I've been thinking a lot lately about the fact that so many Republican positions are actually hurting their own voters, and that Democratic voters are fighting to spend more of their own money to provide assistance to people voting against the very programs in question. I think there is a series of GOP positions that the Democrats could yield on to essentially use their own momentum against them. The analogy would be letting go of the rope during a tug of war so that your opponents fall down.

What if Democrats said, "Sure, let's cut a bunch of federal spending and cut taxes and let the states handle more... As long as we let any states that wish to do so pool together to form risk pools, or to combine efforts on various issues. Also, let's pass a balanced budget amendment right now, in fact - let's require a surplus to start paying down the debt."

The thinking behind this strategy is that federal tax dollars flow from liberal states to conservative states. As a result, the same types of programs could be implemented in liberal states at a lower cost to those states. In this hypothetical, the balanced budget amendment would mainly be requiring tax increases on increased defense spending, which would suddenly make up the lion's share of the federal budget (maybe as high as 90%). Now, voters would have to pay more if their elected officials wanted to bomb countries halfway around the world.

The long game is that conservative states would become cesspools with horrible minimum wage, little/no access to affordable healthcare, tons of political corruption, insane levels of pollution, and so on... Their residents would pay hardly any taxes and would basically all fend for themselves. They'd probably go the way of Kansas fiscally, and it's been a disaster there. The population would probably decrease in those areas, as many people would move to liberal states. If such a time came that they wanted to switch back to the old style of government, Democrats would have tons of leverage in that they'd likely hold big majorities (due to the population trends) and could demand huge concessions from the conservative states to avoid a repeat of ~1970-2017. These could be constitutional (voters rights, Citizens United, removing power from the White House, etc), restorative of norms (putting back the filibusters on nominations), or just on policy.

The risk is that people don't turn out as much to vote in local elections, and Republicans outperform the statistical electorate there... But I think that would change quickly if people knew that the issues they actually cared about were being decided at the local level - especially in liberal states.

The unknown is what national politics would look like... I think the main issues would be deciding what does still stay at the federal level (standards on education, environment, etc), defense/foreign policy, appointing and confirming judges (who could have a major impact on state vs. city disputes), immigration, discrimination/race/gender/sexual orientation, and the remaining spending on things like veterans' benefits. I think you'd see many of the growing sectors of the economy clustered in liberal states, and the dying sectors in the conservative states... Obviously wealthy people would try to dodge state taxes by moving to conservative states, but this could be addressed to some extent by state tax policy.

There's also the added benefit of basically running a real-life case study on liberal policies vs. conservative policies, and perhaps seeing which ones are definitively better/worse on many issues and shifting the Overton window back to the left on social spending if/when the red states come crawling back.

So, what am I missing here, and what is the upside/downside in your opinion?

Counterpoint: this hasn't caused mass migration of white people to liberal places. Instead, all this has done is make ever-more reactionary right-wingers ingesting opiods and turning on Fox News to blame and fret about immigrants thousands of miles away from them for their ****ty, polluted, gutted towns. Not sure structuring our political systems with the assumption mass suffering from poor governance will get people to either migrate or come to their senses is a strategy with predictable outcomes.

People already are migrating, tho. The US is steadily increasing it's share of urban population over time.

Besides being terribly inhumane, as DVaut has pointed out, the red states are already cesspools and it hasn't altered their voting behavior one bit.

Right now people are only leaving for want of opportunity. Just wait until their choices are GTFO or starve.

Its population growth slowed down from 2010-present versus the previous few decades, which likely means a decrease in population as a percentage of the US population.

Also, it doesn't necessarily have to manifest as a mass migration of white people... and the Kansas example doesn't include the stripping of programs like Medicare, Medicaid, etc.

I just looked at a column from a Kansas paper that references a "brain drain," there of college graduates. I didn't include a link because it doesn't offer stats, but losing college grads and business owners/self-employed people could be very costly to the states in question.

I agree with the bolded regarding unpredictability, but I'm not sure that Democrats should be basing their political strategies on predictability of what happens in conservative areas. Put another way, "That sounds like a you problem." ( That "you," being conservative politicians, not you DVaut.)

I think what would happen in liberal states would be pretty predictable, do you agree?

We're fighting for the soul of the country, and I don't know that Democrats should risk going down with the ship to protect the people trying to sink it. Maybe we should let them sink their ship and keep ours chugging along, then throw them a conditional lifeboat in 20 years.

