Id love it if they could compromise but I don't think it's in the cards. The Rs want voter identification, limited mail in ballots with checks and guarantees preferring in person, oppose early voting, want local control including redistricting, look with hostility on ballot harvesting, and want frequent purges of the voter roles. The Ds want limited or no voter ID, expanded mail in balloting, early voting, federal control, look neutrally or favorably on ballot harvesting, and wanted limited purges of the voter rolls. The Rs want to make casserole, the Ds want to make soup. I just don't see it given the issues are fundamental to outlook, not disagreements on the margins or scope.
President Joe Biden
- Thread starter tenacious
- Start date
Id love it if they could compromise but I don't think it's in the cards. The Rs want voter identification, limited mail in ballots with checks and guarantees preferring in person, oppose early voting, want local control including redistricting, look with hostility on ballot harvesting, and want frequent purges of the voter roles. The Ds want limited or no voter ID, expanded mail in balloting, early voting, federal control, look neutrally or favorably on ballot harvesting, and wanted limited purges of the voter rolls. The Rs want to make casserole, the Ds want to make soup. I just don't see it given the issues are fundamental to outlook, not disagreements on the margins or scope.
whatithink
GOLD
Yeah, and then there's the small matter of the $400M or so in debt coming due apparently, with various lenders exiting the stage as fast as they can.
whatithink
GOLD
I think there's plenty of room to compromise, and zero likelihood that there will be any.
I think the GOP's words, "Elections have consequences", and their removal of the filibuster on SCOTUS may come back to haunt them in the next couple of years. It will probably depend on the next 6 months.
I read your room to compromise as the rs should just cave on the big principles. As to elections have consequences I didn’t see any d movement in other big r existential issues like abortion and immigration
I’m increasing convinced our principles are just fundamentally misaligned. The best solution is to kick everything down to the state levels and fight it out there because when everything becomes existential (on the d side climate change, race equity, abortion) and people begin to hate each other a divorce is the only way out.
whatithink
GOLD
No, I was talking about the election bill, compromising on that. You're talking like the GOP are paragons of virtue and have done nothing but compromise when they have control.
Politicians like cultural war issues, e.g. abortion. Politicians couldn't give a cr@p about abortion, but it allows them to pull in a group of the electorate that will ignore everything else and vote for them on that. This shouldn't be confused with actual principles ... which neither side have and which any of us can amply prove.
I think your existential stuff is on the extremes for GOP, just like the extreme stuff for the Ds. There's plenty for both parties to compromise on that would align with the majority view of the population, including abortion, common sense gun control laws, a plan to combat climate change that can be a positive for the economy etc. Most people would be fine with a functioning government - its the extremes on each side that jump to hyperbole and talk about hate and fight etc.
I just think the fundamental on election reform are really different: soup and casserole. It's easier to compromise if we all buy into the idea of soup and we are just talking the ingredients (Rs like their soup plain, Ds spicier). But this is really fundamental and different: federal control with expanded voting and few controls v. state control with expanded controls and more limited voting. The difference with the R politicians is that it also affects them on this (as opposed to abortion)...it's no coincidence that the Ds are pushing for expanded voting because it helps them and the Rs are pushing for more restricted because it helps them. This is an issue too which both the bases are aligned considering that 1/3 of Ds thought the 2016 election was stolen and about 40% of Rs think 2020 it was stolen (a number which expands if you include whether 2020 was fair). And speaking about fairness, the issue of elections also circulates with the issues of the press, money in campaigns, the tech companies and the pollsters....a "grand compromise" would resolve settling that which is daunting....immigration and abortion are actually easier than this.
And as I've stated before, I'm a Tulsi fan and she has plenty to critique both parties of....I'm not saying the GOP is a paragon of virtue....I think her critique of the parties is right on.
Hüsker Dü
DA
Tucker is a snake, always has been. Another example of an over privileged silver spoon playing to the “base”. Isn’t that what trump wanted was to “federalize” state elections? The federal election rules are already, federalized.
