Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The point is, when you split two senators over a population ~19.5 million as in New York, and then split two senators over a population of ~580K as in Wyoming, the people of Wyoming have a much more heavily weighted vote in the senate's composition than do those voters in New York. That is not fair. My mom's *voice* and my mom's vote in New York should count as heavily as does my cousin who lives in New Hampshire.
To your second paragraph, that is ultimately highly outdated thinking. The "state" is made up of people. I don't give a rats a** about some nostalgic longing for times past when states were newly formed, still forming, and we were balancing out the needs of newly formed states. I care about today, and I care about the people who live in the states today. I care about my mom's frustration as a voter in New York State who does not feel listened to in national politics. When no one has to fight over my mom's vote, because it is said and done, and her vote is weighted so lightly in the senate, then she is bound to get frustrated. And I totally get it, and it is totally unfair.
To your last paragraph, I wasn't talking about you. You are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to be very grateful that at the very least, I get to help choose U.S. senators as opposed to politicians. I was mostly chiming in a passive counter to jtab's passive suggestion that I didn't understand something about federalism.
Your mom has her representative in the House, who is likely much more willing to hear the concerns of a constituent than a Senator.
I feel that way about obstructing the overall Republican agenda, because it almost always favors the corporate overlords over everyday people like me. The Democrats often have pretty flaccid plans, but at least sometimes they try to help out everyday people. For example, at least the Democrats were able to pass the Inflation Reduction Act, which includes important provisions like the "Make it in America" provision. This helps fight climate change by increasing economic activity in our own country.
A senator like Oz would have obstructed this only because a) his corporate overlords told him to do so and/or b) he wanted Democrats to get nothing done so he could run on the lack of laws passed in re-election. A senator like Fetterman would have voted for this bill. Go Fetterman!!!
I do wonder who the everyday people are. From what I can tell in the context of PA's senate election, it's the broke ass tattooed hipsters of south Philadelphia versus rural and small town whites. Pretty sure the former sees the Democrats on the side of everyday people while the latter sees the Republicans as more supportive of everyday people.
However, and this will be the deciding factor in Pennsylvania's angry senate election, everyday people are feeling the brunt of inflation, and to a slightly lesser degree, crime, and when that happens, the governing party is punished. For the polls repeatedly reveal everyday people don't prioritize social justice or climate change, and especially not over inflation. Something the tattooed hipsters of South Philadelphia and Mount Airy keep ignoring.
The polls have narrowed to close to statistical tie but the trend is away from Fetterman. We will see what happens in November.
I'll say the Democrats would probably be in a better place if they hadn't enacted the charade of pretending all was well with Fetterman and hiding the true extent of his health problems. They should have quickly shuffled him aside for legitimate health reasons and had another quick primary. Voters like honesty. Especially the annoying middle ground unaffiliated independents who tire quickly of both lies and extreme partisanship. But the party became too complacent knowing that most Democrats only care about a D next to the candidate's name and would vote for a decaying donkey carcass as long as it was the D candidate. Oz, for all his many flaws, is at least honest about who he is or where he comes from. And his connections to Pennsylvania is certainly more solid than Hillary Clinton's connections to New York ever were when she was parachuted into the senate seat over more qualified local candidates (talk about a ruthless political machine the Democrats are).
Still, I have sympathy for many people in Pennsylvania who must feel dismay at that these are the two options and how it came to be.
However, and this will be the deciding factor in Pennsylvania's angry senate election, everyday people are feeling the brunt of inflation, and to a slightly lesser degree, crime, and when that happens, the governing party is punished.
And therein lies the rub. The GOP can harp all it wants about crime and inflation. No reasonable person would deny those are issues that should be tackled. But the Republicans, as per usual, can never quite get into the nuance of what they actually plan to do to do anything about these issues, in any real practical terms whatsoever.
Merely talking about an issue really means nothing if you have zero actionable solutions to offer. Otherwise, the GOP is just pandering and fear-mongering. Both crime-fighting and inflation-reducing are really outside of the control or purview of any Governor or Senator. Even the President and Congress as a whole have very little control over inflation. It's a huge, global scale economic challenge that no one nation can control at this point. But the way Republicans are campaigning about it, they're insulting everyone's intelligence by ignoring that fact.
I do wonder who the everyday people are. From what I can tell in the context of PA's senate election, it's the broke ass tattooed hipsters of south Philadelphia versus rural and small town whites. Pretty sure the former sees the Democrats on the side of everyday people while the latter sees the Republicans as more supportive of everyday people.