It hasn't altered their voting behavior, but they still have a lot of the programs they're voting against (ACA, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security).

Is it inhumane? I'm not entirely sure. We would probably consider it inhumane, and say we should fight to protect these poor folks who don't know any better... But they would say, "**** you libruls, get your hands off my guns, and stop trying to impose your elitist socialized healthcare on me."

They would consider us pushing our ideas on them to be inhumane, in a way.

Also, I think many on this forum would agree that the odds are rising of an outcome that involves secession of some states or some form of civil war (civil war in 2017 is very difficult to specifically define), or at a minimum, mass violence.

This strategy may be a way to coexist until we sort it all out. (By which I mean, until they figure out how wrong they are on certain issues...)

I imagine most of the GOP's voters are clueless as to how they are flirting with getting their own Social Security or Medicare cut. It's an "Allegory of the Cave" type situation where they get mad at you if you try to wise them up.

Leaving the eldery, disabled, and infirmed at the mercy of people who don't care about their quality of life is what you'd be doing. Charlie Crist had to stop (his party at the time) Republicans in Florida from gutting funds to disabled people. We know what Republicans get up to on local/state levels.

You also leave people who can't move stranded in ****holes with even less chance/hope of escape.

The Dems allowing the ship to sink would reinforce the notion that both parties are equally evil as they would be working together to screw over the little guy. And if they're equally evil, why should a GOP supporter change party alignment?

Sounds quite Trumpian. Let the conservative states fail and then they'll come begging back to us.

Democrats at the local level could still, obviously, fight for these people... But a lot of these people are actually voting to have those programs taken away. There are a lot of people in this country paying more money to get less than what they could get if they just implemented the programs they want... The reason they're paying more for less is because they're fighting FOR the protection of people who are actually fighting AGAINST them.

As to the second part, it wouldn't have to strand people. The liberal states could offer to pay the moving expenses of people who wanted to move there and either had a job lined up or were willing to work for the state for one year in an infrastructure program or something... It would be relatively easy to work out.

The Democrats would not be working to screw the little guy. They'd be working to do MORE for the little guy in liberal states, and fighting the good fight in conservative states while simply allowing the GOP to win on states rights. The notion of states rights being prioritized is not inherently good or bad. They could find other ways to help the little guys in conservative states who actually wanted the help (like the aforementioned relocation program).

It's a long-game strategy that I think is worth consideration. Part of my idea was that in 10-20 years the liberal side might be able to implement a lot more liberal policies at the federal level, as opposed to fighting incrementally and being at risk of going through what is currently happening, where the GOP can control the whole government with a minority of voters, then use that power to strip benefits and programs away from millions of people who did not vote for their ideas, while using unethical strategies to continue to win as the minority party.

The GOP fights dirty, and the Democrats need to fight back more aggressively and less idealistically, or they'll keep getting their asses kicked. This is one way to fight back that I haven't seen discussed, but I think is worth discussing.

Of course, if the general response is as it has been in here, the idea wouldn't work because it wouldn't get enough grassroots liberal support.

Cuserounder, the Democrats don't even run candidates in a lot of the more red areas of the country. There won't be anyone there to advocate for them.

Seems to me that the ship already sank once already, and that was in 2008. But the electorate is so consistently dumb they put an even worse team in office this time around, which should lead to another crash before too long regardless of what the Dems do.

Meanwhile I still say the elite level play is to try and stoke the flames of the brewing civil war in the GOP. If it fractures into two separate parties it should effect to split the right wing vote all over the place. If I were a big Dem donor like Soros or someone along those lines that's where I'd be funneling money right now.

Single issues like abortion will keep them voting GOP no matter how much pain they endure. They think babies are being murdered, they're not gonna switch their vote just cause you cut their EBT.

What makes you think liberal states are in a position to do this? California, NY, Illinois etc have pretty big budget problems without subsidizing moving expenses for people with low paying jobs.

Ive thought about this for a little while. Give them everything they want so they know they dont want it. Another thing dems could do, that would be cold but effective, is switch up on federal gun rights along with state rights.

I'm opposed to that, and would certainly be running candidates in almost every race. I support a strategy where the DNC/DCCC/local organizations embrace pro-life/pro-gun/etc Democrats in districts where those are necessary views to hold office.

