2020 Election Thoughts

[Chisoxfn]

9 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

It's not rigging things. Our Constitution has clear rules and processes for admitting new states. There's no reason the hundreds of thousands of people in DC or the millions in PR should be subject to federal law with no real say. The alternative is for tens of millions more Americans to accept that the current structure of the Senate means we'll always be dominated by white minority rule. If Republicans want to push for other US territories to become states, great! I think colonialism is bad and that these people should have full representation in the governments they're subject to. It's more rigging things to make sure that millions of American citizens remain without a voice and without a vote.

 

I'm giving the right "a hard time" for launching a violent fascist insurrection bent on murdering Congress and the VP and overturning free and fair elections. There's quite a bit of difference between these two things.

All I am saying is it is a slippery slope and you need to understand how things are perceived and that there are two sides to many arguments. The reason we are in this mess to begin with is multi faceted and more than just Trump being Trump. 
 

Trump had a huge leg to play in this - in my opinion the biggest - but in many ways he was the accelerant for the fire. 
 

And I don’t have a good enough opinion on PR yes or no but I know there are arguments for both and I don’t think my first order of business should be related to this. If you want to appease - you set up something to ensure more bipartisan watchers at polling booths and just tighter state documentation of voting guidelines (won’t do anything but perception is important) plus all of the damn focus should be on COVID and economic recovery anyway. 

[southsider2k5]

7 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

Apparently Trump said that after reading over the transcripts of what he said, "people" thought what he told his group of terrorists was totally appropriate.  Said impeaching him again would only make people angry.

The RNC Chairman, a relative of Mitt, says impeachment would only further divide and not unite and heal, like trying to throw out millions of legit votes does.

It amazes me how they get away with acting like they are the only ones with a right to be upset about what is going on in this country.  Six months ago they were ready to send the National Guard into cities because of protests.  Now they are indignant that they didn't get to topple the government.

[StrangeSox]

5 minutes ago, Chisoxfn said:

All I am saying is it is a slippery slope and you need to understand how things are perceived and that there are two sides to many arguments. The reason we are in this mess to begin with is multi faceted and more than just Trump being Trump. 
 

Trump had a huge leg to play in this - in my opinion the biggest - but in many ways he was the accelerant for the fire. 
 

And I don’t have a good enough opinion on PR yes or no but I know there are arguments for both and I don’t think my first order of business should be related to this. If you want to appease - you set up something to ensure more bipartisan watchers at polling booths and just tighter state documentation of voting guidelines (won’t do anything but perception is important) plus all of the damn focus should be on COVID and economic recovery anyway. 

 

There's not really much more slope to go down unless the US starts annexing and conquering other territories as far as statehood goes, though They're American citizens who are subject to federal law without representation. They deserve representation and a vote.

There's currently a very heavy skew across all levels of the Federal government in favor of conservatives. Democrats need to win the House and Presidency by 5-8% or more, and the Senate is entirely dependent on who happens to be up at any given time. It's only getting worse. I'm not sure why a majority of Americans should simply sit back and accept minoritarian rule. The only way to change the dynamics in the Senate is to admit new states. It's a political battle that's played out over and over throughout our country's history.

This would all be part of the same larger reconciliation package that would have vital COVID/economic relief that the minoritarian GOP kept blocking, of course.

[southsideirish71]

16 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

It's not rigging things. Our Constitution has clear rules and processes for admitting new states. There's no reason the hundreds of thousands of people in DC or the millions in PR should be subject to federal law with no real say. The alternative is for tens of millions more Americans to accept that the current structure of the Senate means we'll always be dominated by white minority rule. If Republicans want to push for other US territories to become states, great! I think colonialism is bad and that these people should have full representation in the governments they're subject to. It's more rigging things to make sure that millions of American citizens remain without a voice and without a vote.

  

I'm giving the right "a hard time" for launching a violent fascist insurrection bent on murdering Congress and the VP and overturning free and fair elections. There's quite a bit of difference between these two things.

