North Carolina 9th

[Rockfish1]

Most Americans agree with that crusade for election integrity.

Whatever most people think, it's obvious that Republicans aren't engaged in any "crusade for election integrity." They're suppressing the votes of likely Democrats, gerrymandering districts so it takes supermajorities to vote them out, and if they lose anyway they're passing laws to prevent the victors from governing. The #NewGOP isn't just anti-Democrat, it's anti-democratic.

 

[Thyrsis]

Whatever most people think, it's obvious that Republicans aren't engaged in any "crusade for election integrity." They're suppressing the votes of likely Democrats, gerrymandering districts so it takes supermajorities to vote them out, and if they lose anyway they're passing laws to prevent the victors from governing. The #NewGOP isn't just anti-Democrat, it's anti-democratic.

That's arguably being generous.

At some point, we should more closely parse what we mean by #NewGOP. What year did that come into existence?

And differentiating such political party interests has effectively nothing inherently to do with one's belief about the proper size and role of government.

 

[Thyrsis]

It’ll take a while for the party to overcome what Trump has done to it.

Again, this has nothing to do with one's political ideology (e.g., the size and role of government), but the notion that "this" is a function of Trump circa 2016-18 is to me an erroneous and counterproductive surrendering of cause and effect.

 

[Rockfish1]

Again, this has nothing to do with one's political ideology (e.g., the size and role of government), but the notion that "this" is a function of Trump circa 2016-18 is to me an erroneous and counterproductive surrendering of cause and effect.

Yes. Aspects of the GOP’s anti-democratic agenda have been around for a while. Republicans are now pursuing that agenda more brazenly, as the overwhelmingly white (and rural) Republican base feels increasingly threatened by demographic and cultural change. That hostile base regards The Other Guys as illegitimate and un-American. This justifies resort to Calvinball. Trump is a symptom of that. It’s no mystery why people voted for him or why 90 percent of Republicans are still happy with him.

By the way, we’ve discussed voter ID laws here forever. Reasonable decent mainstream Republicans have always defended these laws as sensible responses to a real problem. Whatever assumption of good faith might have been afforded those (erroneous) arguments at the time, how can we regard them as anything other than tribal bullshit in light of what we know now?

Whatever the polls say that most people think, it’s now impossible for reasonable and informed conservatives to deny what’s obviously going on — or to deny that’s what’s always been going on.

 

[Sope Creek]

At some point, we should more closely parse what we mean by #NewGOP. What year did that come into existence?

I'll bite: 1988, with Lee Atwater's chairmanship of 41's campaign, particularly in South Carolina. Gingrich soon followed with his scorched earth politics in the House. In reality, the GOP hasn't existed since then . . . because character no longer mattered to them, and still doesn't.

 

[Rockfish1]

I'll bite: 1988, with Lee Atwater's chairmanship of 41's campaign, particularly in South Carolina. Gingrich soon followed with his scorched earth politics in the House. In reality, the GOP hasn't existed since then . . . because character no longer mattered to them, and still doesn't.

That’s a pretty decent argument. Lots of poli sci types point to Gingrich as the beginning point of the lawless reactionary white nationalist party the GOP now is.

 

[Sope Creek]

That’s a pretty decent argument. Lots of poli sci types point to Gingrich as the beginning point of the lawless reactionary white nationalist party the GOP now is.

Yep, and there's good reason for that analysis too.

But I believe that Gingrich's tenure as Speaker was enabled by 41's concession to that "lawless reactionary white nationalist" streak - that the GOP first cozied up with in 1968 beginning with Nixon's law and order campaign in implementing the Southern Strategy. The GOP renaissance under Reagan still had elements of the patrician GOP, including 41 . . . until 41 conceded he couldn't win the primary, much less the general, election in 1988 without getting in bed with what has become the Trump Party. Any responsibility and accountability that once characterized the GOP has been co-opted by tax cut greed and shit-the-bed-and-don't-care types.

I believe that W realizes this now, and also realizes that horse can't be put back in the barn.

 

[Thyrsis]

Yep, and there's good reason for that analysis too.

But I believe that Gingrich's tenure as Speaker was enabled by 41's concession to that "lawless reactionary white nationalist" streak - that the GOP first cozied up with in 1968 beginning with Nixon's law and order campaign in implementing the Southern Strategy. The GOP renaissance under Reagan still had elements of the patrician GOP, including 41 . . . until 41 conceded he couldn't win the primary, much less the general, election in 1988 without getting in bed with what has become the Trump Party. Any responsibility and accountability that once characterized the GOP has been co-opted by tax cut greed and shit-the-bed-and-don't-care types.

I believe that W realizes this now, and also realizes that horse can't be put back in the barn.

Did you read Nixonland by any chance? (Not that reading Nixonland is required for an understanding of what you just wrote, but rather I'm just curious since Nixonland did a pretty decent job laying out a fair basis to support your post).

Even better, did you watch ESPN's "OJ: Made in America"? I thought that was pretty terrific.

