Its like arguing you won a football game because you had more total yardage even though you got outscored 31-23. Its a very Aggie argument.

(03-09-2018 08:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  Its like arguing you won a football game because you had more total yardage even though you got outscored 31-23. Its a very Aggie argument.

We will see in November, but just know, I'm not upset or discouraged at all, by the results statewide, in CD7, CD23, or CD32. I am disappointed by the result in CD2. So at least there's that.

(03-09-2018 08:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-09-2018 05:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-09-2018 04:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-09-2018 04:44 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-09-2018 03:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  you also seriously implied that two data points is a trend, primaries = Generals and 'the team that won' is going to be as motivated/invested as the team that lost.

Before the last election (the Presidential cycle) dozes of knowledgeable people and even more posters were making identical claims to yours about (among other things) the changing demographics of the country etc etc etc....

and they were all wrong.

If you'd like to continue to argue the same point... fine...

And you lost the popular vote by a wide margin. Look, you guys found a way, for the second time in the last five elections, to gerrymander your way to the Oval Office. Okay, just simply make that argument if you'd like.

Either way, there are a few things going on here in Texas

1) Historically, Democratic vote margins improve dramatically in statewide races over the primary voting margin

2) The Democrats had a massive increase in turnout in their primary, far outpacing the Republicans.

Now, you could argue that the increase in item 2 will mitigate the historic trend in item 1. We will have to see about that.

I'd argue that its way too early to write Beto off. And that the primary results in no way point to a massive Cruz win. Why not go back to 2012 to see the last Cruz race.

In 2012.... Republican primary turnout vs Democratic Primary turnout 75-25%. Actual final voting margin (Cruz over Sadler) 55% to 40%. So a 50 point margin in primary vote went all the way down to a 15% one.

This year, the primary margin was closer to 60-40. It doesn't take a 35 percent improvement in vote margin to elect O'Rourke to the Senate.

Delusion was one of my daughter's vocabulary words this week. You continue in the delusion that the Democrats won the last election and that gerrymandering had something to do with your large loss in the electoral college. Delusion-"erroneous belief that is held despite evidence to the contrary"

Ok, what would YOU call a situation where the system is designed so that a candidate can win with fewer votes than the other candidate?

I'd call it gerrymandering. Others would call it 'the legacy of a racist electoral system designed to protect slavery' that has the same impact as a racial gerrymander today. I think you'd prefer gerrymandering.

General rule, if you can get more votes than your opponent and still lose, then its effectively gerrymandered. Especially if it helps one race or party over another repeatedly.

WARNING - If you even try to argue that the solution is for Democrats to move to other areas, then I WILL bring up discriminatory practices in the Homestead Act, and the fact that other minorities are effectively shut out of economic and educational opportunities in many 'red' areas.

Its called the electoral college. Its the way our elections have worked since 1789. No its not gerrymandering. You have 51 individual races. It doesn't matter if you get 3 or 4 or 5 million more votes in one state. That is irrelevant to the rules.

If you don't like it, amend the constitution or move to someplace without an electoral college, like Iran or Russia. Don't continue the delusional nonsense about being cheated.

Iran or Russia don't have free elections. Try again.

Basically, you guys got 3 million fewer votes and you don't even care that it got you fewer votes. Because to you, it appears as if you don't see that as undemocratic or even a problem. How do you define a democratic election?

To your point, our current system is a system that disproportionally discounts the votes of minorities, and was created for the purpose of protecting slavery. Racist system then, racist impact today.

Would you prefer we just call it gerrymandering?
----

But back the topic of Texas. Remember that the EC could come back to bite the GOP on the butt, bigly. Not in 2020, but eventually Texas WILL flip and will flip permanently. When it does, the Conservatives are absolutely f*cked. Not if but WHEN Texas flips, you're going to rue the day the Dems wanted to discuss a popular vote for President. Don't whine when it happens and don't expect the Dems to help you out of that jam.

