The DCCC and the DNC will get $0 from me this election cycle. Whatever I donate will go directly to candidates I believe in, or to groups pushing for younger candidates who intend to change the corrupt system running this country.
The real culprit had been and remains the 2019 Rucho v Common Cause Supreme Court decision which allowed unconstrained partisan gerrymandering. Partisan gerrymandering is a profoundly undemocratic practice which deprives all voters, of all races, of real choice, and also runs contrary to the clear intentions of the Founders. If partisan gerrymandering had been disallowed, racial gerrymandering would have become completely unnecessary. As it is, the latest Supreme Court decision made a bad situation even worse. In particular, in effect it disallowed “packing” of minority voters but allowed “cracking” of geographically compact populations of minority voters if the latter is done ostensibly on partisan gerrymandering grounds. But apart from being generally undemocratic, such “cracking” practices are clearly discriminatory. Ultimately these issues require a constitutional amendment or, better yet, a new Constitution, and I would like to see a public discussion moving in that direction.
The divide in the Dem party about what constitutes a good candidate, what policies and messaging are appropriate, across all media, relentlessly, is the difference between the old guard, Schumer and Jeffries, and the fresh blood standing for the midterm election, or making their bones in the House and Senate. The Dem party will continue to be tepid and unresponsive as long as those two remain in leadership. Also, get the hell rid of Ken Martin and bring a fighter who is a uniter and a leader, who doesn't shy away from a brawl. Please. I'm begging you Dems.
If I'm not mistaken, Trump's appalling first term behavior did result in a massive blue wave in the midterms of 2018. This time, people may be even more incensed. At the blatant attempts to curb their voting power. And that anger well may overwhelm a variety of suppressive efforts to "win" by the party that can't pose a winning appeal on the merits. And must resort to denying its opposition a free and fair opportunity to vote. Basically cheating, for all intents and purposes.
Donna Brazile proves herself just another hack. Now that she's just another flak (on Bill Maher's sinking show) she's lost any credibility she may have had in Obama administration. Talk to someone other than yesterday's big talkers. Fresh ideas needed fast.
Hey there are many of us white voters too who are appalled at this step back toward Jim Crow. We are in tune with the Black voters who are upset about this and hopefully more of us will also be galvanized to get out and vote. And I don’t think it is just us old white ladies - my son and many of his friends are likewise inclined. Don’t underestimate the young - black and white!
For 160 years Blacks in America have been in a dedicated fight to receive equal rights after slavery was ended in our country. They had minimal progress until the civil rights era of the late 1950s and 1960s when major gains were realized. Then in the last few years the racist Roberts court yanked those protections away with a goal of enacting Jim Crow 2.0.
Then this part of the article: "Belcher [said]: '[t]here’s tremendous potential here: a different kind of turnout and participation if messaged correctly.'”
How about this messaging for young Black voters?
"The Republicans are making sure you have fewer rights than your parents and grandparents had."
• Fewer rights for job protection especially with government employment and in the military
• Fewer voting rights as the Republicans want to strip your right to cast a ballot
• Fewer rights to have affordable healthcare, especially reproductive healthcare
• Fewer rights to be able to love the person you want and have equal protections under the law
• Fewer rights to be the person you are and have equal protections under the law
• Fewer rights to be protected from corporate polluters poisoning the air & water in Black areas
• Fewer rights to receive the government assistance and benefits which they are entitled to get
Maybe a list like this might get young Black voters motivated.
How folks can be "politically dis-engaged" when a party in power is literally dedicted to stripping away their God-given rights is beyond me. I get it; life is hard and there are other priorities, but if you can't stand up to defend your rights, someone is going to enhance their power by stripping away yours.
This is such a good example to me of why it's silly to have too much party allegiance. In one lifetime, a party can go from radical segregationist Jim Crow supporters led by Klan members (I know this wasn't true of all Democrats, but it was true in the South!) to trying to drive black turnout nationwide to help ensure black representation. And we expect people to belong to the same party their whole lives?
It's not really party allegiance that's at issue. The southern party was more Dixiecrats than Democrats and they were a constant thorn in the side of the northern party. They stayed as nominal Democrats because of the long resentment against Republicans for having a Republican president beating them in the Civil War and the Republicans ruling over them during Reconstruction.
That grudge lasted nearly a hundred years until LBJ's civil rights laws, and then the emergence of Lee Atwater, Richard Nixon among others with the Southern Strategy. This Republican party welcomed the racist southerners in with open arms. It seems like the parties changed instead of the people changing, and it seems like it's the racist South which has been the major driver.
1000%. The grand switcheroo took ~ 100+ years, after Lincoln "betrayed" his party. The animating energy was, and remains pure and simple, racism. Which party was more tied to this "principle", and all that it implies for its adherents. There is no mystery as to for whom and why the parties divided, in the 150 years following the great war. Into where we still are today. Which in this era of the Trump GOP, is not plausibly deniable. I'm sorry.
Yes to all of this--with the caveat that in general the Republican party was better on civil rights than the Democrats until roughly the 70s. (Though "better than the Democrats" doesn't necessarily mean "good.") Maybe that's not true if you compare the Republicans just to Northern Democrats.
