• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Virginia’s Moran Announces Retirement From Congress

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Senior appropriator and progressive stalwart James P. Moran will step down at the end of this year, making him the third House Democrat in just three days to announce his retirement.

Now, while Moran was in a district that is decidedly blue, which Republicans don't have a snowball's chance in hell of taking, other retiring Democrats have held office in districts which were slightly red, thus making it hard to defend those seats. Earlier this year, I predicted that, while Democrats would pick up a few seats, Republicans would still hold the House in the 2014 elections. I now change that prediction. Democrats might actually lose a seat or 2 this year.

Why do I predict that House will remain Republican? It has to do with the paradigm each party is employing in it's races. While Democrats have a top down approach, which pushes mostly nationally, and relies on coattails of national figures to win local seats in many districts, the Republicans utilize a bottom up approach, concentrating on local races, and then leveraging their wins by taking over states and then gerrymandering their districts. The result is that, while Democrats seem to enjoy an edge these days in presidential races, many states which are considered purple, or even blue, are controlled by Republicans. Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Virginia are good examples of this. They all went for Obama in 2012, but their legislatures, as well as their congressional districts, are mostly Republican.

Before Democrats start whining about how unfair this is, I must tell them that, if they had thought of this, they would have done it. But it was Republicans who came up with it, and it is Republicans who are enjoying the benefits. Democrats snoozed, and they loozed. LOL.

Article is here.
 
Now, while Moran was in a district that is decidedly blue, which Republicans don't have a snowball's chance in hell of taking, other retiring Democrats have held office in districts which were slightly red, thus making it hard to defend those seats. Earlier this year, I predicted that, while Democrats would pick up a few seats, Republicans would still hold the House in the 2014 elections. I now change that prediction. Democrats might actually lose a seat or 2 this year.

Why do I predict that House will remain Republican? It has to do with the paradigm each party is employing in it's races. While Democrats have a top down approach, which pushes mostly nationally, and relies on coattails of national figures to win local seats in many districts, the Republicans utilize a bottom up approach, concentrating on local races, and then leveraging their wins by taking over states and then gerrymandering their districts. The result is that, while Democrats seem to enjoy an edge these days in presidential races, many states which are considered purple, or even blue, are controlled by Republicans. Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Virginia are good examples of this. They all went for Obama in 2012, but their legislatures, as well as their congressional districts, are mostly Republican.

Before Democrats start whining about how unfair this is, I must tell them that, if they had thought of this, they would have done it. But it was Republicans who came up with it, and it is Republicans who are enjoying the benefits. Democrats snoozed, and they loozed. LOL.

Article is here.

"Rigging the electoral system is ok because you guys totally would have done it too!"
 
"Rigging the electoral system is ok because you guys totally would have done it too!"

Actually, it's okay because the Democrats did it in the past as well (NC12 [used to be NC13], Mel Watt's District for example). As I have continually heard from Democrats regarding the election of Obama... Elections Have Consequences...
 
Now, while Moran was in a district that is decidedly blue, which Republicans don't have a snowball's chance in hell of taking, other retiring Democrats have held office in districts which were slightly red, thus making it hard to defend those seats. Earlier this year, I predicted that, while Democrats would pick up a few seats, Republicans would still hold the House in the 2014 elections. I now change that prediction. Democrats might actually lose a seat or 2 this year.

Why do I predict that House will remain Republican? It has to do with the paradigm each party is employing in it's races. While Democrats have a top down approach, which pushes mostly nationally, and relies on coattails of national figures to win local seats in many districts, the Republicans utilize a bottom up approach, concentrating on local races, and then leveraging their wins by taking over states and then gerrymandering their districts. The result is that, while Democrats seem to enjoy an edge these days in presidential races, many states which are considered purple, or even blue, are controlled by Republicans. Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Virginia are good examples of this. They all went for Obama in 2012, but their legislatures, as well as their congressional districts, are mostly Republican.

Before Democrats start whining about how unfair this is, I must tell them that, if they had thought of this, they would have done it. But it was Republicans who came up with it, and it is Republicans who are enjoying the benefits. Democrats snoozed, and they loozed. LOL.