Consider the following scenario. Its 2028 and Texas and Arizona have flipped. You guys are going to be so unbelievably screwed. The EV has been a mechanism to discount minority votes, but will, within 10 years, become a mechanism to give Latino Americans, and Mexican Americans specifically, an absolute hammerhold on who becomes President. All thanks to the EV system. Not if, but WHEN it happens, you can thank yourself.

(03-09-2018 10:44 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-09-2018 08:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-09-2018 05:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-09-2018 04:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-09-2018 04:44 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  And you lost the popular vote by a wide margin. Look, you guys found a way, for the second time in the last five elections, to gerrymander your way to the Oval Office. Okay, just simply make that argument if you'd like.

Either way, there are a few things going on here in Texas

1) Historically, Democratic vote margins improve dramatically in statewide races over the primary voting margin

2) The Democrats had a massive increase in turnout in their primary, far outpacing the Republicans.

Now, you could argue that the increase in item 2 will mitigate the historic trend in item 1. We will have to see about that.

I'd argue that its way too early to write Beto off. And that the primary results in no way point to a massive Cruz win. Why not go back to 2012 to see the last Cruz race.

In 2012.... Republican primary turnout vs Democratic Primary turnout 75-25%. Actual final voting margin (Cruz over Sadler) 55% to 40%. So a 50 point margin in primary vote went all the way down to a 15% one.

This year, the primary margin was closer to 60-40. It doesn't take a 35 percent improvement in vote margin to elect O'Rourke to the Senate.

Delusion was one of my daughter's vocabulary words this week. You continue in the delusion that the Democrats won the last election and that gerrymandering had something to do with your large loss in the electoral college. Delusion-"erroneous belief that is held despite evidence to the contrary"

Ok, what would YOU call a situation where the system is designed so that a candidate can win with fewer votes than the other candidate?

I'd call it gerrymandering. Others would call it 'the legacy of a racist electoral system designed to protect slavery' that has the same impact as a racial gerrymander today. I think you'd prefer gerrymandering.

General rule, if you can get more votes than your opponent and still lose, then its effectively gerrymandered. Especially if it helps one race or party over another repeatedly.

WARNING - If you even try to argue that the solution is for Democrats to move to other areas, then I WILL bring up discriminatory practices in the Homestead Act, and the fact that other minorities are effectively shut out of economic and educational opportunities in many 'red' areas.

Its called the electoral college. Its the way our elections have worked since 1789. No its not gerrymandering. You have 51 individual races. It doesn't matter if you get 3 or 4 or 5 million more votes in one state. That is irrelevant to the rules.

If you don't like it, amend the constitution or move to someplace without an electoral college, like Iran or Russia. Don't continue the delusional nonsense about being cheated.

Iran or Russia don't have free elections. Try again.

Basically, you guys got 3 million fewer votes and you don't even care that it got you fewer votes. Because to you, it appears as if you don't see that as undemocratic or even a problem. How do you define a democratic election?

To your point, our current system is a system that disproportionally discounts the votes of minorities, and was created for the purpose of protecting slavery. Racist system then, racist impact today.

Would you prefer we just call it gerrymandering?
----

But back the topic of Texas. Remember that the EC could come back to bite the GOP on the butt, bigly. Not in 2020, but eventually Texas WILL flip and will flip permanently. When it does, the Conservatives are absolutely f*cked. Not if but WHEN Texas flips, you're going to rue the day the Dems wanted to discuss a popular vote for President. Don't whine when it happens and don't expect the Dems to help you out of that jam.

Consider the following scenario. Its 2028 and Texas and Arizona have flipped. You guys are going to be so unbelievably screwed. The EV has been a mechanism to discount minority votes, but will, within 10 years, become a mechanism to give Latino Americans, and Mexican Americans specifically, an absolute hammerhold on who becomes President. All thanks to the EV system. Not if, but WHEN it happens, you can thank yourself.

