[Jasmine18]

The party holding the Presidency often suffers at midterms.

Now, I asked you to provide a specific example from 2016 where a sitting elected Democrats suggested overturning the result by having the state legislature appoint electors irrespective of the result. Where's your example? Or are you going to admit you were lying with the "both sided" bullshit?

How can I give you an example of something I never claimed. How could I be lying when I never said both sides were the same.

I just said after Trump won many democrats were bitter and thought he won just due to Russian Hacking.

However, unlike Trump, they never called to overturn the result.

There was a call from some "opinion pieces' to use the electoral college electors to go against Trump but that never gained any traction.

I thought with Trump gone, we would go back to having some nuance in debate.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

How can I give you an example of something I never claimed. How could I be lying when I never said both sides were the same.

I just said after Trump won many democrats were bitter and thought he won just due to Russian Hacking.

However, unlike Trump, they never called to overturn the result.

There was a call from some "opinion pieces' to use the electoral college electors to go against Trump but that never gained any traction.

I thought with Trump gone, we would go back to having some nuance in debate.

Let's not play move the goalposts:

Watching sitting Republican governors and senators attack democracy for political gain is really sad.

To be fair many Dems did the same time in 2016.

Show me one who was actually in office and said anything close. Go ahead. Find one of those "many Dems".

Didn't we spent 2-3 years talking about how Trump won due to Russian Hackers rather than Hillary ran a shitty campaign?

You responded to a post that challenged the claim that many official elected Democrats openly attacked democracy for political gain [along the lines of undermining the legitimacy of the election]. What's the "didn't we" for? Who is this "we"? Many elected Democratic Governors, House Reps and Senators? You literally equivocated general chatter by Democratic supporters to public accusations by elected representatives in that response. That claim of "nuance" is a little rich.

AoD

 

[W. K. Lis]

 

[adma]

This is worthier of Four Seasons Total Landscaping

 

[jayme2016]

How can I give you an example of something I never claimed. How could I be lying when I never said both sides were the same.

I just said after Trump won many democrats were bitter and thought he won just due to Russian Hacking.

However, unlike Trump, they never called to overturn the result.

There was a call from some "opinion pieces' to use the electoral college electors to go against Trump but that never gained any traction.

I thought with Trump gone, we would go back to having some nuance in debate.

To be clear some did call for it to be over turned not many but some did call for it.

 

[PinkLucy]

Can you please cite specific names and references? "Some did" is pretty vague.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

To be clear some did call for it to be over turned not many but some did call for it.

To be fair many Dems did the same time in 2016.

You literally said "many did" some posts ago, now it's been downgraded to "some" and still didn't provide any verifiable instances? So I ask again, who are they? Remember, not just any Dems, but sitting Governors, House Reps and Senators [at the time of the comment]. The assertions you have made so far in the absence of evidence are neither fair nor clear.

AoD

 

[PinkLucy]

Nothing to see here, folks https://www.local10.com/news/local/...-candidates-were-plants-funded-by-dark-money/

 

[kEiThZ]

Does anything stop Biden from clearing out all these appointments? If Trump can fire them, can't Biden as well?

Any political appointee "serves at the pleasure of the President". So Biden is most assuredly firing these toads immediately.

In the past, most administrations did keep some on, for continuity. Obama kept quite a few Bush appointees and slowly phases them out over a year or two. This might happen with the decent ones. But the shitbirds, Biden will terminate before they have replacements, because the public servants who can be acting, will be better.

Some of them need confirmations, so the senate can hold them up IIRC.

Doesn't mean you need to have a replacement. Fire the Trump appointee and let the apolitical public servant who is their deputy run the place till the Biden appointee comes.

I feel like half of Trump's cabinet were acting members anyway.

Yep. Most wouldn't have passed confirmation even in a Republican Senate. Trump has set a good precedent if Biden wants to play hardball. Just appoint any individual who can't pass confirmation as acting. Clearly, Congress doesn't give a damn.

