|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 04 2016 10:18 Introvert wrote:
And as for the GOP, if they die it will be due to demographics. People coming into this country from other places where large, proactive governments are the norm. Which party in the US represents what they are used to more (and which panders more)? The Democrats. Reagan did amnesty in the 1980s and it didn't help the party at all. "Comprehensive immigration reform" will result in more Democrat voters, which is why they want it. It won't help the GOP.
Yes, blame it on immigration. Nevermind the tea party wing.
|
On August 04 2016 10:42 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 10:38 Introvert wrote:On August 04 2016 10:23 zlefin wrote:
People do complain and respond to gridlock; but it's just one of many factors; it does tip the middle some though.
and that gerrymandering has an effect is well documented; and you're missing the point if you're tlaking about the seats it cost the democrats. Not really, people everywhere (including in this thread) complain mercilessly about it. To place a lot of the blame for gridlock on it is also misplaced. Recall, the Tea Party that everyone laments won in 2010, the same year as the census. These guys and gals weren't high "gridlock" because of gerrymandering, they were swept into office in opposition to Obama. On August 04 2016 10:28 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Its the immigrants that are killing you. Not the social ass backwardness, not the religious zealotry, not the zero taxes, not clinging to dead ideals, not the fact that half the party will soon be dying off and not replaced. Its the people coming into the country from other countries. If you think that's your problem its no wonder the party is done for. Doesn't harm me in the slightest if republicans are too blind to see their actual problems and address them. Staggering level is dishonesty here. But I will just point out that people all day in this thread have been discussing immigration, so I was addressing another one of these talking points. It is in fact true that Democrat voter importation will do damage to the Republican party far more than anything else. They will vote for things they want or are used to. Meanwhile, the GOP on the state and local level is doing quite well. And in places like MD or NY, there are many more moderate Republicans. Who are actually moderates, unlike the Democrats who love to vote in lockstep. I didn't blame the gridlock for gerrymanders; I said the gerrymandering has a significant effect, and it has. The effect is on pushing republicans rightward due to primary challenges. With multiple convos happening at once it can be hard to properly track who has claimed what. I generally only claim what I say, nothing more. also, your claim that democrats vote in lockstep moreso than republicans is laughable (unless oyu have citations).
Take the senate. There are moderate Republicans like Susan Collins or Kelly Ayotte that regularly vote and side with democrats, and vote their way on cloture votes. How many democrats do that? Some (like Joe Manchin) might occasional vote with the GOP on something like guns because of the state he's from. But that's really it.
On August 04 2016 10:42 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 10:18 Introvert wrote:
And as for the GOP, if they die it will be due to demographics. People coming into this country from other places where large, proactive governments are the norm. Which party in the US represents what they are used to more (and which panders more)? The Democrats. Reagan did amnesty in the 1980s and it didn't help the party at all. "Comprehensive immigration reform" will result in more Democrat voters, which is why they want it. It won't help the GOP.
Yes, blame it on immigration. Nevermind the tea party wing.
The Tea party wave is the reason the GOP controls the house, and to a lesser degree, the Senate.
|
On August 04 2016 10:46 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 10:42 zlefin wrote:On August 04 2016 10:38 Introvert wrote:On August 04 2016 10:23 zlefin wrote:
People do complain and respond to gridlock; but it's just one of many factors; it does tip the middle some though.