No, our system was designed to protect minorities against the vagaries of the majority. Small states agreed to join the union on the grounds that they didn't get bossed around by the large states-so the Senate was split evenly while the House was based on population. The president was elected based on a mix of those two.

That protection of minorities is also one of the reasons we are a Republic and not a Democracy. It didn't have anything to do with slavery as most states had slavery at the time and the population was evenly split between north and south. In the first census, Maine and Massachusetts were the only states without slaves.

Sounds like you had a pretty sorry history teacher.

As for a permanent majority, look at the 1976 election. Except for a handful of northeast and mountain west states, it has almost completely flipped parties. Republicans thought they had a permanent advantage in the presidency with California rock solid Republican at the presidential level and a permanent advantage in the House. California flipped in the 90s and the House flipped in 2006. Democrats thought they had a permanent advantage in 2008. State houses are more Republican now than ever before in their history and the Republicans have all 3 branches of government.

(03-10-2018 10:22 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-09-2018 10:44 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-09-2018 08:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-09-2018 05:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-09-2018 04:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  Delusion was one of my daughter's vocabulary words this week. You continue in the delusion that the Democrats won the last election and that gerrymandering had something to do with your large loss in the electoral college. Delusion-"erroneous belief that is held despite evidence to the contrary"

Ok, what would YOU call a situation where the system is designed so that a candidate can win with fewer votes than the other candidate?

I'd call it gerrymandering. Others would call it 'the legacy of a racist electoral system designed to protect slavery' that has the same impact as a racial gerrymander today. I think you'd prefer gerrymandering.

General rule, if you can get more votes than your opponent and still lose, then its effectively gerrymandered. Especially if it helps one race or party over another repeatedly.

WARNING - If you even try to argue that the solution is for Democrats to move to other areas, then I WILL bring up discriminatory practices in the Homestead Act, and the fact that other minorities are effectively shut out of economic and educational opportunities in many 'red' areas.

Its called the electoral college. Its the way our elections have worked since 1789. No its not gerrymandering. You have 51 individual races. It doesn't matter if you get 3 or 4 or 5 million more votes in one state. That is irrelevant to the rules.

If you don't like it, amend the constitution or move to someplace without an electoral college, like Iran or Russia. Don't continue the delusional nonsense about being cheated.

Iran or Russia don't have free elections. Try again.

Basically, you guys got 3 million fewer votes and you don't even care that it got you fewer votes. Because to you, it appears as if you don't see that as undemocratic or even a problem. How do you define a democratic election?

To your point, our current system is a system that disproportionally discounts the votes of minorities, and was created for the purpose of protecting slavery. Racist system then, racist impact today.

Would you prefer we just call it gerrymandering?
----

But back the topic of Texas. Remember that the EC could come back to bite the GOP on the butt, bigly. Not in 2020, but eventually Texas WILL flip and will flip permanently. When it does, the Conservatives are absolutely f*cked. Not if but WHEN Texas flips, you're going to rue the day the Dems wanted to discuss a popular vote for President. Don't whine when it happens and don't expect the Dems to help you out of that jam.

Consider the following scenario. Its 2028 and Texas and Arizona have flipped. You guys are going to be so unbelievably screwed. The EV has been a mechanism to discount minority votes, but will, within 10 years, become a mechanism to give Latino Americans, and Mexican Americans specifically, an absolute hammerhold on who becomes President. All thanks to the EV system. Not if, but WHEN it happens, you can thank yourself.

No, our system was designed to protect minorities against the vagaries of the majority. Small states agreed to join the union on the grounds that they didn't get bossed around by the large states-so the Senate was split evenly while the House was based on population. The president was elected based on a mix of those two.

That protection of minorities is also one of the reasons we are a Republic and not a Democracy. It didn't have anything to do with slavery as most states had slavery at the time and the population was evenly split between north and south. In the first census, Maine and Massachusetts were the only states without slaves.

Sounds like you had a pretty sorry history teacher.

