine certain people as second-class citizens. I mean, Kennedy was not the bad guy went he sent in the National Guard to force integration of schools.
I don't care about consistency. I'm just curious about your personal views on it. I agree that the Republicans would probably shove Christianity, in whatever form they believe, down your throat if they could and wouldn't give a rat's ass about State rights. The left does shove their views down other people's throats too though. For instance, climate change, if people don't agree with your views, or don't think it's worth the sacrifice to fight it, should it be forced down their throat by the central government? If so, what, other than total control by one party would stop whatever they do from being completely reversed as soon as the left loses power? How do you get people to buy in so that we don't get this roller-coaster? I highly doubt your 'fuck them all' approach will lead to any lasting majority of Americans.
I agree about the need to work together, but I'm not convinced the analysis you refer to says that much about political convictions.
You were convinced the polls were right and wouldn't even listen to arguments to the contrary pre-election before the polls were largely discredited, so this newfound skepticism is a healthy change. I, too, think polls are often limited in their ability to tell us the whole picture. I think they often present true, but very limited, snapshots.
I'm not sure there's much new about it . I think my attitude to the pre-election polls could be summarized as the apparent gap being too great for Trump to make up even if they were wrong. I admit the margin is closer than I expected though and there will no doubt be more reviews of polling methodology to try and work out what when wrong. However, once the final results are in, I don't think the polling errors will be quite as large as seems to be generally being discussed currently:
- in 2016 Clinton was shown as having a lead of 3-4% and won the popular vote by about 2%.
- in 2020 Biden was shown as having a lead of 7-8% and I suspect will end up 4-5% ahead in the popular vote, though differences appear to be greater in battleground states.
That suggests a few things:
- Trump's support is being under-counted by the polls.
- the margin of under-counting appears to be slightly higher overall than in 2016 (which does surprise me).
- the margin of under-counting is higher in contested states than others, suggesting that the extra efforts to get votes out in those states have been particularly successful for Republicans.
Moderate Democrats who lost seats are taking the exact wrong message from their failures. Of course they are. They stand for nothing. What does it mean to be a moderate Democrat what do you want to accomplish?
From the politico:
"There were ads being run all over the country about socialism and about the Green New Deal and in some parts of the country that didn’t help,” Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) said in an interview. "I think it would be irresponsible for a person in our family — in the Democratic Caucus family — who is concerned about it not to mention it."
Others were more blunt: "From my standpoint, as a moderate Democrat ... it’s crystal clear we need a different message than what we’ve been having,” added Rep. Kurt Schrader (Ore.).
So if you don't stand for a green new deal and the rest and run away from it you are ceding the ground to Republican attacks. Well, those things in Republican attacks are actually popular with your voters, what are you doing? They're lying about them - they say the GND is this or that - and are framing the narrative while you what? Run away.
So what are they offering? The left has been literally under attack by a fascist intent on destroying the environment and demonizing the blue states and the left no matter what you do. Anything bad Trump blames on the left he takes no responsibility. He and Republicans are not going to go easy on you if you cave in. Why don't these "moderates" see that?
You guys are in a bar fight and you just want to sit in peace and drink your drink.
What are these moderates offering? "I am not for the Green New Deal". Wow. Such inspiration. Don't take these losers seriously.
As much as I love hearing you two go at it, I have to interrupt with a question pertinent to me. What do both of you see as the role of the Central Government (ie: Washington) as opposed to the roles of the State governments? It seems to me that there needs some defining of this before I can really understand where either of you are coming from. I know you probably both have mentioned this in past posts, but this thread is enormous!
I personally find arguments about federalism fairly meaningless because it has become clear to me over the years that the only time Republicans care about it is when it's about limiting the rights of minority groups. They had no problem suing California telling them they couldn't have STRICTER fuel standards for cars. Because it might hurt auto workers in Michigan. So it's abundantly clear to me the right doesn't ACTUALLY believe in state's rights, despite it being pretty much one of the 2 or 3 central tenants of conservatism for decades.
I can't think of a single reason the left should even TRY to be consistent on this issue when the right's belief in it (despite selling themselves, explicitly, as just that) is total hogwash and goes out the window on any issue that isn't voting rights, gay rights, or abortion. And only ONE party has EVER used the concept as a branding exercise (post-Civil Rights Act, obviously, it was the clarion call of Dixiecrats, who, of course, ALL switched parties with Nixon).
