|
Abilifier posted:Then it will be voted on a few hours later, with almost no debate and little public knowledge. No, it's being voted on next week. The public will have some time to read it and burst in outrage.
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 06:51 |
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I don't think this is really any kind of large scale problem. GA-06 was played as a winnable seat and we lost. People are going to be pissed about that and desperately trying to convince them that it's actually a good thing isn't going to accomplish anything. Nobody will still be demoralized over this in a year and a half, and that's all that really matters. Also we need to keep in mind that a hell of a lot is going to happen to the Trump administration and the political landscape in general over the next year and a half. We need to act like we just lost an early round and get in our corner and make some fixes. But there is going to be a lot that is different about this fight next November.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
Even if it didn't happen Ossoff would most likely have lost.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
Abilifier posted:Then it will be voted on a few hours later, with almost no debate and little public knowledge. McConnell deserves a fate worse than death
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
Such as reading my post history
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
But really he should burn in hell
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
DreamShipWrecked posted:That's the root of the issue, right leaning people that hate Trump don't vote left, they just don't vote. Nah, worse than that. Right-leaning people who hate Trump still go out and vote for him because they hate Democrats more. That's the clear take-away for me: no amount of GOP and Trump terribleness is going to overcome the right-wing hate-machine and the tribal identity Republicans have formed. I don't know what the solution to that is. I'm trying to hold out hope that in aggregate, and once the SC breaks gerrymandering, and once the effects of these policies are felt thereall be changes. I'd like to discuss what those solutions would be, but apparently this isn't a thread for discussion, this is a thread for angry smug people to insist on an answer, that the answer has been obvious to them for years, and to snidely snipe at everyone else. So I'll go back to waiting for more from Party Plane Jones, the only consistently good poster in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
I'm truly surprised they can put a bill to a vote with no debate and no committee examining it. It is a pig in a poke.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
Of course they waited until after GA-06 to release this poop storm of a bill.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
I am surprise there has been no leaks as to the contents of the bill other than "It's mean" and sniffs of it being worse than the house bill. They must be compartmentalised themselves hardcore.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
Rigel posted:McConnell's demonic health care bill will lurch forth from its secret fetid swamp, hissing at the light of day tomorrow morning
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
skeleton warrior posted:Nah, worse than that. Right-leaning people who hate Trump still go out and vote for him because they hate Democrats more. That's the clear take-away for me: no amount of GOP and Trump terribleness is going to overcome the right-wing hate-machine and the tribal identity Republicans have formed. Don't hold your breath that SCOTUS will do anything about gerrymandering
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
Sen. Mike Lee one of the people supposedly in charge of "writing" the bill claimed in a FB video that he hadn't even seen it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:I am surprise there has been no leaks as to the contents of the bill other than "It's mean" and sniffs of it being worse than the house bill. They must be compartmentalised themselves hardcore. Literally the only people that have seen it are McConnell, his personal aides and the CBO (which has a history of being 100% apolitical and not leaking).
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Sen. Mike Lee one of the people supposedly in charge of "writing" the bill claimed in a FB video that he hadn't even seen it. Same with Portman.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
skeleton warrior posted:...once the SC breaks gerrymandering... It'll probably be decided by Kennedy yet again. I'm just not so sure. skeleton warrior posted:...and once the effects of these policies are felt...
