The curious decline and uncertain future of the Democratic Party

[TitanTiger 20,472]

35 minutes ago, homersapien said:

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.   

It implies nothing of the sort.  What it implies is that the gov't gave a show of compromise but still tried to compel the Sisters' to do things that violated their conscience.  The goal here is to get the contraception the gov't wants to offer without involving anyone who has a sincere religious objection in the process.  That is completely doable, but the gov't chose not to find that way and instead found a semi-compromise that still involved them facilitating it.  There were myriad ways to accomplish this goal and completely leave religious objectors (and frankly, anyone else) out of the process.  In choosing not to do it that way, what it really implies is that they wanted to put certain people in their place and set a new precedent on the limits of religious freedom under the 1st Amendment.  They failed.

 

35 minutes ago, homersapien said:

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.

Well, "to you" isn't the standard.  The law and the SCOTUS have said otherwise and the government has admitted as much.

[homersapien 11,362]

15 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

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.

I didn't mean to imply they were the same. I should have said "as well as" instead of including.  I was thinking of our election and political system as a whole.

 

 

[TexasTiger 12,829]

49 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.  

Gerrymandering wasn't nearly as pronounced during that 40 year period of Dem control you alluded to. Dem positions were preferred then. They're largely preferred now, but gerrymandered districts don't show that.

[homersapien 11,362]

9 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

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.

 

 

No you haven't.  You have only discussed it in principle.  

I'd like to hear some examples, real or hypothetical.   

What exactly are those city folk going to do to us rural dwellers? 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

Gerrymandering wasn't nearly as pronounced during that 40 year period of Dem control you alluded to. Dem positions were preferred then. They're largely preferred now, but gerrymandered districts don't show that.

The analysis shows that it really doesn't make a big difference.  The GOP won 247 seats, remove gerrymandered districts and go to ones chosen independently using computer analysis of population and it fell to 245.  The primary issue, even though I agree gerrymandering needs to go away, is the Democrats are self-segregating into smaller geographic areas too much.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I didn't mean to imply they were the same. I should have said "as well as" instead of including.  I was thinking of our election and political system as a whole.

Well, I think the manner in which we choose our congressional reps is largely just fine as it is.  The bicameral nature of our legislative branch is a good compromise.  I would get rid of gerrymandering simply out of principle.  

As far as the electoral college, I think it's still a useful means of doing things and keeping the coasts from essentially deciding all of our elections.  I like that it requires a candidate to have broader appeal in more areas of a geographically diverse country.  If there was any adjustment to be made, I could go along with a compromise where we award electoral votes by Congressional district, and then the 2 Senatorial electoral votes would go to the winner of the state overall.

[homersapien 11,362]

13 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

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.

I am not talking about gerrymandering per se', I am talking about how "Democrats self-segregate" in cities.  (I guess I should have joined the party since I never got the word..... )

Are you saying that urban votes should be devalued because they are mostly Democratic?

 

 

 

[TexasTiger 12,829]

6 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

The analysis shows that it really doesn't make a big difference.  The GOP won 247 seats, remove gerrymandered districts and go to ones chosen independently using computer analysis of population and it fell to 245.  The primary issue, even though I agree gerrymandering needs to go away, is the Democrats are self-segregating into smaller geographic areas too much.

How much is conscious segregation and how much are ones views shaped by experience and exposure? For example, Folks most comfortable with diversity are generally those exposed to it. Those most afraid of it are generally less exposed. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I am not talking about gerrymandering per se', I am talking about how "Democrats self-segregate" in cities.  (I guess I should have joined the party since I never got the word..... )

Are you saying that urban votes should be devalued because they are mostly Democratic?

I think you're still conflating the Electoral College with how the voting works for the House of Representatives.  I'm not talking about the former (nor was the original article), but rather the latter.  Your votes aren't being devalued because you're urban or Democratic.  They are being wasted because too many of you are choosing to cloister yourselves all together rather than living more spread out.  When you draw up Congressional districts by population, even without biased gerrymandering, they can only make the district hold so many people.  If a buttload of you guys all decide to live in tight geographical areas, well, enjoy winning that district with 85% of the vote while the rest of the state goes GOP.

