Hillary is a serial fuck-up, going back to Whitewater days 25 years ago. Then there was Hillarycare, then (fastforward) Benghazi plus all kinds of relatively minor fuck-ups the whole way through. Hillary is an idiot. Everything she touches turns to shit. If she is nominated I will not cast a vote for president for the first time ever, starting at 1972.
Odd order, that, I usually go, then wipe.
But seriously, if the Republicans could nominate someone very much like old Trickydick, I would actually consider voting for him. If Nixon was an excretory orifice, these modern Rs must be his leavings (though by that analogy, the catflap would more appropriately be St. Ronnie).
Democrats don’t turn out to vote against. They turn out to vote for. 2004, 2010, and 2014 should have taught everyone that by now. Without someone inspiring on the ticket, they just don’t show up.
So who inspired them to show up in '06? '92? '96?
Why? Are you having trouble pulling more things out of it?
Um, Bill Clinton? And in 2006, they didn’t show up. Independents just went overwhelmingly Democrat.
Besides, until recently Democrats didn’t have a huge turnout problem. They won enough votes in high turnout groups(union households, the elderly) that they could win with low minority and youth turnout. That is no longer the case.
Riv1, that’s enough. I’m giving you a warning for that. Please be polite in all future posts. Any further misbehavior may cost you your posting privileges either temporarily or permanently.
Really? You think Democrats liked Bill Clinton? If you look at the vote totals, it looks a lot like Clinton won because Perot pissed in the soup. The only reason Democrats had for liking Bill Clinton was that he knocked Bush and kept sadsack Dole out of the WH.
Which either meant that the Democrats had a resonating message or that most people were just damn sick of the R-BS.
Which could in part be attributed to shit like Voter ID, and perhaps to the fact that currently Democrats have to vote in much larger numbers than Republicans in order to get minority representation.
It’s also because the Democrats lost the high turnout groups and increased their support among low turnout groups, to the point where Democrats are obsessed with the problem now, for good reason. Voter ID USED to be uncontroversial. It didn’t become controversial until Democrats realized they had a rather unusual problem.
When the Democrats get a small national majority in the Congressional election (2012, see my previous post) and wind up ten seats behind in the house, that is not a question of not getting the turnout.
Sure it is. They lost, overall, which they wouldn’t have done if turnout had been better on their side. Not all Congressional districts are the same size, so the national “popular vote” is pretty meaningless. In fact, there is no election in the US that depends on the national popular vote.
I’m going way out on a limb here to suggest that friend escheraal is not ignorant of the mechanics of the Way Things Are, but simply does not approve. Come to think on it, neither do I.
You?
I too am not convinced that when one says “The Democrats turned out in significantly greater numbers than the GOP but still failed to capture a proportionate number of seats” the underlying issue is “Democratic turnout”, even if greater turnout would also have solved the problem.
Well, if you don’t approve, end racial gerrymandering and Democrats will be in the majority in Congress again. With 98% white representatives. So it all depends on how much you’re willing to sell our your principles.
Republican gerrymandering was done in the spirit of racial justice and equality? Well, hallelujah.
So, the Republican majority in the House will go along with that if the Dems ask them nicely enough?
Oh, wait, I know! The Pubbies will be conscience stricken at this perversion of one person, one vote, and will totally vote for such reform, even if it means a whole bunch of them lose their seats because, hey, principle! Because power be damned, what’s right is right!
Does this fairy tale have wizards in it? I like the ones with wizards…
Me? I was talking about what matters in terms of actually winning elections-- specifically the one we are talking about in 2016 (see post #61 which kicked off this side discussion about turn-out). If you think the system is likely to change between now and then, I guess there might be some reason to talk winning in some other system. Do you?
Congressional districts are set at the state level, not by the US Congress. I’m sure you know that…
Well, then, might we expect that state-level Republicans will sternly refuse any unjust advantage their party might have? I’d love to think so. I don’t think so, but it would be swell.
So long as we are fantasizing…
Speaker Boehner announced today that House Republicans will offer a bill to implement a plan to ensure equality in the voting place.
"We Republicans cannot condone a situation wherein the less advantaged citizen suffers a second-class access to voting. The American citizen of the inner city has every right to expect that his access to voting is equal to that of his more comfortable suburban neighbor. It is fundamentally wrong that he should be required to spend hours awaiting his opportunity to vote when his suburban neighbor faces no such detriment.
Accordingly, our Fair Access to Voting Initiative of 2015 will provide funds for guidance, enforcement, and provision for polling places, voting machines and extended opportunity for voting. We are fully aware that Republican candidates have had an unjustified advantage and that such changes as we offer herein might negatively affect Republican electoral advantages, but we firmly reject such advantages as intolerable, and unworthy of a political party with a commitment to equal justice under the law.
Further, we expect to hone our message to the less-advantaged inner city citizen so that they will come to see that our conservative policies benefit the country as a whole through tax policy that protects and preserves the security and well-being of our nation’s job creators.
Further, we intend to offer the Porcine Aviation Protection Act, to provide adequate umbrella and wide brimmed hat protection from the inevitable problem of offal and excreta tumbling from the skies now that pigs have achieved aviation and flight…".
(post shortened)
The Democrat Party in Chicago really knows how to gerrymander. All of the other gerrymanders bow down to Chicago Democrat Party gerrymandering.
So what is one of the worst examples of gerrymandering in the country? What is the example that the national media uses when talking about gerrymandering? Illinois’ congressional district 4, including parts of Chicago, represented by congressman Luis Gutierrez. Check out the map (at the link below) and tell me if you don’t think this is the most ridiculous political game ever. Apparently they had to run the district through the middle of Interstate 294 so that they could maintain a contiguous area of homogenous constituents.