Support NeoGAF

[Empyrean Heaven]

I apologize for not getting my facts correct, I should have done more research. I apologize.

Still, 23 Democrat seats are up for grabs in 2018, so a supermajority is possible, however unlikely.

That said, if the worst case scenario happens and the Republicans do get everything they need to pass amendments uncontested, will they? And if so, how far do you think they'll go?

 

[BlitzKeeg]

It sounds like people from Cali and NY need to move to red states and get those to turn blue.

LOL

No way I'm moving to a red state. I love being a northeast elitist fuck.

On topic: This is another case of Republicans owning the government at the state level. Gerrymandering and voter suppression works real well, doesn't it?

 

[ascii42]

LOL

No way I'm moving to a red state. I love being a northeast elitist fuck.

On topic: This is another case of Republicans owning the government at the state level. Gerrymandering and voter suppression works real well, doesn't it?

Gerrymandering isn't a thing for the senate, but voter suppression could have an impact.

 

[Jobbs]

America gets the government it deserves.

This would make sense if the government actually represented the people or resembled them.

Trump got millions less votes than his opponent.

California has 39 million people and two of them are senators. Montana has 400 people living in it and two of them are senators. That means if you live in California, you pretty much don't matter in terms of your interests being represented compared to people who live out in the middle of nowhere.

This is not a representative democracy. Not sure what it is

 

[hydragonwarrior]

I apologize for not getting my facts correct, I should have done more research. I apologize.

Still, 23 Democrat seats are up for grabs in 2018, so a supermajority is possible, however unlikely.

That said, if the worst case scenario happens and the Republicans do get everything they need to pass amendments uncontested, will they? And if so, how far do you think they'll go?

As far as they can, omnibus afer omnibus. Republicans think far enough ahead when it comes to keeping themselves in power... they could care less how that happens unless it really looks like they'll look bad and have no scapegoat to get out of it.

 

[aeolist]

Many conservative GOP weren't happy with the direction of Trump's nomination

Many of them weren't happy with the direction of the Tea Party

They still showed up and voted

Republicans vote

republicans vote because their representatives make it extremely clear that they will deliver on those issues their constituents care about. remember how they kept introducing bills to repeal obamacare even when they didn't hold either house of congress? we laughed at their idiocy and assured ourselves that they were wasting their time because it would never happen.

and now it turns out that sending that kind of consistent signal to your base gets them to the polls and when they do that in enough numbers (and your opponents royally fuck everything up) the impossible becomes possible and suddenly we have to deal with the reality of an obamacare repeal.

this is why bernie's policies were important even if they could never get past congress. if we start holding votes for a medicare for all bill it may just show people who care about single payer that we actually want to pass that kind of legislation even if it doesn't go through for years. showing progressives and millenials that the party has changed and is genuinely interested in making progressive law could make those people believe democrats are for them and that they should vote. seems pretty simple to me.

 

[aeolist]

This would make sense if the government actually represented the people or resembled them.

Trump got millions less votes than his opponent.

California has 39 million people and two of them are senators. Montana has 400 people living in it and two of them are senators. That means if you live in California, you pretty much don't matter in terms of your interests being represented compared to people who live out in the middle of nowhere.

This is not a representative democracy. Not sure what it is

it's the tattered remnants of an 18th century compromise intended to keep slave states in power. we shouldn't be shocked that it just elected a massive bigot who got 3 million votes less than his competition.

the constitution is the problem.

 

[Lord Frieza]

+

= Does not compute.

If it's nothing like the first Civil War, then why bother calling it that?



OK, that's a little better. We are running towards a conflict. How big? We are always running towards some conflict or another for the entirety of US history.

Are people going to die in this conflict? How many?

Because if half the country doesn't go to war with each other, and 2% of the population doesn't die as a result, then calling it a "Civil War" is hyperreactionary and ultimately ruins your argument.

I'm not going to get into one of your semantic wars. You know what I mean, and I know you do. If you don't see that, then good, I hope I'm wrong, but it seems like an undeniable reality based on what is happening now.

 

[LegendofJoe]

This would make sense if the government actually represented the people or resembled them.

Trump got millions less votes than his opponent.

California has 39 million people and two of them are senators. Montana has 400 people living in it and two of them are senators. That means if you live in California, you pretty much don't matter in terms of your interests being represented compared to people who live out in the middle of nowhere.

