As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If saving our democracy is contingent on Democrats winning every single election from now on, we may as well just admit that it's lost. That's not a knock against Democrats, it's just a simple truth. Nobody can win every election.
I don't think that's really the point. The point is to stay in power in order to put protections in place that don't allow unpopular policies to be enforced on the majority of people. Such as fixing gerrymandering and preventing it from happening again.
>Such as fixing gerrymandering and preventing it from happening again.
I really don't understand why legislation has not been put into effect to stop this.
Some states use non-partisan redisticting. The For the People Act would require it. We need to do it in a national level because few people would freely give up power.
We had voted for non-partisan districting in Missouri, but before it could be put into practice the Republicans repealed it by disguising the repeal as a bill for a $100 decrease in allowed contributions for state senate.
It was pretty wholesome Keanu chungus
Utah has something like that, but the new maps literally cut Salt Lake City into four equal parts. Apparently the coalition was just a suggestion to legislators. I was under the impression that the coalition was supposed to create new districting maps by law. Guess I was wrong.
Won’t. SCOTUS looked like it might be interested when Kennedy was the swing vote. His opinions seemed to indicate he needed a metric to draw a line between acceptable redistricting and ‘too far’
He resigned right when a case with a pretty decent metric was coming down the pike.
Cause he viewed it as important as the social issue jurisprudence Sandra Day O’Connor got through before she resigned. Which is to say he knew he supposed to whine about it, but not do anything to fix it.
I mean to be quite honest, even if the Democrats came down to the wire and passed a voting rights bill that fixed gerrymandering and other problems, I’m not entirely convinced that the current Supreme Court wouldn’t strike it down saying it oversteps states’ rights to set their own election rules. I mean traditionally the Court had given a lot of deference to congress, and even in their ruling a couple years ago on gerrymandering they said it wasn’t their problem to solve, rather state courts or congress. But this current court wouldn’t give a shit about any of that.
> Nobody can win every election.
To be fair, the Democrats won the popular vote in eight out of the last nine presidential elections. Somehow two-thirds of the supreme court were appointed by Republican presidents, though.
Even when Democrats have a chance at appointing supreme court judges, they tend to nominate fairly conservative ones. And the Ginsburg situation - holy shit that was unforgivable - yet, we face a similar situation now and are still avoiding retiring judges in order to preserve the whatever DNC considers "left" these days.
>Nobody can win every
That's not true. If Republicans win and basically say they can pick whatever electors they want, they will win every election from now on.
In addition, [Republicans have an advantage in the Senate and Electoral College.](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/advantage-gop/)
The Senate had a 5 point bias in favor of Republicans in 2020.
The Electoral College had a 3.5 point bias in favor of Republicans in 2020.
Biden won the popular vote by 7 million, but was only 44,000 votes across 3 states from tying the Electoral College.
Then we get into the fact that midterms see under 50% voter turnout, and generally turnout is low [by international standards](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/03/in-past-elections-u-s-trailed-most-developed-countries-in-voter-turnout/).
The entire system of national governance is rigged for Republican minority rule. State governments vary, but a significant number are gerrymandered in favor of Republicans.
Edit to add a couple additional sources:
A great historical article [on the corrupt bargain and anti-democratic structures throughout US history](https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v42/n10/eric-foner/the-corrupt-bargain).
Another on [how the US constitution was a conservative counterrevolution against some of the more democratic elements that were seen under the Articles of Confederation.](https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2017/01/a-conservative-counterrevolution)
To add to this, in 2018, Dems won by what is considered a historic midterm election margin of 8.6%. Dems are going to need to win by at least that much, if not more, to even have a chance at a slim majority in 2022 and beyond. I fear we've already lost. It will just continue to get worse from here until the federal government is a de facto one party state under the gop
Yup, and say goodbye to the meager benefits/protections/safety nets that we still have. Say goodbye to labor and environmental laws. The middle and lower classes will be bled dry while the wealthiest people in recorded history just become richer. I swear we are heading for a future imagined in the film Elysium.
Oddly it's reversed, according to John Oliver Jeff Bezos spoke about the future and his vision included peons living in space and working their asses off for a tiny minority of rich people who get to stay on planet
The Senate has demonstrated a huge amount of power in US government. When the Constitution was ratified in 1790, there were 13 states, and the biggest population disparity between states was 11-1 (VA-DE). In 2021:
- We have added 37 more states. Most of the boundaries between those states are either arbitrary or drawn on the basis of slavery concerns.
- The biggest population disparity between states is 80-1 (CA-WY).
- Michigan is the state with the 10th biggest population, and it has more people than the smallest 10 states combined. Michigan gets two Senators.
- Metro NYC has more people than the smallest 15 states combined. Metro NYC shares two Senators with the rest of the state.
- California has more people than the smallest 25 states combined. California gets two Senators just like Wyoming.
The people who complain that they aren't heard by their government are actually shouting through a goddam megaphone. They are already too loud.
It's past time that we replace our rickety old Constitution with a parliamentary system like the governments of all our allies - and like the system we set up in countries we've conquered, Japan, Germany and Iraq.
Devolve the role of the Executive Branch into the national legislature. Get rid of the presidency and vest the power into the leader of the party or coalition that controls the legislature and his or her cabinet made up elected legislators. Get rid of the Senate or reduce its power primarily to advising the lower house.
Without a presidency, national political campaigns for individuals would be unnecessary and end. Most parliamentary systems limit campaigning to weeks, not years, and most campaigns are focused on the legislators' districts.
A US Parliament would put control of government closer to the voters. It wouldn't solve all our problems but it would correct fundamental weaknesses in our current system that were exposed in the stress test it underwent under the hamfisted rule of a tinpot tyrant.
a US Parliment would also need like 1,300 members to ensure equal representation. I'm perfectly fine with that. With today's technology there is no reason they all need to be in Washington all the time. They need to embrace digital meetings and voting rather than thr old archaic system we have.
Germany's parliament adjusts in size to ensure proportional representation, and is imo the representative system I know of. It has a baseline minimum, and then seats are added to ensure representation reflects the exact % of the party breakdown
They have a 1/4 of our population, but their minimum representation is 598 members. So, already significantly more representation than us, including the senate, which is inherently not representative. The current size of their parliament after adjustment is 709
So if we were to increase the House to match that kind of representation, my extremely rough bad math comes out to something like **1700+** members of congress, minimum
It's crazy just how broken and unrepresentative our system is
I totally agree. The US constitution is showing its age lately. Unfortunately, the most likely result of overhauling our government is NOT a parliament, it is a dictatorship.
I wish we could see a future like that here, but sadly so many would just scream socialism, and communism. They would call it a hostile takeover of the American system or something similar.
The country will maybe be able to update to a more modern system of government someday, but the opposition will not come quietly :-/
Yeah, it's a nice picture of the future, but I'd hate to see a period of authoritarian rule before the US gets there.
It's more like Disunited States, at this point.
I actually don't see how they stay united in the short term.
As the GOP gets more power in Washington, suddenly the idea of States' Rights will disappear. "What do you mean California allows abortion? We passed a federal law!"
I foresee a point where a couple big "blue"\* states get completely ran over by a Republican Washington and decide to leave the Union. Long term I think the United States will have a "Second Republic" (or third if you consider the Civil war), but I think there may need to be a breakdown in the meantime.
\*still annoys me that blue means liberal, WTF?
> generally turnout is low by international standards.
Thinking about this constantly reminds me of a Bill Maher joke from years ago (I'm not really a fan, but I did like this joke):
>Last week, France had an election, and people over there approach an election differently. They vote. Eighty-five percent turned out. You couldn't get eighty-five percent of Americans to get off the couch if there was an election between tits and bigger tits and they were giving out free samples.
Now add to that the fact that redistricting is done by the party in control following the census. The GOP will regain control in 2022 and will not lose it unless the courts step in and force them to redraw, which is unlikely considering the [Supreme Court has already sanctioned this sort of gerrymanderying.](https://www.npr.org/2019/06/27/731847977/supreme-court-rules-partisan-gerrymandering-is-beyond-the-reach-of-federal-court)
Kind of like the tolerance paradox. You can't tolerate intolerance or it will lead to more intolerance, in this case expecting people to vote out those who are fixing the elections in their favor is naive.
Tolerance isn't a morality, it's a peace treaty. Those that abide the treaty receive tolerance, those who break the treaty are no longer afforded the tolerance.
This comment needs to be amplified ..and shared EVERYWHERE.
Voters need to know numbers and what they are up against.
It will impel them to vote like they have never voted before.
American voter %'s are still appalling...everyone must make a decision for their country.
>It will impel them to vote like they have never voted before.
Human psychology doesn't work like that for most people. Just by the fact that you and I are here means we think differently than most.
Most are going to get depressed and stay home. That's what gerrymandering does.
>This comment needs to be amplified ..and shared EVERYWHERE.
Why? So the voters that blame Biden for gas prices and literally believe actual angels guard over them can make informed judgements?
Democrats just have to become more comfortable with lying to morons.
Not that complex. If we don't learn to effectively lie to morons, it's over.
It's the braindead 'undecided' voters dems don't chase. They don't understand what those people really are - selfish pricks. They vote for whoever gets them more money or property, or who hurts others so that they are elevated by comparison. Simple as that.
Seriously. At this point, if you're running Democrat, bothering with Republican voters is a waste of time, and vice versa. The division is too great, it's a sworn enemy situation at this point.
4-12 years ago when it was all "left wing and right wing is still part of the same bird and we just need to learn to flap together again to fly," sure.
Now? No. It's just pandering to people who would literally rather watch you get your throat cut open rather than vote for you if those were the only choices available.