I support this too, I'm not sure if I've posted about it before or not, but I think the big donors on the left should be funding third party runs - especially in Senate races in states like Texas, Arizona, Utah, Tennessee, etc...

I disagree. They'll keep blindly voting GOP until they know that their own existences are endangered by their votes.

In a hypothetical like I described, federal taxes would decrease significantly and state taxes would increase significantly... So the state governments would have a lot more money to play with in blue states.

Blue states would also have the opportunity to legalize and tax the crap out of drugs to help pay for things like healthcare for all and other goodies.

But just look at a place like NYC. Very liberal, one of the highest per capita
incomes and highest state/city tax rates in the nation and despite all those advantages, the state/city do a horrendous job of helping poor people. Being poor in NYC is just as bad as being poor in a less wealthy red state. Why you think giving them more power/money will result in them being able to"rescue"people in red states when they are so incompetent at helping people in their own state/city currently despite a ton of resources is beyond me.

If Dems really want to play chess they need to add at least two more states the next time they take control of congress. Shrink Washington DC to several blocks around the White house and the Capitol and grant statehood to the territory surrounding the newly shrunken federal district. Make Puerto Rico a state on day one of their new congressional majority, and pressure Guam into holding a statehood vote.

Adding two seats to the SCOTUS would be elite too.

Well, first of all, I'm talking about a major change in how politics are carried out in moving social programs to the state level from the federal... So it's tough to make comparisons. Right now, we only expect cities to handle things like crime, city schools, public housing, enticing businesses to relocate for the economic growth of the city, maintaining parks, etc... However, while I included public housing, many people who pay a lot of taxes would not... Which leads to...

In particular, I think big cities are tough to compare as well. Often there is a lot of pressure to keep the tax dollars close to home. I lived in NYC for a while, and what I'm about to get into applies there to a lesser extent than it does where I currently live, in Baltimore... But, basically, you have a problem here where the city is losing residents and losing tax dollars. As a result it MUST do what it can to keep taxpaying residents from leaving. Thus, you see immense police presence around the Inner Harbor and a few other areas, while the poor areas are a mess economically and with crime... But the more you spend there, the less you spend on making the rich folks feel safe staying.

But again, none of this has much to do with my point. States and cities are apples and oranges. Getting into Massachusetts and RomneyCare would be a better comparison.

I'm all for this. I think the Democrats should be opportunistic and say that Puerto Rico, the USVI and Guam need a lot of help right now and we should offer them statehood and make sure we take care of them.

That said, they may not want to join, we'd be grabbing a third rail with two hands, and also you may want to be careful what you wish for... I think all three would lean left, but right now Guam has a Republican governor who said nice things about Trump, the USVI have a Republican governor who ran as an Independent, and Puerto Rico's governor is part of a hodgepodge statehood party that Wikipedia calls both neoliberal and conservative, so I don't know what to make of that...

I support this... They're court packing, the Democrats need to find a way to retaliate and prove that it's not an eternal freeroll for the GOP to obstruct Democrat's nominees every time they have the White House.

So we don't expect much from cities and they are not doing a good job. You think giving them more responsibility will somehow make them better? Its like somebody claiming Blake Bortles would win a superbowl if only the coach would give him Peyton Manning style play calling duties/freedom.

Tell me again how the states are free to legalize drugs. To do so is to undermine the authority of the United States which is an act of sedition.

US Constitution Article VI: This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy: If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States...oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States...they shall each be fined...or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.


Black's law dictionary 718 (9th ed. 2009) Force. force, vb. (14c) To compel by physical means or by legal requirement <Barnes used a gun to force Jillian to use her ATM card> <under the malpractice policy, the insurance company was forced to defend the doctor>.

Legislators and judges have zero authority to legislate or make legal decisions in violation of the supremacy clause. That means they have zero lawful authority to legalize what the U.S. has declared illegal.

Good point. You are right we should ban tabaco, caffeine, alcohol, all pharmaceuticals and the rest of the drugs.

I would not care if all currently federally declared illegal drugs were legalized. If or when that happened the federal statutes would be removed as though they never existed. THEN the states could make those same drugs illegal or legal as they choose. Until then the supremacy clause requires the states to recognize that what the federal government declares to be illegal must be illegal in all 50 states.

After prohibition ended Elliot Ness was asked what he was going to do. He replied he was going to drink a beer.

Like Elliot Ness I also recognize the difference between following laws and declaring that law that must be followed is a good law.