they're on a roll
This article about the pernicious effects of gerrymandering NEVER MENTIONS that the R's are opposed to the Dem sponsored legislation to eliminate it. It never mentions the legislation at all, in fact. It's just a standard "boohoo both-sides are doing it" piece of crap. It also never mentions that the R's on SCOTUS said that "oh, no. we can't do anything about that!".
Read this and you will be dumber about the subject. Good job.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/06/us/politics/redistricting-competition-midterms.html
Ah, actually took me a second to realize that by "legislation" you are referring to the voting rights bill Democrats have been attempting to pass at the national level. Given the context of NYS redistricting in the story, at first thought you were referring to some state-level NY bill I'd missed.
what these articles generally don't focus on (and the NYT is not the only media outlet writing those kind of gerrymandering pieces) is that the redistricting after the 2010 census by the GOP was the most aggressive in history. Gerrymandering has been around forever, but ten years ago the Republicans were more sophisticated in their use of data, and the outcome was more extreme in several states. And the SCOTUS has shown virtually no inclination to rule on the side of fairer partisan redistricting.
so the context of Democratic gerrymandering now is that for them to NOT do what they can to press any advantages they have would be stupid beyond belief. The Republicans in many states, and the right wingers on the SCOTUS have made the rules. The Democrats are just playing by those rules. To do otherwise would be unconditional surrender.
Is the best possible outcome then for the courts to strike down the NYS districts? Then the Democrats aren't unconditionally surrendering, but an unfair gerrymander is not allowed to stand.
PVW said:
Is the best possible outcome then for the courts to strike down the NYS districts? Then the Democrats aren't unconditionally surrendering, but an unfair gerrymander is not allowed to stand.
only if every GOP gerrymander around the country is also struck down.
ml1 said:
only if every GOP gerrymander around the country is also struck down.
Well, that's a bit of a tricky propostion -- I hope court A does the right thing, but only if court B also does. If court B does the wrong thing, then I don't want court A to do so...
Not sure I feel fully comfortable with that approach.
PVW said:
ml1 said:
only if every GOP gerrymander around the country is also struck down.
Well, that's a bit of a tricky propostion -- I hope court A does the right thing, but only if court B also does. If court B does the wrong thing, then I don't want court A to do so...
Not sure I feel fully comfortable with that approach.
it's not the best outcome for the country if only Democratic gerrymanders get shot down by the courts. The best outcome would be all of them.
ml1 said:
it's not the best outcome for the country if only Democratic gerrymanders get shot down by the courts. The best outcome would be all of them.
Agreed, but a court in NY doesn't have any ability to force a state court in FL to rule in any particular way.
As a citizen, I hope all the courts strike down all the gerrymanders. If I imagine myself as a NY state judge, though, then I'd say that the NY districts should be struck down regardless of whatever happens in Florida.
So then backing out to the point of being just a private citizen, and throwing on the veil of ignorance as to what Florida courts will do, if you ask me what I hope a NY court will do I think I have to say that I hope they strike down the gerrymander.
PVW said:
ml1 said:
it's not the best outcome for the country if only Democratic gerrymanders get shot down by the courts. The best outcome would be all of them.
Agreed, but a court in NY doesn't have any ability to force a state court in FL to rule in any particular way.
As a citizen, I hope all the courts strike down all the gerrymanders. If I imagine myself as a NY state judge, though, then I'd say that the NY districts should be struck down regardless of whatever happens in Florida.
So then backing out to the point of being just a private citizen, and throwing on the veil of ignorance as to what Florida courts will do, if you ask me what I hope a NY court will do I think I have to say that I hope they strike down the gerrymander.
I can't don that veil of ignorance. These are not normal times, and we already have lived for decades under the condition of Asymmetric Constitutional Hardball. It would be a very bad thing indeed for all of us in this country if courts threw out Democratic gerrymanders and left those of Republicans in place. If the NYT and others think we have a crisis of too many uncontested elections, just wait and see what happens when the GOP has cemented an institutional advantage in the House that becomes impossible to overturn.
ml1 said:
I can't don that veil of ignorance. These are not normal times, and we already have lived for decades under the condition of Asymmetric Constitutional Hardball. It would be a very bad thing indeed for all of us in this country if courts threw out Democratic gerrymanders and left those of Republicans in place. If the NYT and others think we have a crisis of too many uncontested elections, just wait and see what happens when the GOP has cemented an institutional advantage in the House that becomes impossible to overturn.
Maybe I'm not fully understanding your question, or your answer.
One way I could take your answer is as saying "I hope that a NY state judge will take the potential actions of judges in other states into account when making her or his ruling." If that's accurate, then it's saying that the judge shouldn't rule based solely on whether the proposed districts violate the NY state constitution, but also based on the implications for which party controls the US House. On its own, that makes me uneasy already.
Ok, you might respond, but these are extraordinary times. One party has rejected democracy, and we should admit that judges are, in fact, political actors and so we should hope that the judge in NY will decide so as to make it harder for the anti-democratic Republican party to seize control of the US House.
Maybe, but doesn't that imply that the survival of American democracy requires that Republicans never win a national election again? If not, then I'm not sure we can insist that times are so extraordinary that state judges should make their judgements to tip the balance of the US House. If yes, then that seems worse, as it's nearly a given that Republicans will, at some point, win back national control, and if the plan is really just "never let Republicans win," then I see some flaws with that plan.
PVW said:
ml1 said:
I can't don that veil of ignorance. These are not normal times, and we already have lived for decades under the condition of Asymmetric Constitutional Hardball. It would be a very bad thing indeed for all of us in this country if courts threw out Democratic gerrymanders and left those of Republicans in place. If the NYT and others think we have a crisis of too many uncontested elections, just wait and see what happens when the GOP has cemented an institutional advantage in the House that becomes impossible to overturn.
