The public that re-elected him?
This is a hard sentence to parse, but I think it’s saying “Obama is the sux”.
Really? You mean you don’t think Obama is a great President? Please, enlighten us with further nuggets of wisdom!
As well as the public that made sure his party didn’t have unified control of the government.
The millions who now have health care, you mean?
Here’s a good roll-up of the number of needless deaths caused by Republican state administrations refusing the Medicaid expansion out of simple political spite. The expansion itself only became optional through Republican spite, I might remind you.
Then of course those Republicans should be cleared out of office in just a few months. Let’s see if that happens.
Please tell us which party’s representatives in the House had more of “the public” vote for them. Also please add a brief discussion of how the Children’s Party wound up with more seats anyway.
Or is this all an act of yours? Some kind of performance art, as you see it?
See, in our system, the people are grouped into districts. Democratic voters are heavily concentrated in urban areas. If Democrats had more appeal outside the big cities, maybe they’d do better in Congress.
In 1992, the Democrats won 5% more than the GOP yet lost seats. In 2012, the Democrats won by a little more than 1%, and gained seats.
Wrong (and what’s worse, I’m pretty sure you know it, too). Try again. Please refer to your claim about “the public” wanting the Republicans to have control of the House.
Sad.
The public in terms of the way our election system works. Each district elected their representatives and more chose Republicans than Democrats.
In 2010, the result is indisputable. The public clearly chose the GOP. In 2012, the Dems scraped by by 1 point and now whine that they should have seen over two dozen seats turn on that measly margin, which almost never happens.
More people voted for Democratic representatives than for Republicans. The public wants Democrats to represent them.
It’s only by the way the district lines are drawn that put more Republicans in office. Those lines are not carved in stone, and there’s no reason that those district boundaries must be as they currently are.
We don’t live in an at large system. we live in a federal republic. And BTW, most of the states are controlled by the GOP in part or in whole. It’s pretty clear that the people of those states want their states to resist the federal government on ACA. If they don’t, then they will replace their 30-odd Republican governors with Democrats.
I’m perfectly aware of the system by which districts are drawn and how Representatives are elected. There are ways in which I think it is lacking, but for the moment it is what it is.
Your claim, however, was to defer to the wisdom of “the public” (and that “the public” made sure Democrats didn’t have unified control of the government), not to the apparatus of apportioning districts. The simple fact is that by the most thorough means we have of measuring “the public”, most of it wanted Obama as president and for a Democrat to represent them in the House.
Actually, no. The Democrats won less than 50% of the vote in the 2012 Congressional elections. Republicans+3rd parties won the majority.
Add up the total of right parties vs. left parties and the right actually won.
Now in the Senate, the Republicans got trounced:
Yet the Democrats gained only two seats. Damn gerrymandered state boundaries.
Note to self: do not, under any circumstances, play Twister with adaher.
Sigh. The results of the House elections spoke for themselves. Republicans won, and won handily, by winning a lot more districts than the Democrats did. It was Robot Arm who decided to use a different metric, so I showed him that even by his metric he’s wrong.
You can’t hate on the results of the system and plead “popular vote” while ignoring the 51.2% of the popular vote the Democrats didn’t win.
The 2012 election had three main events: the Presidential, Senate, and House. The public gave the Democrats a clear majority in both the Presidential and Senate elections. In the House, the public gave the Democrats a 1.6% plurality. It’s pretty clear that the public was not actually ready to trust the Democrats with unified control. A full 3-4% of voters who voted Democrat for President and/or Senate decided to vote Republican or 3rd party for House.
You’re the one who said you follow the wisdom of “the public”. More of “the public” voted for Democrats than for Republicans.
Then you said more people voted for right parties than for left parties. So which parties from that Wikipedia link would you call left and which ones right? (I’ll take it easy on you, just out of the top ten is fine.)
Libertarians, Constitution Party, Reform Party, Conservative Party, Independence Party. The left parties are the two Green parties.
By any metric, it’s nearly a tie. The Democrats simply didn’t even come close to justifying a switch in control, and historically they were lucky to win any seats at all with that percentage of the vote. In past elections they did even better and won fewer.
Reading up a bit on the Independence Party of Minnesota, I wouldn’t call it right (and the Reform Party is questionable, too). But even with that, let’s check the numbers.
Democrat + Green + Independent Green = 60,040,239
Republican + Libertarian + Constitution + Reform + Conservative + Independence = 59,832,178
Only one other party was above 10,000 votes, and that was the Socialist Workers.
adaher is wrong. Alert the media.
adaher, unsupported tripe and ridiculous opinions deserve to be mocked. ‘Obama is a failed president’? That’s just ridiculous. It doesn’t mean you have to think he’s a great president, or even a good one, but a ‘failed president’? When he has 2 years left in his second term? Ridiculous nonsense.
Some posts deserve to be mocked.