Election 2018 Thread (An Adult Finally Has the Gavel)

[NoCalMike]

1 hour ago, Larry said:

 

You're  talking about the Senate. 

 

You might not like the way the Senate is set up, but it's absolutely not gerrymandered, and the rules were set up before the parties even existed. 

 

 

 

I understand the Senate isn't gerrymandered.  When it comes to the Senate, I'd more suggest the representation in ratio to population is the failure there.

 

[Larry]

7 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

 

I understand the Senate isn't gerrymandered.  When it comes to the Senate, I'd more suggest the representation in ratio to population is the failure there.

 

 

But it was specifically, intentionally, not set up that way. 

 

Granted, I'm not going to say that the Framers were perfect. (Really?  The guy who loses the Presidential election becomes Veep?)  Or that their logic is automatically valid today. 

[HOF44]

12 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

 

I understand the Senate isn't gerrymandered.  When it comes to the Senate, I'd more suggest the representation in ratio to population is the failure there.

 

That's the point of the senate though.  The thing is the house was supposed to be a counterbalance to that.  The failure to add more house districts and to add electoral votes now has the house becoming less representative of the population.  

[NoCalMike]

Just now, HOF44 said:

That's the point of the senate though.  The thing is the house was supposed to be a counterbalance to that.  The failure to add more house districts and to add electoral votes now has the house becoming less representative of the population.  

 

 

Sorry, yes I was I mixing up the Senate/House.  Senators 2 per state period.  Not expanding the House of Reps/districts may be the problem.

 

The issue for me is that the Democrats continue to lose based on geography despite continuing to have a bigger amount of support from the people themselves.  Not sure how to fix this.

[HOF44]

1 minute ago, NoCalMike said:

 

 

Sorry, yes I was I mixing up the Senate/House.  Senators 2 per state period.  Not expanding the House of Reps/districts may be the problem.

 

The issue for me is that the Democrats continue to lose based on geography despite continuing to have a bigger amount of support from the people themselves.  Not sure how to fix this.

Add more house districts which increases electoral votes which then gives more voice to the population.  

[No Excuses]

52 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

 

a) LOL at whackos. Corporate Dems are the worst

b) Did the DNC and state Dems offer equal assistance in those races? In MD for instance, the state Dems only offered to help Jealous in early October. The most populated county is Montgomery County and Issac Leggett, the outgoing county exec, gave a tepid endorsement late in the game while saying he is friends with Hogan.

 

Miss me with all of that.

 

“Corporate Dems” is the stupidest diss of all. A vibrant private sector is at the heart of  prosperity in liberal states and cities. People running on nonsense agendas supported by the loons in DSA are never going to win by running on platforms that challenge the basic economics of why cities and liberal states are thriving. 

[NoCalMike]

9 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

“Corporate Dems” is the stupidest diss of all. A vibrant private sector is at the heart of  prosperity in liberal states and cities. People running on nonsense agendas supported by the loons in DSA are never going to win by running on platforms that challenge the basic economics of why cities and liberal states are thriving. 

 

I think there is room for both.  I also think it is very understated that politics for the most are local, even though it doesn't seem like it when so much media coverage is skewed towards the national stage.  I think there are some policies that should apply across the board, something such as anti-discrimination laws, but there are many things better handled on the local level.

 

The problem is cable news and political media in general has nationalized everything so much, that politicians on both sides often have to pass a litmus test on every single issue on their party's national platform.  It pushes out the moderates.  So say a Republican from Montana might have some good ideas on how to regulate hunting, fishing, environmental issues in his region, but he'll be ran off with pitch forks if he also happens to support marriage equality.  So what ends up happening is every single candidate has to be these autonomous Frankenstein's monsters that just blather out the agenda of the RNC (or DNC).

[twa]

1 hour ago, No Excuses said:

Center-left liberalism triumphs over the whackos running on far-left platforms.

 

 

 

Flipped is different than replaced a Dem I take it?

30 minutes ago, HOF44 said:

That's the point of the senate though.  The thing is the house was supposed to be a counterbalance to that.  The failure to add more house districts and to add electoral votes now has the house becoming less representative of the population.  

