Red
Well-Known Member
I am hopeful where the Senate is concerned. The results of the midterms will have an effect on the question, for sure. We’ll see…
The Biden Administration and All Things Politics
- Thread starter Avery
- Start date
Red
Well-Known Member
History has enough examples of how hard it is to understand what’s really happening WHILE it’s happening, how tough to ferret out where trends are leading while still midstream. But obviously red and blue states are growing apart….
www.cnn.com
“The only time I can recall in American history even remotely like this [divergence] was after the Civil War when the separate but equal doctrine began to emerge" across the South as a backlash against the attempts of the 13th, 14th and 15th Constitutional amendments to ensure equality for the freed slaves, says Donald Kettl, the former dean of the public policy school at the University of Maryland and author of the book, "The Divided States of America." He added, "It's a multifront war with very sharp swords."….
…….Yet the real threat in the red state effort to set their own course may be less an advantage for one side or another than a challenge to the nation's underlying cohesion. As red states grow more aggressive about going their own way, while working to preempt challenges from above (the federal government) or below (blue local governments), they are testing how much divergence the nation's fundamental cohesion can take before it begins to unravel.
"You have a very dangerous situation," said David Leopold, a former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association and legal adviser to the immigration advocacy group America's Voice. "This is a direct threat to the nation as a unified entity. This is one step closer to the country dividing into two separate countries."
Analysis: Red states are building a nation within a nation
It was a revealing sign of the times when the Supreme Court last week, in response to a lawsuit from the Republican state attorneys general in Texas and Louisiana, blocked President Joe Biden's administration from changing a key element of federal immigration policy.
www.cnn.com
“The only time I can recall in American history even remotely like this [divergence] was after the Civil War when the separate but equal doctrine began to emerge" across the South as a backlash against the attempts of the 13th, 14th and 15th Constitutional amendments to ensure equality for the freed slaves, says Donald Kettl, the former dean of the public policy school at the University of Maryland and author of the book, "The Divided States of America." He added, "It's a multifront war with very sharp swords."….
…….Yet the real threat in the red state effort to set their own course may be less an advantage for one side or another than a challenge to the nation's underlying cohesion. As red states grow more aggressive about going their own way, while working to preempt challenges from above (the federal government) or below (blue local governments), they are testing how much divergence the nation's fundamental cohesion can take before it begins to unravel.
"You have a very dangerous situation," said David Leopold, a former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association and legal adviser to the immigration advocacy group America's Voice. "This is a direct threat to the nation as a unified entity. This is one step closer to the country dividing into two separate countries."
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
None of those will happen. And no one in 20+ years has even made an effort for #3. Literally no one.
Avery
Well-Known Member
Imagine a country where there was no such thing as an actual party and everyone are just independents with their own views that we voted on.
Will never happen because the world doesn't even function that way, but would be great to vote on the people, not the party.
Even if D's hate Biden, if he's the candidate, they'll fall in line. If it's Trump, they'll fall in line. If they don't do either, they'll just sit on the sidelines and not endorse anyone. We've all seen this movie before.
Will never happen because the world doesn't even function that way, but would be great to vote on the people, not the party.
Even if D's hate Biden, if he's the candidate, they'll fall in line. If it's Trump, they'll fall in line. If they don't do either, they'll just sit on the sidelines and not endorse anyone. We've all seen this movie before.
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
Our system of government is actually closer to that then nearly every other system in the world. In a large chunk of the world, people vote for parties. They don't vote for candidate X or candidate Y, but for Labour, or Blahblah First, or Blahblah Social Democrat. Then the parties are able to appoint a number of members proportional to the vote they received. If Labour gets 37% of the vote then they appoint 37% of the seats.
In the US system, everyone runs individually and sets their policies individually. Joe Manchin and AOC are both democrats despite their significantly different political platforms. Our political parties are in practice fund raising networks with the two biggest fund raising networks being the GOP and the DNC. The GOP and DNC are as dominant as they are because advertising works and advertising is expensive. Money is speech, the First Amendment isn't going anywhere, and neither the GOP or DNC will allow the kind of real reform to candidate financing that would diminish their power. The closest thing we have to choice are the independent stances taken by the different individual candidates within the parties.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
I thought the Obama admin attempted to work across the aisle regarding economic stimulus packages and the ACA. Republicans decided that stringing him along and then voting against their own proposals was the best way to make Obama a one-term president. Almost every American, Republican or Democrat, has benefitted directly or indirectly from the ACA. My extended family in particular have many people with pre-existing conditions that wouldn’t have been covered by health insurance had the ACA never been passed.
I also thought Bush reached across the aisle early in his presidency. No Child Left Behind might not be a silver bullet but it was a valiant attempt by both political parties to improve public edu. Bush was also the last president who attempted to resolve immigration issues.
Senate kills Bush immigration reform bill
The U.S. Senate dealt a fatal blow on Thursday to President George W. Bush's overhaul of immigration policy -- an emotional issue that has divided Americans in the run-up to next year's presidential election.
www.reuters.com
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
I think there’s a strong argument that the weakening of political parties is what’s created the mess we’re in. Political parties should act as gatekeepers. Historically, political parties would’ve thrown out demagogues like Trump and promoted moderates. Now they’re weakened to the point that demagogues don’t need the political party and can just super charge large mobs with their fiery rhetoric.
