Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 203: We Met at Borders

(+) Yeah! (+)

538 and RCP now both have Ohio in the Dems favor. Florida has moved from toss up to lean democrat. Kansas, Georgia, and Nevada are all toss ups slightly in the republicans favor. Alaska is trending democratic (although still lean republican). South Dakota and Oklahoma are both competitive. The only bit of bad news at all for democrats is the Iowa race tightened significant in recent polling.

There is a real path forward where democrats lose 3 or 4 seats in the senate but gain 9 or 10 governor seats. I mean 9 or 10 is a bit of a fantasy still, but it isn't impossible! Dems could really hold governorships over 70% of the US population.

Senate still looks bad for Dems though. Very pessimistic on that.
---

There is absolutely no evidence Kavanaugh is an alcoholic. I mean, he very clearly drank a lot in high school/college, but that doesn't make someone an alcoholic.

It is also patently unfair to discredit Blasey-Ford out of hand because one crazy person that wasn't even brought up by any major news outlets or by the Senate judiciary committee is a pathological liar. False accusation can exist, and others still be true. One false one doesn't immediately discredit every other.
---

As a better analogy just because Ulti exists I don't think everyone from New Jersey is a total piece of shit.
---

Crossfiyah posted...

As a better analogy just because Ulti exists I don't think everyone from New Jersey is a total piece of shit.

Well, no, that was common knowledge before Ulti was a thing anyway.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Dems could really hold governorships over 70% of the US population.

I really wish people would stop touting the population percentage each party governs over like it means something. In almost every way that matters under the current constitution, the amount of people you govern is irrelevant; what matters is how many states a party governs.
---

Not_an_Owl posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

Dems could really hold governorships over 70% of the US population.

I really wish people would stop touting the population percentage each party governs over like it means something. In almost every way that matters under the current constitution, the amount of people you govern is irrelevant; what matters is how many states a party governs.

Which is the dumbest thing ever.
---

I mean it means quite a bit, particularly at the local level. Governors have a ton of power. I wasn't talking about federal influence, obviously, and I don't know where you got that from. Sorry you disagree!
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

538 and RCP now both have Ohio in the Dems favor. Florida has moved from toss up to lean democrat. Kansas, Georgia, and Nevada are all toss ups slightly in the republicans favor. Alaska is trending democratic (although still lean republican). South Dakota and Oklahoma are both competitive. The only bit of bad news at all for democrats is the Iowa race tightened significant in recent polling.

There is a real path forward where democrats lose 3 or 4 seats in the senate but gain 9 or 10 governor seats. I mean 9 or 10 is a bit of a fantasy still, but it isn't impossible! Dems could really hold governorships over 70% of the US population.

Senate still looks bad for Dems though. Very pessimistic on that.

How many years is a term for governors?
---

4
---

Except for New Hampshire and Vermont!

Theirs is every two years. A weird thing I found out only like a month ago.
---

I just hope we can finally be rid of scott walker

What a worthless politician
---

pxlated posted...

I just hope we can finally be rid of scott walker

What a worthless politician

Amen. I am not really a fan of Evers but he sure is the better option.
---

Not_an_Owl posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

Dems could really hold governorships over 70% of the US population.

I really wish people would stop touting the population percentage each party governs over like it means something. In almost every way that matters under the current constitution, the amount of people you govern is irrelevant; what matters is how many states a party governs.

Why the fuck would you treat the governor of Wyoming the same as the governor of California or Texas?
---

TheRock1525 posted...

Not_an_Owl posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

Dems could really hold governorships over 70% of the US population.

I really wish people would stop touting the population percentage each party governs over like it means something. In almost every way that matters under the current constitution, the amount of people you govern is irrelevant; what matters is how many states a party governs.

Why the fuck would you treat the governor of Wyoming the same as the governor of California or Texas?

Same reason each senator only gets one vote.
---

What is wrong with Evers?

