Skip to main content

View Diary: Congratulations, GOP! You got your shutdown. Now what? (139 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Simple dynamics (29+ / 0-)

    1. Each "safe" gerrymandered R believes he will face a radical, froth inhaling fool in a primary.
    2. The safer the gerrymandered the district, the more the fear, because the greater the likelihood that primary voters will determine the general outcome (i.e. that the wildest voters will vote and that the placid R's won't bother).
    3. Since ALL Republicans are certain that their fate is McConnell's and Graham's and that they will all face a frenzied maniac, they must inoculate themselves or poison themselves.
    4. They do not care about you, me, Obama, or their Democratic opponent, because they are SAFE from everything except losing funding and facing a primary.

    Conclusion:

    "Screw you, America: We want to keep OUR jobs."

    Everyone's innocent of some crime.

    by The Geogre on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 06:41:05 AM PDT

    •  I could not agree more. Nailed it, T.G. (7+ / 0-)

      The Republican motto: "There's been a lot of progress in this country over the last 75 years, and we've been against all of it."

      by Hillbilly Dem on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 06:59:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If 18 Repub Reps are in Obama-won districts, (13+ / 0-)

      than they seem like good places to invest in making these Reps pay the price for their bad behavior.

      Selecting the next 10 or 20 would require more nuance, starting with efforts like:

      "spot the newly registered and registrable adult Hispanics"

      and

      "spot the drop-off between Kerry's & Obama's vote totals".

      •  I agree (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        phonegery, Aunt Pat

        We're at 18/30?

        The general problem is that the TEA Party is the old 11% -- the same 11% that was the Dixiecrat (Wallace got 11%, so when we find that they represent 11% of the general votership, it's an odd coincidence). This group has always been the story in the Republican Party, at least since 1976. They have called the tune at each dance.

        In majority Democratic districts, we do have a chance, but we're looking in those cases at the actual TEA Party members. Those guys are, I suspect, truly irrational. When I say this, I do not mean to say that they are stupid, but rather impulsive.

        They're enthusiasts -- just like, if we recall, the "Clinton's morals must be punished" crew were, just like the "spending is out of control" crew were, and just like the "America's pride must be restored or the Communists will march in from Nicaragua" group were. I.e. the 11% insurgents who win via by-elections and primaries are marked by fervor rather than reason. We knocked out a good many after each excess, and we can do it again, but, in the meantime, this time the "protected" R's are scared.

        Everyone's innocent of some crime.

        by The Geogre on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 07:41:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The answer to that... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      The Geogre, Greenfinches, phonegery

      Is for big business to stop funding Republicans. That will change their tune very fast. You would think these supposedly smart businessmen would wake up to the fact that all the money they lose when Republicans have these Tea Party inspired temper tantrums does more damage to their bottom lines in the long term than going along with democratic demands for fair wages and benefits, a safe work environment, and a healthier planet.

      How much has our downgraded credit rating and sluggish economy--whose recovery Republicans thwart at every turn--cost American businesses? How much have increasingly worse natural disasters cost them? At what point will business people wake up and realize that today's Republican Party is not a smart investment? probably around the same time the poor rural white people who vote republican discover they have been voting against their own best interests for decades.

      Electing Republicans to the government is like hiring pyromaniacs as firemen. They all just want to see everything burn to the ground.

      by CatM on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 07:31:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  FDR's business liasson (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Greenfinches, alnc, CatM, phonegery

        [I'm ashamed to admit that I don't recall her name, even as I'm trumpeting her.] She made the simple and important point that bad businesses and inferior businessmen have trouble paying fair wages. Smart businessmen prosper with high wages.

        Henry Ford, of all people, had the dictate that the goal was, "The highest quality possible, at the lowest price possible, paying the highest wages possible." No one is going to confuse him with Karl Marx.

        We need to make it clear that only Buffalo Bill businesses find that they need to "dismantle the EPA." Only simpleton business owners find that "regulations kill jobs." The rest of us abide in a nation of laws.

        Everyone's innocent of some crime.

        by The Geogre on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 07:56:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  "Big" Business DOESN'T lose (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        a2nite

        It's the "typical" businesses that feel the heat from the market pressures manufactured in Washington.  The "too-big-to-fail" crowd just patiently wait for them to crumble, then dispatch the vulture capitalists to hoover up the remains.