I don't remember this urgent need to add DC and Puerto Rico as states when Obama and Clinton were in office.  You are trying to terraform the legislative branch because you get sad that rural states have an equal say that other larger more populated states have.   This will do wonders for the political landscape here.  You are going to birth more Trump-like candidates with this.  

[Quin]

26 minutes ago, Chisoxfn said:

Look at you - giving the right a hard time for them not believing an election is fixed and here you are with your first order of business to just rig things to the other side. Totally hypocritical and an awful look if that is what the parties were to do.    

I don't think you rig things, but make things more balanced if you do the following: 

• Uncap the House: This has been a massive oversight that has led to unequal representation for nearly a century. It seems like the House has been capped simply because the Capitol ran out of floor space (dumb reason) or because rural America wanted to kneecap populated centers (sinister reason). Some options include the Wyoming Rule and the Cube Root Rule, which is harder to explain, but is based on the U.S. population and not on the smallest state. It is worth noting that this would grow the Electoral College count.
• Give Puerto Rico statehood: PR isn't a guaranteed Democratic state - it's current non-voting rep caucuses with the GOP and its statehood has been on the GOP agenda. Politics there are different than politics on the mainland. Their 2020 vote passed statehood with actual turnout. If they want another vote, let them have it, but based on the most recent one, they deserve it.
• Give D.C. statehood: Yes, D.C. would be the most Democratic state in the union, but they pay federal taxes and have no federal representation. Also, as Trump just demonstrated, they have no ability to govern their own boundaries if there's a hostile situation. Maryland and Virginia have both stated they don't want them. Maybe the National Mall can become something similar to the Vatican where it governs itself, but the city deserves representation.
• The U.S. Virgin Islands/Guam/American Samoa/Mariana Islands question: We've been allowing states like Wyoming to have extreme power for so long with low population, I think it's time we have a real conversation about the non-Puerto Rico territories. Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands have decent sized populations (100k+) and may go for it. American Samoa would likely not as they'd probably lose their property laws (you must be 50% Samoan ancestry to own property there). At bare minimum, they should all be allowed to have a voting member in the House, especially if it uncapped.

This is not to "fix" the election for Democrats, but make it so that all Americans have equal representation in Congress.

[StrangeSox]

9 minutes ago, southsideirish71 said:

I don't remember this urgent need to add DC and Puerto Rico as states when Obama and Clinton were in office.  You are trying to terraform the legislative branch because you get sad that rural states have an equal say that other larger more populated states have.   This will do wonders for the political landscape here.  You are going to birth more Trump-like candidates with this.  

They were silly not to do it then but we're where we are today.

I get sad that a conservative minority gets default control over the majority unless the majority wins by a huge margin. PR and DC would be relatively low-pop states, anyway, so conservatives should *love* giving more low-pop people a voice in government! Dc would be 51st and PR would be 31st. Right up your alley of making sure every American citizen gets an adequate voice in government.

 

edit: for real, the entire history of the US Senate beyond the original 13 states and statehood admission is "terraforming the legislature." The Senate is a really bad system but that's been the workaround from Day 1. Every new state admission has been a political battle about what its boundaries should be because they'd determine political power in Congress. It's why we have two Dakotas!

 

edit: @Quin good point on PR. It's internal politics don't map directly to the rest of the US politics exactly, but they do regularly elect conservative politicians to office there. It's a state that's more likely than not going to send two Dem Senators, but not always.

Edited January 12, 2021 by StrangeSox

[southsider2k5]

2 minutes ago, southsideirish71 said:

I don't remember this urgent need to add DC and Puerto Rico as states when Obama and Clinton were in office.  You are trying to terraform the legislative branch because you get sad that rural states have an equal say that other larger more populated states have.   This will do wonders for the political landscape here.  You are going to birth more Trump-like candidates with this.  

You really don't remember then.  There were multiple tries during the Obama administration to get PR in for sure.

[StrangeSox]

3 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

You really don't remember then.  There were multiple tries during the Obama administration to get PR in for sure.

The "hypocrisy" in question here is giving every American citizen a voice in the federal government vs. violent insurrection to overturn the results of an election, don't forget.