Polarization in U.S. politics starts with weak political parties
Ian Shapiro, Sterling Professor of Political Science at Yale, says weak political parties are responsible for the polarization in American politics.
news.yale.edu
I think the frustration comes from only realistically having two political parties to choose from. That comes with the type of government we’ve adopted. We’re not a parliamentarian system. Although, you probably could encourage more political parties to become competitive if you got rid of winner take all systems, like the electoral college for president and adopted proportional representation voting for state legislatures and the House. You’d also have to get rid of the filibuster and have strong campaign finance laws. Stuff that couldn’t be passed right now. And if they were passed, would be gutted by the SCOTUS.
Archives - FairVote
Review FairVote's legacy content from the previous website (2014-2022).
www.fairvote.org
Last edited by a moderator:
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Yeah they did a bit. The real problem is in Congress and the Senate. The president can really only do so much. If everyone else won't respond then it gets nowhere. We need a real uniter to step up, in the presidency and in the legislature.I thought the Obama admin attempted to work across the aisle regarding economic stimulus packages and the ACA. Republicans decided that stringing him along and then voting against their own proposals was the best way to make Obama a one-term president. Almost every American, Republican or Democrat, has benefitted directly or indirectly from the ACA. My extended family in particular have many people with pre-existing conditions that wouldn’t have been covered by health insurance had the ACA never been passed.
I also thought Bush reached across the aisle early in his presidency. No Child Left Behind might not be a silver bullet but it was a valiant attempt by both political parties to improve public edu. Bush was also the last president who attempted to resolve immigration issues.
Senate kills Bush immigration reform bill
The U.S. Senate dealt a fatal blow on Thursday to President George W. Bush's overhaul of immigration policy -- an emotional issue that has divided Americans in the run-up to next year's presidential election.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
Help me understand why some people think a change at president would be good if Dems don’t do too well in the midterms? Other than change for change’s sake, what would running a different candidate do? Do we think Republicans would be less obstructive? Cuz I was alive during the Obama admin and this game plan that Republicans are executing is the exact same used against Obama. Obstruct everything in the Senate, create a traffic jam of killed filibustered legislation, and the president gets all the blame. Senate Republicans would literally filibuster to death a cure for cancer if they thought it would hurt the Democratic president electorally.
Manchinema get a lot of blame, deservedly so. But why isn’t there ANY literally ANY blame for Senate Republicans who have made it their calling card to obstruct any and all Democratic legislation much to the detriment of the country? Biden isn’t a dictator, he’s limited by what can be passed by the Senate. Which disproportionately benefits Repubs since their top priorities. tax cuts and judges, can be passed through a majority only vote, not the 60 vote threshold.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
The only thing I disagree with is the “uniter” part since you insinuate that we haven’t had that in the past. We’ve now seen two moderate Democratic presidents face nonstop obstruction from day 1 of their presidencies. I don’t think the problem has been the lack of leadership at the executive. The issue is the lack of leadership at the Congressional level. Biden and Obama have tried to unite and lead. But the incentives to obstruct a president and blame him for everything is just too great. And it’s working! It’s working right now. Has Mitch faced any criticism over gas prices or inflation? His party has filibustered Democratic proposed legislation to aid (potential solutions?) with these problems
Senate plows ahead with price gouging bill
Democrats are using gouging legislation as a messaging tool as broader policy on energy and climate change remains stalled amid record gasoline prices.
www.eenews.net
Republicans have outsourced all legislating to the Supreme Court and executive actions of the president. That way, they don’t have to face tough votes or get blamed for anything. The only thing Republicans need to vote on are tax cuts and judges. But they’re richly rewarded by top donors even when they pass unpopular tax cuts (like we saw in 2017).
House Republican: my donors told me to pass the tax bill “or don’t ever call me again”
Chris Collins is saying the quiet part loud.
www.vox.com
Democrats have passed the buck as well. But not nearly to the extent that Republicans have. By and large, Democrats still try to pass stuff. Whether it be health care, infrastructure, gun regulation, etc. where it shows badly for them is budgets and military excursions. When was the last time a Democratic president sought authoritarian from Congress to do something militarily? Oof
I’m not sure how you make congress want to take hard votes and legislate again. But I’d like to see what would happen if we passed campaign finance reform and blew the filibuster. That might compel them to actually try and pass something in the senate since no longer could they stand behind the excuse of the filibuster.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
This is why we can’t pass things in the Senate. It’s filled with Republicans like this clown. I’m not sure if there’s been a time since the 1850s and 1860s when so many politicians are actively working to undermine our country and its government.
View: https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1552305536913362944?s=21&t=bMtt7pT9zYPPkHohNSeorw
View: https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1552305536913362944?s=21&t=bMtt7pT9zYPPkHohNSeorw
Red
Well-Known Member
No, I think it’s because Democrats are concerned with Biden’s low approval numbers, and concerned those numbers will translate as a loss in 2024. If the Republicans win the House in Nov., as predicted, there will also be hearings designed to hurt Biden. But I would not expect anything to change in the Republican’s obstructionist playbook if a Democrat is elected in 2024. If Biden is replaced on the ticket, it should also only happen if he is on the same page. Actually fighting him in a primary would be absurd, he would have to be on board with one term. And even at that it’s not the best look to replace an incumbent that won, and maybe it won’t happen. We’ll see how wounded the Democrats are, or are not, after the midterms, and a lot can happen in the two years before the 2024 election.