This is not a representative democracy. Not sure what it is

California has 53 representatives in the House, Montana has 1. The power of the people has always resided in the House. Unfortunately, it's been hijacked thanks to gerrymandering.

 

[smisk]

Never really expected Dems to win the Senate in 2018, but there's a red district right near me here in Northern VA and I'm gonna work my ass off to make sure she doesn't get re-elected. If I recall correctly she only won by 5% in November so I think it's doable.

 

[KingV]

Never really expected Dems to win the Senate in 2018, but there's a red district right near me here in Northern VA and I'm gonna work my ass off to make sure she doesn't get re-elected. If I recall correctly she only won by 5% in November so I think it's doable.

It can always go either way. 2016 had a good map for democrsts... Until it didn't.

 

[mcfrank]

Never really expected Dems to win the Senate in 2018, but there's a red district right near me here in Northern VA and I'm gonna work my ass off to make sure she doesn't get re-elected. If I recall correctly she only won by 5% in November so I think it's doable.

This is what I will be doing in CA as well. Gotta make sure Issa goes down.

 

[Rentahamster]

I'm not going to get into one of your semantic wars. You know what I mean, and I know you do. If you don't see that, then good, I hope I'm wrong, but it seems like an undeniable reality based on what is happening now.

I know what you mean. I'm telling you that

1. The internal hyperbolization is fucking with your head and making you more depressed than you need to be.

2. The way you express it is highly unpersuasive to the ears of people who need to hear it the most.

3. "undeniable realities" are still subject to questioning and scrutiny.

 

[FStubbs]

In 2015/16 I kept telling people not to get cocky.

In 2017 it's beginning to look more and more like my ad nauseum advice is going to be "quit being so defeatist".

I was always thinking the Democrats were in a bad spot but I thought Hillary could pull it out. Right now ... the Democrats are looking Cleveland Browns bad. I think it's worse than we've stated.

The map is horrible, gerrymandering and voter suppression are about to run unchecked with Jeff "KKK" Sessions as Attorney General, and the Supreme Court isn't looking good. Look at North Carolina and South Dakota. The GOP basically decided "screw democracy" and suffered no effects.

I don't even think the GOP would lose if the economy collapsed at this point. They're too radicalized and full of hate to care.

 

[theWB27]

I was always thinking the Democrats were in a bad spot but I thought Hillary could pull it out. Right now ... the Democrats are looking Cleveland Browns bad. I think it's worse than we've stated.

They need civilian help is all.

 

[hodayathink]

It can always go either way. 2016 had a good map for democrsts... Until it didn't.

Democrats gained seats in 2016. Not enough to take back the Senate, but IIRC, it was 2 or 3 seats. It was a good map, it stayed a good map, but it ended up not being enough because we lost some very close races (Wisconsin and Pennsylvania come to mind).

 

[Voras]

he thinks there's nothing wrong with the policies that obama and clinton pushed and that there's just a messaging problem.

the 2016 election was the biggest refutation of the democratic party's policies and history imaginable, but party leaders are ignoring the giant warning signs and continuing to drive us over a cliff.

That is such garbage, the election was decided by less than 100k people total across three states. And the popular vote was far in favor of the democrats, an outdated system put a republican president in the white house, not the will of the people. All this crap about this election being a "refutation" of democratic party policies is straight out of the mouth of people like Hannity. This was no refutation of democratic policies, this was a series of missteps and oversights on the left while the right proved that they are predominantly some combination of racist and apathetic to anything short of their tax returns.

 

[PeakPointMatrix]

Don't take away my hope for 2018. It's all I have right now.

 

[FStubbs]

I apologize for not getting my facts correct, I should have done more research. I apologize.

Still, 23 Democrat seats are up for grabs in 2018, so a supermajority is possible, however unlikely.

That said, if the worst case scenario happens and the Republicans do get everything they need to pass amendments uncontested, will they? And if so, how far do you think they'll go?

They'll go far enough to ensure that even if they ever lose control of government (which they won't), their agenda won't be stopped.