and that gerrymandering has an effect is well documented; and you're missing the point if you're tlaking about the seats it cost the democrats. Not really, people everywhere (including in this thread) complain mercilessly about it. To place a lot of the blame for gridlock on it is also misplaced. Recall, the Tea Party that everyone laments won in 2010, the same year as the census. These guys and gals weren't high "gridlock" because of gerrymandering, they were swept into office in opposition to Obama. On August 04 2016 10:28 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Its the immigrants that are killing you. Not the social ass backwardness, not the religious zealotry, not the zero taxes, not clinging to dead ideals, not the fact that half the party will soon be dying off and not replaced. Its the people coming into the country from other countries. If you think that's your problem its no wonder the party is done for. Doesn't harm me in the slightest if republicans are too blind to see their actual problems and address them. Staggering level is dishonesty here. But I will just point out that people all day in this thread have been discussing immigration, so I was addressing another one of these talking points. It is in fact true that Democrat voter importation will do damage to the Republican party far more than anything else. They will vote for things they want or are used to. Meanwhile, the GOP on the state and local level is doing quite well. And in places like MD or NY, there are many more moderate Republicans. Who are actually moderates, unlike the Democrats who love to vote in lockstep. I didn't blame the gridlock for gerrymanders; I said the gerrymandering has a significant effect, and it has. The effect is on pushing republicans rightward due to primary challenges. With multiple convos happening at once it can be hard to properly track who has claimed what. I generally only claim what I say, nothing more. also, your claim that democrats vote in lockstep moreso than republicans is laughable (unless oyu have citations). Take the senate. There are moderate Republicans like Susan Collins or Kelly Ayotte that regularly vote and side with democrats, and vote their way on cloture votes. How many democrats do that? Some (like Joe Manchin) might occasional vote with the GOP on something like guns because of the state he's from. But that's really it.
do you have any actual citations as to it being more frequent one way or the other? because I'm gonna need more than your assertion for such a claim. you're making a strong claim about one party being more in lockstep/less across the aisle, and I'd like some hard numbers rather than your perception.
|
On August 04 2016 10:49 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 10:46 Introvert wrote:On August 04 2016 10:42 zlefin wrote:On August 04 2016 10:38 Introvert wrote:On August 04 2016 10:23 zlefin wrote:
People do complain and respond to gridlock; but it's just one of many factors; it does tip the middle some though.
and that gerrymandering has an effect is well documented; and you're missing the point if you're tlaking about the seats it cost the democrats. Not really, people everywhere (including in this thread) complain mercilessly about it. To place a lot of the blame for gridlock on it is also misplaced. Recall, the Tea Party that everyone laments won in 2010, the same year as the census. These guys and gals weren't high "gridlock" because of gerrymandering, they were swept into office in opposition to Obama. On August 04 2016 10:28 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Its the immigrants that are killing you. Not the social ass backwardness, not the religious zealotry, not the zero taxes, not clinging to dead ideals, not the fact that half the party will soon be dying off and not replaced. Its the people coming into the country from other countries. If you think that's your problem its no wonder the party is done for. Doesn't harm me in the slightest if republicans are too blind to see their actual problems and address them. Staggering level is dishonesty here. But I will just point out that people all day in this thread have been discussing immigration, so I was addressing another one of these talking points. It is in fact true that Democrat voter importation will do damage to the Republican party far more than anything else. They will vote for things they want or are used to. Meanwhile, the GOP on the state and local level is doing quite well. And in places like MD or NY, there are many more moderate Republicans. Who are actually moderates, unlike the Democrats who love to vote in lockstep. I didn't blame the gridlock for gerrymanders; I said the gerrymandering has a significant effect, and it has. The effect is on pushing republicans rightward due to primary challenges. With multiple convos happening at once it can be hard to properly track who has claimed what. I generally only claim what I say, nothing more. also, your claim that democrats vote in lockstep moreso than republicans is laughable (unless oyu have citations). Take the senate. There are moderate Republicans like Susan Collins or Kelly Ayotte that regularly vote and side with democrats, and vote their way on cloture votes. How many democrats do that? Some (like Joe Manchin) might occasional vote with the GOP on something like guns because of the state he's from. But that's really it. do you have any actual citations as to it being more frequent one way or the other? because I'm gonna need more than your assertion for such a claim.
I'd have to go looking, but a few years ago there was a brief news cycle about how Harry Reid and maintained iron-fisted control over senate Democrats.