Well, Zeke answered my question while you evaded it. I sort of knew Zeke's opinion beforehand but wasn't as sure of your view. The ?? might be reaching the point where differences between states are irreconcilable. I was rather curious if you believe states should be able to leave the Union if they don't agree with progressive views. This isn't as clear-cut as it sounds either, because any way you slice up the states there are going to be people left in a politically powerless minority. Whether it's reactionaries in California, or progressives in Alabama, there's going to be a significant proportion of pissed off people that aren't represented if that happens.
Edit: Changed the word 'conservatives' to 'reactionaries' since I used 'progressives' instead of 'liberals'.
I'm saying there is absolutely no consistency on the issue from either side, but only one side ever used it as a selling point. I don't personally care if the outcome is just. If you held a gun to my head, I'd come down on the side of the federal government because state governments have, on many occasions sought to enshrine certain people as second-class citizens. I mean, Kennedy was not the bad guy went he sent in the National Guard to force integration of schools.
I don't care about consistency. I'm just curious about your personal views on it. I agree that the Republicans would probably shove Christianity, in whatever form they believe, down your throat if they could and wouldn't give a rat's ass about State rights. The left does shove their views down other people's throats too though. For instance, climate change, if people don't agree with your views, or don't think it's worth the sacrifice to fight it, should it be forced down their throat by the central government? If so, what, other than total control by one party would stop whatever they do from being completely reversed as soon as the left loses power? How do you get people to buy in so that we don't get this roller-coaster? I highly doubt your 'fuck them all' approach will lead to any lasting majority of Americans.
You aren't going to get the people you are talking about to buy in on climate change. It's impossible to convince them of something they can't see in the moment (even though if you care to look, it's not that hard to find). You can't even convince them about COVID-19, at least until their grandmother gets denied treatment because all the hospital beds in their county are full. They also don't give a shit because they figure they'll be dead by the time it becomes a problem. I'm fairly resigned to an endless cycle of 1.) GOP Administration is abject disaster and 2.) Dem Administration comes in having to spend all their time cleaning up the mess against total obstruction from the people who caused the problem in the first place. Rinse and repeat. It's been happening on a loop since 1988.
1 - Lets suppose that Trump proofs and win almost all sues. What will gonna happen?
2 - Lets suppose that Biden won legally but the investigation was suppressed. What will gonna happen?
3 - Lets suppose that Biden won legally and the investigations was not suppressed. What will gonna happen?
How about a headline stating "Almost 50% more people believe Biden won than Trump!"? Same numbers, different spin. Just sayin'...
Two more lawsuits were laughed out of court in MI and AZ this morning. Once again, the real cynicism here is SIGNALLING to the base they are actually contesting the election when it's all theater and they're being played. It's incredibly destructive, but it's quite clear this is all one last fundraising grift. 40%+ of Republicans think the election was stolen. Maybe if the people telling them that weren't PURPOSEFULLY lying to them (because they know it wasn't), not so many would. It is cosplay of a power grab, but I again submit, what difference does that make and why should it be excused when so many people BELIEVE it's real??
As much as I love hearing you two go at it, I have to interrupt with a question pertinent to me. What do both of you see as the role of the Central Government (ie: Washington) as opposed to the roles of the State governments? It seems to me that there needs some defining of this before I can really understand where either of you are coming from. I know you probably both have mentioned this in past posts, but this thread is enormous!
I personally find arguments about federalism fairly meaningless because it has become clear to me over the years that the only time Republicans care about it is when it's about limiting the rights of minority groups. They had no problem suing California telling them they couldn't have STRICTER fuel standards for cars. Because it might hurt auto workers in Michigan. So it's abundantly clear to me the right doesn't ACTUALLY believe in state's rights, despite it being pretty much one of the 2 or 3 central tenants of conservatism for decades.
I can't think of a single reason the left should even TRY to be consistent on this issue when the right's belief in it (despite selling themselves, explicitly, as just that) is total hogwash and goes out the window on any issue that isn't voting rights, gay rights, or abortion. And only ONE party has EVER used the concept as a branding exercise (post-Civil Rights Act, obviously, it was the clarion call of Dixiecrats, who, of course, ALL switched parties with Nixon).
