Even that doesn’t address the mess that exists today. It’s a great example of why they keep losing. They’re going to make it impossible to gerrymander after the lines have already been redrawn to benefit the Republicans? Why? Why would they do that? They’re essentially committing to always fighting an uphill battle for the rest of their days. I respect the principle, but not the approach. You cant lock a scale while it’s broken and then expect it to measure correctly. They need to pull their heads out of their asses and start playing to win. To start recognizing the strategies which continually defeat them, and start countering with some equally aggressive strategies of their own, or their time is done.
I think I phrased my comment wrong on this. It doesn’t ban the act of gerrymandering, it bans the results of gerrymandering. Gerrymandered maps would need to be redrawn had the bill been enacted.
This bill was no slouch. It directly abridged several states’ voter suppression laws. Had the bill passed, the next phase would have been people being able to use the federal courts to strike back against these incompatible laws.
That being said, if you were the leader of the Democratic Party, what would you have done? Not intended as rhetorical snark, I’m just curious as to what other ideas there are.
Okay, then that sounds reasonable. Regarding your question, I suppose I would have held a primary and put someone on the final ballot who the people voted for. That would have required acknowledging before the primaries that Biden wasn’t fit to continue, which from what I’ve read, they did have full knowledge of, but refused to act upon.
That’s easier said than done though. Right? Like I’m not directly exposed to the corruption inherent in the system and the demands placed upon them in order to secure enough campaign funds to have a chance at all. Although I don’t think sticking to the actual system as it was designed would cause the loss of donors.
Oh, and I’d get rid of the super delegates. In short, I’d stop trying to control who gets on the final ballot to push my party agenda, and instead let the people actually elect the leader they want. Again though, that’s probably a lot easier said than done, and I’m an outsider not privy to the dealings that take place behind closed doors.
I have to agree with you there. I think the Democratic Party was scared of inviting infighting with a primary contest which Harris would probably win anyway, but you’re right—Harris had no mandate from the party membership and even a lightning-round primary conducted online would have been better.
Even that doesn’t address the mess that exists today. It’s a great example of why they keep losing. They’re going to make it impossible to gerrymander after the lines have already been redrawn to benefit the Republicans? Why? Why would they do that? They’re essentially committing to always fighting an uphill battle for the rest of their days. I respect the principle, but not the approach. You cant lock a scale while it’s broken and then expect it to measure correctly. They need to pull their heads out of their asses and start playing to win. To start recognizing the strategies which continually defeat them, and start countering with some equally aggressive strategies of their own, or their time is done.
I think I phrased my comment wrong on this. It doesn’t ban the act of gerrymandering, it bans the results of gerrymandering. Gerrymandered maps would need to be redrawn had the bill been enacted.
This bill was no slouch. It directly abridged several states’ voter suppression laws. Had the bill passed, the next phase would have been people being able to use the federal courts to strike back against these incompatible laws.
That being said, if you were the leader of the Democratic Party, what would you have done? Not intended as rhetorical snark, I’m just curious as to what other ideas there are.
Okay, then that sounds reasonable. Regarding your question, I suppose I would have held a primary and put someone on the final ballot who the people voted for. That would have required acknowledging before the primaries that Biden wasn’t fit to continue, which from what I’ve read, they did have full knowledge of, but refused to act upon.
That’s easier said than done though. Right? Like I’m not directly exposed to the corruption inherent in the system and the demands placed upon them in order to secure enough campaign funds to have a chance at all. Although I don’t think sticking to the actual system as it was designed would cause the loss of donors.
Oh, and I’d get rid of the super delegates. In short, I’d stop trying to control who gets on the final ballot to push my party agenda, and instead let the people actually elect the leader they want. Again though, that’s probably a lot easier said than done, and I’m an outsider not privy to the dealings that take place behind closed doors.
I have to agree with you there. I think the Democratic Party was scared of inviting infighting with a primary contest which Harris would probably win anyway, but you’re right—Harris had no mandate from the party membership and even a lightning-round primary conducted online would have been better.