If McConnell blockades Biden, it could be that in 2022 the Senate flips. And if Biden manages to show some quiet competence it will bring over more moderates who are doubtful he might be a radical socialist (fat chance).

Democrats don't show up for midterms when they have the White House. This has been true for decades. 2021 is a redistricting year too and the Republicans just won more state legislatures. You should expect a bloodbath for Democrats in 2022. If that doesn't pan out, great. But I wouldn't hold my breath....

 

[Northern Light]

Democrats don't show up for midterms when they have the White House. This has been true for decades. 2021 is a redistricting year too and the Republicans just won more state legislatures. You should expect a bloodbath for Democrats in 2022. If that doesn't pan out, great. But I wouldn't hold my breath....

Most Senate seats aren't subject to gerrymandering, as they are state-wide offices.

House seats are of course at risk.

However, the good news is that at least 17states off the top of my head have adopted redistricting commissions which take redistricting decisions away from the legislatures.

This includes several red states, at least at the State legislature level, such as Michigan, Alaska, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Missouri.

Number of states using redistricting commissions growing

In most places, state lawmakers and governors are responsible for drawing and approving maps for U...

apnews.com

 

[kEiThZ]

Most Senate seats aren't subject to gerrymandering, as they are state-wide offices.

Still doesn't help if the base doesn't turn out. Democrats didn't turnout in 2010 and 2014 under Obama. In fact, 2014, was one of the lowest turnout midterms ever. Mitch McConnell won his seat with only 36% turnout in Kentucky. And the 2022 Senate map has some vulnerable Democrats. It's more likely Democrats lose seats than gain. Happy to be proven wrong. But sadly I don't think I will be....

Also, I fully expect an own goal like this past election where "Defund the police", "Abolish ICE", "Green New Deal", "Black Lives Matter" and "Medicare for All" was successfully messaged by downballot Republicans as Democratic overreach. The amount of ticket splitting was nuts. There's quite a few districts where Biden won and the Democratic Representative lost. Wanna see something crazy? Maine. Gave Susan Collins enough of a majority to avoid a preferential balloting runoff while voting for Joe Biden and Jared Golden, the Democratic Representative. I fully expect the left to lose the messaging war again and cost the Democrats Senate and House seats in 2022.

However, the good news is that at least 17states off the top of my head have adopted redistricting commissions which take redistricting decisions away from the legislatures.

This includes several red states, at least at the State legislature level, such as Michigan, Alaska, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Missouri.

Yeah. But that still doesn't help when they have a razor thing margin in the House, and there are enough seats in red and purple states that they are likely to lose.

 

[afransen]

Democrats don't show up for midterms when they have the White House. This has been true for decades. 2021 is a redistricting year too and the Republicans just won more state legislatures. You should expect a bloodbath for Democrats in 2022. If that doesn't pan out, great. But I wouldn't hold my breath....

If Trump remains a boogeyman waiting in the wings, perhaps that will help motivate Dem voters.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

If Trump remains a boogeyman waiting in the wings, perhaps that will help motivate Dem voters.

It couldn't motivate them enough for State, House and Senate races even with Trump around. I think you will motivate the ex-Republicans that quit the party for good instead.

AoD

 

[W. K. Lis]

This just in...

From link.

 

[adma]

And the 2022 Senate map has some vulnerable Democrats. It's more likely Democrats lose seats than gain. Happy to be proven wrong. But sadly I don't think I will be....

Well, technically, few Senate maps *don't* have vulnerable Dems (or GOPers, for that matter). But the 2022 map's also filled with a lot of shoulda-been-defeated-but-weren't-in-2016 blue/purple-state GOPers, too.

Actually, there's a skimpy selection of truly vulnerable Dems--Arizona (where Mark Kelly currently won in the special election; that's the "regular" election year). Colorado, Nevada and New Hampshire are about the shakiest of them, and all are Biden states...