Obama has won. Why is the HOUSE still under Repub control?

[MrK6]

We have gridlock in Washington because the people want gridlock in Washington. After 2008 and total Democrat control we got some really bad laws rammed down our throats (Obamacare) so in 2010 the People elected a Republican House to rein in some of the idiot things that Obummer and the Democrats were trying to do. In 2012 the People re-elected Obummer, but kept the Republican House reins on him.

We now have basically the same government that we had after the 2010 elections. Welcome back gridlock!

Wow, really? This might actually be funny if it was satire.

Why would the house bow to him now, before they hoped he only had 2e years left; now they know he's out in four...and the electorate gave them more of aa margin.

For starters he doesn't have to worry about re-election; hopefully that means the gloves come off.

 

[fskimospy]

Interesting note: the Republicans have won the popular vote in a presidential election exactly once since 1988. That's ugly.

 

[Triumph]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

When used to allege that a given party is gaining disproportionate power, the term gerrymandering has negative connotations. However, a gerrymander may also be used for purposes that some perceive as positive, such as in US federal voting district boundaries that produce a majority of constituents representative of African-American or other racial minorities (these are thus called "majority-minority districts").

How is that not the exact definition of negative gerrymandering?

 

[Gardener]

The Dems may win elections; but nothing gets accomplished to further their agenda due to the gridlock conditions.

And I don't see how gridlock hurts the Tea-Party favorite Eric Cantor or his ruling coalition.

To paraphrase the joke; "republicans run for office claiming 'government doesn't work' and once they get elected, they prove it."

It will be interesting to see if the new session of congress will have any leadership turnover. Otherwise, expect business as usual.

 

[DCal430]

Gerrymandering may not be the main cause if you look at California, around 39% voted for Romney, but only around 26% of California House seats will likely go to Republicans. While this is the opposite direction it gives you an idea that this can happen without gerrymandering.

 

[lupi]

For starters he doesn't have to worry about re-election; hopefully that means the gloves come off.

As opposed to when he had full control for two years and had to put congress on the plank to pass a single piece of legislation.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Interesting note: the Republicans have won the popular vote in a presidential election exactly once since 1988. That's ugly.

That is the way the country is stacked. High density liberal urban areas.

The EC is the only reason why the country is not run roughshod by the urban type politicians.

those people in 1776 had remarkable insight.

 

[fskimospy]

That is the way the country is stacked. High density liberal urban areas.

The EC is the only reason why the country is not run roughshod by the urban type politicians.

those people in 1776 had remarkable insight.

That's not why they created the electoral college, just an FYI. In fact when the EC was created it was made to favor slave states that had high populations but low numbers of voters (because so many were enslaved). That's why it is done based on representation, which the 3/5ths compromise propped up for slave states.

It was yet another buy off to slavery, not an attempt to favor rural areas intrinsically.

Seems like those guys in 1789 REALLY loved them some slavery.

 

[mshan]

Barney Frank on tv a while ago said that Democrats would have retaken the House too if 2010 district lines (before gerrymandering) had been in place on November 6 2012.

Romney and his inept and clueless campaign apparatus really, truly got stomped on on Tuesday.

 

[hal2kilo]

Barney Frank on tv a while ago said that if redistricting after 2010 census had not occurred, Democrats would have retaken the House, too.

Romney and his inept and clueless campaign apparatus really, truly got stomped on on Tuesday.

That's why we have to move our game down ballot.

 

[mshan]

"I estimated that Democrats would have to win the national popular vote by 2.5% in order to have a 50-50 chance of gaining control. I also predicted that the House popular vote margin would be D+0.0%, for Democratic gains of 2-22 seats . As of now, counting the leader in each undecided race, the new House will be 235 R, 200 D, a gain of only 7 seats. ThinkProgress reports a popular-vote tally of 50.3% D to 49.7%, a margin of D+0.6%. Both results are within range of my prediction.

However, this is quite notable. The popular vote was a swing of more than 6% from the 2010 election, which was 53.5% R, 46.5% D. Yet the composition of the House hardly changed – and the party that got more votes is not in control. This discrepancy between popular votes and seat counts is the largest since 1950.

Did I underestimate the tilt of the playing field? Based on how far the red data point is from the black prediction line, the “structural unfairness” may be higher – as much as 5% of the popular vote. That is incredible. Clearly nonpartisan redistricting reform would be in our democracy’s best interests."


http://election.princeton.edu/2012/11/09/the-new-house-with-less-democracy/#more-8865

All I can says is "wow."

 

[hellod9]

Democratic congressional candidates got MORE votes than Republican candidates. How is the answer to the OP anything other than gerrymandering?