Yes, and if we actually had representative democracy instead of a gerrymander, they would control the house still at least, based on total votes.
3 Likes
Rinseâs job description as party chairman doesnât require him to analyze facts or statistics but only to cheer lead. Heâs doesnât have to articulate the goals of the R party in terms of policies and specifics on how to improve the economy, the infrastructure, health care, etc. When he talks in platitudes, heâs done his job
1 Like
Wonât happen that the Thugs will get their shit together. Remember, they donât believe in evolution. Theyâve made that abundantly clear.
2 Likes
âWeâre seeing more and more that if you donât hold the White House, itâs very difficult to govern in this country.â
Said the guy whose party controls the House, the Senate, the Supreme Court and 62% of the nationâs governors.
Itâs also hard to govern when you have members of your own party who are willing to shut down the entire government over the single-issue du jour. And you - âBuilt that!â
Maybe itâs your messageâŚ?
2 Likes
HRC said in May that her crucial test for a future SCOTUS nominee would be her/his position on Citizens United. Ironic that the CU case arose because of a video about Clinton produced by CU
âI will do everything I can to appoint Supreme Court justices who protect the right to vote and do not protect the right of billionaires to buy elections,â Mrs. Clinton said while on Day 1 of a two-day swing through Iowa
2 Likes
Itâll be a great day to take part in sticking the fork in them then turn up the heat and fry them to a crisp.
As Republican hatred boils hotter and hotter, sane voters leave, and what remains is the concentrated essence of wingnuttery. Eventually it will be too bitter for the majority of Americans. Or else weâll die from it.
2 Likes
How could these idiots win?
They can easily enough win!
Apathy, voters stay home, people buy into the no-more-dynasties stupidity, voters get excited about Rubio representing a new generation, we get cocky as your rhetorical flourish seems to represent, our nominee fucks up big time, we nominate someone who has trouble bringing it really home, more e-mail shyte, we get characterized as two far left and we lose states like Ohio. Et al!
How could ANYONE talk themselves into the idea that Bush was qualified to be president?!! Yet somehow he got two terms!! How could an underwear pinup win Ted Kennedyâs Senate seat in the most liberal state in the country? Because we let it happen instead of being organized and careful! 
1 Like
They win elections by using VOTING MACHINES that report what the companies that make the votinf machines want them to report. We will keep losing election to voting machines unless wwe change to paper ballots that are voter verified
There are two vectors as work here.
One is DemographicâŚwe have the numbers, even if most of our sectors undervote.
The other is the G.O.P. Bag of Tricks:
[for the House] Gerrymandering
MSM
FOX
MSM
MSM
MSM
Voter misinformation
Voter intimidation
Voter purges
Voter registration oppression
Voter access to machines
The Machines themselves
The Listing of Republicans on brochures with misinformation AND NO PARTY IDENTIFICATION
MSM
MSM
MSM
MSM
OhâŚand the MSM
1 Like
1 Like
The gerrymandering comes from holding state legislatures and governorships. There was a major shift over the past 2-3 decades that saw republicans taking over state politics. This stemmed from a strategy by Karl Rove. Iâm not saying we should do the exact same thing (i.e. gerrymander unfairly), but where is our Karl Rove? We need a democratic strategy in statewide politics. Republicans know they can cheaply buy state legislators. Until we fight fire with fire, we wonât change anything.
1 Like
bush was of course appointed by the SCOTUS in 2000 and in 2004 a war of choice was underway in the Middle East. It was always Roveâs theory and consequent plan as well as other neoconâs that a war president would be easily reelected. People donât change leaders in the midst of a war, Kerry didnât have a chance because of that. But Iâd agree with the apathy and disinterest among voters, mostly due to mind numbingly long campaigns but other discouraging factors as wellâŚ
1 Like
Nope. The next 3 Senate cycles are against them, 2016, '18, and '20, meaning they have more seats to defend than Dems do. They donât come back up for air until 2022.
If they lose in 2016, which odds are extremely likely they will, they will be the majority party at least until 2022. And quite frankly, given the demographic shifts happening in this country, todayâs GOP would have a very hard time trying to crawl back into majority status. Its way off in the future, politically speaking, but Super Majority status for the Dems in 2020 is not out of the realm of possibilities. Its really difficult for a party to stage the sort of swing election necessary to regain those number of seats.
2 Likes
Interesting point about getting a wartime president re-elected by design in 2004, but Kerry was still a weak candidate. In 2000 Bush got A LOT of votes from incredibly stupid people who either wanted to have a beer with the shit for brains, or thought that the hopelessly incompetent blivid was âlike a Mazerati.â Not the point if he didnât actually win; why did ANYONE vote for the pile of shit?? Those voters are still out there.
Campaigns are longer than ever and we still have to win!
And Rove was incorrect. Bush did not win easily, it was an extremely close race, coming down to just one state, Ohio. When you factor in the war and the all out shennigans that Bush engaged,(color codes changing based on daily polls to say âBE AFRAID AMERICA!!â), Bush should have had a cake walk. He didnât. He won by a tiny, tiny margin. (50.7%)
In many ways 2004 was Roveâs swan song. He started claiming a permanent republican majority,which was absurd after struggling to win a race that had perhaps the easiest environment possible. And, right on time, the Dems took back both Houses in 2006, Katrina happened, Iraq went way south, and the GOP has been scrambling to rebrand themselves ever since. And Rove? He had one of the most embarrassing public meltdowns on TV in 2012. With Megyn Kelly finally having enough of his âmath to make you feel good as a republicanâ.
5 Likes
I canât even imagine that the baggers could have both the Congress and the Executive branches, great time to think about The West Coast and Northeast developing their own country, LOL!
In our history we have almost never NOT had gerrymandering. Elbridge Gerry (the namesake of the practice) was Madisonâs VP. Politicos in power will always do whatever it takes to stay in power. Democrats have favored gerrymandering in the past to provide representation to minority populations (and preserve their constituent base, no doubt).
The challenge would be to bust gerrymandering, and use a different methodology to draw district boundaries. There are plenty of software solutions today that utilize allocation algorithms. Of course, then politicians would pull strings to tweak the algorithms in their favor. Iâm afraid this abhorrent corrupt practice will always be with us.
1 Like
Yes, LOL, but much better to deliver unto them an old fashioned sound thrashing!
1 Like
He is right about the current makeup of the gop. Lose 2016 and things will shake up.
The parties are not static. At some point they will adjust and not be as homogeneous.