Scotus 2023

[thinkorswim]

Well, that explains some of it.TY. So The Supremes ruled on a hypothetical case and the couple didn't know they were part of the suit? How bizarre.

This is what bothers me the most. It was just a purely unwarranted and unadulterated “f*ck you” from the Supreme Court and their insane evangelical dark money donors to millions of LGBTQ Americans.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[rowsdower88]

I can conjecture that given the fact that men are significantly overrepresented compared to women in the highest SAT scores group, Cornell is selecting their student body based on somewhat preferential treatment to women, and not admitting solely on "the merits"

That seems reasonable and is new info to me, thanks. I would definitely want to see more before I made any strong inferences about lower tier colleges.

 

[Dr. Rude]

70% of high school valedictorians are female. By that metric, (as opposed to SAT scores) men are over represented in the most competitive colleges. High school boys are beneficiaries of affirmative action in applying to most selective colleges.

 

[HemeOncHopeful19]

70% of high school valedictorians are female. By that metric, (as opposed to SAT scores) men are over represented in the most competitive colleges. High school boys are beneficiaries of affirmative action in applying to most selective colleges.

🤔🤔 Sounds more like high schools must be sexist to me 🤔🤔

 

[vector2]

70% of high school valedictorians are female. By that metric, (as opposed to SAT scores) men are over represented in the most competitive colleges. High school boys are beneficiaries of affirmative action in applying to most selective colleges.

High school grades and valedictorian status are 10,000x more subjective than SAT/ACT scores. IIRC the val/sal in my public school senior class 20 something years ago barely took any AP classes / college credits...so of course their GPAs were higher.

 

[Gern Blansten]

High school grades and valedictorian status are 10,000x more subjective than SAT/ACT scores. IIRC the val/sal in my public school senior class 20 something years ago barely took any AP classes / college credits...so of course their GPAs were higher.

My high school, almost 40 years ago, accounted for that issue, as I believe most high schools have. They do this by awarding additional points in your GPA for honors or AP classes. As it stands in most high schools, if you don’t take honors or AP courses, there’s no way that you could get your GPA high enough to be even close to valedictorian or salutatorian.

 

[Chrish]

Activists sue Harvard over legacy admissions after affirmative action ruling

A civil rights legal group is challenging legacy admissions at Harvard University, calling it racial discrimination.

www.cbsnews.com

Bit of a revenge lawsuit. Wonder how billionaire bought Supreme Court would respond if it comes down to it. And more importantly how colleges would respond since legacy donations directly impact their bottom line.

 

[epidural man]

Activists sue Harvard over legacy admissions after affirmative action ruling

A civil rights legal group is challenging legacy admissions at Harvard University, calling it racial discrimination.

www.cbsnews.com

Bit of a revenge lawsuit. Wonder how billionaire bought Supreme Court would respond if it comes down to it. And more importantly how colleges would respond since legacy donations directly impact their bottom line.

The top two dumbest things someone could do with money.

1. Burn it to see the color of the flame.
2. Donate it to Harvard.

 

[Chrish]

The top two dumbest things someone could do with money.

1. Burn it to see the color of the flame.
2. Donate it to Harvard.

Not if your children are guaranteed admission so that they can use it for their own advancement.

 

[vector2]

My high school, almost 40 years ago, accounted for that issue, as I believe most high schools have. They do this by awarding additional points in your GPA for honors or AP classes. As it stands in most high schools, if you don’t take honors or AP courses, there’s no way that you could get your GPA high enough to be even close to valedictorian or salutatorian.

Weighted GPA did not exist at my school, at least at the time I graduated.

Regardless, even with weighting, I don't think anyone here would seriously contest the notion that a 98th percentile on a standardized exam like the SAT or MCAT means significantly more than a non-specific 4.0 GPA given the absolutely incredible variability in the quality and difficulty of US high schools and colleges.

 

[aneftp]

I literally just wrote a post on this thread about what criteria I believe are acceptable for the court to reverse precedent. I think Brown meets all of those criteria and it was the correct decision to overrule that precedent.