Well, Zeke answered my question while you evaded it. I sort of knew Zeke's opinion beforehand but wasn't as sure of your view. The ?? might be reaching the point where differences between states are irreconcilable. I was rather curious if you believe states should be able to leave the Union if they don't agree with progressive views. This isn't as clear-cut as it sounds either, because any way you slice up the states there are going to be people left in a politically powerless minority. Whether it's reactionaries in California, or progressives in Alabama, there's going to be a significant proportion of pissed off people that aren't represented if that happens.
Edit: Changed the word 'conservatives' to 'reactionaries' since I used 'progressives' instead of 'liberals'.
I'm saying there is absolutely no consistency on the issue from either side, but only one side ever used it as a selling point. I don't personally care if the outcome is just. If you held a gun to my head, I'd come down on the side of the federal government because state governments have, on many occasions sought to enshrine certain people as second-class citizens. I mean, Kennedy was not the bad guy went he sent in the National Guard to force integration of schools.
I don't care about consistency. I'm just curious about your personal views on it. I agree that the Republicans would probably shove Christianity, in whatever form they believe, down your throat if they could and wouldn't give a rat's ass about State rights. The left does shove their views down other people's throats too though. For instance, climate change, if people don't agree with your views, or don't think it's worth the sacrifice to fight it, should it be forced down their throat by the central government? If so, what, other than total control by one party would stop whatever they do from being completely reversed as soon as the left loses power? How do you get people to buy in so that we don't get this roller-coaster? I highly doubt your 'fuck them all' approach will lead to any lasting majority of Americans.
Climate change is a good example of the problem of relying on such an old constitution to determine the distribution of power between federal and local. That issue was obviously not something considered in the 18th century, which means any federal action taken in relation to it can be seen as 'over-reach' by strict constitutionalists.
If you take arguments back to first principles though and consider how powers might be divided, one of the major principles to use would be the extent to which actions taken by one state affect others (a similar principle is one of the foundations of criminal law as well - so for instance people are generally free to shoot guns, but not generally free to shoot other people).
If policies only related to climate change that would suggest they should be determined at federal level, but things are always more complex in practice, as there will be impacts on lots of other aspects of life as well. I would say that one of the successes of the EU has been to increase energy efficiency of traded goods - so things like vacuum cleaners for example use far less power for a given level of output than they used to. Generally my impression is that people have welcomed the changes, but you do hear the odd complaint linked to restrictions on freedom of choice or that a change has driven up costs. An example would be that it's no longer possible to buy the old style incandescent light bulb. Apart from requiring much less electricity, the newer bulbs last far longer and are considerably cheaper over time. However, they are more expensive to buy initially and making them unavailable is restricting personal choice.
@Balrog99 The problem of determining state power vs. federal power is that no one can really agree what falls into either category. I personally support a separation of some kind, but I haven't even fully drilled down on what that would mean for my personal ethics yet.
Basically, I hold that things which affect every American, or comprises a scope bigger than states can handle alone, should be in the hands of the federal government. So things like disaters, healthcare, war effort, and civil rights would fall into federal. States could absolutely help with all these things, but they cannot override the federal governments ability to provide universal necessities for its citizens.
That leaves the tricky question of what should be in the states' hands then. Just about everything that affects people on the state level would also have a kind of butterfly effect on other states. So far, I don't think it makes sense for state government to be soveriegn over more than REALLY local concerns. Stuff like city/town councils, local zoning, etc.
I don't personally care if the outcome is just. If you held a gun to my head, I'd come down on the side of the federal government
Well there ya have it. States can not seek self governance, nor should they be allowed adequate political representation in the current climate. They are little more than peasants to be ruled over by their betters. What they want doesn't matter, their desires a mere nuisance to be eradicated.
I don't personally care if the outcome is just. If you held a gun to my head, I'd come down on the side of the federal government
Well there ya have it. States can not seek self governance, nor should they be allowed adequate political representation in the current climate. They are little more than peasants to be ruled over by their betters. What they want doesn't matter, their desires a mere nuisance to be eradicated.
