The curious decline and uncertain future of the Democratic Party

[TitanTiger 20,472]

13 minutes ago, homersapien said:

No it's not.   Slavery was the controlling factor.  It's no exaggeration to recognize that.

And who is to say that people living in rural areas have particular values worth protecting that city dwellers don't?

That's nothing more than a self-justification claim made by rural people, not one with any inherent empirical basis.

This is historically ignorant.  There was a ton of debate around this issue that resulted in the Connecticut Compromise and gave us a bicameral legislature which balanced equal representation vs proportional representation.  And the sides on the issue weren't choosing sides based on slavery.  In fact, New York was the most populous state at the time, yet argued for equal representation.  Virginia proposed the proportional method but even fellow slave state (at the time) Delaware opposed it for fear that larger populated states would result in their concerns being drowned out.

The point isn't that rural people have values worth protecting that urban people don't.  It's that there is rightfully to be a tension we live in that at least attempts to balance the two opposing perspectives in our government so that neither end utterly runs over the other.

[TexasTiger 12,828]

5 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

You don't do summarization well if that's the takeaway you got.

Just another perspective on similar facts. It can be true that the current system is bad for both Dems and the country.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Just another perspective on similar facts. It can be true that the current system is bad for both Dems and the country.

Sure.  But it comes off more as, "we don't need to change/moderate anything, we just need to change the rules."  That's not a perspective that's going to solve any issues.

[TexasTiger 12,828]

Just now, TitanTiger said:

Sure.  But it comes off more as, "we don't need to change/moderate anything, we just need to change the rules."  That's not a perspective that's going to solve any issues.

Dems need to adapt to the system short-term, but long-term the system may not be sustainable.

[DKW 86 7,419]

Titan, you hit the TRIFECTA on Partisanship here on these forums. We have 5-6 on here that are just immaturely blinded by their loyalty to their party of choice. They cannot see that their party CAN POSSIBLY BE WRONG ON ANY MATTER, AT ANYTIME, IN ANY WAY. 

The Democrats, Not Liberals, but the Pavlovian Trained Kneejerk Corporate Democrat Party Flunkies here cannot even consider that they nor their party are ever wrong and if reality should prove to not favor them, well then, WE MUST DESTROY 200+ YEARS of political and electoral tradition and smear with totally irrational charges anything that doesnt benefit their belief system. Voila' you get the responses in this thread. 

Anyone well read in history understands the large city versus small city workings in politics, especially this new republican form of govt. And you are totally correct that states within the Union, and Nations across the globe, have all embraced the great compromise of electoral politics. It works well and is applauded here and across the globe.

The Democrats have lost 1200 Seats Nationwide because they have turned their backs on Blue Collar, Working Class America. It isnt because of the Electoral College or Gerrymandering. That was what your article proves in the numbers. The Corporate Dems lost 1200 seats because they have by-and-large turned their backs on the Deplorables in the Middle Class. They almost hate the common people that they used to challenge for. That is the problem. 

If you are middle class and you are getting screwed by the ACA, well, the Corp Dems dont even want to hear from you. In their eyes "You people are too stupid to be able to see that we are doing this for your own good." The middle class is responding by turning their ears away from the CDs and have cost the CDs 1200 Seats. The CD reaction/diagnoses is:

1) Impeach Trump! 
2) Russians!!!
3) Racism!

Some older New Democrats see it. Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, et al See the light. The problem now is that the New Talking Political Class within the DNC has convinced themselves that "They are the ones that they have been waiting on." They take $BNs from Wall Street and ignore the middle class. Blame everyone but themselves and grow daily in their hate for anything and everything that doesnt fit their childish immature way of looking at things. 

[homersapien 11,357]

20 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Because filling out that paperwork was mandated in such a way that it still violated their beliefs.  And regardless of what you or The Atlantic thinks, the SCOTUS disagreed that the government pursued the "least restrictive means" to the problem, and ironically, the government agreed.

Yeah, filling out a piece of paper.....

You are the one who cited this case as an example of how the left is not willing to compromise.  

[TitanTiger 20,472]

17 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Yeah, filling out a piece of paper.....