Brown vs Topeka board isn’t even followed anymore. It’s morphed into crazy and ridiculous social re engineering or school zones many of which are busing or trying to bus students across town. Exactly what brown Supreme Court decision DID NOT WANT. It was about letting a little girl attend a neighborhood school close by.

But this diversity crap is all zigzag mixed up.

Howard County’s Bold Plan to Tackle School Segregation

Sixty-five years after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that racial segregation of students in public schools was unconstitutional, school districts are still

tcf.org

Those who don’t know about the dc Baltimore area. Howard county is very wealthy like the rest of the area. The parents of a wealthy area opposed having their kids bus across town 30-40 min away in traffic from a blue ribbon school as little as 2 miles away (river hill where the free lunch percentage was less than 2% to a 40% free lunch school across town )

This flies in the face of brown vs board of education forcing students who live less than 5-10 min drive from the closest high school (riverhill) across town 9 plus miles and 30-40 min drive to school with lower socio economical profile. They are very careful not to mention race. But that’s what they were trying to do.

 

[Kierkegaard's Bud]

Congress routinely gives money to "rich people" in the form of tax breaks or PPP loans. But, only Congress can give away $450 billion of taxpayer money for student loan forgiveness. That's our system because we have a President not a King or Dictator. The new SAVE loan program being proposed by Biden is likely to pass muster, at least most of it anyway, so the taxpayer money is flowing once again.

It's funny how people will go to the nth degree and call a President a Dictator when the program is going to help the neediest while the Fed spent 300 billion in a week during the recent banking crisis and Boeing charges Pentagon $52 K for trash cans. Don't make it sound like we use taxpayer money appropriately.

"The whole point of this statute, its central mission and function is to ensure that in the face of a national emergency that is causing financial harm to borrowers, the secretary can do something." from SCOTUS hearing

 

[HemeOncHopeful19]

It's funny how people will go to the nth degree and call a President a Dictator when the program is going to help the neediest while the Fed spent 300 billion in a week during the recent banking crisis and Boeing charges Pentagon $52 K for trash cans. Don't make it sound like we use taxpayer money appropriately.

Do you think people are that are against spending $$$ on student loan foregiveness are actually in favor of the money spent on the banking crisis, PPP or those trash cans?

 

[Kierkegaard's Bud]

Do you think people are that are against spending $$$ on student loan foregiveness are actually in favor of the money spent on the banking crisis, PPP or those trash cans?

It has been my experience that there is an imbalance in outrage.

 

[chessknt]

Do you think people are that are against spending $$$ on student loan foregiveness are actually in favor of the money spent on the banking crisis, PPP or those trash cans?

I think the majority of people against spending $$$ on loan forgiveness benefitted significantly from the PPP program whereas students absolutely did not.

 

[epidural man]

It has been my experience that there is an imbalance in outrage.

It's called "selective outrage"

 

[HemeOncHopeful19]

I think the majority of people against spending $$$ on loan forgiveness benefitted significantly from the PPP program whereas students absolutely did not.

We’re in an era where physicians are employees, only like 1 in 4 is in private practice and could’ve gotten PPP loans…

 

[nimbus]

We’re in an era where physicians are employees, only like 1 in 4 is in private practice and could’ve gotten PPP loans…

Even employed physicians were eligible to be paid from PPP loans. It was up to the employers to apply for the loans and use the money for it’s intended purpose. If the employers did not bother to do it, it’s on them. But they were eligible.

 

[HemeOncHopeful19]

Even employed physicians were eligible to be paid from PPP loans. It was up to the employers to apply for the loans and use them for their intended purpose.

I mean if you want to define “benefiting from PPP” as “anyone who was employed in 2020” then I would argue that plenty of people with student loan debt probably benefited from PPP.

 

[nimbus]

I mean if you want to define “benefiting from PPP” as “anyone who was employed in 2020” then I would argue that plenty of people with student loan debt probably benefited from PPP.

Can’t argue with that but that wasn’t the point of my post. The point was that you didn’t need to be in private practice in order to be paid with money from PPP loans. Waiters, graphic designers, factory workers, lawyers etc were all eligible.

 

[GravelRider]

Can’t argue with that but that wasn’t the point of my post. The point was that you didn’t need to be in private practice in order to be paid with money from PPP loans. Waiters, graphic designers, factory workers, lawyers etc were all eligible.

