General Politics Three: But what is left/right?

[Gori the Grey]

When GOP voters tell pollsters that they would reconsider voting for Trump if he were convicted of a felony there is a catch. The catch being that the conviction itself be considered fair. But it is hardly likely that any of these cases will be considered fair. So, everybody is leaving themselves an out while signaling their virtue, of course I wouldn't vote for a felon. But a wrongfully convicted man is a horse of a different color. It becomes virtuous to vote in protest of the travesty of justice, of course. Of course.

So, count the number of your fingers and toes that exceeds twenty and that is the percentage of the vote which is up in the air on the outcome in the trials of Donald Trump.

Now, Trump could certainly lose, he's lost before, and he might not have been cheated. But the only effect the trials will have on the electorate is to add votes to Trump's total from mothers who will want to see there convicted (and convicted to be) sons and daughters in the persecuted Trump's halo.

This is a perfect example of the kind of polling question that pollsters ask from their own style of thinking which does not reflect the thinking of the masses. It is the leading question that they want to ask and want to use to put the polled individual on the spot to answer. It is the desperate hope of the educated class of the country, that when pinned down and forced to give an answer the people, those people, can be made to squeal virtue, to look down, can be made to back down out of docile decency that WE WERE ALL TAUGHT IN SCHOOL that people have to conform to the norm, they just have to, or else. Or else, can't catch your breath, panic electrifies your sides and only the clinch keeps your drawers dry.

That they ask the question itself betrays the fear on the dignified side.

On the other side, truth be told, they savor the fear in your eyes.

Poetic.

And some truth in it, to boot. The value of polling lies depends entirely on how questions are phrased, and there are some matters about which pollsters won't get straight answers

But among the falsehoods, these. There has not yet been any polling that suggests Trump's trials will add votes. That's just wishful thinking.

Also, most polling is done over the phone, so the surveyed can't see the eyes of the dignified side.

And then it misses a key fact about human psychology. Yes, transgression of norms can be electrifying. The same transgression again and again, though, ceases to electrify, just becomes tiresome. Becomes the norm. Trump has gone stale. He's become the last thing a showman can afford to be: boring.

Our sphincters are safe.

 

[H4run]

Now, Trump could certainly lose, he's lost before, and he might not have been cheated.

Poetic.

True, I start to like Core Imposter's post, it's poetically inspirational, I can make a beautiful Haiku out of it, like this one for instance:

Cheating is suspect,
Yet losing is still the same,
Perhaps he should try?

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, at least some things remain predictable. Like the call of gerrymandering.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/26/politics/new-york-congressional-map/index.html

Spoiler :

Democrats who control the New York Legislature on Monday rejected a congressional map devised by a bipartisan commission that would have given their party only a modest electoral advantage and will now have the chance to draw their own lines.


The decision could shape which party controls the US House next year. New York is expected to be at the center of the battle for the chamber this fall, with Republicans’ narrow majority on the line. The GOP flipped four House seats in the state in the 2022 midterms, gains that helped the party win control of the chamber.


Several New York Democrats had signaled their displeasure with the map that was approved 9-1 by the state’s Independent Redistricting Commission earlier this month. The map largely left undisturbed House districts in the New York City suburbs, which have been viewed as potential battlegrounds in November. Those include the 3rd Congressional District on Long Island, which Democrats flipped earlier this month in a special election to succeed disgraced former Rep. George Santos.


The commission’s map would have put at risk freshman Republican Brandon Williams’ Central New York seat by adding more territory favorable to Democrats. But, under the compromise crafted by the commission, two Hudson Valley seats – held by Republican Marc Molinaro and Democrat Pat Ryan – each appeared to have grown safer for the incumbents.


On the Senate floor Monday afternoon, Democrat Michael Gianaris, the chamber’s deputy majority leader, criticized the commission’s map as slicing through counties in some cases and retaining district lines to protect sitting lawmakers.


“Maps should not be drawn specifically to protect incumbents,” he said.