You are the one who cited this case as an example of how the left is not willing to compromise.  

Just because you offer something you think is a reasonable compromise, that doesn't mean it is to the person it affects.  Compromise has to be something both sides can live with and get all or most of what they both want and need.  And the government even admitted it didn't adhere to the "least restrictive means" that the law requires.  

[TitanTiger 20,472]

14 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Dems need to adapt to the system short-term, but long-term the system may not be sustainable.

It didn't seem to bother the Dems that much when the geography worked in their favor to control Congress for the better part of a century.

[homersapien 11,357]

20 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

This is historically ignorant.  There was a ton of debate around this issue that resulted in the Connecticut Compromise and gave us a bicameral legislature which balanced equal representation vs proportional representation.  And the sides on the issue weren't choosing sides based on slavery.  In fact, New York was the most populous state at the time, yet argued for equal representation.  Virginia proposed the proportional method but even fellow slave state (at the time) Delaware opposed it for fear that larger populated states would result in their concerns being drowned out.

The point isn't that rural people have values worth protecting that urban people don't.  It's that there is rightfully to be a tension we live in that at least attempts to balance the two opposing perspectives in our government so that neither end utterly runs over the other.

No, that's exactly the point.  

There is no rational argument that would give a minority disproportionate governing power in a democracy, other than to recognize in that minority, some qualitative difference that makes their vote more meaningful than a person in the majority.  

The "tension" between those with majority power and those without is inherent in any democracy.  That's just one of the few reasons a democracy is not the ideal form of government (just the best).  The possibility the majority in a democracy can be wrong is an inherent risk that cannot be avoided. It is just as likely - actually, more likely - that a given minority group within that democracy can be wrong. 

I think the founders of this country did the best they could do in the political circumstances they had.  Their desire to minimize federal powers and support a confederation of independent states was the only way to achieve the country as a whole.  Accordingly,  they had reasonable concerns - given the realities of communication and travel at the time - of disproportionate power being wielded by populous states, particularly when it came to federal restrictions on slavery.  

That's not to say that many of the things that were part of the original electoral system are simply wrong by today's standards.  At the time of the founding,  black people could not vote.  Women could not vote. In many places, people must have money to vote (poll taxes).  It took 100 years, six amendments and two laws to rectify injustices that were wrong at the time or became archaic with  changing conditions.

Hell, the electoral college itself reflected a justified concern that totally ignorant citizens should not be electing our leadership.  That was true for the time, but it is totally archaic in the context of modern communications, education and travel.  Yet, we cling to that system for no other reason than tradition.

Our government structure sufficiently accounts for the relative imbalance of power among the states via the Senate.  There is no rational reason in the modern era that votes from a mostly rural state should count more than votes from a populous state.  Tradition - as we have witnessed from our history - is not sufficient reason for such a bias.  The United States is the only democracy in the world that the elected leader doesn't have to receive the most votes.

There is no rational reason in today's time for that to be the case.

[homersapien 11,357]

22 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Just because you offer something you think is a reasonable compromise, that doesn't mean it is to the person it affects.  Compromise has to be something both sides can live with and get all or most of what they both want and need.  And the government even admitted it didn't adhere to the "least restrictive means" that the law requires.  

So, because of their religion, this group was protesting the requirement to provide birth control to women as part of a federal plan meant to cover all citizens.

The government says, OK, you don't have to do that, but we want you to fill out this form so we can ensure the woman (citizen) in question can obtain birth control from someone else.

That sounds like a reasonable compromise to me.  Clearly the willingness to compromise lies with the government in this case.  

[homersapien 11,357]

26 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

It didn't seem to bother the Dems that much when the geography worked in their favor to control Congress for the better part of a century.

Exactly.

This is an issue of principle that should transcend partisanship.  At least in my mind.

[TexasTiger 12,828]

29 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

It didn't seem to bother the Dems that much when the geography worked in their favor to control Congress for the better part of a century.

That doesn't respond to my point. The country has changed a lot in 3 decades. You want to talk about present day?