The number I’ve seen is around 25%…25% of PPP money ended up going to workers who would have lost jobs. This was an incredibly regressive plan that was poorly implemented because we lacked any infrastructure to direct money to where it should have gone. The fact remains that more than 75% of that money ended up in the bank accounts of the richest Americans. Tax dollars buying Rolexes.

 

[nimbus]

The number I’ve seen is around 25%…25% of PPP money ended up going to workers who would have lost jobs. This was an incredibly regressive plan that was poorly implemented because we lacked any infrastructure to direct money to where it should have gone. The fact remains that more than 75% of that money ended up in the bank accounts of the richest Americans. Tax dollars buying Rolexes.

It’s an age old problem where decision makers/people with power take care of themselves first.

I hope the employed doctors at the Mayo Clinic got their fair share of government cheese.

Mayo Clinic receives $1B in grants, loans

Rochester, Minn.-based Mayo Clinic has received federal grants and loans to help offset expected financial damage caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, according to bondholder documents filed April 24.

www.beckershospitalreview.com

 

[chessknt]

The number I’ve seen is around 25%…25% of PPP money ended up going to workers who would have lost jobs. This was an incredibly regressive plan that was poorly implemented because we lacked any infrastructure to direct money to where it should have gone. The fact remains that more than 75% of that money ended up in the bank accounts of the richest Americans. Tax dollars buying Rolexes.

Yep--the established private practice groups in my area each got 7-8 figures and business was booming. 100% went straight in to the partnership distribution. Most corrupt use of government money in American history, total bipartisan failure yet the student loans--that is what was going to topple the country over. Thank God for Republican Jesus guiding our path to only give money to the rich and let death be the only way out of poverty for the lower class that had to actually take loans out to go to school.

 

[nimbus]

Yep--the established private practice groups in my area each got 7-8 figures and business was booming. 100% went straight in to the partnership distribution. Most corrupt use of government money in American history, total bipartisan failure yet the student loans--that is what was going to topple the country over. Thank God for Republican Jesus guiding our path to only give money to the rich and let death be the only way out of poverty for the lower class that had to actually take loans out to go to school.

To be fair, business was not booming during the pandemic. We were running a little over half the rooms we had the manpower to staff for a few months. In private practice, 60% work=60% pay. Trauma and OB hummed along but well paid elective bariatrics and TKRs were replaced by poorly reimbursed trach/pegs. Everybody’s income took a hit (except maybe the hospitalists and intensivists) and the PPP loans and CARES Act money helped soften the blow.

There have been more corrupt uses of government money.

 

[Arch Guillotti]

Yep--the established private practice groups in my area each got 7-8 figures and business was booming. 100% went straight in to the partnership distribution. Most corrupt use of government money in American history, total bipartisan failure yet the student loans--that is what was going to topple the country over. Thank God for Republican Jesus guiding our path to only give money to the rich and let death be the only way out of poverty for the lower class that had to actually take loans out to go to school.

Business wasn’t booming at all. It was terrible. Getting the free cheese allowed us to make payroll though.

 

[pgg]

So what I'm reading here, is that the primary defense of student loan forgiveness is, essentially, whataboutism. B-b-but PPP.

Which is, of course, the last refuge of someone who doesn't have a merit based argument. In most political threads it's generally the left that correctly points this out.

If you want to argue that student loan forgiveness is a good policy for economic, equity, justice, or other reasons, we can argue those points and balance those priorities against various counterarguments or cost or the opportunity cost of not using that money on other projects. But "well we shat a bunch of money into the PPP pit so we should do the same into the student loan pit" is a ridiculous argument.

 

[rowsdower88]

"Roberts ignores the obligation of the Court’s majority to maintain its own legitimacy. It is not the job of the dissent to make the majority opinion seem reasonable. That is the job of the majority. If six justices can’t convince the American public that their decisions are consistent with the U.S. Constitution and the proper judicial function, that is a failure of the majority alone."