Maybe I'm not fully understanding your question, or your answer.
One way I could take your answer is as saying "I hope that a NY state judge will take the potential actions of judges in other states into account when making her or his ruling." If that's accurate, then it's saying that the judge shouldn't rule based solely on whether the proposed districts violate the NY state constitution, but also based on the implications for which party controls the US House. On its own, that makes me uneasy already.
Ok, you might respond, but these are extraordinary times. One party has rejected democracy, and we should admit that judges are, in fact, political actors and so we should hope that the judge in NY will decide so as to make it harder for the anti-democratic Republican party to seize control of the US House.
Maybe, but doesn't that imply that the survival of American democracy requires that Republicans never win a national election again? If not, then I'm not sure we can insist that times are so extraordinary that state judges should make their judgements to tip the balance of the US House. If yes, then that seems worse, as it's nearly a given that Republicans will, at some point, win back national control, and if the plan is really just "never let Republicans win," then I see some flaws with that plan.
you asked what my opinion of the best outcome would be. Not what I know of NY State law and how a judge SHOULD rule. The law may require the court to strike down the gerrymander, and it might be the right decision according to the law.
but it would almost certainly be a disastrous outcome for the country if it is the start of a trend of one party's gerrymanders standing and the others being struck down.
That absolute worst-case scenario does seem averted at least, with maps in OH and NC rejected by courts.
(cross posted)
meanwhile, SCOTUS steps in again to un-level the field.
A special three-judge court had ordered lawmakers to redraw the lines, saying Black voters “have less opportunity” than other Alabamians to elect their favored candidates.
Here's a good series of articles by James Fallows, for many years one of my favorite journos.
They are about the concept of framing, and largely use the Times for examples.
As a bonus, in the third piece, we learn what an a-h Dean Baquet is.
https://fallows.substack.com/p/a-word-the-press-should-remember
https://fallows.substack.com/p/framing-the-news-an-update
https://fallows.substack.com/p/journalism-needs-to-engage-with-its?utm_source=url
drummerboy said:
Here's a good series of articles by James Fallows, for many years one of my favorite journos.
They are about the concept of framing, and largely use the Times for examples.
As a bonus, in the third piece, we learn what an a-h Dean Baquet is.
https://fallows.substack.com/p/a-word-the-press-should-remember
https://fallows.substack.com/p/framing-the-news-an-update
https://fallows.substack.com/p/journalism-needs-to-engage-with-its?utm_source=url
I was saying yesterday, specifically with regard to the SOMA Talks FB page that right wing folks seem to do nothing but complain about how terrible everything is. It seems to me that a characteristic of many right wing people is that they think the world is generally out to screw them. That government confiscates their money to squander it, that the libs just want to impose stuff on them, that the schools stink, there's no parking anywhere, sports used to be better in the good old days, people were tougher back then, etc., etc., etc.
So in the first piece you linked to I read:
Part of the genius of Roger Ailes was discovering, even before Donald Trump did, that an aggrieved audience would be a loyal and attentive one. Thus most stories and narrative themes on Fox boil down to, someone is trying to get you. And those people are probably being hypocritical or cheaters while doing so.
pretty much sums up SOMA Talks. Everything in the world is out to get them.
Thanks db for the links to James Fallows. I had been missing him, and not familiar with Substack.
While we're at it, was it you who recommended/linked to Jim Wright and Stonekettle Station last month for the anniversary of 1/6/2021? Good stuff, even the comments. Thanks. https://www.stonekettle.com/2022/01/insurrection-one-year-on.html
I started reading the comments on the NYT site, and after only a dozen or so they were getting seriously rationed.
drummerboy said:
the Times' editorial board reaches new levels of stupidity
ml1 said:
I started reading the comments on the NYT site, and after only a dozen or so they were getting seriously rationed.
Typical censorship.
DaveSchmidt said:
ml1 said:
I started reading the comments on the NYT site, and after only a dozen or so they were getting seriously rationed.
Typical censorship.
damn spell correct,
ratioed.
mtierney said:
For DB….
I would never waste time reading a Breitbart link.
Dean Baquet is leaving. Here is his successor.
I don't know why he's on the floor.
Turns out the new guy, Joseph Kahn, may be richer than the Sulzbergers.
https://thewhyaxis.substack.com/p/when-millionaires-decide-whats-news?s=w
oh goodie. the new guy is worse than the old guy.
I guess this thread is not gonna die.
SAT/ACT/GMAT tutoring- all Sect.-bring photocopies of quest,no book 4 cheating.Also Essay help.
Oct 6, 2024 at 8:47pm
Wonderful nanny/helper/babysitter
Oct 5, 2024 at 11:19pm
?Licensed Practical Nurse with 30 Years of Experience Available for In-Home Care
Oct 5, 2024 at 8:41pm
Oct 5, 2024 at 3:42pm
Oct 4, 2024 at 9:03pm
Oct 4, 2024 at 9:53am
Our amazing driving nanny is available for work
Oct 4, 2024 at 7:04am
CF586 FT Nanny for 2 (ASAP Start)
Oct 7, 2024 at 5:36pm
Oct 7, 2024 at 9:15am
SF5012 FT Nanny for Infant (Jan 2025 Start)
Oct 5, 2024 at 12:57pm
and here they go again, carrying water for the R's and Trump.
I wonder, what is the appropriate standard for investigating an attempted coup?
I guess it's BenghaziiIIIIIII!!!!!!!!