# Will The Republicans ever figure out why they lost? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [December 26, 2012, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224 "2012-12-26T21:33:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 127
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/2521 "2014-01-27T04:30:31Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > If you’ve looked at any real analysis of Congressional districts, you’ll find that Republicans have a natural majority and that gerrymandering has not increased this majority a great deal. Nope, I would call that an unnatural majority. > **[Steny Hoyer: House Democrats won majority of 2012 popular vote](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2013/feb/19/steny-hoyer/steny-hoyer-house-democrats-won-majority-2012-popu/)** > > Republicans control the U.S. House of Representatives by 33 seats, an advantage Speaker John Boehner once suggested give > [@](#): > > By Cook’s calculations, House Democrats out-earned their Republican counterparts by 1.17 million votes. Read another way, Democrats won 50.59 percent of the two-party vote. Still, they won just 46.21 percent of seats, leaving the Republicans with 234 seats and Democrats with 201. > > It was the second time in 70 years that a party won the majority of the vote but didn’t win a majority of the House seats, according to the analysis. > [@](#): > > Cook’s House editor David Wasserman pointed to two “unprecedented” factors that explain the phenomenon: the thick concentration of Democratic votes in urban areas and the GOP’s wide control of drawing congressional districts in 2010. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/2522 "2014-01-27T04:40:07Z")
> [@Lok](#): > > Or at least the RWNJs. the Republicans With Nose Jobs? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/2523 "2014-01-27T04:43:10Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > This is why I believe the United States should move toward the mixed-member proportional system as practised in Germany to counter the inequalities of voter concentration. And I don’t see why you think the Democrats’ appeal is “limited” when they in fact have the support of the majority of the population. Well, that’s another problem. Democratic voters are also heavily concentrated among people who don’t vote. > [@](#): > > Of course admittedly the Democratic Party can really become the permanent majority party again if it emerged from the wedge issue trap its been stuck in since 1972 and offer Big Ideas again. They ran out of other people’s money. Kinda hard to offer up big ideas when there’s no money. Actually, there’s even less money than that. The middle class can’t be taxed anymore. So Democrats have to figure out how to fund a government using only the money the rich can provide. GIGO, notice the first factor: thick concentration of Democrats in urban areas. There are very few areas in the country with 90% Republican voters. Many with 90% Democratic voters. A basic understanding of math would make it clear to anyone that those factors will lead to fewer Democratic seats if both parties are divided about 50-50 in the overall vote. ---
**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:** [January 27, 2014, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/2524 "2014-01-27T04:49:55Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > They ran out of other people’s money. Kinda hard to offer up big ideas when there’s no money. Actually, there’s even less money than that. The middle class can’t be taxed anymore. So Democrats have to figure out how to fund a government using only the money the rich can provide. On the contrary, tax rates are pretty low in the United States especially if one accounts for loopholes and deductions of various sorts. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/2525 "2014-01-27T04:53:51Z")
I don’t dispute that for a minute, but political realities are different here. Both parties are unwilling to tax those making under $250,000/yr. many Democrats even get queasy when you talk about incomes under $1 million/yr being taxed more. This is not an environment where money can be raised for big ideas. at best, it’s an environment where you can increase Head Start funding by 10%. Democrats have big ideas, it’s just that one of their good qualities is that unlike Republicans they believe those ideas should be paid for. Since they can’t pay for them, they don’t put those ideas out there. ---
**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:** [January 27, 2014, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/2526 "2014-01-27T04:57:58Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I don’t dispute that for a minute, but political realities are different here. Both parties are unwilling to tax those making under $250,000/yr. many Democrats even get queasy when you talk about incomes under $1 million/yr being taxed more. This is not an environment where money can be raised for big ideas. at best, it’s an environment where you can increase Head Start funding by 10%. That is true unfortunately, since many Democrats are really socially liberal, pro-corporate types. > [@](#): > > Democrats have big ideas, it’s just that one of their good qualities is that unlike Republicans they believe those ideas should be paid for. Since they can’t pay for them, they don’t put those ideas out there. OTOH, a healthy dose of deficit spending may be necessary as Keynes prescribed in the current economic situation/ ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/2527 "2014-01-27T05:01:23Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Thank you, my dear clueless boy. Knock it off and keep it civil in Great Debates. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/2528 "2014-01-27T05:03:31Z")
With unemployment at 6.7%? That raises the question of when we don’t run deficits. keynesianism calls for deficit spending in bad times and surpluses in good times. Not just deficit spending 80% of the time, which is what we’d be doing if we ran deficits every time unmployment was above 6%. As for taxes, the issue isn’t that Democrats support corporations(although many do), it’s that this country hates taxes, and so you can’t win elections promising to raise taxes on the middle class. And despite all the talk of wealth inequality, there are an awful lot of really well off voters in the $100,000-$250,000 range, enough that raising their taxes is political suicide. This country wants smaller government even if it doesn’t realize it completely. Or, it wants bigger government and doesn’t realize we’ll have to pay more. Although most polls say if people have to choose, they’ll take lower spending rather than having their taxes raised personally. ---