Democratic state Sen. James Skoufis cited similar arguments in explaining prior to the vote why he opposed the commission’s map.


“I know this has been described as bipartisan, but the way I’ve characterized it is that this is mutually partisan,” he told CNN.


Republicans, meanwhile, accused Democrats of bucking the will of New Yorkers, who supported a 2014 constitutional amendment that helped establish the redistricting panel.


In rejecting the commission’s map, Democratic legislators were saying, “‘We don’t trust the people of New York state,” state Sen. George Borrello said.


New York GOP Chairman Ed Cox called Monday’s vote the “predictable result of a legislature drunk with power that ignores the will of the people.”

Next steps​

Under state law, the Legislature has the power to weigh in on the commission’s map. A two-thirds majority vote is required in each chamber to approve or reject the map.


With the commission’s work now rejected, the Democratic-led Legislature can craft new lines that could swing as many as six districts in Democrats’ favor – a step likely to trigger fresh litigation over accusations of aggressive partisan gerrymandering in violation of the state constitution.


Lawmakers have not yet agreed on a new map.


Gianaris said the state Senate will negotiate with the state Assembly to devise new lines.


“We’re trying as fast as we can,” he said, citing the deadline for House candidates to begin collecting signatures for petitions.


Monday’s action is the latest chapter in the turbulent fight over district lines in New York and is one of several redistricting skirmishes closely watched for its impact on national politics.


“The question now is to see what the new map will look like,” said Jeffrey Wice, an expert on redistricting and an adjunct professor at New York Law School.


Lawmakers may opt to just make modest adjustments in their map, he said, in the hopes of “bringing this process to a close and not ending up in another round of prolonged litigation.”


A state court judge oversaw the process of drawing the congressional map used in the 2022 elections. This came after the Independent Redistricting Commission failed to agree on new lines following the 2020 census and a map drawn by the Democratic-controlled Legislature was rejected by the Court of Appeals, New York’s highest court.


Democrats, arguing that the court-drawn map should not be used for more than one election, went to court again asking for the redistricting commission to try again. The Court of Appeals, now under more liberal control, agreed late last year and tasked the commission with drawing a new map.


House candidates are slated Tuesday to begin collecting signatures for petitions to run for office – although state legislators could opt to alter the petition process if they don’t reach agreement on the map quickly.


Meanwhile, shortly after the Senate voted to reject the commission’s map, state senators approved legislation that would require any legal challenges to the new boundaries to only be brought in four jurisdictions – Albany, Westchester, Erie or Manhattan.


The legislation, sponsored by Democratic state Sen. Zellnor Myrie of Brooklyn, has been described as an effort to limit so-called forum shopping – a practice that Democrats say Republicans employed in 2022 when they successfully challenged the Democratic-drawn map by filing a lawsuit in Steuben County – a deep-red dot in the overwhelmingly blue state. GOP state lawmakers warned that the new measure is likely unconstitutional.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Well, at least some things remain predictable. Like the call of gerrymandering.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/26/politics/new-york-congressional-map/index.html

Spoiler :

Democrats who control the New York Legislature on Monday rejected a congressional map devised by a bipartisan commission that would have given their party only a modest electoral advantage and will now have the chance to draw their own lines.


The decision could shape which party controls the US House next year. New York is expected to be at the center of the battle for the chamber this fall, with Republicans’ narrow majority on the line. The GOP flipped four House seats in the state in the 2022 midterms, gains that helped the party win control of the chamber.


Several New York Democrats had signaled their displeasure with the map that was approved 9-1 by the state’s Independent Redistricting Commission earlier this month. The map largely left undisturbed House districts in the New York City suburbs, which have been viewed as potential battlegrounds in November. Those include the 3rd Congressional District on Long Island, which Democrats flipped earlier this month in a special election to succeed disgraced former Rep. George Santos.


The commission’s map would have put at risk freshman Republican Brandon Williams’ Central New York seat by adding more territory favorable to Democrats. But, under the compromise crafted by the commission, two Hudson Valley seats – held by Republican Marc Molinaro and Democrat Pat Ryan – each appeared to have grown safer for the incumbents.


