That’s not totally accurate. A large portion of the legislators elected to draw boundaries will be elected in 2018, and most of the governors are also elected in off-year elections, many of whom have to sign off on redistricting bills.
Plus this Gallup poll shows a more favorable picture. 40% of voters are independents, and Democratic registration has fallen since Nov. 2012 from 35 to 30%, while Republicans are flat at 27%.
So the current ratio is 40-30-27. I think Republican strategists are pretty happy with that ratio.
Party registration doesn’t mean what it once did. Many people like to imagine they are independent or at least refuse to admit that they are completely “with” one party when they in fact are.
I believe that in presidential years from here into the foreseeable future, the majority of votes cast for House candidates will be for Democratic candidates. The Republicans may still hold the House regardless, at least for a while, but that is not all about GOP gerrymandering. Democrats tend to be clustered in urban areas in ways that waste Democratic votes in safe districts and allow Republican votes to be distributed more strategically. Even if the people drawing the boundaries are Democrats, and could draw districts to compensate (with the most obvious strategy being to draw them like wedges or pizza slices radiating around a metropolitan area), they face opposition from members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who would prefer to hold onto “majority minority” districts to maximizing the number of Democratic seats.
That was also a radically different era in terms of partisanship. A poll taken in 1960 found that only 5% of people surveyed would have a problem with their child marrying someone of the opposite political party. Today it is something like 2/3 of Republicans and 40% of Democrats who would have a problem with it. (I am one of those 40%, and I think Democrats need to wake up and follow Republicans in levels of partisanship, frankly.)
Yeah, i am way past the point where i can consider a Republican voter a reasonable person.
I have to say that’s about the most erudite Godwinizing of a thread I’ve ever seen. Well played.
Though I agree with PhillyGuy’s comment that Trump’s speeches are far more content-free (& reasoning-free) than Hitler’s were. Though by the time of that particular speech Hitler had had 12 years more practice being a leading demagogue than Trump has had so far. Trump may improve with practice. :eek:
And that right there is exactly why it’s not a good beginning for a Trump speech. He’s incapable of communicating in any form longer than a tweet.
(and I’m not even touching the source of the quote)
Hitler – a shining example of erudition and intellectualism for today’s GOP!
Interesting comparison, Trump’s speeches and Hitler’s. Hitler’s speeches are fascinating to watch, even if one has no German. The emotions, the timing, the gestures, the building to a crescendo. All practiced and polished, every gesture rehearsed to look like someone speaking from the heart, carried away on a wave of patriotism.
Trump just starts in talking, probing for what his audience wants, changing the direction and focus whenever he stumbles across something bright and shiny. He doesn’t lead his audience, he rides their crest, feeling out what they want and saying it as though it were bold and defiant.
Goddess willing, we shall never have occasion to compare them as military strategists.
The world might have been spared a lot of grief if Hitler’s first love had been acting instead of painting. He wouldn’t have failed at that and joined the army – he would’ve been the star of Broadwaystrasse or whatever they call the Vienna theater district. Or film – just imagine him playing off Marlene Dietrich!
Having a Hispanic on the head of the ticket is a good place to start.
Next.
You make Trump sound like Howdy Doody or Captain Kangaroo. It’s the same populist, red meat garbage as Hitler’s. And btw to avoid violating Godwin’s law I never mentioned Hitler.
Dost thou think thy Godwin canst be trick’d?
In other words “You can’t go broke by underestimating the intelligence of the Spanish speaking voter”?
You probably think that all the blacks that voted for Obama would vote for Armstrong Williams if he was running.
White Cubans like Rubio and Cruz, who toe the Tea Party line, don’t have much appeal to the majority of Hispanics in the U.S., though, if that’s what you’re thinking.
Oh, c’mon, Hispanic is Hispanic, all pretty much the same, the Mexicans, the Cubans, and, ah, those other guys…
You think you’ve got problems. I have a niece who went and married an OathKeeper. I need to win the lottery FAST, so I can have a will to cut them out of.
I love that lottery quip!
I agree that you can’t reel in Latino voters just by putting a Latino conservative atop the GOP ticket. One of the things that Republicans like Karl Rove misunderstand about Hispanics is that they support Democrats not primarily because of immigration policy, but because they tend to prefer an activist, redistributive government.
Wouldn’t the violation of Godwin’s law be if this thread went on forever without anyone mentioning Hitler?
What if it goes on forever and nobody mentions Godwin?
Then you get some sort of V’ger paradox and the universe collapses upon itself.
You’d probably have a lot more luck appealing to Hispanic voters by running an Irish or Italian Catholic than by running a Cuban Baptist. There’s more to culture than just ethnicity.
And of course you’d have even more luck by running a candidate whose political policies align with what the majority of Hispanics want, but then we’re not talking about a Republican any more.