However, and this will be the deciding factor in Pennsylvania's angry senate election, everyday people are feeling the brunt of inflation, and to a slightly lesser degree, crime, and when that happens, the governing party is punished. For the polls repeatedly reveal everyday people don't prioritize social justice or climate change, and especially not over inflation. Something the tattooed hipsters of South Philadelphia and Mount Airy keep ignoring.
The polls have narrowed to close to statistical tie but the trend is away from Fetterman. We will see what happens in November.
I'll say the Democrats would probably be in a better place if they hadn't enacted the charade of pretending all was well with Fetterman and hiding the true extent of his health problems. They should have quickly shuffled him aside for legitimate health reasons and had another quick primary. Voters like honesty. Especially the annoying middle ground unaffiliated independents who tire quickly of both lies and extreme partisanship. But the party became too complacent knowing that most Democrats only care about a D next to the candidate's name and would vote for a decaying donkey carcass as long as it was the D candidate. Oz, for all his many flaws, is at least honest about who he is or where he comes from. And his connections to Pennsylvania is certainly more solid than Hillary Clinton's connections to New York ever were when she was parachuted into the senate seat over more qualified local candidates (talk about a ruthless political machine the Democrats are).
Still, I have sympathy for many people in Pennsylvania who must feel dismay at that these are the two options and how it came to be.
Hey now, what did the tattooed hipsters of South Philadelphia ever do to you?
In all seriousness, while that caricature of the Democratic base is a convenient one for Republicans, it is obviously a very small fraction of who supports the party. Besides, many of those people probably vote Green or something.
It's odd though, because when well-to-do liberals make fun of poor rural people, they are rightly lambasted for elitism. It's true: these people almost never have a clue about the specific histories of rural poor people, and care little about their struggles. Yet when Republicans do the same thing to urban poor people, it is supposed be savvy political commentary? Give me a break. That is just as elitist. Frankly, at the end of the day, despite what Fox News might tell you about the "broke ass hipsters of South Philadelphia," you don't know their stories. Perhaps exercise some humility in knowing that many of them may have come from broken households just like many of their rural counterparts. Most of the hipsters who came from any kind of money are certainly not "broke ass."
As someone who grew up just over the border of rural Pennsylvania, whose father's side of the family were dairy farmers in Lycoming County, I understand very well the politics of rural Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, many of family members in Pennsylvania have been misled by the Republican Party. While they may believe the Republican Party has their back, having been misled by the discourse of "small government," what I was speaking about is what party in fact more often supports policies that benefit everyday Pennsylvanians. That party is not the Republican Party.
I do believe that through political manipulation and media siloing, the Republican Party has held onto a base that it does not deserve and does not fight on behalf of. It's true the Democratic Party needs to do much better with its messaging and make explicit efforts to reach rural Pennsylvanian voters. But at the end of the day, an average Democrat is more likely to support policies that benefit everyday people than do Republicans.
This whole saga of layman chatter about Fetterman's health is so worn out. In what ways has he been dishonest? He had a stroke. We all know that. He is following a typical arc of recovery. We should all know that. He does not have any cognitive comprehension issues. We should all know that. Using closed captioning while recovering from a stroke is typical. We should all know that.
How on earth is Oz "honest" about where he comes from? He has played with words to no end when it comes to how many homes he owns and how much of a "home" Pennsylvania is to him. He avoids the truth about becoming a total sellout as a medical professional, after going on to sell useless products like snake oil just to make a buck. He wanted money for his next mansion, and "forgot" about the medical oath he took. It is so disappointing to see, and I hope he finds a way to repent for his con-artistry that does not involve trying to represent a state that he does not give two sh*ts about.
I love how people keep bringing up Hillary Clinton in New York as if it has anything to do with this race. Most people don't even like Clintons, including people who usually vote for Democrats like me.
We have two choices in Pennsylvania: A man who's from here, was a great mayor (albeit with the mistake of playing a juvenile prank) of a town in Pennsylvania, and who has shown time again that he actually cares about the issues facing ALL Pennsylvanians. He cares about urban, suburban, and rural Pennsylvanians. He is recovering from a stroke. So what? He can still comprehend what he is voting about, which I am sure he will vote in favor of everyday Pennsylvanians much more often than Oz. That is the most important issue to me: how he will vote.
Or, we have a former snake oil salesman from New Jersey who groveled at Trump for his endorsement.