[homersapien 11,362]

14 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

It implies nothing of the sort.  What it implies is that the gov't gave a show of compromise but still tried to compel the Sisters' to do things that violated their conscience.  The goal here is to get the contraception the gov't wants to offer without involving anyone who has a sincere religious objection in the process.  That is completely doable, but the gov't chose not to find that way and instead found a semi-compromise that still involved them facilitating it.  There were myriad ways to accomplish this goal and completely leave religious objectors (and frankly, anyone else) out of the process.  In choosing not to do it that way, what it really implies is that they wanted to put certain people in their place and set a new precedent on the limits of religious freedom under the 1st Amendment.  They failed.

Like I said, knock yourself out....

The government made an effort to accommodate them and the details had to be arbitrated by the SCOTUS.  I don't see the problem.

I still find your partisan characterization of the willingness of either side to compromise to be hyperbolic and defensive.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

How much is conscious segregation and how much are ones views shaped by experience and exposure? For example, Folks most comfortable with diversity are generally those exposed to it. Those most afraid of it are generally less exposed. 

I don't think it's necessarily conscious or that they think that deeply about it.  But it's happening nonetheless and there's nothing wrong with the political system that's causing it.  It's self-selected.

[TexasTiger 12,829]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

I don't think it's necessarily conscious or that they think that deeply about it.  But it's happening nonetheless and there's nothing wrong with the political system that's causing it.  It's self-selected.

A system may not be designed to accommodate natural change.

 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Like I said, knock yourself out....

The government made an effort to accommodate them and the details had to be arbitrated by the SCOTUS.  I don't see the problem.

"Made an effort" isn't what the law requires, and neither does that automatically mean they compromised reasonably.

 

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I still find your partisan characterization of the willingness of either side to compromise to be hyperbolic and defensive.

So be it.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

A system may not be designed to accommodate natural change.

A system may not need to.  There's nothing inherently unfair unless you simply want to indict virtually all forms of republican (small "r") government as unfair by nature.  I don't think that's the case.

[homersapien 11,362]

10 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I think you're still conflating the Electoral College with how the voting works for the House of Representatives.  I'm not talking about the former (nor was the original article), but rather the latter.  Your votes aren't being devalued because you're urban or Democratic.  They are being wasted because too many of you are choosing to cloister yourselves all together rather than living more spread out.  When you draw up Congressional districts by population, even without biased gerrymandering, they can only make the district hold so many people.  If a buttload of you guys all decide to live in tight geographical areas, well, enjoy winning that district with 85% of the vote while the rest of the state goes GOP.

A system that puts geography ahead of vote count is inherently flawed from a political standpoint.

And again, you conflate cause and effect.  You are essentially arguing that someone's vote value is contingent on where they live and since they choose where they live, they are devaluing their own vote.

If you need more districts to accommodate the population then more districts (representatives) should be created.  To allow votes to be devalued because of the lack of available geographic districts is allowing the "tail to wag the dog", democratically speaking. 

 

[TexasTiger 12,829]

17 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

A system may not need to.  There's nothing inherently unfair unless you simply want to indict virtually all forms of republican (small "r") government as unfair by nature.  I don't think that's the case.

I don't think I said that and don't think you're following.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

10 minutes ago, homersapien said:

A system that puts geography ahead of vote count is inherently flawed from a political standpoint.

Then why even have states?  Every place on the planet unless it's literally a pure democracy on every single level, has some sort of geographic element to representation.  It's inescapable.  And frankly, it's reasonable.  Some states have vastly different interests depending on where you live.  The colonists understood this.  They were being taxed but had no representation in Parliament.  And the only way they could have had representation is for there to be geographical districts that would have allowed for the colonies to elect a representative that would be seated.  If you just went by straight vote count, the mainland citizens in England would always win and choose representatives that thought of England's concerns first over anything the American colonists cared about or faced.

 

10 minutes ago, homersapien said:

And again, you conflate cause and effect.  You are essentially arguing that someone's vote value is contingent on where they live and since they choose where they live, they are devaluing their own vote.

No, I am not.  But yes, to some degree outside of literal pure democracy, your vote does somewhat depend on where you live, depending on what office is being voted for.  Again, putting the presidential election aside - take any state and draw up congressional districts with no regard for political affiliation.  Your only concern is that each district has basically the same amount of people in it. 

Take Texas for instance.  Do you think the people in East Texas along the Gulf Coast have the exact same priorities as people down along the Mexican border, or those who live in inner city Dallas?  Would Dallas or El Paso citizens give as much credence to the concerns of Galveston and Houston on how much state money and resources need to go to hurricane relief?  Would a representative of rural oil country in West Texas give the same priority to the need for more urban tax breaks to encourage development in blighted areas?  Of course not.  Not because they are terrible people, but because they just don't live those people's lives or hear from those people all the time.  