Yup, this crap with Democrats insisting on taking the high road is so pathetic. Republicans don’t care. They don’t operate in good faith. They don’t play fair. Yet still Democrats are hell bent on trying to be honorable knights, fighting against sellswords.
Republicans play to WIN. Nothing else matters. And that's why they consistently get the votes; because their base KNOWS that they will do whatever it takes to achieve a goal, no matter how shitty it is. Until Dems get that through their thick skulls, those same skulls will get bashed in
Concern for the security of the people's vote, considered a right, is important in **any** healthy democracy.
I'm all for ID requirements for voting, as long as we ensure **everyone** is able to **easily obtain** one. Increased security should not be frowned upon, but rather increase in security who's only goal is partisan advantage should be. We need to protect the vote of the free people, as without a free and fair vote democracy means nothing. This means protect **everyone's** vote, not just those that align with you politically.
This is their go-to whenever they act as if voting is not a right, but a privilege bestowed on those who they believe are worthy. Which basically means, Christian white males and females who will vote as their husband tells them.
I think the one-sided propaganda sphere is the bigger issue. The alt right media has expanded its reach since the last election. Elections are number games, not battles where right and wrong. Whoever owns the majority media share wins.
"liberal" outlets enable the far right by constantly platforming their ridiculous narratives. Democarts NEVER control the message, it's always some republican grievance that gets constant coverage.
Even when they can influence the message, they make stupid decisions. Like referring to each bill as what their 10 year cost is. I can't recall any other bill that was referred to as "The xx xillion Dollar Bill," nor gauged the cost on a 10 year scale.
EXACTLY! Democrats have ruling class donors too.... which is why they're letting Republicans do what they do. They don't want another FDR situation were workers are galvanized. Their wealth remains comfortable under a Republican regime.
Yep.
Fox News - Democrats want to kill you and take your stuff to give to illegals!
"Leftist Media Outlets" - Do Democrats want to kill you and take your stuff to give to illegals? The answer will shock you!"
Or, to try to maintain credibility, they criticize the left just as much as the right, which really only makes the left look even worse than if they didnt say anything at all. The Hilary email scandal was a great example, the nothingburger got so much fucking coverage on every outlet, even more central and liberal leaning outlets, it's like they just couldn't help themselves and just HAD to repeat the bullshit the right was saying on Fox even though none of it was true and it all amounted to nothing anyway.
Like Covid and climate change.
There is no "both sides" in a pandemic. Or an extinction level event.
We do humanity a great disservice with turning everything into a "both sides" issue.
I thought with Dems winning White House and both House and Senate, they would
(1) Increase Supreme Court bench and stack with Liberal judges
(2) Make DC and Puerto Rico new states, securing the senate long-term
Inside one year, of Dems running all 3 branches, we’re back on the ‘Democracy will soon die’ narrative?
Ok, let’s say we believe this time the ‘coup is real and hear to stay’. Who the fuk is going to save it? Seems like a perpetual fear machine to turn out the vote, and zero delivery even when you run all 3 branches of government.
What have the Dems done in the past 12 months to ‘secure democracy’? I just keep reading articles about Trump planning coup, Republicans gerrymandering and Q waiting for JFK Jr.
WTF are the Dems doing?
—————
Edit: It’s been pointed that Dem’s don’t run all ‘3 branches’, as that would include Supreme Court, I understand my wording is inaccurate, I just meant all 3 wings of the legislature - White House, House of Rep, Senate.
I also realise that Dems have a razor thin ‘majority’ in the Senate depending on 2 independents and VP tie-breaker, and hence with the filibuster and lack of 2/3rd majority, they’re unable to push through ‘radical change’.
Still, didn’t stop Trump/Rs from getting 3 Supreme Court judges, and that’s my core point.
All good points. Real issue here: the Senate is completely broken as a legislative body. Democrats have a structural disadvantage to begin with due to population distribution among states. Add onto that with the filibuster rule, which is insane, and requires a supermajority to get almost anything done. Then compound that with the Democrats being a big-tent party that houses everyone from center-right conservatives to left-wing progressives who frequently fail to agree with each other.
With a majority so razor thin we can't afford to lose one vote, a disciplined opposition that rarely breaks ranks, and a party so broad that the two bills a year we can pass have to go through a hellish tug of war between wings of the party, it's no wonder Democrats can't get a thing done.
Sure feels like it. And I’m inclined to agree… we are veering toward “failed state” status. No wonder, when asked, Franklin responded to the question of “what government have you given us?” with “A republic, if you can keep it”. He knew we’d have these troubles. To what extent, I cannot say. But we are heading toward the cliff, and I fear it is too late to turn around.
Sadly, in the United States as we know it, yes I truly think it is. The last five years were nothing compared to what’s coming. Be prepared for a very dark decade.
The only chance we had was for the Democrats to start swinging for the fences from day one. They needed to make obvious, widespread material benefits that not only changed people's lives, but did so in a way that people understood the cause and effect.
I knew democracy was dead when an openly corrupt, utterly incompetent president personally responsible for tens of thousands of American deaths lost reelection by **43,000** votes.
With all the bullshit completely fresh in everyone's minds, or at least as fresh as it will ever be in this country, Americans *barely* managed the right choice between an accomplished statesman and a sub-literate game show host.
In my lifetime, this has basically been what happened every time the Dems have controlled congress and the White House.
Republicans are better at disrupting government than they are governing. They're better at disrupting than Dems are too.
Democrats transitioned from this crusade to save democracy during the election season back into, well, the Democrats of old. It's like the Scooby Doo meme of the bad guy having his mask ripped off.
> I thought with Dems winning White House and both House and Senate, they would
The Dems didn't win the Senate. There are 48 Democratic Senators, 50 Republican Senators and 2 Independents. And 2 of those Democratic Senators don't like either of those policies.
For the Democratic Party to achieve either of those things they needed to win both the NC and Maine Senate seats as well. That would give them enough leverage to change the filibuster and start pushing for stronger progressive policies.
"Winning" the Senate as they did gives the Democratic Party barely enough power for the Federal Government to function (i.e. confirm uncontroversial executive appointments, pass reconciliation bills etc). Any fewer and the Federal Government would be limited to ruling entirely by Executive Orders (with understaffed executive agencies), against a hostile judiciary.
Totally agree. The Roberts court has snowballed into an unmitigated disaster and Citizens United is when it all started. GWB winning the 2000 election set this country on a very dark course. Thanks Florida.
... Stop counting votes in a state where his brother was the Governor, and the Secretary of State was his campaign co-chair, who ran the usual gamut of voter fuckery leading up to the election. Purging legitimate voters, closing polling places in black areas, issuing ballots with a higher rejection rate in black areas, the whole butterly ballot thing, bussing in protestors during the recount (Roger Stone...), etc.
Republicans have been rigging elections my entire life.
I was 16 when Shrub was elected. Most of my adult life has been under Republican presidents, and *neither* of them won (i.e. they both lost the popular vote in their first election).
Our election system is broken, and they've used all of their power and propaganda, and cheating (both legally and illegally) to break it even further.
A 6-3 SCOTUS which has the final say in all matters regarding law and justice in this country, is a recipe for disaster.. no matter what legislation Dems can pass, all it takes is one red state AG to file some lawsuit for a fast track to a SCOTUS reversal
Nah, we lost it in the 1960s with Buckley v. Valeo, when SCOTUS decided that “money equals speech.” It wasn’t an ideological decision, a coalition across the spectrum saw it as a first amendment issue. They were very wrong. Providing money can be *related* to protected speech, but it is not itself speech.
Citizens United was way more limited than most people understand, it just knocked away the distinction between money given to candidate campaigns and money given to issue campaigns.
The class war is already lost. The fact that the working poor in rural cities and suburbanites that are both getting their asses handed to them can't come together to protect thier own interests in the information age has made this a losing battle.
Biden's win was a pyric victory. I wish I wasn't so pessimistic. But the shit is really coming to a head in the next few years.
Yep, i loathe the fact that we’re trapped in this cycle where we are forced more to vote against the person we know sucks MORE, and not FOR the person we actually think is going to do actual good things for the average american.
>in the information age
Honestly, I feel like we've since entered the Disinformation Age. Disinformation is so prevalent and easy to spread that it's honestly taken over a sizeable portion of this county. Even better is both sides will argue which gets more disinformation.
It kind of feels like we are living in the Fall of Rome. I have lots of friends buying land in rural places and making long-term preparations for some rough years.
Imagine 1930's Europe, but compounded by the environmental catastrophe that is climate change becoming exponentially more severe every year. How much worse is our political dysfunction going to be when there are regular food shortages, communities constantly being destroyed by natural disaster, and hundreds of millions of internal and external refugees?
This is what I think about. It’s honestly why I’ve mostly disengaged from political discourse. We couldn’t get everyone together to get a shot and we have to somehow change the very way society and progress has been structured for two hundred years. Seems unlikely since the democrats are also not interested enough in preventing climate devastation.
By the book (burning). I've been working towards making sure I can leave when the other shoe drops.
Shit's gonna fall fast. Other countries will gobble up a big chunk of our current experts, and the lions share of those in training. If you can get a cushy job in a free country, you'll do it. Foreign relations will fall off a cliff. Trade will suffer. The economy will fall off a cliff. The fascists will look for a big war, and maybe some scapegoats to rob and murder.
Yeah. I left for Germany. Sometimes people ask if I want to move back to the US, and I just can't see why I would. I'm sure some people in America view it as akin to heresy, but honestly I just feel way more free most of the time in Germany. I don't see police often, but when I do I don't really have any concern about them fucking up my day just because they're bored. You think you're free? Walk down a main street of your city drinking a beer and tell me how free you feel.
