• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair

Status
Not open for further replies.
kess said:
Mississippi is going to go Democratic before Alabama ever will. That state gets a lot of shit, for the right reasons, but it's not the home of educated, well to do racism like Alabama is.

The Birmingham suburbs are the rock solid core of Trump support.
Click to expand...

There was some talk on Poligaf of bits of the sun belt going blue before the election. While Hillary's popularity in Texas, Arizona, and Georgia ended up being way overblown, there does seem to be some real potential for those states to be solid Dem territory in a few years.

Is there evidence that white voters in Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama are becoming less reactionary?
 
Bonen no Max'd said:
not really, unless we're defining pork differently or a party in the coalition is entirely regional?

If the Social Democrats' main legislative goals are increased welfare and educational spending but are, say, largely ambivalent towards or even mildly supportive of nuclear energy and the Greens are willing to support those goals on the condition that the Social Democrats replace nuclear power plants with windfarms over the course of the government (possibly even reducing the welfare increases) and they form a coalition on the terms that the Greens will support the increased welfare on that condition, that's not really pork imo. Pork is much more "I won't vote for this bill unless you spend government money to get my district that bridge" and I would characterize that as being much more individual and regional.
Click to expand...

What's the important distinction here?

Those wind farms are going to be located in specific parts of the country, and they're going to disproportionately benefit those areas of the country. It's going to have very similar effects to just building the extra bridge.
 
Valhelm said:
There was some talk on Poligaf of bits of the sun belt going blue before the election. While Hillary's popularity in Texas, Arizona, and Georgia ended up being way overblown, there does seem to be some real potential for those states to be solid Dem territory in a few years.

Is there evidence that white voters in Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama are becoming less reactionary?
Click to expand...

I don't think it was overblown or premature. Arizona and Georgia were closer than Ohio (!). Texas was closer than Iowa (!!!!). Of course, much of that has to do with the bottom falling out in the rust belt, but Ohio and Iowa were never really in play and the map is clearly shifting. Whether winning in the rust belt and the sun belt is mutually exclusive remains to be seen, though. (I suspect there may be some trade-offs to be made due to the Dems continued inroads into the college educated vote, but we'll see.)

The map can change very quickly. Look at Virginia in 08.
 
VendettaRed07 said:
I mean we won NH and a senate seat there in 2016 and Ohio is only +2% higher there
Click to expand...

It seems like Dems have cracked the code in NH. Hasn't gone Republican since... 2000? Pulling through in a quintessential swing state even while the bottom fell out elsewhere across the map? Hell, even won in 2014 there (albeit, lol Scott Brown) Not sure how much to read into it.

Not even Robby Mook could fuck it up. Though he did manage Shaheen's... 2008 race? So maybe he knows the inside track for the state, like VA, another state Hillary, uh, didn't lose.

(Not to jinx it or anything)
 
It just occurred to me that when Trump fires Sessions he's going to say it was because he committed perjury by lying to Congress about his Russian meetings.
 
Could firing Sessions be a short-term benefit for the country? I'm sure his replacement is going to be a shithead but Sessions is one of the most monstrous public figures in America.
 
AntraxSuicide said:
The latter in the US. If we did move to a parliamentary system, we'd probably see more parties but I think they'd be highly regional (maybe some outliers here and there). So you'd see less "Representative X wants a bridge in their district" and more "Regional Party wants various bridges in their region."

We've even had people draw up these hypothetical regional parties . I think it's a fair reading of how multiple parties would form here.
Click to expand...

I did some speculative math on that and, based on 2016 results, proportional representation would lead to an ungovernable mess.

I had Democrats, Labor, a Black party, a Hispanic party, and the Greens on the left,

and Republicans, Evangelicals, a MAGA party, the libertarians, and a Utah-only Mormon party on the right. And all of those needed to get into a coalition to get to 218 House votes.
 
pigeon said:
It just occurred to me that when Trump fires Sessions he's going to say it was because he committed perjury by lying to Congress about his Russian meetings.
Click to expand...
That plan seemed to work so well with Comey. No one will buy that excuse and it will end up backfiring on him. Trump's dumb enough to try it though. Then he's going to have to tell his new AG to prosecute Sessions.
 