Article is here.

You can add NC to your list of purple states that have gone red on the state and local elections but went for Obama both times.
 
"Have done it too" would be correct, and not "would have".

Which should tell you why Gerrymandering should be made illegal. But neither party will do so because it would limit their power.
 
You can add NC to your list of purple states that have gone red on the state and local elections but went for Obama both times.

In the case of NC, it's still slightly red, statewide. The reason it went for Obama both times is that there was not an opponent that many Conservative voters liked, so they stayed home.
 
You can add NC to your list of purple states that have gone red on the state and local elections but went for Obama both times.
This is largely due to the republicans offering unappealing candidates. Neither McCain nor Romney were considered right-leaning at all, and Romney in particular was suspect from the start with bona fides as Governor of the most left-leaning state in the country. George McGovern lost 49 states to Nixon, but won Massachusetts, so there's a history that even the most uninformed voter is aware of. Whether that's dispositive is arguable, but the evidence certainly supports it by the outcome of the elections in those states.
 
Which should tell you why Gerrymandering should be made illegal. But neither party will do so because it would limit their power.

I don't disagree. I don't get to make the rules though. I would, but they've never asked.
 
Which should tell you why Gerrymandering should be made illegal. But neither party will do so because it would limit their power.

How would you make it illegal, when the Constitution, Article 1, Section 4, states that the times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof. So it was the states that were given the authority to decide how those representatives would be elected. They could have set up a proportional representation system, everyone running at large statewide in which case redistricting would never have arisen as a problem. Even though a few states do this, that's not the way it is in all states.
 
Reminded me of this:

moran-1.jpg
 
How would you make it illegal, when the Constitution, Article 1, Section 4, states that the times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof. So it was the states that were given the authority to decide how those representatives would be elected. They could have set up a proportional representation system, everyone running at large statewide in which case redistricting would never have arisen as a problem. Even though a few states do this, that's not the way it is in all states.

You couldn't do it with a Federal law, obviously. I still don't think it should exist
 
You couldn't do it with a Federal law, obviously. I still don't think it should exist

Actually, Federal law does come into play a bit. 2 of the districts created by Texas were declared null and void by the Federal courts a couple of years ago, because the state violated the law in purposely diluting the Hispanic voters in those districts.
 
Is there a good argument for not dismantling the electoral system?
 
Which should tell you why Gerrymandering should be made illegal. But neither party will do so because it would limit their power.

Hence the need for a filibuster. The party not in power needs to have a counterbalance to the party in power because the minority party is the only clear head in the room when it comes to abuse of power.

In other words, if the Senate goes Republican this year I am sure we will see Reid reinstating the filibuster before he steps down...
 
Hence the need for a filibuster. The party not in power needs to have a counterbalance to the party in power because the minority party is the only clear head in the room when it comes to abuse of power.

In other words, if the Senate goes Republican this year I am sure we will see Reid reinstating the filibuster before he steps down...

I don't think he should have gotten rid of it, but of course if the Senate goes Republican, they can set the rules next January.

The Senate, of course, is elected state-wide so there's no way to Gerrymander. My concern with Gerrymandering is that it almost guarantees that one party will win a particular election, and kind of means that there's no election needed. Technically they have to have it, but like a lot of city mayoral races, the "real" election is the primary.
 
In the case of NC, it's still slightly red, statewide. The reason it went for Obama both times is that there was not an opponent that many Conservative voters liked, so they stayed home.

Probably. I just hate to think that Conservative has been narrowed to mean only the far right (religious right and other extreme rightists). I'm more of a Goldwater Republican, the true Conservative, what the Republican party was built on before the nut bags tried to take over.
 
This is largely due to the republicans offering unappealing candidates. Neither McCain nor Romney were considered right-leaning at all, and Romney in particular was suspect from the start with bona fides as Governor of the most left-leaning state in the country. George McGovern lost 49 states to Nixon, but won Massachusetts, so there's a history that even the most uninformed voter is aware of. Whether that's dispositive is arguable, but the evidence certainly supports it by the outcome of the elections in those states.