I admittedly don't know a ton about him outside of the "not Scott Walker" factor, but that alone makes him one of my most desired flips.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

Not_an_Owl posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

Dems could really hold governorships over 70% of the US population.

I really wish people would stop touting the population percentage each party governs over like it means something. In almost every way that matters under the current constitution, the amount of people you govern is irrelevant; what matters is how many states a party governs.

Why the fuck would you treat the governor of Wyoming the same as the governor of California or Texas?

Because on an individual level, yes, it's great that more people are being covered by Democratic governors. But on a national level, governorships work like the senate in that all that matters is the number of geographic boundaries covered. So even if 70% of the population is governed by Democrats, that doesn't mean shit (in terms of constitutional amendments to fix the blatant loopholes used to rig the system for Republicans) unless 67% of the STATES are governed by Democrats.
---

They do a ton more than constitutional amendments. That's like one of the last things I would be considering!

Like, if you could pick one race for the democrats to win (and they'd lose the other) would you want a senator from Wyoming or Ohio (assuming you didn't live in either state)? Doesn't matter. A governor from Ohio or Wyoming? I bet you'd have an opinion on that one.
---

I'm confused by what your post is saying.
---

Like who is even considering constitutional amendments at this point? That's such an insane, arduous process that states would have to ratify independent of governors. It'll never happen again.
---

I'm saying governors matter, and it isn't really debatable if a governor from California is more important than a governor from Wyoming. They have influence over their entire state, and do a lot to shape local politics.

They matter. It is good to represent more of the population, and not even just in terms of legislation they can affect in that state.
---

I guess I'm confused why you went with the constitutional amendment route. Like, if I was to rank important things governors do or influence, their role on constitutional amendments is like not even in the top 400. They have little role in the process, compared to the bigger picture, and because of the partisan nature of the country, it will never, ever, ever happen again. Ever.

We need to win federal elections to fix that. Governors, on the other hand, can ABSOLUTELY help in gerrymandering or redistricting. And, oh look, the next map is set to happen in 2021 when all these people will still be in office. Remember when republicans took over in 2010 and completely redrew a bunch of maps?

You want democratic governors in big, swing states. Right now.
---

You're right. I forgot about state-to-state gerrymandering.
---

Here is a list of the important election dates for individuals in charge of redistricting. The biggest chunk of governors is being elected RIGHT NOW.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/redistricting/election-dates-for-legislators-governors-who-will-do-redistricting.aspx
---

Yeah I mean Democrats have been working overtime to win back state-level congresses and governorships precisely for the 2020 census.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

Not_an_Owl posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

Dems could really hold governorships over 70% of the US population.

I really wish people would stop touting the population percentage each party governs over like it means something. In almost every way that matters under the current constitution, the amount of people you govern is irrelevant; what matters is how many states a party governs.

Why the fuck would you treat the governor of Wyoming the same as the governor of California or Texas?

Why wouldn't you...
---

Frankly they aren't as important.

The mayor of New York City is more important than literally anyone involved in anything in Wyoming on any level.

Probably more important than anyone that's ever even been to Wyoming.
---

Crossfiyah posted...

Frankly they aren't as important.

The mayor of New York City is more important than literally anyone involved in anything in Wyoming on any level.

Probably more important than anyone that's ever even been to Wyoming.

I just can't...
---

I think democratic policies are good for people. You don't, and that's fine. Reasonable people can disagree.

Wining the governorship of Ohio is more important to me than winning the governorship of South Dakota this cycle for a bunch of different reasons. One of which is we have a republican president and a republican senate going forward, 100%. Democratic leadership in states can help offset and correct things done at the federal level. Ohio has more people that can be affected by democratic policies, so its a pure numbers thing to me.

Plus, with redistricting coming up, a democratic governor of Ohio can definitely help by vetoing any unfair maps that are drawn up. The governor of South Dakota has one map. It just says "South Dakota".
---

Corrik posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

Not_an_Owl posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

Dems could really hold governorships over 70% of the US population.