As for a permanent majority, look at the 1976 election. Except for a handful of northeast and mountain west states, it has almost completely flipped parties. Republicans thought they had a permanent advantage in the presidency with California rock solid Republican at the presidential level and a permanent advantage in the House. California flipped in the 90s and the House flipped in 2006. Democrats thought they had a permanent advantage in 2008. State houses are more Republican now than ever before in their history and the Republicans have all 3 branches of government.

Ok, when Texas and Arizona flip (and have even more EVs than they do today) don't whine.

Basically Trumpism is Pete Wilson on steroids. He won reelection (and unlike Trump actually got more votes) in 1994 by demonizing Mexican Americans. The impact of that race was pretty much the permanent end of any hope for the Conservatives of even being mildly competitive there (Arnold wasn't a conservative).

Trump and the GOP have a coalition that is already a minority. It consists, almost exclusively of straight, white, nominally "Christian" people (yes, you have some Batista era Cuban immigrants too - but that's a tiny portion of the population - although its a huge portion of the GOP's small Hispanic support base). You guys have done everything possible to deeply offend just about every other group. As well as white people that support the environment, womens rights, humane treatment of LGBT persons, people who question the wisdom of turning our country into a free fire zone, and many non-religious persons as well. What's your plan to get them back? You think they're just going to forget what y'all are doing now? Its going to take DECADES before you'll get many of them to even listen to you. And you're going to have to concede on a LOT of points to do it.

Its really interesting really. To have a party have a minority of support, and then do just about everything conceivably possible to piss off everyone who they don't already have the support of.

Oh, and Trump/GOP voters are also SIGNIFICANTLY older than Democratic voters too. So you're going to have to either convert those that don't have your support, or find new voters to help you maintain what was already a rail thin, gerrymandered, win.

Getting more white industrial voters doesn't help you much if you can't figure out how to win in an election where African American, LGBT, and Mexican American voters in Texas largely loathe the GOP and make up 51% of the electorate. And that day is coming. Not as fast as Democrats would like, but certainly faster than the Republicans think.

----

My guess is that we're not changing the EC system. I suspect that it will be the GOP that is really going to rue that, and will do so within 10 years.

dems fail miserably (yet again) in Texas, and does tom finally learn to admit he was wrong about something? Of course not, he doubles down (yet again) with another ominous conspiracy theory about how the GOP is doomed.

He claims the GOP vote is aging/dying off, but does he consider what made them such a reliable voting block to begin with? Of course not. It certainly isn't common for kids to grow out of their alt-left ideologies once they get a job, begin paying taxes, get married, have kids, become productive members of society, etc. I guess that is why the alt-left is so focused on arresting the youth's development, why a 26-year old needs to be on their parent's heath insurance, why it is "normal" to be 30 and living at home with your parents, etc.

In tom's fairy tale world, every know-nothing 18-year old out there right now is a democratic voter for life (and of course, there after.. hehe)

(03-10-2018 03:38 PM)Kronke Wrote:  dems fail miserably (yet again) in Texas, and does tom finally learn to admit he was wrong about something? Of course not, he doubles down (yet again) with another ominous conspiracy theory about how the GOP is doomed.

He claims the GOP vote is aging/dying off, but does he consider what made them such a reliable voting block to begin with? Of course not. It certainly isn't common for kids to grow out of their alt-left ideologies once they get a job, begin paying taxes, get married, have kids, become productive members of society, etc. I guess that is why the alt-left is so focused on arresting the youth's development, why a 26-year old needs to be on their parent's heath insurance, why it is "normal" to be 30 and living at home with your parents, etc.

In tom's fairy tale world, every know-nothing 18-year old out there right now is a democratic voter for life (and of course, there after.. hehe)

Uh, and here's the problem you have. What is the demographic breakdown of younger voters and how is that trend developing?