On the Senate floor Monday afternoon, Democrat Michael Gianaris, the chamber’s deputy majority leader, criticized the commission’s map as slicing through counties in some cases and retaining district lines to protect sitting lawmakers.


“Maps should not be drawn specifically to protect incumbents,” he said.


Democratic state Sen. James Skoufis cited similar arguments in explaining prior to the vote why he opposed the commission’s map.


“I know this has been described as bipartisan, but the way I’ve characterized it is that this is mutually partisan,” he told CNN.


Republicans, meanwhile, accused Democrats of bucking the will of New Yorkers, who supported a 2014 constitutional amendment that helped establish the redistricting panel.


In rejecting the commission’s map, Democratic legislators were saying, “‘We don’t trust the people of New York state,” state Sen. George Borrello said.


New York GOP Chairman Ed Cox called Monday’s vote the “predictable result of a legislature drunk with power that ignores the will of the people.”

Next steps​

Under state law, the Legislature has the power to weigh in on the commission’s map. A two-thirds majority vote is required in each chamber to approve or reject the map.


With the commission’s work now rejected, the Democratic-led Legislature can craft new lines that could swing as many as six districts in Democrats’ favor – a step likely to trigger fresh litigation over accusations of aggressive partisan gerrymandering in violation of the state constitution.


Lawmakers have not yet agreed on a new map.


Gianaris said the state Senate will negotiate with the state Assembly to devise new lines.


“We’re trying as fast as we can,” he said, citing the deadline for House candidates to begin collecting signatures for petitions.


Monday’s action is the latest chapter in the turbulent fight over district lines in New York and is one of several redistricting skirmishes closely watched for its impact on national politics.


“The question now is to see what the new map will look like,” said Jeffrey Wice, an expert on redistricting and an adjunct professor at New York Law School.


Lawmakers may opt to just make modest adjustments in their map, he said, in the hopes of “bringing this process to a close and not ending up in another round of prolonged litigation.”


A state court judge oversaw the process of drawing the congressional map used in the 2022 elections. This came after the Independent Redistricting Commission failed to agree on new lines following the 2020 census and a map drawn by the Democratic-controlled Legislature was rejected by the Court of Appeals, New York’s highest court.


Democrats, arguing that the court-drawn map should not be used for more than one election, went to court again asking for the redistricting commission to try again. The Court of Appeals, now under more liberal control, agreed late last year and tasked the commission with drawing a new map.


House candidates are slated Tuesday to begin collecting signatures for petitions to run for office – although state legislators could opt to alter the petition process if they don’t reach agreement on the map quickly.


Meanwhile, shortly after the Senate voted to reject the commission’s map, state senators approved legislation that would require any legal challenges to the new boundaries to only be brought in four jurisdictions – Albany, Westchester, Erie or Manhattan.


The legislation, sponsored by Democratic state Sen. Zellnor Myrie of Brooklyn, has been described as an effort to limit so-called forum shopping – a practice that Democrats say Republicans employed in 2022 when they successfully challenged the Democratic-drawn map by filing a lawsuit in Steuben County – a deep-red dot in the overwhelmingly blue state. GOP state lawmakers warned that the new measure is likely unconstitutional.

Of course I understand the value to the voters of periodic redistricting, but it's gotten to the point where the words "redistricting" and "Gerrymandering" are almost becoming synonymous in my brain, like all it ever is is a weapon one party or the other can use to do an end-run around the electorate. Just the other day I was listening to a guy from, I think, Wisconsin, who said that in that state, one party won 54% of the votes, but somehow the other party ended up with 63% of the seats in the state legislature, because of how the maps were drawn.

 

[Lexicus]

Wisconsin is the most gerrymandered state in the union, mathematically. It is virtually impossible for Republicans to ever lose their majority in the legislature. Naturally they are referring to the Wisconsin Supreme Court moving to strike down their terrible maps as a "progressive coup".

