The Tipping Point

[hobbsyoyo]

I don't think so. If all that happens then the Republicans will run against Hillary again no matter who is in the ballot. That has proven to turn out votes in the past and might work again.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I don't think so. If all that happens then the Republicans will run against Hillary again no matter who is in the ballot. That has proven to turn out votes in the past and might work again.

They tried that in 2008 and it blew up in their face. Hannity unofficially renamed his show The Stop Hillary Express (as early as 2005 IIRC)... as in, every day he would open up by saying "Welcome to the Stop Hillary Express, I'm your host, Sean Hannity" All the Republican pundits were following the same approach... Rush Limbaugh for example, famously called for "Operation Chaos", whereby Republicans should register as Democrats and vote for Obama in the primaries to deny Hillary the nomination, with the goal being throwing the DNC into chaos...

The result was a landslide victory for Obama. In hindsight,there is no doubt in my mind that he got a lot of love from Hillary-hating voters for "slaying the dragon" as it were.

Thank you sir may I have another As I've said repeatedly, Hillary running and losing in the primaries would be a tremendous boon for the Democrats.

 

[Lexicus]

Wisconsin's Republican-controlled legislature looks like it's about to pass a set of laws resembling those passed by the Republican-dominated legislature in North Carolina, basically restricting the power of offices that the Republicans lost control of in the election and transferring power to bodies which are (coincidentally of course) still controlled by Republicans.

Apparently the Republicans in Michigan are considering similar measures.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Wisconsin's Republican-controlled legislature looks like it's about to pass a set of laws resembling those passed by the Republican-dominated legislature in North Carolina, basically restricting the power of offices that the Republicans lost control of in the election and transferring power to bodies which are (coincidentally of course) still controlled by Republicans.

Apparently the Republicans in Michigan are considering similar measures.

It should be noted that in North Carolina, at least partly due to their power grab chicanery which the governor made a general campaign issue in all districts, the GOP lost their super majority grip in both houses of the state legislature, and the popular vote in North Carolina has drawn closer to even than it has been in decades. By all indications these measures have limited temporary effect while hastening the collapse of the GOP.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Wisconsin's Republican-controlled legislature looks like it's about to pass a set of laws resembling those passed by the Republican-dominated legislature in North Carolina, basically restricting the power of offices that the Republicans lost control of in the election and transferring power to bodies which are (coincidentally of course) still controlled by Republicans.

Apparently the Republicans in Michigan are considering similar measures.

I also read somewhere that the Republican legislators in one of those states only control their legislature by way of cunning gerrymandering; they won a majority of seats from a minority vote among the electorate.

 

[rah]

Most states who's districts are partisan drawn are cunningly gerrymandered. By both parties. It's not limited to one.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Speaking of North Carolina.

Apparently the constant drumbeat of "the democrats are winning elections by widespread voter fraud" is having some effect. Republicans, convinced that this is happening (it isn't) are assuming it is easy (it isn't) and some guy in North Carolina is likely going to wind up in jail, because the state board of elections is refusing to certify results that he got caught tampering with. So a Republican congressman who "won" by less than 900 votes is likely going to have to get through a rerun special election before he can actually make it to congress. Assuming that he can stay clear of the tampering charges and only his stooge actually gets convicted. Either way, it seems likely that he would have lost in the first place and extremely unlikely that he will be able to win in the rematch given the, well, cheating scandal.

 

[rah]

I needed a smile today.

 

[stinkubus]

Most states who's districts are partisan drawn are cunningly gerrymandered. By both parties. It's not limited to one.

Tit for tat is the best known strategy for an iterated prisoner's dilemma.

 

[Lexicus]

I also read somewhere that the Republican legislators in one of those states only control their legislature by way of cunning gerrymandering; they won a majority of seats from a minority vote among the electorate.

That is the case in essentially all the states controlled by the Republicans. If you crunch the actual voting numbers they get waaaaay more seats in the legislatures than they should.

Most states who's districts are partisan drawn are cunningly gerrymandered. By both parties. It's not limited to one.

This is BS of the highest order. Using gerrymandering as part of a coherent and multifaceted strategy to undermine majoritarian politics in the US over decades is absolutely limited to one party.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

This is BS of the highest order. Using gerrymandering as part of a coherent and multifaceted strategy to undermine majoritarian politics in the US over decades is absolutely limited to one party.

