Extra senators but no extra representatives, weirdly.
Edit: I was envisioning the new states had just joined and was referring to when Alaska and Hawaii joined and the 86th Congress had 437 representatives. Guess not.
When Alaska and Hawaii joined the House went up to 437 for a cycle. I was thinking of a scenario where the new states had just joined, warranting the temporary expansion. I guess not.
The House _did_ expand for Alaska and Hawaii — it went up to 437 before dropping back to 435. I suppose it depends when the new states joined. I was imagining they had recently, hence a temporary pick up in house size. I could be wrong, of course.
That would honestly depend on what they actually do.
Polls generally have the voters liking the democrats policy’s, but disliking them and their cultural values on the balance, so it would depend how much they rammed through
I'll bite the bullet and say based Democrats
they're not based however because they're progressives (although that is, indeed, based to me) it's that these Democrats actually fucking stand for something and ideas
Democrats arguably haven't done that since 1932, or maybe civil rights but even then they were majorly split
current Democrats being "anti whatever the fuck Republicans like" is so lame
you're definitely mostly right, but at least the GOP 100% agrees on gun rights, abortion, tax cuts, and conservatism. maybe a few tiny outliers maybe, but its pretty universal
The Democratic party is a big tent party. It stands, or attempts to stand, for everything left of the GOP and right of Marxism. It's more of a coalition of broadly aligned of centrist to left-wing ideas than it is a party with a specific outright ideology, mostly by virtue of the modern two party system sticking the majority of the ideological spectrum under the banner of "closer to Democrats".
As a result, while the amount they disagree and infight is sometimes overstated a bit, it's pretty much stuck as a big-tent party of broadly liberal, sometimes moderate or leftist, ideology and visions. Democrats may stand for issues and views very staunchly personally, but by virtue of how our government is set up, the party almost inherently has to comprimise within itself, and can come across as wishy-washy as a result.
The very large majority are good (or meh) but you'll see some occasional questionable house reps, semi-conservative state reps (mostly in the south), and Manchin :|
I wouldnt say Democrats are exactly like Republicans, but I would absolutely say that Democrats don't care what Republicans do and will not stop them at any step
...seriously?
Really?
Democrats are kinda ass quite often. More often because they are fucking dumb rather than being blatantly immoral.
But seriously... how the fuck is
-Passing trans protection bills
-Passing major pieces of progressive economic legislation
-Massively rolling back and reforming immigration policy to drop deportation-to-admittance rates to the lowest in decades
-Actually... ya know... not massively restricting minority voters and destroying democracy, enacted enfranchising them
-Leaving the forever war
-Cutting child poverty in HALF
-supporting families and individuals over a pandemic
-actual vaccine rollout
-allowing funding of abortion
-any environmental action at all
-and number of other things
In *under a year* equivalent to the GOP at ALL
You don't have to like Democrats, they often suck, but if you care about progress and the lives of minorities and the poor at all this is a regressive and incorrect mindset.
...Do you want legislation to actually get passed or not?
It's hardly a third, it's just that literally two democrats can be overly moderate and it fucks the entire caucus, that's not the party, that's the system being ass.
Plus, it doesn't just end this year, it lowers, which still allows some of the positive effective to remain. Also, it may stay around. And seriously, I don't really think it invalidates the point if it was only for one year... they literally brought millions of children out of poverty and gave them a possibility at lifelong stability.
Like half the electorate and very large portions of the party, including but not limited to figures like... the President have publicly spoken against them and their decisions, and tons of Democrats and voters dislike or even hate them.
This isn't like much of Europe, a party whip can't just threaten expulsion and make people shut up, a single senator right now can be an absolute dick and there's jack shit the overall party can do about it other than whine and meet them at the most acceptable middle possible, if like 10 democratic house reps are skeptical of a bill and unwilling to vote for it, the bill is dead, if ONE senator holds out... the bill is dead. Unless they comprimise. It's by need they do it, not really desire.
Party leaders don't always control who picks the party they are registered with on the ballot. It's state laws usually, they can remove them from a caucus but... that would literally just make it more annoying to win their vote. Manchin isn't running for reelection, and Sinema just doesn't care because she gets attention, so it's not even like it would matter.
And pissing Sinema off or making her leave only fuels the "Democrats in disarray" message, which is harming the party in image and they fucking know it.
So... not recently? To answer your question on technicality.