One thing that's always amazed me is how long it took many in the South to switch parties AFTER LBJ's presidency and the Southern Strategy and all that. Decades, in many cases.
I think there a dynamic where, because Republicans have made some piddly and frankly over-hyped gains with black voters, they decided that they no longer needed to worry about activating them as a hostile voting bloc. Seems questionable.
If John Roberts were to read this, he's probably delusional enough that he would think to himself, " You're welcome"-- the "Republican attack on black rights and representation unleashed by the Supreme Court will powerfully energize their base this midterm cycle".
Lauren, Thanks for the reporting on this critical topic. Actually, there is only one fundamental question that needs to be answered if people will just open up their eyes and ears and pay attention. The current regime has as its guiding principles, an America that is white and controlled by the wealthy. The Democratic Party has never been a party to this. The choice for voting for all people of color could not be any easier, if they have to be persuaded or convinced at this moment, then we are in bigger trouble than I thought, and I think we are in grave danger.
In my 50+ years on this planet and being from the south, one thing is definitely persistent.....most people know what we have been through better than us, and most people know what is best for us. The article spoke about motivations which were on point. Many of the comments OTOH......lol, let me be quiet and go back to watching the Earth Wind and Fire documentary.
Oh yes, voter anger. Gonna go get us some of that.
The SCOTUS is purpose-built to be backlash-proof. Terms for life and no citizen vote meant they were completely untouchable, so we've told ourselves over these years. I think we will now test that hypothesis.
The race in California where the DCCC entered into a primary is why I ,as a small donor of a couple thousand for candidates do not donate to party committees until after all the primaries are done. I only donate to candidates until the last primary is over. I do not and my guess is other donors do not donate to party committees because we do not want our money being used against other Dem candidates. Only in a rare instant like in the Texas race for Congress where one candidate in the primary was anti-simetic is party action justified (not counting incumbents, of course).
I understand that Democratic Paty people will never stop trying to tweek their messages to target this or that nebulous demographic, but they have got to change their way of thinking and just go with what they know is the right message: Gerrymandering is corrupt, Republicans want to make it more difficult for you to vote, they want to annihilate your ability to have a seat in the government and represent your community, and we will fight to end gerrymandering, for more fair districting practices, and we want to ensure a future in which you get to go to the polls with pride instead of anger. We want to ensure a future in which all individuals and communities are fairly, equally, and more consistently reopesented in our government. And here's how we plan to do it....
The DCCC and the DNC will get $0 from me this election cycle. Whatever I donate will go directly to candidates I believe in, or to groups pushing for younger candidates who intend to change the corrupt system running this country.
The real culprit had been and remains the 2019 Rucho v Common Cause Supreme Court decision which allowed unconstrained partisan gerrymandering. Partisan gerrymandering is a profoundly undemocratic practice which deprives all voters, of all races, of real choice, and also runs contrary to the clear intentions of the Founders. If partisan gerrymandering had been disallowed, racial gerrymandering would have become completely unnecessary. As it is, the latest Supreme Court decision made a bad situation even worse. In particular, in effect it disallowed “packing” of minority voters but allowed “cracking” of geographically compact populations of minority voters if the latter is done ostensibly on partisan gerrymandering grounds. But apart from being generally undemocratic, such “cracking” practices are clearly discriminatory. Ultimately these issues require a constitutional amendment or, better yet, a new Constitution, and I would like to see a public discussion moving in that direction.
The divide in the Dem party about what constitutes a good candidate, what policies and messaging are appropriate, across all media, relentlessly, is the difference between the old guard, Schumer and Jeffries, and the fresh blood standing for the midterm election, or making their bones in the House and Senate. The Dem party will continue to be tepid and unresponsive as long as those two remain in leadership. Also, get the hell rid of Ken Martin and bring a fighter who is a uniter and a leader, who doesn't shy away from a brawl. Please. I'm begging you Dems.
If I'm not mistaken, Trump's appalling first term behavior did result in a massive blue wave in the midterms of 2018. This time, people may be even more incensed. At the blatant attempts to curb their voting power. And that anger well may overwhelm a variety of suppressive efforts to "win" by the party that can't pose a winning appeal on the merits. And must resort to denying its opposition a free and fair opportunity to vote. Basically cheating, for all intents and purposes.
Donna Brazile proves herself just another hack. Now that she's just another flak (on Bill Maher's sinking show) she's lost any credibility she may have had in Obama administration. Talk to someone other than yesterday's big talkers. Fresh ideas needed fast.
Hey there are many of us white voters too who are appalled at this step back toward Jim Crow. We are in tune with the Black voters who are upset about this and hopefully more of us will also be galvanized to get out and vote. And I don’t think it is just us old white ladies - my son and many of his friends are likewise inclined. Don’t underestimate the young - black and white!
For 160 years Blacks in America have been in a dedicated fight to receive equal rights after slavery was ended in our country. They had minimal progress until the civil rights era of the late 1950s and 1960s when major gains were realized. Then in the last few years the racist Roberts court yanked those protections away with a goal of enacting Jim Crow 2.0.
