Search Amazon.com:
Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«129 »
  • Post
  • Reply
Fried Chicken
Jan 9, 2011

Don't fry me, I'm no chicken!





Welcome to the GOP rebuilding thread!

You may be asking “LOL what rebuilding?”. That view isn’t an uncommon one. The GOP is staring down a demographic problem. After getting royally spanked in 2012, there were some early motions toward change – a more populist economic approach that accepted the necessity of the social safety net, immigration reform, and acceptance of higher taxes on the rich. Those went out the window by about the 3rd week in January, and they have instead decided to focus more on their base.

That is still rebuilding, and honestly not a bad plan. The GOP has a much more sophisticated understanding of political science than the posters here do (and what passes for the American left unfortunately). In terms of the longer view, looking at institution building, the GOP is playing a bad demographic and ideological hand very well.

The primary motivation of all Republican policies and political actions is to defend and intensify the existing concentration of wealth. Defend it by opposing actions that redistribute it downwards, like higher taxes to fund food stamps, and intensify it through things like repealing regulation on corporations, and war profiteering like we saw under Bush.

Unsurprisingly, stated like that, this is really unpopular.

These policies are bad for most people because most people are by definition not the wealthy elite. They are unpopular, as are most of the obfuscating policies the GOP pushes as well. Yet they have enjoyed great success at this. Overcoming those odds is fairly impressive. The GOP has pulled this off by superior institution-building, a shrewd exploitation of veto points in government, and a deeper understanding of contingency in electoral politics than their rivals.

The GOP fostered a cadre of social reactionaries and encouraged them to imbue wealth-concentration policies with religious significance. Unlike the Dems, (and to say nothing of leftist infighting) the GOP makes extolling and pandering to activist base its top priority. You'd never see the GOP defund "its ACORN" for example

This does scare most people. But that’s where the political science aspect comes in to play. Firstly, “most people” don’t vote. In 2012 only 57.5% of eligible voters cast a ballot. And the list of eligible voters is smaller than the total adult population (felons, unregistereds, etc) For off year, state wide, municipal, and primary elections the turnout is much lower. Secondly, while “most people” don’t see themselves as hardcore partisans, the reality is they are. The centrists, the people actually up for grabs “in the middle” is a very small slice of the electorate. It also isn’t an even distribution across the country. It can be overcome in a depressed turnout with a concentrated get out the vote effort. Further, polisci models show that those that actually are up for grabs in the middle are more influenced by what they feel is the direction the country is in rather than specific policy pitches. If you pile drive the country your first year, but have it doing better the next 3, they will vote for you, even if they are still worse off due to your first year policies.

This being the case, the "sensible" thing to do is either wait for things to break your way or make them break your way (eg tank the economy). Which is exactly what the GOP has done. So long as your base is active you can ignore or capture those who change based on how they feel that day. Which means focusing on your base is rebuilding because it allows you to accomplish your core mission - defend and intensify wealth concentration - without winning every election. You may be looking at a long run balance of 55-45, but the baseline level of power from a normal run of luck in a two-party system is enough to put you in charge eventually, while preparing for "good days."

Over time this strategy has worked very well. Consider the GOP's success at the state level, the judiciary & Congress. As slimy as pandering to your base, sabotaging the nation, and demonizing any criticism inside or out may be, it is very good electoral politics. Consider the Phil Robertson flap of December 2013. This is a man who claimed Jim Crow was good for black people while being from the most violent post-civil war county in the country, that gays are evil with murder in their hearts, that following religions other than Christianity caused World War 2, and that underage girls were the best ones to marry. But this year no number of voters worth mentioning is going to switch their votes because the GOP rallied around this guy. The people in the middle will vote in line with the direction of the economy, and the opposition will reject them regardless, but their base will remember and be stoked. That's what matters. EW Jackson is about as extreme as they come, and ran in a “purple” state that the media narrative supposes will be full of “moderates” “in the middle” and still grabbed 44% of the vote in 2013. There is no cost in actual voters to them for embracing this viewpoint.

The very longwinded point is this – don’t attribute their revanchist reactionary bullshit to stupidity. They know exactly what they are doing. It is cynical as gently caress, but it works. Its core mission of defending and intensifying wealth concentration has limited appeal. There isn’t some transition they are failing to make. They are purposely whipping their core base up, and in the two party system guaranteed by our election laws, that is enough. They can slow or stop change for now, and eventually get back in.

And this is where we talk about it.