Yeah, but Trump just wanted to federalize them in an R vision. That's as much of a mistake as HR1. Leave it to the states...fight it out there.
Isn't this endemic to the industry as a whole? Tucker, Maddow, Late Night, you name it.
Hüsker Dü
DA
It must be the way the message is communicated being echoed.
whatithink
GOLD
The GOP have won one national/presidential election, based on number of votes, since 1988 - in 2004. I understand why they want more restrictions. Their problem is that the gap is widening and so they need the restrictions more and the gerrymandering along side it. That's not a long term strategy, but US politics is too short term. There's plenty of policies that the GOP advocate, traditional conservative policies that would appeal to a wider base, but they have too many extreme elements at the moment, IMV, to make those policies their actual central platform and message. The D's need to be careful they don't go the same way.
the gap is widening misunderstands the dynamic that’s going on. The rs are moving away from being the party of corporate money and foreign wars. The Reagan coalition has been shattered. Obama almost built a new coalition with a permanent majority but he lost working class voters (including minority voters which we’ve noticed a shift in the 2020 election). The d coalition by its nature is unstable: the rich, the suburbs and the poor. It works for example on immigration (cheap labor for the rich in construction and services, recent immigrants get legalization and bringing relatives over, Latino groups expand power). It works less when say groups begin to conflict (like college admissions of Asian demands v African Americans and Latinos). A realignment is very much in play and is based on 3 pillars: election rules (who votes which is why it’s existential), a beloved leader capable of inspiring broad swaths and growing the coalition (Trump and Biden aint it; neither Harris or Pence) and policies which can shape the coalition and which may very well be shaped by outside events such as the pandemic riots or foreign wars.
You expected him to play "Mother, may I?" with Mitch?
Didn't seem likely.
I do agree something has been lost. But I can't blame just one side.
We would be much better off had there been a Justice Bork and a Justice Garland.
Once again we don’t really disagree (just in tenor and tone mostly). I also don’t think there’s very much of unity here though I agree unity is a 2 way street.
Hüsker Dü
DA
Does unity mean forgetting the insurrection and quickly moving on?
whatithink
GOLD
Corporate money could swing either way (& swings both ways) at the drop of a hat. Corporations have zero political allegiance. They want stability and, frankly, control. T was not stable - he did a lot that the corporations really like, traditional conservative policies on tax and regulations, and then he did things they hate, on trade tariffs and fostering instability, not traditional conservative policies. Rs moving away from foreign wars is very funny - there are a plethora of R hawks.
As for your coalitions - the poor and working class will get shafted either way (see corporations), the rich will get richer either way and the middle class have a block that can swing either way (they just swung D because they couldn't take T anymore). Politicians like cultural wars because they don't get judged on policy. This isn't uniquely American, you can see the same thing in Europe, e.g. see the UK & Brexit.
Desert Hound
DA
Actually that quote comes from a bit further back.
"“Elections have consequences. I won.” That was President Barack Obama’s response to congressional Republicans in a 2009 White House meeting regarding his economic proposals."
The SCOTUS nomination clearly demonstrates that elections have consequences
The idea that elections have consequences has not been lost on grassroots Republicans — in fact it has been a driving force behind what has animated the Republican base since 2009.
thehill.com
whatithink
GOLD
Sure, but it was widely quoted in Oct/Nov with filling the SCOTUS seat, that's what I was referring to.Actually that quote comes from a bit further back.
"“Elections have consequences. I won.” That was President Barack Obama’s response to congressional Republicans in a 2009 White House meeting regarding his economic proposals."
The SCOTUS nomination clearly demonstrates that elections have consequences
The idea that elections have consequences has not been lost on grassroots Republicans — in fact it has been a driving force behind what has animated the Republican base since 2009.
no, like the Antifa rioters before them, you round up and prosecute those that actually rioted. Trump didn’t legally incite...his speech called for peaceful protest and he told them to go home...barring some other evidence legally it ain’t there...anymore than sanders can be said to have incited the scalise shooting or Harris the Antifa violence.