Then this part of the article: "Belcher [said]: '[t]here’s tremendous potential here: a different kind of turnout and participation if messaged correctly.'”
How about this messaging for young Black voters?
"The Republicans are making sure you have fewer rights than your parents and grandparents had."
• Fewer rights for job protection especially with government employment and in the military
• Fewer voting rights as the Republicans want to strip your right to cast a ballot
• Fewer rights to have affordable healthcare, especially reproductive healthcare
• Fewer rights to be able to love the person you want and have equal protections under the law
• Fewer rights to be the person you are and have equal protections under the law
• Fewer rights to be protected from corporate polluters poisoning the air & water in Black areas
• Fewer rights to receive the government assistance and benefits which they are entitled to get
Maybe a list like this might get young Black voters motivated.
How folks can be "politically dis-engaged" when a party in power is literally dedicted to stripping away their God-given rights is beyond me. I get it; life is hard and there are other priorities, but if you can't stand up to defend your rights, someone is going to enhance their power by stripping away yours.
This is such a good example to me of why it's silly to have too much party allegiance. In one lifetime, a party can go from radical segregationist Jim Crow supporters led by Klan members (I know this wasn't true of all Democrats, but it was true in the South!) to trying to drive black turnout nationwide to help ensure black representation. And we expect people to belong to the same party their whole lives?
It's not really party allegiance that's at issue. The southern party was more Dixiecrats than Democrats and they were a constant thorn in the side of the northern party. They stayed as nominal Democrats because of the long resentment against Republicans for having a Republican president beating them in the Civil War and the Republicans ruling over them during Reconstruction.
That grudge lasted nearly a hundred years until LBJ's civil rights laws, and then the emergence of Lee Atwater, Richard Nixon among others with the Southern Strategy. This Republican party welcomed the racist southerners in with open arms. It seems like the parties changed instead of the people changing, and it seems like it's the racist South which has been the major driver.
1000%. The grand switcheroo took ~ 100+ years, after Lincoln "betrayed" his party. The animating energy was, and remains pure and simple, racism. Which party was more tied to this "principle", and all that it implies for its adherents. There is no mystery as to for whom and why the parties divided, in the 150 years following the great war. Into where we still are today. Which in this era of the Trump GOP, is not plausibly deniable. I'm sorry.
Yes to all of this--with the caveat that in general the Republican party was better on civil rights than the Democrats until roughly the 70s. (Though "better than the Democrats" doesn't necessarily mean "good.") Maybe that's not true if you compare the Republicans just to Northern Democrats.
One thing that's always amazed me is how long it took many in the South to switch parties AFTER LBJ's presidency and the Southern Strategy and all that. Decades, in many cases.
I think there a dynamic where, because Republicans have made some piddly and frankly over-hyped gains with black voters, they decided that they no longer needed to worry about activating them as a hostile voting bloc. Seems questionable.
If John Roberts were to read this, he's probably delusional enough that he would think to himself, " You're welcome"-- the "Republican attack on black rights and representation unleashed by the Supreme Court will powerfully energize their base this midterm cycle".
Lauren, Thanks for the reporting on this critical topic. Actually, there is only one fundamental question that needs to be answered if people will just open up their eyes and ears and pay attention. The current regime has as its guiding principles, an America that is white and controlled by the wealthy. The Democratic Party has never been a party to this. The choice for voting for all people of color could not be any easier, if they have to be persuaded or convinced at this moment, then we are in bigger trouble than I thought, and I think we are in grave danger.
In my 50+ years on this planet and being from the south, one thing is definitely persistent.....most people know what we have been through better than us, and most people know what is best for us. The article spoke about motivations which were on point. Many of the comments OTOH......lol, let me be quiet and go back to watching the Earth Wind and Fire documentary.
Oh yes, voter anger. Gonna go get us some of that.
The SCOTUS is purpose-built to be backlash-proof. Terms for life and no citizen vote meant they were completely untouchable, so we've told ourselves over these years. I think we will now test that hypothesis.
The race in California where the DCCC entered into a primary is why I ,as a small donor of a couple thousand for candidates do not donate to party committees until after all the primaries are done. I only donate to candidates until the last primary is over. I do not and my guess is other donors do not donate to party committees because we do not want our money being used against other Dem candidates. Only in a rare instant like in the Texas race for Congress where one candidate in the primary was anti-simetic is party action justified (not counting incumbents, of course).
I understand that Democratic Paty people will never stop trying to tweek their messages to target this or that nebulous demographic, but they have got to change their way of thinking and just go with what they know is the right message: Gerrymandering is corrupt, Republicans want to make it more difficult for you to vote, they want to annihilate your ability to have a seat in the government and represent your community, and we will fight to end gerrymandering, for more fair districting practices, and we want to ensure a future in which you get to go to the polls with pride instead of anger. We want to ensure a future in which all individuals and communities are fairly, equally, and more consistently reopesented in our government. And here's how we plan to do it....