Big Stuff of 2013

Snowden: Big for US foreign policy, little for partisan divides.

North Carolina: GOP took full control for the first time in 50+ years. Holy poo poo these fuckers are crazy. See the dedicated thread in GBS for details.

Immigration Reform: Deader than Jacob Marley. Took Marco Rubio with it. Made Paul Ryan shut up for 9 months when it died, but unfortunately that particular rear end in a top hat is back now.

Wendy Davis: Filibuster against abortion restrictions caught brief flare of national attention, caught a lot of attention of politically active people. Ended up not stopping anything because it’s Texas, but a lot more money and experience is flowing into the more liberal side of the ballot in the Lone Star State now.

Syria: Obama wanted to threaten to bomb if they didn’t give up chemical weapons. The GOP split along the lines of wanting to bomb Muslims and wanting to deny Obama. Fortunately we managed to get a WMD disarmament of Syria through diplomatic means. GOP still fractured, though not openly.

Shutdown 2013: Ted Cruz managed to make himself more powerful than the Speaker of the House by campaigning in house districts telling them a shutdown would stop the ACA rollout. He then forces Boehner’s hand, and does an act of theater in the senate with Harry Reid’s permission (with Reid screwing the act up at the last minute because contra all appearances, Reid isn’t a fool). Anyways, the Federal government was shut down for two weeks until Boehner caved and gave a clean funding and debt ceiling raise. GOP took a major hit in the polls. See past threads for details and live blogging. Basically, if real life was like House of Cards, John Boehner would have left Ted Cruz in the garage with the car running by now.

Health Care Webite Rollout: Owing to the abomination that is government contract bidding, we paid $50 million for poo poo. There was 1 month of heat over it (the first month being consumed by the shutdown). But it seems to be largely working now. But the heat was enough to reverse the GOP pummeling. GOP now plans to campaign in 2014 exclusively on problems with the ACA.

Iran deal: Obama got concessions from Iran to stall their nuclear program 6 months in exchange for an easing of sanctions. Major diplomatic breakthrough. GOP loving pissed we aren’t bombing them. Congress may still jam it up ala North Korea in the 90s, but the EU is still lifting sanctions, so their ability to screw it will be limited globally, though it may prompt a minor constitutional crisis here.

Budget Deal: For the first time in a long time, we have a budget. Paul Ryan (he of the dead eyes) and Pat Murray (she of the Universal Basic Income) came together to craft a budget deal. Most of the sequestration got repealed, there will be no shutdown until after 2016, and public workers’ pensions got gutted.

Wall Street Lost: Elizabeth Warren and Bill DeBlasio were the biggest kick in the teeth to them (with Kshama Sawant being another small victory). DeBlasio was an open rejection of Bloomberg’s catering to the rich, and Warren got the Wall Street stalking horse Third Way Party to self-destruct when an op ed against her campaign to expand social security (which was itself a tactic to stymie Paul Ryan) hilarious backfired with the popular media and got all the donors exposed and collectively and individually made an object of ridicule. Anyways, overall 5 years of accepting a poo poo economy leads to economic populism surging in popularity. In other news, water is wet.

Random bullshit: Filner, Wiener are both sexist assholes. GOP tried to make them the face of the Dems, but since no Dems were defending them it didn’t work. Usual run of fake scandals, like “Pajama Boy”, “Obama Selfie” and still trying to milk Benghazi.

Yeah, it was largely a slow news year. Nowhere near as entertaining as 2009.\



Big Stuff in 2014:

Military Pensions. Ryan cut them in his budget deal. People are unhappy, and this is a lobby that has teeth. There is a big push to blame it on the Dems, but Ryan doing op-eds defending it is undercutting a lot of that. Sen Sheehan has legislation to reverse it when things reconvene. The rest of the public employees are hosed though.

Debt Ceiling: Still a problem. GOP says it will demand concessions over it. Obama says he won’t negotiate. Global economy at stake.

Elections: Rough timeline, varies with state – signatures submitted in February, Primary in April, General in November. Strap in, the crazy will be out in force.

California immigration: Cali looks like it will grant work rights to undocumented immigrants. Obama administration will have to decide how to respond, similar to Colorado legalizing marijuana. If he accepts it, it will basically be backdoor immigration reform, and expect a major fight.

Iran: More negotiations to follow the previous deal. Obama is looking to visit there this year for a diplomatic stop, which would be huge. Expect GOP hate.

