(10-04-2017 01:25 PM)NewTimes Wrote:  

(10-03-2017 01:37 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(09-30-2017 10:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Trump outdoes himself with his comments on Puerto Rico and the mayor of San Juan.

Yep. He seems to keep coming up with new lows.

Today's Trump outrage:

Trump to Puerto Rico: your hurricane isn’t a “real catastrophe” like Katrina
And it’s “throwing our budget a little out of whack.”

https://www.vox.com/2017/10/3/16411488/t...uerto-rico

Classy!

What is missing is sympathy for the residents of Puerto Rico. None, zero. It's about the great job FEMA or the Governor is doing. The tossing of paper towns like one is attempting a foul shot just lowers the bar another notch. And squawking about the budget when lives are at state is par for the course with this buffoon.

The budget thing was a joke, as is clear if you listen to the sentences afterward.

(10-04-2017 02:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Trump reminds me of the Rodney Dangerfield character in "Caddyshack." He has an uncanny capacity for saying exactly the wrong thing at the wrong time. He's been just about what I expected, which is why I didn't vote for him. I still think that Hillary would have been about what I expected from her, which is why I didn't vote for her.

Republicans are stupid, and they're all that's standing between us and the socialist/communist democrats. Not a great place to be.

If there has ever been a better time for a) one to be an independent or b) a 3rd major political party it's now. The discontent with our political system is the greatest in my lifetime. And it's not just presidential candidates. What happens to local elected officials when they become a part of the system? Those newbies who rail against the establishment more than often become the new establishment. Why does every decision and action be along party lines? Why was the vote for ACA only passed solely by Democrats and the recent failure of the GOP to appeal it only along party lines? What happened when a few Democrats could support GOP legislation and a few Republicans support a Democratic bill?

The stagnation is staggering. The desire to screw the other party is greater than the desire for wise, logical, helpful bipartisan agreement. The answer must be that party leaders threaten Jr. congressmen and senators with no or sucky appointments, blackballing from important committees and basically a heavy hand on the newcomers. It really sucks that things are so partisan today rather than give n' take and negotiation.

If the polls are correct, more people have a higher opinion of Trump than legislators. Trump trolls in the 32-35% approval range, Congress between 15-20%. Let's hope we are really not screwed, and that as the pendulum swings from the ultra right-wing right, back to left, and then settles near the center. Where we are all much better off.

(10-04-2017 02:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Trump reminds me of the Rodney Dangerfield character in "Caddyshack." He has an uncanny capacity for saying exactly the wrong thing at the wrong time. He's been just about what I expected, which is why I didn't vote for him. I still think that Hillary would have been about what I expected from her, which is why I didn't vote for her.

Republicans are stupid, and they're all that's standing between us and the socialist/communist democrats. Not a great place to be.

Except that Rodney Dangerfield in "Caddyshack", as the obnoxious real estate developer, had a lot more class than Trump.

(10-04-2017 03:57 PM)NewTimes Wrote:  What happens to local elected officials when they become a part of the system? Those newbies who rail against the establishment more than often become the new establishment.

Which is certainly why we need term limits at all levels. Too many of these politicians are living high off the taxpayer and contributing nothing meaningful to this country.

(10-04-2017 04:24 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 03:57 PM)NewTimes Wrote:  What happens to local elected officials when they become a part of the system? Those newbies who rail against the establishment more than often become the new establishment.

Which is certainly why we need term limits at all levels. Too many of these politicians are living high off the taxpayer and contributing nothing meaningful to this country.

Unfortunately term limits, that are severely needed, will be as unlikely to pass as a revision to the Senate's own health care program.

It isn't an issue if 'term limits will pass'; any attempt at term limits via legislation would be unconstitutional absent explicit constitutional amendment to make it so or allow it.

I tend to think term limits won't solve the problems people think they will without electoral reform - too many non-competitive electoral districts - and if we reform elections to make most districts at least somewhat competitive (or go to some sort of proportional representation) then more people will be term limited by the voters voting them out....

