# So let's say the Democrats win the House in 2014 **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 13, 2013, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131 "2013-10-13T10:32:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2013, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/61 "2013-10-15T02:26:01Z")
Hygiene, my ass, they’re just masturbating with plumbing. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2013, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/62 "2013-10-15T03:39:48Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > We have no idea where the economy will be in 2016. Are you sure that you can’t imagine some congressional antics that might plunge the entire world into recession over the next few weeks? I should have added “under normal conditions”. OTOH going over the debt ceiling is going to be overwhelmingly hurtful to the Republicans rather than the Democrats. > [@](#): > > Policywise, I agree with those polls as well, I would go further and have licensing and registration, BUT, politically, we are not going to get any gun control until at least 2017. > > Obama won the election by 332 electoral votes to 206. A swing of 63 would have tied the election and it would have gone to the house and Obama would have lost. Any swing greater than 63 would have given Romney the win outright. > > Obama won the following states by less than 52% of the vote: > > Florida (29) > Ohio (18)+29=47 > Virginia (13)+47=60 > Colorado (9)+60=69 (Obama Loses) > Pennsylvania (20) > New Hampshire (4) > Iowa (6) > > Obama won the following states by less than 53% of the vote: > > Nevada (6) > Minnesota (10) > Wisconsin (10) > New Mexico (5) > > Now to be fair the margin was under 4% (a 2% swing) only in Florida, Virginia and Ohio (for 60 electoral votes), but you only needed one more state, ANY state) to lose after that and I can see a state like Pennsylvania swinging on the issue of guns. > > YMMV I agree its very much a case of YMMV but Democrats may be able to gain more votes (such as suburban moms) then they’d lose by tackling background checks and a conservative Republican like Pat Toomey was willing to sponser such legislation. That said the issue is pretty much at the bottom of my priority list. > [@](#): > > It sounds like you want to fix something thats not broken simply because you want it. Admittedly one of my more unique political views is an emphasis on promoting national culture. > [@](#): > > Considering that drivers between 18 and 21 constitutue so many of our drunk driving accidents, why is this “right”? Most other countries set their drinking age at 18, without causing an unusually larger number of accidents. > [@](#): > > I just don’t see Democrats spending an OUNCE of political capital trying to lower the drinking age. Not an OUNCE. If it costs them certainly. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2013, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/63 "2013-10-15T03:53:57Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Hygiene, my ass, they’re just masturbating with plumbing. And zat is not cleanly, _barbare?!_ ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2013, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/64 "2013-10-15T04:50:41Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > You do realize that we have had tax brackets for over a century right? There are break points in income where you will pay a larger percentage of each marginal dollar of income. Yes, that isn’t what I am responding to. It’s the recurring desire to pay for more and more social programs by raising taxes only on those that make more than a certain amount of money. > [@](#): > > Because going from 35% to 40% isn’t the same thing as going from 35% to 100%. Our taxes have only been lower once or twice since WWII. People STILL got advanced degrees and worked hard. Why do you think they wont? I don’t know what you are saying with the percentages. It would be interesting to know if all that many people are getting advanced degrees any more. Most folks who go to four or more years of college graduate with a lot of debt, and (if lucky these days) go into a job that really doesn’t pay all that much, compared to what they are going to need to pay for. It will if they stay with it and move up, but in the mean time there’s those student loans, car payments, rent/mortgage and of course who waits to have kids until they can afford them any more? And then there is all this talk that if they do make it, their taxes take a big jump. That just doesn’t look like incentive to me. > [@](#): > > So you think we have been addressing our budget shortfall by taxing the rich over the last 12 years (since our surplus went to deficit)? No, I am just talking about what people in here say now, not what has been going on in the past. > [@](#): > > Unless we gut medicare/medicaid and social security, we can’t cut our way out of this deficit. The math doesn’t work (its really simple math (mostly addition and subtraction)). It seems we have a really large military budget … Besides, I’m not talking about the deficit, I’m talking about all the social programs that **Qin Shi Huangdi** wanted to add. > [@](#): > > We can address things like debt and the people you are supporting by things like student loan deductions and dependent deductions. In fact, I’m sure that Democrats would be willing to eliminate the caps on these for an increase in top marginal rates. I believe he was talking about being willing to see tax increases across the board, to which I said that I think he’d be alone (on this board) on that. ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2013, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/65 "2013-10-15T05:58:01Z")
