Yes, which is why National Popular Voting says that states send a rep to vote for whomever won the national popular vote. The states get to determine who they send by means of their choice, and if they want to send reps for the actually popular candidate, I think it would be mighty awful for the federal government to contravene that freedom of the states.
Some kind of twisted sick ill justified explanation from the Bush Florida recount team aka 3/9 supreme court justices, to again contort the world & system to their pleasure, is all too expectable. Alas. "John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett were all on GWBush 2000 'Florida Recount' team." Not relevant then, but Gore had 0.5m more votes than Bush.
https://bsky.app/profile/jfallows.bsky.social/post/3mwtbnzsa...
Want to get excited about this but I’m old enough to know they’ll probably revert to their fetish for watered down bi-partisan legislation and “taking the high road”. I’m willing to lose the pessimism if there’s a major change in leadership but not super hopeful about it.
People keep talking about citizens united. And sure it needs to go. But it doesn’t really solve more than a small part of the problem because it just reduces what /corporations/ can spend.
Wealthy people like Elon Musk can still go ahead and spend hundreds of millions on campaigns like they just did. There is no cap on that.
There is a personal cap at $3500, Musk uses the PAC organization that arose after CU. The big money is not giving directly or personally; it goes through PACs which CU enabled
Yeah that watered down boring giving people SNAP benefits, bringing insurance exchanges that helped millions, not going to the supreme court and making it the law of the land that people can be pulled over simply for their race. Ensuring women have the right to choose. Stopping government agencies from being like ICE and murdering people on the streets. Just that stuff. But both sides the same/Dems do nothing.
Schumer recruited Talarico to run for the Senate. What leadership person are you promoting who has both grown talent and demonstrated actively herding cats like the Dem leadership does every day within the big tent party?
Yeah, Schumer's and Jeffries' job involves herding cats and taking the blame to let members and presidential candidates look good.
They've got a unique opportunity over the next couple of years -- I'm willing to bet there are now a handful of Republican members that are willing to vote against Trump on specific bills to help their general election prospects. And they only need a handful to assemble a filibuster-proof or even veto-proof majority.
That'll involve pissing off the progressives, since bipartisan bills will necessarily be moderate. But don't let perfect be the enemy of the good.
Schumer and Jefferies were directly involved with the biggest Democratic win in generations, with Schumer in particular picking the candidates with the biggest upsets, personally, and directing fundraising to weaker candidates like El-Sayed. EVERYBODY who thinks they need to be replaced, are fucking morons, who might be correct that somebody else could do it better, but do not understand that somebody else could do A LOT WORSE.
Who do you propose could do it better? Not vagueness, give me a person. We need real world candidates because these things are real world considerations not just internet talking points.
The Democrats did not win as much as the Republicans have been rejected. Don't read too much into it (like the DSA is), this was a rebuke of elites and do nothing politicians, the same reasons Biden lost and Trump got a 2.0
I do credit Schumer with staving off the far left. We still need to see if these new representatives are actually up to the task of governing effectively. But Schumer is still part of the old guard, he played a big part of making America what it is today.
End First Past the Post.
https://fairvote.org/our-reforms/ranked-choice-voting/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_Un...
For those getting excited: The Electoral College is established by the US Constitution, and abolishing it would require a constitutional amendment.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact does not abolish the Electoral College.
Maybe, maybe not. Presumably the courts would decide that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionality_of_the_Natio...
FTA: “ even without a near-impossible constitutional amendment.”
Yes, which is why National Popular Voting says that states send a rep to vote for whomever won the national popular vote. The states get to determine who they send by means of their choice, and if they want to send reps for the actually popular candidate, I think it would be mighty awful for the federal government to contravene that freedom of the states.
Some kind of twisted sick ill justified explanation from the Bush Florida recount team aka 3/9 supreme court justices, to again contort the world & system to their pleasure, is all too expectable. Alas. "John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett were all on GWBush 2000 'Florida Recount' team." Not relevant then, but Gore had 0.5m more votes than Bush. https://bsky.app/profile/jfallows.bsky.social/post/3mwtbnzsa...
Want to get excited about this but I’m old enough to know they’ll probably revert to their fetish for watered down bi-partisan legislation and “taking the high road”. I’m willing to lose the pessimism if there’s a major change in leadership but not super hopeful about it.
I'm actually more excited they have enough power now to maybe get money out of politics once and for all
Imagine the progress when only small donations allowed and no-one can drop a HALF BILLION on a single state
Could actually pass universal healthcare once insurance industry is muzzled and can't buy politicians anymore
Undoing Citizens United also requires a constitutional amendment
People keep talking about citizens united. And sure it needs to go. But it doesn’t really solve more than a small part of the problem because it just reduces what /corporations/ can spend.
Wealthy people like Elon Musk can still go ahead and spend hundreds of millions on campaigns like they just did. There is no cap on that.
There is a personal cap at $3500, Musk uses the PAC organization that arose after CU. The big money is not giving directly or personally; it goes through PACs which CU enabled
(aiui)
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citi...
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/undoing-citizens-un...
https://legalhelp.us/how-much-can-a-private-citizen-donate-t...
Maybe not. Montana's plan to sidestep it looks like it just might work.
but can be overridden by another bad SCOTUS decision
Yeah that watered down boring giving people SNAP benefits, bringing insurance exchanges that helped millions, not going to the supreme court and making it the law of the land that people can be pulled over simply for their race. Ensuring women have the right to choose. Stopping government agencies from being like ICE and murdering people on the streets. Just that stuff. But both sides the same/Dems do nothing.
Schumer recruited Talarico to run for the Senate. What leadership person are you promoting who has both grown talent and demonstrated actively herding cats like the Dem leadership does every day within the big tent party?
Yeah, Schumer's and Jeffries' job involves herding cats and taking the blame to let members and presidential candidates look good.
They've got a unique opportunity over the next couple of years -- I'm willing to bet there are now a handful of Republican members that are willing to vote against Trump on specific bills to help their general election prospects. And they only need a handful to assemble a filibuster-proof or even veto-proof majority.
That'll involve pissing off the progressives, since bipartisan bills will necessarily be moderate. But don't let perfect be the enemy of the good.
Schumer is the same geriocracy we no longer want. He's compromised, time for fresh faces.
Schumer and Jefferies were directly involved with the biggest Democratic win in generations, with Schumer in particular picking the candidates with the biggest upsets, personally, and directing fundraising to weaker candidates like El-Sayed. EVERYBODY who thinks they need to be replaced, are fucking morons, who might be correct that somebody else could do it better, but do not understand that somebody else could do A LOT WORSE.
Who do you propose could do it better? Not vagueness, give me a person. We need real world candidates because these things are real world considerations not just internet talking points.
The Democrats did not win as much as the Republicans have been rejected. Don't read too much into it (like the DSA is), this was a rebuke of elites and do nothing politicians, the same reasons Biden lost and Trump got a 2.0
I do credit Schumer with staving off the far left. We still need to see if these new representatives are actually up to the task of governing effectively. But Schumer is still part of the old guard, he played a big part of making America what it is today.
You still haven't put anyone forward as a better replacement or actionable items you want different.
For me ending the fillibuster seems like the biggest way to prevent the gridlock versus getting rid of leadership for nebulous someone elses.
I'm not tuned in enough to pick an alternative, no one else has had a chance in how long? Chuckie is not a good leader and needs to be replaced
Ending the filibuster is a double edged sword, there is a reason the Republicans did not do it at Trump's request.
[dead]
[dead]