John Roberts’ Last Word Is Not the Final Say

From Marc | I believed that Roberts knew better until I read his last words of the term.

www.democracydocket.com

 

[Kierkegaard's Bud]

"Roberts ignores the obligation of the Court’s majority to maintain its own legitimacy. It is not the job of the dissent to make the majority opinion seem reasonable. That is the job of the majority. If six justices can’t convince the American public that their decisions are consistent with the U.S. Constitution and the proper judicial function, that is a failure of the majority alone."

John Roberts’ Last Word Is Not the Final Say

From Marc | I believed that Roberts knew better until I read his last words of the term.

www.democracydocket.com

You make it seem like they would have changed their minds while the one character they have unfailingly shown is consistency.

 

[jwk]

My high school, almost 40 years ago, accounted for that issue, as I believe most high schools have. They do this by awarding additional points in your GPA for honors or AP classes. As it stands in most high schools, if you don’t take honors or AP courses, there’s no way that you could get your GPA high enough to be even close to valedictorian or salutatorian.

And a lot of colleges have you "pull out" those honors points on your application.

 

[rowsdower88]

You make it seem like they would have changed their minds while the one character they have unfailingly shown is consistency.

It isn't a forgone conclusion that the court's Conservative majority behaves this way. If sufficient public pressure and political pressure from the executive came, the court would curb itself. Ex. FDR and court packing threats

The court behaves as if rules of standing don't matter because we as a country let them.

 

[pgg]

It isn't a forgone conclusion that the court's Conservative majority behaves this way. If sufficient public pressure and political pressure from the executive came, the court would curb itself. Ex. FDR and court packing threats

The court behaves as if rules of standing don't matter because we as a country let them.

If one doesn't like the way the courts are behaving, the best remedy is to win some elections and appoint better judges. It seems to have worked for the right. (That and the Senate taking its advice & consent role more seriously and literally - again, elections matter.)

I know we disagree on the court packing plan. I'll just again say that such an attempt would both fail in spectacular fashion AND result in losing more elections. You're not going to fix the problems you perceive with court packing threats or attempts. Even the idea is fuel for your opponents.

 

[Dr. Rude]

If one doesn't like the way the courts are behaving, the best remedy is to win some elections and appoint better judges. It seems to have worked for the right. (That and the Senate taking its advice & consent role more seriously and literally - again, elections matter.)

I know we disagree on the court packing plan. I'll just again say that such an attempt would both fail in spectacular fashion AND result in losing more elections. You're not going to fix the problems you perceive with court packing threats or attempts. Even the idea is fuel for your opponents.

While I generally agree. The reality is that voters in Red States have far more clout per capita because of the electoral college and two senators per state.

 

[rowsdower88]

If one doesn't like the way the courts are behaving, the best remedy is to win some elections and appoint better judges. It seems to have worked for the right. (That and the Senate taking its advice & consent role more seriously and literally - again, elections matter.)

I know we disagree on the court packing plan. I'll just again say that such an attempt would both fail in spectacular fashion AND result in losing more elections. You're not going to fix the problems you perceive with court packing threats or attempts. Even the idea is fuel for your opponents.

My plan isn't court packing, I just cited FDR's threats as an example of political pressure.

SCOTUS term limits are broadly popular in the US right now, that would be my preferred policy goal. Even the threat of instituting term limits could curb SCOTUS misbehavior. Biden isn't even using threats of that yet, plenty of room to maneuver if he wanted to challenge SCOTUS while still using popular political positions.

Edit: We did win Obama's election, but never got Garland. It's not so simple as just winning elections when strategic retirements on the court are possible. It's impossible to say which justices are strategically retiring or not, so I'm not really interested in debating it.

 

[pgg]

My plan isn't court packing, I just cited FDR's threats as an example of political pressure.

And that pressure had some backlash.

SCOTUS term limits are broadly popular in the US right now, that would be my preferred policy goal. Even the threat of instituting term limits could curb SCOTUS misbehavior. Biden isn't even using threats of that yet, plenty of room to maneuver if he wanted to challenge SCOTUS while still using popular political positions.

Term limits I could get behind. And staggered appointment dates so that each presidential term had two opportunities to appoint.

Edit: We did win Obama's election, but never got Garland.

This is a consistent disagreement I have with you guys. You and Obama weren't entitled to Garland. Obama was entitled to a nomination, and he ultimately did not have the consent of the Senate.