curlcoat writes: \> It would be interesting to know if all that many people are getting advanced \> degrees any more. Unfortunately, the websites with the information that would be in the clearest form are unavailable at the moment, since they’re federal government sites and are down for the furlough. However, the fact is that the percentage of people getting advanced degrees (in the U.S.) is not decreasing. It’s slowly increasing, just like the percentage of people getting high school degrees and the percentage of people getting bachelor’s degrees. Everybody knows that education is increasingly important for getting a good job. There is thus a slowly increasing percentage of people reaching any particular educational level. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2013, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/66 "2013-10-15T05:59:00Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Nope. Just pass legislation in the normal, procedural way. That means not blocking legislation willy-nilly as the Republicans do, or engaging in hostage-taking, and it also means not ramming legislation through as quickly as possible to avoid public scrutiny. Good news! That’s _exactly what they’re already doing._ You thick fuck. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2013, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/67 "2013-10-15T06:59:04Z")
> [@Wendell\_Wagner](#): > > curlcoat writes: > > \> It would be interesting to know if all that many people are getting advanced > \> degrees any more. > > Unfortunately, the websites with the information that would be in the clearest form are unavailable at the moment, since they’re federal government sites and are down for the furlough. However, the fact is that the percentage of people getting advanced degrees (in the U.S.) is not decreasing. It’s slowly increasing, just like the percentage of people getting high school degrees and the percentage of people getting bachelor’s degrees. Everybody knows that education is increasingly important for getting a good job. There is thus a slowly increasing percentage of people reaching any particular educational level. Do you know, is the poor education of public high school graduates country wide or is it just something we have a problem with locally? I just can’t imagine that these kids who cannot spell, do math or write a letter are able to get into anything other than a community college or trade school. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2013, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/68 "2013-10-15T07:33:26Z")
Well here’s a few things to do: 1. Legalize marijuana and tax it. More revenue in, less spent on imprisoning non criminals. 2. Issue a general amnesty for all people convicted of drug use except for those who also committed violent crimes. Basically get the addicts out of jail and move to medically-derived treatment programs rather than jail time. Will greatly reduce our expenses and prison population which will allow us to: 3. Get rid of the private prisons. They are simply loathsome – economic slavery. We do not want anyone to be PROFITING from putting people in jail, it’s a totally stupid idea. 4. Tax corporations and the rich, pass laws making it unprofitable and legally dangerous for individual CEOS and boards of directors (jail terms, not fines) to hide money overseas. 5. Penalize corporations that move jobs overseas, reward those that create jobs in the US. 6. Pass a law requiring that all sex offender registries apply only to repeat offenders of the most heinous kind: violent rapists, serial rapists and child abusers. People who pee in public and teens who get it on should not be on any such list. 7. Cut the pork from the Defense Department. You will hear a lot of squawking over this one, but the Defense Department is full of waste, fraud and abuse. 8. Get money out of politics. A huge majority support this and it’s tremendously to Democratic advantage. But the Supreme Court supports money in politics and will declare any law that attempts to limit political campaign donations unconstitutional. There’s only two solutions: a Constitutional Convention or packing the Supreme Court with leftist judges who will be relentlessly litmus-tested on this issue. I suggest that packing the Supreme Court is the far easier solution. 9. Use the money saved and the revenue earned by enriching the middle class, possibly by simply mailing them checks every month. The middle class and the poor will spend the money, enriching the economy greatly and getting the recovery going on a sustained basis at last. (I know putting the money into infrastructure is the popular answer here, but I suspect that pumping money into infrastructure will mostly enrich the people who own and control infrastructure related corporation, not middle class folks. The money has to go to them as will spend it.) 10. And speaking of prosperity, now that money is out of politics, jail the worst Wall Street offenders from the 2007 crash. It’s never a good idea to leave the crooks in charge, as we have done. Give them big show trials, make it public, most Americans hate those guys and will eat the trial coverage up. Then reinstate Glass Steagall and put in some controls over CDOs and similar instruments. Do not be disturbed by the squealing of the piggies as you do this. They always squeal, it means nothing. 11. Legalize prostitution and tax it. Another victimless crime bringing in good revenue instead of costing us money. Also, an amnesty for all convicted of prostitution. Between that and drug offense amnesties, should empty out the women’s prisons to a great extent. More money saved. That should do for starters, popular programs that Americans will love and conservatives will hate and that will get the economy going again. Can I get an “Amen!” brothers? ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2013, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/69 "2013-10-15T08:10:06Z")