If for no other reason this is true because democrats generally hold majorities in all the states they control anyway, so have little need for undermining majoritarian politics in places where they conceivably could give it a go.

 

[rah]

I live in Illinois so I get sort of a slanted view on it, but will concede that the Republicans seem to be bigger offenders, but as Tim said, they hold more of the state houses.

And every year the Dem rig it so it can't get on the ballot when nearly 2/3rd of the people in Illinois support it. (along with term limits)

And for the record, I despise it and wish it would be eliminated everywhere.

 

[Lexicus]

If for no other reason this is true because democrats generally hold majorities in all the states they control anyway, so have little need for undermining majoritarian politics in places where they conceivably could give it a go.

Well yeah, they don't do it not because of some transcendent moral superiority but because they don't need to do it in order to gain and retain power.

 

[Estebonrober]

This is BS of the highest order. Using gerrymandering as part of a coherent and multifaceted strategy to undermine majoritarian politics in the US over decades is absolutely limited to one party.

I don’t know about the highest order, but republicans did set out intentionally to win state houses so they could gerrymander districts. It was very effective. I’m not sure how effective changing rules as you walk out the door will be.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I live in Illinois so I get sort of a slanted view on it, but will concede that the Republicans seem to be bigger offenders, but as Tim said, they hold more of the state houses.

And every year the Dem rig it so it can't get on the ballot when nearly 2/3rd of the people in Illinois support it. (along with term limits)

And for the record, I despise it and wish it would be eliminated everywhere.

Illinois is a great example. The democrats hold a commanding majority in the popular vote. They undoubtedly could engage in some sort of gerrymandering, since they have pretty solid control of the legislature, but what would be the purpose?

As to keeping things off the ballot, I'm guessing there is some popular movement for an 'impartial districting board" or some such? This also calls into question what the intent would be. It seems like the party that could undermine majority rule through representation is already representative of the majority. I would be very suspicious of any move towards a "neutral" (wink wink) system, because it may very well be something cooked up by republicans in an effort to overcome the reality that they are just outnumbered.

 

[Estebonrober]

Illinois is a great example. The democrats hold a commanding majority in the popular vote. They undoubtedly could engage in some sort of gerrymandering, since they have pretty solid control of the legislature, but what would be the purpose?

As to keeping things off the ballot, I'm guessing there is some popular movement for an 'impartial districting board" or some such? This also calls into question what the intent would be. It seems like the party that could undermine majority rule through representation is already representative of the majority. I would be very suspicious of any move towards a "neutral" (wink wink) system, because it may very well be something cooked up by republicans in an effort to overcome the reality that they are just outnumbered.

After all the success republicans had across the Midwest and south? Isn’t neutral arbiters for districting a big dem party plan right now? At least in their think tank circles?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

After all the success republicans had across the Midwest and south? Isn’t neutral arbiters for districting a big dem party plan right now? At least in their think tank circles?

Thing is that gerrymandering still is only beneficial for the minority party. So, yeah, "oppose gerrymandering" is a sort of theme for the Democrats.

 

[Lexicus]

I don’t know about the highest order, but republicans did set out intentionally to win state houses so they could gerrymander districts. It was very effective. I’m not sure how effective changing rules as you walk out the door will be.

Both-sidesism really grinds my gears at this historical moment

As to keeping things off the ballot, I'm guessing there is some popular movement for an 'impartial districting board" or some such? This also calls into question what the intent would be. It seems like the party that could undermine majority rule through representation is already representative of the majority. I would be very suspicious of any move towards a "neutral" (wink wink) system, because it may very well be something cooked up by republicans in an effort to overcome the reality that they are just outnumbered.

Quite true, but it seems reasonable to assume that the same party will not continue to represent the majority forever, and in principle it's best to take those powers out of the hands of the party in power.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Quite true, but it seems reasonable to assume that the same party will not continue to represent the majority forever, and in principle it's best to take those powers out of the hands of the party in power.

I certainly agree, in principle. I just know that here in California it took about four tries to get the districting board established and that the early efforts were all spearheaded by the Republican Party of California and were anything but neutral. At least one of them almost slipped past the misinformed electorate as well.

 

[Estebonrober]

Both-sidesism really grinds my gears at this historical moment

Understandably