Valhelm said:
Could firing Sessions be a short-term benefit for the country? I'm sure his replacement is going to be a shithead but Sessions is one of the most monstrous public figures in America.
Click to expand...

Getting a racist piece of shit out of the Attorney General's office is definitely a pro, but I think it's counterbalanced by the real threat to our democracy that such a move poses.

It's a pretty shitty situation all around.
 
Ogodei said:
I did some speculative math on that and, based on 2016 results, proportional representation would lead to an ungovernable mess.

I had Democrats, Labor, a Black party, a Hispanic party, and the Greens on the left,

and Republicans, Evangelicals, a MAGA party, the libertarians, and a Utah-only Mormon party on the right. And all of those needed to get into a coalition to get to 218 House votes.
Click to expand...

Hopefully proportional representation would destroy the Green Party lmao
 
A little late to this discussion so I may have misread some points:

I think people underestimate just how politically "efficient" America's current political coalitions already are. If anything, the two parties have only gotten more efficient at sorting the electorate over time (i.e. Hyde Amendment), and that's what's created the hyperpolarized political environment we're currently in. The fact that there's no overlap between the two parties should be a sign our democracy is working as intended.

Can also look at things like fusion party labels - the third party labels never cross over (i.e. a conservative third party endorsing a Dem/liberal or vice versa) unless they're running in an uncontested race. Lots of reasons why this can be the case (fundraising, party machines, etc.), but you'd imagine that largely pre-sorted ideology has to be a large factor in this. (Once upon a time I wrote my thesis on fusion party labels as potential solution for hyper-polarization, was not heartened by the results. Admittedly it's been a few years...)

The issue is less about how we vote, and more about how we legislate from the coalitions that already exist - and would exist regardless of how we formed our political parties. How would the ideological coalitions we form be any different? I don't buy regionalized parties in the U.S. at all - not in an era of TV and internet.

The system isn't broken, it's the electorate that's broken. In any political system driven by incentives, the only way to prevent rulebreaking is to punish it. The electorate has yet to punish the GOP post-1994.

That would break any democracy - the United States isn't unique in that respect.
 
Ogodei said:
I did some speculative math on that and, based on 2016 results, proportional representation would lead to an ungovernable mess.

I had Democrats, Labor, a Black party, a Hispanic party, and the Greens on the left,

and Republicans, Evangelicals, a MAGA party, the libertarians, and a Utah-only Mormon party on the right. And all of those needed to get into a coalition to get to 218 House votes.
Click to expand...


The racial or religious parties doesn't much sense to me. Those groups are heavily invested in their respective party, not much reason to form your own when you have a lot of control in it.

If we did have a parliamentary I don't think it'll be that much different than it is now. Both the Democrat Party and the Republican Party are basically big tent parties that cover many, many issues. The Democrat Party for example would agree with the Labor Party when it comes worker's rights and unions 90% of the time. The same for the racial parties when it comes to their respective issues. The same for Republicans and Evangelicals. The minority parties in most cases would be glorified lobby groups.

The only real parties that would have any sort of presence in the parliamentary system are the Greens and Libertarians; but they wouldn't have a too big of a presence.
 
also, let's not forget that 30-40% of the electorate openly hungers for a racist, fascistic state. That doesn't leave actual small-d democrats with a whole lot margin for error.
 
Arizona and Georgia have legitimately entered swing state territory. They will be the battlegrounds for 2020 along with the Rust Belt. Look for more action in Minnesota, which barely stayed blue.

Though I like to be optimistic, I doubt Texas will be there quite yet in 2020. O'Rourke only has a slim chance in the Senate race next year because of the anti-Republican atmosphere and Cruz's personal repugnance. In 2020, Cornyn and the state as a whole will not be easily conquered.
 
Autodidact said:
Arizona and Georgia have legitimately entered swing state territory. They will be the battlegrounds for 2020 along with the Rust Belt. Look for more action in Minnesota, which barely stayed blue.

Though I like to be optimistic, I doubt Texas will be there quite yet in 2020. O'Rourke only has a slim chance in the Senate race next year because of the anti-Republican atmosphere and Cruz's personal repugnance. In 2020, Cornyn and the state as a whole will not be easily conquered.
Click to expand...

If we can flip an R+8 VA to D+6 in 08, anything's possible. Demographic shifts, abysmal Trump approvals, GOP in civil war... throw 'em together and baby you've got a wave election going.

