Skip to main content

View Diary: BREAKING: Senate Democrats (including Schumer) pushing to INCREASE CR! (124 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  And why is that? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib

    the gerrymandering is because Republicans won elections -- state elections.

    Gerrymandering is as old as drawing district lines.  Republicans won more state elections in 2010.  So they drew the district lines.  Nothing new --- or unusual -- about that.

    •  unusual is losing the national vote by 1 million (4+ / 0-)

      which is how they did in the House last election.  

      you may not realize it, but by making this response you're acknowledging that you are wrong.

      Just because half the House of Representatives wants cuts does not imply that half the country wants cuts.  The Republicans used the 2010 election to gerrymander themselves a majority in the House of Representatives even after they'd lost an electoral majority.

      The other logical flaw in this response is that 2010 Republicans ran on a populist platform of white fear, misinformation about TARP and "Death Panels".  (They definitely didn't run on cuts to SS, Food Stamps, and Medicare.)

      The current Republican platform doesn't resemble anything like the 2010 campaign platform that put all these Republicans in office.  And the people that voted for them don't add up to half the number of votes (much less half the country).

      •  Again, ignoring reality (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib

        If the Republicans in the House thought that their positions would HURT them in their next elections, they wouldn't take those positions.  All of them who got re-elected in 2012 voted for the Ryan budget.  If that was a BAD thing in their districts, somebody would have defeated them.  But in their districts, voting for the Ryan budget was a GOOD thing in the eyes of their voters -- which is why they all voted for the Ryan budget.  

        Reality is that most of these Republicans are from districts that are very very conservative, the people who elect them WANT them to take these positions.  

        The House is becoming more and more polarized. The vast majority of districts are either solid Democratic, or solid Republican.   And House elections are NOT a national election.  It's just illegitimate to view it that way. They are 435 local elections.  And that affects national turnout.  Democrats might not turn out to vote in LA-1 for example, because regardless of how they vote, the Republican is going to win.  The reverse is true in LA-2.   The vagrancies of each individual election affect the vote and turnout.  You can't look at the election for the House as a national vote on the question of should Republicans or Democrats control the House.  It' just not set up that way constitutionally.  

        These Republicans reflect the views of the people who put them there.  That's reality.  You can't expect them to take positions contrary to the views of the voters who put them there.  You need to change the views of the people who vote to put them in office.  

    •  So you have all of the uneducated rural (0+ / 0-)

      districts in a state with a population of 10 that elect these yahoos.   They get a majority, redistrict some more to re-reinforce stupid, and there you go.   It doesn't take much to turn a state house or senate red because most states are mostly rural.   Turning them blue is another story.  That's generally the metro area.

      I have three politically incorrect, straight, white male, grandchildren; and I don't care if you think they're important or not.

      by dkmich on Sun Sep 22, 2013 at 05:30:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site