[Quin]

2 minutes ago, southsideirish71 said:

I don't remember this urgent need to add DC and Puerto Rico as states when Obama and Clinton were in office.  You are trying to terraform the legislative branch because you get sad that rural states have an equal say that other larger more populated states have.   This will do wonders for the political landscape here.  You are going to birth more Trump-like candidates with this.  

Puerto Rico statehood was on the 2000 GOP agenda, it didn't have as much support in Puerto Rico.

Quote

We welcome greater participation in all aspects of the political process by Americans residing in Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the Northern Marianas, and Puerto Rico. Since no single approach can meet the needs of those diverse communities, we emphasize respect for their wishes regarding their relationship to the rest of the Union. We affirm their right to seek the full extension of the Constitution, with all the rights and responsibilities it entails.

---

We support the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state after they freely so determine. We recognize that Congress has the final authority to define the constitutionally valid options for Puerto Rico to achieve a permanent status with government by consent and full enfranchisement. As long as Puerto Rico is not a State, however, the will of its people regarding their political status should be ascertained by means of a general right of referendum or specific referenda sponsored by the United States government.

DC began rolling out it's "taxation without representation" license plates in 2000. Obama endorsed it in 2014, Clinton endorsed it in 1993 before a vote in the House, citing the fact that there is a place in the US where citizens are taxed but have no representation. 

[The Beast]

6 hours ago, Jack Parkman said:

I'm pretty neutral on Biden. I don't think he's going to change much, but if they could get an overhaul of the ACA to make it more affordable and student debt forgiveness passed that would be a huge win from a Biden administration. I am nowhere close to expecting things like M4A or the GND. 

Realistic goals: 

Some bit of student debt forgiveness, even if not complete. Programs for relief for people drowning.

ACA overhaul, making healthcare more affordable for the average American

Some sort of criminal justice reform

Enforcement of the Sherman Antitrust act for the first time in 40+ years

National infrastructure repair program to help boost the economy post-covid

 

 

 

 

Cool. What kind of student loan forgiveness could they get done that is reasonable and helps those who really need it? When you say ACA overhaul do you mean adding a public option and negotiating for prescription drug costs?

I am not expecting Medicare For All or the Green New Deal to become laws since I think it would take a supermajority to get these passed but I think the ACA overhaul and climate change policy could help both economically and with climate change itself.

I’ll have to research the Sherman Antitrust Act since I haven’t heard about that before. Infrastructure would be high on the list for me after COVID relief and health care.

What about the questions that I had about impeachment and the separate vote to strip him of holding federal office again? 

1 hour ago, StrangeSox said:

 

1. No. I'm very glad Trump lost. I'm glad the Democrats took the Senate and kept the House. I was bitterly disappointed that Biden won the primary.
2. Not a whole lot, but much more than I expected a week ago before the Dems took back the Senate* Particularly when it comes to vital state and local aid so we don't have a another massive wave of unemployment as vital services and functions are cut. I don't expect them to be able to end the filibuster or reform the courts, but if they're able to ditch the Byrd rule for reconciliation bills**, they may be able to pass important democratic/voting rights reform and potentially even DC/PR statehood. Their margin in both chambers of Congress is so slim that it'll be a big lift to get everyone on board for bold yet important policies, though.
3. Immediately
4. Acquittal because the GOP is a Trumpist party
5. Should use it along with the powers of the 14th to block him, but they won't.

 

*Assumes the violent fascist threat to our democracy is put down and the government can function in a somewhat normal manner

 

**Reconciliation bills give Congress a once-a-year ability to pass a bill with a simple majority that isn't subject to a filibuster. The GOP used that to try to get through an ACA repeal and then to push through tax cuts for billionaires. Currently, it's subject to the "Byrd rule" that limits it to financial matters only. Congress could choose to end that rule on a simple majority vote so that policy changes like voting rights or even statehood admittance could happen under reconciliation.

Cool, who did you want in the primary to take on Trump? I didn’t know that about the Byrd Rule so I’ll have to look that and some of the other wonky procedural rules up. I agree with the margins in congress being slim, that’s why I thought trying COVID relief before healthcare and infrastructure would be good ideas.