1. Homosexuality will be illegal
2. Repeal of the 13th-15th amendments (I'm definitely sure the 14th will go, the others are up for grabs)
2a. Anyone who became a citizen because of the 14th amendment, or because both parents became citizens via the 14th amendment, will have their citizenship revoked. Permission to remain in this country depends on their (or their parents') country of origin.
3. Balanced budget amendment (though I'm not sure how much they care about this anymore)
4. Amendment ruling Islam illegal
5. Expansion of the 2nd amendment to specifically say any regulation of guns anywhere is illegal
6. The right to protest will be revoked
6a. Speech against police will be ruled a federal hate crime
7. Voting rights and voting districts will be decided upon by the states. The federal government will not have the power to override a state's decision. (This can allow rampant voter suppression, gerrymandering where one district has 3,000 people and another 800,000, etc)
8. All environmental regulations are now unconstitutional in any state
9. Life begins at conception. Abortion is now a capital federal crime for the woman and the abortion provider
10. Capital gains taxes and inheritance taxes are now illegal. A person can not be taxed more than $100,000 by states and the federal government.

 

[Ekai]

imo tom perez getting the dnc chairmanship would be the final nail in the coffin for the party and he's the favorite to win.

Depends on how moderate he is. If he's very moderate then yea, the Democrats are toast.

That is such garbage, the election was decided by less than 100k people total across three states. And the popular vote was far in favor of the democrats, an outdated system put a republican president in the white house, not the will of the people. All this crap about this election being a "refutation" of democratic party policies is straight out of the mouth of people like Hannity. This was no refutation of democratic policies, this was a series of missteps and oversights on the left while the right proved that they are predominantly some combination of racist and apathetic to anything short of their tax returns.

Pretty much on the money here. The fault lies not only in the Democrats, though I do think they have some blame here, but rather in the way the system itself is set up. How Republicans have rigged it in their favor for decades via voter suppression, gerrymandering, etc. etc. etc.

 

[BrutishMrFish]

the 2016 election was the biggest refutation of the democratic party's policies and history imaginable, but party leaders are ignoring the giant warning signs and continuing to drive us over a cliff.

If that's the case, it was a refutation of the Bernie wing as well, given that all of the other candidates who had policies like Bernie's (and his support) lost by higher margins than Hillary. So where does that leave the Democrats if the entire party was rejected?

 

[FStubbs]

If that's the case, it was a refutation of the Bernie wing as well, given that all of the other candidates who had policies like Bernie's (and his support) lost by higher margins than Hillary. So where does that leave the Democrats if the entire party was rejected?

Seeing how they can brand their racism to compete with Republicans?

 

[Ogodei]

I apologize for not getting my facts correct, I should have done more research. I apologize.

Still, 23 Democrat seats are up for grabs in 2018, so a supermajority is possible, however unlikely.

That said, if the worst case scenario happens and the Republicans do get everything they need to pass amendments uncontested, will they? And if so, how far do you think they'll go?

Once you get to "amendment passage" point, it's game over, because then you can effectively rewrite the rules to whatever you want. Ratification would be a hurdle, though. Opponents of the amendment would organize state-by-state to stop it.

 

[BadenBadenLily]

If it actually got to the point that they started changing the constitution it would simply be the end of the union. California and the northeast would bail.

 

[Unknown One]

If it actually got to the point that they started changing the constitution it would simply be the end of the union. California and the northeast would bail.

Hope so, I know it fucks us over, but gop as a whole should get fucked. Drag those bitches down. Let them starve without Cal money while they invade it.

 

[Michael F. Assbender]

Yeah we're fucked for at least four years.

 

[CrispyBoar]

America has officially become a laughing stock.

 

[Beartruck]

Constitutional amendment seems unlikely. If nothing else, the GOP will probably lose badly in the 2018 governor races. In my state illinois, Governor Rauner has the 5th lowest approval rating in the country (34%) and hes in a deep blue state. Everyone hates him for going 2 years without passing a budget. I would be shocked if he held onto his seat.

 

[Nelo Ice]

So much devastation, I'm barely holding it together . About the only thing giving me some semblance of hope is that the impossible is frankly possible. Seeing as how the past NBA Finals, World Series, Election 2016, and Super Bowl proved. No matter how impossible and improbable, the odds can be beaten.

 

[Josh5890]

They'll go far enough to ensure that even if they ever lose control of government (which they won't), their agenda won't be stopped.


2. Repeal of the 13th-15th amendments (I'm definitely sure the 14th will go, the others are up for grabs)

Republicans are going to remove the ban on slavery? I hope this is just a joke and you don't seriously believe this is possible.

 

[FStubbs]

Republicans are going to remove the ban on slavery? I hope this is just a joke and you don't seriously believe this is possible.