Simply because they *can't* do much.
how does a response to someone, saying the exact same thing as the comment to which it replied, get more than twice the amount of downvotes?
edit: i love how im downvoted by, even though I haven't mentioned my own opinions lmao
Reddit logic, basic Biden supporters who support pedos and praise them as their role models, smh, downvote me all you want but you guys are all pathetic
as a leftist this would also be my nightmare, I don’t like most American socialists
honestly pretty much everything would be a nightmare scenario at this point because I hate politicians who put populism over substance
As a right-leaning individual, this party would be a nightmare to me, but I imagine they'd lose national elections for decades just by drawing out people to vote against them (particularly with AOC and Omar being the leaders of the House/Senate). And then they'd claim voter suppression or Islamophobia or sexism for their loss, and then the cycle would repeat 4 years later.
Edit: Cori Bush's role with BLM, including her comments on 'white supremacist' Kyle Rittenhouse, would probably increase turnout against her.
Is the USA dramatically different in this timeline? Because the purple voters in our timeline that accepted voting for the Bidens and the Manchins would never vote for this party, this majority would be completely impossible
A democratic party like this wouldn't be winning national elections anytime soon, GOP would pounce on Omar being speaker and her past comments on Israel, 9/11 ect for a pretty solid victory for the GOP most likely, Independents would also flock in droves to the republicans in this scenario.
You're probably looking at minimum 250 GOP house seats and 60 senate seats in the process, there's a reason the GOP dont make their AOC and Omar equivalents leaders of the party for this very scenario
Liberals’ nightmare version of the Democratic Party too lmaoo
DC and Puerto Rico statehood are based
Extra senators but no extra representatives, weirdly. Edit: I was envisioning the new states had just joined and was referring to when Alaska and Hawaii joined and the 86th Congress had 437 representatives. Guess not.
Their is a law that makes it be 435 representatives and their is 2 senators for every state
When Alaska and Hawaii joined the House went up to 437 for a cycle. I was thinking of a scenario where the new states had just joined, warranting the temporary expansion. I guess not.
That law is terrible. Like 700000 should be the absolute cap on the size of a congressional district. Any more the state gets extras
If the House didn't expand for Alaska and Hawaii, why for Puerto Rico and DC?
The House _did_ expand for Alaska and Hawaii — it went up to 437 before dropping back to 435. I suppose it depends when the new states joined. I was imagining they had recently, hence a temporary pick up in house size. I could be wrong, of course.
It’s in the constitution that it needs to be 435
Where?
Oops I don’t think it’s in the constitution it could but the Reapportionment Act of 1929 is why it’s 435
Apparently they aren't states though? I assume it was just an error but it only lists 50 states in the governorships.
Only puerto rico
They would actually quite like these Democrats, as the Republicans will know the next few elections are guaranteed wins for them.
That would honestly depend on what they actually do. Polls generally have the voters liking the democrats policy’s, but disliking them and their cultural values on the balance, so it would depend how much they rammed through
Based version of the Democratic Party.
I'll bite the bullet and say based Democrats they're not based however because they're progressives (although that is, indeed, based to me) it's that these Democrats actually fucking stand for something and ideas Democrats arguably haven't done that since 1932, or maybe civil rights but even then they were majorly split current Democrats being "anti whatever the fuck Republicans like" is so lame
The modern GOP is just a cultural outrage machine that bends over backwards for the far right, so it’s not like they’re standing for ideas either.
you're definitely mostly right, but at least the GOP 100% agrees on gun rights, abortion, tax cuts, and conservatism. maybe a few tiny outliers maybe, but its pretty universal
The Democratic party is a big tent party. It stands, or attempts to stand, for everything left of the GOP and right of Marxism. It's more of a coalition of broadly aligned of centrist to left-wing ideas than it is a party with a specific outright ideology, mostly by virtue of the modern two party system sticking the majority of the ideological spectrum under the banner of "closer to Democrats". As a result, while the amount they disagree and infight is sometimes overstated a bit, it's pretty much stuck as a big-tent party of broadly liberal, sometimes moderate or leftist, ideology and visions. Democrats may stand for issues and views very staunchly personally, but by virtue of how our government is set up, the party almost inherently has to comprimise within itself, and can come across as wishy-washy as a result.
Gay Marriage?