Health Care Reform: The GOP wants to talk all ACA, all the time. They are convinced that people will hate it, it will fail, and this is a winning issue. Problems here is it is working. Millions are signing up (never mind the millions in the Medicaid expansion and the millions on their parents insurance), and the insurance industry has made a half a billion dollar ad buy to get people to sign up, putting the GOP against the industry and the Dems. The flip side is that everything people hate about private insurance is still there, so now the ACA is getting blamed for it because people are treating it as an aspect of the ACA (eg deductibles).

GOP establishment vs Tea Party. They haven’t quite fallen off the tiger, but they are dangling off it. “Stupid” has long been a reliable GOP staple, but now it is joined by its mutant brothers “crazy” and “evil”. More importantly, there is a fuckload of money involved, so grifters are all over. Major fault lines are data access and control (the formation of independent, incomplete, and overlapping data warehouses) and funding access and control (Rove is no longer the go to guy, other groups are angling for the money)


Who hates who:
Here is a handy dandy chart of who in the GOP hates who.




Other poo poo:

Watch Alpha House on Amazon. If you are a regular in this thread it is right up your alley

IRC is in #poligoons on synirc Find us there during live streams of random poo poo


Past Threads:

Fried Chicken fucked around with this message at Jan 1, 2014 around 06:39

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

StandardVC10
Feb 6, 2007

I'm going back out before the rain starts falling

I read that OP and for some reason the thing that stuck out to me was public employee pensions. I know nothing about them. So how does this affect the overall state of things for public employees/people who might want to become one? The whole appeal of those jobs as I understood it was that they're incredibly stable and offer long-term benefits at the expense of a high take-home salary.

Cantorsdust
Aug 9, 2008

Infinitely many points, but zero length.

StandardVC10 posted:

I read that OP and for some reason the thing that stuck out to me was public employee pensions. I know nothing about them. So how does this affect the overall state of things for public employees/people who might want to become one? The whole appeal of those jobs as I understood it was that they're incredibly stable and offer long-term benefits at the expense of a high take-home salary.

That's the promise, but it seems like the story everywhere is that town/state gets into financial issues, and then the "very serious people" propose "very serious cuts" to the pensions to keep things solvent. See Wisconsin for a great recap there.

Dr.Zeppelin
Dec 5, 2003



StandardVC10 posted:

I read that OP and for some reason the thing that stuck out to me was public employee pensions. I know nothing about them. So how does this affect the overall state of things for public employees/people who might want to become one? The whole appeal of those jobs as I understood it was that they're incredibly stable and offer long-term benefits at the expense of a high take-home salary.

The harder time the government has attracting talented workers, the easier it is for the right wing to point to them as an incompetent institution worth dismantling.

MODS CURE JOKES
Nov 11, 2009

OFFICIAL SAS 90s REMEMBERER


In other cases local politics are so thoroughly incomprehensible (take Northport, NY for example) and blatantly corrupt that the only thing one could do to change things on the local level is to become a loving master of the spies like in ye olden times. One thing we desperately need but we'll never get (b/c of ~reasons~) is local electoral reform. Federalism is bullshit.

Fried Chicken
Jan 9, 2011

Don't fry me, I'm no chicken!


Cantorsdust posted:

That's the promise, but it seems like the story everywhere is that town/state gets into financial issues, and then the "very serious people" propose "very serious cuts" to the pensions to keep things solvent. See Wisconsin for a great recap there.

Or Michigan. Or Illinois.

Basically, the workers accepted lower pay for greater benefits. Pensions, health care coverage between retirement and medicare and the like. The government never payed in to those funds, and now are off the hooks, so basically the workers took less pay for nothing. Private companies are doing the same with their 401Ks, but with the governments, there is the additional side of swapping from pensions to 401Ks is really good for the banks, because then they get a ton of "management" fees.

I do agree that the cost coverage of health care between retirement and medicare is a huge problem, but that's due to the cost of health care (remember how they were howling that the ACA was an 800 bln "stealth bailout" of "irresponsible states" because its lower costs saved money?). But largely its just a way to pocket worker cash to the elites.

It's a long run problem too. We always knew 401Ks (even the fully funded ones, which are few) were not enough to allow retirement, now we are seeing it as the generation who had it foisted on them are starting to retire. Next 10 years or so we are looking at a retirement crisis as the old guard can't afford to leave their jobs, but won't be able to continue to work.

