General Politics Discussion (III) [ARCHIVED] • Page 771

I'm curious where you see the evidence that the specific gerrymandered districts are fundamentally different though. I agree with you on a large, national, level, but to win House seats, we're talking about specific small subsets. The country could (and I agree, has) change, but if that change is not evenly distributed, it doesn't lead to congressional gains.

Basically, I totally agree on a national level and probably even senate level this is exactly what should be done, but I think when we look at the specific districts in the House, I just don't see how the numbers work. In many it's not about finding the voters that have tapped out of voting, it's that a lot of the lines are drawn so there are more Republicans within them and they vote. So, it has to be multi-pronged. Trying to win the House seats, trying to win Governorships and state legislature to fix the Gerrymandering, and putting together an extremely progressive New Deal² at a national level.

 

Betsy DeVos Picked A Student Loan CEO To Run The Student Loan System

 

Macron breaks with previous French policy, says sees no legitimate successor to Syria's Assad

Well, more or less, I guess.

 

turning out voters/registering non voters in the republican leaning districts will be incredibly important. that's probably the only way that there will be a chance for a non GOP candidate to win. Getting people to vote/register to vote in those districts/state will be super hard due to suppression. just don't know how to get around that.

 

I agree, and think that's why by and large those need to be very prominent in any messaging. The problem is that 1) a lot of the social issues are less as cut and dry, 2) many of those economic issues shift in polls and it depends on what information is given to the voter, 3) there's still a shit load of tribalism, 4) a lot of people have shown they will prioritize stunting social progressivism even to their own detriment economically.

 

shocker

 

I think, in this particular case, it may be where non-voters play a significant role. I'm thinking of the people that make minimum wage, who have seen successive administrations not do as they said they would. That's not to side-step your argument about racism, which is a constituent element in the tactics of disciplining various workforces and hindering change, but to say that I think there is a way to marginalize these people significantly by turning out people and maybe getting a few people to jump ship. I just don't trust Emanuel, particularly after the debacle that was the blue dog democrats. To him, credibility is "realism", whereas I think we can do far better. There are real obstacles, but I think it is far more possible now than it was even a few years ago.

 

convincing people to vote is one thing, getting them to register by the deadlines, have the documents needed to vote, have the time and ability to make it to the polling place, wait in line, miss work those are all hurdles that currently seem very difficult.

 

Well, I've said before that we need a new voting rights movement to do exactly those things, because, for the most part, the roadblocks you're describing are structural and intentional, i.e., they often correlate with both income and race. There are numerous components to this, like legal challenges and so forth, but ultimately, a good movement stays with people from the moment they sign up right down to the voting booth. That means helping people when they need it, checking in with them, offering car travel. Every step of the way, the left-wing should be there. I hesitate to compare, but if we look at what Corbyn did and is doing, it is actually brilliant. People are calling him prime minister because he ensured the party was there when the vote counted, had a bold vision and at every moment that Theresa May faltered, he made sure he was there to demonstrate that he was legitimately on their side to help them facilitate their needs. It isn't a one-to-one comparison, I know, but that's the sort of thing I am speaking about.

 

yeah I agree. voting rights movement would be amazing. I'm all in on automatic voter registration, expanding early voting, moving the actual election day to the weekend, vote by mail and I'm sure there are things that I'm missing. but those would be the start of it. I just don't know how to make that happen. I'm planning on volunteering next summer for voter registration drives and stuff but other than that kid of stuff I don't know.

 

I'd say that's possible in certain districts, but in others that demo doesn't really exist, or is too small to make an electoral difference if there was even 100% turnout. Wealthy, extremely white districts, for example.

If the demos we now see in the entire country as a whole were evenly distributed across the country, I think a strategy based entirely around those voters would do extremely well. But, looking at the Cook PVI, we can see that there's ~151 seats that are more Republican than the GA-6. Diving even deeper into the specifics, and turnout, and demos of those seats ... I don't see how any of those get put in play with focusing on engaging the non-voter alone. Even if you assume that those non-voters would move progressive if activated. (I'd estimate you'd have to be at around 80% D - 20% R in most of those districts to swing the election, and have depressed R turnout, and still only in a few of these seats -- because in others a lot of the non-voters are the exact same demo of the voters themselves ... affluent, hard R votes, that just don't see the need to vote.)

Now, state wide ... senate, gubernatorial ... I think this is absolutely key, and could put maybe 3-4 states in play that the Dems currently think are off the table all together. Get that working, re-draw some lines, and then maybe we're cooking with gasoline.

 

Speaking of redistricting, Eric Holder is one of the people most focused on that:

The most important turning point for the future of the Democratic Party will take place in 2021: when states redraw their Congressional and state legislative lines.

Chaired by former Attorney General Eric Holder, the NDRC is building a targeted, state-by-state strategy that ensures Democrats can fight back and produce fairer maps in the 2021 redistricting process.

 

statewide and national elections definitely would benefit more than most non-urban districts.

 

This is all fair enough. In Marxist circles, we say there are objective factors, over which you have no control, and subjective factors which we do. My only point is to do the best we can with the best vision we can in the case of the latter. We will experience defeats, but as Richard Seymour said:

"....defeat should not be disabling. The history of the Left is a history of defeats. It is the history of the vanquished, necessarily. Marxism, Enzo Traverso reminds us, is a science of defeat. “The whole road of socialism,” said Rosa Luxemburg, “is paved with nothing but thunderous defeats”. In the traditions of the left, defeat is recognised as a vital pedagogical process, even as its tragic dimension overwhelms us."


I know you're not down with socialism, but you know what I mean Ha.

 

Deleted. What was it?

 

They changed the wording a little.

 

Sounds like the Current Democratic motto. Heh.

 

Gotta make the hotel money, no one is going there otherwise

 

I love my brother but I can't talk to him about politics anymore -- it's freaking nauseating and depressing knowing the BS he eats up and believes while being completely ignorant to his privilege.

 

Unrelated, but I feel like you all should know: