By looking at the polling on those issues?

Was that a real question?

The dems are better off appealing to the middle whereas the GOP is better off running to the right.
#50 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2020-11-19 03:47 PM

I think it's a problem of messaging more than anything else.

A majority of Americans support most of the policies of Bernie Sanders, including Medicare for all, legalization of marijuana, free public college, a wealth tax, etc. In some cases it's a sizeable majority. And Democrats refuse to run on these popular agenda items, and cede them before they even walk into the room with Republicans.

But the leftlings will never constitute enough of a voting block for them to warrant ceding the middle, knowing it would mean defeat.
#43 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2020-11-19 03:34 PM

I see this posted by many people. Nobody has ever explained to me how Republicans managed to succeed in 2016 when by any objective measure they "ceded the middle" by nominating an alt-right cryptonazi.

Democrats are always told they need to be careful not to be too aggressive, yet Republicans literally went to far edge of the ideological fringe of conservatism, and won.

So I'm guessing these would be government jobs, right? Because there doesn't seem to be sufficient demand for these sorts of jobs in the private sector. Which means that they're going to be government employees, which means that they will be funded by taxpayers.

You're a government employee. So clearly you must not think all government jobs are bad, which seems to be the underlying premise of your post.

Regardless of that, are you aware of the myriad ways that government can create demand for private sector employment?

the make up of the Senate will always disfavor Democrats until the political pendulum shifts rather dramatically.
#28 | POSTED BY TONYROMA AT 2020-11-19 02:48 PM

This is true only because slim Democratic majorities in Congress tend not to have any balls. The Constitution provides Congress with a fairly unfettered right to admit new states. If Dems won the Georgia specials they'd have every right to admit DC and PR as states the next day, but ------- like Joe Manchin will never let it happen.

It's almost as if liberal politicians from liberal oases can get away with spouting liberal talking points.

Gotta agree with you there. These districts would likely elect any Democrat so it's not necessarily a winning formula for someone running in a swing district. That said, I do think that overall the Democratic Party needs to stop ignoring its base. Republicans have virtually abandoned the center and it seems to be working well for them.

Trump supporters are anti-American scum.

In 2016, Trump won MI/PA/WI by a total of 77,000 votes. Clinton conceded and Trump met with Obama 48 hours after the election.

In 2020, Biden won those same states by 214,000 votes (and counting), and Trump, his administration, and GOP leaders won't recognize the outcome.

For all of their claims that "Democrats would do it too in this situation," it really just is minority rule Republicans trashing all of our norms in favor of a demented rapist game show host. And America should never, ever forgive them for it.

I thiught Republicans cherished our military. Surely they weren't just using them as a prop...right?

Bill's political philosophy seems to rest entirely on what some imaginary version of the Democratic Party would have done had they been in power instead of Trump and McConnell. This amorphous standard can be shifted and molded to accommodate anything Bill happens to be thinking at any time. It's like arguing with a third grader.

#248 You act like Trump didn't get what he wanted out of the presidency - a massive grift opportunity and infinite media attention. He only needed the people he had to accomplish that.

Trump is not capable of running a TV network. He's capable of starting one, but running one successfully requires money, competence and hard work. He doesn't work hard. He won't read. He won't learn.

The guy has started a huge number of business ventures and almost all of them have failed, spectacularly and swiftly.

Trump will file to run in 2024 so he can keep the grift going. He'll continue being the cable news-obsessed, spittle-flecked rageaholic on Twitter, baying at the moon.

He won't be a threat to Fox News. I wish he could be.

#208 | POSTED BY RCADE

Since there's an extraordinary amount of money to be made off Trumpers glued to their TVs, here's the only thing that needs to happen to resolve your objection:

-someone who knows hiw to run a TV station approaches Trump
-Trump lets them put his name on it
-they fill it with people like Dan Bongino, Charlie Kirk, and give Trump 1-2 hours a day to come on and look like the mastermind
-morons everywhere tune in and the ad revenue flows accordingly

You can't seriously think this won't happen

I guess what i'm saying is, while it's an immense relief this POS won't be president much longer, my sense is that he is never going to STFU.

