About that provocative Millhiser quote: I'm about halfway through the Vox article he was promoting, where his argument is that the Electoral College has led to disproportionate representation in the Senate of less populated areas.
But the motivating factor appears not to be the principle at hand, but that it has given Republicans power, including veto power "over virtually any policy decision made by a federal agency" and that Harris "is likely to be restricted by a Republican senate."
But isn't that capability the point? To advocate on behalf of constituents and push back against policies it opposes? Knowing that when Democrats are in power they will do the same? Harris is free to advocate for the policies she advocates for and persuade Republicans to support her.
Regardless of whether Millhiser's arguments are defensible in certain areas, I don't see this article being written if Democrats were in the position of having disproportionate control in the Senate. Not in light of Millhiser explaining that none of Trump's Supreme Court nominees would have passed if the Dems were given rightful control of the Senate, or that it’s unlikely that "an ideologue like Justice Clarence Thomas or an unapologetic GOP partisan like Justice Samuel Alito" would have been confirmed "if Senate seats were distributed fairly by population."
That would be a complete annexation of many of the smaller states, luckily something like this wouldn't be possible to ratify as a constitutional amendment, but the people who recommend this aren't that hot on the constitution either. I'd say let them secede and form their own country - as long as the national debt is split on the basis of population of course.
Also aren't they usually complaining about D.C. having no representation?
Here in Oregon most of the state is rural and very conservative, but who would know it based on the complete Democratic control of the state government and our national representation? The viewpoints and interests of people who live east of the Cascade Mountains are not represented, except within their counties.
The same is true in Washington state. Seattle and King County dictate policy for the entire state, and if the rest of the state votes for something else, King County magically creates enough votes to override them.
Yep! And when the eastern counties seriously discuss secession, the Multnomah and King County snobs scoff, say "ridiculous!" and "the legislature won't allow them to do it." One would think that the blue people would want to get rid of the red ones, but I guess having power over them is too important to give up.
This argument about the Electoral College overlooks the basic fact of our government design. Three branches: the House of Representatives (proportional by population), the Senate (every state represented equally because we are after all a republic)...and the Presidency/Executive branch (kinda sorta proportional). (Leaving out the unelected Judicial branch.)
I'm not sure the original purpose of the Electoral College had to do with proportional representation, but rather the founding fathers' distrust of common people and maybe something about slavery and 3/5, some reasons that are no longer relevant. But because every state was given control of how to allocate its Electoral College votes, and all but two of our states adopted a winner-take-all system, the Executive branch is now like the Senate in that (almost) every state is represented equally.
My point is the complaints that eliminating the Electoral College would give too much control to urban centers are overlooking the fact that the three branches of government are supposed to provide checks and balances on each other. That was, after all, the great compromise in creating the House and the Senate. The way we have it now, the Senate and the Executive are controlled by the same (rural) influencers.
Idealistically, my feeling has always been that the President is the president of *all of us* so every vote should count. This is criticized, again, as giving too much power to urban centers, and it's an argument that has started to have some influence on my thinking. However, I still believe the winner-take-all system is not what the Founders had in mind, and maybe we should consider proportional allocation of EC votes the way Maine and Nebraska do. That might be an acceptable compromise. I can't say for sure, but I would at least like these points to be considered.
For many years I supported the National Popular Vote Compact, which is a clever way of rendering the Electoral College moot once enough states have signed onto the compact. (it can be a little hard to wrap your head around at first; there is a lot of good explanation at https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/). I'm not so sure I would support it now.
Disclaimer: I spent my entire adult life in Wyoming, the least populous state, with only three EC votes and only one member in the House. During that time I always voted Democrat and because Wyoming is also one of the reddest states I always felt my presidential vote didn't matter, because the EC votes were preordained. I still live in a rural area but have given up on the Dems, but should my own self-interest override the arguments above? Sorry to go on so long.
I think it probably makes sense to allocate the votes for the presidency based on the popular vote instead of winner takes all - but this is only ever suggested by either side if they won the popular but lost the college. In addition to that there should be more checks on executive power in general. People shouldn't feel like the world is going to end if their side loses.
If the senate seats and electoral college votes were distributed by proportion of population (you probably wouldn't need a senate then because it would mirror the house) then many of the smallest states would have only a single representative in the house, and that could go further if the districts can cross state lines. Considering that the federal government always seems to keep extending its power over the states that would mean the states would cease to exist in a meaningful way as entities in federal politics.
If the more populated states having more of a say in how they are governed that to me seems like an argument for stronger states rights and less power for the federal government instead - anything else just sounds to me like they really want to rule over other people far away which at some point feels more like an occupation than a republic.