I really wish people would stop touting the population percentage each party governs over like it means something. In almost every way that matters under the current constitution, the amount of people you govern is irrelevant; what matters is how many states a party governs.

Why the fuck would you treat the governor of Wyoming the same as the governor of California or Texas?

Why wouldn't you...

As I misunderstood and Suprak clarified for me: Wyoming as a state has a single district. In terms of elections, it doesn't matter whether the governor is Republican or Democrat because there's no means for gerrymandering to create a partisan advantage in the state. But in states like Texas, New York, California, Florida, etc., holding the governor's mansion means that party will control redistricting based on the 2020 census. This is what the Republicans did in 2010 to hack the country to give themselves a partisan advantage in the House despite having a minority of the population (or, even if they managed a majority of the votes, they created a situation where the percentage of seats gained was greater than the percentage of votes received.)
---

Yeah I mean frankly if Wyoming and South Dakota want to run themselves into the ground nobody can stop them.

But states like Ohio, Florida, etc.. have enough people that don't want to live in a Mad Max Fury Road style wasteland that it's worth caring who's running them.
---

Inviso posted...

Corrik posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

Not_an_Owl posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

Dems could really hold governorships over 70% of the US population.

I really wish people would stop touting the population percentage each party governs over like it means something. In almost every way that matters under the current constitution, the amount of people you govern is irrelevant; what matters is how many states a party governs.

Why the fuck would you treat the governor of Wyoming the same as the governor of California or Texas?

Why wouldn't you...

As I misunderstood and Suprak clarified for me: Wyoming as a state has a single district. In terms of elections, it doesn't matter whether the governor is Republican or Democrat because there's no means for gerrymandering to create a partisan advantage in the state. But in states like Texas, New York, California, Florida, etc., holding the governor's mansion means that party will control redistricting based on the 2020 census. This is what the Republicans did in 2010 to hack the country to give themselves a partisan advantage in the House despite having a minority of the population (or, even if they managed a majority of the votes, they created a situation where the percentage of seats gained was greater than the percentage of votes received.)

I am at such a loss that I just think it is better to drop it before I start pulling out a bunch of contradictions and shit and ranting.

People sitting here acting like governors just do 1 thing and governors of states are inconsequential and lesser than other states.

I just can't. Okay.
---

Corrik posted...

Inviso posted...

Corrik posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

Not_an_Owl posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

Dems could really hold governorships over 70% of the US population.

I really wish people would stop touting the population percentage each party governs over like it means something. In almost every way that matters under the current constitution, the amount of people you govern is irrelevant; what matters is how many states a party governs.

Why the fuck would you treat the governor of Wyoming the same as the governor of California or Texas?

Why wouldn't you...

As I misunderstood and Suprak clarified for me: Wyoming as a state has a single district. In terms of elections, it doesn't matter whether the governor is Republican or Democrat because there's no means for gerrymandering to create a partisan advantage in the state. But in states like Texas, New York, California, Florida, etc., holding the governor's mansion means that party will control redistricting based on the 2020 census. This is what the Republicans did in 2010 to hack the country to give themselves a partisan advantage in the House despite having a minority of the population (or, even if they managed a majority of the votes, they created a situation where the percentage of seats gained was greater than the percentage of votes received.)

I am at such a loss that I just think it is better to drop it before I start pulling out a bunch of contradictions and shit and ranting.

People sitting here acting like governors just do 1 thing and governors of states are inconsequential and lesser than other states.

I just can't. Okay.

The other option is that you're claiming someone making decisions that affect 700,000 people is just as important as someone making decisions that affect 59,000,000 people...which is laughable.
---

I guess the president of the United States isn't as important as the leaders of China and India. It would be laughable to think so.
---

Corrik posted...

I guess the president of the United States isn't as important as the leaders of China and India. It would be laughable to think so.

I guess Wyoming's economy and military is as powerful as California's...oh wait.
---

Inviso posted...

Corrik posted...