The phrase "if you held a gun to my head" is not typically indicative of a strong position on an issue, but what you would choose if forced to. Nor were my previous comments. I was trying to answer a question, and this is the result.
If you're gonna cherry-pick quotes and define my position for me, why don't you pull my statement about the Trump Administration not allowing California to have tougher emission standards and explain (since you are so in favor of local rights) why the residents of that state don't have a right to determine their own air quality because of hypothetical job losses in the Midwest.
I'm guessing I get "something something their population is so large that any decision they make has an effect on everyone else and that can't be allowed". Which would go to MY belief that you barely consider residents of large blue states to be citizens at all.
I don't personally care if the outcome is just. If you held a gun to my head, I'd come down on the side of the federal government
Well there ya have it. States can not seek self governance, nor should they be allowed adequate political representation in the current climate. They are little more than peasants to be ruled over by their betters. What they want doesn't matter, their desires a mere nuisance to be eradicated.
The phrase "if you held a gun to my head" is not typically indicative of a strong position on an issue, but what you would choose if forced to. Nor were my previous comments. I was trying to answer a question, and this is the result.
If you're gonna cherry-pick quotes and define my position for me, why don't you pull my statement about the Trump Administration suing California about having tougher emission standards and explain (since you are so in favor of local rights) why the residents of that state don't have a right to determine their own air quality because of hypothetical job losses in the Midwest.
Well technically they do have the 'choice', and the 'right' in this case. They just have to face the consequences of defying the sitting POTUS. I don't recall that particular case going to the Supreme Court, but maybe I'm wrong. I live in Michigan, so my state's rights were more important than their state's rights on that occasion. Hey, at least I admit to my bias... ?
I don't personally care if the outcome is just. If you held a gun to my head, I'd come down on the side of the federal government
Well there ya have it. States can not seek self governance, nor should they be allowed adequate political representation in the current climate. They are little more than peasants to be ruled over by their betters. What they want doesn't matter, their desires a mere nuisance to be eradicated.
The phrase "if you held a gun to my head" is not typically indicative of a strong position on an issue, but what you would choose if forced to. Nor were my previous comments. I was trying to answer a question, and this is the result.
If you're gonna cherry-pick quotes and define my position for me, why don't you pull my statement about the Trump Administration suing California about having tougher emission standards and explain (since you are so in favor of local rights) why the residents of that state don't have a right to determine their own air quality because of hypothetical job losses in the Midwest.
Well technically they do have the 'choice', and the 'right' in this case. They just have to face the consequences of defying the sitting POTUS. I don't recall that particular case going to the Supreme Court, but maybe I'm wrong. I live in Michigan, so my state's rights were more important than their state's rights on that occasion. Hey, at least I admit to my bias... ?
Which is my point, NO ONE actually believes in this concept, it's just a cudgel to be whipped out in certain circumstances. But at least Democrats don't PRETEND to have a concrete position on it.
I knew it would cause a defensive reaction. Any time you mention that the entire country is not, in fact, populated entirely by people like you, you tend to get one.
The person who is defensive about the country being populated by people unlike them is the person who thinks people like them should rule despite consistently losing the voting majority.
Edit to add: To be honest I'm getting tired of you applying a different set of rules to yourself than to others on this thread. It's you, not me, who earlier said "If you exclude California..." How is that not a point by someone mad that many in the country are unlike them?
And as jj notes earlier, you handwave away posts that other posters clearly took the time to provide citations while attacking others for handwaving your posts. You are hurling accusations throughout this thread at others which you baldly violate.
Anyone want to help me summarize the main points of the most recent discussion here? Here's what I got from it:
- The federal government shouldn't step over State's rights, but sometimes it does.
- People should be rational and logical, but sometimes they're not.
Comments
The short answer to this is that you are engaging in a genetic fallacy, but I hate to be "that guy" who labels things as fallacious without explaining why.
