Voters don't need to know how the process works - they know Republicans are in charge and things are screwed up. That's all that really matters.
Voters don't need to know how the process works - they know Republicans are in charge and things are screwed up. That's all that really matters.Here’s the problem. There is an overwhelming majority of voters who have no idea how the process works. Repeating the same thing without resistance causes it to be true.
I can already predict what a Deplorable I know will say “Democrats wouldn’t let a vote happen because X, Y and Z”Voters don't need to know how the process works - they know Republicans are in charge and things are screwed up. That's all that really matters.
Yeah but they don't matter as they are unreachable anyway.I can already predict what a Deplorable I know will say “Democrats wouldn’t let a vote happen because X, Y and Z”
Seems like a real possibly nobody in their caucus can get to 217.
Probably need to have a real discussion about how to empower McHenry as caretaker so that the body isn't totally fucking paralyzed because the Rs are a giant mess.
I believe the dots represent the % of the popular vote and the destination of the arrow corresponds to the % of the House seats won. For example, in 1964 Democrats won 57% of the popular vote which led them to winning almost 70% of the House seats. Vice versa, Republicans won 43% of the popular vote which led them to winning low-30% of the House seats.Not clear what that second graphic shows. Is it showing that from the '50s till the '90s the system actually _under_ represented Republican votes? What was the cause of that, if so? (Or is it showing the opposite? Can't work out what the symbols mean).
I believe the dots represent the % of the popular vote and the destination of the arrow corresponds to the % of the House seats won. For example, in 1964 Democrats won 57% of the popular vote which led them to winning almost 70% of the House seats. Vice versa, Republicans won 43% of the popular vote which led them to winning low-30% of the House seats.
What's interesting is to see when a party didn't win at least 50% of the popular vote yet won House seats. You can see more recently there were a handful of times Republicans lost the popular vote but won seats, implying an inherent edge. This is consistent with their rural advantage.
View attachment 87019
And they also speak the loudest.Yeah but they don't matter as they are unreachable anyway.
Really 'But Trump supporters will say X' is a meaningless statement. They will make up whatever lies are needed to justify themselves.
Do they though? I mean they've won the popular vote for president all but one time over the last 30 years.And they also speak the loudest.
This is a battle of hearts & minds. Democrats have a long history of losing this battle.
So you think that humbles them and makes them silent. Remember, they don't believe in our system anymore. It's who has the most intimidating and threatening message.Do they though? I mean they've won the popular vote for president all but one time over the last 30 years.
The past several shutdowns were caused by Republican infighting; the Republican base likes shutdowns.If the Rs crash into a shutdown because they are infighting the public will start to notice.
Indeed. And Biden’s fault Hamas attacked because he released humanitarian funds to Iran. Also leaving Afghanistan is the precursor to all the instability around the world. Hmm 2017-2020 didn’t cause more worldwide instability? NAH!!!Beyond parody. Also blaming the Ds who have nothing to do with their mess after having just competently ran the body with a slimmer majority is something.
No, I’m saying losing the popular vote almost every time doesn’t look like winning the message war to me.So you think that humbles them and makes them silent. Remember, they don't believe in our system anymore. It's who has the most intimidating and threatening message.
I believe House seats are just House of Representatives... but don't quote me on that.Does "House seats" mean solely Congress, or is the Senate lumped in with those figures? Has the skew in the electoral college followed the same pattern?
[edit] And why is 2008 such an outlier? Like a brief return to the old pattern. Is it that it just takes one state to flip and the bias reverses?
And yet we are here. Narrow non functional R control.Do they though? I mean they've won the popular vote for president all but one time over the last 30 years.
House seats means solely the House of Representatives. The Senate has always had a skew towards rural states by design.Yeah, I get that now - was slightly surprised at how bad the bias _against_ the Republicans was in previous decades. Now it's reversed, of course. Hard to imagine how such skewed system operating for such a long time could not have had long-term political effects, but the fact that it's flipped in terms of party affiliation/label I guess means the effects would be complicated (the one consistent aspect being a bias against black people).
Does "House seats" mean solely Congress, or is the Senate lumped in with those figures? Has the skew in the electoral college followed the same pattern?
[edit] And why is 2008 such an outlier? Like a brief return to the old pattern. Is it that it just takes one state to flip and the bias reverses?
Of one of the three elected parts of government. If the Democrats had the house with a narrow majority and republicans controlled the senate and presidency would you say Democrats had won the country’s hearts and minds? Of course not.And yet we are here. Narrow non functional R control.
Then why does this damn thread even exist? Rs control the house, they control it poorly however they control it.Of one of the three elected parts of government. If the Democrats had the house with a narrow majority and republicans controlled the senate and presidency would you say Democrats had won the country’s hearts and minds? Of course not.
Agreed, I like how our system is designed for effectively equal powers. Historically it has worked well. Problem now is that we have a small but significant chunk of Republicans that literally want to burn government to the ground. System was built assuming people want to get stuff done. We haven’t figured out an effective mechanism to combat this.The House the Senate and the White House need each other. No two can do much without at least the co-operation of the third. The system is sort of designed that way.
The system was not designed to be have whiney cry babies running one or more though which is what we've had for the last few years.
Maybe some day we'll get adults back in place.
The Dems used to be really good at gerrymandering. The republicans got wise to that and went full bore on funding to win majorities in state elections. So, there is a way to for democrats to fix this - it's just a tough and unseemly road.House seats means solely the House of Representatives. The Senate has always had a skew towards rural states by design.
2008 was most likely an outlier because of the size of Obama’s victory, which I suspect hit the tipping point to overcome gerrymandering, and when that happens it’s very bad for the person who did the gerrymandering because it leads to an avalanche of losses. For example if your gerrymander all your seats to be R+5 and R’s lose by 4, you’re all good and lose nothing. If you lose by 6 you might lose everything.
They do love punishment, even if it hurts them too.The past several shutdowns were caused by Republican infighting; the Republican base likes shutdowns.
yes but the public is so ignorant most think the democrats caused someThey do love punishment, even if it hurts them too.
“If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.” - Lyndon B. JohnsonThey do love punishment, even if it hurts them too.
One has to ask, how much the red states heavy gerrymandering and supression efforts played in those numbers the last few decades? With that in mind, is it an accurate representation of what the people want? I am willing to bet, if someone took the time to research it, that the 1990's is when such gerrymanding and suppression efforts started to streamline in the red statese. I suspect the results would have been simular to the previous decades if such gerrymandering and supression efforts in the red states didn't take place to the extent that it has. Record voting numbers in 2008 is most likely why 2008 looks like the earlier decades. At some point, the red states are going to succeed with their gerrymanding and suprission efforts that not even record voting turnout will be able to combat it, if something isn't done about it to stop them.I believe the dots represent the % of the popular vote and the destination of the arrow corresponds to the % of the House seats won. For example, in 1964 Democrats won 57% of the popular vote which led them to winning almost 70% of the House seats. Vice versa, Republicans won 43% of the popular vote which led them to winning low-30% of the House seats.
What's interesting is to see when a party didn't win at least 50% of the popular vote yet won House seats. You can see more recently there were a handful of times Republicans lost the popular vote but won seats, implying an inherent edge. This is consistent with their rural advantage.
View attachment 87019