Anthony Kennedy is retiring

jkl

Thu, Jun 28 2018, 4:21 pm

JoyInTheMorning wrote:

I seem to remember the Democrats saying similar things about the Republicans in spring 2016 after Trump had locked up the nomination.

Internal party wars don’t mean that a party is defeated.

I am concerned about Democrats losing seats but mostly due to gerrymandering and voter suppression, not to internal battles. We all know that any Democrat, traditional or progressive, will vote to keep Social Security and Medicare and other programs that make up our social safety net. The similarities between our candidates are much larger than the differences (except for on foreign policy issues such as Israel).

Trump was one election (though obviously it is the critical one) and one that broke all rules and precedents. Here we are talking about multiple elections, heading towards midterm elections. The chance of repeating that scenario in multiple elections is very slim.

Internal wars very often lead to a party's defeat. It splits the votes between one group and then lets the other group run away with the win. It's a very big concern of any party in an election.

The democrats are very concerned about losing seats because of split votes. They aren't currently worried about voter suppression either, as they are the masters of conjuring up votes. Perhaps gerrymandering is an issue for them, but that's low on the totem pole for them now.

(And as a side point, social security will collapse onto itself even if its kept in operation. It's a ponzi scheme and is in the need of massive restructuring to remain viable. No party wants to deal with the ramifications of it, so they keep on pushing the ball down the road. Even the democrats won't be able to save it, unless they agree to a restructuring process.)

JoyInTheMorning

Thu, Jun 28 2018, 5:54 pm

jkl wrote:

Internal wars often lead to a party's defeat? Not so. How much history do you remember / have you read? The Obama -Clinton primaries were quite awful, but Obama won easily. While McCain, who sewed up the nomination quite easily, lost.

Reagan was quite the revolutionary in 1980, and the internal party battles were fierce. But he won easily. There were also wars on the Democratic side -- Ted Kennedy vs. Jimmy Carter -- and Carter lost.

I'm not sure there's much of a correlation there, though it would be interesting to study. Certainly, it's not as black-and-white an issue as you're portraying. And remember that Tuesday's primaries were just 6 of many. Other states have highlighted quite ferocious battles among Republicans.

It is truly wrong of you to say that Democrats are masters at conjuring up votes. There have been many investigations of voter fraud, and nothing has ever been turned up. You are being motzi shem ra on millions of Democrats, and hundreds and thousands of party leaders, many of whom are Jewish.

You are wrong that gerrymandering is low on the totem pole for Democrats. It's of the utmost importance to them; thus, the Supreme Court case. Here is an example of how important it is: North Carolina has 13 seats in the House of Representatives. 3 are Democratic; 10 are Republican. It's estimated that Republican edge out Democrats in that state by only a slight margin. So if things were divided fairly, there would be perhaps 7 Republicans, 6 Democrats in Congress. Instead, it's 10 to 3. Can't you see what a huge difference this makes? Of course this is a concern for Democrats.

Social Security isn't a Ponzi scheme. It's a funded pension plan. Of course it has to be periodically restructured in order to account for differences in actual demographics vs predicted demographics. I know I'll be working longer than I had thought I would when I was young. But that's okay, because modern medicine has kept us healthier and able to work longer (Working is also a good thing, and I'm happy to keep doing it.). It's a wonderful program, and it's beyond me why anyone would speak with delight of their fantasy of its impending demise.

SixOfWands

Thu, Jun 28 2018, 6:16 pm

jkl wrote:

(And as a side point, social security will collapse onto itself even if its kept in operation. It's a ponzi scheme and is in the need of massive restructuring to remain viable. No party wants to deal with the ramifications of it, so they keep on pushing the ball down the road. Even the democrats won't be able to save it, unless they agree to a restructuring process.)

Social security is not a ponzi scheme at all.

At the end of 2014, the Trust Fund contained (or alternatively, was owed) $2.79 trillion, up $25 billion from 2013. Its expected to peak around 2021.

But there are issues on the horizon. By 2034, the Trust Fund is expected to be exhausted. Thereafter, payroll taxes are projected to only cover approximately 79% of program obligations. Sure, that's a reduction. But hardly a collapse.

Of course, its happened before, and Congress acted to resolve the matter. Easy enough. For example, raise the cap.

There are plenty of Americans who survive on Social Security. My dad happens to be one of them. And its bone-chilling to hear people talk about destroying it without considering the massive impact it would have on the elderly.

anon for this

Thu, Jun 28 2018, 6:25 pm

JoyInTheMorning wrote:

It is truly wrong of you to say that Democrats are masters at conjuring up votes. There have been many investigations of voter fraud, and nothing has ever been turned up. You are being motzi shem ra on millions of Democrats, and hundreds and thousands of party leaders, many of whom are Jewish.

You are wrong that gerrymandering is low on the totem pole for Democrats. It's of the utmost importance to them; thus, the Supreme Court case. Here is an example of how important it is: North Carolina has 13 seats in the House of Representatives. 3 are Democratic; 10 are Republican. It's estimated that Republican edge out Democrats in that state by only a slight margin. So if things were divided fairly, there would be perhaps 7 Republicans, 6 Democrats in Congress. Instead, it's 10 to 3. Can't you see what a huge difference this makes? Of course this is a concern for Democrats.

Social Security isn't a Ponzi scheme. It's a funded pension plan. Of course it has to be periodically restructured in order to account for differences in actual demographics vs predicted demographics. I know I'll be working longer than I had thought I would when I was young. But that's okay, because modern medicine has kept us healthier and able to work longer (Working is also a good thing, and I'm happy to keep doing it.). It's a wonderful program, and it's beyond me why anyone would speak with delight of their fantasy of its impending demise.

Thank you for making these important points. Accusations of voter fraud, usually targeted at Democrats, are a frequent excuse used by Republicans to enact voter ID laws that target people of color. The fact is, though, that the type of fraud these laws would prevent doesn't happen--a study showed that of millions of votes cast, there were about a handful of cases of such fraud. Most of the claimed instances of fraud involved unrelated people with similar, common names, or people with the same name as a deceased parent.

In fact, Kris Kobach, who headed Trump's commission on voter fraud, just lost a case before a federal judge on this issue. The judge ruled that Kansas' law requiring people to prove their US citizenship before voting was unconstitutional, because Kobach failed to show that a significant number of non-citizens voted, stating that Kobach's claim of an "iceberg" of evidence was just an "icicle". The judge stated that it's unclear whether he "repeatedly failed to meet his disclosure obligations intentionally or due to his unfamiliarity with the federal rules." As a result, she ordered him to complete a legal class in evidence.

Gerrymandering cases have been a big issue in election politics recently, and I'm surprised anyone who follows legal news would be unaware of that.

anon for this

Thu, Jun 28 2018, 6:29 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

My family relies on Social Security survivor benefits, and I feel similarly.