No, the Electoral College was not designed with slavery in mind. Even if it was, which it is not, it says precisely zero about its current day applications. This is a lie, and in the Federalist Papers they explain the thought process behind the electoral college. Some of it holds up, some doesn't, but slavery is not on the list. They wanted Presidents to be decided with "the esteem and confidence of the whole Union", as well as it being an anti corruption measure for the time, by only allowing citizens without political power to be electors. Never was "we need to make people less represented" a part of the equation when it was formed.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp
I agree about the need to work together, but I'm not convinced the analysis you refer to says that much about political convictions. The idea that over a third of the country are swing voters seems unlikely to me - as does the idea that since 2004 the real gap between the number of "conservatives" and "liberals" has narrowed by 12 percentage points (something which doesn't seem to have been reflected in polling data). I suspect that rather than accurately reflecting political views, the figures are strongly influenced by the social acceptability of the labels. "Liberal" has in the past been a label sometimes used to imply extremist views, but that may be less the case now. Conversely "conservative" has started to become less acceptable than in the past. I started to write a sentence here about my suspicion that most Democrats would not now want to be labelled "conservative" and then wondered if Gallup had any data on that - you can find that here and I've pulled out the graph about Democrats' ideology below.
https://www.thoughtco.com/three-fifths-compromise-4588466
https://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/electoral-college-racist-origins/601918/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Compromise
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas–Nebraska_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1850
Nearly EVERYTHING about how the original states were apportioned power, and ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING about how they were admitted to the Union thereafter was colored by slavery. And in an electoral system that is wholly predicated on regional geography and population, saying it had no bearing on where we are is absurd. Being slave or free was the central issue for many of them, and there would have been no agreement about national elections had the Southern states not been placated by letting them count their "property" as partial population. Pretty neat deal.
How is any of this "irrelevant" (which is what a genetic fallacy implies)?? It's only irrelevant because you don't want it to be relevant. This didn't happen 1000 years ago. This is why the United States is divided into the territories it is (what we call states) and those lines on the map, without question, grant power based on location and square mileage based on where there borders are relative to their population.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/13/house-democrats-post-election-reckoning-436335
Spamming a bunch of links to journalists and utterly irrelevant wikipedia articles rather than any founding texts or documents is very telling. They base their entire argument on a single Madison quote- which doesn't even mention the Electoral College- rather than the explanations offered to states, and wrote down for posterity, in regards to why the EC exists and has merit. It is a shamelessly cherry picked way of arguing, so I can see why media likes it so much and history doesn't.
It's all so tiresome since the argument is based on a fallacious premise as is. They lack good arguments for representation and the health of the country so the very last stand is in attacking the origins with revisionist history rather than the content.
I don't know how you can continue to say "lack of good arguments for representation and health of the country" with a straight face, when I just proved yesterday that even in the House of Representatives, which is supposed to be based on population, California is over a DOZEN seats short of what they should have. It would be more honest if you just admitted you think certain people should have more power, and that you're ok with that because it aligns with your political goals. I admit that we want to abolish the EC for those reasons. But at least it's based on a concrete, fair principle in which everyone's vote is equal.
But just for fun, even if we grant (and we have to because it is what it is right now) that the EC and Senate are fair to "balance" out the power of states like California, you would AT LEAST have to admit that California deserves to be fully represented in the ONE chamber where population matters, which is the House. The ONLY way to fairly apportion this is by taking the population of the smallest state (Wyoming) and extrapolating out from their 1 House member.
Population of Wyoming is 580,000. Population of California is 39 million. Divide 39 million by 580,000. California should have 67 House members. They have 53. This isn't disputable. You cannot possibly argue the system is fair when even the HOUSE isn't properly representative.
@WarChiefZeke
As much as I love hearing you two go at it, I have to interrupt with a question pertinent to me. What do both of you see as the role of the Central Government (ie: Washington) as opposed to the roles of the State governments? It seems to me that there needs some defining of this before I can really understand where either of you are coming from. I know you probably both have mentioned this in past posts, but this thread is enormous!
also @WarChiefZeke - *Handwaves any argument he finds "tiresome"*
One of the incredibly obvious underpinning flaws of the EC and those who defend it, is that we seldom see complaints or concerns about state-wide offices being run using a simple popular vote metric (Sans Mississippi, I believe). Apparently I'm supposed to believe that Redding California and Los Angeles are fine to share statewide officials. but that California and Nevada should be separated by an artificial state-line delimiting the voting power between the two.
