|
Khisanth Magus posted:The thing about gerrymandering is that they rely on previous voter patterns to be reliable, which would in my mind also correlate to the candidates and platforms involved. If you can energize a group of people who don't typically vote you can break the hold that gerrymandering provided. The problem of course is that it is a very risky proposition that could result in wasting a lot of money, and the Democrats really don't have a Koch bros willing to throw unlimited money at basically every race in the country. I 100% agree. It's probably worth experimenting with, maybe try challenging a few House seats here or there and see what stick. Another problem is the unpredictability of candidates that you'll get when you're on the political margins. You might not get anyone with public speaking skills, you might get people with terrible positions on this or that issue, and your ability to filter them is lessened by having less to chose from. That's a problem that mitigates itself as you get bigger though. quote:Uh, yeah, and those specific seats are likely pretty safely Dem since that's how gerrymandering works. So why would they automatically flip just because the previous chucklefuck was primaried out? You are correct, my apologies. I was thinking of Republican gerrymandered seats that are safe R. My bad.
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 18:03 |
|
|
I like "A Better Deal". It clearly evokes the idea of the New Deal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I 100% agree. It's probably worth experimenting with, maybe try challenging a few House seats here or there and see what stick. Another problem is the unpredictability of candidates that you'll get when you're on the political margins. You might not get anyone with public speaking skills, you might get people with terrible positions on this or that issue, and your ability to filter them is lessened by having less to chose from. That's a problem that mitigates itself as you get bigger though. Gerrymandered Republican districts are easier to flip in a Democratic wave election. The point of the REDMAP gerrymander is to concentrate a bunch of Democratic voters into incredibly safe districts that are something like D+20, and you dilute the rest of your voters into a bunch more R+5 districts. Enough that in a normal (non-wave) election you get very consistent outcomes. But in a democratic wave, gerrymandering can backfire on you, since incumbent Democrats don't have to seriously defend their seats, while almost every Republican in a marginal seat that's been gerrymandered red is at risk, since the turnout margin is enough to threaten their diluted margin.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:Gerrymandered Republican districts are easier to flip in a Democratic wave election. The point of the REDMAP gerrymander is to concentrate a bunch of Democratic voters into incredibly safe districts that are something like D+20, and you dilute the rest of your voters into a bunch more R+5 districts. Enough that in a normal (non-wave) election you get very consistent outcomes. But in a democratic wave, gerrymandering can backfire on you, since incumbent Democrats don't have to seriously defend their seats, while almost every Republican in a marginal seat that's been gerrymandered red is at risk, since the turnout margin is enough to threaten their diluted margin. This is what gave people hope if Bernie became the nominee that the Democrats could get real stuff done, because there is the possibility, however marginal, that having him as a candidate could have caused a wave by energizing normally unreliable voting bases. Some Gerrymandered districts are setup very tight and even a couple % swing would be enough to break the R hold.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:I like "A Better Deal". It clearly evokes the idea of the New Deal. In the same way that the New Deal was intended to invoke Teddy Roosevelt's "Square Deal."
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:I like "A Better Deal". It clearly evokes the idea of the New Deal. Evoking the New Deal It gives POC voters cause to side eye the the initiative because they were intentionally excluded from the New Deal. Further, it sacrifices would could have been a more evocative phrase in order to reference a slogan that most voters probably don't feel particularly strong about (maybe this isn't the case, I didn't look up polling data or anything). "Better Deal" suggests an improvement to the status quo where a better slogan would imply a break from the status quo. "Deal" is bad because it reminds voters of Trump.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
"Square Deal" was better because it implies that the deal will fair. "New Deal" was better because it implies throwing out the old deal and starting again from scratch. "Better Deal" just implies that the deal won't be as bad as the current one. E: like, I know I'm being obnoxious here, but people conceptualize "better" as "being the intermediary between good and best." The current deal is not good, and the Democrats should be promising voters the best. The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Nov 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Evoking the New Deal It gives POC voters cause to side eye the the initiative because they were intentionally excluded from the New Deal. Further, it sacrifices would could have been a more evocative phrase in order to reference a slogan that most voters probably don't feel particularly strong about (maybe this isn't the case, I didn't look up polling data or anything). Voters are unlikely to feel strongly because your average voter probably doesn't remember what the New Deal was. Otherwise all of this is true. It having kind of a dumb name wouldn't matter as much if they'd never shut up about it, ever. Shout that poo poo from the rooftops. At this point Bernie and his crew should never stop talking about Better Deal, ever, because now it has union stuff in it and then that way if they win he can be like "ok better deal time now"
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:I like "A Better Deal". It clearly evokes the idea of the New Deal. it just implies whatever previous deal they had was poo poo
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
The Democrats should have just named their platform "Eternal Euphoria." Chuck Schumer: It's time for a new Democratic platform. It's time for Americans to experience Eternal Euphoria.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The Democrats should have just named their platform "Eternal Euphoria." i'd vote for democrats again if they made installing THC pumps in every american part of the platform
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The Democrats should have just named their platform "Eternal Euphoria." So opiates in tap water?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:i'd vote for democrats again if they made installing THC pumps in every american part of the platform One step closer to the Brave New World future.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:One step closer to the Brave New World future. A gram really is better than a drat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:So opiates in tap water? From personal experience I can assure you that the euphoria produced from such a plan would not, in fact, be "eternal."