[homersapien 11,357]

21 hours ago, 4AUsince62 said:

It was designed to prevent a select few super-cities with massive populations controlling the election and country. If that were the case all one would have to do is promise those cities whatever they wanted and ignore the rest of the country. If you’re comfortable with 5 cities in America dictating the future of the country I guess it would be great to be done away with. It’s easy to support something that follows your view. It’s the constitutional rights of those you disagree with that most have a problem with. The simplest solution is deliver a better message. “If you build it, they will come.”

What is is exactly about cities that makes them a menace?

Their diversity?  Their economic efficiency?  Their educational opportunities?

What exactly is it about the minority living in the rural areas that should give their vote more weight than a person who lives in a city?

 

 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

I absolutely love this thread, seeing homer getting his butt whipped and TexTiger jumping in to try to help.......to no avail

[homersapien 11,357]

34 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

I absolutely love this thread, seeing homer getting his butt whipped and TexTiger jumping in to try to help.......to no avail

And thanks for your contribution.  

Wrong forum.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

So, because of their religion, this group was protesting the requirement to provide birth control to women as part of a federal plan meant to cover all citizens.

Correct.  Because the means the federal plan decided to use was to force employers to provide it under their plans.

 

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

The government says, OK, you don't have to do that, but we want you to fill out this form so we can ensure the woman (citizen) in question can obtain birth control from someone else.

That sounds like a reasonable compromise to me.  Clearly the willingness to compromise lies with the government in this case.  

Clearly it only does so in your head.  The SCOTUS disagreed.  And the government admitted they were right - they did not seek the least restrictive means to fulfill the requirement as the law dictates.  The SCOTUS even outlined a manner in which they could do it and keep the Sisters' 1st Amendment rights in tact and the Sisters' said that plan would be acceptable. 

Clearly, the willingness to compromise in a reasonable and mutually acceptable manner was lies with the Sisters in this case.

 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

No, that's exactly the point.  

There is no rational argument that would give a minority disproportionate governing power in a democracy, other than to recognize in that minority, some qualitative difference that makes their vote more meaningful than a person in the majority.  

The "tension" between those with majority power and those without is inherent in any democracy.  That's just one of the few reasons a democracy is not the ideal form of government (just the best).  The possibility the majority in a democracy can be wrong is an inherent risk that cannot be avoided. It is just as likely - actually, more likely - that a given minority group within that democracy can be wrong. 

I think the founders of this country did the best they could do in the political circumstances they had.  Their desire to minimize federal powers and support a confederation of independent states was the only way to achieve the country as a whole.  Accordingly,  they had reasonable concerns - given the realities of communication and travel at the time - of disproportionate power being wielded by populous states, particularly when it came to federal restrictions on slavery.  

That's not to say that many of the things that were part of the original electoral system are simply wrong by today's standards.  At the time of the founding,  black people could not vote.  Women could not vote. In many places, people must have money to vote (poll taxes).  It took 100 years, six amendments and two laws to rectify injustices that were wrong at the time or became archaic with  changing conditions.

Hell, the electoral college itself reflected a justified concern that totally ignorant citizens should not be electing our leadership.  That was true for the time, but it is totally archaic in the context of modern communications, education and travel.  Yet, we cling to that system for no other reason than tradition.

Our government structure sufficiently accounts for the relative imbalance of power among the states via the Senate.  There is no rational reason in the modern era that votes from a mostly rural state should count more than votes from a populous state.  Tradition - as we have witnessed from our history - is not sufficient reason for such a bias.  The United States is the only democracy in the world that the elected leader doesn't have to receive the most votes.

There is no rational reason in today's time for that to be the case.

Well, I disagree.  And besides, the only thing that would change from what you're saying is the electoral college, and that would not solve the problems that the article describes - namely that the Democrats will continue to be at a severe legislative disadvantage because they've decided to self-segregate themselves into urban cloisters.  Until that changes, the issue for them will persist.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

That doesn't respond to my point. The country has changed a lot in 3 decades. You want to talk about present day?