Example http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/10/us/politics/reids-uncompromising-power-play-in-senate-rankles-republicans.html?ref=us&_r=0
in the article in mentions what's-her-name from AK, as well, as someone who regularly sides with Democrats. Where is that Democrat that regularly sides with Republicans?
I'll see if I have some time to look for more.
Here, I randomly googled one, don't know how good it is. It's for the last congress.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/113/senate/members/
Notice how high they all are, but the all the democrats except for one are 90%+. What I want though is one that tallies the most important votes, ones on things like gun control, for instance. See how the important votes go down.
|
That source lists a complicated situation, with both sides doing some bad things; and names a few people, just because it doens't name a dem that oft sides with republicans doesn't mean they don't exist. Like I say I want some hard numbers, not vague speculation that's too easily subject to bias. If you don't have time, that's fine, I'm just saying what I want for evidence in this case.
I again express a preference for not continually adding things in an edit AFTER i've replied to you, as it makes the discussion confusing for onlookers.
I agree that source does back your claim, and it looks reasonable, and is sufficiently satisfactory until more evidence is obtained. There are some issues with it of course, as is always the case with evidence: the link does not include a section on methodology, how they calculated stuff, what constitutes "voting with your party." I note that the dems who voted least with their party were from MA, which seems rather odd, I mean, MA republicans are pretty moderate, so I'm surprised MA dems would be not voting with their party much. Is it simply a result of majority/minority status? i.e. does the party in majority always tend to be more party line with their votes (or is it some other factor like who controls the presidency that reliably predicts such, thus making it not a property of the party, but a property of a well-defined circumstance).
also that one lists 4 democrats at under 90%
|
On August 04 2016 08:47 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 08:43 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2016 08:43 LegalLord wrote:
At this rate the Democratic Party has a solid chance of taking back Congress. I'm really hoping the Republican Party finds a way to reform soon, because I really don't like the Dems much and I wish there was another choice that is at least somewhat reasonable. What's the difference between a reasonable republican party and Hillary ? Less warhawking and more trustworthiness. I see a reasonable Republican Party as something of a worker's party that holds onto traditional conservative values, but that drops the insane religious positions and corporate shilling. Something that isn't exactly progressive on social issues, but not ass backwards on them either.
Pretty sure that party really hasn't existed for generations.
The Republican party has been staunchly socially conservative, very warhawkish, and extremely pro-corporation for decades.
not that I disagree with you; I think it would be great to have that party as a legitimate alternative.
The problem is that we just haven't had that party since well before any of us on this board were born.
|
On August 04 2016 10:46 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 10:42 zlefin wrote:On August 04 2016 10:38 Introvert wrote:On August 04 2016 10:23 zlefin wrote:
People do complain and respond to gridlock; but it's just one of many factors; it does tip the middle some though.
and that gerrymandering has an effect is well documented; and you're missing the point if you're tlaking about the seats it cost the democrats. Not really, people everywhere (including in this thread) complain mercilessly about it. To place a lot of the blame for gridlock on it is also misplaced. Recall, the Tea Party that everyone laments won in 2010, the same year as the census. These guys and gals weren't high "gridlock" because of gerrymandering, they were swept into office in opposition to Obama. On August 04 2016 10:28 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Its the immigrants that are killing you. Not the social ass backwardness, not the religious zealotry, not the zero taxes, not clinging to dead ideals, not the fact that half the party will soon be dying off and not replaced. Its the people coming into the country from other countries. If you think that's your problem its no wonder the party is done for. Doesn't harm me in the slightest if republicans are too blind to see their actual problems and address them. Staggering level is dishonesty here. But I will just point out that people all day in this thread have been discussing immigration, so I was addressing another one of these talking points. It is in fact true that Democrat voter importation will do damage to the Republican party far more than anything else. They will vote for things they want or are used to. Meanwhile, the GOP on the state and local level is doing quite well. And in places like MD or NY, there are many more moderate Republicans. Who are actually moderates, unlike the Democrats who love to vote in lockstep. I didn't blame the gridlock for gerrymanders; I said the gerrymandering has a significant effect, and it has. The effect is on pushing republicans rightward due to primary challenges. With multiple convos happening at once it can be hard to properly track who has claimed what. I generally only claim what I say, nothing more. also, your claim that democrats vote in lockstep moreso than republicans is laughable (unless oyu have citations). Take the senate. There are moderate Republicans like Susan Collins or Kelly Ayotte that regularly vote and side with democrats, and vote their way on cloture votes. How many democrats do that? Some (like Joe Manchin) might occasional vote with the GOP on something like guns because of the state he's from. But that's really it. Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 10:42 Doodsmack wrote:On August 04 2016 10:18 Introvert wrote:
And as for the GOP, if they die it will be due to demographics. People coming into this country from other places where large, proactive governments are the norm. Which party in the US represents what they are used to more (and which panders more)? The Democrats. Reagan did amnesty in the 1980s and it didn't help the party at all. "Comprehensive immigration reform" will result in more Democrat voters, which is why they want it. It won't help the GOP.