**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:** [January 27, 2014, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/2529 "2014-01-27T05:10:24Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > With unemployment at 6.7%? That raises the question of when we don’t run deficits. keynesianism calls for deficit spending in bad times and surpluses in good times. Not just deficit spending 80% of the time, which is what we’d be doing if we ran deficits every time unmployment was above 6%. As both Republicans and progressives like to point out, unemployment is far worse if you account for those who’ve dropped out of the labour force and those working part-time. > [@](#): > > As for taxes, the issue isn’t that Democrats support corporations(although many do), it’s that this country hates taxes, and so you can’t win elections promising to raise taxes on the middle class. And despite all the talk of wealth inequality, there are an awful lot of really well off voters in the $100,000-$250,000 range, enough that raising their taxes is political suicide. > > This country wants smaller government even if it doesn’t realize it completely. Or, it wants bigger government and doesn’t realize we’ll have to pay more. Although most polls say if people have to choose, they’ll take lower spending rather than having their taxes raised personally. If the Democrats played their cards right (such as de-emphasizing social issues), they could be able to siphon off enough votes from white working-class and lower-middle class voters in the South and Midwest to replace any losses they might have among the latte liberals. And I believe Bruce Bartlett said in the past one of the primary drivers of American income inequality is that there is far less transfering of income through taxes compared to to other countries. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/2530 "2014-01-27T05:12:46Z")
I don’t know about de-emphasizing social issues. Democrats used that as a powerful weapon in 2012. I know I’d prefer that elections not be fought on that ground. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/2531 "2014-01-27T07:14:43Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > It is quite possible, and it is currently fact, that the way Democratic voters are concentrated means more red districts than blue. It depends where you draw the lines between districts, doesn’t it? > [@](#): > > Democrats should figure out why their appeal is so limited that their voters are so concentrated in certain places, usually big cities. Where is it written that a city must be a district, while the suburbs and rural areas are multiple districts? How about if we had districts that were wedges, radiating out from a city center. And if those urban residents happen to tip the balance of each district, well, that’s just the natural Democratic majority making itself evident. The way we draw districts now is not some natural law that can not be questioned. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/2532 "2014-01-27T07:19:52Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > With unemployment at 6.7%? Remember when **adaher** said that the Democrats were doomed because they hadn’t been able to bring unemployment below 8%? Because he doesn’t, apparently. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/2533 "2014-01-27T07:47:29Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > The way we draw districts now is not some natural law that can not be questioned. Of course not. Plus the desire to draw majority-minority districts further concentrates the Democratic vote. So yeah, if you want an all white House, sure you can draw districts a little more fairly. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 10:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/2534 "2014-01-27T10:36:23Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Kinda hard to offer up big ideas when there’s no money. At least they HAVE ideas - the Republicans not only have no ideas, they are anti-ideas. They are also anti-reality, as even a cursory glance at the [SRIOTD](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/14/john-boehner-chemical-spill_n_4595897.html) thread will show. Consider John Boehner’s recent remarks about the water situation in WV: > [@](#): > > House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Tuesday that no new regulations are needed after a chemical spill in West Virginia last week left more than 300,000 people without safe tap water. He suggested the incident was not the result of less environmental and energy regulation but of the Obama administration’s failure to enforce existing rules. > > “The issue is this: We have enough regulations on the books. And what the administration ought to be doing is actually doing their jobs,” Boehner said at a press conference. “Why wasn’t this plant inspected since 1991?” Of course, these are the same Republicans that have been trying to gut the EPA since the Reagan era, and have had some success in this regard: > [@](#): > > On the flip side, the spending deal offered only modest relief to cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency under sequestration. Republicans even bragged about successfully cutting the EPA’s funding by 20 percent since 2010 when