I guess the president of the United States isn't as important as the leaders of China and India. It would be laughable to think so.

I guess Wyoming's economy and military is as powerful as California's...oh wait.

Keep moving the criteria around over and over as needed til you find where you want to be. I guess the governor of California is more important than the leader of Canada.

The leader of Pakistan is more important than the leader of Saudi Arabia.

This is just idiotic. And you know it is. Which is why I said I can't even. Good night.
---

Crossfiyah posted...

Frankly they aren't as important.

The mayor of New York City is more important than literally anyone involved in anything in Wyoming on any level.

Probably more important than anyone that's ever even been to Wyoming.

Poor Obama.

http://kingfm.com/presidents-who-have-visited-wyoming/

Such an ignorant comment. I love it.
---

You're the one making the asinine statement that the leader of Wyoming is of equal importance to the leader of California. Let's flip your logic around. Would you say that, on a global scale, that the president of the United States is of equal importance to the President of Nauru?
---

Hey Corrik said good night how about you let him go the fuck to sleep and maybe he'll drop it.
---

Corrik posted...

I guess the president of the United States isn't as important as the leaders of China and India. It would be laughable to think so.

I would say Chinas leader is more important, Indias leader less
---

Inviso posted...

Corrik posted...

Inviso posted...

Corrik posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

Not_an_Owl posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

Dems could really hold governorships over 70% of the US population.

I really wish people would stop touting the population percentage each party governs over like it means something. In almost every way that matters under the current constitution, the amount of people you govern is irrelevant; what matters is how many states a party governs.

Why the fuck would you treat the governor of Wyoming the same as the governor of California or Texas?

Why wouldn't you...

As I misunderstood and Suprak clarified for me: Wyoming as a state has a single district. In terms of elections, it doesn't matter whether the governor is Republican or Democrat because there's no means for gerrymandering to create a partisan advantage in the state. But in states like Texas, New York, California, Florida, etc., holding the governor's mansion means that party will control redistricting based on the 2020 census. This is what the Republicans did in 2010 to hack the country to give themselves a partisan advantage in the House despite having a minority of the population (or, even if they managed a majority of the votes, they created a situation where the percentage of seats gained was greater than the percentage of votes received.)

I am at such a loss that I just think it is better to drop it before I start pulling out a bunch of contradictions and shit and ranting.

People sitting here acting like governors just do 1 thing and governors of states are inconsequential and lesser than other states.

I just can't. Okay.

The other option is that you're claiming someone making decisions that affect 700,000 people is just as important as someone making decisions that affect 59,000,000 people...which is laughable.

What is it with people and their wrong targetting of objections to Corrik?

The actual issue here is that his logic applies to the one part he outright rejected of Governor's doing just one thing. When you expand to all the other shit they do is WHEN a Governor's state population comes into account.
---

SupremeZero posted...

What is it with people and their responding to Corrik?

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

What is wrong with Evers?

I admittedly don't know a ton about him outside of the "not Scott Walker" factor, but that alone makes him one of my most desired flips.

Don't get me wrong, I want him to win and already early voted for him.

My husband is a teacher and Evers was the state superintendent and he implemented a system that administrators could use as an excuse to cut teacher pay. He is more pro teachers than Walker but still sided with administrators over them.
---

TotallyNotMI posted...

SupremeZero posted...

What is it with people and their responding to Corrik?

lol
---

I never got my absentee ballot before I left for Florida.

Voter suppression!
---

Crossfiyah posted...

Frankly they aren't as important.

The mayor of New York City is more important than literally anyone involved in anything in Wyoming on any level.

Probably more important than anyone that's ever even been to Wyoming.

1.Dick Cheney was arguably pretty fucking important
2. Jackson Hole is a pretty bog standard rich guy retreat which includes bunch of national politicians.
---

Eddv posted...

Crossfiyah posted...

Frankly they aren't as important.

The mayor of New York City is more important than literally anyone involved in anything in Wyoming on any level.