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
Yeah so not even the people "in charge" have seen it which is kind of ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
This GA-06 thing is getting way over interpreted. I mean, yes, a win is better than a loss. But looking at the average swing in special elections since Trump took office, this is still consistent with a Dem takeover. And remember, we still have 18 months of slowly eroding support for Trump, along with national disasters, recessions, and pee tapes yet to drop. Confidently predicting the Dems have no chance in 2018 after the GA-06 loss is just being willfully sadbrains and ignoring reality. The odds of a Dem takeover are not principally any different today than they were on Monday evening. It's probable but not certain.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
Captain Invictus posted:also, democrats are performing an average 8% higher in these elections against literally everything the GOP can throw at them. Have you SEEN the smear campaign directed at Ossoff? Outright lies, accusations of terrorist leanings, not to mention having huge support from out of state up to and including the president himself to push GOP voter turnout in an already heavily red. That it was still that close is pretty shocking. Is an eight percent national shift enough to swing the House?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Yeah so not even the people "in charge" have seen it which is kind of ridiculous. So who's actually writing it then?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
empty whippet box posted:So who's actually writing it then? "Staff Aides". I however suspect it's basically being written by Insurance Companies. Basically any way to maximize profits and minimize actual services they need to deliver. I think they'll leave Medicare alone , but they'll definitely go after Medicaid probably with a High Risk pool system.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Voters have been feeling the effects of modern Republican policies since the '70s, or even more directly since the '80s, and they just continue to buy into the talking point that it's the fault of the Democrats. I don't see how that changes. The voters have only popularly elected only one GOP presidential candidate since the 80's and elected a Democratic Senate for the majority of the same time. Beyond their base, Republicans can't keep a stranglehold on anything they can't gerrymander.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
Koyaanisgoatse posted:Don't hold your breath that SCOTUS will do anything about gerrymandering Yeah, after all, they upheld North Carolina's gerrymandering in Cooper v Harris, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Is an eight percent national shift enough to swing the House? I think at 8 points Nate Silver has said there's a 50/50 shot. But we're still 18 months away so the swing could be 15 points or it could be 5 points. Who knows.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:I don't think they've ever heard a case about political gerrymandering. Its been a while, but they actually have. Kennedy said that although extreme partisan political gerrymandering was probably unconstitutional, he couldn't come up with a fair, objective, and easy way for a court to identify an extreme political gerrymander. The reason this case is moving is because a lot of mathematicians and political scientists accepted the challenge and did a lot of peer-reviewed research to come up with an easy objective method that Kennedy was hoping for. Assuming there are no standing issues and they get to the merits, then we'll see if Kennedy meant what he said.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Its been a while, but they actually have. Kennedy said that although extreme partisan political gerrymandering was probably unconstitutional, he couldn't come up with a fair, objective, and easy way for a court to identify an extreme political gerrymander. The reason this case is moving is because a lot of mathematicians and political scientists accepted the challenge and did a lot of peer-reviewed research to come up with an easy objective method that Kennedy was hoping for. This is a better post on the topic than mine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Yeah, after all, they upheld North Carolina's gerrymandering in Cooper v Harris, right? uhhh.... no, they did not. They ruled 5-3 against the state. Its a different issue anyway, that was about racial gerrymandering. We're talking about purely partisan, political gerrymandering.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Assuming there are no standing issues and they get to the merits, then we'll see if Kennedy meant what he said. Also assuming the makeup of the court hasn't changed by that point 
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Yeah, after all, they upheld North Carolina's gerrymandering in Cooper v Harris, right? They had emails celebrating that it was racial gerrymandering. The NCGOP is evil, but very stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Do you really have high-hopes for SCOTUS to over-turn political gerrymandering? I mean, it seems that SCOTUS has been fairly against gerrymandering in recent years, but I don't think they've ever heard a case about political gerrymandering. Thomas joined the more liberal justices in the previous ruling against NC, but that was gerrymandering based on race. I can't see Thomas going along with them this time. And Gorsuch is a piece of human poo poo, so of course he'll say it's fine. Kennedy has said if there were a test that could prove political gerrymandering he'd rule against it. We now have such a test- you can look at the total number of "wasted votes" by party (that is, any vote that takes the party above 50% of the district's votes, or any vote for a party that does not result in a victory), and when one party has way more wasted votes than the other party, it provides evidence of gerrymandering. More reading -> https://newrepublic.com/article/118534/gerrymandering-efficiency-gap-better-way-measure-gerrymandering