Yes, blame it on immigration. Nevermind the tea party wing. The Tea party wave is the reason the GOP controls the house, and to a lesser degree, the Senate.
The House GOP is dysfunctional though. The GOP won't die, but it may be F'ed for presidential elections.
|
On August 04 2016 10:57 zlefin wrote:
That source lists a complicated situation, with both sides doing some bad things; and names a few people, just because it doens't name a dem that oft sides with republicans doesn't mean they don't exist. Like I say I want some hard numbers, not vague speculation that's too easily subject to bias. If you don't have time, that's fine, I'm just saying what I want for evidence in this case.
I again express a preference for not continually adding things in an edit AFTER i've replied to you, as it makes the discussion confusing for onlookers.
I agree that source does back your claim, and it looks reasonable, and is sufficiently satisfactory until more evidence is obtained. There are some issues with it of course, as is always the case with evidence: the link does not include a section on methodology, how they calculated stuff, what constitutes "voting with your party." I note that the dems who voted least with their party were from MA, which seems rather odd, I mean, MA republicans are pretty moderate, so I'm surprised MA dems would be not voting with their party much. Is it simply a result of majority/minority status? i.e. does the party in majority always tend to be more party line with their votes (or is it some other factor like who controls the presidency that reliably predicts such, thus making it not a property of the party, but a property of a well-defined circumstance).
also that one lists 4 democrats at under 90%
I was speeding reading. IDK, maybe it's carrying over his House record (Ed from MA)? I don't know a lot about him.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure I'm right about my claim. And it's the senate in particular I am looking at.
On August 04 2016 11:13 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 10:46 Introvert wrote:On August 04 2016 10:42 zlefin wrote:On August 04 2016 10:38 Introvert wrote:On August 04 2016 10:23 zlefin wrote:
People do complain and respond to gridlock; but it's just one of many factors; it does tip the middle some though.