What do you think of Clyborn’s suggestion that the articles of impeachment not get transmitted until after Biden’s first 100 days? With the democrats in the majority of the senate by one vote (Kamala as VP), aren’t they able to call for a vote for stripping him of running for federal office?

Edited January 12, 2021 by The Beast

[southsider2k5]

Just now, StrangeSox said:

The "hypocrisy" in question here is giving every American citizen a voice in the federal government vs. violent insurrection to overturn the results of an election, don't forget.

If you look at the history of DC, I think the founders had a fear that having a federal capital inside of a state would provide some sort of an unfair benefit to some state.  I think in 2021, we can get past that fear.  I think the idea of just absorbing the District into the existing states of VA and MD makes sense, and would solve all of the problems for the residents of DC, without creating any of the political fall out.

PR is a different story.

[StrangeSox]

1 minute ago, The Beast said:

 

Cool, who did you want in the primary to take on Trump? I didn’t know that about the Byrd Rule so I’ll have to look that and some of the other wonky procedural rules up. I agree with the margins in congress being slim, that’s why I thought trying COVID relief before healthcare and infrastructure would be good ideas.

What do you think of Clyborn’s suggestion that the articles of impeachment not get transmitted until after Biden’s first 100 days? With the democrats in the majority of the senate by one vote (Kamala as VP), aren’t they able to call for a vote for stripping him of running for federal office?

Sanders. Congress is full of crazy parliamentary nonsense but so is every legislative body. Check out the history of the filibuster and how it was created completely on accident and wasn't really 'discovered' for years. https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/the-history-of-the-filibuster/

Clyborn's suggestion is terrible and was already shot down by other Dem leadership. You don't let all momentum from a serious issue dissipate before doing anything about it.  Biden's team is looking into the feasibility of splitting the Senate's time 50/50 on an impeachment trial (which won't be that long anyway) and regular legislative and cabinet confirmation business. 

I'm pretty sure that the vote via the impeachment powers to prevent Trump from ever holding federal office again is simple majority but he'd first have to be convicted in the Senate with 67 votes.

[Big Hurtin]

30 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

Meanwhile conservative politicians and media continue to threaten violence if there is any accountability

 

"look what you made me do"

Sounds exactly like terrorism to me.

[StrangeSox]

While their supporters and allies were violently storming the Capitol, members of the GOP inside were refusing basic measures like wearing masks. Three Democrats who were forced to shelter in place with them have now tested positive.

 

[The Beast]

26 minutes ago, southsideirish71 said:

I don't remember this urgent need to add DC and Puerto Rico as states when Obama and Clinton were in office.  You are trying to terraform the legislative branch because you get sad that rural states have an equal say that other larger more populated states have.   This will do wonders for the political landscape here.  You are going to birth more Trump-like candidates with this.  

Hugh Hewitt mentioned packing the Supreme Court and making PR and DC states repeatedly when discussing Georgia’s U.S. Senate Elections and my guess is that kind of rhetoric would continue to fire up the GOP base and impact the midterms in 2022. We’ll see...

25 minutes ago, Quin said:

I don't think you rig things, but make things more balanced if you do the following: 

• Uncap the House: This has been a massive oversight that has led to unequal representation for nearly a century. It seems like the House has been capped simply because the Capitol ran out of floor space (dumb reason) or because rural America wanted to kneecap populated centers (sinister reason). Some options include the Wyoming Rule and the Cube Root Rule, which is harder to explain, but is based on the U.S. population and not on the smallest state. It is worth noting that this would grow the Electoral College count.
• Give Puerto Rico statehood: PR isn't a guaranteed Democratic state - it's current non-voting rep caucuses with the GOP and its statehood has been on the GOP agenda. Politics there are different than politics on the mainland. Their 2020 vote passed statehood with actual turnout. If they want another vote, let them have it, but based on the most recent one, they deserve it.
• Give D.C. statehood: Yes, D.C. would be the most Democratic state in the union, but they pay federal taxes and have no federal representation. Also, as Trump just demonstrated, they have no ability to govern their own boundaries if there's a hostile situation. Maryland and Virginia have both stated they don't want them. Maybe the National Mall can become something similar to the Vatican where it governs itself, but the city deserves representation.
• The U.S. Virgin Islands/Guam/American Samoa/Mariana Islands question: We've been allowing states like Wyoming to have extreme power for so long with low population, I think it's time we have a real conversation about the non-Puerto Rico territories. Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands have decent sized populations (100k+) and may go for it. American Samoa would likely not as they'd probably lose their property laws (you must be 50% Samoan ancestry to own property there). At bare minimum, they should all be allowed to have a voting member in the House, especially if it uncapped.

