Being the worst president in US history with sycophants comitting impeachable offenses and war crimes daily does that.
So light-red is replacing deep-red… I’m not really very excited about that.
This is partially why the world is so fucked. People who care, often utterly refuse to be pragmatic, and expect change to always be sweeping, and happen in an instant.
This is what is responsible for the US getting to where it is. They repeatedly allow democrats to lose, and therefore pull the same cycle of losing, having everyone see how much worse republicans are, and then having the democrats walk back some of the damage the republicans did.
People are so naive and angsty, they feel they need to punish the democrats for not doing what they’d like, and only end up punishing themselves, over and over and over again.
The obvious, only pragmatic way to look at this, is that you need them to keep winning so that they cannot backslide, and then you need to use primaries and state and local politics to actually shift them leftward.
Literally nothing else is practical or will work, but people on this site would rather rant about issues than fix them.
Oh, I whole-heartedly agree - pink is better than red, and it is moving the dial in the correct direction. But still I can’t bring myself to be happy about corporatist victories. Only relieved that they’re gaining ground.
Yeah, deep red districts aren’t the first place to look. They’re too unlikely to go blue no matter how disgusting and incompetent the president.
Keep it quiet until the democrats win, otherwise they start more propaganda to sway kids
One point that I don’t think gets enough attention: gerrymandering gets more districts for a party by chipping into districts usually held by opposing parties. That dilutes the strength a party has in each district.
Can you imagine if the R’s gerrymandering drive ends up gaining Democratic districts because they stretched their leads too thin? That may have been part of the reason Indiana didn’t move forward with it.
It took me awhile to understand what you were saying. So basically, you’re watering down any leads in existing locations because there are more democrats in the places the republicans are trying to take over. They might lose a bigger area. I hope this happens over and over again.
Correct. Gerrymandering means taking a district that’s going to be a blowout for you—say, you’re expected to reliably get 88% of the vote—and sharing that 88% with a nearby district, where you’re expected to get maybe 37%. If you draw the lines right, you can get two districts where you win with 66% of the vote, instead of winning one and losing one.
But why stop there? 88% is a huge lead, and in first past the post it doesn’t matter how much of the vote you get, so long as you get more than the next most popular candidate. It may require some truly unhinged district drawing, but what if you could get, say, five districts where you’re going to win with 46% of the vote, due to a strong (but not strong enough) third party spoiler candidate? Now you’ve spread out the voters in that 88% area and used them to bolster four other districts that you were going to lose (or were going to be competitive) into solid and reliable wins, or at least turn solid victory for the opposition into a competitive contest.
Except, oops, the guy at the top of the ticket is a literal supervillain except without any superpowers, and now it’s starting to weaken that original 88%. Now, instead of one blowout district, and instead of five solid wins, you’ve got, maybe, three competitive contests and two solid losses. If you’d left well enough alone, you might’ve still been able to win that blowout district with 58%, but because you got greedy you’ve lost everything.
Exactly that. Sorry if my wording sucked!
It wasn’t your fault, thanks for talking about it. I just didn’t understand the implications that it could go wrong for either side.
Well I hope Democrats give it an honest try in all these red districts.
Indiana did move forward.
Stalled. The Indiana senate will hold their “final” vote on it December 8.
Bleak for Republicans = good for america
= Good for the world
yay for liberal democracy!
After so much has been lost or damaged, while good and necessary, it seems very late. We’ve got Israel destroying its neighbor and Trump about to give Putin everything he wants. I don’t know how things will actually go, but it seems like any victory now will be among the ruins.
Edit: Not to mention all the problems at home, like the travesty ICE is.
They stole the last one, and if they don’t enact martial law for midterms, they’ll just steal that one, too. Kamala had the intel and the power to force the issue, but stood down.
Politicians have recently admitted they’re afraid of AI-driven 25% unemployment rates and the resulting civil unrest.
My money is literally on this being bipartisan theatre to establish infrastructure that can quell said unrest. That was before they admitted it. Do what you will with this take.
Edit: Think of it like this: If covid-era interest rates are a parachute, someone’s gotta damage the plane engines first so the parachute gets deployed…
This embarrassing bullshit has to stop. How can you not see the damage you’re doing? The gift you are giving MAGA?
Was north of Nashville at the inlaws for Thanksgiving. The anti-aftyn propaganda on television was amazing. So much money being dumped into that Tennessee district. Rs have to be terrified.
“What, our policies that screw the majority of Americans and favor the extremely wealthy and corporations are unpopular? Unthinkable!”
Don’t get excited. This is temporary. Martial Law is coming—believe me or not idgaf—and the rest of the world intends to move away from US relations, so expect a lot of panic voting going to the right wing.
We are about 1% into the collapse of the US. Strap in.
Doomers are bad people
Just because you don’t agree with me and because you don’t see what I see doesn’t mean I’m wrong and it doesn’t mean I’m bad. Bad people call other people bad people because they don’t agree with them
Well if you have the chance to vote I hope you at least take it
I vote every time. Even if I don’t like them. I vote for the closest thing to socialism or… the thing that means fascism won’t win.
Being a doomer is bad if you’re stating theories as facts while giving no supporting evidence. For example:
- Why would withdrawn international relations result in right wing voting? Isn’t it more likely to fuel populist voting (not strongly attached to regressive or progressive policies)? What historical trends are you looking at? Just pasting the American flag onto the Weimar Republic based on vibes?
- What makes you think the polling is temporary? Putting aside the topic of fair elections, voters who have been subjected to this administration’s chaos and are consistently polling negatively will turn on their heads and lick boots because of… Saber rattling? A weak passport? An (even more) destroyed economy? 300 million cases of Stockholm Syndrome? I’m really scratching my head here…
- 1% by what metric? The collapse will drag out for 100 years? Wealth? The USA will be using stone age tools by the end of it? Population? Deaths? Quality of life? Deportations?.. It surely can get worse but 99% in almost any metric is absurd.
I can’t even agree or disagree with you because your comments are so shallow that they can’t hold up to a discussion; ergo bad.
Oh look how much an LLM can do if you put your FED mind to it.
Damn didn’t know I was an LLM? Thanks for the heads up, good discussion
Wow like < 30 sec reply. So not an LLM.
Damn almost like I’m holding my fucking phone ya numpty. Is typing that hard for you?
Crazy thing is I don’t even fundamentally disagree with your first comment, but you’re not supporting it (or really adding anything of value in the whole thread)