Curious what the SC is going to decide on partisan gerrymandering.

(10-04-2017 03:59 PM)NewTimes Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 02:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Trump reminds me of the Rodney Dangerfield character in "Caddyshack." He has an uncanny capacity for saying exactly the wrong thing at the wrong time. He's been just about what I expected, which is why I didn't vote for him. I still think that Hillary would have been about what I expected from her, which is why I didn't vote for her.

Republicans are stupid, and they're all that's standing between us and the socialist/communist democrats. Not a great place to be.

Except that Rodney Dangerfield in "Caddyshack", as the obnoxious real estate developer, had a lot more class than Trump.

An interesting comparison by David Brooks.

The Abbie Hoffman of the Right

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/26/opini...trump.html

(10-05-2017 09:23 AM)JSA Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 03:59 PM)NewTimes Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 02:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Trump reminds me of the Rodney Dangerfield character in "Caddyshack." He has an uncanny capacity for saying exactly the wrong thing at the wrong time. He's been just about what I expected, which is why I didn't vote for him. I still think that Hillary would have been about what I expected from her, which is why I didn't vote for her.

Republicans are stupid, and they're all that's standing between us and the socialist/communist democrats. Not a great place to be.

Except that Rodney Dangerfield in "Caddyshack", as the obnoxious real estate developer, had a lot more class than Trump.

An interesting comparison by David Brooks.

The Abbie Hoffman of the Right

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/26/opini...trump.html

Saw that and read that when first published. Brooks makes the point that those who voted for Trump got what they voted for. Joe Scarborough of Morning Joe often cites Trump as a Democrat rather than a Republican and compares Trump's relationships and communications with Chuck and Nancy vs. with Mitch and Paul. With Trump and the Dems being NY and West Coast urbanites and Mitch and Paul being Southern and Mid West conservatives. Has anyone ever thought of Trump as being a conservative?

(10-05-2017 12:40 PM)NewTimes Wrote:  Brooks makes the point that those who voted for Trump got what they voted for.

I think a lot of them voted for NotHillary, so yes, they got what they voted for.

(10-04-2017 03:57 PM)NewTimes Wrote:  If there has ever been a better time for a) one to be an independent or b) a 3rd major political party it's now. The discontent with our political system is the greatest in my lifetime. And it's not just presidential candidates. What happens to local elected officials when they become a part of the system? Those newbies who rail against the establishment more than often become the new establishment. Why does every decision and action be along party lines? Why was the vote for ACA only passed solely by Democrats and the recent failure of the GOP to appeal it only along party lines? What happened when a few Democrats could support GOP legislation and a few Republicans support a Democratic bill?

This did. All in all, it's a good thing.

(10-05-2017 07:37 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I tend to think term limits won't solve the problems people think they will without electoral reform - too many non-competitive electoral districts - and if we reform elections to make most districts at least somewhat competitive (or go to some sort of proportional representation) then more people will be term limited by the voters voting them out....

Curious what the SC is going to decide on partisan gerrymandering.

Probably nothing. The problem one always runs into when trying to decide this question is how much gerrymandering is too much gerrymandering. It's impossible to come up with a perfectly objective system for re-districting, because constraints always must be put on the process, and those constraints are determined subjectively. If it's inevitable that some subjectivity is going to be in the system, then how does one determine how much is too much? Such a determination itself is subjective. The courts in the past have given great deference to the legislative branch for this reason, and I suspect the Supreme Court will do so in this case as well.