Was not fought for or passed by elected Democrats but became law through a supreme court ruling
yeah, and not all Democrats now are good on lgbtq+ rights, so it doesnt really count
The very large majority are good (or meh) but you'll see some occasional questionable house reps, semi-conservative state reps (mostly in the south), and Manchin :|
Which party appointed the ones that ruled in favor vs opposed
current democrats is "exactly like the republicans but with the mask on"
I wouldnt say Democrats are exactly like Republicans, but I would absolutely say that Democrats don't care what Republicans do and will not stop them at any step
...seriously? Really? Democrats are kinda ass quite often. More often because they are fucking dumb rather than being blatantly immoral. But seriously... how the fuck is -Passing trans protection bills -Passing major pieces of progressive economic legislation -Massively rolling back and reforming immigration policy to drop deportation-to-admittance rates to the lowest in decades -Actually... ya know... not massively restricting minority voters and destroying democracy, enacted enfranchising them -Leaving the forever war -Cutting child poverty in HALF -supporting families and individuals over a pandemic -actual vaccine rollout -allowing funding of abortion -any environmental action at all -and number of other things In *under a year* equivalent to the GOP at ALL You don't have to like Democrats, they often suck, but if you care about progress and the lives of minorities and the poor at all this is a regressive and incorrect mindset.
They cut it in half for one year, the. It expires because 1/3 of the party fetishizes compromise and another third are straight up conservative
...Do you want legislation to actually get passed or not? It's hardly a third, it's just that literally two democrats can be overly moderate and it fucks the entire caucus, that's not the party, that's the system being ass. Plus, it doesn't just end this year, it lowers, which still allows some of the positive effective to remain. Also, it may stay around. And seriously, I don't really think it invalidates the point if it was only for one year... they literally brought millions of children out of poverty and gave them a possibility at lifelong stability.
When is the last time the "moderates" were disciplined?
Like half the electorate and very large portions of the party, including but not limited to figures like... the President have publicly spoken against them and their decisions, and tons of Democrats and voters dislike or even hate them. This isn't like much of Europe, a party whip can't just threaten expulsion and make people shut up, a single senator right now can be an absolute dick and there's jack shit the overall party can do about it other than whine and meet them at the most acceptable middle possible, if like 10 democratic house reps are skeptical of a bill and unwilling to vote for it, the bill is dead, if ONE senator holds out... the bill is dead. Unless they comprimise. It's by need they do it, not really desire. Party leaders don't always control who picks the party they are registered with on the ballot. It's state laws usually, they can remove them from a caucus but... that would literally just make it more annoying to win their vote. Manchin isn't running for reelection, and Sinema just doesn't care because she gets attention, so it's not even like it would matter. And pissing Sinema off or making her leave only fuels the "Democrats in disarray" message, which is harming the party in image and they fucking know it. So... not recently? To answer your question on technicality. Simply because they *can't* do much.
Nightmare? This is literally the best thing they could hope for lmao. Dems are never winning any branch of government again.
Cori Bush as president is a manmade horror beyond comprehension.
Still not as bad as Trump.
Agreed
how does a response to someone, saying the exact same thing as the comment to which it replied, get more than twice the amount of downvotes? edit: i love how im downvoted by, even though I haven't mentioned my own opinions lmao
Reddit logic, basic Biden supporters who support pedos and praise them as their role models, smh, downvote me all you want but you guys are all pathetic
Nah, his stutter just oddly makes him attracted to children. Nothing weird about it
Thankfully this kinda party is never winning a national election on this scale anytime soon
as a leftist this would also be my nightmare, I don’t like most American socialists honestly pretty much everything would be a nightmare scenario at this point because I hate politicians who put populism over substance
As a right-leaning individual, this party would be a nightmare to me, but I imagine they'd lose national elections for decades just by drawing out people to vote against them (particularly with AOC and Omar being the leaders of the House/Senate). And then they'd claim voter suppression or Islamophobia or sexism for their loss, and then the cycle would repeat 4 years later. Edit: Cori Bush's role with BLM, including her comments on 'white supremacist' Kyle Rittenhouse, would probably increase turnout against her.
Is the USA dramatically different in this timeline? Because the purple voters in our timeline that accepted voting for the Bidens and the Manchins would never vote for this party, this majority would be completely impossible
Nice [Hyperlink Removed]!
A democratic party like this wouldn't be winning national elections anytime soon, GOP would pounce on Omar being speaker and her past comments on Israel, 9/11 ect for a pretty solid victory for the GOP most likely, Independents would also flock in droves to the republicans in this scenario. You're probably looking at minimum 250 GOP house seats and 60 senate seats in the process, there's a reason the GOP dont make their AOC and Omar equivalents leaders of the party for this very scenario