(I agree tho, in that I think AZ and GA will end up resembling VA, while TX will probably be much more polarized NC-type state with potentially very hard ceiling on D support.)
 
pigeon said:
What's the important distinction here?

Those wind farms are going to be located in specific parts of the country, and they're going to disproportionately benefit those areas of the country. It's going to have very similar effects to just building the extra bridge.
Click to expand...
I had what I thought was basically a pretty good post typed up and then accidentally lost it, but tl;dr I think if an area needs a bridge, they should just have the bridge be built pork or no but something like building windfarms to replace nuclear plants is a political and moral decision.
 
jtb said:
If we can flip an R+8 VA to D+6 in 08, anything's possible. Demographic shifts, abysmal Trump approvals, GOP in civil war... throw 'em together and baby you've got a wave election going.
Click to expand...

I agree, which is why I think we have a good chance of reclaiming TX-23 next year (we had it from 2012-14), MAYBE Pete Sessions's district (who had no Democratic challenger despite Hillary winning his district), and an outside chance at the Senate seat because of Cruz being a jackass. But the entire state - liberal cities and conservative backwaters and everything in-between - still seems like an uphill climb. Maybe you're right. Maybe I've just been so conditioned to see Texas as the fabled last bastion of Republican rule that I can't contemplate winning the state as early as 2020. I hope you're right! We should definitely make progress next year, though.

I'll also be following the Georgia gubernatorial race closely.
 
Abinash117 said:
The racial or religious parties doesn't much sense to me. Those groups are heavily invested in their respective party, not much reason to form your own when you have a lot of control in it.

If we did have a parliamentary I don't think it'll be that much different than it is now. Both the Democrat Party and the Republican Party are basically big tent parties that cover many, many issues. The Democrat Party for example would agree with the Labor Party when it comes worker's rights and unions 90% of the time. The same for the racial parties when it comes to their respective issues. The same for Republicans and Evangelicals. The minority parties in most cases would be glorified lobby groups.

The only real parties that would have any sort of presence in the parliamentary system are the Greens and Libertarians; but they wouldn't have a too big of a presence.
Click to expand...

What's the Democrat Party?
 
Do people actually care about the whole Democrat thing? I always thought that was something Media Matters got riled up about on slow news days.
 
jtb said:
Do people actually care about the whole Democrat thing? I always thought that was something Media Matters got riled up about on slow news days.
Click to expand...

Rush Limbaugh and co. started using it as a slur way back when. It's definitely used purposefully and pejoratively the majority of the time.
 
I know it's a dogwhistle. But don't you have to hear it for it to be a dogwhistle? Does it even register with people - even Republicans?

If you can say "I'm a Democrat" but not "I'm a member of the Democrat party" then at what point does the epithet lose its impact and meaning?

I guess I've always heard the use of it from Republicans and the pushback from Dems, but it's seemed like much ado about nothing to me.
 
VendettaRed07 said:
Trump's approval rating is higher in Wisconsin/NH than it is in Texas

What the fuck
Click to expand...

I think Gallup is polling everyone here, not just confirmed voters. The thing about Texas becoming blue is they need to get out the booming future minority majority population and all those expats coming in from blue states.
 
jtb said:
I know it's a dogwhistle. But don't you have to hear it for it to be a dogwhistle? Does it even register with people - even Republicans?

If you can say "I'm a Democrat" but not "I'm a member of the Democrat party" then at what point does the epithet lose its impact and meaning?

I guess I've always heard the use of it from Republicans and the pushback from Dems, but it's seemed like much ado about nothing to me.
Click to expand...

It's meant to blunt any positive association one might have with the party's name. "Democratic operatives" sounds a lot better than "Democrat operatives"
 
The first time I heard that was listening to Rush and he was talking to a caller who used the term "Democratic party", and Rush immediately corrected him to say "No, it's not the Democratic party, it's the Democrat party" without explaining anything further. I remember scratching my head wondering what the insult here was supposed to be.

Roughly 8 years later, I still haven't got a clue.
 
Oblivion said:
The first time I heard that was listening to Rush and he was talking to a caller who used the term "Democratic party", and Rush immediately corrected him to say "No, it's not the Democratic party, it's the Democrat party" without explaining anything further. I remember scratching my head wondering what the insult here was supposed to be.