As for the NY Dems I have no idea why they are doing that, perhaps they think if they draw the NY map right they can get a Dem majority due to Rs only being up by two?

I think we need national action on this (perhaps a reversal of the Supreme Court's incorrect decision holding that gerrymanders cannot be addressed by the federal courts?) Fixing it at the state level won't work, neither party has the incentive to reduce their House seats unless they can be assured the other party is doing the same.

 

[Farm Boy]

They learned from their southern brother.

I expect Minnesota and Michigan are taking notes.

Maybe we can hold out hope for Indiana, lol(no, I don't feel like looking that up atm).

but it's gotten to the point where the words "redistricting" and "Gerrymandering" are almost becoming synonymous in my brain, like all it ever is is a weapon one party or the other can use to do an end-run around the electorate.

That's because you're finally educated on the matter!

 

[Lexicus]

Say you want about the gerrymandered blue states, but at least they all actually have more Democrats than Republicans.

 

[Farm Boy]

It doesn't steal representation any less. It may indeed steal it more in that situation. The harder part of "enforce the will of the majority while maintaining the rights of the minority." But: in group bias, purity, and authority. Very loud calls, especially when it's been educated as a blind spot.

 

[Sommerswerd]

When GOP voters tell pollsters that they would reconsider voting for Trump if he were convicted of a felony there is a catch. The catch being that the conviction itself be considered fair. But it is hardly likely that any of these cases will be considered fair. So, everybody is leaving themselves an out while signaling their virtue, of course I wouldn't vote for a felon.

I agree with this take. I'm guessing the majority of people who say a Trump conviction would cause them to not vote for him either a) don't believe he will actually get convicted, so they won't have to live up to their claim; or b) will come up with some justification/excuse to vote for him anyway, even if he is convicted.

This reminds me of the man with the red Trump hat in that Jimmy Kimmel bit, "Debate and Switch" that I posted. The guy initially stated to the interviewer that "Of course not!", he wouldn't vote for someone who paid off a pornstar to cover up his affair while running for office, but then, when the interviewer reminded him that Trump had done exactly that, he changed his tune and threw his own father under the bus (stating he still respected him despite his affairs) in order to justify him still voting for Trump.

 

[Farm Boy]

His mandate in the primary is anything but universal.

 

[Birdjaguar]

As the minority party the GOP has shown themselves to be irresponsible and crooked. They have abused the system to maintain power.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Interesting. If you were taught/made to conform then I question the standard you are conforming to. If you did not conform to some standard forced by "those" people, then what you say is not true. Nobody forced me to conform to any standard of thinking or behavior except my own once I hit HS. I was encouraged to to to follow a path rooted in my parent's family histories, but that didn't last long.

This discussion is making me think about something that has been bugging me lately in the news. I'm getting mildly annoyed with the phrase "Reagan Republicans"... Its somewhat related to the issue @Core Imposter alludes to above... people trying to shame Republican voters by throwing Ronald Reagan in their face, essentially accusing them of changing/abandoning their principles, and/or taunting them with the accusation that they never really had any principles in the first place.

First of all, I'm not even that convinced that the Republican core ideology/principles are totally different under Trump than they were under Reagan in the first place... maybe they were more polite, subtle, understated, dogwhistled, whatever... to quote @Farm Boy... the "tone" may have been a little different.

But even putting that aside, Ronald Reagan isn't relevant anymore to the modern Republican party... not really, in the sense that Republican voters don't consider themselves under any sort of obligation to Reagan's legacy anymore than they do to Lincoln's legacy. The last Republican presidency that has any direct-significance to the current Republican movement is probably Baby Bush. His Republicans are the Tea-Party Republicans and those are the core Trump Republicans now.

So trying to shame Republicans with Reagan isn't going to work. Its lame and tiresome. Like I've said before there's MAGA d/b/a "Republicans" and Never-Trumpers aka RINOs. "Reagan Republicans" has no meaning or relevance anymore.

