May I Attempt to Predict America's Political Future?

[louis c]

What I see is an amazing overreach by today's Republicans. Let's remember that they are a controlling minority in American politics. No matter what the outcome of the first Trump nomination, eventually there will be a Conservative Justice to replace Kennedy. Over the next two Supreme Court sessions, Americans will see their rights erode. I've already seen the erosion of union rights in the Janus decision. I fully expect Roe v. Wade to be nullified or rulings that render it unworkable in at least 20 states. Discrimination against gays will be allowed under new supreme court decisions. Affirmative action will be nullified. Immigrant rights will be reduced. All kinds of gun rights will be upheld and gun control will be harder to come by.

But, each of these decisions, which are directly attributed to the Republicans, comes at a political cost. Just on women's rights, alone, the 25% gap in voting choices among women will grow. On each issue, we hold the political high ground. Some issues are as much as 2 to 1 in our favor of almost all our positions. People who took their rights for granted (including my brothers and sisters in the labor movement) are going to take these actions as a "call to (political) arms".

So, to my prediction. Democracy will bail us out. I can see a 2, 4, and 6 year election cycle, in which Democrats have as many as 65 Senators, 300 House members and a Democratic President that carries over 30 states, including all the largest, including Florida and Texas.

Nothing drives people to the polls like anger and fear, and this time we'll have both on our side.

[SWBTATTReg]

1. I think you're spot on. NT

[el_bryanto]

2. I sort of agree, but the key line is "Democracy will bail us out"

If Trump and his cronies realize that (and some of them have) they will take Democracy in a back room and put a bullet in its head. They may not succeed, but I would not be surprised if they tried.

Bryant

[RandomAccess]

40. That is, in fact, their plan

This fascist shit is spreading all over Europe, and Bannon is there leading the charge. It's been the plan all along.

[spanone]

3. The pendulum will swing....

[Rustynaerduwell]

4. "Democracy" got us here in the first place.

Too many low population states will never put a Democrat in the Senate. Gerrymandering will not go away and will only be strengthened in any future SCOTUS decisions. The Electoral College will continue to favor the Republican candidate. In every national election since 1980 more Americans voted for a Democrat than for a Republican and yet this is where we are.

[louis c]

7. That's a defeatist attitude

and is usually promoted by the other side.

What you're saying is, "the game is stacked against us, so let's just give up."

I'm sorry, I don't buy that.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

24. Pointing out Gerrymandering

is not defeatist. It's realistic. Ignoring it and how t came about is a huge problem. Conservatives, especially tea partiers, have systematically run for office at all levels, which is why they came to own so many state legislatures and governerships. Again, pointing that out is not defeatist, it's acknowledging and understanding how we got here.

Ignoring all that leads to simplistic notions of how we can get back what we've lost.

[louis c]

26. Gerrymandering doesn't mean shit if you win the generic by 16 points

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

28. Help me out here. Where has someone won a

gerrymandered district by 16 points?

Most of the time the gerrymandering works quite well for the party that put such districts in place.

[louis c]

33. Let me give you a little PolySci class

A 16 point generic ballot advantage is the nationwide popular vote for congress, Dems vs. Rep. If that generic ballot holds, Dems will win seats even in gerrymandered districts. So, if a district is a Rep. +15 or less, it is in danger.

An example is Conner Lamb in Pa in a Rep. +20 district that he won or Doug Jones in Alabama in a Rep. +20 state.

Please tell me you understand.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

38. But people won't be voting a generic ballot come November.

We have seen some recent Democratic successes, but just as too many people were totally confident Hillary would win in 2016, I honestly fear something similar will happen this November. And no, I'm, not a concern troll. I've been around a long time here, and I've seen too much of this sort of thing.

Like every single day when someone proclaims that Trump is toast! or that Mueller is just rocking it! Meanwhile, Trump is still in office, doing more and more damage every day, and Mueller's indictments haven't noticeably affected anything in the administration or how it behaves.

I, who am an optimist about most things, have a strong streak of skepticism if not outright pessimism here.

[louis c]

39. I'm sorry you don't understand

That's too bad.

I'll try once more.

