Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The main problem is that corporate democrats cant simply run on "we're not Trump". It would be good for the working class of America if Trump does well in the coming months, so democrats will be forced to push a more pro-worker agenda of a national health care system, paid vacations, public funding of elections and strengthening SS, SSDI and SSI instead of "we're not Trump".
Even if they Democrats had 3% advantage, they likely wouldn't take back the House anyway.
Look at the last few elections:
2010: Republicans have 55.6% of the seats with 53.4% of the party vote
2012: Republicans have 53.8% of the seats with 49.4% of the party vote
2014: Republicans have 56.8% of the seats with 52.9% of the party vote
2016: Republicans have 55.4% of the seats with 50.6% of the party vote
Part of the problem with the way this country works is that even if today was election day and Democrats had a 3% advantage in the generic congressional ballot, it would not result in a 3% advantage in the House of Representatives due to, in part, gerrymandering.
I think that in itself needs a discussion. For a legislative body that was designed to be reflective of the popular vote in the nation, I think it was estimated that Democrats need a 5% advantage or so to actually have a one seat majority in the house.
Of special note, look at 2012. Democrats had more votes than Republicans on the whole yet somehow were short 33 seats. Yes, I know this is done by district. But the point is, there is something inherently wrong when there is a consistent disparity like this.
Gerrymandering is a whole 'nother thread. And AFAIK, it is always done by those other folks. Some levels of "gerrymandering" is mandated to allow for racial minority representation, so where do you draw the line? For some, gerrymandering isn't the problem, it is part of the solution.
I'm mostly interested in why the Democrats are losing ground, when, according to a lot of folks, President Trump and his administration are totally evil.
Fox has a couple of hosts that are flat-out ANTI-Trump.
Look at Shepard Smith, he hates on Trump at every opportunity, and he hosts an entire hour each day.
Does CNN have any hosts that are flat-out PRO-Trump?
From what I've seen, CNN is human garbage, devoid of any kind of moral or professional responsibility....really just a Democrat news service.
I'm mostly interested in why the Democrats are losing ground, when, according to a lot of folks, President Trump and his administration are totally evil.
It depends on what you believe, after all in the economist's research the Democrats are +9, choose your research.
Even if they Democrats had 3% advantage, they likely wouldn't take back the House anyway.
Look at the last few elections:
2010: Republicans have 55.6% of the seats with 53.4% of the party vote
2012: Republicans have 53.8% of the seats with 49.4% of the party vote
2014: Republicans have 56.8% of the seats with 52.9% of the party vote
2016: Republicans have 55.4% of the seats with 50.6% of the party vote
Part of the problem with the way this country works is that even if today was election day and Democrats had a 3% advantage in the generic congressional ballot, it would not result in a 3% advantage in the House of Representatives due to, in part, gerrymandering.
I think that in itself needs a discussion. For a legislative body that was designed to be reflective of the popular vote in the nation, I think it was estimated that Democrats need a 5% advantage or so to actually have a one seat majority in the house.
Of special note, look at 2012. Democrats had more votes than Republicans on the whole yet somehow were short 33 seats. Yes, I know this is done by district. But the point is, there is something inherently wrong when there is a consistent disparity like this.
Democrats can win even 1 percent of the difference, because what matters is not the popular vote but the districts, blue and purple states offer enough districts for Democrats this year.
The main problem is that corporate democrats cant simply run on "we're not Trump". It would be good for the working class of America if Trump does well in the coming months, so democrats will be forced to push a more pro-worker agenda of a national health care system, paid vacations, public funding of elections and strengthening SS, SSDI and SSI instead of "we're not Trump".
Yes the Dems really need to up their game in a big way.
There are far too many American voters that for one reason or another cannot see the benefit of opening our borders to illegal aliens. They can also not see through the non stop calls for impeachment of Trump for things he didn't do.
It is really getting old Dems.
Trump was able to gain votes for simply not being Hillary and his platform was one of change off the path of destruction that Obama had put us on.
The Dems really need to up their game for the upcoming election because to many they seem like a bunch of bitter cry babies that still cannot accept that their gal lost.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
