Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[darkrider2]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/gop-leaders-insist-no-overhaul-needed-86757.html?ml=po_r
 
Well this will turn out well for them.

I'm reading that and... is this one of those gag newspapers?

Because I'm pretty sure this exact mentality was predicted by some forumites in the Aqizzar election thread.

Old Cloths are dirty? Febreeze that shit, new cloths!

[darkrider2]

504 gateway timeout produced a double post.

[Helgoland]

Toady should get better servers, these keep happening to me :/

But that article gives me hope - maybe we'll see a blue house in 2014.

[mainiac]

But that article gives me hope - maybe we'll see a blue house in 2014.

Sadly the degree of gerrymandering makes this virtually impossible.  Maybe by 2016 demographic shifts will have blurred the gerrymandered districts and make it possible.  But for now the house is so gerrymandered that it would take a real wave in 2014 to sway it and I don't think anyone sees such a wave on the horizon.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

With the way that the GOP shoots themselves in the foot every other week, without anyone even trying to make them do so, I wouldn't be so sure. Gerrymandering helps them, but they can only gerrymander so much without getting in trouble, and with Obama in office that threshold isn't very high.

The GOP has planted its feet in the ground and decided to stick with being the party of rich old evangelicals. I admire their determination, but that's a losing strategy.

[FearfulJesuit]

They can only do racial gerrymandering so much before getting into trouble. That leaves plenty of wiggle room.

[Jervill]

There are a number of Republicans (about 16) sitting in seats Obama won; and the right Democratic candidates can win in seats down to about 45% Obama if they're not incumbents.  Miller in CA-31 and Valadao in CA-21 hold down the most Democratic seats at 57.2% and 54.6%, respectively.

There's also about 9 Dems in seats Romney won, including three seats where Obama received less than 40% of the vote. (McIntyre's NC-07, Matheson's UT-04, and Rahall's WV-03).

Of course, those are only the Obama numbers and don't take into account areas that are locally stronger for Democrats (such as many Blue Dog rural South areas) or Republicans (Philadelphia suburbs).

It's not completely impossible for the Dems to take the House, just leaning towards unlikely.

Source.  The Elections subsite is quite good, being focused on horse race stuff lessens the whining.

[Dutchling]

How can you get elected president twice, without winning the house o_O?

Weird americans :p

[FearfulJesuit]

I've been trawling through the Wiki looking at past elections. Here's a strategy the Republicans could try to employ, although it failed the last time: the Whig strategy of 1836. Basically, if they know they'll have the House under control, but (as seems likely) any given candidate would lose a regular presidential race to the Democrat, you simply run a different candidate in each part of the country: say, Christie in the Northeast and Midwest, Santorum in the South and Martinez or Rand Paul in the Mountain West, in the hopes that each of them will be popular enough in their area to win a few states from the Democrat and deny the Democrat from getting 270. Then, with nobody having gotten a majority of electoral votes, the House picks.

[Euld]

How can you get elected president twice, without winning the house o_O?

Weird americans :p

The house goes by a more state-by-state basis.  There are still many red states that elected conservatives to represent them in the house.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I've been trawling through the Wiki looking at past elections. Here's a strategy the Republicans could try to employ, although it failed the last time: the Whig strategy of 1836. Basically, if they know they'll have the House under control, but (as seems likely) any given candidate would lose a regular presidential race to the Democrat, you simply run a different candidate in each part of the country: say, Christie in the Northeast and Midwest, Santorum in the South and Martinez or Rand Paul in the Mountain West, in the hopes that each of them will be popular enough in their area to win a few states from the Democrat and deny the Democrat from getting 270. Then, with nobody having gotten a majority of electoral votes, the House picks.

I think most Southerners would shy away from Santorum, but regardless, that would not fly. Even if it worked. Especially if it worked. You don't just blatantly steal the Presidential election through a technicality and override the will of the people. Remember all the turmoil and rage about Bush v. Gore? Even that was ambiguous. You'd have riots in the streets, people and officials calling for immediate impeachment.

[Criptfeind]

I've been trawling through the Wiki looking at past elections. Here's a strategy the Republicans could try to employ, although it failed the last time: the Whig strategy of 1836. Basically, if they know they'll have the House under control, but (as seems likely) any given candidate would lose a regular presidential race to the Democrat, you simply run a different candidate in each part of the country: say, Christie in the Northeast and Midwest, Santorum in the South and Martinez or Rand Paul in the Mountain West, in the hopes that each of them will be popular enough in their area to win a few states from the Democrat and deny the Democrat from getting 270. Then, with nobody having gotten a majority of electoral votes, the House picks.

I'm pretty sure doing that would be crossing a line that I doubt even Americans could accept.

Although heck. Maybe not. Maybe, god willing, we could someday have a president that got less then 25% of the vote.

[mainiac]

How can you get elected president twice, without winning the house o_O?

Weird americans :p

Democrats did win the house in 2008.  So it's only once that Obama won without the house going.  And the answer is simple.  Democrats won the popular vote but republican state legislatures drew the congressional districts for the decade and they were very, very efficient in their rigging the districts.

I've been trawling through the Wiki looking at past elections. Here's a strategy the Republicans could try to employ, although it failed the last time: the Whig strategy of 1836. Basically, if they know they'll have the House under control, but (as seems likely) any given candidate would lose a regular presidential race to the Democrat, you simply run a different candidate in each part of the country: say, Christie in the Northeast and Midwest, Santorum in the South and Martinez or Rand Paul in the Mountain West, in the hopes that each of them will be popular enough in their area to win a few states from the Democrat and deny the Democrat from getting 270. Then, with nobody having gotten a majority of electoral votes, the House picks.

More likely they split the vote within the states and the democrat ends up with an electoral college blowout.  Even if they don't register for ballots you can't force voters to just pay attention to the candidate you want them to pay attention to.  So expect a lot of write in ballots or abstaining voters who don't see their preferred guy.  And that's assuming they could cooperate which isn't exactly their strong suit lately.

[FearfulJesuit]

I've been trawling through the Wiki looking at past elections. Here's a strategy the Republicans could try to employ, although it failed the last time: the Whig strategy of 1836. Basically, if they know they'll have the House under control, but (as seems likely) any given candidate would lose a regular presidential race to the Democrat, you simply run a different candidate in each part of the country: say, Christie in the Northeast and Midwest, Santorum in the South and Martinez or Rand Paul in the Mountain West, in the hopes that each of them will be popular enough in their area to win a few states from the Democrat and deny the Democrat from getting 270. Then, with nobody having gotten a majority of electoral votes, the House picks.

I think most Southerners would shy away from Santorum, but regardless, that would not fly. Even if it worked. Especially if it worked. You don't just blatantly steal the Presidential election through a technicality and override the will of the people. Remember all the turmoil and rage about Bush v. Gore? Even that was ambiguous. You'd have riots in the streets, people and officials calling for immediate impeachment.

Well, they're certainly thinking about doing it through the House district scheme. We'll see how that turns out for them...I feel like any Republicans who try to put a stop to it might face big primary challenges.

[mainiac]

I would be surprised if the house district EV plan goes through in a single swing state.