Many reputable polls and nearly every special election and scheduled election in 2017 and 2018 has borne out that the electorate is voting Democratic. A generic poll is a poll that asks the question "would you rather the Democrats or the Republicans control congress?" Ever since this poll has been in existence, it is accurate. Taking gerrymandering into account, most political experts believe that the Democrats must have a plus 6% to have a chance of winning a majority of House seats. So, at a plus 16%, the sentiment of the voting public would be so overwhelmingly Democratic, that we would win a large majority of seats. In gerrymandering in 2010, Republicans had to make voting assumptions and predictions in each state and slice the votes relatively thin. The Dem districts were 80% Dem, but the Republican districts were more like 55% to 60% Rep., most were closer to the 55%. But, the Reps. assumed that college educated, white suburban voters (the type that would be comfortable with a Bush, a McCain or a Romney) would remain loyal. Unfortunately for them, those are the deserters. Now, before you go off saying that Trump still gets 90% of Republicans, remember that fewer and fewer voters are self-describing as Rep. In other words, 90% of 1,000 is not quite the same as 90% of 1,200. The most recent polls that I've seen is that Rep are down about 25% (an overall decline of 6% in hard numbers). You know, like 40% becomes 34% in an overall poll (hence the down 15%).

But I must correct you of one thing, you are far from an optimist, IMHO. You're not even a skeptic or a pessimist. You are a defeatist.

Too bad.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

41. I do understand the generic ballot poll.

You don't need to be patronizing. But I've seen this in the past, the generic Democrat beats the generic Republican up until election day.

I'm an optimist in my daily life. And I'm not a defeatist, not by any means. I am a realist, but I keep on seeing chickens being counted before the eggs are even laid, to coin a phrase. People here start being gleeful over what Dems will do next January when we take control of Congress. It's so far from a done deal that I can't believe some of what I'm reading here.

Polls, especially exit polls back before so much early voting, used to be astonishingly accurate. For various reasons they got less accurate over time. And didn't all the polling showing Hillary winning in 2016? Winning the Electoral College, that is.

Me? I've been in the trenches. I've even run for office, for a state house seat in a very Republican state. I lost, but did well enough that the Democrat who ran for that seat two years later won.

[louis c]

42. Re-Read your post 28 and tell me you understand the generic ballot

"Show me where someone in a gerrymanded district won by 16 points."

Please, you don't understand and now you're pretending to.

I work full time for a labor union and part of my job is political research for a labor union.

As for polling, all the national polls had Hillary winning by 3 points, she won by 2.

but I'm not talking about polling, I'm talking about the actual votes, like Virginia, Lamb in Pennsylvania, Jones in Alabama, scores of legislative seats. win or lose, the Dems are receiving about 16 more points than Donald received in districts.

There are times during my political education of our members that I give up on the individual as tthey really don't want to learn, but want to argue.

I have reached that point with you.

[7962]

21. Democrats lost '80, '84 & '88 Pres elections by wide margins. Since then, they've won.

His point is valid; people vote when pissed

[Rustynaerduwell]

30. I didn't say More Americans voted for the Democratic Presidential candidate,

I said more Americans voted for a Democrat than for a Republican in all elections. Even in '80, '84 & '88, more Congressional votes went to a Democrat than to a Republican. Gerrymandering skewed Congress to the Republicans while low population states put more Republicans in the Senate. More votes though, in all races combined, were tallied for Democrats. It bothers the hell out of me that people don't realize this. Please, pass this easily verifiable fact on. Don't try to debunk it. It should only make our side more pissed.

[7962]

35. Right. When you said "national", just presidential came to mind.

I guess i've always considered Congressional elections "state".
But to change the Senate rules, we'd have to also change the Constitution and I doubt thats going to happen.
The GOP has always bitched about eh Electoral College being skewed against THEM

[GetRidOfThem]

25. ...Which is why we need to get rid of the electoral callege...n/t

[bobbieinok]

5. BIG barrier to this future: GOP blocks on voting supported by SCOTUS!!

[louis c]

6. We will have so many votes, it can't be stopped

They can only hinder voting, they can't prohibit it.