Jerry Manderbilt
May 31, 2012



Fried Chicken posted:

North Carolina: GOP took full control for the first time in 50+ years. Holy poo poo these fuckers are crazy. See the dedicated thread in GBS for details.

That thread still exists?

Anyway, back to pension chat, here in California there's actually a movement to cut public pensions.

N. Senada
May 17, 2011



Jerry Manderbilt posted:

That thread still exists?

http://forums.somethingawful.com/sh...40&pagenumber=1

I found it.

AATREK CURES KIDS
Jul 11, 2010

I'm helping!


What does Hippo Issues refer to? Is a Hippo a RINO that's become even less like an elephant?

comes along bort
Sep 12, 2012



Jerry Manderbilt posted:

That thread still exists?

Anyway, back to pension chat, here in California there's actually a movement to cut public pensions.

It's still around, but here's a pretty good overview of things so far. In puppet form:

http://vimeo.com/82652128

Fried Chicken
Jan 9, 2011

Don't fry me, I'm no chicken!


AATREK CURES KIDS posted:

What does Hippo Issues refer to? Is a Hippo a RINO that's become even less like an elephant?

Its an Alpha House reference.

Watch Alpha House

ReindeerF
Apr 20, 2002

Rubber Dinghy Rapids Bro


It's not the greatest thing ever, but it's pretty loving decent and the acting talent alone carries it over the top.

PUGGERNAUT
Nov 14, 2013

who's a good doggy

I still don't understand why felons aren't allowed to vote.

The Ape of Naples
Jul 24, 2007



PUGGERNAUT posted:

I still don't understand why felons aren't allowed to vote.

Are they allowed to serve on juries?

Edit: That was a real question and not an attempt to "Socratic-ly" answer your question.
Edit 2: Via Wikipedia
Felon jury exclusion
The lifetime exclusion of felons from jury service is the majority rule in the U.S., used in thirty one states and in federal courts. The result is that over 6% of the adult population is excluded, including about 30% of black men,[2] creating a class of citizens defined and punished by the criminal justice system but unable to impact its function. Felon jury exclusion is less visible than felony disenfranchisement, and few socio-legal scholars have challenged the statutes that withhold a convicted felon’s opportunity to sit on a jury.[3] While constitutional challenges to felon jury exclusion almost always originate from interested litigants, some scholars contend that "it is the interests of the excluded felons that are most directly implicated." Yet, attacks on these blanket prohibitions levied by excluded felon jurors have failed consistently. The United States Supreme Court does not recognize the right to sit on a jury as fundamental.[4] It has been pointed out that, although lawmakers assert that felon jury exclusion measures protect the integrity of the adjudicative process, as felons “lack the requisite probity” to serve on a jury and are “inherently biased,” many of the states subscribing to this practice allow felons to practice law.[5] But that is a double-standard only if you presume that those who judge the arguments of both sides in a case are allowed to be as biased as those arguing for each side.
The U.S. Department of Justice has argued that felon jury exclusion laws do not discriminate against the disabled because there is no evidence that drug addicts as a class are convicted of felonies in any greater number than other classes of felons.[6]

The Ape of Naples fucked around with this message at Jan 1, 2014 around 14:25

uncurable mlady
Jan 13, 2008

get meow dis wack-ass crystal prison



PUGGERNAUT posted:

I still don't understand why felons aren't allowed to vote.

Draconian drug sentencing policies that escalate into felonies that disproportionately affect nonwhites make for a pretty handy way of disenfranchising minority voters. Moreover, the optics of it make it really difficult to get a lot of public support for overturning the bans (people hear 'felony' and they think 'murder/surprise sex/etc' not 'possession with intent to distribute') so yeah. Tricky issue.

corn in the bible
Apr 2, 2013



You might as well ask why stealing a hat three times gives you life without parole in some states. The answer is that rich people are immune to such lawsuits so it's a good way to poo poo on the poor (and especially minorities) who are more likely to actually be charged for things.

VitalSigns
Sep 3, 2011

I can feel you tremble when we touch...

PUGGERNAUT posted:

I still don't understand why felons aren't allowed to vote.

Is it the real reason you don't understand, or the bullshit justifications?

Essentially, it's the same reason sane people don't understand why in-person voter fraud is such a big deal.

PUGGERNAUT
Nov 14, 2013

who's a good doggy

VitalSigns posted:

Is it the real reason you don't understand, or the bullshit justifications?

