Election 2020

[padraig (u.s.)]

which means we're almost guaranteed - barring major unseen events or shifts in voting patterns - no major progressive legislation for the next decade. no major climate change legislation, no expansion of public health insurance, etc. not that such legislation would be guaranteed in a Biden/Harris Presidency but it would at least be possible.

and the usual McConnell obstructionist bullshit, which will make it difficult to get Cabinet appointees (i.e. the people actually carry out policy) confirmed. Biden will be lucky to get a liberal replacement justice for Breyer - who will retire now that a Democrat's in the WH - confirmed.

there was a lot of other disheartening stuff. CA decisively voting against affirmative action but for a bullshit proposition backed by Lyft, Uber, etc to allow them to continue classifying their workers as independent contractors. My own state of Illinois turning down a graduate income tax rate - which is both a hugely popular idea when polled and a testament to the ability of conservative forces to poison virtually anything with targeted propaganda - see also FL voting for both a $15 minimum wage and Trump, which guys, come on (and also the Spanish-language propaganda others have mentioned).

Trump had to go to, yunno, preserve American democracy, but other than that it was a miserable election if you give a shit about progressive politics.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

thankfully I'm not too emotionally invested, having spent my whole adult life watching the Democrats snatch defeat from the jaws of victory

but still

and craner is talking about Republicans infighting - which is true - but the Democrats are even worse rn. they know what a limited victory it is.

i.e. Abigail Spanberger going in hard on the left and blaming them for everything in a conference call

whether or not that's true - you could also blame it on running the living embodiment of tired centrism for President - everyone is upset

 

[version]

Giuliani in that car park outside the landscaping company was hilarious.

 

[IdleRich]

just to clear that up, bc the sentiment about achieving a level playing field is true but some of the details aren't

the biggest problem is the Senate. it's not that "boundaries are drawn unfairly" (that's the House) - the Senate doesn't have boundaries. it's the way Senators are apportioned - equal representation for every state regardless of pop size - combines with current demographics - a bunch of Western states with tiny, rural, overwhelmingly white populations - to give the modern Republican party a huge built-in advantage. you can't change the way Senators are apportioned without amending the Constitution, which definitely isn't going to happen, so the only answers are 1) wait for demographics to turn more states blue, or at least purple, which might take a decade and isn't guaranteed, or 2) add more blue-leaning states - which doesn't require a constitutional amendment, just a joint resolution passed by simple majority - specifically D.C. and Puerto Rico (which just voted yes, albeit narrowly, on a statehood referendum). the Republicans know all of that full well, so without a Democratic majority in the Senate it will likely never happen.

the Electoral College is less glaringly "unfair" - its main issue isn't that it doesn't represent state populations, it's that it doesn't reflect the national population. there are issues with how it represents state populations but they're tactical, like gerrymandering, rather than built into the Constitution. it's based on the census, which is why the Republicans devote so much effort to sabotaging the census and trying to turn it in their favor - i.e. trying to ban modeling in favor of traditional door-to-door methods (which always undercount minorities, the poor, etc), adding unconstitutional citizenship questions, etc - but even assuming a relatively accurate census the structural problem for the Democrats would be that they run up the popular vote winning big in big states which doesn't help them more than winning those states 50.1-49.9 would. the only way to change that would be, again, constitutional amendment, which isn't going to happen any time in the foreseeable future.

the number of Supreme Court justices is not determined by the Constitution, and could simply be changed by Congress, with justification. there would indeed be a great deal of howling, and it would require Democratic unaninimity in the Senate and near unanimity in the House - i.e. for Democrats from purple or even red states/districts to bite the bullet - which I'm not sure would be forthcoming, but it would at least be possible with a Democratic trifecta. keep in mind a liberal SC wouldn't be able to do anything about the unfairness of the Senate or EC - it rules on what's constitutional but it can't change the Constitution. tho there are many other reasons to want a liberal SC of course.

I'm sure a lot of the details of what I said were not spot on.
But the main points being that the Senate is unfairly decided, that the EC means that the popular vote diverges from electors (and so Californian individual votes count less) are broadly correct right? I mean I think your correcting the detail rather than the overall issues right?
In fact I knew that the no. of SC court justices is not in the constitution. I get the impression it would be easier to change than the EC - I suppose that's why it's being mentioned.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

the sentiment about unfairness is broadly correct, but the specific way in which different things are unfair is - importantly - different

i.e. CA votes count for less in both the Senate and EC, but that's amplified much more in the Senate

what's also important is the differences in how you can address structural disadvantage in different things

that's why it's not just pedantic to be accurate about the details

anything requiring Constitutional amendment - changing how Senators are apportioned, totally doing away w/EC - is essentially impossible

so you're left with options that only require a House-Senate-White House trifecta

for the Senate, adding new blue states. the EC you can only address indirectly, by trying to ensure an accurate census, which should favor Democrats.

adding SC justices falls under that category, so yes, more feasible than getting a Constitutional amendment passed

where I'm skeptical about it is the Democrats maintaining unanimity in the face of the inevitable howling. they're worse at closing ranks.

 

[Mr. Tea]

@WashYourHands

The Daily Mail has already unearthed a photo of him with Gerry Adams! 🤣

 

[IdleRich]

Trump had to go to, yunno, peserve American democracy, but other than that it was a miserable election if you give a shit about progressive politics.

All true... but he REALLY had to go. Imagine how we'd feel if all the above were true except he'd stayed... doesn't bear thinking about.