Again, you're going to actually have to figure out how to EARN the support of minority voters. And just having Ben Carson or Ted Cruz or Milo read off stuff the overwhelming majority of Black, Latino, or LGBT voters don't agree with isn't going to be convincing.

But enjoy your primacy right now.

(03-10-2018 03:45 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-10-2018 03:38 PM)Kronke Wrote:  dems fail miserably (yet again) in Texas, and does tom finally learn to admit he was wrong about something? Of course not, he doubles down (yet again) with another ominous conspiracy theory about how the GOP is doomed.

He claims the GOP vote is aging/dying off, but does he consider what made them such a reliable voting block to begin with? Of course not. It certainly isn't common for kids to grow out of their alt-left ideologies once they get a job, begin paying taxes, get married, have kids, become productive members of society, etc. I guess that is why the alt-left is so focused on arresting the youth's development, why a 26-year old needs to be on their parent's heath insurance, why it is "normal" to be 30 and living at home with your parents, etc.

In tom's fairy tale world, every know-nothing 18-year old out there right now is a democratic voter for life (and of course, there after.. hehe)

Uh, and here's the problem you have. What is the demographic breakdown of younger voters and how is that trend developing?

Again, you're going to actually have to figure out how to EARN the support of minority voters. And just having Ben Carson or Ted Cruz or Milo read off stuff the overwhelming majority of Black, Latino, or LGBT voters don't agree with isn't going to be convincing.

But enjoy your primacy right now.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleystahl...eration-z/

I'm very confident that a combination of conservatism, Trumpism, and libertarianism will defeat whatever alt-left, "progressive", marxist, socialist, 51% coalition of "others" that cannibalizes itself every chance it gets because X is more oppressed than Y, hell on earth ideology your side is trying to push.

That has already been proven. You have all the backing of the tech companies, the fake news media, academia, Hollywood, and those ideas STILL can't compete. The harder you try, the more you fail. You can joke about Milo, PJW, Crowder, Shapiro, Cernovich, etc., but they are figures you couldn't buy for all the money in the world. They are figures that the kids want to see, and proof that the right is what is cool and counter culture.

Who are the alt-left's young, organic thought leaders? Every time they try to push something on social media, it couldn't be more obvious that it is astroturfed, and it gets an absolutely dreadful response (ratio-ed on Twitter or 90+% downvoted on Youtube).

(03-09-2018 10:44 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  To your point, our current system is a system that disproportionally discounts the votes of minorities, and was created for the purpose of protecting slavery.

No Tom, it was created because without it half the colonies would not have joined the union.

(03-10-2018 03:13 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-10-2018 10:22 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-09-2018 10:44 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-09-2018 08:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-09-2018 05:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Ok, what would YOU call a situation where the system is designed so that a candidate can win with fewer votes than the other candidate?

I'd call it gerrymandering. Others would call it 'the legacy of a racist electoral system designed to protect slavery' that has the same impact as a racial gerrymander today. I think you'd prefer gerrymandering.

General rule, if you can get more votes than your opponent and still lose, then its effectively gerrymandered. Especially if it helps one race or party over another repeatedly.

WARNING - If you even try to argue that the solution is for Democrats to move to other areas, then I WILL bring up discriminatory practices in the Homestead Act, and the fact that other minorities are effectively shut out of economic and educational opportunities in many 'red' areas.

Its called the electoral college. Its the way our elections have worked since 1789. No its not gerrymandering. You have 51 individual races. It doesn't matter if you get 3 or 4 or 5 million more votes in one state. That is irrelevant to the rules.

If you don't like it, amend the constitution or move to someplace without an electoral college, like Iran or Russia. Don't continue the delusional nonsense about being cheated.

Iran or Russia don't have free elections. Try again.

Basically, you guys got 3 million fewer votes and you don't even care that it got you fewer votes. Because to you, it appears as if you don't see that as undemocratic or even a problem. How do you define a democratic election?

To your point, our current system is a system that disproportionally discounts the votes of minorities, and was created for the purpose of protecting slavery. Racist system then, racist impact today.

