Skip to main content

View Diary: Boehner doesn't want another debt ceiling crisis, unless Obama makes him do it (67 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  well, let's correct this . . . . (5+ / 0-)
    the people elected a Republican House
    No they didn't.  The goppers lost the aggregate popular vote in the House. They won because they gerrymandered the shit out of everything.

    But you are right about this:

    The President has made it clear that he won't agree to entitlement cuts without revenue increases, and the Republicans have made it clear that they won't agree to revenue increases without entitlement cuts.  It doesn't take a genius to see where this is going.  
    This kabuki is happening because neither side is actually disagreeing with the other, but both sides want to make it look to their cheerleaders as if they vehemently disagree with the other side.
    •  Spot on, Lenny Flank! ;-) N/T (0+ / 0-)


      "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


      by musiccitymollie on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 01:47:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Nope. that's not legitimate. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib, ColoTim
      The goppers lost the aggregate popular vote in the House.
      There is no such thing as "the aggregate popular vote in the House."  There is not one election.  There are 435 separate elections.  And it is not legitimate to say, if you add all 435 races together, more people voted for a Democratic candidate than a Republican, because that's not how our system works.  You cannot aggregate 435 separate races -- each with their own candidates and quirks affecting the turnout, and the vote, in that particular race -- and equate it with a nationwide vote for a political party.  That's a rejection of our constitutional system -- the House is not supposed to be a nationwide vote for a political party.  It's supposed to be a bunch of separate and distinct local elections.  There's no way to extrapolate, from 435 separate elections, each with its own local candidates and local issues, what the vote would have been if there had been one nationwide election that said, "do you want Republicans or Democrats to control the House."  And trying to say that there was such a "vote" is a rejection of the structure of our government as set out in the Constitution.  

       And somebody has to draw lines -- our system leaves that to LOCAL elected officials, limited only by "one person one vote" principles.  If the races are gerrymandered to favor Republicans, that is because Republicans won significant state and local elections in 2010.  Elections have consequences.

      I completely understand if you want to lament the outcome of the 2010 election that put Republicans in control of drawing district lines after the 2010 census, and of the resulting 2012 election that kept them in control of the House.  But that's different from trying to say that there's something illegitimate about the election so we should discount the results of that election.  

      Through the last two elections, the people of this country voted for a divided government.  It's up to the people in Washington to deal with what the people voted for.  

    •  Gerrymandering is old (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      and both parties do it.  The Dems gerrymandered and held the House for 4 decades.  I hate the excuse that "more people voted for Dems in aggregate than for the GOP for the House".  Whah, whah, whah!  That and a couple dollars might get you a cup of coffee at McDonalds.  

      The fact is that a majority of people in more Districts voted for the GOP candidate than for the Dem.  Period.  If Dems don't like it, they should do better in the local elections and statehouses, and get control of more state governments.

      Al Gore lost Florida.  The GOP has a demographic and regional structural advantage in the House.  The sooner everyone gets over that and deals with reality, the more constructive progress can be made.    

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site