 

[Farm Boy]

As the minority party the GOP has shown themselves to be irresponsible and crooked. They have abused the system to maintain power.

<yawn>

<looks around at the majority party>

<yawn>

 

[Sommerswerd]

.

Poetic.

And some truth in it, to boot. The value of polling lies depends entirely on how questions are phrased, and there are some matters about which pollsters won't get straight answers

But among the falsehoods, these. There has not yet been any polling that suggests Trump's trials will add votes. That's just wishful thinking.

Also, most polling is done over the phone, so the surveyed can't see the eyes of the dignified side.

And then it misses a key fact about human psychology. Yes, transgression of norms can be electrifying. The same transgression again and again, though, ceases to electrify, just becomes tiresome. Becomes the norm. Trump has gone stale. He's become the last thing a showman can afford to be: boring.

Our sphincters are safe.

Something that I don't remember us talking much about on these threads is what I imagine must be a sort of folk hero status that Trump enjoys within the Republican party for beating the at the time, believed to be inevitable, unstoppable, Hillary Clinton, who was, as a side bonus, ostensibly Obama's successor. Trump humiliated Hillary in 2016 and shocked so many people (myself included), with what was a YUGE upset. So when I think about what drives Trump supporters to be so faithful to him, I'm reminded that, well... he won, as an underdog, against the hated Hillary Clinton, so he is going to get some lasting, unshakeable affection for that.

 

[Gorbles]

<yawn>

<looks around at the majority party>

<yawn>

Few people will disagree with "both sides bad". The disagreement tends to set in when people argue that the Democrats are worse than the Republicans. The party that gave us Trump once, possibly twice (bearing in mind you don't like Trump). They platformed him. They went with him. It's not just Trump you can single out as the aberration that needs to go away. The party is complicit, just as the Democrats are when they choose the candidates they do.

 

[Farm Boy]

I agree on the trumpeters, but the Democrats, minus that Trump cohort, are worse.

They don't tend the basics food, grain, soil and water, but they do say they do while they jerrymander from positions of demographic advantage. They whine while inhabiting the primary positions of economic and political clout. Their "most advantaged" social foes literally kill themselves at the highest rates in the nation. They. Are. Awful.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Few people will disagree with "both sides bad". The disagreement tends to set in when people argue that the Democrats are worse than the Republicans. The party that gave us Trump once, possibly twice (bearing in mind you don't like Trump). They platformed him. They went with him. It's not just Trump you can single out as the aberration that needs to go away. The party is complicit, just as the Democrats are when they choose the candidates they do.

BSAB isn't about proving, or even asserting that the Democrats are worse. Its about deflecting/avoiding criticism of the Republicans with what is essentially whataboutism. You can't criticize Republicans because the Democrats are bad too. How bad isn't all that relevant.

A quintessential BSAB Republican or Conservative Independent will typically only or mostly criticize Republicans in platitudes, name-calling, petty insults ("the Republicans are a-holes", "XYZ Republican is a jerk") and similar, but they will rarely, if ever, manage to bring themselves to condemn any policies, statements, ideologies or actions taken by Republicans. Meanwhile they will have no problem strenuously condemning the policies, statements, ideologies or actions taken by Democrats.

Whenever they are challenged to condemn/criticize, or even defend or justify the bad acts of Republicans, they will fall back on some sort of whataboutism or BSAB claim about the Democrats, sometimes preceded with some vague platitude or petty insult directed at the Republicans. The approach is pretty formulaic and easy to spot.

 

[Lexicus]

This discussion is making me think about something that has been bugging me lately in the news. I'm getting mildly annoyed with the phrase "Reagan Republicans"... Its somewhat related to the issue @Core Imposter alludes to above... people trying to shame Republican voters by throwing Ronald Reagan in their face, essentially accusing them of changing/abandoning their principles, and/or taunting them with the accusation that they never really had any principles in the first place.