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:From personal experience I can assure you that the euphoria produced from such a plan would not, in fact, be "eternal." I mean, it will be if we use enough
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
Flavahbeast posted:I mean, it will be if we use enough True enough. We'll start needing to cull the human population so we can re-purpose our arable land towards the production of poppies. A bold vision for a bold new Democratic Party.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
Just call it "The Real Deal" and have Congressman Cena get out there and sell it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
cross-posting from the suck zoneCondiv posted:here's a cool little info-comic that was posted in a subreddit i frequent: Condiv fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Nov 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Once they've won seats and accomplish things, they have something to run on at the state level, and the Dems will trip over themselves to run left. The only version of this I am aware of is the Progressive Party in VT. They have won seats at the state level (they currently have about 5% of the state Sen/Rep seats plus the Lt. Gov.) and the VT dems continue to suck and lose and drift right. In Vermont. Where people loving LOVE Bernie.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
Acinonyx posted:The only version of this I am aware of is the Progressive Party in VT. They have won seats at the state level (they currently have about 5% of the state Sen/Rep seats plus the Lt. Gov.) and the VT dems continue to suck and lose and drift right. In Vermont. Where people loving LOVE Bernie. That doesn't surprise me, but I don't agree that implies that it won't work. It has to be well organized, aggressive, and happen in more than one state before it starts having a serious impact. It also isn't going to happen overnight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:So opiates in tap water? Don't need a bill for that. Pruitt will just allow dumping of opiates into the water eventually.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
The Muppets On PCP posted:it just implies whatever previous deal they had was poo poo I think the intention is to imply that the current deal--y'know, the deal the Trump administration and the Republicans are offering--is poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
Pruitt is the worst because he know how the minutiae of the CFR works. In the realm of transportation regulation companies can write PHMSA and get letters and interpretations back in a formal process. Letters could say this or that will be interpreted this or that way based on company X's specific circumstances. I'd imagine the environmental stuff has similar processes and the potential fuckery worries me a lot. Some of it might never come out. Edit: that was weird meant CFR not federal register Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 22:11 on Nov 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:In the same way that the New Deal was intended to invoke Teddy Roosevelt's "Square Deal." in 2320, Senator Barack Duckworth VII runs on a Good Deal platform of ensuring that every village gets enough mutant murder-centipig meat to subsist in a nutritionally healthy fashion
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
Democratic Minority House Whip, Steny Hoyer works with House Republicans to block bi-partisan bill to end US participation in the Yemen conflict.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 05:59
|
|
|
Kokoro Wish posted:Democratic Minority House Whip, Steny Hoyer works with House Republicans to block bi-partisan bill to end US participation in the Yemen conflict.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 06:02
|
|
|
Kokoro Wish posted:Democratic Minority House Whip, Steny Hoyer works with House Republicans to block bi-partisan bill to end US participation in the Yemen conflict. quote:Katie Grant, a spokesperson for Hoyer’s office, did not deny the congressman’s opposition to the resolution and instead issued a statement indicating that negotiations are ongoing. “Whip Hoyer is working with Rep. Khanna, Republican and Democratic leadership, and the Foreign Affairs Committee to find a way forward,” Grant said. quote:Advocates for the resolution are hopeful that senior Democratic lawmakers break ranks and co-sponsor the bill. These are probably the most interesting bits. The Democratic whip is opposing the resolution but actively trying to get it to the floor to be voted on publicly, so he may have poo poo opinions but he is working to get the anti-war people heard. Meanwhile Dem leadership is divided, but it appears more of the leadership supports the resolution or at least doesn't actively oppose it than not. It's not ideal but it making it to the floor at all would be a big deal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Between shitbags like Steny and Chuck "W was right!" Schumer are the Dems even an opposition party? no
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 06:16
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Meanwhile Dem leadership is divided, but it appears more of the leadership supports the resolution or at least doesn't actively oppose it than not. How very progressive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 06:23
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Between shitbags like Steny and Chuck "W was right!" Schumer are the Dems even an opposition party? Why does opposing Obama's war in Yemen have anything to do with opposing Republicans?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 06:24
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Oh good. Not all Democrats actively oppose the idea that perhaps we shouldn't cavort gleefully in the blood of Yemeni children as insane princelings slaughter them from the air. I mean, no, it's not good. But the fact that a resolution is likely going to make it to the floor of Congress aided by Democrats to challenge a presidential war is a big loving deal, and the fact that it enjoys a substantial amount of rank and file Dem support and support from the House leader is as well. Edit: they're also trying to work it into the NDAA, that's also a big deal. We never should've been involved in Yemen, but Congress even attempted to assert authority over presidential wars with substantial force is a good thing. Lightning Knight fucked around with this message at 06:27 on Nov 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 06:24
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Why does opposing Obama's war in Yemen have anything to do with opposing Republicans? Murdering Muslim kids has broad bipartisan support.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 06:29
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:That's a good point. it's a bipartisan bill that they're opposing, so not murdering muslim kids does too
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 07:19
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Between shitbags like Steny and Chuck "W was right!" Schumer are the Dems even an opposition party? Nope.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 10:44
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/gmoomaw/status/925899716768010240 https://twitter.com/rtyson82/status/926032759679840256 theCalamity fucked around with this message at 13:12 on Nov 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 13:05
|
|
|
Donna Brazile just knifed DWS in the back. Guess she sees which way the winds are blowing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 13:18
|
|
|
DWS, and pretty much anybody tangentially related to hillary's campaign
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 13:40
|
|
|
Suddenly everyone trusts her when she says things they want to hear.FizFashizzle posted:Guess she sees which way the winds are blowing. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 14:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 18:03 |
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Suddenly everyone trusts her when she says things they want to hear. Nothing about the story itself, huh?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 14:11
|
|