America voted the House GOP out. Gerrymandering kept them in.

[Direckshun]

The math:

Between the two parties, voters voted for the Democratic House candidates nationally, 48.8% to 48.5%.

That would translate to Democrats having 214 DNP seats to 212 GOP.

The end results as of now (votes are still being counted in 6 races): 233 GOP to 194 DNP.

That's 53.5% GOP to 44.6% DNP.

A 9-point, 21-seat swing.

Want to know why John Boehner was so quick to extend the olive branch?

That's why.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...got-a-mandate/

House Democrats got more votes than House Republicans. Yet Boehner says he’s got a mandate?
Posted by Ezra Klein
November 9, 2012 at 10:15 am

The political-science evidence is clear on this: There’s no such thing as an election mandate. There’s only what a president is able to get done with the Congress the American people gave him.

But few politicians agree. And so the days and weeks after elections are heavy with arguments about who has a mandate, and for what. The latest debate is about whether President Obama, who ran a campaign explicitly promising to raise taxes on high earners and who beat a candidate explicitly promising to refuse any and all tax increases, has a mandate to raise taxes.

Speaker John Boehner says he doesn’t. “Listen, our majority is going to get reelected,” he said the day before the election. “We’ll have as much of a mandate as he [President Obama] will … to not raise taxes.”

Boehner’s logic is, on its face, sound. House Republicans have been as clear in their opposition to new taxes on the rich as Obama has been in his support for them. And House Republicans were reelected. They have as much right to claim a popular mandate as the president does.

Or they would if they’d actually won more votes. But they didn’t. House Republicans did the equivalent of winning the electoral college while losing the popular vote.

It can be a bit difficult to tally up the popular vote in House elections because you have to go ballot by ballot, and many incumbents run unopposed. But The Washington Post’s Dan Keating did the work and found that Democrats got 54,301,095 votes while Republicans got 53,822,442. That’s a close election — 48.8%-48.5% –but it’s still a popular vote win for the Democrats. Those precise numbers might change a bit as the count finalizes, but the tally isn’t likely to flip.



What saved Boehner’s majority wasn’t the will of the people but the power of redistricting. As my colleague Dylan Matthews showed, Republicans used their control over the redistricting process to great effect, packing Democrats into tighter and tighter districts and managing to restructure races so even a slight loss for Republicans in the popular vote still meant a healthy majority in the House.

That’s a neat trick, but it’s not a popular mandate, or anything near to it — and Boehner knows it. That’s why his first move after the election was to announce, in a vague-but-important statement, that he was open to some kind of compromise on taxes.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

The GOP has long stood in the way of eliminating tax loopholes for corporations and the wealthy.

Whether that's true or not, it has nothing to do with my representations. The tax reform position of Bowles-Simpson, Mitt Romney, John Boehner and Republicans has been to lower rates and close loopholes. That doesn't mean that they all agree on how much rates should be reduced or which loopholes should be eliminated, but it does mean they are in philosophical agreement. By contrast, the President and his democrats want increased rates and targeted tax cuts (aka loopholes). That's their philosophy.

That's not to say that you can't find democrats (like Erskine Bowles, for example) who side with Republicans. Or Republicans who oppose the elimination of certain deductions. Or democrats who want some rates lowered. But generally speaking, my representations as to the competing philosophies are as accurate as anything you've ever posted.

[BucEyedPea]

Closing loopholes is a tax increase.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

That's not to say that you can't find democrats (like Erskine Bowles, for example) who side with Republicans. Or Republicans who oppose the elimination of certain deductions. Or democrats who want some rates lowered.

Nicely done. Welcome back to reality.

[Xanathol]

Originally Posted by Ugly Duck

Its not the population density, its how you carve districts into the population to give your party an advantage. You carve up any weird, convoluted shapes you can to either isolate densely concentrated opponent areas or dilute them by breaking 'em up into pieces & adding the pieces to your areas. Lookit Pennsylvania - Repubs only went 47% for Romney, but have 72% of the house seats. Even though 53% of Pennsylvanians voted for Obama, all the Democrats in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia were cut up & cramed into a mere four seats, and the other 14 were left for Republicans.

Is this sarcasm? Look at it this way - what that map shows is that if you can indoctrinate the city populations, you can control the entire state's electoral votes, despite the vast majority of the landmass voting in favor of one candidate.

Its the democratic plan - make people dependent on the government, group them together, and create the perpetual downward spiral that keeps them in power. Its the same thing happening the whole country over. Poorly ran states / cities where people amass are telling the successful states / counties 'you have to pay for us, despite ourselves'. If you learn your history, its the kind of stuff that leads to civil unrest.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Nicely done. Welcome back to reality.

I haven't left reality. Post 45 was like an Edward Hopper painting of reality.

[Hoover]

The federal government doesn't have anything to do with the make up of congressional districts, the state's do. So I don't know what the bitch with Boehner is about.

Every state does it a little differently. I think Iowa have by far one of the best systems.

You know, candidates can only run in the districts the states create. The idea that this is somehow a stolen Republican house is laughable.

Carry on.

[LiveSteam]

Allen West is still pushing in Florida

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I haven't left reality. Post 45 was like an Edward Hopper painting of reality.

Not knowing anything about artists, I'm assuming Edward Hopper is a surrealist.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Hoover

The federal government doesn't have anything to do with the make up of congressional districts, the state's do. So I don't know what the bitch with Boehner is about.

Boehner claimed the House GOP received a mandate because they still have a majority.

Originally Posted by Hoover

Every state does it a little differently. I think Iowa have by far one of the best systems.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Hoover

You know, candidates can only run in the districts the states' politicians create.

FYP

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Not knowing anything about artists, I'm assuming Edward Hopper is a surrealist.

[Direckshun]

[frazod]

Speaking of bullshit, why did my ballot come with Spanish subtitles? I don't recall voting in Madrid.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Boehner claimed the House GOP received a mandate because they still have a majority.

They do...in the people's house, where all revenue and tax bills must originate. This is the legal error Robert's made in his decision because ACA came from the Senate via trickery. It's no wonder there's another legal challenge that may be coming. If it's to be ruled as a tax when that didn't originate in the House.

Obama edged out Mitt for the Presidency which represents the nation as a whole for foreign policy, ambassadors, treaties, meeting dignataries, agencies and executing war as commander in chief. He doesn't even get to craft legislation. Remember, the Framers made it a weaker branch despite claims of the "Imperial Presidency" by both parties in the modern era.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Hoover

The federal government doesn't have anything to do with the make up of congressional districts, the state's do. So I don't know what the bitch with Boehner is about.

Every state does it a little differently. I think Iowa have by far one of the best systems.

You know, candidates can only run in the districts the states create. The idea that this is somehow a stolen Republican house is laughable.

Carry on.

Plus, some Rs still lost seats with gerrymandering. Even in Texas the Rs redistricted him to one with a large share of minorities and union supporters. He retired instead but a Republican still one that one even with a libertarian losing.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by frazod

Speaking of bullshit, why did my ballot come with Spanish subtitles? I don't recall voting in Madrid.

porque es necessario por la gente que no habla ingles o no habla bueno