Essentially, it's the same reason sane people don't understand why in-person voter fraud is such a big deal.

Bullshit justifications.

I've got friends who lean conservative/libertarian but are still reasonable enough to talk politics with, but none of them have been able to justify it. Most of them say it's dumb as hell (big government!!!), but no politician wants to look "soft on crime" so no one would campaign to give them voting rights.

HUGE PUBES A PLUS
Apr 30, 2005

The Koch brothers are behind this new avatar.


Thread title made me laugh out loud.

Hooray! Michigan will have Medicaid as part of the ACA ... on April 1. This delay costs Michigan taxpayers $7 million a day.

Michigan Senator Gretchen Whitmer posted:

"While last night ended with a countdown, today began with a different one, as January 1, 2014, marks the start of a 90-day clock that, thanks to Michigan Republicans, is going to cost taxpayers a whopping $630 million. That’s $7 million A DAY, around $291,667 an hour, $4,861 a minute, and $81 a second. That’s YOUR money being wasted and it’s all because Tea Party Republicans wanted to prove some ill-conceived political point."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3THbcvoSFg

VitalSigns
Sep 3, 2011

I can feel you tremble when we touch...

Apparently, Wendy Davis has John Cornyn and the rest of the Texas Republicans scared shitless, and they're kicking off a Keep Texas Red() campaign

superjx
Apr 26, 2005

Official Somethingawful.com forums account of Scott Walker (Paid for by the Wisconsin State Government)


PUGGERNAUT posted:

I still don't understand why felons aren't allowed to vote.

Actually, in most states felons can vote after completing their sentence, although that sometimes means finishing thier parole as well. The trend nationally has been to grant felons more voting rights, not less.

The ban on voting for criminals was put in many state constitutions, written when they first joined the union. Mostly it was for things like bribery, forgery, and other things of that nature. But with the principle established of certain crimes leading to a ban on voting, it's easy to see how it got extended to all felonies in many cases, since listing every serious crime in a state constitution wasn't often feasible. At that point, when legislators would change the law and make a crime a felony, it would impact the voting rights of those convicted without any other action. Often the issue was never brought up.

When classifying a law as a felony, the legislator probably wasn't thinking about voting rights. That's pretty long term thinking, and beyond most state legislators. It was usually done to show that they were tough on crime or as a way to show that they were doing something about a specific crime that made the news. Whether the law deters the activity or not wouldn't have mattered.

PUGGERNAUT
Nov 14, 2013

who's a good doggy

superjx posted:

Actually, in most states felons can vote after completing their sentence, although that sometimes means finishing thier parole as well.

I learned something today!

SedanChair
Jun 1, 2003

SOMEONE REPORT ME TO THE FTC BECAUSE I HAVE A MONOPOLY ON SHITPOSTING


VitalSigns posted:

Is it the real reason you don't understand, or the bullshit justifications?

Essentially, it's the same reason sane people don't understand why in-person voter fraud is such a big deal.

There's surprisingly little daylight between the real reason and the bullshit justifications. Most people are OK with stripping voting rights forever, and are asking why we even suffer felons to live.

When it comes to prison policy in the US, we're rather naked in our hate.

ToxicSlurpee
Nov 5, 2003

Kiss Me, I'm Hateful!

PUGGERNAUT posted:

but no politician wants to look "soft on crime" so no one would campaign to give them voting rights.

That's the source of a great many problems in the U.S. political scene, actually. A lot of politicians run on a platform of "hard on crime" and most people aren't interested in reducing crime but punishing people that do crime. It is completely irrelevant that the American justice system is extremely bad at reducing recidivism or that it's set up for ex-cons to fail. "I will put more people in jail" actually gets politicians votes.

VitalSigns
Sep 3, 2011

I can feel you tremble when we touch...

SedanChair posted:

There's surprisingly little daylight between the real reason and the bullshit justifications. Most people are OK with stripping voting rights forever, and are asking why we even suffer felons to live.

When it comes to prison policy in the US, we're rather naked in our hate.

I was about to tell you you're being too pessimistic but then I remembered two separate conversations I had with people unironically favoring literacy tests to vote in 2013

Install Windows
Aug 4, 2011

Trophy-ko says:
~death to capitalism~
;3 ;3 ;3 ;3 ;3 ;3
;3 ;3 ;3 ;3 ;3 ;3
;3 ;3 ;3 ;3
;3 ;3 ;3 ;3



ToxicSlurpee posted:

That's the source of a great many problems in the U.S. political scene, actually. A lot of politicians run on a platform of "hard on crime" and most people aren't interested in reducing crime but punishing people that do crime. It is completely irrelevant that the American justice system is extremely bad at reducing recidivism or that it's set up for ex-cons to fail. "I will put more people in jail" actually gets politicians votes.