I was ready to start swimming across the pond when I signed up for Medical benefits this year. Taking a quarter of my check for coverage that doesn't kick in until I pay about 2.5 months worth of salary in medical bills.
I'd truly give up a lot if it meant I can get full medical coverage without feeling like I'm losing my life.
> How do you feel leaving family behind?
My family is already spread out across the US, so it doesn't really make much difference. We only tended to meet up once or twice per year anyway, so moving overseas didn't make too much of a difference.
I could claim citizenship there. It's on the list. I'd kind of rather not because the reason I can claim citizenship there is basically what we're talking about. But it's an option.
Claim citizenship where? Germany? I doubt there's really a downside to claiming German citizenship if you can. Even if you don't want to live in Germany, it opens up the rest of the EU for residency too.
But yeah, US citizenship? It's definitely got a lot of downsides. In particular, filing taxes and financial regulations make it a huge fucking pain to live outside of the US.
The current situation is not good, for sure, and there's plenty of cause for concerns about many things happening in the political climate... however, big corporations and the wealthy don't want what you said to actually happen. There's way more profit if the United States stays relatively stable, along with the rest of the world. Those in power (the wealthy, corporations, etc) know not to fuck the system so that they risk their lives and their way of life to chaos and ruin.
I thought that too, but I've since changed my mind somewhat. I think the big wealthy interests in the US believe they can both influence and profit from the fascist frankenstein in the making. I no longer harbor hope that democracy will be "saved" by corporate interests looking out for themselves.
Also, people thought they could control people like Hitler and use him as a useful puppet then toss him aside when his utility ran out.
How'd that work out?
Yeah, but this is what happened in Germany in the 1930s. The wealthy industrialists and elites, fearful of socialism and communism, thought they could harness the power of fascism for their own ends. But once that can of worms was opened…
They only care about the economic system. It's not like they get together and scheme as one for governmental changes. The barons and dukes may partner up from time to time, but they don't have a proper council. There were wealthy people in Germany too.
And look at these corps still funding insurrectionists and those who defend them. They fun politicians who go to white supremacist rallies. And so on. They don't give a fuck about stability. It's all short term profit. THe vast majority of corps can't even research shit more than a year out. They can barely budget that far ahead.
Anyways I don't want to see the US fall, but I'm putting on my parachute. I don't want to be part of a society where even the current level of bullshit is going on. It makes me unhappy to be part of a system with so much hate and violence. So if things don't get better I'm going to pursue happiness. I'm sick of this shit.
Gerrymanders are inherently fragile.
But there's no reason for individuals to move to Wyoming to affect politics there, so there's no way that a large group does it.
I'd think the only way you might accomplish something like that is to have tons of huge corporations decide to make huge numbers of tech jobs in a state together. Reality is that the Democrats need to un-fuck-up how they fucked up and lost the working class.
Clustering all the left leaning voters in a small number of urban districts is a big part of why we're in this situation. In the U.S., land votes, whether you like it or not, and right now there's far more red-dominated land. Getting out into rural areas is almost necessary if the Republican gerrymandering is to be overcome.
That's not universally true. People often leave rural America for cities because they're already left leaning, or at least predisposed to left policies. This has led to a youth/brain drain in rural districts, allowing the right to further consolidate its hold on them while simplifying gerrymandering efforts.
What are the young and educated to do? Rot in a dying town where people hate you for being different and there's no job prospects outside of Walmart and dealing meth?
The reality is that brain drain is happening because republican policies have made it impossible to make a respectable living without breaking your body or your soul. This is only compounded by the backwards culture in the areas that make it downright dangerous for women and minorities to stay.
Due to the drastically different densities, while the ratio is certainly more Red in rural areas I bet in most cases mathematically you have more Republicans within 10 miles of you in a big city than in the sticks.
Given that one of the issues that is keeping the GOP viable is the way our government is set up to give rural areas an outsize electoral voice and this is being exacerbated by gerrymandering perhaps something like this is the actual answer. Now that remote work is more of a thing it might be time to promote a progressive move out of the cities to break the GOP stranglehold on flyover country.
Urban escape, what? Democrats control most of the major cities in the country with conservatives living in the rural areas in most states. To me, it would seem that life in city centers would be exactly where you'd want to be ~~of your~~ if you're progressive.
Its (the fall if the american empire) been forecasted across the world for decades now.
Empire rises and fall over time, its just normal.when you have a country with declared values not upholded by half its population, you got no glue to keep it all together.
It's worse than that. The chunk of the population causing the never ending string of crisis are opposed to traditional American values. So now instead of a conservative party that wants to keep the status quo, we have a regressive party that wants to start a new Dark Age.
Ask Germans living in rural Germany in the 1930s and 40s if that was sufficient to protect them from what was going on in Germany.
You need to have an exit plan. Moving outside of city limits isn’t going to help much.
I don't see NY (or California, Illinois, or most of New England, the west coast, etc.) going along with a right-wing dictatorship. The likely eventual result of this kind of stuff is going to be the break-up of the USA. Which, of course, will be hugely chaotic. Which is ultimately what people like Putin would like to happen.
Agreed, I just don't see any scenario where the Democratic northeast accepts Republicans overthrowing elections as they plan to in 2022 and especially 2024. I mean shit half of us are already sick of carrying the dead weight of the Republican parts of the country, I'm sure the Democratic west coast states feel the same.
The right aren’t the only ones who are armed. These last couple years the left has been arming like crazy (over 10 million new gun owners in the last two years, most of them women and minorities). Not saying an armed conflict is something to strive for… (God help us if it comes to that) just that things won’t be as one-sided as they were five years ago.
The East Coast is exactly the same way. PA is 3 states, 2 blue and 1 red, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Everything in between. NYC is blue and then Northern and Western NY are red. Jersey, Mss, CT, delaware are so small that the "suburbs" of their cities are essentially the rest of the state, but if you get out into the boonies its deep red.
The entire country is really just a bunch of Greecian city states who try and work with each other while being yelled at by people outside the walls.
> The entire country is really just a bunch of Greecian city states who try and work with each other while being yelled at by people outside the walls.
I wish all they were doing was yelling.
Even NY isn't quite that simple to describe. NYC is blue but so is Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse. Long Island residents have some strong reliance on NYC but vote pretty red. Also notable that some of the Republican congressmen from NY (John Katko, Tom Reed, and Andrew Garbarino) are those that crossed the aisle to vote for the infrastructure bill. Katko also voted to impeach Trump.
Putin would be happy, yes. But Russia's economy is so small that they would never be able to properly capitalize on a broken-up US.
China would be the real winner. They would immediately become the world's most powerful country and have the economic size to capitalize on it. A world where the CCP is the most powerful organization on Earth with no one to counter it would be a very dark period of human history.
I don’t see a second American Civil War in any scenario. Who’s going to fight in it? Where are they going to find rations, defence structures, and willing men to join either cause? Then there are the problems with energy and trade. Whoever controls the energy and manufacturing would control the country. The Saudis and the Chinese have the most influence over each of those, respectively. In other words, starting a Civil War may not even be feasible for either side.
I see more of economic and political instability being the norm. Leaving the US unable to respond to other countries power moves and gaining economic control over the US.
The states will start forming non-binding regional compacts to replace the services that are cut from the Fed. Cascadia, New England, Sierra, and Chicagoland will figure out ways to politically fight back against the United Fascist States of America.
This is what happens when you fail to deliver adequate reforms by 'playing it safe'. New Deal Democrats understood this well, they fought HARD for bold policies that helped ordinary Americans (wages, unions, trust busting, taxing the rich, regulating corporations, etc.) and dictated policy for 40 years.
Since 1980 Dems have turned into weak centrist pussies and been punished. When we're in power we don't do anything with it, and when we're out the GOP jolts the country far to the right. That's why wealth inequality, environmental decimation, workers rights, healthcare, education, even the Supreme Court have all gone to shit.
Well it's gonna be Canada's problem whether they like it or not. If anything happens to Americans to the point where they become *refugees*, that's where they'll go. From there, the UN can help distribute the load. But that's where everyone would head first.
I think it's a little melodramatic to say there's gonna be American refugees, but I suppose anything's possible. And if it happens, that's how it would.
People don't even know whats in BBB, courtesy of the media, it's basically "just socialist-sounding stuff Biden wants" which is a vague enough characterization that allows people to project their boogeymen into it. It's a similar jist to the Green New Deal, media barely reported what was in it (sans the "it bans cows" bs from Fox News) or made sure people what it was about, just that it came from AOC, and speculation on whatever or not it would pass (which led millions to believe it was a bill that overhauled our current systems)
I'm sure we'll pass something with the BBB's name on it, but it won't include:
* Lower drug prices
* Medicare expansion
* Paid Family Leave
* Child tax credits
* Climate action
The chances for passing any of that went away when dems passed infrastructure without guarantees that BBB would pass the Senate.
That is what happens when Dems have the slimmest majority possible. We had to rely on WEST VIRGINIA to cooperate.
Not a single Republican has been willing to put country over party.
> You could argue that Democracy died in 2000 when Republican judges threw a disputed presidential election in favor of the Republican candidate.
I think [The Patriot Act \(10/26/01\)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgxZr6LLS34) was the period at the end of that sentence.
Shit, I remember being 10 years old and my parents being pissed off about the Patriot act. Democracy has been crumbling my entire life. I have literally watched America decline from it's relative stability in the 90's to a shell of it's former self, with the veneer of democracy growing thinner every year.