Probably more important than anyone that's ever even been to Wyoming.

1.Dick Cheney was arguably pretty fucking important
2. Jackson Hole is a pretty bog standard rich guy retreat which includes bunch of national politicians.

Dick Cheney's from Wyoming?

SUDDENLY EVERYTHING MAKES SENSE
---

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/11/04/politics/sonny-perdue-cotton-pickin-florida-governor-andrew-gillum-ron-desantis/index.html

Theyre trolling at this point, right?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/11/04/politics/sonny-perdue-cotton-pickin-florida-governor-andrew-gillum-ron-desantis/index.html

Theyre trolling at this point, right?

It was/is a common phrase in the south.

https://www.westernjournal.com/wc/sports-announcer-who-said-cotton-picking-mind-is-out-of-his-job/

https://www.bustle.com/articles/118386-5-racist-english-phrases-with-a-seriously-awful-history

5. "Cotton-Picking"

The phrase "are you out of your cotton-picking mind?" seems to have a serious racial overtone, particularly against black slaves in the Southern United States, who were the pickers of cotton for much of American history. Cotton-picking is usually used as a stand-in for "damn," to make it more socially acceptable than swearing (ironically enough). If you're not from the South, you may have heard the adjective "cotton-picking" for the first time from a Bugs Bunny cartoon from 1952.

Linguist Gary Martin over at The Phrase Finder has found that "cotton-picking" is actually a pretty old term, dating back to the first European cotton plantations in the 1700s, but that it only really showed up as an adjective in the 1940s. And in the examples he found, it referred to Southerners in general, not just blacks. But as a massive debate over the use of the phrase in Canadian parliament in 2011 shows, many still believe that to ask somebody to "wait just a cotton-picking minute" is to make a derogatory link between a slave occupation and a modern expression of frustration. Obviously, it's not difficult to see why.

There's yet another variety on the phrase: To call somebody a "cotton-picker" is undeniably, completely racist.

https://www.chron.com/neighborhood/article/Dobie-s-new-football-coach-a-Cotton-pickin-9601021.php

"Julia Reed, author, Newsweek contributing editor and certified southerner, used a rather antiquated swear-word substitute on CNNs "Anderson Cooper 360" last night that has got some people calling for her head.

If he thinks that some guys on the rigs are the only people that will be affected by a six-month oil moratorium, hes out of his cotton-picking mind, she said."

Legendary television and radio host Larry King weighed in on the controversy surrounding NBA commentator Brian Davis, and his statement made about Russell Westbrook being out of his cotton-pickin mind.

The avid sports fan spoke to TMZ about the report, saying that he would take the comments as a compliment, as Davis was likely referring to the point guards unreal skills on the court.

That statements been around forever, King said outside of Craigs in West Hollywood, Calif.. Cotton-picking mind was probably an adjective, he got a triple-double againRussell Westbrook is an incredible player, and I would take it as a compliment.

If people were offended, Im sorry, but that statements been around foreverThats like saying Youre crazy,' he continued. What about people with mental health problems? So, if you say to someone youre crazy, youre offending every mental health patient in America. Right? But you dont think of that.

Basically, the term doesn't originate as racist. There became a dixieland usage of it in the middle 1900s which was used in a racist way.

Some people may have been taught it as the not racist way, but it is peculiar you see it mostly only being brought up many times in usage in regards to African-Americans. That said, it might just not make headlines when used elsewise.

Probably best to let that phrase die however.
---

I am going to for the first time ever agree with Corrik. The phrase is very casually used all over the place and is not malicious, while at the same time has obvious implications when thought about and shouldn't be used anymore. One of those things where it's so commonly used by people that it would never even cross their mind it was racist until someone pointed it out.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Senate still looks bad for Dems though. Very pessimistic on that

Would also just like to point out that Entens current projection of 52GOP majority in the Senate would have been considered wildly optimistic in 2016.

It May not be a proper majority but that would represent holding serve in an incredible way.
---