In any event, it may not matter. I read of a study by a political scientist at Michigan who wanted to see how the recent U. S. House of Representatives elections would have turned out under a putatively objective redistricting scheme. He took the voting results for every precinct in the United States, re-arranged them into congressional districts determined by one of the popular algorithm-driven district maps, and then apportioned the vote by party from the precinct data as per the new districts and determined how many representatives each party would get. He found that the Democrats would have gained a grand total of two seats from their actual 2016 results. A deeper look at the data revealed why there would've been so little change. The Democratic Party today has become a party almost exclusively of racial minorities and white urban elitists, and these groups tend to cluster disproportionately in cities (the latter group by definition). They live in geographically compact areas, so the end result of any algorithm that seeks to create districts as geographically-compact as possible will necessarily pack a lot of Democrats into urban districts, because that's where they live, leaving a lot of Republican suburban, exurban, and rural districts. The issue is not the politicians gerrymandering districts; it's that the voters are gerrymandering themselves.

The false myth that gerrymandering is responsible for Democratic losses doesn't hold much water when one realizes that gerrymandering starts with one party or the other winning enough seats to dominate the apportioning body.

Fact is, when Democrats are in office, they do their best to get the upper hand with all the tactics and actions that Republicans do when they are in office. It's not a Democrat or Republican isolated action. It's a state of how things are. It's one of the reason I am no longer an affiliate of any political party and am an Independent.

Seems like the 2 party system has run it's course. Maybe the 2 parties have become to large and to broad to represent their consistencies. An ideal, and likely never to happen action, would be to have the two extremes separate from the two existing parties. The more liberal left wing of the Democrats could have their alliance, the more conservative wing of the Republicans could have their coalition. That would allow the ultra advocates of the D&R parties to have their voices and would give clearer representation. Even the extremists on both sides get to have their views heard.

One of the reasons the Democrats seem to fumble and fail is the bloatedness and "bigglyness" of their base. And many Republicans, who remain silent today, don't endorse the 30-35% of the Trump flock. If the country is roughly 50/50 with Dem and Rep support, that's about 15-20% that are unsupported of the current administration.

So, in an idealistic world, we could have:
Rep- Ultra Consertative
Rep- Mainstream
Dem- Ultra Liberal
Dem- Mainstream

Can this happen? Only if sects broke off from the existing bases. And the longer Donnie is in office, the more divisive and separate we become and the higher the probability of a reality.

(10-06-2017 06:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The false myth that gerrymandering is responsible for Democratic losses doesn't hold much water when one realizes that gerrymandering starts with one party or the other winning enough seats to dominate the apportioning body.

It is definitely not a false myth. In 2012, Dems received 1 million more total votes in House races, yet the House was still retained by Republicans. The issue is a combination of gerrymandering and what Jonathan brought up.

I'd agree that there was no issue if the Reps kept holding the House the past few years and they were always on the receiving end of the total vote total. But since that isn't the case, you can't just discount these concerns as being false.

(10-06-2017 10:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-06-2017 06:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The false myth that gerrymandering is responsible for Democratic losses doesn't hold much water when one realizes that gerrymandering starts with one party or the other winning enough seats to dominate the apportioning body.

It is definitely not a false myth. In 2012, Dems received 1 million more total votes in House races, yet the House was still retained by Republicans. The issue is a combination of gerrymandering and what Jonathan brought up.
I'd agree that there was no issue if the Reps kept holding the House the past few years and they were always on the receiving end of the total vote total. But since that isn't the case, you can't just discount these concerns as being false.

From what I've seen, the results in senate and house races pretty much mirrored those in the presidential races. Democrats won by huge margins in NY and CA, and that more than offset fairly substantial losses in the other 48 as a group. If that is mirrored in house races, then it has little to do with gerrymandering, unless one wants to claim that the state boundaries were gerrymandered.

How many states were there where one party got a majority of the house votes, but the other party got a majority of the seats? Asking for information, I really don't know. I know the answer for the senate--zero, because senators are elected on a statewide basis.

(10-06-2017 11:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-06-2017 10:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-06-2017 06:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The false myth that gerrymandering is responsible for Democratic losses doesn't hold much water when one realizes that gerrymandering starts with one party or the other winning enough seats to dominate the apportioning body.

