Quo Vadis GOP?

[Razgovory]

There is, IMO, a significant difference between an article saying "here are some words you may want to think twice about using, for these reasons..." (even of some of those reasons seem a bit spurious) and "here's a list of words that we - in our capacity as officials - are banning in the school system."

And to be clear, I think the second one is significantly worse.

it starts with the first, though.
US Republicans complained about insensitive words for years, now Texas has a list of words teachers can't use in class.

"sigh"

[Oexmelin]

Georgia Republicans purge Black Democrats from county election boards

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/georgia-republicans-purge-black-democrats-county-election-boards-2021-12-09/

[Eddie Teach]

32.5% of Massachusetts voters went for Trump. My understanding is that it would be difficult to draw a map where Trump voters were a majority in a Massachusetts house district.

What does that have to do with the price of bagels?

Maybe Trump voters have less demand for bagels, so in places with more of them the price goes down? 

[grumbler]

TRUMP'S NEXT COUP HAS ALREADY BEGUN
January 6 was practice. Donald Trump's GOP is much better positioned to subvert the next election.

By Barton Gellman

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/01/january-6-insurrection-trump-coup-2024-election/620843/

Interesting/terrifying read.

[Oexmelin]

This is my routine reminder that you need to get involved ASAP in local politics. As well as prepare mentally for what you will do when the Republicans overthrow election results. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/01/january-6-insurrection-trump-coup-2024-election/620843/

[DGuller]

To me it seemed like a blunder to focus so much on the infrastructure bill instead of protecting democracy.  So much political capital expended on a policy that ultimately won't matter if democracy falls.

[Habbaku]

The road to fascism will be well-paved.

[Razgovory]

To me it seemed like a blunder to focus so much on the infrastructure bill instead of protecting democracy.  So much political capital expended on a policy that ultimately won't matter if democracy falls.

Either we overestimate the danger or Democratic leadership underestimates it.

[Sheilbh]

To me it seemed like a blunder to focus so much on the infrastructure bill instead of protecting democracy.  So much political capital expended on a policy that ultimately won't matter if democracy falls.

I think it depends. I think a big driver of Trump is the perception that politics as normal has failed and can no longer get things done.

Especially when you compare it to Obama, I think there's a case that the best argument you can make for the system and for a Democratic President is getting things done that actually have an impact on people's lives. And I think there is every chance that in four years time we may be in a Biden boom with visible improvements to communities which supports re-election, plus a focus on local government (and I think the thing I find baffling is why - 10 years on from the catastropher of 2010 I still get the sense that Democrats aren't as focused on state races). If your goal is to defend the current democratic system then I think there's an argument the best way to do that is by showing it can work - and ultimately procedure or a finely balanced constitution is never going to be enough to save a democracy if it stops working or one side opts out.

I think the Voting Rights Act should absolutely be a priority, but aside from that fiddling with procedures on the rules of how your democracy functions is stuff that voters normally don't care about and is largely seen as self-indulgent. That's why big constitution writing or reforming tend to happen in "constitutional moments" like a revolution, post-occupation etc rather than in normal years when it all functions and legislation is passed etc. The challenge for America always comes back to the core issue that both sides occupy different realities but think there's an existential risk - for Republicans it's the (false) risk of elections being stolen, for Democrats it's the (valid) risk of valid elections being nullified.

On the state thing I find it baffling - it's a bit like I read that Democrat consultants are advising to not put abortion/the Supreme Court as big issues because they don't think it works because Virginia. I think the reason Republicans are in the position they're in is because of relentless focus on the court, on states, on judges - and these consultants sound like they're not even on the same pitch and wondering why they keep losing to a party that is, at the minute, at best winning about 46% of the vote

[Valmy]

I mean the Republicans are pretty well positioned to win the election legit in 2022. It seems a bit crazy for them to launch some big coup at this point. But hey some of their leaders are pretty detached from reality, I guess it is possible they really do believe the Democrats have been going around stealing elections with their voting machines and ballots shipped in from China and shit.

[Valmy]

To me it seemed like a blunder to focus so much on the infrastructure bill instead of protecting democracy.  So much political capital expended on a policy that ultimately won't matter if democracy falls.

I mean if they don't do the infrastructure bill, and all the other legislation, then what the fuck are they even doing up there? Besides can they protect democracy using a reconciliation bill? It seems like some big voting rights bill will just get filibustered anyway.

[alfred russel]

32.5% of Massachusetts voters went for Trump. My understanding is that it would be difficult to draw a map where Trump voters were a majority in a Massachusetts house district.

What does that have to do with the price of bagels?

I was talking about minority population groups and their control of districts in first past the post electoral systems. That doesn't have anything to do with the price of bagels.

[The Minsky Moment]

I was talking about minority population groups and their control of districts in first past the post electoral systems. That doesn't have anything to do with the price of bagels.

I thought we were taking about districting in Texas; you brought Massachusetts to a gunfight.

Although it's true Edlbridge Gerry himself hailed from the Bay State, in the 21st century Mass has had pretty clean districts that follow rational geography, as opposed to the recent abstract art production of the GOP in Texas.  Because partisanship does not vary extremely across the Mass - only the counties around Springfield and a bunch near RI went for Trump in 2020 and even then not by much (mid 50s).  It would still be possible to get a GOP safe House district out of Mass even on the 2020 voting pattern but at this moment in history it would require creative drawing.

The one exception to generally clean districting in Mass is the 7th - a salamander-style district deliberately carved to generate a majority-minority district - i.e. the opposite of what Texas was doing.  Thus, even though Mass is a very white state - the non-Hispanic white pop of Mass is over 70% compared to ~40% for Texas - Ayanna Pressley was elected out of the 7th.

This is not rocket science and the math is not that complicated - any set of reasonably diligent college graduates on a state legislative staff can go through maps and census data and screw around with districts to either make minority candidates more viable than a neutral apportionment would permit, less viable, or the same.  Mass went one way, Texas the other.  You can quibble about measuring the magnitude of the effects, you can't reasonably contest the intent and directionality.

[alfred russel]

I was talking about minority population groups and their control of districts in first past the post electoral systems. That doesn't have anything to do with the price of bagels.

I thought we were taking about districting in Texas; you brought Massachusetts to a gunfight.

Although it's true Edlbridge Gerry himself hailed from the Bay State, in the 21st century Mass has had pretty clean districts that follow rational geography, as opposed to the recent abstract art production of the GOP in Texas.  Because partisanship does not vary extremely across the Mass - only the counties around Springfield and a bunch near RI went for Trump in 2020 and even then not by much (mid 50s).  It would still be possible to get a GOP safe House district out of Mass even on the 2020 voting pattern but at this moment in history it would require creative drawing.

The one exception to generally clean districting in Mass is the 7th - a salamander-style district deliberately carved to generate a majority-minority district - i.e. the opposite of what Texas was doing.  Thus, even though Mass is a very white state - the non-Hispanic white pop of Mass is over 70% compared to ~40% for Texas - Ayanna Pressley was elected out of the 7th.

This is not rocket science and the math is not that complicated - any set of reasonably diligent college graduates on a state legislative staff can go through maps and census data and screw around with districts to either make minority candidates more viable than a neutral apportionment would permit, less viable, or the same.  Mass went one way, Texas the other.  You can quibble about measuring the magnitude of the effects, you can't reasonably contest the intent and directionality.

I was discussing the point below, which is dumb.

It's not apparent to me what percentage of districts *should* be controlled by groups that constitute 39 and 12% of the population.

More than 18%, for a start.

[The Minsky Moment]

You can quibble about measuring the magnitude of the effects, you can't reasonably contest the intent and directionality.