“You got to take responsibility for what happened in your administration.” — Kamala Harris, in her interview with Bret Baier.
I found this statement to be jaw-dropping, because it was made by the person who's doing her darndest to put distance between herself and the administration she was a part of for the last 3+ years.
She stands by her record, it's all Trumps fault that things didn't work out. Somehow he's still pulling the strings which is sort of an endorsement because she won't get anything done if Trump is still around, working in the shadows, his corrupting influence somehow causing her administration to fail.
"At the elite level, political journalists have a basic contempt for Democrats.”
LOLOLOL
Poor Josh Marshall needs to step out of the Brooklyn bubble for a day or two and take some deep breaths to clear his mind. Elite political journalists work PR for Dems, donate to them, often take jobs w the Dem party or one of its wings, vilify and attack anyone who threatens them (including civilians) and wouldn't publicly admit to voting for a Republican for less than a million dollars tax free. Maybe by "basic contempt" he means they wouldn't donate an organ to a Dem politician or sacrifice one of their children on a DNC altar.
If our political zeitgeist were a brain virus that destroyed your ability to think and transformed you into a frothing rage zombie how would we tell the difference?
I really want to ask Joy Reed if the fascists are in the room with her right now.
> “A lot of men think Democrats care more about dudes who want to become women than they do about dudes who just wanna be dudes. No amount of hunting cosplay or cringe videos is gonna change it. The bed is made.”
Rare introspection. Did anyone else notice that many on the left never seem to use the word man/men? It's always dudes or guys or something else belittling / emasculating. These people are usually very deliberate about language but this seems like it's not even conscious. Is anyone really surprised you can't really appeal to men if you don't even want to call them men? I wonder if there are men who secretly vote Democrat but claim to be Republican to not look like a pussy.
In a setting where people are familiar it's different, something that can be a term of endearment for familiar people can be condescending or even insulting when used on a stranger. Although if the term "man" has bad connotations using other words might not be meant as a sign of disrespect.
Thanks Brad! I particularly like the quote from Trump with respect to the "white dudes for Harris." Trump really missed his calling as a Vegas stand up comedian. With respect to the election, I believe the die is cast and we are on a course that is now unchangeable, excepting of course the ominous DoD directive authorizing deadly force against the citizenry and/or some declaration of war and suspension of the election process in the US . Harris' attempt on Fox at converting swing voters amd MAGA republicans seems to have fallen flat. The clock is ticking.
Also having to respond to Brian Stelter, immigration wasn't even a topic of discussion when modern fascism started. Hitler himself was technically an immigrant. Of course Stelter either didn't pay attention in history class or his school was shit. These comparisons are becoming increasingly dumb, they keep using words like fascism or even Nazi without knowing the first thing about this. The NYT recently came out with an article trying and failing to say why Trump is fascist but Biden/Harris weren't. A far more apt example of modern day fascism would be China.
Like "racism." I think this is mostly just manipulation by the left. They use whatever insult is effective in offending and smearing people until it doesn't work anymore.
It's meaningless to them, they don't believe it but they sure want others to believe that. I'm glad that the strategy has stopped working for the most part but I'm also disheartened that a lot of words now also lost their descriptive power. It seriously erodes communication if words lose their meaning, especially if talking about potentially dangerous/nasty people.
'“I could not believe the lie that if I mimicked the patriarchal model of family, I would receive comfort and safety in exchange. That was the lie of fascism.” — The New Yorker’s Emily Witt'
And yes, I did go read the entire book review. This insane ideology has destroyed a generation.
I also read the review (not the book), all the time wondering "how does she afford all this?" and "how is she able to keep her job?". It's kinda sad really how she wasted her life.
The Republican Party has turned into a cult. Why? Because of anti-diversity attitudes and big money not wanting to pay taxes.” — Nancy Pelosi. Sooooo Nancy, paying any taxes on all those inside information stock gains you & your big money husband are making (stealing)?
I look forward to reading these
Same, although most of them have me seething. The Trump quote, however, made my day.
About that provocative Millhiser quote: I'm about halfway through the Vox article he was promoting, where his argument is that the Electoral College has led to disproportionate representation in the Senate of less populated areas.
But the motivating factor appears not to be the principle at hand, but that it has given Republicans power, including veto power "over virtually any policy decision made by a federal agency" and that Harris "is likely to be restricted by a Republican senate."
But isn't that capability the point? To advocate on behalf of constituents and push back against policies it opposes? Knowing that when Democrats are in power they will do the same? Harris is free to advocate for the policies she advocates for and persuade Republicans to support her.