20% of Trump voters were against the 13th amendment, but I'm guessing like most polls, it underestimates how far right they are. 38% also wish the Confederacy won.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/upshot/measuring-donald-trumps-supporters-for-intolerance.html

So, while I'm joking about the 13th, it's a wary joke. I have no doubt they'd repeal the 14th and do 2a, and I'm fairly sure they'd repeal the 15th.

 

[jack_package_200]

imo tom perez getting the dnc chairmanship would be the final nail in the coffin for the party and he's the favorite to win.

Considering he was a very popular former labor secretary under arguably one of the most popular president's of all time, he would not be a bad pick for DNC chair.

I would prefer Ellison ( hes qualified, he is bursting with enthusiasm, desire to work with activists, would get whinny BoBers to shut their fucking mouths) but Perez would not be a bad pick.

I would also have been happy with bringing back Howard Deen.

 

[sangreal]

Considering he was a very popular former labor secretary under arguably one of the most popular president's of all time, he would not be a bad pick for DNC chair.

I would prefer Ellison ( hes qualified, he is bursting with enthusiasm, desire to work with activists, would get whinny BoBers to shut their fucking mouths) but Perez would not be a bad pick.

I would also have been happy with bringing back Howard Deen.

I'm with you. All 3 work for me

 

[plagiarize]

working class people (which at this point i believe is minority white) are not being represented by the democratic party.

framing this as a conflict between social issues and economic issues is the biggest problem liberals have. if they can't see that they're inextricably intertwined and interdependent and instead continue to portray the american electorate as so extremely racist that not even favorable economic policies can win them over then we are 100% fucked.

The question about the white working class is if they are still going to think the GOP represents them this time next year.

The main problem here is that we have to spend in way more places than the GOP. But you've got to figure that Trump will be a drag on everyone, putting the House very much in reach if turnout is high for Dems. If he isn't and he's popular in a year. Well yeah. We be fucked.

But right now that's just baseless paranoia. That's not to say it is impossible but right now early signs are good that Trump is going to be a problem for GOP people defending their seat in the midterms.

 

[BigDug13]

California has 53 representatives in the House, Montana has 1. The power of the people has always resided in the House. Unfortunately, it's been hijacked thanks to gerrymandering.

California has greater than 53 times Montana's population though right?

 

[Oblivion]

It pisses me off so much that Republicans managed to sweep in at just the perfect time. They have the presidency, congress, will soon have the Supreme Court by 5-4, but they will also possibly expand that to as high as 7-2 because it'll be extremely hard for Dems to get back the senate in the next four years.

 

[sangreal]

California has greater than 53 times Montana's population though right?

The House hasn't change size since 1963 because naturally that would help Democrats (the people). Mind you, the democrats have had control and even super majorities since then

e: actually 1913

 

[Phoenix RISING]

This is kind of key, but Democrats move from red states because of how much of a shit hole they are. If people aren't willing to stick it out in these states, then they will be forever red. I'm not saying people should abandon opportunities to turn states blue, but we have to figure out something to keep Democrats spread throughout the country and not just concentrated in coastal big cities.

If I remember correctly, this is illegal.

Feel free to pick which Dakota you're moving to. Raps another member of GAF will move to the other./b]

 

[Staccat0]

I know they are much less sexy, but it'd be cool if young people voted in any local elections happening in 2017.

Many local elections are easy to swing and matter for the future of the party.

 

[plagiarize]

I know they are much less sexy, but it'd be cool if young people voted in any local elections happening in 2017.

Many local elections are easy to swing and matter for the future of the party.

Every election. At every level. Vote vote vote.

 

[hodayathink]

Considering he was a very popular former labor secretary under arguably one of the most popular president's of all time, he would not be a bad pick for DNC chair.

I would prefer Ellison ( hes qualified, he is bursting with enthusiasm, desire to work with activists, would get whinny BoBers to shut their fucking mouths) but Perez would not be a bad pick.

I would also have been happy with bringing back Howard Deen.

While I would have been "okay" with Dean coming back, I think he played it exactly as he should have, in that he should have only been an option if there wasn't someone else younger (and qualified) interested in doing it full time. It's not like he's the only person in the Democratic party that can implement a 50 state strategy, we just need someone that's actually committed to it.

 

[MechanicalWall]

It amazes me that people here are arguing that Perez would be a bad pick for DNC from an ideological standpoint. When HRC's VP shortlist was floating around, he was considered the most progressive name on that list by quite a bit. Is it just because he hasn't received Saint Bernard's blessing?