First of all, I'm not even that convinced that the Republican core ideology/principles are totally different under Trump than they were under Reagan in the first place... maybe more polite, subtle, understated, dogwhistled, whatever... to quote @Farm Boy... the "tone" may have been a little different.

But even putting that aside, Ronald Reagan isn't relevant anymore to the modern Republican party... not really, in the sense that Republican voters don't consider themselves under any sort of obligation to Reagan's legacy anymore than they do to Lincoln's legacy. The last Republican presidency that has any direct-significance to the current Republican movement is probably Baby Bush. His Republicans are the Tea-Party Republicans and those are the core Trump Republicans now.

So trying to shame Republicans with Reagan isn't going to work. Its lame and tiresome. Like I've said before there's MAGA d/b/a "Republicans" and Never-Trumpers aka RINOs. "Reagan Republicans" has no meaning or relevance anymore.

A few thoughts here: this is obviously true, and a sort of corollary or extension of this point is that I get Democratic fundraising texts on my phone that start with "Liz Cheney here". Who the hell cares about Liz Cheney anyway? I despise Liz Cheney only slightly less than I despise Trump. She voted with him, what, 98% of the time and only decided he was a bad dude when he sent a mob to lynch her? Eff that woman, for real.

More broadly I think all these moves: rhetorical ones like invoking Reagan or using Liz Cheney for Democratic fundraising, and tactical moves like giving the Rs their whole immigration wishlist only for Rs to reject the bill, or even going back to Obama nominating Merrick Garland - all of it reflects the Aaron Sorkinization of the Democrats, because these are all moves that would only be effective inside the universe of one of his shows. It goes to your point that the GOP hasn't changed since Reagan. Liberals desperately want to pretend there is such a thing as "principled" conservatism, but the spiritual center of American conservatism is the overseer cracking a whip on the slave's back - that's all it is and all it ever has been.

 

[Sommerswerd]

A few thoughts here: this is obviously true, and a sort of corollary or extension of this point is that I get Democratic fundraising texts on my phone that start with "Liz Cheney here". Who the hell cares about Liz Cheney anyway? I despise Liz Cheney only slightly less than I despise Trump. She voted with him, what, 98% of the time and only decided he was a bad dude when he sent a mob to lynch her? Eff that woman, for real.

Exactly how I feel about Chris Christie and Mike Pence. Oh you're against Trump now? FOH, go choke on your sour grapes.

More broadly I think all these moves: rhetorical ones like invoking Reagan or using Liz Cheney for Democratic fundraising, and tactical moves like giving the Rs their whole immigration wishlist only for Rs to reject the bill, or even going back to Obama nominating Merrick Garland - all of it reflects the Aaron Sorkinization of the Democrats, because these are all moves that would only be effective inside the universe of one of his shows. It goes to your point that the GOP hasn't changed since Reagan. Liberals desperately want to pretend there is such a thing as "principled" conservatism, but the spiritual center of American conservatism is the overseer cracking a whip on the slave's back - that's all it is and all it ever has been.

Cue the reminder that the Confederate South was the Democrats. But you are of course correct that the modern Republican party has long ago picked up that mantle, as you say, they are the spiritual successors of the Confederacy.

 

[Lexicus]

Exactly how I feel about Chris Christie and Mike Pence. Oh you're against Trump now? FOH, go choke on your sour grapes.

Cue the reminder that the Confederate South was the Democrats. But you are of course correct that the modern Republican party has long ago picked up that mantle, as you say, they are the spiritual successors of the Confederacy.

Yeah, i was even going to mention that there is a specific reason that (mostly older) liberals are even able to think of the GOP this way, and that is that for the mid-20th century the GOP had a liberal wing (anchored in the Northeast) and the Democrats had the conservative Dixiecrats, so there was almost as much diversity within the parties as between them - obviously when LBJ "lost the South for a generation" the Dixiecrats went over to the GOP while the liberal Republicans turned into Democrats. What's not changing here is the nature of conservatism; the party realignment in the 60s and 70s rather allows the GOP to become a proper vehicle for conservatism.