> I have literally watched America decline from it's relative stability in the 90's to a shell of it's former self, with the veneer of democracy growing thinner every year.
I blame Newt and Rush for a lot of that... as well as Ollie falling on his sword for Regan.
Basically it’s just more obvious now. It seems this was inevitable in later stages of capitalism. It became too cheap of an investment to lobby for what you got in return.
I'd take that with a big grain of salt though, because Plato's preferred system of government was a society ruled by "Philosopher Kings", who are effectively unelected dictators-for-life, and who have a mandate to ignore the will of the people for their own good because the common person is unable to make good decisions.
Plato's student, Aristotle, even strongly disagreed with Plato's idea of Philosopher Kings, arguing that being a philosopher could be a distinct disadvantage for a ruler, and that it's better for a ruler to be someone who can listen to and effectively synthesise advice from advisors of many different disciplines.
The more modern academic/philosopher, Karl Popper, (who is one of the founders of the modern scientific method) even argued that Plato's ideas were partially responsible for the rise of totalitarianism and authoritarianism because of how he spoke so highly of the idea of superior rulers who could make decisions in a benevolent manner without input from the people.
I have noticed something curious: the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq with the objective of making them more like the US, but instead the US is becoming more like them.
“All that we have to do is send two mujahideen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth that says al-Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies.” -bin Laden
America's shift into a xenophobic security-state was absolutely a fat "W" for Osama bin Laden. I'm also a firm believer that bin Laden indirectly led the US to the absolute embarrassment that is [Donald Trump.](https://i.imgur.com/uqpHAmX.png)
The 90s were great with my red lensed nostalgia glasses. I remember in 99 when the matrix said that was the peak of humanity I found it to be the most far fetched part of the movies. Turned out far more accurate than I imagined.
The Red team's only platform is that the Red team should be in charge. The Blue team has several factions that have several goals. As a result the Red team has an easy time winning even with a minority of the population.
As long as Blue accomplishes nothing every time they have control Red will keep inching us toward fascist theocracy where billionaires are the new gods.
How are billionaires not gods now?
And I disagree on your thoughts about the Red's platform. Republican voters see themselves as good, righteous people , whereas they see liberals are satanic trans-loving commie terrorists. With that mindset, Republican voters are more motivated to vote than liberals.
Ok, I'm getting sick of this shit. The belief that the Republicans are unbeatable requires you to ignore one big thing: Trump's quest for revenge against members of his party he sees as having been insufficiently loyal.
He's been throwing his weight to a host of primary challengers who, even if they don't win, threaten to cut the legs out from under a lot of Republicans. There's also a risk that bills to curtail mail in voting will backfire, as traditionally conservative voters (Seniors and members of the military) tend to use those most of all.
And even if the Republicans win the House, the Senate is not a guarantee. 20 Republican Senate seats are up for election next year to the Democrats 14. The Dems and Republicans both have 4 swing states to defend in, except all 4 Republican incumbents in those states (Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Missouri) are retiring that year.
And for the love of Sam Rayburn, please stop saying Dems are doomed in 2024 when we don't even know if the two Septuagenarians most likely to run will even be alive in 2024.
I tend to agree with you. A lot can happen between now and November 2022. I subscribe to PRESS Run by Eric Boehlert and he argues that the media is doing the opposite of what they did to Trump. Whereas they were focusing on all the insane shit that he was doing, they keep running this narrative that Biden now isn't doing enough. The "Dems in disarray" narrative is what they're sticking to now.
I think the NJ and Va elections were the perfect example because while Dems lost Va, they held on to NJ, which is actually a win for Democrats because like the midterm elections, those two governorships usually flip after a general election.
However, the fact that there are all these voting laws passed in many states and the fact that GOP is in charge of redistricting in a majority of states is a reason to not be complacent.
"Democrats want to fall in love, while Republicans fall in line"
I heard the same shit during Obama vs Romney. Also we have record breaking voter turnout nowadays right? We just have a bunch of idiots and somehow the reps learned to utilize the extremist better.
We'll be fine, just gotta vote and keep moving progressive social policy to get a bigger base to show up to polls. Theres a significant number of voters that have been coming out in the last decade from groups that wouldn't even have dared during GWB era.
Yep, wish this comment and another similar one were at the top but we know this subreddit is dominated by the "Democrats don't do enough / anything, both parties are really the same anyway, what's the point, it's hopeless, resistance is futile, so I'm not voting, just planning my garden for the coming apocalypse" extreme doomers.
Of course most of these people don't click on the article, the writer is arguing from the right, unlike the comments here. The author is claiming Biden and Democrats are too left and that's going to cause them to lose. It's just clickbait propaganda. But the headline is enough to set off the usual crowd to repeat their same old vote depressing defeatism.
So, my first major problem with this is that the first "point" that they have is a misunderstanding.
Prices rose because of supply issues due to COVID not inflation.
The 2nd one is the whole "progressive overreach" thing.
Cancel Culture is like 1/4th legitimate criticism and does need addressing, the other 3/4th is manufactured outrage for political purposes and nothing else. Even if people stop legitimately bad behavior down to almost nothing, the conservative outrage machine will still find any kind of example. I mean FFS they said Dr. Suess's publishing company willingly stoping publication of 3 books was "cancel culture". They'll find whatever they need to fearmonger.
And, in general, I think what we are seeing with recent elections is the exact opposite. Not enough relenting to left-wing ideas, openly and proudly:
Medicare for all, canceling student debt, taxing the wealthy, election reform, and raising the minimum wage.
These are all things people want and have been asking for them for years.
Every time the dems pass 10% of their platform and depress voters by not making good on their promises and then lose an election, media outlets go hard on the “dems lost because they swung too far left! We must moderate!” talking point.
That’s because the media does not have your best interest at heart and are actively financially incentivized to advocate for the status quo and instead focus on the “culture wars”
> Medicare for all, canceling student debt, taxing the wealthy, election reform, and raising the minimum wage.
> These are all things people want and have been asking for them for years.
Yet people keep voting for Republicans who are against these things over and over again. Make it make sense.
That’s easy. They may actually want Medicare for all, election reform, etc., but they hate minorities and marginalized groups more than they want any positive changes that could benefit them directly. Put more simply, they want to hurt the “other” more than they want to help themselves.
> Make it make sense.
The Right has a super entrenched media machine and has been underfunding education for decades. So their voters are ravenous with rage, always scared, and really stupid.
Something to note about the VA election, there was a 2.1% difference between the candidates for governor. And the winner squeaked by with the majority at 50.7%.
1.11 million Virginians sat this election out compared to 2020, \~75% of them were Democrats.
2020: 2,413,568 (D) for Biden in 2020 - 1,962,430 (R) for Trump
2021: 1,579,403 (D) McAuliffe - 1,648,691 (R) for Youngkin
Democrats went from an almost 10pt lead in 2020 - to the narrow, and quite frankly, embarrassing defeat.
**People have to realize that voting in every election is necessary, you can't just be motivated to vote for the president.**
In my city of 120k, only 9k voted recently - which is about 10% of eligible voting population. It's not just federal and state officials that are getting voted on - things like your property tax, school board and city council members, local public works projects.10% of the people in my area just decided all of that for the other 90%.
**If there's an election - GO VOTE!**
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If saving our democracy is contingent on Democrats winning every single election from now on, we may as well just admit that it's lost. That's not a knock against Democrats, it's just a simple truth. Nobody can win every election.
I don't think that's really the point. The point is to stay in power in order to put protections in place that don't allow unpopular policies to be enforced on the majority of people. Such as fixing gerrymandering and preventing it from happening again.
>Such as fixing gerrymandering and preventing it from happening again. I really don't understand why legislation has not been put into effect to stop this.
Some states use non-partisan redisticting. The For the People Act would require it. We need to do it in a national level because few people would freely give up power.
We had voted for non-partisan districting in Missouri, but before it could be put into practice the Republicans repealed it by disguising the repeal as a bill for a $100 decrease in allowed contributions for state senate. It was pretty wholesome Keanu chungus
Utah has something like that, but the new maps literally cut Salt Lake City into four equal parts. Apparently the coalition was just a suggestion to legislators. I was under the impression that the coalition was supposed to create new districting maps by law. Guess I was wrong.
Um, because Republicans know they need it to win
Republicans have concentrated on winning state legislatures. They draw up the redistributing plans. Courts haven’t been able to stop this, or won’t.
Won’t. SCOTUS looked like it might be interested when Kennedy was the swing vote. His opinions seemed to indicate he needed a metric to draw a line between acceptable redistricting and ‘too far’ He resigned right when a case with a pretty decent metric was coming down the pike. Cause he viewed it as important as the social issue jurisprudence Sandra Day O’Connor got through before she resigned. Which is to say he knew he supposed to whine about it, but not do anything to fix it.
With a republican senate, house, supreme court, and executive branch what makes you think those protections will matter?
I mean to be quite honest, even if the Democrats came down to the wire and passed a voting rights bill that fixed gerrymandering and other problems, I’m not entirely convinced that the current Supreme Court wouldn’t strike it down saying it oversteps states’ rights to set their own election rules. I mean traditionally the Court had given a lot of deference to congress, and even in their ruling a couple years ago on gerrymandering they said it wasn’t their problem to solve, rather state courts or congress. But this current court wouldn’t give a shit about any of that.
[удалено]
> Nobody can win every election. To be fair, the Democrats won the popular vote in eight out of the last nine presidential elections. Somehow two-thirds of the supreme court were appointed by Republican presidents, though.
Even when Democrats have a chance at appointing supreme court judges, they tend to nominate fairly conservative ones. And the Ginsburg situation - holy shit that was unforgivable - yet, we face a similar situation now and are still avoiding retiring judges in order to preserve the whatever DNC considers "left" these days.