 

[Thyrsis]

Did you read Nixonland by any chance? (Not that reading Nixonland is required for an understanding of what you just wrote, but rather I'm just curious since Nixonland did a pretty decent job laying out a fair basis to support your post).

Even better, did you watch ESPN's "OJ: Made in America"? I thought that was pretty terrific.

I'm just totally off on tangents now, but I also really liked When We Were Kings. And combined with my post above leads me to The Executioner's Song by Norman Mailer. I've not read it (or seen any screen any adaptation). Has anybody read it? Was it good? I'm thinking it might be something I might like.

 

[Sope Creek]

Did you read Nixonland by any chance? (Not that reading Nixonland is required for an understanding of what you just wrote, but rather I'm just curious since Nixonland did a pretty decent job laying out a fair basis to support your post).

Even better, did you watch ESPN's "OJ: Made in America"? I thought that was pretty terrific.

Um, nope, and nope. I'm just old . . . lived through and observed all that stuff in the process of getting here.

I did talk with my dad and my father in law - an electricians' union man - and got their takes on it all at the time, too. Both were WWII vets who had a pretty good handle on what the country's balance of power was like and the various influences coming from both sides, plus one was sort of a southerner/midwesterner, and the other was a northern midwesterner, so I got input from somewhat different viewpoints.

I haven't heard of Nixonland. And we gave up cable/DirecTV, although we do have YouTube TV so we can watch IU sports now. Might have to look for OJ . . . .

 

[Rockfish1]

Yep, and there's good reason for that analysis too.

But I believe that Gingrich's tenure as Speaker was enabled by 41's concession to that "lawless reactionary white nationalist" streak - that the GOP first cozied up with in 1968 beginning with Nixon's law and order campaign in implementing the Southern Strategy. The GOP renaissance under Reagan still had elements of the patrician GOP, including 41 . . . until 41 conceded he couldn't win the primary, much less the general, election in 1988 without getting in bed with what has become the Trump Party. Any responsibility and accountability that once characterized the GOP has been co-opted by tax cut greed and shit-the-bed-and-don't-care types.

I believe that W realizes this now, and also realizes that horse can't be put back in the barn.

You rightly note the massive political realignment that transformed the Solid South from reliably Democratic to the regional and ideological base of the Republican Party. Both parties made huge choices then. The party that chose wrong is now doubling down.

 

[Thyrsis]

Um, nope, and nope. I'm just old . . . lived through and observed all that stuff in the process of getting here.

I did talk with my dad and my father in law - an electricians' union man - and got their takes on it all at the time, too. Both were WWII vets who had a pretty good handle on what the country's balance of power was like and the various influences coming from both sides, plus one was sort of a southerner/midwesterner, and the other was a northern midwesterner, so I got input from somewhat different viewpoints.

I haven't heard of Nixonland. And we gave up cable/DirecTV, although we do have YouTube TV so we can watch IU sports now. Might have to look for OJ . . . .

I hear that.

Not sure if you like reading a ton, but while I think Nixonland is an important read, there are better literary diversions. I'd often rather read something that gives a little more humanity, shared understanding of people in our world and stories about how we interrelate in hopeful ways. If that's along your line of interest, I wouldn't blame you for wanting something more enriching than a history of brokenness.

Still, watch that ESPN show about OJ. I thought it was well done.

 

[Rockfish1]

Did you read Nixonland by any chance? (Not that reading Nixonland is required for an understanding of what you just wrote, but rather I'm just curious since Nixonland did a pretty decent job laying out a fair basis to support your post).

Rick Perlstein is always worth reading.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Perlstein

 

[Sope Creek]

The party that chose wrong is now doubling down.

That could mean a lot of things . . .

. . . even if you mean that the GOP "chose wrong", there's no denying that they've used variations of that strategy to win several national elections and impose a highly right-wing (by 1970 standards anyway) agenda on the country. Note that the country is several trillion dollars in debt as a result, too . . . I'd rather say that as a political party the GOP did what it had to do to "win", but as a country we've been losing our foundations - institutional and economic - ever since.

So we've chosen wrong, as a country. And we're just getting to the point where we're going to have to start paying the piper for the privilege . . . .

 

[Sope Creek]

I hear that.

Not sure if you like reading a ton, but while I think Nixonland is an important read, there are better literary diversions. I'd often rather read something that gives a little more humanity, shared understanding of people in our world and stories about how we interrelate in hopeful ways. If that's along your line of interest, I wouldn't blame you for wanting something more enriching than a history of brokenness.

Still, watch that ESPN show about OJ. I thought it was well done.

I don't "like" to read as much as I used to, and that's in part because I read a lot for work and other activities mostly related to theology these days. One little interesting side venture is a version of the New Testament translated and annotated by two Jewish scholars (one a New Testament prof at Vanderbilt, and a fan of the New Testament, but not a convert to Christianity), who've done their work with an eye to understanding the New Testament from Jewish historical and theological development perspectives, plus providing some background on Christianity to Jews who are befuddled by what strains of Christianity in the US are like. I'm thinking of this as sort of an Aaron-Copland-goes-to-Paris-to-discover-he's-an-American adventure . . . I figure the different perspective on scripture might help provide some relief against which I might gain a bit better of an understanding of what's really going on in there.

