Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


(11,464 posts)
10. The second paragraph is a great point
Fri Jan 4, 2013, 05:49 AM
Jan 2013

a republican that would actually be able to win these states without playing games, would in essence lose the states because it would help the democrats

(much like every other "fix" the repubs have tried like term limits of presidents. It backfires on them.

One of the reasons the democrats did not rush to change things after the 2000 and 2004 elections when 2008 came.

And one of the reasons they are hesitant to change anything at all. Because it backfires at some point.

And the public is wiser now and with new social media, they are quick to pick things up and make an issue of it.
(Had for instance there been the social media in 2000, I am convinced the Tom DeLay goons who posed as regular citizens would have been outed and the recount continued
The meeting that led to the real info in the "supposed" fake memo would have had pictures from cell phones and if there was a set up(like it was said at the time that a republican trickster was posing as the person passing a memo on), he would instantly have been outed and they couldn't have screwed Rather.

I don't much like the theft scenerios anyhow. After 2012, President Obama won a major landslide, yet some were still floating the Rove story to delegitimize his major victory.

And even lets say they change some of the states-
well, the GREAT candidates would adjust their thinking and go to all the areas in a state and not just the big ones, so one could not even say, that had President Obama shook hands with thousands of people in every district that was red, or tossed those districts some pork, why wouldn't some of them vote with him instead of against him?

And again, with the demographic change, soon red areas will be blue anyhow, so as you said, the individual repubs will end up being the ones voted out of office.
And it will lead to a better house, and more governorships(assuming we stock each race and have backups for the future in all districts. Why is that so hard for democratic state leaders to do? (if a state has 250 positions, you mean to tell me there are not 500 people in each state fully qualified to run? And in this day of social media, why can't a separate message for funds be put out for each and every one of them?
It could be like an adopt a red state district pledge across the country.
Make fundraising nationally to use on a very local area.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Latest Effort to Fix ...»Reply #10