This is not to "fix" the election for Democrats, but make it so that all Americans have equal representation in Congress.

I’d be open for debate and voting on making PR and DC states but would rather not rush through the debate so that it is clear to voters why it is necessary. I don’t think a lot of people fully understand issues like these and need more education on the why before voting to actually do it.

10 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

Sanders. Congress is full of crazy parliamentary nonsense but so is every legislative body. Check out the history of the filibuster and how it was created completely on accident and wasn't really 'discovered' for years. https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/the-history-of-the-filibuster/

Clyborn's suggestion is terrible and was already shot down by other Dem leadership. You don't let all momentum from a serious issue dissipate before doing anything about it.  Biden's team is looking into the feasibility of splitting the Senate's time 50/50 on an impeachment trial (which won't be that long anyway) and regular legislative and cabinet confirmation business. 

I'm pretty sure that the vote via the impeachment powers to prevent Trump from ever holding federal office again is simple majority but he'd first have to be convicted in the Senate with 67 votes.

The option of spending half of the time on impeachment is better than full time on it. I like Clyborn’s idea but only because I am concerned about getting things done for voters and doing so before the midterms. I fear that spending too much time on impeachment might not sit well with people from moderate or purple districts who want to see things get done in Washington. From what I have read about impeachment and Trump not holding office again you are right about 2/3 and a majority.

[illinilaw08]

1 hour ago, Chisoxfn said:

Look at you - giving the right a hard time for them not believing an election is fixed and here you are with your first order of business to just rig things to the other side. Totally hypocritical and an awful look if that is what the parties were to do.    

This isn't "rigging things."  Give every American a representative voice in the House and the Senate.  "No taxation without representation" was the rallying call the American Republic was founded upon.

Republican policies seek to make it more difficult to vote (voter ID laws, no vote by mail, limited ballot drop-off locations in heavily Democratic areas of red states) because of a statistically irrelevant fraud concern (or more cynically because they know greater participation is bad for them).  Democratic policies seek to make it easier to vote and give every American citizen who wants it* a voice in the House and Senate.  If the Republican Party is convinced that greater participation in our republic is bad for them politically, perhaps they should embrace policies which can earn them votes among a greater share of the population.

* If PR, DC, Guam, American Samoa, etc. don't want to be a state, fine.  But saying, "you can't make them a state because they will vote a certain way" is silly.

** If Maryland or Virginia were willing to take DC, that's fine.  But if they aren't, an urban area with a greater population than Wyoming shouldn't be left without representation solely because they are going to vote in a way you don't like.

[Dick Allen]

Why would people attack if Trump is impeached again? I thought the right was very peaceful. Certainly Antifa and BLM who were supposedly mascarating  as Trump supporters and attacked the capital, won't be pissed off.

When are these dopes going to get their story straight?

Edited January 12, 2021 by Dick Allen

[CentralChamps21]

45 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

There's currently a very heavy skew across all levels of the Federal government in favor of conservatives. Democrats need to win the House and Presidency by 5-8% or more,

 

Increasing the size of the House to 1000 helps with both of those, and IMO it's worth trading DC statehood to get it if that's what it takes. What the people of DC really deserve is representation and they get that be becoming part of Maryland.

[Soxbadger]

12 minutes ago, illinilaw08 said:

This isn't "rigging things."  Give every American a representative voice in the House and the Senate.  "No taxation without representation" was the rallying call the American Republic was founded upon.

