In other words, they don’t appeal to anyone except for people. Everyone has limited appeal outside of coasts and urban areas, because there just aren’t that many people elsewhere to appeal to.
And saying that the Democrats have always needed more than a majority to take the House is just another way of saying that there’s always been gerrymandering.
Or, it could say that Democrats have a lot of places where 90% of the people are Democrats. Republicans have few, if any, such areas.
In order to believe different, you’d have to think that Democrats gerrymandered the 1980 and 1990 districts in the GOP’s favor. Actually, in 1990 they sorta did, by creating majority-minority districts. But that’s “good” gerrymandering supposedly.
I doubt the worst gerrymandering occured in states controlled by Democrats in 1990 or 1980. Republicans are far more aggressive in turning victories in years ending in 0 into gerrymandered districts for the rest of the decade. Also, you don’t see Democrats trying to suppress Republican voters- that’s strictly a one way street.
No, they just suppress military voters.
No they don’t.
Then Republicans don’t suppress minority voters. The evidence for both is equally valid or invalid.
No it’s not. What is the evidence for the Democrats suppressing military voters? Among other things, one piece of evidence for Republicans trying to suppress minority voters is Republican officials saying something to the affect of ‘this voter ID law will help us win elections’.
There are also cases of Republicans trying to suppress military votes, then insisting they didn’t and blaming it on the Democrats. Though these are probably due to incompetence rather than malice.
Which means nothing since one reason Republicans believe they lose elections is voter fraud.
How does it “mean nothing” that they choose to promulgate a lie?
It’s not a lie because they believe it. Our culture allows you to “believe” whatever you want, even if there is no factual basis in reality for your belief. And the rest of society then has to “respect” your “belief”, for some reason. :rolleyes:
It’s only a lie if they don’t believe it. I doubt a politician would crow about a law helping them win an election because it would suppress Democratic voters.
See what I mean?
Well, there’s no factual basis for any of the changes Democrats demand for elections either. At least when they are being honest about what changes they want, rather than claiming to be for something then objecting to that something actually being implemented(such as voter purges, citizenship checks).
They don’t believe it.
For the credulous among them, yes (and those, like adaher, not aware that George Costanzawas a character in a TV comedy, not a real philosopher) - but the leadership promoting the lie certainly knows what it is.
Google “Turzai”. :rolleyes:
So you have no evidence that the Democrats suppressed military voters? You take it back, then?
nm
I don’t take it back. In 2000, the Gore campaign challenged military votes that came in after the election in Florida.
Joe Lieberman’s conscience made the Democrats retreat:
For many Democrats immersed in Florida’s disputed presidential election, there was no worse moment than the one on Sunday, Nov. 19, when Senator Joseph I. Lieberman appeared on national television and said that election officials should give the ‘‘benefit of the doubt’’ to military voters.
Until then, the Democrats had conducted a full-scale effort to persuade counties to disqualify any overseas ballots that lacked postmarks or witness signatures. But on that morning, with Republicans attacking the Gore-Lieberman campaign for eliminating the votes of hundreds of men and women in the armed forces, Mr. Lieberman effectively disavowed the strategy.
‘‘There was some gasping,’’ recalled David Ginsberg, the research director for the Gore campaign, who watched it with other aides at Democratic headquarters in Washington. ‘‘People said: ‘Wait a minute. That’s really off. That’s not what we’re saying.’ We could never effectively communicate why we were right because we got ourselves in a position where it looked like we were trying to throw out military ballots when we were trying to throw out illegal ballots.’’
Mark Herron, a Democratic lawyer in Tallahassee who drafted a memorandum detailing legal grounds on which to disqualify overseas ballots, said that when Mr. Lieberman failed to defend him on television, ‘‘I was watching with horror.’’