It is definitely not a false myth. In 2012, Dems received 1 million more total votes in House races, yet the House was still retained by Republicans. The issue is a combination of gerrymandering and what Jonathan brought up.
I'd agree that there was no issue if the Reps kept holding the House the past few years and they were always on the receiving end of the total vote total. But since that isn't the case, you can't just discount these concerns as being false.

From what I've seen, the results in senate and house races pretty much mirrored those in the presidential races. Democrats won by huge margins in NY and CA, and that more than offset fairly substantial losses in the other 48 as a group. If that is mirrored in house races, then it has little to do with gerrymandering, unless one wants to claim that the state boundaries were gerrymandered.

How many states were there where one party got a majority of the house votes, but the other party got a majority of the seats? Asking for information, I really don't know. I know the answer for the senate--zero, because senators are elected on a statewide basis.

yeah, take out NY, Chicago, and LA, and that million vote edge disappears pretty fast, I think.

My guess on your question is, I think, zero, but it is a good question. I too would like to know the answer.

Still, before the GOP could gerrymander anything, they had to win majorities in those states. Winning begats gerrymandering.

In a sense, some of the states were gerrymandered to include or exclude certain groups. I think the Idaho/Montana division is one of those. Not sure who didn't want who. Certainly the Missouri bootheel was a product of political influence.

(10-06-2017 11:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-06-2017 10:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-06-2017 06:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The false myth that gerrymandering is responsible for Democratic losses doesn't hold much water when one realizes that gerrymandering starts with one party or the other winning enough seats to dominate the apportioning body.

It is definitely not a false myth. In 2012, Dems received 1 million more total votes in House races, yet the House was still retained by Republicans. The issue is a combination of gerrymandering and what Jonathan brought up.
I'd agree that there was no issue if the Reps kept holding the House the past few years and they were always on the receiving end of the total vote total. But since that isn't the case, you can't just discount these concerns as being false.

From what I've seen, the results in senate and house races pretty much mirrored those in the presidential races. Democrats won by huge margins in NY and CA, and that more than offset fairly substantial losses in the other 48 as a group. If that is mirrored in house races, then it has little to do with gerrymandering, unless one wants to claim that the state boundaries were gerrymandered.

How many states were there where one party got a majority of the house votes, but the other party got a majority of the seats? Asking for information, I really don't know. I know the answer for the senate--zero, because senators are elected on a statewide basis.

Here's a summary from FairVote. Don't know much about them or their proposal, but this passage would seem to support the idea that pretty much all of us are right to a degree. (Hey, when's the last time that happened?)

http://www.fairvote.org/votes_vs_seats_i...le_s_house

"Today, the root of the partisan skew is in geography. Democratic voters are increasingly clustered in population dense urban areas, while Republican voters are more efficiently distributed. The 50 most Democratic districts in the country have a median partisanship of 79% Democratic, whereas the 50 most Republican districts have a median partisanship of only 70% Republican. This directly shows how fewer Republican votes are wasted in safe districts than Democratic votes.

Although post 2010 intentional gerrymandering contributed to this trend, it is not the sole - or even the most significant - cause of it. For example, nobody has recently gerrymandered county lines, yet they demonstrate a similar skew. In 2012, Barack Obama won 52% of the national two-party vote, but he only carried 22% of counties. To see how much more severe this trend has become, consider that in 1988 Michael Dukakis carried 26.3% of counties, even while losing the national popular vote by almost eight percent.

Tonight, we can say with confidence that Republicans will maintain their majority in the House of Representatives, whether they win more votes or not. In addition, there will likely be multiple states in which more voters vote for one party, yet the other party wins more seats. In 2012, that boosted Republicans in Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin in districts drawn by Republican state lawmakers. Interestingly, it also happened in Arizona - in a plan drawn by an independent redistricting commission."