What's next for Trump?

1. Start his own TV network and immediately cannibalize half of Fox's audience?

2. Immediately start running for president again?

3. Both?

#171 So run of the mill complaining about hoe centrists aren't progressive enough constitutes "knifing them in the back?" I assumed that analogy had a bit more behind it.

Hopefully the far left won't knife him in the back as they did Obama

When did the far left "knife Obama in the back?"

#110 Wisconsin had a recount in 2016 and it moved the margin by 131 votes. Trump is down by 20k. Good luck.

Margin of victory for winner of past six presidential elections in Wisconsin:

Biden: .6%
Trump: .7%
Obama: 6.9%
Obama: 13.9%
Kerry: .38%
Gore: .22%

Doesn't actual wording language supersede?
It seems to me the SCOTUS was (at the least) consistent; they allowed however the states wanted to conduct their elections, as long as the legislature was the one making the rules. Election boards changing the parameters, even if voters relied on those changes in good faith, won't carry the day, as Judge Keg implied in an earlier ruling.
#80 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2020-11-04 12:54 PM

There's a lot more to this than that. Judges are well within their rights to find a statute to be an unconstitutional impairment of the right to vote, which is what the PA SC did in the context of the additional hurdles posed by Covid-19. Additionally, federal judges used to be far more averse to upending state court decisions with respect to state elections law prior to Bush v. Gore.

At the end of the day you have two competing doctrines - one the reliance interests of hundreds of thousands of voters who were complying with their state's election rules were at the time, and the other being a hyperliteral reading of the elections clause in Article I. At the end of the day partisan judges gonna partisan.

67% is high for the US, but it puts us middle of the road (at best) among developed nations.

Yeah, I love talking to you.

What a douche.

That's dirty AF in my opinion. Your state is telling you the rules for the election, then the federal courts take your vote away based on their interpretation, which was never a factor in the minds of 99% of the voters.
#59 | POSTED BY SCHIFFERBRAINS AT 2020-11-04 12:33 PM

I agree completely. I don't think there's any precedent for discarding lawfully cast ballots based on a supposedly unconstitutional method of voting when those voters relied upon their local authorities to implement a voting method that would withstand judicial scrutiny.

The Supreme Court used to care about "reliance interests," which IMO should overwhelm any argument in light of the fact that PA voters can no longer correct what they did in reliance on their state's procedures, but I think at least 3 rightwingers on SCOTUS don't care about any of that.

You remain unable to imagine my life actually has contained most of those personal experiences.

Ah. So you're just a sociopath then. Still explains why you're a Republican.

I know it's easier for you to pretend I'm a born on third base trust funder.

I never said anything about that. Just that there are many reasons, a few of which I outlined above, that would explain a later-mailed ballot that have nothing to do with stupidity, laziness, naivete, etc. You appear unwilling to confront that reality, so you're changing the subject.

I know a lot of lazy and naive people.

Exactly. You remain unable to imagine life beyond your own personal experience.

You don't know someone who has been active duty overseas during the ideal time to vote.
You don't know someone who was birthing a child during the ideal time to vote.
You don't know someone who was having surgery or in a coma during the ideal time to vote.
You don't know someone who was having a mental health crisis during the ideal time to vote.
You don't know someone who has 3 kids, 2 jobs, doesn't blog all day, and only got around to voting on Halloween instead of voting during the ideal time to vote.

You only know yourself, and some lazy naive people. To you, that's everyone in PA who mailed their ballot late.

I completely understand why you are a Republican. You cannot imagine life being different than what you've personally witnessed.

Yes, they mailed them, and they could have done it sooner.

How do you know that? What if they were in an active duty combat zone? What if they were birthing a child? You literally have no clue what you're talking about.

Stop pretending you aren't pissed at those people.

I'm literally not, and it is another example of your inability to empathize with others that you'd think I'm pretending not to be upset with people for not mailing their ballots earlier. I'd also point out that they may very well have been relying upon the knowledge every PA voter has had for months that ballots would be accepted for 6 days after 11/3 regardless of when they were mailed due to a state SC ruling.