[Wounded Bear]

8. A hopeful read on the current situation...

I hope you're right.

[Demsrule86]

9. I think you are correct and with the pre-existing conditions suit which GOP's don't want either...

It is going to end badly for them as it should true evil needs to be yanked out.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

10. +1. Overreach keyword. But must guard integrity of democracy: secure vote, X suppress, X gerrymander

[paleotn]

11. Your last statement sums it up well....

In my lifetime, the only election I've ever seen positives drive people to the polls was Obama in 2008. All other elections have been about fear. Fear of economic calamity. Fear of terrorists. Fear of minorities. But this time, 2018, we've got fear on our side for a change. And it's not irrational fear for a change, but the real kind. And it's overreach that's driving the fear. The more this admin does to please its base, the greater that fear becomes and the better we will do in Nov. Beyond that, I haven't a clue except that the long term political pendulum always swings one way or the other. It's time for it to swing back out way.

[louis c]

19. The fear of economic collapse was an important part of 2008 GE (NY)

[paleotn]

37. That certainly didn't hurt Obama's chances...

but his message was a positive one and that's what drove the electorate, imho. Verses the normal "my opponent sucks! The country is going to hell in a handbasket!" The average person wasn't paying much attention until the equity markets collapsed in Sept. that year.

[Lonestarblue]

12. I'm not as concerned about average Republicans.

Eventually, fewer people will be in the Republican Party. I’m more concerned about the corporate takeover of the government that has been going on for decades. Corporate automatically means the wealthy because they are the ones who hold the bulk of the stock. We will soon have a Supreme Court that will be a solid 5-person majority of conservatives who support that corporate takeover. If and when Democrats take control again, we need to try to get some of the money out of politics by funding all federal elections and setting strict limits on donations from outside groups on behalf of candidates, as in a total dollar amount as a per-group limit will just result in thousands more groups. I’m not sure how this gets accomplished, but wealthy donors cannt be allowed to continue undermining democracy. The other rule that needs to be passed is that no person working in government may take a position as a lobbyist for 5 years. That would cut down on loose regulation in hopes of getting a lucrative job after government service. These sound like pipe dreams, but we have to start somewhere.

[keepFocused06]

13. Sadly I'm not so sure

Democrats have a nasty habit of being complacent and not voting. If we don't win in 2020 the game is over because these districts will remain gerrymandered. They will have a lock on congress, the house, and the supreme court for the next 10 to 20 years. These are dangerous times.

[bronxiteforever]

14. This is a bright and hopeful version of the future

that is in fact is possible. Repairing political norms across the democracies of the world will be a great task.
As pessimistic as I can get, and I can, it is nice to have a light shining in the cave to show a way out. That Louis c. is why this is an absolutely wonderful post!
Kick and recommend

[Mountain Mule]

15. I hope to God you're right nt

[TrogL]

16. If they get to vote

Something has to be done about gerrymandering and voter suppression.

[oasis]

17. Yup. GOP/conservative overreach. It's in their DNA.

They can't resist allowing the most morally twisted of the bunch to reach the higher ranks. Finally, their corruption, outright lies and deception, create a massive public outcry.

The take down of Nixon; the refusal to remove Bill Clinton from office; the decline of Newt Gingrich; the rise of Nancy Pelosi and Obama, are all examples of GOP/conservative overreach.

American Democracy has been proven the remedy for right wing overreach.

Trump is going down. Bigtime.

[bucolic_frolic]

18. Only if we can overcome the Bogeyman label

recall these guys can pray away anything and Fox News will light the candles

[SpankMe]

20. In other words - it'll get a lot worse before it gets better. Great! n/t

[louis c]

22. I'm afraid so.

We dropped the ball in 2016 and it will take a generation to climb out of that hole.

[jmbar2]

23. For every legal roadblock, there are workarounds if people work together

- Pre Roe v Wade, I volunteered at a small women's health clinic that helped women get the care they needed outside of the system. I have no doubt that similar organizations will form again, especially with the power of online fundraising and communications.

- Labor unions in the past could force companies to negotiate based on monopoly control over the local supply of skilled laborers. That model doesn't work in a globalized labor force-they can simply outsource production. But they cannot outsource their customer base as easily. Collectively, we still hold some power of the purchase, and the power to urge disinvestment in toxic industries.

- When laws are unjust, mass civil disobedience, nullification actions are justified.

The more oppressive they get, the more the resistance will arise. There's not enough of them to suppress creative workarounds while we work to evict them.

We can learn a lot from the civil rights movements about how to survive while we work to overthrow any oppressive measures they impose. The key is to act quickly, and not let the oppressive changes get institutionalized.

JMHO

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

27. Given that surveys show that people tend to favor

the liberal/progressive stand on many issues (choice, health care, job protections, and so on) a lot of thought needs to go into figuring out why so many vote so consistently against their own self interest.

Just some of the reasons:
They are persuaded by their religious leaders that what Democrats will do to them or their children is the greater evil.
They don't really believe that Republicans will take away hard earned rights.
They think that they will magically benefit from tax cuts for corporations and the very wealthiest. A corollary to that is that they do not understand how taxes work and what they pay for.
They honestly believe that a black or woman President (especially if that woman is Hillary Clinton) is an evil far, far worse than anything any Republican could possibly do.
They don't have a clue how things like foreign trade work or how tariffs can impact their jobs. Or how free trade can impact their jobs.

Most people just muddle along, going to work, sending their kids to school, watching TV in its many forms, playing video games, never reading a book or thinking about the causes of anything. None of that is going to change in our lifetimes. Indeed, it will only get worse.

A personal note here: I'm staying with my sister, and three of her grandchildren (ages 9, 5, and 2) stay here during the day (parents not married to each other, but share custody. Mom works day job, Dad, her son, works evening shift) and the kids do NOTHING all day long but watch TV. The father is completely unengaged, never talks to them, never takes them out for a work or to the nearby public swimming pool, never initiates a board game, nothing at all. Ninety percent of the time he's simply in his room. If he's down in the living room with them he's got his eyes on his cell phone and barely monitors squabbles. I'm appalled, but it's not my place to say anything. The kids would be vastly better off in a decent day care or in a camp program now that it's summer, but nope. I realize money would be an issue here. Meanwhile, the kids are learning absolutely nothing new and are forgetting whatever they might have learned this past school year. They are reasonably bright kids whose potential is simply not being developed because they're allowed to do nothing at all, all day long. And they're probably a pretty common example of how too many kids are growing up these days.

[7962]

36. You really hit it with that last paragraph.

too many parents just let the kids run their own show.
And most people only pay attention to elections at he last minute, if at all

[LonePirate]

29. DC Repubs are governing as if this their final chance to remake America in their image.

They are swinging for the fences. It’s not difficult to see why given how the Republican brand is dead among those under 30. If we can turn out the young vote this year, we can begin the dismantling of the current Republican grip on DC and the states.

[Pepsidog]

31. Yes and with anger should come retribution. Impeach Roberts and Gorsuch, no respect for precedent.

The republicans will pay a high price over time for their decisions. They will rue the day Mitch McConnel robbes Garland of a swat on the S.C. As more and more districts turn democratic, the norms that Trump and the rethugs have flouted will be restored by statute like requiring candidates to show their tax returns. As conservative evangelicals foist biblical teaching over constitutional theory the vast majority of the silent majority will awaken and become active. As Dems gain majorities in all branches of government we must insist on impeaching John Roberts and Gorsuch for lying during their confirmation hearing when they testified they respected legal precedents. Just look at the precedents they have ignored this far. I hope they overturn Roe vs Wade it will doom the Republican Party to obscurity. The American Taliban aka evangelicals will be outnumbered, outvoted and hopefully ostracized and segregated from the rest of us so that they may practice their barbaric religion on their own. I am so sick of the religious right and their high minded hypocrisy. I wish nothing but the worst for them.

[ancianita]

34. If the San Diego court's ruling to return children in 30 days is ignored, we'll see what teeth the

rule of law has in an environment that seems to value distrust, fear and force, over trust, good will and reason.

I can see a future when courts are ignored by government and there is no enforcement mechanism.

No matter how people vote, the return of democracy may end up being moot.