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
TGLT posted:Okay, that's not people's positions and I really hope you know that. Had Ossoff won, a lot of Republicans might have taken a second to consider that maybe the AHCA will kill them in their next election. And the fact that leaders in the Republican party have been doing their damndest to insulate their members from town halls, there's some merit to that idea. actually if you read the last twenty pages going back to the beginning of the election results i believe you will find that it is indeed many people's position. also of thousands of 'progressives' on twitter, but i guess that's not wholly relevant. it is quite obvious that at this point many gop congresspeople are very aware that the AHCA is toxic as gently caress. an ossoff win would not have changed the current trajectory at all, and if you believe that you have no loving idea who mitch mcconnell is or what he has done in his political career. let's look at the numbers. the last election in 2016 in ga06 ended with (R) tom price winning by 76,171 more votes, with a total vote cast of 326,005 (201,088 going to price), or 61.7% of the vote (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia%27s_6th_congressional_district#2016). the democrat received 124,917 votes. last night, handel received 134,595 votes to ossoff's 124,893. the democratic candidate was essentially flat vs the previous election. handel managed to somehow lose loving 66,493 voters since the last republican elected in the district. forget the democrats, the message, etc. if you are republican, do you really loving care who won or lost a meaningless seat that four months ago was a foregone conclusion your team would win anyway? or do you care that your candidate and party just somehow managed to leak 33 loving percent of its voter base? that is loving insane voter depression, and cause for alarm. if losing 33% of the (R) voter turnout for this election, regardless of the win, isn't cause for GOP alarm and a total overhaul to the approach of the AHCA, nothing is. which is the point. they are trying to jam this through regardless of the rest of reality. skylined! fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Jun 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
Rigel posted:uhhh.... no, they did not. They ruled 5-3 against the state. That was sarcasm dude
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
Rigel posted:"We own you, Trump. Knock it off or we release piss tape" alternatively hey trump, fire mueller and try to squash this (knowing it would cause further US instability)
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
skylined! posted:
i dont disagree with your numbers here but i look at it from a different perspective. since you're comparing the 2016 general to the 2017 special election in my opinion it's better to say not so much that handel lost this many voters moving from a big to a small election, but that ossoff managed to turn out nearly as many voters as the general election. the end result is the same regardless
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
Dietrich posted:Kennedy has said if there were a test that could prove political gerrymandering he'd rule against it. We now have such a test- you can look at the total number of "wasted votes" by party (that is, any vote that takes the party above 50% of the district's votes, or any vote for a party that does not result in a victory), and when one party has way more wasted votes than the other party, it provides evidence of gerrymandering. They could make a couple of simple rules that would help. Limit the width and/or length of a district to double the shortest side. Have districts that have only two or four intersections with a line of longitude or latitude. Make an exception for historical county lines or state lines. That would go a long way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Its been a while, but they actually have. Kennedy said that although extreme partisan political gerrymandering was probably unconstitutional, he couldn't come up with a fair, objective, and easy way for a court to identify an extreme political gerrymander. The reason this case is moving is because a lot of mathematicians and political scientists accepted the challenge and did a lot of peer-reviewed research to come up with an easy objective method that Kennedy was hoping for. Yeah I have a good feeling about it. Using the least wasted votes model is actually scientifically fair, it will be difficult for them to rule against it. Then again I haven't seen the counter arguments at this time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Yeah, after all, they upheld North Carolina's gerrymandering in Cooper v Harris, right? They've struck down racial gerrymandering before. The Wisconsin case is about political gerrymandering, which has never been held unconstitutional. The justices granted a stay of the lower court's decision by 5-4, perhaps indicating that they won't do anything about political gerrymandering on the merits.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
We should also probably compare it to the 2014 midterm rather than to the presidential election. I understand overall turnout was somewhere in between the two.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 06:51 |
|
|
Last night I got real pissed at the election. Then I said gently caress it and smoked a weed and shot Nazis in Wolfenstein The New Order. This morning I woke up sad and crawled to my lovely cubicle and listened to my favorite comedy albums all morning and now I feel better. If something happens that breaks you its OK to disconnect for 24 to 48 hours before you resume screaming at the sky. And Mango Sentinel's worst tweet is hard to pin down. Anything warmongering about NK is pretty terrifying. I thought yesterday's was scary as poo poo but it got buries under election anxiety.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:50
|
|