To me, the choice is pretty clear. Hopefully all the outside spending on behalf of Oz doesn't swing things too far in his favor.
I do wonder who the everyday people are. From what I can tell in the context of PA's senate election, it's the broke ass tattooed hipsters of south Philadelphia versus rural and small town whites. Pretty sure the former sees the Democrats on the side of everyday people while the latter sees the Republicans as more supportive of everyday people.
just straight up racist dog whistling that bares no semblance of reality.
Your mom has her representative in the House, who is likely much more willing to hear the concerns of a constituent than a Senator.
My mom also has a U.S. senator whom she votes on, and her vote should be weighted just as heavily as someone from New Hampshire. Her U.S. senator should have to listen to her just as does her U.S. Representative. If the U.S. senators' constituents are the state, the state is made up by people, all of whom should have an equally weighted vote and voice in the U.S. senate.
Last edited by Muinteoir; 10-23-2022 at 08:14 AM..
Hey now, what did the tattooed hipsters of South Philadelphia ever do to you?
In all seriousness, while that caricature of the Democratic base is a convenient one for Republicans, it is obviously a very small fraction of who supports the party. Besides, many of those people probably vote Green or something.
Not only that, those "tatooed hipsters" aren't the largest and most loyal part of the Democratic Party base.
Blacks are.
Even though Trump made inroads with Black men in 2020 — and for good reason, I'm afraid — Blacks remain the bedrock of the Democratic base.
The funny thing is, if the GOP weren't so concerned about holding onto the Unreconstructed white voters, it could probably open up some fissures in that base, for there are Black voters — not all of them drinkers of the Kool-Aid Candace Owens serves — who feel the party takes them for granted.
But as long as the GOP is willing to use Blacks cynically the way they have been that poor kid Fetterman chased with a gun*, then many Black Democrats still have no good reason to break with the party of LBJ.
*Yes, this is rank cynicism, for when Blacks complain about cops who actually pull the trigger on Black men in similar situations, they ignore or dismiss those complaints.
Just to build onto and off of this idea: Everyone's line for "lesser of two evils" is a bit different. I certainly would not vote for an Andrew Cuomo if he were ever on any ballot in Pennsylvania. But, many of us who vote strategically do take our votes seriously, even when we are not elated about our choice. To us, it is the seriousness of the issues and governance that takes priority as opposed to the seriousness of their imperfections as individuals. I have *never* guilt tripped my friend nor brother who consistently vote third party. I understand the desire to do so, and I often find myself wishing I would. But, I have tried to persuade them (in a kind matter) to think of their vote more as a strategic way to get someone who *better* represents their interests, as opposed to some kind of a protest statement that frankly, kind of doesn't matter. I'd rather vote for Shapiro and make actual verbal/written statements about what he should do better, than vote for the green candidate to which no one will care, and then end up with Mastriano as my governor. I respect everyone's right to vote for whom they want, but there really isn't a moral high ground in refusing to vote for the "lesser of two evils." People like Mastriano pose an existential threat to many of us.
Although I agree with you 100% about Mastriano specifically, this strategic voting generally doesn't work for me because, as someone with libertarian leanings at heart, neither major party represents my interests. If I split the issues that I consider important into three categories ("Democrat supported", "Republican supported", and "Neither"), the split would be about 1/3 into each bucket, and neither party represents a majority of my interests. Therefore, it is my priority to look for the person most suited to hold the position regardless of party, not a slate of issues.
[quote=Muinteoir;64328014]
To your second paragraph, that is ultimately highly outdated thinking. The "state" is made up of people. I don't give a rats a** about some nostalgic longing for times past when states were newly formed, still forming, and we were balancing out the needs of newly formed states. I care about today, and I care about the people who live in the states today. I care about my mom's frustration as a voter in New York State who does not feel listened to in national politics. When no one has to fight over my mom's vote, because it is said and done, and her vote is weighted so lightly in the senate, then she is bound to get frustrated. And I totally get it, and it is totally unfair.
I couldnt disagree more. Every state should be equal and have their needs weighted equally in the Senate. If it wasn't that way you would create multiple new problems.
Something to remember about the PA Senatorial race. Retiring Pat Toomey is a Republican. So if Dr. Oz wins, you Republicans will gain NOTHING. Republican replacing Republican. Bob Casey (D) is still in office, ONLY if Fetterman wins will it change the Senate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
just straight up racist dog whistling that bares no semblance of reality. 