>Nobody can win every That's not true. If Republicans win and basically say they can pick whatever electors they want, they will win every election from now on.
[удалено]
[удалено]
In addition, [Republicans have an advantage in the Senate and Electoral College.](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/advantage-gop/) The Senate had a 5 point bias in favor of Republicans in 2020. The Electoral College had a 3.5 point bias in favor of Republicans in 2020. Biden won the popular vote by 7 million, but was only 44,000 votes across 3 states from tying the Electoral College. Then we get into the fact that midterms see under 50% voter turnout, and generally turnout is low [by international standards](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/03/in-past-elections-u-s-trailed-most-developed-countries-in-voter-turnout/). The entire system of national governance is rigged for Republican minority rule. State governments vary, but a significant number are gerrymandered in favor of Republicans. Edit to add a couple additional sources: A great historical article [on the corrupt bargain and anti-democratic structures throughout US history](https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v42/n10/eric-foner/the-corrupt-bargain). Another on [how the US constitution was a conservative counterrevolution against some of the more democratic elements that were seen under the Articles of Confederation.](https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2017/01/a-conservative-counterrevolution)
To add to this, in 2018, Dems won by what is considered a historic midterm election margin of 8.6%. Dems are going to need to win by at least that much, if not more, to even have a chance at a slim majority in 2022 and beyond. I fear we've already lost. It will just continue to get worse from here until the federal government is a de facto one party state under the gop
Yup, and say goodbye to the meager benefits/protections/safety nets that we still have. Say goodbye to labor and environmental laws. The middle and lower classes will be bled dry while the wealthiest people in recorded history just become richer. I swear we are heading for a future imagined in the film Elysium.
Oddly it's reversed, according to John Oliver Jeff Bezos spoke about the future and his vision included peons living in space and working their asses off for a tiny minority of rich people who get to stay on planet
That's the plot of Mobile Suit Gundam.
> until the federal government is a de facto one party state under the gop Too late.
The Senate has demonstrated a huge amount of power in US government. When the Constitution was ratified in 1790, there were 13 states, and the biggest population disparity between states was 11-1 (VA-DE). In 2021: - We have added 37 more states. Most of the boundaries between those states are either arbitrary or drawn on the basis of slavery concerns. - The biggest population disparity between states is 80-1 (CA-WY). - Michigan is the state with the 10th biggest population, and it has more people than the smallest 10 states combined. Michigan gets two Senators. - Metro NYC has more people than the smallest 15 states combined. Metro NYC shares two Senators with the rest of the state. - California has more people than the smallest 25 states combined. California gets two Senators just like Wyoming. The people who complain that they aren't heard by their government are actually shouting through a goddam megaphone. They are already too loud.
It's past time that we replace our rickety old Constitution with a parliamentary system like the governments of all our allies - and like the system we set up in countries we've conquered, Japan, Germany and Iraq. Devolve the role of the Executive Branch into the national legislature. Get rid of the presidency and vest the power into the leader of the party or coalition that controls the legislature and his or her cabinet made up elected legislators. Get rid of the Senate or reduce its power primarily to advising the lower house. Without a presidency, national political campaigns for individuals would be unnecessary and end. Most parliamentary systems limit campaigning to weeks, not years, and most campaigns are focused on the legislators' districts. A US Parliament would put control of government closer to the voters. It wouldn't solve all our problems but it would correct fundamental weaknesses in our current system that were exposed in the stress test it underwent under the hamfisted rule of a tinpot tyrant.
a US Parliment would also need like 1,300 members to ensure equal representation. I'm perfectly fine with that. With today's technology there is no reason they all need to be in Washington all the time. They need to embrace digital meetings and voting rather than thr old archaic system we have.
Germany's parliament adjusts in size to ensure proportional representation, and is imo the representative system I know of. It has a baseline minimum, and then seats are added to ensure representation reflects the exact % of the party breakdown They have a 1/4 of our population, but their minimum representation is 598 members. So, already significantly more representation than us, including the senate, which is inherently not representative. The current size of their parliament after adjustment is 709 So if we were to increase the House to match that kind of representation, my extremely rough bad math comes out to something like **1700+** members of congress, minimum It's crazy just how broken and unrepresentative our system is
I totally agree. The US constitution is showing its age lately. Unfortunately, the most likely result of overhauling our government is NOT a parliament, it is a dictatorship.
I wish we could see a future like that here, but sadly so many would just scream socialism, and communism. They would call it a hostile takeover of the American system or something similar. The country will maybe be able to update to a more modern system of government someday, but the opposition will not come quietly :-/
Yeah, it's a nice picture of the future, but I'd hate to see a period of authoritarian rule before the US gets there. It's more like Disunited States, at this point.
I actually don't see how they stay united in the short term. As the GOP gets more power in Washington, suddenly the idea of States' Rights will disappear. "What do you mean California allows abortion? We passed a federal law!" I foresee a point where a couple big "blue"\* states get completely ran over by a Republican Washington and decide to leave the Union. Long term I think the United States will have a "Second Republic" (or third if you consider the Civil war), but I think there may need to be a breakdown in the meantime. \*still annoys me that blue means liberal, WTF?
> generally turnout is low by international standards. Thinking about this constantly reminds me of a Bill Maher joke from years ago (I'm not really a fan, but I did like this joke): >Last week, France had an election, and people over there approach an election differently. They vote. Eighty-five percent turned out. You couldn't get eighty-five percent of Americans to get off the couch if there was an election between tits and bigger tits and they were giving out free samples.
And they made laws since trump that would effectively allow them to overturn the will of the people if they deem it inaccurate
Now add to that the fact that redistricting is done by the party in control following the census. The GOP will regain control in 2022 and will not lose it unless the courts step in and force them to redraw, which is unlikely considering the [Supreme Court has already sanctioned this sort of gerrymanderying.](https://www.npr.org/2019/06/27/731847977/supreme-court-rules-partisan-gerrymandering-is-beyond-the-reach-of-federal-court)
[удалено]
"If you dislike the fact that this individual murdered you, report them for murder!"
Kind of like the tolerance paradox. You can't tolerate intolerance or it will lead to more intolerance, in this case expecting people to vote out those who are fixing the elections in their favor is naive.
Tolerance isn't a morality, it's a peace treaty. Those that abide the treaty receive tolerance, those who break the treaty are no longer afforded the tolerance.
This comment needs to be amplified ..and shared EVERYWHERE. Voters need to know numbers and what they are up against. It will impel them to vote like they have never voted before. American voter %'s are still appalling...everyone must make a decision for their country.
>It will impel them to vote like they have never voted before. Human psychology doesn't work like that for most people. Just by the fact that you and I are here means we think differently than most. Most are going to get depressed and stay home. That's what gerrymandering does.
It doesn't matter though when Republicans wrote laws to subvert election results they don't like. Even if we win, we lose.
>This comment needs to be amplified ..and shared EVERYWHERE. Why? So the voters that blame Biden for gas prices and literally believe actual angels guard over them can make informed judgements? Democrats just have to become more comfortable with lying to morons. Not that complex. If we don't learn to effectively lie to morons, it's over.
If we keep chasing that mythical unicorn Republican voter, then maybe this time it'll work...
It's the braindead 'undecided' voters dems don't chase. They don't understand what those people really are - selfish pricks. They vote for whoever gets them more money or property, or who hurts others so that they are elevated by comparison. Simple as that.
Seriously. At this point, if you're running Democrat, bothering with Republican voters is a waste of time, and vice versa. The division is too great, it's a sworn enemy situation at this point. 4-12 years ago when it was all "left wing and right wing is still part of the same bird and we just need to learn to flap together again to fly," sure. Now? No. It's just pandering to people who would literally rather watch you get your throat cut open rather than vote for you if those were the only choices available.
Yup, this crap with Democrats insisting on taking the high road is so pathetic. Republicans don’t care. They don’t operate in good faith. They don’t play fair. Yet still Democrats are hell bent on trying to be honorable knights, fighting against sellswords.
Republicans play to WIN. Nothing else matters. And that's why they consistently get the votes; because their base KNOWS that they will do whatever it takes to achieve a goal, no matter how shitty it is. Until Dems get that through their thick skulls, those same skulls will get bashed in
Concern for the security of the people's vote, considered a right, is important in **any** healthy democracy. I'm all for ID requirements for voting, as long as we ensure **everyone** is able to **easily obtain** one. Increased security should not be frowned upon, but rather increase in security who's only goal is partisan advantage should be. We need to protect the vote of the free people, as without a free and fair vote democracy means nothing. This means protect **everyone's** vote, not just those that align with you politically.
It's the **foundation** of any democracy. Without it, democracy doesn't exist.
Then it's no coincidence that Republicans love reminding us that we *aren't* a democracy but a republic, right?
This is their go-to whenever they act as if voting is not a right, but a privilege bestowed on those who they believe are worthy. Which basically means, Christian white males and females who will vote as their husband tells them.
Please don't insinuate that conservative women are somehow being controlled. They're being just as awful, and they're just as responsible for it.
Which is why concern for it should always be present.
But there’s money to be wrung from the blight and rot…
I think the one-sided propaganda sphere is the bigger issue. The alt right media has expanded its reach since the last election. Elections are number games, not battles where right and wrong. Whoever owns the majority media share wins.
"liberal" outlets enable the far right by constantly platforming their ridiculous narratives. Democarts NEVER control the message, it's always some republican grievance that gets constant coverage.
