Oh for sure! ANY population is going to have massive variation, but that doesn’t change the fact that the average and standard deviation on any particular axis have the values they have in a given population, and a typical person meeting the description I gave is going to be more US-conservative than the typical American city dweller, or younger person, or person with a college degree.
@MrShiv Of course there isn’t a single axis that’s useful for all purposes! The point is not the specific conclusion that Matthew Yglesias came to (though in this case “likelihood of voting R vs D” is pretty well defined, and varies much less by gender than it does by the other parameters used, which I assume is why he didn’t specify gender). The point is that, if you want to be long-term successful in democratic political systems, you do it by appealing to a majority of voters in the places where races are contentious, and by persuading people just at or past the median to vote for you and not the other guy. And yes, median is the relevant measure of central tendency, because you win US elections by vote count, not by intensity of opinion or distance of each voter’s opinion from some reference point.
@Jesse13927 Obviously, of course, but the firmly blue legislatures are not where you need to fight, in the sense I think we’re all talking about. There, presumably, you’ve already won and shouldn’t have a hard time making your platform into law.
@ficuswhisperer I think we mostly agree, but to your last paragraph: I refuse to think that there were only ever two solutions (cheat, or lose) to this problem.
@snigs I don’t know for sure, but I think the kinds of ideas from The Two Income Trap could actually have broad national appeal with the right messaging, while also advancing progressive goals if they became a focus of policy. Maybe they could have gone a long way towards combatting the ridiculous and damaging (and racist, etc.) conservative narratives about the causes of the problems Americans face.
If Biden requested his resignation for lack of progress on Jan 6, Garland would do so.
Cabinet confirmations don’t fall under filibuster. Haven’t for a while.
It all builds in layers. DoJ prosecuting Jan 6 and removing the Senators and Reps who were directly involved; reaching 50 non-Mansema Dem Senators in order to jettison the filibuster; pack the court; reinstate Roe.
We really don’t know what’s actually happening behind the scenes, and if Biden truly believes in an independent DOJ, neither does he nor would he be in a position to influence the ongoing work here. I’d expect Trump to do this of course, but not Biden.
That being said my expectations for J6 stuff are very low. Some people will go to jail, sure, but we won’t see any Trump family perp walks or Mo Brooks in chains as much as I wish these things would happen.
This assumes he could get a majority to confirm a replacement if one was appointed under such circumstances. Republicans would of course debase themselves to do this if it aas , but I don’t know that Democrats would. Manchin and Sinema certainly wouldn’t be on board.
Anyway it’s all a thought experiment since it’s not something that will ever happen.
That’s not a matter of an independent DOJ. It’s a matter of Justice, which is supposed to be their job. If the AG isn’t doing his/her job, get a different one.
Our democracy depends upon it. People who wage war on the US from inside it’s own government must face consequences, or it will just keep happening until it works.
But that’s the thing — we don’t know that they aren’t doing their job. The DOJ by necessity rarely telegraphs what they are doing only sharing when there is something to share. It’s very frustrating and unsatisfying to those on the outside that want action yesterday.
I agree! Unfortunately there’s a long precedent of not indicting unless a victory is all but guaranteed. Great for conviction rates, not so great for those of us who want to see action and consequences. Things are complicated by the kind of uncharted territory here with clear illegalities but with the lack of precedent for indicting a sitting congressperson or former President.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m agreeing with you here much more than I’m disagreeing. I’m no fan of Merrick Garland and I’m sick of the seemingly glacial process here. I’d love to see decisive and radical action here the Dems in power, but to me it’s all just a pipe dream.
I mostly agree with you. The thing about the precedent, though…this is unprecedented malfeasance. Even the Civil War South didn’t contest Lincoln’s election by trying to set up fake electors and delay the proceedings with violence against Congress enough to kick it to the House - which they would have won, IIRC.
To use Trump’s own words against him - if he doesn’t get indicted and tried and (if he survives long enough) see the inside of a prison, then we won’t really have a country anymore.
Unless there’s a serious commitment – not just talk – from the DNC that they’re committed to getting majorities in both houses of Congress (as well as Biden’s agreement) to expand SCOTUS ASAP, this is just more empty talk.
So far, though, this is empty talk from a supporter of that essentially worthless* "gun control bill. (*I hedge there for people who think passage of it’s fine if it saves just one life. That meaningful gun control is now closed and that the bill is huge PR win for the GOP doesn’t bother those supporters. Although they seem untroubled by t
You do realize that the DNC doesn’t tell representatives and senators what to do, right?