Regardless of whether Millhiser's arguments are defensible in certain areas, I don't see this article being written if Democrats were in the position of having disproportionate control in the Senate. Not in light of Millhiser explaining that none of Trump's Supreme Court nominees would have passed if the Dems were given rightful control of the Senate, or that it’s unlikely that "an ideologue like Justice Clarence Thomas or an unapologetic GOP partisan like Justice Samuel Alito" would have been confirmed "if Senate seats were distributed fairly by population."
Ending the Electoral College means that New York and California decide policy for the whole country.
Given that most of the people in these states are completely unaware of anything past the end of the block, it will not end well.
That would be a complete annexation of many of the smaller states, luckily something like this wouldn't be possible to ratify as a constitutional amendment, but the people who recommend this aren't that hot on the constitution either. I'd say let them secede and form their own country - as long as the national debt is split on the basis of population of course.
Also aren't they usually complaining about D.C. having no representation?
Here in Oregon most of the state is rural and very conservative, but who would know it based on the complete Democratic control of the state government and our national representation? The viewpoints and interests of people who live east of the Cascade Mountains are not represented, except within their counties.
The same is true in Washington state. Seattle and King County dictate policy for the entire state, and if the rest of the state votes for something else, King County magically creates enough votes to override them.
Yep! And when the eastern counties seriously discuss secession, the Multnomah and King County snobs scoff, say "ridiculous!" and "the legislature won't allow them to do it." One would think that the blue people would want to get rid of the red ones, but I guess having power over them is too important to give up.
This argument about the Electoral College overlooks the basic fact of our government design. Three branches: the House of Representatives (proportional by population), the Senate (every state represented equally because we are after all a republic)...and the Presidency/Executive branch (kinda sorta proportional). (Leaving out the unelected Judicial branch.)
I'm not sure the original purpose of the Electoral College had to do with proportional representation, but rather the founding fathers' distrust of common people and maybe something about slavery and 3/5, some reasons that are no longer relevant. But because every state was given control of how to allocate its Electoral College votes, and all but two of our states adopted a winner-take-all system, the Executive branch is now like the Senate in that (almost) every state is represented equally.
My point is the complaints that eliminating the Electoral College would give too much control to urban centers are overlooking the fact that the three branches of government are supposed to provide checks and balances on each other. That was, after all, the great compromise in creating the House and the Senate. The way we have it now, the Senate and the Executive are controlled by the same (rural) influencers.
Idealistically, my feeling has always been that the President is the president of *all of us* so every vote should count. This is criticized, again, as giving too much power to urban centers, and it's an argument that has started to have some influence on my thinking. However, I still believe the winner-take-all system is not what the Founders had in mind, and maybe we should consider proportional allocation of EC votes the way Maine and Nebraska do. That might be an acceptable compromise. I can't say for sure, but I would at least like these points to be considered.
For many years I supported the National Popular Vote Compact, which is a clever way of rendering the Electoral College moot once enough states have signed onto the compact. (it can be a little hard to wrap your head around at first; there is a lot of good explanation at https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/). I'm not so sure I would support it now.
Disclaimer: I spent my entire adult life in Wyoming, the least populous state, with only three EC votes and only one member in the House. During that time I always voted Democrat and because Wyoming is also one of the reddest states I always felt my presidential vote didn't matter, because the EC votes were preordained. I still live in a rural area but have given up on the Dems, but should my own self-interest override the arguments above? Sorry to go on so long.
I think it probably makes sense to allocate the votes for the presidency based on the popular vote instead of winner takes all - but this is only ever suggested by either side if they won the popular but lost the college. In addition to that there should be more checks on executive power in general. People shouldn't feel like the world is going to end if their side loses.
If the senate seats and electoral college votes were distributed by proportion of population (you probably wouldn't need a senate then because it would mirror the house) then many of the smallest states would have only a single representative in the house, and that could go further if the districts can cross state lines. Considering that the federal government always seems to keep extending its power over the states that would mean the states would cease to exist in a meaningful way as entities in federal politics.
If the more populated states having more of a say in how they are governed that to me seems like an argument for stronger states rights and less power for the federal government instead - anything else just sounds to me like they really want to rule over other people far away which at some point feels more like an occupation than a republic.
“You got to take responsibility for what happened in your administration.” — Kamala Harris, in her interview with Bret Baier.
I found this statement to be jaw-dropping, because it was made by the person who's doing her darndest to put distance between herself and the administration she was a part of for the last 3+ years.
She stands by her record, it's all Trumps fault that things didn't work out. Somehow he's still pulling the strings which is sort of an endorsement because she won't get anything done if Trump is still around, working in the shadows, his corrupting influence somehow causing her administration to fail.