        It's like a tube of toothpaste -- everything squeezed up to the top, and ultimately out of the tube.  The businesses, the families, the individuals... nothing more than fodder for the ruling elite.  And when they're done with us, they'll have to begin feeding on each other.  That's when we return to a 12th-century feudal system -- but with satellites and drones rather than swords and lances and siege engines.

        I'll believe corporations are people when one comes home from Afghanistan in a body bag.

        by mojo11 on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 08:11:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Partisan gerrymandering (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      The Geogre

      is unmistakably antidemocratic. I had been holding onto the idea that if nonpartisan commissions could take over the districting process then real elections would follow.

      But, not so fast. Gerrymandering doesn't explain everything.

      Although it had an obvious impact, Republican gerrymandering in states like Ohio and North Carolina was not the key reason for this result. [Of Republicans getting fewer votes nationally and winning many more seats.] It is unconscionable that most states still allow elected officials to draw the lines of their own districts to maximize their electoral invulnerability. But analyses from FairVote and the Brennan Center strongly suggest that gerrymandering only benefited Republicans by about 10 seats. Having more incumbents likely gave Republicans another three or four seats. But the overall voter preference for Democrats should have delivered fully 25 more seats to Democratic candidates.

      The core reason for this distortion – and its ongoing impact on policy – lies in two basic facts about the American political system: a growing concentration of Democratic voters in urban areas, particularly those part of the coalition of single women, racial minorities and young people that boosted Barack Obama, and the winner-take-all, single-member district system currently used to elect members of Congress.

      http://www.salon.com/...

      it's a really interesting read. Gerrymandering should be ended, it will help, but the discrepancy between the popular vote last year and the seats won can't be boiled down to gerrymandered districts alone.

      •  Mmmmaybe... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        alnc, phonegery

        but I know NC's delegation in the (US) House went from almost even to a decided R majority in 2012 despite a stronger-than-expected Obama showing statewide.  And the state legislative races were something like D +1% in aggregate, but the R's took a 2/3 majority in both houses.  The Dems are "kettled" in urban districts, for sure, and the R's don't even contest those.  They can concede Raleigh, Charlotte (parts of it anyway) Greensboro... because they know there are enough rural districts that are just as bulletproof to give them a comfortable majority.  The legislature didn't fall into GOP hands by a majority of votes, just a majority of districts.

        I'll believe corporations are people when one comes home from Afghanistan in a body bag.

        by mojo11 on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 08:18:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  According to this report (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          The Geogre

          gerrymandering accounts for about half of Democrats' shortfall in Congress, that is the difference between the number of seats they would have won if the system were neutral and the number of seats they hold. So it does matter. But it's about half of the problem.

          The gerrymandering to give the state houses over to the Republicans you write about is really criminal. Jimmy Carter is right when he says we don't have a functioning democracy.

          •  One look at the map (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            The Geogre

            and the returns and you know that's how it went down -- at least here it did.  About an equal number of NC House seats for each side went uncontested by the opposition party (26-25 R).  The state Senate was a bit more lopsided with 16 R seats and 7 D seats unchallenged.  There ARE only 50 seats in the senate and 120 in the House, so fully 1/3 of the state legislature was elected not by majority, but by default.  Why, one may ask, did the NCDP not challenge at least SOME of these candidates?  The state Dem party is ... well, to be kind, in a "transitional phase".  Or as I like to call it, "complete disarray".  And it was probably likely that they dared not take the chance that challenging a securely red seat would result in a flood of Pope money -- with help from Americans For the Prosperous (or Preposterous) -- backing GOP candidates to take on solidly blue seats.  The balance of power in NC shifted on a seismic level in 2010, and the Dark Red Money is a fearsome spectacle to behold.

            But the public is beginning to see through the veil of lies.  McCrony's approval rating is hovering around 35%, the NCGA's below 20%.  There's a lot of anger to be tapped on both sides of the political divide, and the favorite targets at THIS moment appear to be the majority party.  So if Randy Vollner and the NCDP can pull their collective heads out in 2014, the time has never been better for a sea change in the legislature.  We're stuck with McCrony until 2016, unfortunately -- NC has no recall law.  But as long as the fire can be kept hot, it's not hard to see him as a one-termer.  FSM knows he's broken enough shit in just 9 months on the "job" to make it feasible for a candidate anywhere approaching credible to take him down.

            I'll believe corporations are people when one comes home from Afghanistan in a body bag.

            by mojo11 on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 11:04:02 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site