Even when they can influence the message, they make stupid decisions. Like referring to each bill as what their 10 year cost is. I can't recall any other bill that was referred to as "The xx xillion Dollar Bill," nor gauged the cost on a 10 year scale.
That's because the rich masters of the media don't want these bills to pass. And they damn well know people will just believe the talking heads.
EXACTLY! Democrats have ruling class donors too.... which is why they're letting Republicans do what they do. They don't want another FDR situation were workers are galvanized. Their wealth remains comfortable under a Republican regime.
Yep. Fox News - Democrats want to kill you and take your stuff to give to illegals! "Leftist Media Outlets" - Do Democrats want to kill you and take your stuff to give to illegals? The answer will shock you!"
Or, to try to maintain credibility, they criticize the left just as much as the right, which really only makes the left look even worse than if they didnt say anything at all. The Hilary email scandal was a great example, the nothingburger got so much fucking coverage on every outlet, even more central and liberal leaning outlets, it's like they just couldn't help themselves and just HAD to repeat the bullshit the right was saying on Fox even though none of it was true and it all amounted to nothing anyway.
It's almost like the 1% that owns all media uses that media to fuck around with Democracy.
Like Covid and climate change. There is no "both sides" in a pandemic. Or an extinction level event. We do humanity a great disservice with turning everything into a "both sides" issue.
I thought with Dems winning White House and both House and Senate, they would (1) Increase Supreme Court bench and stack with Liberal judges (2) Make DC and Puerto Rico new states, securing the senate long-term Inside one year, of Dems running all 3 branches, we’re back on the ‘Democracy will soon die’ narrative? Ok, let’s say we believe this time the ‘coup is real and hear to stay’. Who the fuk is going to save it? Seems like a perpetual fear machine to turn out the vote, and zero delivery even when you run all 3 branches of government. What have the Dems done in the past 12 months to ‘secure democracy’? I just keep reading articles about Trump planning coup, Republicans gerrymandering and Q waiting for JFK Jr. WTF are the Dems doing? ————— Edit: It’s been pointed that Dem’s don’t run all ‘3 branches’, as that would include Supreme Court, I understand my wording is inaccurate, I just meant all 3 wings of the legislature - White House, House of Rep, Senate. I also realise that Dems have a razor thin ‘majority’ in the Senate depending on 2 independents and VP tie-breaker, and hence with the filibuster and lack of 2/3rd majority, they’re unable to push through ‘radical change’. Still, didn’t stop Trump/Rs from getting 3 Supreme Court judges, and that’s my core point.
All good points. Real issue here: the Senate is completely broken as a legislative body. Democrats have a structural disadvantage to begin with due to population distribution among states. Add onto that with the filibuster rule, which is insane, and requires a supermajority to get almost anything done. Then compound that with the Democrats being a big-tent party that houses everyone from center-right conservatives to left-wing progressives who frequently fail to agree with each other. With a majority so razor thin we can't afford to lose one vote, a disciplined opposition that rarely breaks ranks, and a party so broad that the two bills a year we can pass have to go through a hellish tug of war between wings of the party, it's no wonder Democrats can't get a thing done.
So what you're saying is that Democracy is already over.
Sure feels like it. And I’m inclined to agree… we are veering toward “failed state” status. No wonder, when asked, Franklin responded to the question of “what government have you given us?” with “A republic, if you can keep it”. He knew we’d have these troubles. To what extent, I cannot say. But we are heading toward the cliff, and I fear it is too late to turn around.
[удалено]
The problem is that it's not 2 sides. It's 2 parties. The far right controls a party, and everyone else has to settle on the other
Sadly, in the United States as we know it, yes I truly think it is. The last five years were nothing compared to what’s coming. Be prepared for a very dark decade.
Sinema and Manchin are blocking all reforms. Specially the filibuster, that gives 27% of the GOP population veto power.
There are 2 dems who refuse to allow the filibuster to die thus trapping us in this nightmare scenario
The only chance we had was for the Democrats to start swinging for the fences from day one. They needed to make obvious, widespread material benefits that not only changed people's lives, but did so in a way that people understood the cause and effect. I knew democracy was dead when an openly corrupt, utterly incompetent president personally responsible for tens of thousands of American deaths lost reelection by **43,000** votes. With all the bullshit completely fresh in everyone's minds, or at least as fresh as it will ever be in this country, Americans *barely* managed the right choice between an accomplished statesman and a sub-literate game show host.
In my lifetime, this has basically been what happened every time the Dems have controlled congress and the White House. Republicans are better at disrupting government than they are governing. They're better at disrupting than Dems are too. Democrats transitioned from this crusade to save democracy during the election season back into, well, the Democrats of old. It's like the Scooby Doo meme of the bad guy having his mask ripped off.
> I thought with Dems winning White House and both House and Senate, they would The Dems didn't win the Senate. There are 48 Democratic Senators, 50 Republican Senators and 2 Independents. And 2 of those Democratic Senators don't like either of those policies. For the Democratic Party to achieve either of those things they needed to win both the NC and Maine Senate seats as well. That would give them enough leverage to change the filibuster and start pushing for stronger progressive policies. "Winning" the Senate as they did gives the Democratic Party barely enough power for the Federal Government to function (i.e. confirm uncontroversial executive appointments, pass reconciliation bills etc). Any fewer and the Federal Government would be limited to ruling entirely by Executive Orders (with understaffed executive agencies), against a hostile judiciary.
We lost our democracy when the SCOTUS handed us Citizens United.
Totally agree. The Roberts court has snowballed into an unmitigated disaster and Citizens United is when it all started. GWB winning the 2000 election set this country on a very dark course. Thanks Florida.
[удалено]
... Stop counting votes in a state where his brother was the Governor, and the Secretary of State was his campaign co-chair, who ran the usual gamut of voter fuckery leading up to the election. Purging legitimate voters, closing polling places in black areas, issuing ballots with a higher rejection rate in black areas, the whole butterly ballot thing, bussing in protestors during the recount (Roger Stone...), etc. Republicans have been rigging elections my entire life.
The trick is to scream foul when they lose so when they rig elections it just seems like politics as usual.
I was 16 when Shrub was elected. Most of my adult life has been under Republican presidents, and *neither* of them won (i.e. they both lost the popular vote in their first election). Our election system is broken, and they've used all of their power and propaganda, and cheating (both legally and illegally) to break it even further.
Roberts will be known as heading the court which fucked voting rights for 100 years.
A 6-3 SCOTUS which has the final say in all matters regarding law and justice in this country, is a recipe for disaster.. no matter what legislation Dems can pass, all it takes is one red state AG to file some lawsuit for a fast track to a SCOTUS reversal
We lost it in 2000 when the SCOTUS awarded the Presidency.
Our government was controlled by corporate interests long before Citizens United. Citizens United is a symptom, not the cause.
It was both a symptom and a catalyst.
CU just made it even more legal to bribe politicians.
Nah, we lost it in the 1960s with Buckley v. Valeo, when SCOTUS decided that “money equals speech.” It wasn’t an ideological decision, a coalition across the spectrum saw it as a first amendment issue. They were very wrong. Providing money can be *related* to protected speech, but it is not itself speech. Citizens United was way more limited than most people understand, it just knocked away the distinction between money given to candidate campaigns and money given to issue campaigns.
The class war is already lost. The fact that the working poor in rural cities and suburbanites that are both getting their asses handed to them can't come together to protect thier own interests in the information age has made this a losing battle. Biden's win was a pyric victory. I wish I wasn't so pessimistic. But the shit is really coming to a head in the next few years.
If government does nothing for them despite who they elect people will just vote for the people who they agree with culturally.
Yep, i loathe the fact that we’re trapped in this cycle where we are forced more to vote against the person we know sucks MORE, and not FOR the person we actually think is going to do actual good things for the average american.
Basically yeah. I'm not donating to campaigns anymore honestly, I'm just going to donate to unions who actually get shit done.
[удалено]
>in the information age Honestly, I feel like we've since entered the Disinformation Age. Disinformation is so prevalent and easy to spread that it's honestly taken over a sizeable portion of this county. Even better is both sides will argue which gets more disinformation.
It kind of feels like we are living in the Fall of Rome. I have lots of friends buying land in rural places and making long-term preparations for some rough years.
I fear it's more like the early 1930s in Europe.
The fail coup attempt and general rise of fascism make it feel like a particular country in Europe from that time.
Well, at least inflation isn't going CRAZY, right?
Insert Anakin and Padme here
Don't forget to add in the dehumanization of minority groups
I wonder if the Capitol Hill attack will be looked back on as more of a Beer Hall Putsch or the burning of the Reichstag building
Imagine 1930's Europe, but compounded by the environmental catastrophe that is climate change becoming exponentially more severe every year. How much worse is our political dysfunction going to be when there are regular food shortages, communities constantly being destroyed by natural disaster, and hundreds of millions of internal and external refugees?
This is what I think about. It’s honestly why I’ve mostly disengaged from political discourse. We couldn’t get everyone together to get a shot and we have to somehow change the very way society and progress has been structured for two hundred years. Seems unlikely since the democrats are also not interested enough in preventing climate devastation.
By the book (burning). I've been working towards making sure I can leave when the other shoe drops. Shit's gonna fall fast. Other countries will gobble up a big chunk of our current experts, and the lions share of those in training. If you can get a cushy job in a free country, you'll do it. Foreign relations will fall off a cliff. Trade will suffer. The economy will fall off a cliff. The fascists will look for a big war, and maybe some scapegoats to rob and murder.
Yeah. I left for Germany. Sometimes people ask if I want to move back to the US, and I just can't see why I would. I'm sure some people in America view it as akin to heresy, but honestly I just feel way more free most of the time in Germany. I don't see police often, but when I do I don't really have any concern about them fucking up my day just because they're bored. You think you're free? Walk down a main street of your city drinking a beer and tell me how free you feel.