"At the elite level, political journalists have a basic contempt for Democrats.”
LOLOLOL
Poor Josh Marshall needs to step out of the Brooklyn bubble for a day or two and take some deep breaths to clear his mind. Elite political journalists work PR for Dems, donate to them, often take jobs w the Dem party or one of its wings, vilify and attack anyone who threatens them (including civilians) and wouldn't publicly admit to voting for a Republican for less than a million dollars tax free. Maybe by "basic contempt" he means they wouldn't donate an organ to a Dem politician or sacrifice one of their children on a DNC altar.
If our political zeitgeist were a brain virus that destroyed your ability to think and transformed you into a frothing rage zombie how would we tell the difference?
I tried to look at that article and it was just too ridiculous.
u a better man than i
Not man. Tardigrade. We can venture into hazardous environments because we're indestructible.
And female ;)
all apologies, ma'am!
hard to tell here in our disembodied virtual incarnations.
I'm a water bear, it just rolls right off my back.
funny u look more like a microscopic louse from that pic...no offense!
I really want to ask Joy Reed if the fascists are in the room with her right now.
> “A lot of men think Democrats care more about dudes who want to become women than they do about dudes who just wanna be dudes. No amount of hunting cosplay or cringe videos is gonna change it. The bed is made.”
Rare introspection. Did anyone else notice that many on the left never seem to use the word man/men? It's always dudes or guys or something else belittling / emasculating. These people are usually very deliberate about language but this seems like it's not even conscious. Is anyone really surprised you can't really appeal to men if you don't even want to call them men? I wonder if there are men who secretly vote Democrat but claim to be Republican to not look like a pussy.
I don't think 'dudes' and 'guys' are belittling or emasculating. I grew up calling both my male and female friends 'guys'.
I do think that the progressive left sees 'man/men' as fraught and that's why they avoid it.
In a setting where people are familiar it's different, something that can be a term of endearment for familiar people can be condescending or even insulting when used on a stranger. Although if the term "man" has bad connotations using other words might not be meant as a sign of disrespect.
Thanks Brad! I particularly like the quote from Trump with respect to the "white dudes for Harris." Trump really missed his calling as a Vegas stand up comedian. With respect to the election, I believe the die is cast and we are on a course that is now unchangeable, excepting of course the ominous DoD directive authorizing deadly force against the citizenry and/or some declaration of war and suspension of the election process in the US . Harris' attempt on Fox at converting swing voters amd MAGA republicans seems to have fallen flat. The clock is ticking.
Also having to respond to Brian Stelter, immigration wasn't even a topic of discussion when modern fascism started. Hitler himself was technically an immigrant. Of course Stelter either didn't pay attention in history class or his school was shit. These comparisons are becoming increasingly dumb, they keep using words like fascism or even Nazi without knowing the first thing about this. The NYT recently came out with an article trying and failing to say why Trump is fascist but Biden/Harris weren't. A far more apt example of modern day fascism would be China.
'Nazi' and 'fascist' have simply become bad names you call someone. They've been diluted to meaninglessness.
Like "racism." I think this is mostly just manipulation by the left. They use whatever insult is effective in offending and smearing people until it doesn't work anymore.
A racist is someone who won an argument with a progressive.
Calling people they don't like (e.g., Trump, Musk) "fascist!" is just a verbal tic. It's meaningless. And, you never have to respond to 'tater head.
It's meaningless to them, they don't believe it but they sure want others to believe that. I'm glad that the strategy has stopped working for the most part but I'm also disheartened that a lot of words now also lost their descriptive power. It seriously erodes communication if words lose their meaning, especially if talking about potentially dangerous/nasty people.
Nancy Pelosi has a post-politics career as a stand up comedienne waiting.
Yeah maybe when she retires at the ripe young age of 133 years. At that point her stock portfolio is probably worth as much as half the S&P 500.
WTF.
'“I could not believe the lie that if I mimicked the patriarchal model of family, I would receive comfort and safety in exchange. That was the lie of fascism.” — The New Yorker’s Emily Witt'
And yes, I did go read the entire book review. This insane ideology has destroyed a generation.
I also read the review (not the book), all the time wondering "how does she afford all this?" and "how is she able to keep her job?". It's kinda sad really how she wasted her life.
The Republican Party has turned into a cult. Why? Because of anti-diversity attitudes and big money not wanting to pay taxes.” — Nancy Pelosi. Sooooo Nancy, paying any taxes on all those inside information stock gains you & your big money husband are making (stealing)?