Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
The parties have too much to gain from gerrymandering to ever surrender redistricting to a supposedly independent body — or rather, that's the perception. Changing it to be independent would be a huge gain for sanity in our politics, but each side feels that it would stand to lose.
edited 9th Mar '15 8:54:08 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Nah, Dems would clearly stand to gain in the majority of states, unless they manage to get their state-level game up in the next 10 years (although the beauty of the 2020 census is that it's a presidential election year, so they're unlikely to do as bad as 2010, even if they don't win the white house that year)
Dems don't want to lose the chance to do their own gerrymandering when the demographics shift. Or at least, enough of them feel that way to defeat any attempt to amend the Constitution to change it. For example, think how you'd vote if you held one of the "super safe" district seats that's only that way because it's a stain on the map that would make Rorschach proud.
Individual self-interest trumps collective self-interest.
edited 9th Mar '15 9:49:03 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Right: the first election impacted by the 2020 census will be the 2022 elections, but the districts will be drawn by state-houses which will be elected in the 2020 elections as well: so the 2020 census reapportions house seats and marks who lives where, the Class of 2020 in state capitols nationwide redraw the districts accordingly, and then in two years elections are held based upon that.
As if we needed another reason to hate Rick Scott.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.Stan Collender: This Will Be The GOP Congress’ Last Chance For Salvation:
Jonathan Chait: "Dan Pfeiffer on How the White House Learned to Be Liberal"
The original premise of Obama’s first presidential campaign was that he could reason with Republicans…. It took years for the White House to conclude that this was false, and that, in Pfeiffer’s words, ‘what drives 90 percent of stuff is not the small tactical decisions or the personal relationships but the big, macro political incentives.’ If you had to pinpoint the moment this worldview began to crystallize, it would probably be around the first debt-ceiling showdown, in 2011…. Ever since Republicans took control of the House four years ago, [Obama’s] attempts to court Republicans have mostly failed while simultaneously dividing Democratic voters. Obama’s most politically successful maneuvers, by contrast, have all been unilateral and liberal…. ‘There’s never been a time when we’ve taken progressive action and regretted it.’ This was deeply at odds with the lesson Bill Clinton and most of his aides (many of whom staffed Obama’s administration) had taken away from his presidency. But by the beginning of Obama’s second term, at least, the president seemed fully convinced…
edited 9th Mar '15 11:20:41 AM by PotatoesRock
That just encourages them to get creative. Climate shift. Global average temperature rise. The End of Human Life as We Know It. Might end up with new buzzwords that are more effective than global warming and shoot yourself in the foot.
But that's a story for another time.![]()
In other words, it took four-plus years for centrist, reasonable Obama to turn into give-no-fucks Obama. He'd realized it by the fifth and sixth years but was hamstrung from within his own party by Congressmen who were running scared of the 2014 midterms.
Let's hope that Hillary Clinton starts out her term, should she win, as give-no-fucks Hillary, because that's what we need more than anything.
edited 9th Mar '15 11:40:18 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"- Anti-Union Legislation?
- Dissolving of the ATF?
- Dissolving of the EPA?
- Abortion Bans
- Keystone XL passed
- Repeal of the ACA if they're rabid enough
- Tough new immigration laws
- Probably a bunch of Vice Laws
- Tax Cuts and Tax Breaks for Companies and the Rich
- Lots of Welfare cuts
Obamacare's costs are falling as fewer recieve coverage under the ACA the CBO says:
The nonpartisan agency said the Affordable Care Act will cost less for two essential reasons. The first, and most significant, is that health insurance premiums are rising more slowly, and thus requires less of a government subsidy.
In addition, slightly fewer people are now expected to sign up for Medicaid and for subsidized insurance under the law’s marketplaces. That’s because the agency now says that more people than anticipated already had health insurance before the law took effect, and fewer companies than anticipated are canceling coverage.
edited 9th Mar '15 12:12:16 PM by PotatoesRock
There won't be a Republican President in 2020, that's for damn sure... assuming Democrats are still allowed to vote.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Besides, it's not clear to me why you are assuming that they won't get bogged down in gridlock again. If one thing has to be learned from recent US history (aside from the obvious: The midterm electorate has no governing chops at all) is that a majority in a parliament doesn't guarantee anything.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanThe most likely scenario is that we'd get another figure like Bush II who fucks everything up through inaction and incompetence rather than through deliberate malice. The electorate simply won't put someone crazy like Paul Ryan in charge.
Don't know what? That we'd kick someone like Paul Ryan out of office after four years or that Republicans would try to cement their rule by disenfranchisement?
edited 9th Mar '15 12:18:44 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
Are you really that smug and self-assured that a Republican victory would be totally unfeasible? I'm not trying to take your statement too literally, but unless you have some kind of magic 8-ball telling you this, it's really just a crude prediction that doesn't account for unforeseen variables in our future voting process.
edited 9th Mar '15 12:23:33 PM by Aprilla

Also, the UK has FPTP with multiple parties, and they see huge disparities in representation compared to actual number of votes.
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play