 

[IdleRich]

the sentiment about unfairness is broadly correct, but the specific way in which different things are unfair is - importantly - different

i.e. CA votes count for less in both the Senate and EC, but that's amplified much more in the Senate

what's also important is the differences in how you can address structural disadvantage in different things

that's why it's not just pedantic to be accurate about the details

anything requiring Constitutional amendment - changing how Senators are apportioned, totally doing away w/EC - is essentially impossible

so you're left with options that only require a House-Senate-White House trifecta

for the Senate, adding new blue states. the EC you can only address indirectly, by trying to ensure an accurate census, which should favor Democrats.

adding SC justices falls under that category, so yes, more feasible than getting a Constitutional amendment passed

where I'm skeptical about it is the Democrats maintaining unanimity in the face of the inevitable howling. they're worse at closing ranks.

Absolutely I'm happy to be schooled in all this. I'm learning abiut it all from across the ocean you know.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

All true... but he REALLY had to go. Imagine how we'd feel if all the above were true except he'd stayed.

right, I'm not saying Trump going isn't a big deal

but Trump going without any other change is a return to the pre-Trump status quo of McConnell-imposed gridlock

this was the Democrats best chance in the foreseeable future to retake the Senate and address its structural unfairness, allowing them to be more competitive going forward without such a favorable national climate (i.e. historically unpopular GOP incumbent), and they have likely miffed it

and don't worry, I'm pretty sure you already know more about how American democracy actually works than a large majority of Americans

 

[IdleRich]

I think with Twitter- finally - blocking Trump's lies and tv networks - belatedly - cutting away from him and fact checking... well I hope it curtailed their propaganda. At the moment with everyone announcing Biden as victor the Trump nonsense seems increasingly shrill and desperate. They have always been effective at controlling the narrative with all the platforms the presidency gave them access to. I appreciate the irony of them being at least partially hoist by their own petard.

 

[IdleRich]

right, I'm not saying Trump going isn't a big deal

but Trump going without any other change is a return to the pre-Trump status quo of McConnell-imposed gridlock

this was the Democrats best chance in the foreseeable future to retake the Senate and address its structural unfairness, allowing them to be more competitive going forward without such a favorable national climate (i.e. historically unpopular GOP incumbent), and they have likely miffed it

and don't worry, I'm pretty sure you already know more about how American democracy actually works than a large majority of Americans

If they do get it (Senate) by one or whatever what does that mean? Is it solid or is it like UK where you are always vulnerable to one guy not supporting?

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

that's why craner is talking about the fascination of watching Republican infighting rn

the outcome of this election - assuming they retain the Senate - is a massive win for the GOP establishment. Trump going is, in fact, a big part of that.

there's literally no reason to complain unless you're personally attached to Trump

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Is it solid or is it like UK where you are always vulnerable to one guy not supporting?

the latter

both parties have what are called "whips" in each house of Congress - people tasked with ensuring members vote the party line

but their power isn't absolute. and Democrats in purple states or districts are likely to balk at any number of progressive things.

the Republicans should have the same problem but they don't as much. the last few decades have largely weeded out moderate Republicans.

which gets back to the insanity of the entire country's fate basically being determined by Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, and the Dakotas.

those states have ~2% of the overall population - and are all overwhelmingly white - and they de facto control the Senate

 

[version]

The Daily Mail has already unearthed a photo of him with Gerry Adams! 🤣

 

[Mr. Tea]

But of course!

 

[version]

Giuliani in that car park outside the landscaping company was hilarious.

Apparently this place was across the road from a crematorium and next to a sex shop called Fantasy Island. Sounds about right. Supposedly Trump's team booked it by mistake trying to book the Four Seasons hotel.

😂

 

[IdleRich]

the latter

both parties have what are called "whips" in each house of Congress - people tasked with ensuring members vote the party line

but their power isn't absolute. and Democrats in purple states or districts are likely to balk at any number of progressive things.

the Republicans should have the same problem but they don't as much. the last few decades have largely weeded out moderate Republicans.

which gets back to the insanity of the entire country's fate basically being determined by Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, and the Dakotas.

those states have ~2% of the overall population - and are all overwhelmingly white - and they de facto control the Senate

That's what I assumed/feared.
nb we call the enforcers whips here too

 

[IdleRich]

Apparently this place was across the road from a crematorium and next to a sex shop called Fantasy Island. Sounds about right. Supposedly Trump's team booked it by mistake trying to book the Four Seasons hotel.

😂

Is this true? About it being a mistake I mean. Makes as much sense as every other explanation I've seen for sure.

 

[version]

Well, it makes more sense than them deliberately booking a parking lot in the middle of nowhere. Also Trump tweeted and deleted a statement about a press conference at the Four Seasons before tweeting the one that specified Four Seasons Landscaping a few minutes later.

 

[version]

It's mad Trump's somehow seen as not having gotten involved in any wars during his time in office.

US air strikes killed Somali civilians - Amnesty

Amnesty International says it recorded 14 recent deaths - the US says its targets are "terrorists".

www.bbc.co.uk

Shroud of secrecy around civilian deaths masks possible US war crimes in Somalia

Over the last two years, the US military has dramatically increased the number of air strikes it has launched in Somalia, tripling the number of attacks and now outpacing US strikes in Libya and Yemen combined. Despite this, the US government claims that it has killed zero civilians in Somalia...

www.amnesty.org