Republican policies seek to make it more difficult to vote (voter ID laws, no vote by mail, limited ballot drop-off locations in heavily Democratic areas of red states) because of a statistically irrelevant fraud concern (or more cynically because they know greater participation is bad for them).  Democratic policies seek to make it easier to vote and give every American citizen who wants it* a voice in the House and Senate.  If the Republican Party is convinced that greater participation in our republic is bad for them politically, perhaps they should embrace policies which can earn them votes among a greater share of the population.

* If PR, DC, Guam, American Samoa, etc. don't want to be a state, fine.  But saying, "you can't make them a state because they will vote a certain way" is silly.

** If Maryland or Virginia were willing to take DC, that's fine.  But if they aren't, an urban area with a greater population than Wyoming shouldn't be left without representation solely because they are going to vote in a way you don't like.

I for one think it is only fair if we add in 1 slave state for every non slave state. How else will our country survive if we dont give equal representation to slave holders in the Senate!

Edited January 12, 2021 by Soxbadger

[Soxbadger]

Just now, WhiteSoxFan1993 said:

Increasing the size of the House to 1000 helps with both of those, and IMO it's worth trading DC statehood to get it if that's what it takes. What the people of DC really deserve is representation and they get that be becoming part of Maryland.

Those are 2 separate issues that should not be tied together. DC citizens shouldnt have their rights marginalized to make CA citizens less marginalized. The answer should be that we try and make all votes count equally in the House and Presidential elections, and that in the Senate is 2 per state irrespective of population.

The sad part is that as populations move, these ideas could burn Democrats in the future. But doing the right thing isnt about wins or losses. 

[illinilaw08]

Just now, WhiteSoxFan1993 said:

Increasing the size of the House to 1000 helps with both of those, and IMO it's worth trading DC statehood to get it if that's what it takes. What the people of DC really deserve is representation and they get that be becoming part of Maryland.

The Senate is a bigger problem from a representation standpoint though because it simply has more power than the House.  The Senate confirms judges with lifetime appointments, treaties, etc.  The current Senate split is 50/50, but the half with D senators represents 41,549,808 more people than the Republican half.  So even if you increased the House to make it more small d democratic (more representative of the US population at large rather than by party), you still have a system which allows a minority party to control the Senate, which in turn controls who controls the federal judiciary.  

 

 

[CentralChamps21]

Just now, Soxbadger said:

Those are 2 separate issues that should not be tied together. DC citizens shouldnt have their rights marginalized to make CA citizens less marginalized. The answer should be that we try and make all votes count equally in the House and Presidential elections, and that in the Senate is 2 per state irrespective of population.

The sad part is that as populations move, these ideas could burn Democrats in the future. But doing the right thing isnt about wins or losses. 

Being a part of Maryland instead of their own state is not being marginalized. It's fair.

[Soxbadger]

Just now, WhiteSoxFan1993 said:

Being a part of Maryland instead of their own state is not being marginalized. It's fair.

I dont believe the people of DC want to be a part of Maryland and also Maryland doesnt want DC.

[Quin]

1 minute ago, WhiteSoxFan1993 said:

Being a part of Maryland instead of their own state is not being marginalized. It's fair.

Maryland doesn't want them though.

[StrangeSox]

1 minute ago, illinilaw08 said:

The Senate is a bigger problem from a representation standpoint though because it simply has more power than the House.  The Senate confirms judges with lifetime appointments, treaties, etc.  The current Senate split is 50/50, but the half with D senators represents 41,549,808 more people than the Republican half.  So even if you increased the House to make it more small d democratic (more representative of the US population at large rather than by party), you still have a system which allows a minority party to control the Senate, which in turn controls who controls the federal judiciary.  

 

 

Exactly. You want to talk about a rigged system, there you go. Strongly outvoted for the Senate, yet still almost kept control. Outvoted in the House by five million, yet still gained seats. Lost the Presidency by 8 million votes nationally, yet came within 40k across three states of winning it again. Taking measures to make a more representative and equitable system is the opposite of rigging.