I have to agree, in spirit at least. I felt that Hillary was more conservative than Romney. McCain... well... my feelings toward him have more to do with his arrogance than his Conservative credentials. He followed a great man into the Senate by assuming his seat after Goldwater retired when McCain was first elected, and it's hard for anyone to live up to a standard such as that.

One of the problems that the Republicans have on a national level right now is the ability to answer a simple question: Whether the party wants to lead and govern, or whether they want to continually be the loyal opposition as an outlier minority party that never holds the White House again.

To lead and govern a diverse country such as the US, the party that leads must be able to make compromises. Or at least say they open to compromise. The Democrats at least have the rhetoric of compromise down. Although all they are doing is lying about it, since the facts show that they are holding a hard left and uncompromising position. We saw that during the government shut down. What they have that the Republicans do not, is the cooperation of the media in promoting the lie of compromise, and the empirical evidence of this is again shown by looking back at the government shut down (although the failure of the Republicans was in the very first position they took by demanding a total de-funding of Obamacare which was ill conceived and failed from it's inception).

The Republicans have to get back to the true Conservative values that made them a strong and widely supported political party. That does not include the religious right's version of what some could rightly define as religious extremism, and began gaining its hold on the party in the late '80's.
 
I have to agree, in spirit at least. I felt that Hillary was more conservative than Romney. McCain... well... my feelings toward him have more to do with his arrogance than his Conservative credentials. He followed a great man into the Senate by assuming his seat after Goldwater retired when McCain was first elected, and it's hard for anyone to live up to a standard such as that.

One of the problems that the Republicans have on a national level right now is the ability to answer a simple question: Whether the party wants to lead and govern, or whether they want to continually be the loyal opposition as an outlier minority party that never holds the White House again.

To lead and govern a diverse country such as the US, the party that leads must be able to make compromises. Or at least say they open to compromise. The Democrats at least have the rhetoric of compromise down. Although all they are doing is lying about it, since the facts show that they are holding a hard left and uncompromising position. We saw that during the government shut down. What they have that the Republicans do not, is the cooperation of the media in promoting the lie of compromise, and the empirical evidence of this is again shown by looking back at the government shut down (although the failure of the Republicans was in the very first position they took by demanding a total de-funding of Obamacare which was ill conceived and failed from it's inception).

The Republicans have to get back to the true Conservative values that made them a strong and widely supported political party. That does not include the religious right's version of what some could rightly define as religious extremism, and began gaining its hold on the party in the late '80's.

I agree with this. It has appeared to me for the past 10 years or more that the republicans have been busy triangulating themselves out of the national consciousness in an effort to win a skirmish here and there. The idea that not losing is also not winning somehow escapes them.
 
Probably. I just hate to think that Conservative has been narrowed to mean only the far right (religious right and other extreme rightists). I'm more of a Goldwater Republican, the true Conservative, what the Republican party was built on before the nut bags tried to take over.

Yea, Conservative doesn't mean the same today as it meant back in the days of Republican sanity. I'm an old Paleocon myself, and so I remember what it used to be like before the crazy took over.
 
Yea, Conservative doesn't mean the same today as it meant back in the days of Republican sanity. I'm an old Paleocon myself, and so I remember what it used to be like before the crazy took over.

Maybe we will get back there some day. I pray so... no pun intended.
 
I agree with this. It has appeared to me for the past 10 years or more that the republicans have been busy triangulating themselves out of the national consciousness in an effort to win a skirmish here and there. The idea that not losing is also not winning somehow escapes them.

The Republicans in power now, would rather feel superior and on the "right" side of the argument than to be actually in charge forming the argument and commanding the agenda.

On the current path, the Republicans will control great and vast conclaves of local elections, but allow the progressives to control the and grow the federal government by their refusal to lead from a reasonable position which would allow the majority of Americans to agree with them and vote them into power.
 
Back
Top Bottom