• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOP In Grave Danger Of Losing House In 2014, PPP Polls Show [W:78]

Perotista, you've convinced me of your wisdom of 30 minority-majority CDs being a huge conundrum within the gerry-mander discussion. Your #s gave me a 3.73 million surplus for 30 m/M Dem CDs. Repubs had a 234-171 seat advantage, or +63 advantage with only a 3.23 million vote surplus.
I am with you, it at least keeps far extreme right or left wing legislation from passing.
 
Last edited:
Brother Pero, a +30 Dem. m/M with a 3.73M surplus vs. a +63 Repub. GM with a 3.23M surplus gives a +33 Repub CD with a -0.50M deficit.
These are a few of the symptons of House gerry-mandering, not the whole House disease. The Senate disease was corrected with the 17th amendment, fact.
Just another problem with a Republic in the House.
Thus, we have the same Republic effect in the House, as designed in the Constitution for the Senate, for smaller population states.
So their is no people's House.
As you mentioned, the House also has a greater density of Dems per land area, wherever Dems are, as compared to Repubs.
Dems have less area with representation per person in the House, just as in the Senate.

And really, Republicans have been favored this way overall since we first began voting as citizens starting in 1824.
I am with you, it at least keeps far extreme right or left wing legislation from passing.
 
everyone paying the same rate? works for me

I think that is common sense, but in Washington and this is a groaner, when ever common sense is talked about, all the Washington politicians check their change purses to make sure they have their cents.
 
Perotista, you've convinced me of your wisdom of 30 minority-majority CDs being a huge conundrum within the gerry-mander discussion. Your #s gave me a 3.73 million surplus for 30 m/M Dem CDs. Repubs had a 234-171 seat advantage, or +63 advantage with only a 3.23 million vote surplus.

I'm not done with it. It is only a draft and I will have to chart it out. But I noticed a lot of the Republican wins were by 52-48 or 55-45 vs some 60-40 and 65-35 for quite a lot of Dems. There is a lot of putting together the numbers I have obtained. Give me time on this.
 
Another new factor for repubs is that the won't have the ODS hate-Obama drive to get them to vote in 014.
I'm not done with it. It is only a draft and I will have to chart it out. But I noticed a lot of the Republican wins were by 52-48 or 55-45 vs some 60-40 and 65-35 for quite a lot of Dems. There is a lot of putting together the numbers I have obtained. Give me time on this.
 
Brother Pero, a +30 Dem. m/M with a 3.73M surplus vs. a +63 Repub. GM with a 3.23M surplus gives a +33 Repub CD with a -0.50M deficit.
These are a few of the symptons of House gerry-mandering, not the whole House disease. The Senate disease was corrected with the 17th amendment, fact.
Just another problem with a Republic in the House.
Thus, we have the same Republic effect in the House, as designed in the Constitution for the Senate, for smaller population states.
So their is no people's House.
As you mentioned, the House also has a greater density of Dems per land area, wherever Dems are, as compared to Repubs.
Dems have less area with representation per person in the House, just as in the Senate.

And really, Republicans have been favored this way overall since we first began voting as citizens starting in 1824.

Like I said, give me time and I'll figure it out. Since I first started following politics, it seems the more rural areas were mostly republican strong holds with the cities Democratic bastions.
 
Another new factor for repubs is that the won't have the ODS hate-Obama drive to get them to vote in 014.

and the waves of obama bots won't show up either

remember what happened in 2010? lots of black voters who showed up to vote DEM without thinking didn't show up in 2010 and thats why the dems lost lots of seats they had gained with that group voting in 08
 
I'm not done with it. It is only a draft and I will have to chart it out. But I noticed a lot of the Republican wins were by 52-48 or 55-45 vs some 60-40 and 65-35 for quite a lot of Dems. There is a lot of putting together the numbers I have obtained. Give me time on this.

I'll be waiting, along with NIMBY! :thumbs:
 
I think that is common sense, but in Washington and this is a groaner, when ever common sense is talked about, all the Washington politicians check their change purses to make sure they have their cents.

Okay, Counting down... 3-2-1...groan! :lamo:
 
Another new factor for repubs is that the won't have the ODS hate-Obama drive to get them to vote in 014.

I do not think in 2010 it was an anti Obama vote that changed the house. I think that year it was a vote against incumbents who failed to listen to the people who voted them into office and they really got peeved enough to vote the bums out. That and counting an excess of Dems who won congressional seats in Rep districts back in 2006 played a role too.
 