You were convinced the polls were right and wouldn't even listen to arguments to the contrary pre-election before the polls were largely discredited, so this newfound skepticism is a healthy change. I, too, think polls are often limited in their ability to tell us the whole picture. I think they often present true, but very limited, snapshots.
Not every self-described moderate is a swing voter, but I would bet most self-described swing voters are moderates. The idea that it is the political extremes who are swing voters seems far less likely to me.
I think it is not the case from having lived here that "conservative" is a much more popular label than "liberal" across the whole of the country, especially in the Trump era. If this were the case you would expect these numbers to be largely flipped.
Rather, I think when people think "conservative" and "liberal" they think in cultural, and not economic, terms. I've mentioned this before but many members of the Democratic voting coalition, including hispanics and blacks, tend to have social views closer to conservatives than they do with white liberals, who are the outlier on many of these things, and are even closer to republicans on things like immigration.
So yeah, I think these do reflect political views, but not voting patterns, which is important. To give just one example:
Agreed.
I imagine that is also largely the case with Republicans.
I personally find arguments about federalism fairly meaningless because it has become clear to me over the years that the only time Republicans care about it is when it's about limiting the rights of minority groups. They had no problem suing California telling them they couldn't have STRICTER fuel standards for cars. Because it might hurt auto workers in Michigan. So it's abundantly clear to me the right doesn't ACTUALLY believe in state's rights, despite it being pretty much one of the 2 or 3 central tenants of conservatism for decades.
I can't think of a single reason the left should even TRY to be consistent on this issue when the right's belief in it (despite selling themselves, explicitly, as just that) is total hogwash and goes out the window on any issue that isn't voting rights, gay rights, or abortion. And only ONE party has EVER used the concept as a branding exercise (post-Civil Rights Act, obviously, it was the clarion call of Dixiecrats, who, of course, ALL switched parties with Nixon).
We have a country that is the size of a continent, and moves beyond it into Alaska and Hawaii. People are also very polarized and will have very different opinions and views depending on where you live. State governments should be given as much autonomy as possible. It is the only way to fairly represent a diverse coalition of many different groups, with everyone having some measure of power over their own lives. To rule from Washington alone is to reject the concept of state sovereignty, and more importantly, to govern in a manner that does not take the differences between individuals, living conditions, and cultures into account.
The fact that self-described Democrats do not consistently describe themselves as liberals shows us that liberal, left, and Democrat are not synonymous. If only half of all Democrats call themselves liberal, then the word "liberal" isn't a reliable predictor of one's views--and yes, this is precisely because the term has been used to demonize folks on the left for decades. It's no surprise at all that "liberals" don't make up the majority of the population if Democrats don't consistently call themselves that.
The point of having election district is to solve one huge problem of democracy. IE - Large urban centers making the opinions and demands of less populated rural areas irrelevant. USA is supposed to be a union of states and a republic, not a "pure" democracy.
What should be made is to increase the autonomy of states even further, so lefitists states can have all types of lefitists laws and policies implemented and those who don't wanna live there, can leave.
In countries with pure popular vote and ultra centralized, you have the case like on Brazil, where anyone who is popular on São Paulo probably wins the election and poliicians approve laws thinking only on Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo. Ignoring completely the will of the people in the south which has a stronger rural and cowboy culture. Politicians also don't care much about the will of the people. Over 90% of the population is in favor of reducing the "penal age", most Brazilians voted in a referendum AGAINST ultra draconian gun control but the government din't cared and passed the gun control anyway.
Democracy without checks and balances has a lot of problems. Is one reason which I consider monarchy superior and hope that the private city projects will succeed.
Just imagine living in private city with no state dictating everything that you can and cannot do. And if you don't like the "private laws", you can easily move to another private city.
Well, Zeke answered my question while you evaded it. I sort of knew Zeke's opinion beforehand but wasn't as sure of your view. The ?? might be reaching the point where differences between states are irreconcilable. I was rather curious if you believe states should be able to leave the Union if they don't agree with progressive views. This isn't as clear-cut as it sounds either, because any way you slice up the states there are going to be people left in a politically powerless minority. Whether it's reactionaries in California, or progressives in Alabama, there's going to be a significant proportion of pissed off people that aren't represented if that happens.