and that gerrymandering has an effect is well documented; and you're missing the point if you're tlaking about the seats it cost the democrats. Not really, people everywhere (including in this thread) complain mercilessly about it. To place a lot of the blame for gridlock on it is also misplaced. Recall, the Tea Party that everyone laments won in 2010, the same year as the census. These guys and gals weren't high "gridlock" because of gerrymandering, they were swept into office in opposition to Obama. On August 04 2016 10:28 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Its the immigrants that are killing you. Not the social ass backwardness, not the religious zealotry, not the zero taxes, not clinging to dead ideals, not the fact that half the party will soon be dying off and not replaced. Its the people coming into the country from other countries. If you think that's your problem its no wonder the party is done for. Doesn't harm me in the slightest if republicans are too blind to see their actual problems and address them. Staggering level is dishonesty here. But I will just point out that people all day in this thread have been discussing immigration, so I was addressing another one of these talking points. It is in fact true that Democrat voter importation will do damage to the Republican party far more than anything else. They will vote for things they want or are used to. Meanwhile, the GOP on the state and local level is doing quite well. And in places like MD or NY, there are many more moderate Republicans. Who are actually moderates, unlike the Democrats who love to vote in lockstep. I didn't blame the gridlock for gerrymanders; I said the gerrymandering has a significant effect, and it has. The effect is on pushing republicans rightward due to primary challenges. With multiple convos happening at once it can be hard to properly track who has claimed what. I generally only claim what I say, nothing more. also, your claim that democrats vote in lockstep moreso than republicans is laughable (unless oyu have citations). Take the senate. There are moderate Republicans like Susan Collins or Kelly Ayotte that regularly vote and side with democrats, and vote their way on cloture votes. How many democrats do that? Some (like Joe Manchin) might occasional vote with the GOP on something like guns because of the state he's from. But that's really it. On August 04 2016 10:42 Doodsmack wrote:On August 04 2016 10:18 Introvert wrote:
And as for the GOP, if they die it will be due to demographics. People coming into this country from other places where large, proactive governments are the norm. Which party in the US represents what they are used to more (and which panders more)? The Democrats. Reagan did amnesty in the 1980s and it didn't help the party at all. "Comprehensive immigration reform" will result in more Democrat voters, which is why they want it. It won't help the GOP.
Yes, blame it on immigration. Nevermind the tea party wing. The Tea party wave is the reason the GOP controls the house, and to a lesser degree, the Senate. The House GOP is dysfunctional though. The GOP won't die, but it may be F'ed for presidential elections.
Well the electoral map isn't getting easier, I will admit that.
|
intro -> looking at a wider selection of congress, through that same link (checking all the congresses they had on record there which was 13 of them iirc), no clear pattern emerges, though the dems do seem slightly more prone to higher voting with party %'s. There are certain congresses in which it's mostly republicans who are voting in lockstep; and likewise some where it's more dems doing that. There are several where it looks pretty equal.
I'd like to hear what your assessment is after looking through all the other congresses (in the upper left where it lists what congress it's talking about you can change it, and you can click on the Party marker at the top of that column to have it sort by that % then scroll down while checking the colors on the side ot get a very good sense of it.
|
This is the work of a god among morals. I can only dream of sending a letter this baller. If he is fired, he will exit exalted among his peers, a living legend.
Seriously read the whole letter.
|
On August 04 2016 11:14 zlefin wrote:
intro -> looking at a wider selection of congress, through that same link (checking all the congresses they had on record there which was 13 of them iirc), no clear pattern emerges, though the dems do seem slightly more prone to higher voting with party %'s. There are certain congresses in which it's mostly republicans who are voting in lockstep; and likewise some where it's more dems doing that. There are several where it looks pretty equal.
I'd like to hear what your assessment is after looking through all the other congresses (in the upper left where it lists what congress it's talking about you can change it, and you can click on the Party marker at the top of that column to have it sort by that % then scroll down while checking the colors on the side ot get a very good sense of it.
Time is limited, but by looking as well as I could I think that, at least for the senate, my theory is correct. Though again I would heavily emphasize my desire to examine their record on important votes, or how often they voted FOR cloture, but AGAINST the final bill. Try and cut though all these games they play. Which party holds the presidency also matters, maybe. But I think in terms of recent history, you see far more red names in the low percentages. 113th-110th, for instance. (click the congress you want, click "party" once and it shows from least party line to most. That's how I interpret it, anyway).
The House by it's very nature is different but I suspect the pattern is the same, if less pronounced.
|
It's a positive feedback cycle of Trump gets mad > Trump says dumb stuff > bad polls > Trump gets mad
|
An adviser to Donald Trump criticized United States policy toward Russia in a July trip to Moscow, the Huffington Post reported Tuesday. The trip came the week before the Trump campaign reportedly worked to soften language in the Republican party platform regarding U.S. support for Ukraine against Russian aggression.