 

[Rockfish1]

That could mean a lot of things . . .

. . . even if you mean that the GOP "chose wrong", there's no denying that they've used variations of that strategy to win several national elections and impose a highly right-wing (by 1970 standards anyway) agenda on the country. Note that the country is several trillion dollars in debt as a result, too . . . I'd rather say that as a political party the GOP did what it had to do to "win", but as a country we've been losing our foundations - institutional and economic - ever since.

So we've chosen wrong, as a country. And we're just getting to the point where we're going to have to start paying the piper for the privilege . . . .

I meant right and wrong in the sense of Right and Wrong. Republicans have been depressingly successful with demagogic appeals that any decent person would regard as Wrong. But it’s not all of us choosing wrong. It’s Republicans choosing wrong.

No decent person today should vote Republican. At all. For anything. No one should even vote for a decent moderate Republican. Especially no one should vote for supposedly decent moderate Republicans. They vote like every other Republican, and while propping Trump up. they facilitate the illusion that it matters that some Republican politicians affect to be decent and moderate.

It’s possible that the disaffected conservative minority could somehow form the vanguard of a revitalized conservative movement that didn’t despise law, history, science, expertise, logic, facts, data, and evidence. (And monkeys might fly out of my butt.) But the reality is that a large swathe of the Republican base really is deplorable.

In the near term, Republicanism can only be defeated. It only wants everything and can’t be accommodated.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

gerrymandering districts so it takes supermajorities to vote them out

I know the Republicans are evil scum, but I never heard of the GOP passing a law that requires anything but 50%+1 to vote them out.

 

[iuwclurker]

I meant right and wrong in the sense of Right and Wrong. Republicans have been depressingly successful with demagogic appeals that any decent person would regard as Wrong. But it’s not all of us choosing wrong. It’s Republicans choosing wrong.

No decent person today should vote Republican. At all. For anything. No one should even vote for a decent moderate Republican. Especially no one should vote for supposedly decent moderate Republicans. They vote like every other Republican, and while propping Trump up. they facilitate the illusion that it matters that some Republican politicians affect to be decent and moderate.

It’s possible that the disaffected conservative minority could somehow form the vanguard of a revitalized conservative movement that didn’t despise law, history, science, expertise, logic, facts, data, and evidence. (And monkeys might fly out of my butt.) But the reality is that a large swathe of the Republican base really is deplorable.

In the near term, Republicanism can only be defeated. It only wants everything and can’t be accommodated.

I don't see how anyone can draw any conclusion from your assertions other than that the Democrats are entirely responsible for the mess we're in. Because most Americans are actually decent people. The key questions are, how are the Democrats losing unlosable elections and how to win them instead?

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

I know the Republicans are evil scum, but I never heard of the GOP passing a law that requires anything but 50%+1 to vote them out.

 

[wiede]

I don't see how anyone can draw any conclusion from your assertions other than that the Democrats are entirely responsible for the mess we're in. Because most Americans are actually decent people. The key questions are, how are the Democrats losing unlosable elections and how to win them instead?[/QUOTE

Your premise fails to account for gerrymandering.

Check out the districts in WI in the mid terms.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/election-results/wisconsin/

And this is with about 60% of eligible voters voting. Those districts are severely “packed” for the most part. Basically meaning that they concentrate voters from one party in a way where the district is overwhelmingly geared towards winning. A 75% win percentage is completely unnatural. You can’t get 3 out of 4 people to agree on many things- let alone politics.

I saw where the districts in WI are drawn in such a way that the Dems would have to take over 2/3 of the popular vote- just to take half of the seats. The districts were surgically drawn to maximize republican representation.

WI is a radical example, but there are many others. Mostly republican, but there are some dem states like Maryland that have really made the representation not representative of the voting population’s wishes.

Add that to the demographic trends of big cities getting bluer, and rural areas becoming redder, and I’m not sure there’s an easy answer. At this point, we will see the Overall national vote totals not line up with how many house seats are apportioned to each party. You can have more voters vote dem- and in many cases, it won’t matter.

I’d start with setting some data based parameters that show what a “fair” congressional district should be. Something where the overall vote totals line up with the amount of seats apportioned to each party.

And then I’d put a lot of effort into getting citizens behind it, so the states will have to follow their will. It amazes me that the US SC didn’t announce any standards for the WI gerrymandering case. They literally did nothing.

In short, it’ll require the citizenry giving a damn, and doing something about it. But, history tells us that most of the time nothing ever happens until people perceive it as a crisis- and even then, it’ll still be difficult.

So, to answer your question, it won’t involve more people voting Dem right now, unfortunately. Although it would help. But it won’t change until it’s viewed as a crisis- and we’re not there yet.