Roughly 8 years later, I still haven't got a clue.
Click to expand...
Yeah even if it's meant with venom I just can't imagine anyone getting upset over it lol, it's like getting called a doo-doo head

Oblivion said:
Also, too. What's this malarkey about Arizona being a swing state?
Click to expand...
It was closer than North Carolina and overall the fifth closest Trump state after MI/WI/PA/FL
 
jtb said:
The system isn't broken, it's the electorate that's broken. In any political system driven by incentives, the only way to prevent rulebreaking is to punish it. The electorate has yet to punish the GOP post-1994.

That would break any democracy - the United States isn't unique in that respect.
Click to expand...
FOX News launched in October 1996 right before Clinton was elected to a 2nd term.
I wonder if there's a correlation... hmm.
 
Oblivion said:
Also, too. What's this malarkey about Arizona being a swing state?
Click to expand...

Arizona is moderating pretty quickly on the state level. Much faster than say Texas. Its just going to require the right people. I mean Flake has had to lash out against Anti-Islamic Sentiment that was being bombarded at his Democratic rival. While that should be a given for any decent human being Arizona used to be red enough Flake could have just coasted by putting his head in the sand in days past.

Arizona will be purple for awhile but the state is reaching the point where the right candidate will be able to flip it red or blue during an election
 
I'd love to do a deep dive on this some day, but I suspect there is also an advantage to parties who invest heavily in state races in midterms in the lead-up to a presidential election in swing states.

Not to keep beating the Virginia thing to death, but Jim Webb's victory was huge for Democrats. (I'm sure this is just confirmation bias in my brain)

What I'm trying to say is that Jeff Flake is fucked next year, and his loss will pave the way for a narrow Dem majority + a resounding blue state in 2020.

UberTag said:
FOX News launched in October 1996 right before Clinton was elected to a 2nd term.
I wonder if there's a correlation... hmm.
Click to expand...

Bingo. Which is why I'm skeptical of any notion that pivots politics and parties more local rather than more national. Communications, commerce, resources, etc. - they're all more national than ever, and there's no putting it back into the bottle.
 
GrapeApes said:
That plan seemed to work so well with Comey. No one will buy that excuse and it will end up backfiring on him. Trump's dumb enough to try it though. Then he's going to have to tell his new AG to prosecute Sessions.
Click to expand...

On what charges?

I don't see that happening. Also Sessions likely has some dirt on Trump.
 
I love/hate this picture so much. This is the team that's going to get the Trump administration back on track.

DGASnl0XsAEuikx.jpg
 
Autodidact said:
I agree, which is why I think we have a good chance of reclaiming TX-23 next year (we had it from 2012-14), MAYBE Pete Sessions's district (who had no Democratic challenger despite Hillary winning his district), and an outside chance at the Senate seat because of Cruz being a jackass. But the entire state - liberal cities and conservative backwaters and everything in-between - still seems like an uphill climb. Maybe you're right. Maybe I've just been so conditioned to see Texas as the fabled last bastion of Republican rule that I can't contemplate winning the state as early as 2020. I hope you're right! We should definitely make progress next year, though.

I'll also be following the Georgia gubernatorial race closely.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind VA is the same way. VA has the Norfolk Metropolitan area along the coast near NC, Richmond, and the ever expanding NOVA region. NOVA is the DC metropolitan area that is still rapidly expanding. It is the reason why VA turned blue. VA is mainly made up of rural areas that vote Republican. The areas listed above and a few college towns vote blue. It all depends on how quickly Texas' major metropolitan areas expand.
 
Stupid question: If the legislative filibuster is nuked, can Congress pass an enabling/admission act to admit new states into the union on a simple majority basis?

DC statehood (and PR statehood?) needs to be a serious Democratic legislative priority going forward.
 
jtb said:
Stupid question: If the legislative filibuster is nuked, can Congress pass an enabling/admission act to admit new states into the union on a simple majority basis?

DC statehood (and PR statehood?) needs to be a serious Democratic legislative priority going forward.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they needed to be states yesterday. Don't know the answer to your question though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
The Crisis in Venezula
2
2K
God Enel replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT2| Well, maybe McMaster isn't a traitor.
397 398 399 400 401
20K
2M
ShadowSwordmaster replied
Top Bottom