Edit: Changed the word 'conservatives' to 'reactionaries' since I used 'progressives' instead of 'liberals'.
I'm saying there is absolutely no consistency on the issue from either side, but only one side ever used it as a selling point. I don't personally care if the outcome is just. If you held a gun to my head, I'd come down on the side of the federal government because state governments have, on many occasions sought to enshrine certain people as second-class citizens. I mean, Kennedy was not the bad guy went he sent in the National Guard to force integration of schools.
I don't care about consistency. I'm just curious about your personal views on it. I agree that the Republicans would probably shove Christianity, in whatever form they believe, down your throat if they could and wouldn't give a rat's ass about State rights. The left does shove their views down other people's throats too though. For instance, climate change, if people don't agree with your views, or don't think it's worth the sacrifice to fight it, should it be forced down their throat by the central government? If so, what, other than total control by one party would stop whatever they do from being completely reversed as soon as the left loses power? How do you get people to buy in so that we don't get this roller-coaster? I highly doubt your 'fuck them all' approach will lead to any lasting majority of Americans.
I'm not sure there's much new about it
- in 2016 Clinton was shown as having a lead of 3-4% and won the popular vote by about 2%.
- in 2020 Biden was shown as having a lead of 7-8% and I suspect will end up 4-5% ahead in the popular vote, though differences appear to be greater in battleground states.
That suggests a few things:
- Trump's support is being under-counted by the polls.
- the margin of under-counting appears to be slightly higher overall than in 2016 (which does surprise me).
- the margin of under-counting is higher in contested states than others, suggesting that the extra efforts to get votes out in those states have been particularly successful for Republicans.
Moderate Democrats who lost seats are taking the exact wrong message from their failures. Of course they are. They stand for nothing. What does it mean to be a moderate Democrat what do you want to accomplish?
From the politico:
"There were ads being run all over the country about socialism and about the Green New Deal and in some parts of the country that didn’t help,” Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) said in an interview. "I think it would be irresponsible for a person in our family — in the Democratic Caucus family — who is concerned about it not to mention it."
Others were more blunt: "From my standpoint, as a moderate Democrat ... it’s crystal clear we need a different message than what we’ve been having,” added Rep. Kurt Schrader (Ore.).
So if you don't stand for a green new deal and the rest and run away from it you are ceding the ground to Republican attacks. Well, those things in Republican attacks are actually popular with your voters, what are you doing? They're lying about them - they say the GND is this or that - and are framing the narrative while you what? Run away.
So what are they offering? The left has been literally under attack by a fascist intent on destroying the environment and demonizing the blue states and the left no matter what you do. Anything bad Trump blames on the left he takes no responsibility. He and Republicans are not going to go easy on you if you cave in. Why don't these "moderates" see that?
You guys are in a bar fight and you just want to sit in peace and drink your drink.
What are these moderates offering? "I am not for the Green New Deal". Wow. Such inspiration. Don't take these losers seriously.
"Forty-nine percent of respondents said they believe Joe Biden was the legitimate winner of the 2020 presidential election.
Conversely, 34 percent of respondents believe President Donald Trump was the winner, while 16 percent said they were not sure who won the election."
https://www.westernjournal.com/poll-data-stunning-percentage-registered-voters-think-biden-not-legitimate-winner
That said, some situations.
1 - Lets suppose that Trump proofs and win almost all sues. What will gonna happen?
2 - Lets suppose that Biden won legally but the investigation was suppressed. What will gonna happen?
3 - Lets suppose that Biden won legally and the investigations was not suppressed. What will gonna happen?
You aren't going to get the people you are talking about to buy in on climate change. It's impossible to convince them of something they can't see in the moment (even though if you care to look, it's not that hard to find). You can't even convince them about COVID-19, at least until their grandmother gets denied treatment because all the hospital beds in their county are full. They also don't give a shit because they figure they'll be dead by the time it becomes a problem. I'm fairly resigned to an endless cycle of 1.) GOP Administration is abject disaster and 2.) Dem Administration comes in having to spend all their time cleaning up the mess against total obstruction from the people who caused the problem in the first place. Rinse and repeat. It's been happening on a loop since 1988.