Thus we have geographic representation to make sure everyone's voices are heard.

 

10 minutes ago, homersapien said:

If you need more districts to accommodate the population then more districts (representatives) should be created.  To allow votes to be devalued because of the lack of available geographic districts is allowing the "tail to wag the dog", democratically speaking. 

They already do that.  The districts are still divvied up proportionally and places like Dallas and Houston have many more congressional districts.  But they are smaller geographically because each district packs way more people into them.  But there's only so much you can do if so many like minded folks want to live right on top of each other.  

[TitanTiger 20,472]

6 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I don't think I said that and don't think you're following.

I guess I'm not understanding your point then.  

[TexasTiger 12,829]

Our system has given us a tax bill that intentionally favors Republican states over Democratic states.

 

Norm Eisen

 

@NormEisen

 

 

The disparate treatment of pro GOP and anti-GOP States is so grotesque that there may well be a due process claim. Also eighth amendment cruel and unusual punishment ;-)

Michael Grossman

 

@Michael36776349

 

MSNBC: "We're exploring a legal action right now. We think the GOP Tax bill may violate the due process laws. It's like saying Dem's will pay one rate and Rep's another. It's using NY & other blue states as a Piggy Bank." New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo

 

[AUFAN78 3,894]

On 12/29/2017 at 10:43 AM, homersapien said:

So, to summarize, Democrats are getting more votes and the votes they are getting come from more educated people.

I see this as more of a problem for the country than for the Democratic party.

The average Trump voter is not poorly educated or unemployed, nor does he live in a rural area. Back in May, FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver punctured the myth of the “working class” being Trump’s voter base: In exit polls of 23 states from the primaries, all showed a higher median income for Trump supporters than the national average, usually around $70,000. Exit polls last week, while not definitive, reveal that both college-educated white men and college educated white women voted for Trump by much higher than expected margins. 

While it is true that many rural voters who backed Obama in 2008 and 2012 voted for Trump this year, these voters hardly comprise the majority of Trump’s 60 million votes, as rural voters made up only 17 percent of this year’s electorate. Most rural voters generally vote Republican anyway. Clinton’s decision not to target these voters may seem foolhardy in hindsight, but these voters have not been a key Democratic demographic for many decades. Moreover, as a longtime member of the Washington establishment, Clinton was always going to be a hard sell to these voters in a change election.

The voters Clinton really lost—the ones she was targeting and relying on for victory—were college-educated whites. Most polling suggested she would win these voters, but she didn’t, according to exit polls: White men went 63 percent for Trump versus 31 percent for Clinton, and white women went 53-43 percent. Among college-educated whites, only 39 percent of men and 51 percent of women voted for Clinton.

https://newrepublic.com/article/138754/blame-trumps-victory-college-educated-whites-not-working-class

[DKW 86 7,419]

1 hour ago, AUFAN78 said:

The average Trump voter is not poorly educated or unemployed, nor does he live in a rural area. Back in May, FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver punctured the myth of the “working class” being Trump’s voter base: In exit polls of 23 states from the primaries, all showed a higher median income for Trump supporters than the national average, usually around $70,000. Exit polls last week, while not definitive, reveal that both college-educated white men and college educated white women voted for Trump by much higher than expected margins. 

While it is true that many rural voters who backed Obama in 2008 and 2012 voted for Trump this year, these voters hardly comprise the majority of Trump’s 60 million votes, as rural voters made up only 17 percent of this year’s electorate. Most rural voters generally vote Republican anyway. Clinton’s decision not to target these voters may seem foolhardy in hindsight, but these voters have not been a key Democratic demographic for many decades. Moreover, as a longtime member of the Washington establishment, Clinton was always going to be a hard sell to these voters in a change election.

The voters Clinton really lost—the ones she was targeting and relying on for victory—were college-educated whites. Most polling suggested she would win these voters, but she didn’t, according to exit polls: White men went 63 percent for Trump versus 31 percent for Clinton, and white women went 53-43 percent. Among college-educated whites, only 39 percent of men and 51 percent of women voted for Clinton.

https://newrepublic.com/article/138754/blame-trumps-victory-college-educated-whites-not-working-class

Quit it man, you are just going to confuse them and make them angri----er.