Now you can argue that it was a little cowardly of the GOP to never bring him to a vote, but the Senate majority made that decision.

Same with ACB. Hypocrisy in what Republicans said, sure, no argument there. But - system working as designed.

It's not so simple as just winning elections when strategic retirements on the court are possible. It's impossible to say which justices are strategically retiring or not, so I'm not really interested in debating it.

Term limits and scheduled appointments would solve that issue. It would require an Amendment though so that's not likely to happen. Hard to see the red states ever giving up their structural advantage in the Senate and EC.

 

[nimbus]

SFFA cleverly conflated affirmative action and anti-Asian discrimination. They are separate issues.

For example, MIT has a student body that is about 20% Asian and 30% White. But if you look at something like the Putnam Mathematical Competition, one would expect a place like MIT to have different racial demographics.

https://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/Putnam/2022/AnnouncementOfWinnersFall2022.docx%20%281%29.pdf

 

[vector2]

Same with ACB. Hypocrisy in what Republicans said, sure, no argument there. But - system working as designed.

What you're saying here (plus your sentiment wrt "just win elections") is nominally true, but if we're putting all our cards on the table here, the fact of the matter is that large, large swaths of American governance at every level mostly function simply based on convention and decorum. We don't have a Constitution or laws or Congressional/Senate rules of conduct which have kept up with every modern aspect of society, nor the ever-increasingly insane two-party polarization that we're stuck with.

I don't find it useful to look at 1980s SCOTUS nominee confirmations having 90+ yea votes - while today it requires breaking filibuster - and then characterize that as the "system working as designed." And I don't find "just win elections" to be useful if, as I've pointed out many times before, the Founders intended there to be 1 US House representative per ~30,000 people and now there's 1 US House Rep per every 700,000+ people.

If only one party is absolutely committed to obstruction and bending convention/decorum in ways that have never been used in 200 years, they can do significant asymmetric damage. And I personally don't take any solace in the fact that they're de jure following the rules while de facto breaking every g-d thing they lay their hands on.

 

[nimbus]

What you're saying here (plus your sentiment wrt "just win elections") is nominally true, but if we're putting all our cards on the table here, the fact of the matter is that large, large swaths of American governance at every level mostly function simply based on convention and decorum. We don't have a Constitution or laws which have kept up with every modern aspect of society, nor the ever-increasingly insane two-party polarization that we're stuck with.

I don't find it useful to look at 1980s SCOTUS nominee confirmations having 90+ yea votes - while today it requires breaking filibuster - and then characterize that as the "system working as designed." And I don't find "just win elections" to be useful if, as I've pointed out many times before, the Founders intended there to be 1 US House representative per ~30,000 people and now there's 1 US House Rep per every 700,000+ people.

If only one party is absolutely committed to obstruction and bending convention/decorum in ways that have never been used in 200 years, they can do significant asymmetric damage. And I personally don't take any solace in the fact that they're de jure following the rules while de facto breaking every g-d thing they lay their hands on.

Then democrats need to make things symmetrical and learn from McConnell’s scorched earth strategy. But burning down the house will ultimate be bad for all of us.

 

[rowsdower88]

And that pressure had some backlash

Did it? Roosevelt won reelection because his mandate was so overwhelmingly popular. I don't think he really faced any significant backlash for proposing it in terms of public appeal, within the Democratic Party apparatus it was frowned upon though.

When Franklin Roosevelt Clashed With the Supreme Court—and Lost

Buoyed by his reelection but dismayed by rulings of the justices who stopped his New Deal programs, a president overreaches

www.smithsonianmag.com

system working as designed

I mean. That's the problem.

 

[pgg]

While I generally agree. The reality is that voters in Red States have far more clout per capita because of the electoral college and two senators per state.

Yes. No argument. We're a Republic. Lots of things happen via mechanisms that aren't direct democracy.

There's a fair argument that the House should be far larger today, and that its power as a legislative body is lessened because that hasn't happened. Not that that has any bearing on the courts,of course.

The blue side's answer to the red state disproportionate power problem, is to shift their platform enough toward the center that they get some of those votes. They've shown they can win nationwide presidential elections and senate majorities if they keep their hands off hard left and 3rd rail topics at least some of the time.

