So, Republicans -- What's the Next Step?

[paft.livejournal.com]

There's been some discussion here about the right wing response to the shocking, I tell you, SHOCKING re-election of President Obama and the over-the-top reaction we've been seeing. A lot of it has involved personal idiocies from Freeper vowing everything from cutting off disabled Obama supporting relatives from support (I kid you not) divorcing spouses, spitting on neighbors, moving into bunkers, etc.

And there have been some hints of payback from people actually in a position to hurt either Obama supporters or perceived Obama supporters. The CEO of the same coal company that forced employees to spend a day without pay listening to a Romney speech laid off over a hundred employees on November 9th after publicly reading an unctuous and insulting "prayer," and on Thursday a man claiming to be a business owner in Georgia called C-Span and boasted about cutting employee hours and laying off two people because of the election. “I tried to make sure the people I laid off voted for Obama,” he said.

The fact remains -- Obama won.

Attempts at limiting the franchise and making it hard to vote didn't help Republicans. It just pissed off a lot of voters to the point where they were willing to stand in line for seven hours to vote for a Democrat. Threatening to fire employees if Obama were re-elected didn't help Republicans. It just highlighted the insidious damage Citizens United has done to our political environment. Attacking blacks, women, gays, and hispanics didn't work. It just galvanized a large portion of black, gay, female, hispanic, etc. voters into fighting Republicans.

So my question is, Republicans, what's the next step?

A couple of weeks ago, Frank Rich wrote a piece in Salon about the fact that losing an election does not seem to make the Republicans reassess their extended march to the right. They just double down and march further to the right.

Is that what's going to happen, Republicans? Because I have to tell you, you've been marching to the right for so many years you're on the verge of stepping off one hell of an ideological cliff. Are you going to openly embrace the genteel racism of Charles Murray? Are you going to openly work to limit the vote only to people of a certain income level? Is the aim going to be disenfranchising large portions of the public and telling the rest, "vote for us or we'll fire you?"

Just curious.

*

Comments

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Republican state houses were in charge of the redistricting as a result of the 2010 elections, and the census. The districts were redrawn in such a way that favored Republican candidates. Had the 2008 districts been used, Democrats would have easily taken the House back. That's how you explain it.

[vitsli.livejournal.com]

>> Had the 2008 districts been used, Democrats would have easily taken the House back.

Proof?

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Congressional district maps before and after, and simple math.

[vitsli.livejournal.com]

Did you do the math or just assuming?

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I did the math. And so have others. I never assume anything.

[vitsli.livejournal.com]

I see.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

You're welcome.

[vitsli.livejournal.com]

Still no proof though.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Sorry, but I'm not doing your math for you. I have several pots on the stove right now :-) And if you believe me or not: not a big deal. I don't get a Nobel prize or a Amazon gift certificate if I convinced you (and considering your previous exchanges, we know that's very unlikely).

Like that master of songs Kenny Rodgers said in his big hit from years ago The Gambler:"You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em." You asked a question, I gave you an answer.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

They won the popular vote. In a fair world, you would think that would translate into more flipped seats than we had.

[vitsli.livejournal.com]

THEY?
I'm about the Congress, not the President.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

They, the Democrats, won the House popular vote.

[vitsli.livejournal.com]

It's funny how you connect a popular vote to "The product of multiple local elections where every single election has a different explanation/outcome".
Popular vote in this case has means as much as, let's say, an average temperature of all patients in the hospital.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

It's helpful in explaining how a President could win yet there are few changes to the state of Congress.

It's also helpful in laughing at the hilarious notion that the nation has shifted 'right-ward'.

[vitsli.livejournal.com]

Popular vote does not elect the President, States elect the President. I thought you know.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

No, states do not select presidents. Electors from states do.

And guess what, even by that metric, Obama won.

Next?

[vitsli.livejournal.com]

So, can you prove your redistricting idea already?

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Republican legislatures were able to redraw districts as a result of the 2010 census.



How those newly drawn districts favoring Republican voters would help them:



A specific example in Pennsylvania district.



Another example, from a New York district.

A huge interactive Google Map that shows how redistricting worked. (https://www.google.com/fusiontables/embedviz?viz=MAP&q=select+col5%3E%3E0+from+1cXD8Bee2av01zxmFjaNENFDgh8Iko6rzIO-POVU&h=false&lat=35.434954102297176&lng=-83.96182754687504&z=4&t=1&l=col5%3E%3E0&y=4&tmplt=2)




This huge report goes into mind numbing detail. (http://www.scribd.com/doc/111128906/Redistricting-and-Congressional-Control-A-First-Look)

[vitsli.livejournal.com]

That's better!

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Via electors, due to popular vote counts in the states... unless you think it's a coincidence that popular vote corresponded to the winning candidate almost every election.

[vitsli.livejournal.com]

>> Via electors

Exactly, and the whole system in the US is a little bit more complicated (for a reason) than a simple popular vote.

But you've lost the point completely, so could you be more clear, please? Your answer "They won the popular vote. In a fair world, you would think that would translate..." doesn't actually answer the question because no matter what your "fair world" is, we definitely live in the unfair one, so let's keep to what we have here and now.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I've lost my point? My point was that we are not experiencing a 'right-ward shift'. The House's inertia does not disprove this.

[vitsli.livejournal.com]

>> we are not experiencing a 'right-ward shift'

I didn't say you're shifting. The point was - there are many factors influencing election results and it's incorrect to pick one you like the most or generalize, like Paft does.
The initial question was to Paft cause she likes things simple and straight - feed the poor to stop poverty and so on.

We can go further with this picture "shift from 2008" , (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president), or how to explain narrowing gap between the candidates - Obama got with 5,5 M less votes than in 2008 (62 vs 69,5). Nice comparison tool is available here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/election-map-2012/president/).

Anyway, I'm happy that the the States are too diverse to allow one simple explanation for the whole country.

[paft.livejournal.com]

v: I didn't say you're shifting. The point was - there are many factors influencing election results and it's incorrect to pick one you like the most or generalize, like Paft does.The initial question was to Paft cause she likes things simple and straight - feed the poor to stop poverty and so on.

Should the poor not be fed? And no, my claim is not that feeding the poor will end poverty. Feeding the poor will, however, make poverty less dangerous and keep the poor healthy enough that they have a better chance of getting out of poverty.

[vitsli.livejournal.com]

>> Feeding the poor will, however, make poverty less dangerous and keep the poor healthy enough that they have a better chance of getting out of poverty.

Poverty is when you have no food, clothing, shelter and medical treatment.
That's why people afraid it in the first place.
That's why people want to get out of it.
Getting out of poverty usually means working hard to get some food, clothing, etc.

You want to eliminate the "working hard" portion and provide things for free. But that's changes the whole thing - there are no more poor people, they all have shelter, food AND they don't need to do anything at all to get it.
And thus your words "getting out of poverty" simply don't apply cause that's not the poverty we defined above.