"Washington and other Western capitals have impeded potential progress through their often hypocritical focus on ideas such as democratization, inequality, corruption, and regime change," Trump adviser Carter Page said in a speech at a graduate school in Moscow in July, according to Huffington Post.
He also called for the U.S. to lift sanctions on Russia that were put in place after the annexation of Crimea.
Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort, who has advised pro-Russian Ukrainian leader Viktor Yanukovych, has denied that the campaign tried to change the platform, and there's no evidene that Page was involved.
This all comes as Trump has praised Russian Leader Vladimir Putin, suggested he won't support NATO allies, said he would look into recognizing the Russian annexation of Crimea, and called for a better relationship with Russia.
Page has investments in the Russian energy giant Gazprom, and consults businesses looking to work with Russian entities, according to the Huffington Post. And he told Bloomberg News in March that U.S. sanctions on Russia have hurt his business.
“So many people who I know and have worked with have been so adversely affected by the sanctions policy,” Page told Bloomberg in March. “There’s a lot of excitement in terms of the possibilities for creating a better situation.”
In his July speech in Moscow, Page said that if the U.S. were to lift sanctions on Russia, American companies could begin to work with Russian entities in the oil business, according to the Huffington Post.
Trump has denied that he has any business investments in Russia, but he has yet to address whether Russian businesses entities are invested in his projects.
Source
|
Trump bringing back up the blood comment at a rally. If you listen to the clip of Trump making that comment (particularly his tone of voice saying the word "wherever"), and menstrual period does not come to mind, then you're really not being honest with yourself.
|
On August 04 2016 10:38 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 10:23 zlefin wrote:
People do complain and respond to gridlock; but it's just one of many factors; it does tip the middle some though.
and that gerrymandering has an effect is well documented; and you're missing the point if you're tlaking about the seats it cost the democrats. Not really, people everywhere (including in this thread) complain mercilessly about it. To place a lot of the blame for gridlock on it is also misplaced. Recall, the Tea Party that everyone laments won in 2010, the same year as the census. These guys and gals weren't high "gridlock" because of gerrymandering, they were swept into office in opposition to Obama. Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 10:28 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Its the immigrants that are killing you. Not the social ass backwardness, not the religious zealotry, not the zero taxes, not clinging to dead ideals, not the fact that half the party will soon be dying off and not replaced. Its the people coming into the country from other countries. If you think that's your problem its no wonder the party is done for. Doesn't harm me in the slightest if republicans are too blind to see their actual problems and address them. Staggering level is dishonesty here. But I will just point out that people all day in this thread have been discussing immigration, so I was addressing another one of these talking points. It is in fact true that Democrat voter importation will do damage to the Republican party far more than anything else. They will vote for things they want or are used to. Meanwhile, the GOP on the state and local level is doing quite well. And in places like MD or NY, there are many more moderate Republicans. Who are actually moderates, unlike the Democrats who love to vote in lockstep. Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 10:34 Adreme wrote:On August 04 2016 10:18 Introvert wrote:
Can't wait for the gerrymandering myth to die. By most analysis that I recall seeing, it's cost the Democrats like 8 seats max. There are many factors that go into the current House make up, but gerrymandering is a very small part of it.
And as for the GOP, if they die it will be due to demographics. People coming into this country from other places where large, proactive governments are the norm. Which party in the US represents what they are used to more (and which panders more)? The Democrats. Reagan did amnesty in the 1980s and it didn't help the party at all. "Comprehensive immigration reform" will result in more Democrat voters, which is why they want it. It won't help the GOP.
Third, "gridlock" won't have much of an effect this election. First of all, people complain but don't do anything about it. Remember how the government shutdown was going to cost the party dearly? That was incorrect. Combine this with Clinton's unpopularity- people hate her so much they aren't really going to care if the GOP stands in her way on a whole bunch of stuff.