 

[nimbus]

Yes. No argument. We're a Republic. Lots of things happen via mechanisms that aren't direct democracy.

There's a fair argument that the House should be far larger today, and that its power as a legislative body is lessened because that hasn't happened. Not that that has any bearing on the courts,of course.

The blue side's answer to the red state disproportionate power problem, is to shift their platform enough toward the center that they get some of those votes. They've shown they can win nationwide presidential elections and senate majorities if they keep their hands off hard left and 3rd rail topics at least some of the time.

Yep. That’s exactly what Biden has been doing. He assiduously avoids 3rd rail topics and divisive rhetoric. He focuses instead on Infrastructure and Jobs Act and CHIPS and Science Act. He barely addressed the Dobbs case.

 

[pgg]

What you're saying here (plus your sentiment wrt "just win elections") is nominally true, but if we're putting all our cards on the table here, the fact of the matter is that large, large swaths of American governance at every level mostly function simply based on convention and decorum. We don't have a Constitution or laws or Congressional/Senate rules of conduct which have kept up with every modern aspect of society, nor the ever-increasingly insane two-party polarization that we're stuck with.

I don't find it useful to look at 1980s SCOTUS nominee confirmations having 90+ yea votes - while today it requires breaking filibuster - and then characterize that as the "system working as designed." And I don't find "just win elections" to be useful if, as I've pointed out many times before, the Founders intended there to be 1 US House representative per ~30,000 people and now there's 1 US House Rep per every 700,000+ people.

If only one party is absolutely committed to obstruction and bending convention/decorum in ways that have never been used in 200 years, they can do significant asymmetric damage. And I personally don't take any solace in the fact that they're de jure following the rules while de facto breaking every g-d thing they lay their hands on.

I certainly agree that the GOP has taken a hard and destructive turn with the Trump cult. I'll also keep asserting that the 2000 and 2022 elections went a good distance toward lessening their influence despite the left moving further left. I think they could have a lot of potential wins with younger candidate in Biden's ideological mold, if they can keep the fringier identity politics and kryptonite like gun control / defund the police / reparations / etc arm's length. I just don't buy the notion that my solution of just win more elections is unattainable.

What I keep seeing, in the face of all these GOP self-inflicted wounds, is the Dems keep choosing to move juuuust far enough further left to make elections close, all the while lamenting the unfairness of it all. I don't buy it. For every absurdity the right trots out, it's as if the left needs to one-up it with some election-losing kookiness on the other end of the spectrum. If your core policies are so popular with such a large majority of Americans, then run on those issues and just ****ing win already. As it is, the only way I see Biden winning another term is if the cult gets their idiotic wish and Trump runs again.

 

[vector2]

. If your core policies are so popular with such a large majority of Americans, then run on those issues and just ****ing win already.

You keep saying this, but the point is not that the Dems can't win. They can and have. The point is that there is a vast systemic inequity in elections which, for all practical intents and purposes, has no solution.

Even if I were for the electoral college, the electoral college was never intended to function in a system where we have this kind of asymmetric population density and this degree of un-representation in the House. In the 25 presidential elections of the 20th century, not once did the candidate who lost the popular vote win the EC. Of the 6 presidential elections in the 21st century, it's already happened twice.

Sure, Dems can win. But can we at least acknowledge that they have a *huge* systemic handicap if being able to win a clear majority of popular support is not sufficient to actually hold Congress or the Presidency?

 

[rowsdower88]

Dems keep choosing to move juuuust far enough further left

despite the left moving further left

How are you measuring this movement? For example, the Green New Deal wasn't even going to implement a single policy, it was just a vote on whether or not they could agree on a set of goals... and even that couldn't pass. (It received precisely zero votes in the Senate.) I just don't see this serious leftward movement you're concerned about at least in the federal government.

I suppose we could say that the House Progressive Caucus has grown. That's something.

gun control / defund the police / reparations

Of the things you listed, gun control is probably the only item that has significant support within the Democratic Party. But again... everything comes back to SCOTUS and with Bruen in place even existing (IMO modest) red flag laws are being repealed.