Would you prefer we just call it gerrymandering?
----

But back the topic of Texas. Remember that the EC could come back to bite the GOP on the butt, bigly. Not in 2020, but eventually Texas WILL flip and will flip permanently. When it does, the Conservatives are absolutely f*cked. Not if but WHEN Texas flips, you're going to rue the day the Dems wanted to discuss a popular vote for President. Don't whine when it happens and don't expect the Dems to help you out of that jam.

Consider the following scenario. Its 2028 and Texas and Arizona have flipped. You guys are going to be so unbelievably screwed. The EV has been a mechanism to discount minority votes, but will, within 10 years, become a mechanism to give Latino Americans, and Mexican Americans specifically, an absolute hammerhold on who becomes President. All thanks to the EV system. Not if, but WHEN it happens, you can thank yourself.

No, our system was designed to protect minorities against the vagaries of the majority. Small states agreed to join the union on the grounds that they didn't get bossed around by the large states-so the Senate was split evenly while the House was based on population. The president was elected based on a mix of those two.

That protection of minorities is also one of the reasons we are a Republic and not a Democracy. It didn't have anything to do with slavery as most states had slavery at the time and the population was evenly split between north and south. In the first census, Maine and Massachusetts were the only states without slaves.

Sounds like you had a pretty sorry history teacher.

As for a permanent majority, look at the 1976 election. Except for a handful of northeast and mountain west states, it has almost completely flipped parties. Republicans thought they had a permanent advantage in the presidency with California rock solid Republican at the presidential level and a permanent advantage in the House. California flipped in the 90s and the House flipped in 2006. Democrats thought they had a permanent advantage in 2008. State houses are more Republican now than ever before in their history and the Republicans have all 3 branches of government.

Ok, when Texas and Arizona flip (and have even more EVs than they do today) don't whine.

Basically Trumpism is Pete Wilson on steroids. He won reelection (and unlike Trump actually got more votes) in 1994 by demonizing Mexican Americans. The impact of that race was pretty much the permanent end of any hope for the Conservatives of even being mildly competitive there (Arnold wasn't a conservative).

Trump and the GOP have a coalition that is already a minority. It consists, almost exclusively of straight, white, nominally "Christian" people (yes, you have some Batista era Cuban immigrants too - but that's a tiny portion of the population - although its a huge portion of the GOP's small Hispanic support base). You guys have done everything possible to deeply offend just about every other group. As well as white people that support the environment, womens rights, humane treatment of LGBT persons, people who question the wisdom of turning our country into a free fire zone, and many non-religious persons as well. What's your plan to get them back? You think they're just going to forget what y'all are doing now? Its going to take DECADES before you'll get many of them to even listen to you. And you're going to have to concede on a LOT of points to do it.

Its really interesting really. To have a party have a minority of support, and then do just about everything conceivably possible to piss off everyone who they don't already have the support of.

Oh, and Trump/GOP voters are also SIGNIFICANTLY older than Democratic voters too. So you're going to have to either convert those that don't have your support, or find new voters to help you maintain what was already a rail thin, gerrymandered, win.

Getting more white industrial voters doesn't help you much if you can't figure out how to win in an election where African American, LGBT, and Mexican American voters in Texas largely loathe the GOP and make up 51% of the electorate. And that day is coming. Not as fast as Democrats would like, but certainly faster than the Republicans think.

----

My guess is that we're not changing the EC system. I suspect that it will be the GOP that is really going to rue that, and will do so within 10 years.

And the Democrats are a minority and try to offend everybody who isn't part of one of their preferred groups. Both parties are declining as a percent of the population. Democrats right now are significantly more unpopular than DJT!

(03-10-2018 03:38 PM)Kronke Wrote:  dems fail miserably (yet again) in Texas, and does tom finally learn to admit he was wrong about something? Of course not, he doubles down (yet again) with another ominous conspiracy theory about how the GOP is doomed.