But as usual I enjoy seeing the complaining and doom casters from the left talk about the Republican party. It probably costs more than 8 seats in Penny so I am questioning where your statistics came from. Ive seen how they broke up Penn specifically to make sure there would only be 4 of 16 demoncratic congressman in a state where generally more people vote for demoncratic congressman than republican (that was a 2012 number for number of congressman so it might be 1 more or less). There is a reason that 2010 suddenly made it impossible for democrats to take back a house they had just 2 years prior. I'd have to go looking again, but the effect is most certainly overblown. People act like the GOP would barely have a majority without it, which is completely false. And if you want to talk about districts are are so heavily leaning in one direction that you get radicals... well you can find LOTS of heavy democrat districts with that phenomenon, but no one whines about those. Edit: This is all pure partisanship combined with an inability to take of the blinders, it's really funny. Or at least it was funny the first 155464847 times I heard it.
I believe we were currently only talking about gerrymandering having an effect in a different way, that it is making the average member of the GOP house more conservative and more likely to be primaried due to the overabundance of safe red districts making it harder for moderates to be elected.
Nothing about the democrats being disadvantaged of it - they are, but as you said, it's probably by about 8 members, which is pretty considerable but not as much as people make out to be. If I recall correctly some of the reason why the democrats have fewer members despite winning the popular vote by a million or so had more to do with the way the districts are allocated without even considering gerrymandering, IE small states have to have at least 1 representative even if the population of the state is less than that of a district elsewhere.
|
Illinois Rep. Adam Kinzinger said Wednesday he will not support Donald Trump in November, as he becomes the latest elected Republican official to break from the party.
Kinzinger told CNN he went to the Republican National Convention and had hoped to be able to endorse Trump by the end of it. However, the former Air Force pilot said after Trump’s comments on NATO and his spat with Khizr Khan, the father of a fallen soldier who spoke at the Democratic National Convention, he doesn’t see how he could endorse him.
“Donald Trump is beginning to cross a lot of red lines of the unforgivable in politics. I'm not going to support Hillary, but in America we have the right to skip somebody,” he said on CNN. “That's what it's looking like for me today. I don't see how I get to Donald Trump anymore.”
Kinzinger joins a growing list of Republicans who have said they will not support their party’s nominee for president. However, unlike many others in the group, Kinzinger is running for reelection. Earlier this week, New York Rep. Richard Hanna said he would back Clinton, but he is retiring from Congress.
Kinzinger did not say who he would vote for instead.
"There's a bunch of people on the ballot. There's a write-in option. I don't agree with Hillary Clinton on a lot of things, most things, probably almost all things, but Donald Trump, I don’t know what he stands for in foreign policy.”
Source
|
Regarding the frequency with which senators vote with the other party, I would be interested in seeing if:
1) senators from the party which has a majority the Senate are historically more or less likely to cross than the other party
2) senators from the party which controls the Presidency are historically more or less likely to cross than the other party
For instance, it wouldn't greatly surprise me to find that the party which doesn't have a majority in the Senate is less likely to cross (since their crossing is less likely to affect anything), but without properly analysing the data I don't know.
|
On August 04 2016 11:24 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/761008906109878273This is the work of a god among morals. I can only dream of sending a letter this baller. If he is fired, he will exit exalted among his peers, a living legend. Seriously read the whole letter.
vouching this as certifiable justiceporn
|
On August 04 2016 12:15 kapibara-san wrote:vouching this as certifiable justiceporn
I don't think words can describe how fucking awesome that is.
|
On August 04 2016 12:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 12:15 kapibara-san wrote:On August 04 2016 11:24 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/761008906109878273This is the work of a god among morals. I can only dream of sending a letter this baller. If he is fired, he will exit exalted among his peers, a living legend. Seriously read the whole letter. vouching this as certifiable justiceporn I don't think words can describe how fucking awesome that is.
He built it up so well and saved it all for the drop on page 2. I think after this, he might have to retire.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