Yeah, political tribalism on both sides has made people unwilling to nominate moderate candidates for virtually any office.  We could end the gerrymandering and go to independent commissions driven by data to draw districts, but as the analysis in the article shows, that doesn't fix the Democrats geography problem either.  

[homersapien 11,357]

23 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Correct.  Because the means the federal plan decided to use was to force employers to provide it under their plans.

 

Clearly it only does so in your head.  The SCOTUS disagreed.  And the government admitted they were right - they did not seek the least restrictive means to fulfill the requirement as the law dictates.  The SCOTUS even outlined a manner in which they could do it and keep the Sisters' 1st Amendment rights in tact and the Sisters' said that plan would be acceptable. 

Clearly, the willingness to compromise in a reasonable and mutually acceptable manner was lies with the Sisters in this case.

 

You said:

When the party that is willing to compromise tries to force the friggin' Little Sisters of the Poor to facilitate something that violates their clearly and sincerely held conscience and religious beliefs, that's not compromise.  

That implies the government in this case was taking a hard, anti-religious, non-compromising position which is the opposite of the truth.  In fact, the government deliberately them a total exemption from the policy, albeit contingent on some what sounded to me like bureaucratic details.   

To me, that is enough to blow a hole in your implication that the government - or liberals - are simply unwilling to compromise.  But it you want to argue the legalistic details make your case that liberals/government simply cannot compromise, have at it.

I'm not buying it.  I think it's hyperbolic language that begs victimhood.

[homersapien 11,357]

20 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Well, I disagree.  And besides, the only thing that would change from what you're saying is the electoral college, and that would not solve the problems that the article describes - namely that the Democrats will continue to be at a severe legislative disadvantage because they've decided to self-segregate themselves into urban cloisters.  Until that changes, the issue for them will persist.

If you disagree, then make the rational argument for how we need to weight rural votes to protecting them from the majority.

(Citing the history of why it was once considered a good idea is not an argument.  That's history - just like the other cases of (what are now) unconstitutional discrimination.)

What specifically, is the threat to the rural minority by equalizing all votes in electoral effect?  What is it about urban votes that creates a threat that needs to be attenuated?

[homersapien 11,357]

17 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Well, I disagree.  And besides, the only thing that would change from what you're saying is the electoral college, and that would not solve the problems that the article describes - namely that the Democrats will continue to be at a severe legislative disadvantage because they've decided to self-segregate themselves into urban cloisters.  Until that changes, the issue for them will persist.

Whaaaat?  

How does that work exactly?

It sounds to me like you may be confusing cause with effect.

[homersapien 11,357]

21 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Yeah, political tribalism on both sides has made people unwilling to nominate moderate candidates for virtually any office.  We could end the gerrymandering and go to independent commissions driven by data to draw districts, but as the analysis in the article shows, that doesn't fix the Democrats geography problem either.  

And that tribalism is a direct result of electoral college politics, including gerrymandering.

Fix those issues and all we have left to worry about is moneyed interests.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

13 minutes ago, homersapien said:

And that tribalism is a direct result of electoral college politics, including gerrymandering.

Gerrymandering doesn't change the electoral college.  You could end gerrymandering tomorrow and not a thing would change.  Or you could end the electoral college tomorrow and the only thing that would change are presidential elections.  The two issues are actually independent of each other.  The problem is that Democrats have chosen to self-segregate into urban enclaves with one another which limits their legislative potential.

 

 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

21 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Whaaaat?  

How does that work exactly?

It sounds to me like you may be confusing cause with effect.

Quite the opposite.  And the analysis that shows when you end gerrymandering that the legislative disadvantage still exists (only gained two seats in the House by ending it) proves it.  Congressional districts already have roughly equal numbers of votes in each one.  The problem is, Democrats have decided to all live in tight areas together.  So when you draw up districts (even independently), they end up in one largely by themselves where they win with huge percentages.  That wastes a lot of votes that would otherwise have more influence.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

28 minutes ago, homersapien said:

If you disagree, then make the rational argument for how we need to weight rural votes to protecting them from the majority.

I've already done so many times and tire of explaining it.  You disagree that it's even a problem so I don't really know that there's anything else to say.