He claims the GOP vote is aging/dying off, but does he consider what made them such a reliable voting block to begin with? Of course not. It certainly isn't common for kids to grow out of their alt-left ideologies once they get a job, begin paying taxes, get married, have kids, become productive members of society, etc. I guess that is why the alt-left is so focused on arresting the youth's development, why a 26-year old needs to be on their parent's heath insurance, why it is "normal" to be 30 and living at home with your parents, etc.

In tom's fairy tale world, every know-nothing 18-year old out there right now is a democratic voter for life (and of course, there after.. hehe)

There was an interesting study that showed people as a group tended one way or the other. The group that came of age during the Great Depression stayed fairly Democratic. The group that came of age when Watergate was happening have stayed fairly Democratic. The group that came of age when Carter was happening have stayed fairly Republican. I imagine the group that came of age during W.'s latter years will stay fairly Democratic. But the group that came of age during Obama's latter years will become Republicans.

I came of voting age in the LBJ years. I have spent 50 years looking to republicans to save us from the collectivist/redistributionist/socialist/communist democrat left. So far, they have pretty well sucked at doing that. If you compromise between the status quo and the far left, you end up sliding steadily further left. I am ready for republicans to come up with ideas that are viable alternatives to the far left. I hope I don't die waiting for it to happen.

Serious question

I believe there have been far more Republican Presidents since LBJ and I have no idea how many congress' have been predominately republican. It looks as though the democratic party is a minority one. How, in your opinion, have they been able to wreak so much havoc on this country? Are dems alone responsible for all the bureaucracy and regulations everyone seems to hate? Why haven't earlier repub presidents taken any of Trumps moves to strengthen the economy?
I think in all fairness many on here would agree repubs have not done that great a job of reducing the national debt. Why?

Hoping for real answers, not snark.

(03-10-2018 07:13 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Serious question
I believe there have been far more Republican Presidents since LBJ and I have no idea how many congress' have been predominately republican. It looks as though the democratic party is a minority one. How, in your opinion, have they been able to wreak so much havoc on this country? Are dems alone responsible for all the bureaucracy and regulations everyone seems to hate? Why haven't earlier repub presidents taken any of Trumps moves to strengthen the economy?
I think in all fairness many on here would agree repubs have not done that great a job of reducing the national debt. Why?
Hoping for real answers, not snark.

Because republicans have had 1) no guts, 2) no brains, and 3) no leadership.

Without looking, democrats have probably controlled congress most of the time (particularly up to 1994), and they have used their power much more effectively than republicans have.

(03-10-2018 07:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-10-2018 07:13 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Serious question
I believe there have been far more Republican Presidents since LBJ and I have no idea how many congress' have been predominately republican. It looks as though the democratic party is a minority one. How, in your opinion, have they been able to wreak so much havoc on this country? Are dems alone responsible for all the bureaucracy and regulations everyone seems to hate? Why haven't earlier repub presidents taken any of Trumps moves to strengthen the economy?
I think in all fairness many on here would agree repubs have not done that great a job of reducing the national debt. Why?
Hoping for real answers, not snark.

Because republicans have had 1) no guts, 2) no brains, and 3) no leadership.

Without looking, democrats have probably controlled congress most of the time (particularly up to 1994), and they have used their power much more effectively than republicans have.

Yes. Democrats controlled the House all but 4 years from 1933-1994, usually by huge margins. http://history.house.gov/Institution/Par...Divisions/

They controlled the Senate all but 4 years from 1933-1983 and usually by large margins. Its been about even in control since then.

1953-1955 was the only time since the Hoover administration that the Republicans controlled all 3 branches and that was by a very narrow margin, until the Republicans had very narrow margins for part of W.'s term. All told, prior to Trump, the Republicans have had all 3 branches for about 6 years and 8 months (Senate kept flipping during W's early years with retirements, deaths and party switchers) over the prior 84 years.