curlcoat writes: \> Do you know, is the poor education of public high school graduates country \> wide or is it just something we have a problem with locally? There’s no evidence that high school graduates are any less educated than they used to be. You’re not even bothering to find real statistics. You’re just listening to people sit around and complain about how much better things were in the old days. ---
**Author:** ![sylmar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b782af/32.png) [@sylmar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sylmar)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2013, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/70 "2013-10-15T10:32:52Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > I don’t know what you are saying with the percentages. Seemed a pretty simple point… difference in impact. > [@curlcoat](#): > > I believe he was talking about being willing to see tax increases across the board, to which I said that I think _he’d be alone_ (on this board) on that. You would be wrong in making that ass-umption, or possibly in trying to think, as that poorly advised attempt seems to have preceded your erroneous, “whole board” conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2013, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/71 "2013-10-15T16:25:29Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > Obama won 66% of millennials in 2008, and 60% in 2012 (Romney did 4 points better than McCain, winning 36% in 2012). That is still a pretty lopsided election, considering millennials will make up 40% of the electorate in the next decade. However, turnout by millenials was lower. They don’t like Republicans, but Obama wasn’t the guy they thought he was. He was merely a typical politician rather than the agent of change he portrayed himself as. [http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-lost-2-4-million-young-voters-2012-161508263.html](http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-lost-2-4-million-young-voters-2012-161508263.html) > [@](#): > > CIRCLE used Census data released this week combined with exit poll data to produce estimates for young voter participation. It found that 14.8 million voters between the ages of 18 and 29 voted for Obama in 2008, but just 12.3 million of those voters cast ballots for the president in 2012. > > That meant that turnout for 18-29-year-olds overall was 51 percent in 2008 and dropped to 45 percent in 2012. > [@](#): > > According to Barney Frank, if the GOP hadn’t gerrymandered the house in various states the dems would’ve won in 2012. The dems won the popular vote in the house by 0.8%, but the seats were redistricted to not reflect that. Democrats never win the House by only winning by 0.8%. Barney Frank\ [@](#): > > A variety of academic analyses of redistricting have found that this geographic self-sorting accounts for much — probably most — of the “skew” of Congressional districts against Democrats. Gerrymandering and other partisan efforts at redistricting do play a role, but it is mostly around the margin. A study by John Sides and Eric McGhee found that redistricting after the 2010 Census, which was controlled by Republicans in many key states, produced a net swing of only about seven House seats toward Republicans. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2013, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/72 "2013-10-15T16:27:55Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Good news! That’s _exactly what they’re already doing._ You thick fuck. Now. When they had control, the only way legislation didn’t get done right the hell now was if Republicans filibustered. Again, the President wanted a health care bill before Congressmen had to face the voters back in their districts. That’s not how you do bills of that import. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2013, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/73 "2013-10-15T16:55:46Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Again, the President wanted a health care bill before Congressmen had to face the voters back in their districts. That’s not how you do bills of that import. It is, sometimes, if you actually want a bill to pass. The Republican leadership is on record having had made the decision to oppose everything Obama did, even if he used some of their ideas. Knowing that, it was wise for Obama to try and get things done as quickly as possible. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2013, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/74 "2013-10-15T16:59:56Z")
That’s actually not true. While they did oppose his signature initiatives, they have worked with him on a variety of issues. The idea that this is an obstruct-at-all-costs party is 70% myth. The Peru and South Korea free trade agreements, the student loan fix, and of course any deals they’ve made with him, such as the Budget Control Act. And even on health care, there were Republicans interested in working with the Democrats, but the two sides were just too far apart. When you’re too far from where Olympia Snowe is, it’s hard to blame the GOP. On a minor issue, I was really proud of Tea Party Republicans and many Democrats when they first took office in 2011 for getting rid of the second F-35 jet engine. There’s actually a lot of common ground between Tea Partiers and reformist or civil liberties Democrats on various issues like earmark reform, government spying, and waste. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2013, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/75 "2013-10-15T17:07:03Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Again, the President wanted a health care bill before Congressmen had to face the voters back in their districts. That’s not how you do bills of that import. Wait, I’m not understanding what you’re saying here. There was an election in November 2008, which Democrats overwhelmingly won. After a year of debate, the ACA was signed into law in March 2010. Are you saying that the government should have waited for the 2010 elections, then restarted the debate in early 2011 with the hopes of passing the bill before the 2012 elections? You’re saying that this is how bills of that import are done? Tell me I’ve misunderstood you, because that’s the single most fucking stupid thing I’ve ever heard you say. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2013, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/76 "2013-10-15T17:11:34Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Wait, I’m not understanding what you’re saying here. There was an election in November 2008, which Democrats overwhelmingly won. After a year of debate, the ACA was signed into law in March 2010. He wanted it in July. I don’t have a problem that it passed in March, at least not in terms of the speed of its passage. They went home, they heard from their constituents, there was a special election in Massachusetts between the time Obama wanted the bill and the time he signed it. Plenty of public debate. I was satisfied. But that doesn’t mean I give the Democrats credit, because it was the Republicans who stretched out that debate long enough for the public to engage. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2013, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/77 "2013-10-15T17:22:17Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > That’s actually not true. Yes it is. They are on record- for example, McConnell’s “our most important priority is to prevent Obama from getting a second term”. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2013, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/78 "2013-10-15T17:25:25Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > While they did oppose his signature initiatives, they have worked with him on a variety of issues. The idea that this is an obstruct-at-all-costs party is 70% myth. The Peru and South Korea free trade agreements, the student loan fix, and of course any deals they’ve made with him, such as the Budget Control Act. On every major piece of legislation, like health care, immigration reform, economic stimulus, etc., the Republicans have obstructed with every move they could make. > [@](#): > > And even on health care, there were Republicans interested in working with the Democrats, but the two sides were just too far apart. When you’re too far from where Olympia Snowe is, it’s hard to blame the GOP. The ACA used many Republican ideas. It’s not credible to claim that a plan very similar to that which Bob Dole and Mitt Romney supported in the 90s was too far to the left- the Republicans, as documented by Robert Draper (among others), decided opposing Obama at every turn was the most important thing. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2013, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/79 "2013-10-15T17:27:14Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Yes it is. They are on record- for example, McConnell’s “our most important priority is to prevent Obama from getting a second term”. First, that does not necessarily mean obstruction, since obstruction is a tactic and defeating Obama is an outcome. Second, words and actions are not the same thing, especially when we’re talking about politicians. Their self-interest comes first, so if obstructing Obama is not in their self-interest they won’t do it, even if that’s what they promised to do. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2013, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/80 "2013-10-15T17:34:10Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > First, that does not necessarily mean obstruction, since obstruction is a tactic and defeating Obama is an outcome. > > Second, words and actions are not the same thing, especially when we’re talking about politicians. Their self-interest comes first, so if obstructing Obama is not in their self-interest they won’t do it, even if that’s what they promised to do. Judging by their actions, obstructing Obama has been a very high priority. Pairing that with the statements, it’s not a stretch to say that this is still part of their plan. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131.md?page=5)