I'm leaving Ron Paul land

[Tiberius]

That ignores the fact that house elections happen every 2 years. If the GOP only have 204 safe seats, they are still short of a majority.

So if the Democrats make good progress this election, and in 2018, and heck even 2020, what's stopping them gaining control of the house back?

I asked you for the evidence of gerrymandered districts which would prevent a Democrat majority in the House. You didn't provide that. "Safe", "Likely", "Lean", and "Toss-up" are not necessarily measures of how much gerrymandering goes on...some places are more Republican than others, just as some places are more Democrat than others.

So, what actual evidence is there that districts are so badly gerrymandered that a Democratic house is impossible?

[Minimalist]

I suppose that the angry white voter crowd which has steadfastly worked to disenfranchise democratic constituencies since 2009 might change their minds and vote for an old Jewish socialist and throw all the republicunts out. I regard this as about as likely as Jesus showing up and you know what I think of the odds of that.

Tomorrow I'll post a couple of analyzes that I spotted for you. Can't do it on this tablet.

But when they call a district Likely they mean it would take a miracle to lose it.

[Minimalist]

G'morning.  Here's one from the Wall Street Journal.  Can't get much more conservative than that...at least as far as the money wing of the party goes.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/06/09...e-in-2016/

Why the GOP House Majority Is Safe in 2016

First, the math is simply too tough for Democrats. They now hold just 188 House seats, which means they would need to win 30 seats now held by Republicans. Even in a good year, that’s too steep a hill to climb.

So while Republicans do have more seats in danger in the changed environment of 2016, the numbers aren’t big enough to suggest a change. The Cook Report lists 22 Republican-held seats that are among the most vulnerable this cycle, and just seven Democratic ones, but even a clean sweep of such seats by the Democrats wouldn’t be enough to change control.

Second, that difficult math is the result of years of Republican efforts to draw up congressional districts that are safe for GOP candidates. Using their control of more governor’s offices and state legislatures in recent years, Republicans have been in the driver’s seat for reapportioning congressional districts and the advantage shows. The vast majority of Republican House members are safe from serious challenge from Democrats; only 16 of them won their seats by fewer than 10 percentage points, the Cook Report says.

#2

http://www.governing.com/topics/politics...ginia.html

In addition to all this, Wisconsin Democrats recently filed a challenge against the state's legislative maps, arguing they represent a partisan gerrymander designed to keep the GOP in power and disenfranchise Democrats.

While no one doubts that is true, proving it in court is another matter. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that partisan gerrymanders are unconstitutional, but has never set standards to delineate just how far partisans can or cannot go.

Sort of like "natural-born citizen," eh?

#3

But there is another aspect to this problem:

http://www.economist.com/news/united-sta...n-996-vote

Ever-fewer races for the House of Representatives are closely fought, leaving four-fifths of that body’s 435 members with little to fear on polling day. Their doomed challengers—formerly stirred to action by a mix of idealism, ambition, vanity and (at times) self-delusion—seem at last to be noticing the odds against them. Add on the soaring costs of any election, and a growing number are quitting the field.

In 2014 Republicans have put up no challenger in 37 House races, while Democrats are ceding 32 districts without a fight, according to David Wasserman of the Cook Political Report. A further eight House districts will see no contest between the main parties, thanks to a “top two” primary system used in Washington state and California, in which ordinary voters (rather than just party members) can pick the two candidates who compete for each seat in the general election—a move sold as a cure-all for partisan extremism, but which can turn safe districts into blue-on-blue and red-on-red fights. That total of 77 single-party House races is high by recent standards and marks a big jump since 2012, when there were 45 of them. Stephen Colbert, a comedian, once persuaded a Florida congressman running unopposed to tell the camera that he liked cocaine and prostitutes, by arguing that it didn’t matter what he said because he couldn’t possibly lose.

Yes, the only thing these incumbents have to worry about is a primary challenge from someone who is even more ideologically extreme.  And this is where we sit now.

[Minimalist]

Last night, Stephen Colbert had Bernie Sanders on the show  and addressed the obvious flaw in his vision.  Includes video

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/vid...interview/

You know, enough of these moron "reporters" ( who are really just talking-heads ) moderating debates.  What we need is Colbert and Jon Stewart getting in there.

[CapnAwesome]

Because this is 'Murrica and as long as the republicunts hold the house of representatives Sanders is not getting anything through.

As an example, Obama put forward a budget proposal that calls for

President Barack Obama sent his final budget request to Congress, a $4.1 trillion proposal for fiscal 2017 that represents his aspirations for curbing climate change, bolstering education and technology while also setting a marker in the political campaign to succeed him. Bloomberg's Erik Wasson reports on "Bloomberg Markets." (Source: Bloomberg)

The republicunts declared it dead on arrival.

You do realize it actually works the other way around right. The president doesn't craft laws, congress does and the president is the one to veto them. When people talk about congress being obstructionist, it's a total absurdism. They are the ones who make the laws, not the president. His power is in the veto, so it's his job to be obstructionist anyway. I mean it's not the president's job to craft a budget, it's congress's job to.

[CapnAwesome]

As to Ron Paul, when he ran in 2008, I was in College and a die hard. I donated to his campaign and attended a private rally and met him. I had about a 30 second conversation about the Draft, he seemed disappointed that I had registered for the draft and was encouraging people not to.

Anyway, as I got older I started to focus my skeptical lens on my own beliefs and a lot of that hard core libertarian stuff fell away. The gold standard, abolishing the federal reserve, privatization of everything, no regulation, etc etc. It just doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Libertarians try to squeeze every idea into their libertarian mold, but some things just don't fit and don't make sense. I see a lot of people today do this with Bernie Sanders too. It's fine to support him, but use your skepticism to examine your own ideas as well. If you don't, what's the point of being skeptical?

[Minimalist]

Because this is 'Murrica and as long as the republicunts hold the house of representatives Sanders is not getting anything through.

As an example, Obama put forward a budget proposal that calls for



The republicunts declared it dead on arrival.

You do realize it actually works the other way around right. The president doesn't craft laws, congress does and the president is the one to veto them. When people talk about congress being obstructionist, it's a total absurdism. They are the ones who make the laws, not the president. His power is in the veto, so it's his job to be obstructionist anyway. I mean it's not the president's job to craft a budget, it's congress's job to.

Um, wrong.  Since 1921 the President has been required to submit a budget proposal to Congress. 

https://bulk.resource.org/gao.gov/67-13/00001A37.pdf

So when those republicunt shits call it dead on arrival they are indeed being a bunch of obstructionist assholes....I know you like them that way.

[Minimalist]

Listen closely, people.  This is the sound of shit hitting the fan.




http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/trump-ba...president/

Trump backers file federal lawsuit questioning Ted Cruz’s right to run for president

 

[Aegon]

^ I hope that goes through. I'd love a definitive legal definition of "natural born citizen"