If you are young, you don't remember what a shock it was when Gingrich lead the Republicans to a majority in the House in the 1994 elections. It had been 38 years.

The other development, starting with the Roosevelt years, is the tremendous transfer of power from the elected congress to an unelected and unaccountable alphabet soup of executive administrative agencies--EPA, OSHA, FTC, FERC, SEC, ICC (now STB), for that matter IRS. These agencies combine legislative, executive, and judicial functions, and exercise immense, almost unchecked, power within their areas of jurisdiction--which they have great latitude and incentive to expand almost without limit.

Te Supreme Court has granted cert to hear a case, Lucia v. SEC, on appeal from the DC Circuit, that has a chance to knock over the apple cart on this power. Basically, Lucia is appealing a penalty from the SEC, on the basis that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who heard the case is an officer of the federal government, and as such was not properly appointed in accordance with the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. If Lucia succeeds on appeal, literally thousands of cases could be overturned. It's a novel theory, and I sincerely hope Lucia succeeds. I have opposed the ALJ process because I don't see how an ALJ, who reports ultimately to the executive director of the agency, can fulfill the procedural due process requirement for a hearing before an impartial tribunal.

I have proposed replacing ALJs who are captive within the agency with either 1) an independent office of administrative hearings to which the ALJs would report (Texas and Oregon have this), or better 2) separate Article III administrative law courts, such as most of Europe has. I've discussed this with Rand, but we've never gotten together on a specific proposal. Lucia may open the door.

(03-10-2018 08:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The other development, starting with the Roosevelt years, is the tremendous transfer of power from the elected congress to an unelected and unaccountable alphabet soup of executive administrative agencies--EPA, OSHA, FTC, FERC, SEC, ICC (now STB), for that matter IRS. These agencies combine legislative, executive, and judicial functions, and exercise immense, almost unchecked, power within their areas of jurisdiction--which they have great latitude and incentive to expand almost without limit.

Te Supreme Court has granted cert to hear a case, Lucia v. SEC, on appeal from the DC Circuit, that has a chance to knock over the apple cart on this power. Basically, Lucia is appealing a penalty from the SEC, on the basis that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who heard the case is an officer of the federal government, and as such was not properly appointed in accordance with the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. If Lucia succeeds on appeal, literally thousands of cases could be overturned. It's a novel theory, and I sincerely hope Lucia succeeds. I have opposed the ALJ process because I don't see how an ALJ, who reports ultimately to the executive director of the agency, can fulfill the procedural due process requirement for a hearing before an impartial tribunal.

I have proposed replacing ALJs who are captive within the agency with either 1) an independent office of administrative hearings to which the ALJs would report (Texas and Oregon have this), or better 2) separate Article III administrative law courts, such as most of Europe has. I've discussed this with Rand, but we've never gotten together on a specific proposal. Lucia may open the door.

Yes, this is one that really needs to be eliminated.

Much of what Trump has accomplished has been by executive order. Any republican Prez could have done this, don't need congress. I think I'm starting to answer my own question. Is this why so many on here argue it's about Trump vs the establishment? It looks like there has been very little difference between dems and repubs over the past few decades. Trump obviously represents a change. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

(03-10-2018 09:18 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Much of what Trump has accomplished has been by executive order. Any republican Prez could have done this, don't need congress. I think I'm starting to answer my own question. Is this why so many on here argue it's about Trump vs the establishment? It looks like there has been very little difference between dems and repubs over the past few decades. Trump obviously represents a change. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

Reagan accomplished a lot despite being limited sometimes by a Democratic Senate and always by a Democratic House. HW Bush had the same situation. Clinton, except for his first two years, was tempered by a Republican House. W. was limited by a Democratic Senate or Democratic House for many of his years. He had more than 51 in the Senate only 2005-2007. Obama from 2008-2010 has had the only strong majority since Jimmy Carter.

So most presidents have had to accommodate the other party.