 

I don't see where adding more gives more representation, seems like it would be just more noise and salaries.

I'd be more in favor of merging small pop states or shipping govt jobs to them. 

[Bozo the kKklown]

23 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

“Corporate Dems” is the stupidest diss of all. A vibrant private sector is at the heart of  prosperity in liberal states and cities. People running on nonsense agendas supported by the loons in DSA are never going to win by running on platforms that challenge the basic economics of why cities and liberal states are thriving. 

And this is why I use the term Corporate Dems. Ben Jealous and most of the candidates that article mentioned were not DSA or running anywhere near that platform unless we are now saying Beto O'Rourke is now a DSA loon.

 

A vibrant private sector isn't the same thing as taking money and support from Goldman Sachs and Aetna.

[visionary]

 

 

 

[HOF44]

59 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Flipped is different than replaced a Dem I take it?

 

I don't see where adding more gives more representation, seems like it would be just more noise and salaries.

I'd be more in favor of merging small pop states or shipping govt jobs to them. 

The key part adding more would do is give higher populous states more electoral votes. You would be less likely to see the popular vote winner lose, though still possible. 

[twa]

1 minute ago, HOF44 said:

The key part adding more would do is give higher populous states more electoral votes. You would be less likely to see the popular vote winner lose, though still possible. 

 

I don't see value in that, despite being in a populous state.

I prefer a Republic

[HOF44]

4 minutes ago, twa said:

 

I don't see value in that, despite being in a populous state.

I prefer a Republic

That would not make it cease to be a republic it would just set the ratios more in line to what the founders of our republic intended.  

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

[FanboyOf91]

 

 

[twa]

42 minutes ago, HOF44 said:

That would not make it cease to be a republic it would just set the ratios more in line to what the founders of our republic intended.  

 

simply setting congressional district size to the lowest state's population would be close enough....not far off now

[88Comrade2000]

Grant the blue portions of California Independence, so they can be their own country.  The Red portion stays with the U.S.

Grant Texas independence and build a wall around Texas.  Gotta keep those TWA types out of the U.S.A.

To replace Texas, split off NOVA into it's own state.

Adjust the House to increase more seats, to accurately reflect population.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

1 hour ago, Rdskns2000 said:

Grant the blue portions of California Independence, so they can be their own country.  The Red portion stays with the U.S.

Grant Texas independence and build a wall around Texas.  Gotta keep those TWA types out of the U.S.A.

To replace Texas, split off NOVA into it's own state.

 

I typically love your political posts but have you been drinking?

[HOF44]

37 minutes ago, twa said:

 

simply setting congressional district size to the lowest state's population would be close enough....not far off now

That would be fine if that state then got one electoral vote and then based on number of those sized districts other states were awarded the appropriate number of electoral votes.  That would give CA for example roughly 90 electoral votes to Wyoming’s 1 at that ratio.  And my home state VA would get 15 instead of 10. Good plan!!

[Cooked Crack]

27 minutes ago, FanboyOf91 said:

 

Shout out to Trey Gowdy and his search for Ben Ghazi.

[NoCalMike]

1 hour ago, Cooked Crack said:

Shout out to Trey Gowdy and his search for Ben Ghazi.

 

Don't leave Darrel "I haven't seen a bogus issue I won't investigate" Issa out of the shout out!

[Momma There Goes That Man]

Apparently 30,000 ballots in Broward county voted for a Governor but not a Senator. That means more people voted for Agriculture Commissioner over US Senator which seems wildly absurd. Possibly due to the poor layout of the Florida ballot where the Senate vote was listed directly under the ballot instructions and could have been skimmed over. Nelson's lawyer thinks it could be bad markings not registering which would be accounted for in a recount. 

[twa]

1 hour ago, HOF44 said:

That would be fine if that state then got one electoral vote and then based on number of those sized districts other states were awarded the appropriate number of electoral votes.  That would give CA for example roughly 90 electoral votes to Wyoming’s 1 at that ratio.  And my home state VA would get 15 instead of 10. Good plan!!

 

That already is practice,more or less 

[visionary]