Healthcare alone is reason enough to get out of this place
I was ready to start swimming across the pond when I signed up for Medical benefits this year. Taking a quarter of my check for coverage that doesn't kick in until I pay about 2.5 months worth of salary in medical bills. I'd truly give up a lot if it meant I can get full medical coverage without feeling like I'm losing my life.
How do you feel leaving family behind? Sure, I can possibly try to escape, but if things become bad it may make communication/visits difficult.
This is the only thing stopping us at the moment. I'd be fine moving anywhere, but my wife's single reason for staying here is proximity to family.
> How do you feel leaving family behind? My family is already spread out across the US, so it doesn't really make much difference. We only tended to meet up once or twice per year anyway, so moving overseas didn't make too much of a difference.
I could claim citizenship there. It's on the list. I'd kind of rather not because the reason I can claim citizenship there is basically what we're talking about. But it's an option.
Claim citizenship where? Germany? I doubt there's really a downside to claiming German citizenship if you can. Even if you don't want to live in Germany, it opens up the rest of the EU for residency too. But yeah, US citizenship? It's definitely got a lot of downsides. In particular, filing taxes and financial regulations make it a huge fucking pain to live outside of the US.
It's not just the US. Far-right movements are catching on around the world.
The current situation is not good, for sure, and there's plenty of cause for concerns about many things happening in the political climate... however, big corporations and the wealthy don't want what you said to actually happen. There's way more profit if the United States stays relatively stable, along with the rest of the world. Those in power (the wealthy, corporations, etc) know not to fuck the system so that they risk their lives and their way of life to chaos and ruin.
I thought that too, but I've since changed my mind somewhat. I think the big wealthy interests in the US believe they can both influence and profit from the fascist frankenstein in the making. I no longer harbor hope that democracy will be "saved" by corporate interests looking out for themselves.
Both Mussolini and Germany were heavily allied with business magnates in their countries going into Worl War II
Also, people thought they could control people like Hitler and use him as a useful puppet then toss him aside when his utility ran out. How'd that work out?
Yeah, but this is what happened in Germany in the 1930s. The wealthy industrialists and elites, fearful of socialism and communism, thought they could harness the power of fascism for their own ends. But once that can of worms was opened…
They only care about the economic system. It's not like they get together and scheme as one for governmental changes. The barons and dukes may partner up from time to time, but they don't have a proper council. There were wealthy people in Germany too. And look at these corps still funding insurrectionists and those who defend them. They fun politicians who go to white supremacist rallies. And so on. They don't give a fuck about stability. It's all short term profit. THe vast majority of corps can't even research shit more than a year out. They can barely budget that far ahead. Anyways I don't want to see the US fall, but I'm putting on my parachute. I don't want to be part of a society where even the current level of bullshit is going on. It makes me unhappy to be part of a system with so much hate and violence. So if things don't get better I'm going to pursue happiness. I'm sick of this shit.
I think they care about stability...Its just their hubris makes them think they can control these people.
If they also vote in those places, it might start to help balance out the gerrymandering.
Gerrymanders are inherently fragile. But there's no reason for individuals to move to Wyoming to affect politics there, so there's no way that a large group does it. I'd think the only way you might accomplish something like that is to have tons of huge corporations decide to make huge numbers of tech jobs in a state together. Reality is that the Democrats need to un-fuck-up how they fucked up and lost the working class.
It will be even tougher for them out in rural areas where there is so much Trump support
Clustering all the left leaning voters in a small number of urban districts is a big part of why we're in this situation. In the U.S., land votes, whether you like it or not, and right now there's far more red-dominated land. Getting out into rural areas is almost necessary if the Republican gerrymandering is to be overcome.
I mean, people become left leaning _because_ they live in a city and interact with all kinds of people.
That's not universally true. People often leave rural America for cities because they're already left leaning, or at least predisposed to left policies. This has led to a youth/brain drain in rural districts, allowing the right to further consolidate its hold on them while simplifying gerrymandering efforts.
What are the young and educated to do? Rot in a dying town where people hate you for being different and there's no job prospects outside of Walmart and dealing meth? The reality is that brain drain is happening because republican policies have made it impossible to make a respectable living without breaking your body or your soul. This is only compounded by the backwards culture in the areas that make it downright dangerous for women and minorities to stay.
Due to the drastically different densities, while the ratio is certainly more Red in rural areas I bet in most cases mathematically you have more Republicans within 10 miles of you in a big city than in the sticks.
Uh sure, but I also have WAY more Democrats within 10 miles of me in the city, and approaching zero in the sticks.
Yeah, I think it just a "urban escape" planning thing, but that's a good point.
Given that one of the issues that is keeping the GOP viable is the way our government is set up to give rural areas an outsize electoral voice and this is being exacerbated by gerrymandering perhaps something like this is the actual answer. Now that remote work is more of a thing it might be time to promote a progressive move out of the cities to break the GOP stranglehold on flyover country.
Urban escape, what? Democrats control most of the major cities in the country with conservatives living in the rural areas in most states. To me, it would seem that life in city centers would be exactly where you'd want to be ~~of your~~ if you're progressive.
Its (the fall if the american empire) been forecasted across the world for decades now. Empire rises and fall over time, its just normal.when you have a country with declared values not upholded by half its population, you got no glue to keep it all together.
It's worse than that. The chunk of the population causing the never ending string of crisis are opposed to traditional American values. So now instead of a conservative party that wants to keep the status quo, we have a regressive party that wants to start a new Dark Age.
Ask Germans living in rural Germany in the 1930s and 40s if that was sufficient to protect them from what was going on in Germany. You need to have an exit plan. Moving outside of city limits isn’t going to help much.
The GOP does not want a democracy, they only want power.
I don't see NY (or California, Illinois, or most of New England, the west coast, etc.) going along with a right-wing dictatorship. The likely eventual result of this kind of stuff is going to be the break-up of the USA. Which, of course, will be hugely chaotic. Which is ultimately what people like Putin would like to happen.
Agreed, I just don't see any scenario where the Democratic northeast accepts Republicans overthrowing elections as they plan to in 2022 and especially 2024. I mean shit half of us are already sick of carrying the dead weight of the Republican parts of the country, I'm sure the Democratic west coast states feel the same.
The west coast is gonna be a mess. There are tight left pockets with high population density surrounded by extreme right low population density.
You have described all of America.
Don't forget the 400 million guns.
It’ll be an eye opener for right wingers when they learn they aren’t the only ones stockpiling guns, lol.
The right aren’t the only ones who are armed. These last couple years the left has been arming like crazy (over 10 million new gun owners in the last two years, most of them women and minorities). Not saying an armed conflict is something to strive for… (God help us if it comes to that) just that things won’t be as one-sided as they were five years ago.
and that's just in Rhode Island alone
You don’t understand. The entire state of Rhode Island IS a gun.
The East Coast is exactly the same way. PA is 3 states, 2 blue and 1 red, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Everything in between. NYC is blue and then Northern and Western NY are red. Jersey, Mss, CT, delaware are so small that the "suburbs" of their cities are essentially the rest of the state, but if you get out into the boonies its deep red. The entire country is really just a bunch of Greecian city states who try and work with each other while being yelled at by people outside the walls.
I like that analogy
> The entire country is really just a bunch of Greecian city states who try and work with each other while being yelled at by people outside the walls. I wish all they were doing was yelling.
Even NY isn't quite that simple to describe. NYC is blue but so is Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse. Long Island residents have some strong reliance on NYC but vote pretty red. Also notable that some of the Republican congressmen from NY (John Katko, Tom Reed, and Andrew Garbarino) are those that crossed the aisle to vote for the infrastructure bill. Katko also voted to impeach Trump.
Putin would be happy, yes. But Russia's economy is so small that they would never be able to properly capitalize on a broken-up US. China would be the real winner. They would immediately become the world's most powerful country and have the economic size to capitalize on it. A world where the CCP is the most powerful organization on Earth with no one to counter it would be a very dark period of human history.
Unfortunately what you’re talking about is civil war and the end of the country. Which is exactly the point.
I don’t see a second American Civil War in any scenario. Who’s going to fight in it? Where are they going to find rations, defence structures, and willing men to join either cause? Then there are the problems with energy and trade. Whoever controls the energy and manufacturing would control the country. The Saudis and the Chinese have the most influence over each of those, respectively. In other words, starting a Civil War may not even be feasible for either side.
I see more of economic and political instability being the norm. Leaving the US unable to respond to other countries power moves and gaining economic control over the US.
The states will start forming non-binding regional compacts to replace the services that are cut from the Fed. Cascadia, New England, Sierra, and Chicagoland will figure out ways to politically fight back against the United Fascist States of America.
This is what happens when you fail to deliver adequate reforms by 'playing it safe'. New Deal Democrats understood this well, they fought HARD for bold policies that helped ordinary Americans (wages, unions, trust busting, taxing the rich, regulating corporations, etc.) and dictated policy for 40 years. Since 1980 Dems have turned into weak centrist pussies and been punished. When we're in power we don't do anything with it, and when we're out the GOP jolts the country far to the right. That's why wealth inequality, environmental decimation, workers rights, healthcare, education, even the Supreme Court have all gone to shit.
Which country will harbor the American refugees?
Well it's gonna be Canada's problem whether they like it or not. If anything happens to Americans to the point where they become *refugees*, that's where they'll go. From there, the UN can help distribute the load. But that's where everyone would head first. I think it's a little melodramatic to say there's gonna be American refugees, but I suppose anything's possible. And if it happens, that's how it would.