It doesn't really help though, that despite how ineffective "tough on crime" strategies are, objectively most crime happened to have gone down a lot ever since the "tough on crime" rhetoric started being used. So they have the luxury of pointing to how crime decreased x% while their favored policy happened to be in effect and the average person doesn't have the time to spare to show that the "tough on crime" things du jour didn't help.

SedanChair
Jun 1, 2003

SOMEONE REPORT ME TO THE FTC BECAUSE I HAVE A MONOPOLY ON SHITPOSTING


VitalSigns posted:

I was about to tell you you're being too pessimistic but then I remembered two separate conversations I had with people unironically favoring literacy tests to vote in 2013


Hey it's not racist if you're ignorant of the history of poll tests.

Ballz
Dec 16, 2003
VARYS IS A MERMAN

VitalSigns posted:

Apparently, Wendy Davis has John Cornyn and the rest of the Texas Republicans scared shitless, and they're kicking off a Keep Texas Red() campaign



I love how Nancy Pelosi continues to be a conservative bogeyman. Back in 2010, you'd think she was running for Governor of Florida against Rick Scott.

radical meme
Apr 17, 2009

Let her speak!


Fried Chicken posted:

Military Pensions. Ryan cut them in his budget deal. People are unhappy, and this is a lobby that has teeth. There is a big push to blame it on the Dems, but Ryan doing op-eds defending it is undercutting a lot of that. Sen Sheehan has legislation to reverse it when things reconvene. The rest of the public employees are hosed though.

It was my understanding that this had been in Ryan's proposed, and House passed, budgets all along. Which also explains why he's defended it so hard since he couldn't walk away from things he has argued for from the first.

Dr.Zeppelin
Dec 5, 2003



radical meme posted:

It was my understanding that this had been in Ryan's proposed, and House passed, budgets all along. Which also explains why he's defended it so hard since he couldn't walk away from things he has argued for from the first.

This didn't stop him from making the Dems own the exact same Medicare cuts he proposed.

darthbob88
Oct 13, 2011


Ballz posted:

I love how Nancy Pelosi continues to be a conservative bogeyman. Back in 2010, you'd think she was running for Governor of Florida against Rick Scott.

And ACORN as well, which is impressive since I'm pretty sure the Republicans got it shut down years ago over manufactured bullshit.

Shifty Pony
Dec 28, 2004

Up ta somethin'


VitalSigns posted:

Apparently, Wendy Davis has John Cornyn and the rest of the Texas Republicans scared shitless, and they're kicking off a Keep Texas Red() campaign



While I doubt that Wendy Davis will be the one to swing the state the GOP is right to use her as a reason to try and strengthen their money and power position in the state. A Davis campaign really is about starting to build and establish a new democratic fundraising and turnout machine after the old one rotted in place and was essentially ground into dust by the state GOP. Some of the old guard remain, despite repeated attempts to district them out of existence (seriously how many times is Doggett going to get redistricted?) but for the most part there is little statewide organizational power to back them up.

The GOP in the state (not being stupid) is likely concerned about the fact that the "Texas Miracle" that Perry loves to use taxpayer dollars flying around the world campaigning on is based on a steady flow of people desperate for jobs being willing to move to Texas for poo poo wages and a one-time injection of money from an energy exploration boom which may start to taper off soon. If the rest of the national economy starts to sputter to life Texas could be on the losing end of that. An economic downturn after the GOP has had a lock on the state for years combined with the fact that the continued population growth has been overwhelmingly urban, young, and votes Democratic... yeah a swing could be in the cards in the future and would absolutely gently caress the national GOP as well as kill any national aspirations of those in the Texas GOP. Zoux is the expert on this stuff though.

DemeaninDemon
Jul 27, 2007


Women wearing sneakers/tennis shoes: GOP kryptonite.

Guilty Spork
Feb 25, 2011

Thunder rolled. It rolled a six.


From everything I've been hearing, it's a question of when, not if, Texas turns blue, and the answer is "too soon" for the GOP (because "ever" would be too soon), and "not nearly soon enough" for anyone who's a fan of safety regulations, equal rights, women's health, etc.