It's also about who gets elected within the parties. Let's say the Dems gerrymander a state with 10 reps so they are almost guaranteed 7 every election, with 3 hardcore R districts. In each of the 10 districts, the primary is the real election so maybe you have Dem primaries where they are calling Bernie a corporate sellout and Republican primaries where they are calling Jeff Sessions a closet urban liberal.

Then we turn it over to a non-partisan/bi-partisan commission. This leads to 6 Dems and 4 Rs most elections. Not much change in total numbers. BUT while 3 districts are still always D and 3 are still always R, another leans Dem but can go R in a wave election and the other three are genuinely competitive. So while the partisan numbers aren't that different, you end up with 4 of the 10 being people who have to worry about appealing to the other side, instead of spending the primary trying to show that they hate the other side the most. Which is better than 0 out of 10...

(10-06-2017 11:21 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-06-2017 11:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-06-2017 10:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-06-2017 06:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The false myth that gerrymandering is responsible for Democratic losses doesn't hold much water when one realizes that gerrymandering starts with one party or the other winning enough seats to dominate the apportioning body.

It is definitely not a false myth. In 2012, Dems received 1 million more total votes in House races, yet the House was still retained by Republicans. The issue is a combination of gerrymandering and what Jonathan brought up.
I'd agree that there was no issue if the Reps kept holding the House the past few years and they were always on the receiving end of the total vote total. But since that isn't the case, you can't just discount these concerns as being false.

From what I've seen, the results in senate and house races pretty much mirrored those in the presidential races. Democrats won by huge margins in NY and CA, and that more than offset fairly substantial losses in the other 48 as a group. If that is mirrored in house races, then it has little to do with gerrymandering, unless one wants to claim that the state boundaries were gerrymandered.

How many states were there where one party got a majority of the house votes, but the other party got a majority of the seats? Asking for information, I really don't know. I know the answer for the senate--zero, because senators are elected on a statewide basis.

yeah, take out NY, Chicago, and LA, and that million vote edge disappears pretty fast, I think.

My guess on your question is, I think, zero, but it is a good question. I too would like to know the answer.

Still, before the GOP could gerrymander anything, they had to win majorities in those states. Winning begats gerrymandering.

In a sense, some of the states were gerrymandered to include or exclude certain groups. I think the Idaho/Montana division is one of those. Not sure who didn't want who. Certainly the Missouri bootheel was a product of political influence.

Perhaps it would.

I'd just like things to be more proportional.

Even in Texas, Repubs outwarned their vote total in 2014. They earned 60.3% of the vote but won 69.4% of the Reps (25/36). Each Rep represents ~2.8% of the vote. Dems were under represented and Independents not.

(10-06-2017 11:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-06-2017 10:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-06-2017 06:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The false myth that gerrymandering is responsible for Democratic losses doesn't hold much water when one realizes that gerrymandering starts with one party or the other winning enough seats to dominate the apportioning body.

It is definitely not a false myth. In 2012, Dems received 1 million more total votes in House races, yet the House was still retained by Republicans. The issue is a combination of gerrymandering and what Jonathan brought up.
I'd agree that there was no issue if the Reps kept holding the House the past few years and they were always on the receiving end of the total vote total. But since that isn't the case, you can't just discount these concerns as being false.

From what I've seen, the results in senate and house races pretty much mirrored those in the presidential races. Democrats won by huge margins in NY and CA, and that more than offset fairly substantial losses in the other 48 as a group. If that is mirrored in house races, then it has little to do with gerrymandering, unless one wants to claim that the state boundaries were gerrymandered.

How many states were there where one party got a majority of the house votes, but the other party got a majority of the seats? Asking for information, I really don't know. I know the answer for the senate--zero, because senators are elected on a statewide basis.

Not sure on a national level...but that's exactly what happened in the Wisconsin legislature (which is the subject of the most recent gerrymandering case in front of the court). In 2012, the GOP took 60/99 seats in the legislature while winning 48.6% of the vote.

(Source for that, which is an invaluable resource for all things SCOTUS.)