How about a headline stating "Almost 50% more people believe Biden won than Trump!"? Same numbers, different spin. Just sayin'...
Two more lawsuits were laughed out of court in MI and AZ this morning. Once again, the real cynicism here is SIGNALLING to the base they are actually contesting the election when it's all theater and they're being played. It's incredibly destructive, but it's quite clear this is all one last fundraising grift. 40%+ of Republicans think the election was stolen. Maybe if the people telling them that weren't PURPOSEFULLY lying to them (because they know it wasn't), not so many would. It is cosplay of a power grab, but I again submit, what difference does that make and why should it be excused when so many people BELIEVE it's real??
Climate change is a good example of the problem of relying on such an old constitution to determine the distribution of power between federal and local. That issue was obviously not something considered in the 18th century, which means any federal action taken in relation to it can be seen as 'over-reach' by strict constitutionalists.
If you take arguments back to first principles though and consider how powers might be divided, one of the major principles to use would be the extent to which actions taken by one state affect others (a similar principle is one of the foundations of criminal law as well - so for instance people are generally free to shoot guns, but not generally free to shoot other people).
If policies only related to climate change that would suggest they should be determined at federal level, but things are always more complex in practice, as there will be impacts on lots of other aspects of life as well. I would say that one of the successes of the EU has been to increase energy efficiency of traded goods - so things like vacuum cleaners for example use far less power for a given level of output than they used to. Generally my impression is that people have welcomed the changes, but you do hear the odd complaint linked to restrictions on freedom of choice or that a change has driven up costs. An example would be that it's no longer possible to buy the old style incandescent light bulb. Apart from requiring much less electricity, the newer bulbs last far longer and are considerably cheaper over time. However, they are more expensive to buy initially and making them unavailable is restricting personal choice.
Basically, I hold that things which affect every American, or comprises a scope bigger than states can handle alone, should be in the hands of the federal government. So things like disaters, healthcare, war effort, and civil rights would fall into federal. States could absolutely help with all these things, but they cannot override the federal governments ability to provide universal necessities for its citizens.
That leaves the tricky question of what should be in the states' hands then. Just about everything that affects people on the state level would also have a kind of butterfly effect on other states. So far, I don't think it makes sense for state government to be soveriegn over more than REALLY local concerns. Stuff like city/town councils, local zoning, etc.
Well there ya have it. States can not seek self governance, nor should they be allowed adequate political representation in the current climate. They are little more than peasants to be ruled over by their betters. What they want doesn't matter, their desires a mere nuisance to be eradicated.
The phrase "if you held a gun to my head" is not typically indicative of a strong position on an issue, but what you would choose if forced to. Nor were my previous comments. I was trying to answer a question, and this is the result.
If you're gonna cherry-pick quotes and define my position for me, why don't you pull my statement about the Trump Administration not allowing California to have tougher emission standards and explain (since you are so in favor of local rights) why the residents of that state don't have a right to determine their own air quality because of hypothetical job losses in the Midwest.
I'm guessing I get "something something their population is so large that any decision they make has an effect on everyone else and that can't be allowed". Which would go to MY belief that you barely consider residents of large blue states to be citizens at all.
Well technically they do have the 'choice', and the 'right' in this case. They just have to face the consequences of defying the sitting POTUS. I don't recall that particular case going to the Supreme Court, but maybe I'm wrong. I live in Michigan, so my state's rights were more important than their state's rights on that occasion. Hey, at least I admit to my bias... ?
Which is my point, NO ONE actually believes in this concept, it's just a cudgel to be whipped out in certain circumstances. But at least Democrats don't PRETEND to have a concrete position on it.
The person who is defensive about the country being populated by people unlike them is the person who thinks people like them should rule despite consistently losing the voting majority.
Edit to add: To be honest I'm getting tired of you applying a different set of rules to yourself than to others on this thread. It's you, not me, who earlier said "If you exclude California..." How is that not a point by someone mad that many in the country are unlike them?
And as jj notes earlier, you handwave away posts that other posters clearly took the time to provide citations while attacking others for handwaving your posts. You are hurling accusations throughout this thread at others which you baldly violate.
- The federal government shouldn't step over State's rights, but sometimes it does.
- People should be rational and logical, but sometimes they're not.
Anything else?