 

[chessknt]

Business wasn’t booming at all. It was terrible. Getting the free cheese allowed us to make payroll though.

The outpatient medicine clinics that I am referring to were churning tons of patients still. They did a switch to telemedicine which reimbursed the same, furloughed a bunch of staff, for 8 figures in free money with much lower overhead.

I certainly agree that the GOP has taken a hard and destructive turn with the Trump cult. I'll also keep asserting that the 2000 and 2022 elections went a good distance toward lessening their influence despite the left moving further left. I think they could have a lot of potential wins with younger candidate in Biden's ideological mold, if they can keep the fringier identity politics and kryptonite like gun control / defund the police / reparations / etc arm's length. I just don't buy the notion that my solution of just win more elections is unattainable.

What I keep seeing, in the face of all these GOP self-inflicted wounds, is the Dems keep choosing to move juuuust far enough further left to make elections close, all the while lamenting the unfairness of it all. I don't buy it. For every absurdity the right trots out, it's as if the left needs to one-up it with some election-losing kookiness on the other end of the spectrum. If your core policies are so popular with such a large majority of Americans, then run on those issues and just ****ing win already. As it is, the only way I see Biden winning another term is if the cult gets their idiotic wish and Trump runs again.

What if Trump wins this time around though? He has already outlined is plans to dismantle the rule of law and has a penchant to just ignore court rulings he doesn't like. He got to pick 1/3 of the supreme court in one term, biden got to pick 1/9 in his term. It is stupid luck that determines that system, not any sort of fair or coherent process.

 

[epidural man]

You keep saying this, but the point is not that the Dems can't win. They can and have. The point is that there is a vast systemic inequity in elections which, for all practical intents and purposes, has no solution.

View attachment 373969
View attachment 373970

Even if I were for the electoral college, the electoral college was never intended to function in a system where we have this kind of asymmetric population density and this degree of un-representation in the House. In the 25 presidential elections of the 20th century, not once did the candidate who lost the popular vote win the EC. Of the 6 presidential elections in the 21st century, it's already happened twice.

Sure, Dems can win. But can we at least acknowledge that they have a *huge* systemic handicap if being able to win a clear majority of popular support is not sufficient to actually hold Congress or the Presidency?

I suspect pgg is saying that if Dems changed some things, they would get the votes needed.

I suspect a lot of people don’t vote party lines, but this study seems to use that as its main premise - so in my mind - very flawed.

How the Dems never got behind Yang just continues to baffle me.

 

[vector2]

I suspect a lot of people don’t vote party lines, but this study seems to use that as its main premise - so in my mind - very flawed.

The data supports that more and more people are voting along party lines, not fewer.

 

[rowsdower88]

How the Dems never got behind Yang just continues to baffle me.

You mean before he went and started his own political party?

(Jokes aside, the Freedom Dividend and Medicare for All probably scared off support from older Dems or split support with more progressive Dems in the primary.)

 

[epidural man]

The data supports that more and more people are voting along party lines, not fewer.

View attachment 373984

View attachment 373983

I wonder why.

 

[epidural man]

You mean before he went and started his own political party?

(Jokes aside, the Freedom Dividend and Medicare for All probably scared off support from older Dems or split support with more progressive Dems in the primary.)

Yeah. It is weird to me that someone will disregard a whole person and all they stand for (his website had very detailed thoughts on about 250 issue - which to me seemed way more and better detailed than any other candidate running.

So he believes in these myriad of things, and people pick one thing they didn’t like and said he was a bad candidate. Very strange to me. Like one thing defines a person….

 

[rowsdower88]

Yeah. It is weird to me that someone will disregard a whole person and all they stand for (his website had very detailed thoughts on about 250 issue - which to me seemed way more and better detailed than any other candidate running.

So he believes in these myriad of things, and people pick one thing they didn’t like and said he was a bad candidate. Very strange to me. Like one thing defines a person….

1. People have a limited attention span. Not everyone cares about Yang's stance on MMA fighters union rules (I did read it though, lol)

https://www.yang2020.com/policies/empowering-mma-fighters/

2. One thing can define a person to someone if it's bad enough to them. I personally don't think M4A or Freedom Dividend are terrible ideas though.