Deep down in your againg Goldwater/Perot hide,
I believe you are willing to give a little more before we leave this place.
I know I am and it feels good to share.
Arguing the legalities and vagaries about a LAW while surreptitiouly freezing/stopping the economy?
Talk about what, before Judicial action begins?
I think that is common sense, but in Washington and this is a groaner, when ever common sense is talked about, all the Washington politicians check their change purses to make sure they have their cents.
 
Deep down in your againg Goldwater/Perot hide,
I believe you are willing to give a little more before we leave this place.
I know I am and it feels good to share.
Arguing the legalities and vagaries about a LAW while surreptitiouly freezing/stopping the economy?
Talk about what, before Judicial action begins?

anyone have a clue what this babble is about?
 
remember what happened in 2010? lots of black voters who showed up to vote DEM without thinking didn't show up in 2010 and thats why the dems lost lots of seats they had gained with that group voting in 08

I agree with this "tap" wholeheartedly but I might have said it a bit more gracefully.
Besides Black voters, you failed to mention disaffected GLBTs that didn't feel they got all they should.
Maybe even the OWS/Nader crowd who cost Gore so dearly in the florida election.
Then we have those pesky college students who North Carolina is outlawing.
I doubt if the % of elderly Dems was high as 008 either.
I don't think that will be a problem for either party in 014, since the election began last week.
You can wink-and-nod when I mention that Dems have a few more "barriers to voting, especially south of the 40th.
 
Deep down in your againg Goldwater/Perot hide,
I believe you are willing to give a little more before we leave this place.
I know I am and it feels good to share.
Arguing the legalities and vagaries about a LAW while surreptitiouly freezing/stopping the economy?
Talk about what, before Judicial action begins?

I personally would rather the Republicans didn't attached the defunding rider to the CR. I would rather let the voters in November of 2014 decide about the ACA.
 
anyone have a clue what this babble is about?

I always considered myself a Goldwater conservative, Barry as my political mentor so to speak. I cast my first presidential vote for him. Then came my affiliation with Ross Perot. So that is what that is about.
 
It is beyond your personal comprehension. Are you here to troll all my posts to Perotista?

I don't think anyone could comprehend it NIMBY.
 
We're way past anything rational from them now.
No matter the repercussions, Boehner can't back down until the debt limit.
This was Can'tors plan all along going into August.
Remember, C_NTOR scheduled only 40 days the last 5 months of this year.
I personally would rather the Republicans didn't attached the defunding rider to the CR. I would rather let the voters in November of 2014 decide about the ACA.
 
Again, it was you who tapped on me twice when I was posting to other people, in your usual attacking way.
Isn't there a place on this DP forum that is better suited for your kind?
I don't think anyone could comprehend it NIMBY.
 
Again, it was you who tapped on me twice when I was posting to other people, in your usual attacking way.
Isn't there a place on this DP forum that is better suited for your kind?

actually the rules allow anyone to address a point made by others. perhaps you want to tell us what you were talking about in terms of a "place"
 
You're being very kind and classy Pero.
I always considered myself a Goldwater conservative, Barry as my political mentor so to speak. I cast my first presidential vote for him. Then came my affiliation with Ross Perot. So that is what that is about.
 
We're way past anything rational from them now.
No matter the repercussions, Boehner can't back down until the debt limit.
This was Can'tors plan all along going into August.
Remember, C_NTOR scheduled only 40 days the last 5 months of this year.

It will play out how ever it plays out. After living through 17 government shutdowns, the 18 doesn't bother me. Boehner has said on numerous occasions that he wouldn't let the government default. I don't think that is up to him. Even if the debt ceiling isn't raised, there is plenty of money coming in monthly to the treasury to avoid a default and service the debt. Whether or not the country defaults is probably more in the secretary of the treasury hand's than Boehner.

But another thought just popped into my head. I wonder without a CR or authorization to allow the government to spend money to service the debt, even with money or revenue coming in, can the money be spent anyway without authorization from congress? I don't know without doing further research.

But if this is the case, I suppose the house can pass a quick CR to authorized spending on the service of the debt, if the house did so, would the senate also pass it and the president sign it if that is all the house passed? Perhaps I best do some more thinking about this.
 
So I have to answer an attack from you on every word I say to another poster now?
Are those the DP rules?
Are those the sidebar rules you have enforced on others?
Why do you feel a need to be an expert on the rules?
Do you come here with the goal of B/F/T on others or else for them?
Are all posters subject to your every B/F/T whim?
actually the rules allow anyone to address a point made by others. perhaps you want to tell us what you were talking about in terms of a "place"
 
You're being very kind and classy Pero.

Perhaps moma raised a good boy. Just southern manners. now if I say some thing like "well bless his soul,...." At that point you know something very unkind and not a bit classy will be forthcoming.
 
Back
Top Bottom