Lol… well of course they fear that. Because the reason why most Dems run for office is to actually pass legislation to make people’s lives better. There should be fear that they didn’t do that. And of course it could fail … because of the Supreme Courts sanctioning of money in our politics. At any point someone like Kyrsten Sinema can be bought off from within our own party. It’s a huge fear that corruption can win. I don’t know why though that with articles like this the concept of winning and losing and fear of “losing” is presented like a freaking nba game. Corruption “winning” is bad for the entire country regardless if you are a Dem or Republican voter. Kyrsten Sinema getting 750,000 from big pharma in order to spike Medicare being able to negotiate drug prices affects you too… or at least your parents who might be on Medicare and paying a gazillion dollars for their meds. I’m proud that I voted for a party that has a real fear of losing out to corruption that tanks legislation that helps American people. That’s a good thing in my book.
Wow… a party that doesn’t bow down to the president of their party as a cleric supreme leader… what a concept. Take some queues and start learning how to call out your party leaders when they are blatantly wrong about something instead of acting like your under a tent with Jim Jones.
Getting state election laws changed around the country? You say you aren't worried about them which I can't understand. Maybe you will when GOP states refuse to certify an election based on "rampant fraud" and no candidate gets to 270. I'd bet my house that it will occur in the next decade and when it does I wonder what you'll have to say then?
Of course not. If I lived in Arizona and Sinema was who “the party” wanted to nominate I would vote for someone else in the primary. However in the general election unfortunately the other option would like be a MAGA stop the steal nut. So … yeah right now there’s a more consistent use of the phrase “party”. But no… nobody should ever pledge fealty to a party. If I was old enough to be around prior to LBJ I could have pledged fealty to the Republican Party and refused to vote Democrat when the Democrat president sign off on the civil rights act. Actually if you look at Abraham Lincolns electoral college map it’s almost identical to Obama’s first electoral map. Party’s change over time and so no you shouldn’t pledge fealty.
Read for yourself... 10 new state laws shift power over elections to partisan entities https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/doz...elections-partisan-entities/story?id=79408455
Seriously? Your opinion is your own and I'm not here to change it. If you choose not to read the article which shows the states I speak of then that's that. I'm also not with the parroting thing you do so often...tends to make a person just ignore you.
It's not. Wish I have more than 1 viable choices to choose from. I will always vote Non-Rep, even at the local levels, until the Rep party goes back to its tradition.
I read the article, there's a lot of blah blah and not much detail. For example the article complains of a legislature doing something "partisan" by taking some sort of power away from Secretaries of State, but doesn't say why that's a bad thing other than it's Republican legislators and Democratic Secretaries of State. Why is this a bad thing? presumably if a Democratic legislature did this to a Republican Secretary of State ABC News would cheer. So again, which laws are you specifically upset about? I have not seen any evidence yet that what is being done in these states is the end of civilization as we know it. What I see when I press people like you is vague articles like the one you provided that simply describes how a legislature acting in its capacity as a governing body passes some laws that affect elections. And the articles generally say things like BOO! and THAT'S BAD!!! but never say why. So which laws do you have problems with? in which states, affecting which groups of voters, and for which reasons that you think are bad?
Can you site an example of Democrats doing that? They want more people to vote because they win elections that way. If they did try to take power away from a Republican strictly because they are a member of the opposite party I would have a serious issue with that. Arizona is the state in question and this is as partisan as you can get... "The spending blueprint that Gov. Doug Ducey signed into law Wednesday declares that the attorney general — currently a position occupied by Republican Mark Brnovich — has sole authority over election-related litigation. If the secretary of state and attorney general were to disagree over a legal strategy when Arizona election laws are challenged, the new law states that "the authority of the attorney general to defend the law is paramount." "Republicans also adopted language stating it's their intent for the law to apply through Jan. 2, 2023, coinciding with the end of Democrat Katie Hobbs' term as secretary of state." I don't see most of the restrictive voting laws as democracy is over as we know it. I'm not going through each and every states' election laws. If a state has a mechanism that allows it to override a county election board by claiming "fraud", opt not to certify an election, choose to send alternate electors against the will of the people, these are undemocratic and affect everyone...that's a problem for me. Georgia is a perfect example of this... "The belief is not entirely unfounded. Under Georgia’s restrictive new voting law, if an election review panel finds evidence of unresolved errors or a breach of election law in a county’s election oversight since 2018, the state can disband the local board and replace it with a state-appointed superintendent. That figure would assume key decisions like voting locations, precinct staffing and vote certification."
why would it matter? again, the complaint seems to be against partisanship per se and not so much against specific issues. I simply assume politics will be partisan--and I accept that politics will be partisan. This is the point of having different parties. When parties can muster the political will and the votes to successfully craft legislation, then all the power to them. I don't see a whole lot of specifics here other than boo hoo the Republicans are beating us at a game that we're losing at. @TheresTheDagger used the term "whining" the other day, and that's what a lot of this sounds like why? in this case a Democratic legislature would be exercising its (state) Constitutionally granted authority to enact legislation. Why would I be upset at that legitimate exercise of authority? again, it is the specifics of a legislative action that need to be examined directly and evaluated as either "good" or "bad" I don't know anything about Arizona. Why is this a bad thing? how does this differ from the procedures that preceded this declaration? I have no way of either understanding this political act or evaluating it without more explanation. All I'm seeing is assertion: "THIS IS BAD!!" I don't know that to be true or correct. Why is this "bad"? again, I don't understand why this is a bad thing. The state can disband a local board if they find evidence of problems. Why is that not a good thing? or at least a neutral thing? I have asked this question before and nobody has ever answered it, but I'll ask it again: why is the Georgia state-level takeover of a local election any worse than the desired Federal-level takeover of state elections desired by so many progressives? again, and I don't mean this to sound like a criticism, but I'm still seeing basically just a bunch of blah blah and no real explanation of why any of this is a bad thing.
Oh, the irony... Coming from a moderate Democrat expert at cherry-picking articles with blah blah I know it's a full time job. Keep up the good work.
It stems from the lie that the election was "fraudulent." All of this is partisan in nature...if the GOP had won do you think they would be doing audits and pushing to change voting rules to benefit their reelection? No of course not... Federal oversight was required for certain states until 2013 for a reason...it's not a new concept but that's a different topic. A state replacing a slate of electors under the false pretense of "election fraud" certainly is.
I mean, for someone who finds the random crap you do, I'm shocked you skip over this. https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/24/politics/republicans-seize-power-over-elections/index.html https://www.economist.com/united-st...-are-reforming-how-elections-are-administered So @TheresTheDagger can go back to attacking for the sake of attacking and you can like his posts.
But apparently they don't see no evil, hear not evil, and speak no evil. "I didn't see anything important so I'll post stories about individuals being hypocritical" @Os Trigonum "They just whine and whine about Republicans fixing elections - if they don't like it they should go live in a democracy" @TheresTheDagger