summarizing the bill. > > The EPA announced plans last month to significantly reduce inspections over the next five years. The agency said the move was necessary for a more “effective allocation of resources” to focus on the biggest polluters. > > The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has also suffered under recent budget cuts. Due to low pay, the agency has struggled to hire and retain inspectors, resulting in so few workplace inspections that the average site will only face an inspection every 99 years. Heck, remember [this guy](http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/on-energy/2011/10/14/perry-dismantle-the-epa)? Or consider [Ted Cruz](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/cruz-shutdown-no-clean-debt-limit-increase), who bravely fought to keep the government from shutting down and did not lead a group determined to prevent a deal from being made despite what you and the rest of the world and the video evidence may suggest: > [@](#): > > “Throughout the government shutdown, I opposed a government shutdown. I said we shouldn’t shut down the government,” he said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “I think it was a mistake that President Obama and the Democrats shut the government down this fall.” [Not that the Republicans have learned their lesson](http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/01/26/3205831/mitch-mcconnell-irresponsible-try-hold-debt-ceiling-hostage/): > [@Mitch McConnell](#): > > MCCONNELL: What I’m saying is we ought to attach something significant for the country to [President Obama’s] request to increase the debt ceiling. That’s been the pattern for 50 years, going back to the Eisenhower administration. I think it’s the responsible thing to do for the country. […] > > We’re never going to default — the Speaker and I have made that clear. We’ve never done that. But, it’s irresponsible not to use the discussion — the request of the President to raise the debt ceiling — to try to accomplish something for the country. Because that worked so well the last time. Didn’t you say they wouldn’t pull this again before the November election? And yet here are Cruz and McConnell already rattling their sabers. Tell me again how they’re not that stupid. And that’s not even getting into the ones that are just plain nasty - consider Erick Bennett, running against Susan Collins in Maine, who was [convicted of domestic assault](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/24/erick-bennett-domestic-assault_n_4659584.html?utm_hp_ref=politics) ten years ago, or Mike Huckabee telling women that the Democrats are insulting them by insinuating the government can help them [stop being the total sluts Huckabee knows they are](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/huckabee-dems-tell-women-they-can-t-control-their-libido), or [Todd Kincannon](http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=186473.0)being, well, I can’t think of a forum-appropriate term but here are some of his tweets: > [@](#): > > I don’t think I’ve met anyone who was as much of a monumental whore as Wendy Davis. And I’ve met some epic whores in my travels. > [@](#): > > I don’t care if people attack Wendy Davis unfairly. I just want her attacked. If you only want it done “fairly,” you’re part of the problem. > [@](#): > > i have no problem attacking a liberal for something I’d defend a conservative on. In politics, intellectual honesty is for losers. So - the GOP strategy for winning the women’s vote is going well then. Where are the big ideas for the GOP? They want to cut government spending, but West Virginia just gave the Dems a perfect example of why government spending is sometimes necessary. They want to abolish Obamacare but they are proposing nothing in its place. And despite it being a counterproductive strategy they keep harping on about women in a way guaranteed to get them voting for the anyone-but-Republican candidates. Even the anti-SSM plank has backfired. All the GOP have left are lies, dirty tricks and manipulation - lie about their own actions, suppress voters in Democratic-leaning demographics, continue to spread false stories about Obama and hope against hope that there are enough petty, nasty people like them to get them elected, all the while driving out and censuring the least crazy members of the party (see McCain’s recent travails, for example). Not only is that not a winning strategy, but if a party using that approach were to win it would be disastrous for the country. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 11:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/2535 "2014-01-27T11:01:27Z")
A lot to take in there, some of it valid, some shaky. On the valid side, yeah, a lot of dirty tricks, a lot of low tactics, but that’s politics. It’s not like Democrats are cleaner. Heck, they invented the whole idea of winning votes with taxpayer funds. Nobody’s rich enough to compete with the hundreds of billions of dollars Democrats use to win votes. They fundamentally changed the relationship of the people to their government in a way the founders had never envisioned and actually are gleeful about the fact that this will keep them in power forever if they can only keep enough people poor and dependent. And if Americans won’t cooperate, heck, we’ll import poor people who will vote for us because of the money we’ll give them! As for the EPA, what do you disagree with that Boehner said? We don’t need new regulations if there aren’t enough resources to enforce the old ones. You want the EPA to have more money? Okay, to do what? What is the EPA not doing today that they could be doing with more funds? How did the EPA fail in West Virginia? Did they even fail? That’s the other problem with liberals. Find a problem, throw money at it. Pass some more laws. Pat yourself on the back. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/2536 "2014-01-27T11:30:52Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > A lot to take in there, some of it valid, some shaky. On the valid side, yeah, a lot of dirty tricks, a lot of low tactics, but that’s politics. It’s not like Democrats are cleaner. Surprisingly, yes, they are. Not historically, certainly, but show me the Democratic equivalents of the above recently. > [@](#): > > Heck, they invented the whole idea of winning votes with taxpayer funds. Nobody’s rich enough to compete with the hundreds of billions of dollars Democrats use to win votes. They fundamentally changed the relationship of the people to their government in a way the founders had never envisioned and actually are gleeful about the fact that this will keep them in power forever if they can only keep enough people poor and dependent. And if Americans won’t cooperate, heck, we’ll import poor people who will vote for us because of the money we’ll give them! To paraphrase a potentially recognizable person upthread, this is a Republican talking point that you fell for without demanding a cite from them. The “Democrats only win because they are paying off the scroungers with welfare checks and Obamaphones and because they’re bringing in all those illegal immigrants to vote” meme is a right-wing kneejerk reaction to Republican losses - because everyone _knows_ that all decent, hard-working _real_ Americans vote Republican so obviously the Democrats must have won by cheating and bribery! It’s an echo-chamber view unsupported by reality. > [@](#): > > As for the EPA, what do you disagree with that Boehner said? We don’t need new regulations if there aren’t enough resources to enforce the old ones. You want the EPA to have more money? Okay, to do what? What is the EPA not doing today that they could be doing with more funds? How did the EPA fail in West Virginia? Did they even fail? Did you even read the article? In order for the EPA and OSHA to due reasonably regular inspections you need money - money for people and equipment, at the very least. The same GOP that is saying that the government wasn’t doing its job is also busily trying to remove the resources needed for the government to do its job. It’s the same GOP that cut security spending for embassies but blamed Benghazi on Obama; the same GOP that opposed infrastructure spending but blamed the Democrats when bridges started falling down. They claim to want smaller government but they don’t want to acecpt the consequences of the smaller government. > [@](#): > > That’s the other problem with liberals. Find a problem, throw money at it. Pass some more laws. Pat yourself on the back. That’s the problem with Republicans. Loot the taxpayer purse while claiming to save money, accomplish nothing and watch the country fall apart while you and your cronies profit. Blatantly lie and blame the other guy for all your mistakes while claiming to be all about personal responsibility. ---
**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:** [January 27, 2014, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/2537 "2014-01-27T12:24:01Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > That’s the other problem with liberals. Find a problem, throw money at it. Pass some more laws. Pat yourself on the back. I was going to answer with some snark here, but for the love of God, have you learned nothing but right-wing talking points? Do you really, honestly believe that real-world liberals behave and think like this? This is just the laziest, most pathetic thinking I’ve ever heard. It’s pitiful, and if you really buy it, than I pity you. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/2538 "2014-01-27T13:02:22Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Democrats should figure out why their appeal is so limited that their voters are so concentrated in certain places, usually big cities. Ah, yes, the electorate is the geography? No, the electorate is the people. It doesn’t matter that Democratic voters live close together. That’s not actually a problem. > [@adaher](#): > > Well, that’s another problem. Democratic voters are also heavily concentrated among people who don’t vote. And Democrats still manage to get the majority of votes. So when Democrats start getting those non-voters to vote, what happens? Voter suppression laws. Funny, eh? > [@](#): > > A basic understanding of math would make it clear to anyone that those factors will lead to fewer Democratic seats if both parties are divided about 50-50 in the overall vote. A basic understanding of reality would reveal this to be a fatuous claim. You can draw district lines anywhere to compensate for density. But you know this. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/2539 "2014-01-27T13:06:14Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I was going to answer with some snark here, but for the love of God, have you learned nothing but right-wing talking points? Do you really, honestly believe that real-world liberals behave and think like this? > > This is just the laziest, most pathetic thinking I’ve ever heard. It’s pitiful, and if you really buy it, than I pity you. Meanwhile, the EPA, supposedly underfunded, has taken upon itself regulation of greenhouse gases, a job Congress neither authorized nor appropriated additional funds for. So don’t tell me they don’t have enough money. They chose to take on more missions than Congress assigned to them. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/2540 "2014-01-27T13:07:37Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > A basic understanding of reality would reveal this to be a fatuous claim. You can draw district lines anywhere to compensate for density. But you know this. Well sure, if you’re willing to a) get rid of majority-minority districts, and b) draw really freakin’ weird districts so that Manhattan voters vote with upstate voters. Heck, while we’re at it, let’s also adjust the state boundaries do they don’t unfairly discriminate against Democrats. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224.md?page=126) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224.md?page=128)