I mean, whom are you asking to make such a commitment? Individual senators would have to vote for this, and there’s not much the DNC can do to get them to do that.
The only reason we can’t have nice things right now is because of Manchin and Sinema, and the DNC can’t really do anything about that.
The DNC does have the ability to make, e.g., expanding the SCOTUS a plank in its platform. While it can’t force its candidates to support every policy plank, it does have substantial ability to reward good behaviour and punish bad behaviour.
The problem is that the current party leadership is too risk-averse and complacent and mired in the past to either take a firm stand on actual systemic reform (e.g. ending the filibuster) or on imposing discipline on members who reject it.
Compare to the other duopoly party, which is explicitly committed to preserving and enhancing the most broken elements of the system and which whips its members hard to stay in line.
The Years quote applies to both party leaderships: “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.” The poem the line comes from is very descriptive of the current American political scene too.
At this point, I think that party platforms are more of a wishlist than an actual substantial commitment to policy. Of course, the fact that platforms are just wishlists is a major problem in and of itself. Voters should be paying attention to how little of platforms actually make it into policy, but so much of what is stated in the platform is only possible in the first place if the party somehow gets a filibuster-proof majority in the senate. It’s almost all moot points, and everyone knows and tacitly consents to this.
As far as what the party can do to punish members, primary challenges and cutting party funding can bite, but incumbents have a big advantage over primary challengers and can get much more funding elsewhere anyway. It doesn’t seem to me like the DNC can do much about Manchin and Sinema one way or the other. They can try, but I don’t see it accomplishing much.
My main point, though, is: we need these kinds of commitments from individual members of Congress, and Senator Warren is doing exactly the right thing. We can harp about the party leadership all we want, but the votes in the Senate from individual senators are what is going to win the day, rather than what the DNC does or doesn’t do.
The leadership could deny them the party’s endorsement. They wouldn’t, but they certainly have the ability to do so and have exercised that ability with lots of candidates who tried to run under their banner.
A party can also, via its leaders who are also elected politicians, punish bad behaviour by making sure the elected official doesn’t get prime committee assignments. Here are Manchin’s: Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, member of Appropriations, Armed Services, and Veterans’ Affairs. Pretty good for a DINO.
A political party that doesn’t follow through on its convictions sends the wrong message to those it counts as its members. The DNC leadership, especially where it overlaps with elected office, is weak and wishy-washy.
They could and they should, but when the dust settles, Manchin and Sinema probably still hold onto their seats. The DNC can promote someone, but the primary and general election voters ultimately decide.
You’re totally right that the DNC leadership is wishy-washy, but I do not see a different outcome if they take a hardline like the GQP. Democratic voters are not as puritanical in the primaries.
I’m not saying I’m happy with the DNC, just that we need to be putting pressure on the individual senators who actually will be deciding these things, rather than some monolithic national party, because the party is neither as monolithic nor as national as they may seem.
You’re right. We need to pressure everyone about this. From city to national, we need to let the party know that we are not going to go backwards.
And if it takes primaries or donations or whatever, we have to send a message. Lives are on the line.
I believe in Senator Warren. I think that she has set and continues to set a good example for where the party should be going. It’s on us voters to make sure they follow through.
This letter from @stefanjones provides a good template.
My problem is that one of my state’s reps (and everyone’s Speaker of House) is a patrician who thinks the best response to this SCOTUS decision is to re-read a piece of poetry and that one of my Senators is being quietly acknowledged by colleagues and friends as suffering from some form of dementia (senex, indeed).
That’s in a Dem stronghold state, by the way, where a politician might feel more freedom to get aggressive and bloody fight.
ETA: my own Rep is willing and able to listen and fight, fortunately.
In my home state of Kansas, where I still vote and have family, the battle is going to get very real at the state level. Nobody is even looking at the national level. The DNC doesn’t mean as much there as it may elsewhere, but I’m all for having everyone on the same page about basic human rights, at all levels.
Hate to be “that guy,” but if they turn on Manchin, he could easily switch parties, or lose to a Trumpist, and we have Leader McTurtle again. Sinema is a different story. AZ is a purple state and she is being primaried pretty hard. WV? Yhe fact that there is a Dem from there, DINO though he may be, is a minor miracle. I don’t have an answer, other than to cite Will Rogers again.