Mr Ice Cream Glove
Apr 22, 2007
"If you put a hamburger in the toaster it'll say Happy Birthday."

Guilty Spork posted:

From everything I've been hearing, it's a question of when, not if, Texas turns blue, and the answer is "too soon" for the GOP (because "ever" would be too soon), and "not nearly soon enough" for anyone who's a fan of safety regulations, equal rights, women's health, etc.

If it ever turns blue, you pretty much will never see another Republican president (oh I wish I wish for this)

The Angry Bum
Nov 10, 2005


Shifty Pony posted:

While I doubt that Wendy Davis will be the one to swing the state the GOP is right to use her as a reason to try and strengthen their money and power position in the state. A Davis campaign really is about starting to build and establish a new democratic fundraising and turnout machine after the old one rotted in place and was essentially ground into dust by the state GOP. Some of the old guard remain, despite repeated attempts to district them out of existence (seriously how many times is Doggett going to get redistricted?) but for the most part there is little statewide organizational power to back them up.

The GOP in the state (not being stupid) is likely concerned about the fact that the "Texas Miracle" that Perry loves to use taxpayer dollars flying around the world campaigning on is based on a steady flow of people desperate for jobs being willing to move to Texas for poo poo wages and a one-time injection of money from an energy exploration boom which may start to taper off soon. If the rest of the national economy starts to sputter to life Texas could be on the losing end of that. An economic downturn after the GOP has had a lock on the state for years combined with the fact that the continued population growth has been overwhelmingly urban, young, and votes Democratic... yeah a swing could be in the cards in the future and would absolutely gently caress the national GOP as well as kill any national aspirations of those in the Texas GOP. Zoux is the expert on this stuff though.

Uh, no. Once tiered voting is introduced to the state, it will remain a GOP stronghold for many years to come. We've only seen the beginning of reduced voting rights in this country and it'll eventually circle all the way back to the only ones allowed to vote are people of privilege. Especially when it comes to state and local elections.

DemeaninDemon
Jul 27, 2007


The Angry Bum posted:

Uh, no. Once tiered voting is introduced to the state, it will remain a GOP stronghold for many years to come. We've only seen the beginning of reduced voting rights in this country and it'll eventually circle all the way back to the only ones allowed to vote are people of privilege. Especially when it comes to state and local elections.

That'll get caught up in the courts I'm sure. Just hope they don't push it too far off before someone finds Scalias phylactery.

uncurable mlady
Jan 13, 2008

get meow dis wack-ass crystal prison



In 12 states, felonies bar you from voting forever. In 19 more, you have to serve your term of incarceration, AND your parole, AND your probationary period before your voting rights are restored. 17 more states require you to serve your term of incarceration at least before restoring voting rights. Most felony sentences are drug related. Whatever the original intent of laws that barred felons from voting was, the fact that it remains in effect in the majority of states pretty clearly disproportionately affects minorities from voting.

There's really no way to mince the issue, either - what rational argument can be made to bar anyone from voting? Criminal or not, if they're a citizen, their vote should matter just as much as anyone elses (furthermore, one might expect convicted felons to be very vocal on issues that are of import to them, like prison reform).

SedanChair
Jun 1, 2003

SOMEONE REPORT ME TO THE FTC BECAUSE I HAVE A MONOPOLY ON SHITPOSTING


DemeaninDemon posted:

Women wearing sneakers/tennis shoes: GOP kryptonite.

God help the child that approaches them wearing tennis shoes and a onesie.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

The Angry Bum
Nov 10, 2005


serewit posted:

In 12 states, felonies bar you from voting forever. In 19 more, you have to serve your term of incarceration, AND your parole, AND your probationary period before your voting rights are restored. 17 more states require you to serve your term of incarceration at least before restoring voting rights. Most felony sentences are drug related. Whatever the original intent of laws that barred felons from voting was, the fact that it remains in effect in the majority of states pretty clearly disproportionately affects minorities from voting.

There's really no way to mince the issue, either - what rational argument can be made to bar anyone from voting? Criminal or not, if they're a citizen, their vote should matter just as much as anyone elses (furthermore, one might expect convicted felons to be very vocal on issues that are of import to them, like prison reform).

Voting is not a federally protected right, it's a state-based privilege. States DO NOT LIKE when Congress or the Supreme Court decide to make or enforce any federal voting laws. States making their own voting rules and laws is Constitutionally protected.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply
«129 »