Winning is always a bad thing if you will govern poorly. But once again, we have a Democratic writer putting their hopes in demographics to spare the Democrats the need to actually get people to vote for them. Not gonna happen.
And im sure plenty of columnists post absolute tripe in the hope of getting clicks. Look back at talking heads and columnists 20 or 30 years ago. The vast majority of the opinion pieces from that time were bullcrap, they were bullcrap 20 years before that, and they are bullcrap now. Its mostly petty posturing or inane speculation. Most of the pieces contain arguments that cannot be proven or disproven. These men and women have columns to fill. The vast majority of political opinion pieces mean absolutely sod all. Occasionally a piece turns out to be prophetic or to have been worth reading. Those are few and far between.
Has anyone heard Republicans put forth one idea of what they will propose in Congress? Here’s what they will do: try to repeal Obamacare. Propose cuts in taxes. But mostly whine and bitch about Obama.
This is actually true, if Republicans actually put up a good showing while controlling both houses of congress they would have a shot. It’s an extremely naive hope though and absolutely nothing the Republicans have shown at any point in the recent past suggests they are capable of it.
At the very least, they’ve shown that they have learned from shutting down the government, as well as the last attempt at impeachment. “Do no harm” is the first principle.
When did the Republicans attempt to impeach Obama?
If you don’t like that principle, they have others.
I ask again, have they given any indication of anything they intend to do, other than shit in Obama’s face at every opportunity? Maybe more Benghazi hearings?
I think he’s referring to Clinton in the 1990s.
Don’t fuck things up. You’re setting the bar pretty high there, don’t you think?
Benghazi? Won’t be seeing him around no more. Here, have some cannoli…
Ding, dong Benghazi’s dead. (Which Ghazi? Ben Ghazi!) Ding, dong, Benghazi is dead!
Benghazi, parrot, pining, dead.
Politics is nothing but a stochastic walk into the void. Yes, demographics favors the Democrats. No, this is not the beginning of the end for Republicans. Do not underestimate the bias toward power immanent in the system. The Republican party is that mean awful aunt who takes forever to die. And then she’ll die and it’ll be some awful other cousin.
After Obama got many things he wanted from 2009-2010, that’s probably all the voters have demanded of Republicans since. At first, even that was too hard for them, but they seem to be learning.
A conservative party by its very nature doesn’t HAVE to do anything other than the normal work of government, and they’ll probably do that better than Democrats too. Like passing a budget for starters.
Republican Congressional strength and Governor election strength has nothing to do with gerrymandering–you’re just repeating a common urban legend.
Except that, as already noted, these “numerical forces” don’t actually exist. If you think they do, perhaps you could tell us what these forces are and give some serious backing for them.
Not attempt, Clinton was impeached.
Have you seen Texas Republican’s idea of gerrymandering, specifically Austin’s 6 congressional districts, none of which include more than 27% of Austin residents (the largest city in the country without an anchor district)? One district stretches to Mexico (some 300 miles away), one district stretches to Houston (170ish miles), one goes to Waco, etc.
Or what about North Carolina, where in the last election people voted 53% for Democrats but only won 4 of 13 seats?
Or Pennsylvania, where citizens voted 50% for Democrats, but got only 5 out of 18 seats?
The only reason Republicans had any sort of midterm victory is how tight they’ve controlled districting over the last decade, after the rise of the Tea Party nation-wide. If we ever get sensible districting again, Republicans are toast.
Nope. It’s Democrats who create 90% Democratic districts so that there will be minorities in Congress. In a 50-50 country, that means they are almost guaranteed to lose. “sensible” districting would involve an end to racial gerrymandering.
Now you are wrong again. If Democrats were drawing the districts to their advantage as aggressively as Republicans we would see examples of states with Republican majority votes giving more seats to Democrats. I used the impeachment example above to point out another example of where you were wrong, not to belittle you but to help you to correct your position. The purpose of this board is to fight ignorance. You can do a better job of checking your facts before you post.
True WRT governors, false WRT the HoR.
True WRT both. Even the liberal Washington Post thoroughly debunked this, there’s a small handful of seats that the GOP probably picked up due to Gerrymandering, but not enough to make or break their majority. A lot of Republican states (in States with less than five districts) are very difficult to gerrymander anyway. I wouldn’t doubt Kansas Republicans would love to gerrymander their State but when you’ve only got a few population centers and a few congressional districts you can’t really replicate what they did in states like Ohio. Other Southern States like South Carolina are legally required by the Federal government to gerrymander, to guarantee “majority-minority districts”, but that was ill thought out liberal policy because it guarantees less diverse districts elsewhere that are less competitive. But that cannot be ascribed to Republican gerrymandering when it is mandated by the Federal courts.