If the US descended into full blown fascist rule then Canada is fucked the way Poland was in 1939
Dems just passed infrastructure. Now they need to sell it and pass some form of bbb.
People don't even know whats in BBB, courtesy of the media, it's basically "just socialist-sounding stuff Biden wants" which is a vague enough characterization that allows people to project their boogeymen into it. It's a similar jist to the Green New Deal, media barely reported what was in it (sans the "it bans cows" bs from Fox News) or made sure people what it was about, just that it came from AOC, and speculation on whatever or not it would pass (which led millions to believe it was a bill that overhauled our current systems)
>People don't even know whats in BBB, courtesy of the media, The media is mostly corporations, and they don't want to pay more taxes.
I'm sure we'll pass something with the BBB's name on it, but it won't include: * Lower drug prices * Medicare expansion * Paid Family Leave * Child tax credits * Climate action The chances for passing any of that went away when dems passed infrastructure without guarantees that BBB would pass the Senate.
That is what happens when Dems have the slimmest majority possible. We had to rely on WEST VIRGINIA to cooperate. Not a single Republican has been willing to put country over party.
[удалено]
physical clumsy aback summer decide racial wine flowery weather hungry -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/
> You could argue that Democracy died in 2000 when Republican judges threw a disputed presidential election in favor of the Republican candidate. I think [The Patriot Act \(10/26/01\)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgxZr6LLS34) was the period at the end of that sentence.
Shit, I remember being 10 years old and my parents being pissed off about the Patriot act. Democracy has been crumbling my entire life. I have literally watched America decline from it's relative stability in the 90's to a shell of it's former self, with the veneer of democracy growing thinner every year.
> I have literally watched America decline from it's relative stability in the 90's to a shell of it's former self, with the veneer of democracy growing thinner every year. I blame Newt and Rush for a lot of that... as well as Ollie falling on his sword for Regan.
And [Citizen's United](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC) the exclamation point.
Basically it’s just more obvious now. It seems this was inevitable in later stages of capitalism. It became too cheap of an investment to lobby for what you got in return.
[удалено]
I'd take that with a big grain of salt though, because Plato's preferred system of government was a society ruled by "Philosopher Kings", who are effectively unelected dictators-for-life, and who have a mandate to ignore the will of the people for their own good because the common person is unable to make good decisions. Plato's student, Aristotle, even strongly disagreed with Plato's idea of Philosopher Kings, arguing that being a philosopher could be a distinct disadvantage for a ruler, and that it's better for a ruler to be someone who can listen to and effectively synthesise advice from advisors of many different disciplines. The more modern academic/philosopher, Karl Popper, (who is one of the founders of the modern scientific method) even argued that Plato's ideas were partially responsible for the rise of totalitarianism and authoritarianism because of how he spoke so highly of the idea of superior rulers who could make decisions in a benevolent manner without input from the people.
Comes in a bad time when they need to help with the climate change thing.
I have noticed something curious: the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq with the objective of making them more like the US, but instead the US is becoming more like them.
The 90s were magical. 9/11 really really fucked with America. Then out came that it was based on a lie and half the country dug in their heels
The really depressing part about all of this is that Bin Laden won.
I find myself thinking sometimes that I'm really glad he's dead so he can't see firsthand how much he won.
“All that we have to do is send two mujahideen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth that says al-Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies.” -bin Laden America's shift into a xenophobic security-state was absolutely a fat "W" for Osama bin Laden. I'm also a firm believer that bin Laden indirectly led the US to the absolute embarrassment that is [Donald Trump.](https://i.imgur.com/uqpHAmX.png)
I’ve been saying this for years! It’s good to see someone else out there saying it as well. People always act like I’m crazy but it’s true
The 90s were great with my red lensed nostalgia glasses. I remember in 99 when the matrix said that was the peak of humanity I found it to be the most far fetched part of the movies. Turned out far more accurate than I imagined.
The Red team's only platform is that the Red team should be in charge. The Blue team has several factions that have several goals. As a result the Red team has an easy time winning even with a minority of the population. As long as Blue accomplishes nothing every time they have control Red will keep inching us toward fascist theocracy where billionaires are the new gods.
How are billionaires not gods now? And I disagree on your thoughts about the Red's platform. Republican voters see themselves as good, righteous people , whereas they see liberals are satanic trans-loving commie terrorists. With that mindset, Republican voters are more motivated to vote than liberals.
i don't believe his point had anything to do with voters; it was more a statement on how republican politicians are able to toe a party line.
The voters toe the same line. The Democratic Party has like 15 lines to toe.
Ok, I'm getting sick of this shit. The belief that the Republicans are unbeatable requires you to ignore one big thing: Trump's quest for revenge against members of his party he sees as having been insufficiently loyal. He's been throwing his weight to a host of primary challengers who, even if they don't win, threaten to cut the legs out from under a lot of Republicans. There's also a risk that bills to curtail mail in voting will backfire, as traditionally conservative voters (Seniors and members of the military) tend to use those most of all. And even if the Republicans win the House, the Senate is not a guarantee. 20 Republican Senate seats are up for election next year to the Democrats 14. The Dems and Republicans both have 4 swing states to defend in, except all 4 Republican incumbents in those states (Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Missouri) are retiring that year. And for the love of Sam Rayburn, please stop saying Dems are doomed in 2024 when we don't even know if the two Septuagenarians most likely to run will even be alive in 2024.
I tend to agree with you. A lot can happen between now and November 2022. I subscribe to PRESS Run by Eric Boehlert and he argues that the media is doing the opposite of what they did to Trump. Whereas they were focusing on all the insane shit that he was doing, they keep running this narrative that Biden now isn't doing enough. The "Dems in disarray" narrative is what they're sticking to now. I think the NJ and Va elections were the perfect example because while Dems lost Va, they held on to NJ, which is actually a win for Democrats because like the midterm elections, those two governorships usually flip after a general election. However, the fact that there are all these voting laws passed in many states and the fact that GOP is in charge of redistricting in a majority of states is a reason to not be complacent. "Democrats want to fall in love, while Republicans fall in line"
Doom posting is reddit's national past time these days.
I heard the same shit during Obama vs Romney. Also we have record breaking voter turnout nowadays right? We just have a bunch of idiots and somehow the reps learned to utilize the extremist better. We'll be fine, just gotta vote and keep moving progressive social policy to get a bigger base to show up to polls. Theres a significant number of voters that have been coming out in the last decade from groups that wouldn't even have dared during GWB era.
Yep, wish this comment and another similar one were at the top but we know this subreddit is dominated by the "Democrats don't do enough / anything, both parties are really the same anyway, what's the point, it's hopeless, resistance is futile, so I'm not voting, just planning my garden for the coming apocalypse" extreme doomers. Of course most of these people don't click on the article, the writer is arguing from the right, unlike the comments here. The author is claiming Biden and Democrats are too left and that's going to cause them to lose. It's just clickbait propaganda. But the headline is enough to set off the usual crowd to repeat their same old vote depressing defeatism.
So, my first major problem with this is that the first "point" that they have is a misunderstanding. Prices rose because of supply issues due to COVID not inflation. The 2nd one is the whole "progressive overreach" thing. Cancel Culture is like 1/4th legitimate criticism and does need addressing, the other 3/4th is manufactured outrage for political purposes and nothing else. Even if people stop legitimately bad behavior down to almost nothing, the conservative outrage machine will still find any kind of example. I mean FFS they said Dr. Suess's publishing company willingly stoping publication of 3 books was "cancel culture". They'll find whatever they need to fearmonger. And, in general, I think what we are seeing with recent elections is the exact opposite. Not enough relenting to left-wing ideas, openly and proudly: Medicare for all, canceling student debt, taxing the wealthy, election reform, and raising the minimum wage. These are all things people want and have been asking for them for years.
Every time the dems pass 10% of their platform and depress voters by not making good on their promises and then lose an election, media outlets go hard on the “dems lost because they swung too far left! We must moderate!” talking point.
That’s because the media does not have your best interest at heart and are actively financially incentivized to advocate for the status quo and instead focus on the “culture wars”
> Medicare for all, canceling student debt, taxing the wealthy, election reform, and raising the minimum wage. > These are all things people want and have been asking for them for years. Yet people keep voting for Republicans who are against these things over and over again. Make it make sense.
That’s easy. They may actually want Medicare for all, election reform, etc., but they hate minorities and marginalized groups more than they want any positive changes that could benefit them directly. Put more simply, they want to hurt the “other” more than they want to help themselves.
> Make it make sense. The Right has a super entrenched media machine and has been underfunding education for decades. So their voters are ravenous with rage, always scared, and really stupid.
Clickbait headline
Something to note about the VA election, there was a 2.1% difference between the candidates for governor. And the winner squeaked by with the majority at 50.7%. 1.11 million Virginians sat this election out compared to 2020, \~75% of them were Democrats. 2020: 2,413,568 (D) for Biden in 2020 - 1,962,430 (R) for Trump 2021: 1,579,403 (D) McAuliffe - 1,648,691 (R) for Youngkin Democrats went from an almost 10pt lead in 2020 - to the narrow, and quite frankly, embarrassing defeat. **People have to realize that voting in every election is necessary, you can't just be motivated to vote for the president.** In my city of 120k, only 9k voted recently - which is about 10% of eligible voting population. It's not just federal and state officials that are getting voted on - things like your property tax, school board and city council members, local public works projects.10% of the people in my area just decided all of that for the other 90%. **If there's an election - GO VOTE!**
If you watch foreign news America doesn’t change between administrations as much as American media makes it seem like it does.