Joe Biden is now POTUS
- Thread starter Spectrum
- Start date
With Trench Warfare Deepening, Parties Face Unsettled Electoral Map
1 of 4
President Donald Trump at the White House in Washington, Nov. 13, 2020. Voters delivered a convincing victory for Joe Biden, but a split decision for the two parties. Now Democrats and Republicans face perhaps the most up-for-grabs electoral landscape in a generation. (Anna Moneymaker/The New York Times)
FILE -- Supporters of President Donald Trump on Election Day in the Little Havana neighborhood of Miami, Nov. 3, 2020. Voters delivered a convincing victory for Joe Biden, but a split decision for the two parties. Now Democrats and Republicans face perhaps the most up-for-grabs electoral landscape in a generation. (Scott McIntyre/The New York Times)
President-elect Joe Biden listens as Vice President-elect Kamala Harris speaks in Wilmington, Del., Nov. 10, 2020. Voters delivered a convincing victory for Joe Biden, but a split decision for the two parties. Now Democrats and Republicans face perhaps the most up-for-grabs electoral landscape in a generation. (Amr Alfiky/The New York Times)
FILE -- Supporters of President-elect Joe Biden gather in Madison, Wis., Nov. 7, 2020. Voters delivered a convincing victory for Joe Biden, but a split decision for the two parties. Now Democrats and Republicans face perhaps the most up-for-grabs electoral landscape in a generation.(Lauren Justice/The New York Times)
Don't miss the big stories. Like us on Facebook.
WASHINGTON — America’s two major parties had hoped the 2020 presidential election would render a decisive judgment on the country’s political trajectory. But after a race that broke records for voter turnout and campaign spending, neither Democrats nor Republicans have achieved a dominant upper hand.
Instead, the election delivered a split decision, ousting President Donald Trump but narrowing the Democratic majority in the House and perhaps preserving the Republican majority in the Senate. As Joe Biden prepares to take office and preside over a closely divided government, leaders in both camps are acknowledging that voters seem to have issued not a mandate for the left or the right but a muddled plea to move on from Trump-style chaos.
With 306 Electoral College votes and the most popular votes of any presidential candidate in history, Biden attained a victory that was paramount to many Democrats, who saw a second Trump term as nothing less than a threat to democracy.
Yet on the electoral landscape, both parties find themselves stretched thin and battling on new fronts, with their traditional strongholds increasingly under siege. Indeed, Democrats and Republicans are facing perhaps the most unsettled and up-for-grabs electoral map the country has seen in a generation, since the parties were still fighting over California in the late 1980s.
This competition has denied either from being able to claim broad majorities and prompted a series of election cycles, which could be repeated in 2022, in which any gains Democrats make in the country’s booming cities and states are at least partly offset by growing Republican strength in rural areas.
The election also represented a continuation of this trench warfare between two parties that are increasingly defined by their activist flanks and limited to only incremental advances.
“We are more divided than any other time in my lifetime,” said Haley Barbour, the former Mississippi governor and Republican National Committee chair, whose first job in politics was on Richard Nixon’s 1968 campaign. “But usually when we’re at parity we’re bunched up in the middle — now we’ve got parity but with extreme polarity.”
Biden and the Democrats viewed this election as an opportunity to deliver a crushing repudiation to Republicans and the movement known as Trumpism, while Trump and his allies saw the chance to cement a durable governing coalition led by the far right.
Neither party got all it wanted. Democrats improved considerably on their performance in the last presidential race, repairing their standing in the Midwest, building their strength in the Sun Belt. Yet voters in Ohio, Iowa and Florida delivered a stinging rebuke to the idea the Democrats would pick off increasingly conservative states.
The GOP defied expectations and gained seats in the House, limited its losses in the Senate and protected critical state legislative majorities. But the party experienced troubling erosion in the South and West as Biden won Arizona and Georgia.
As the results come into sharper focus, a more sober mood has set in on both sides of the aisle.
(BEGIN OPTIONAL TRIM.)
Unless Democrats can win a pair of Senate seats in Georgia’s January runoff elections, Biden will arrive in the White House facing the same circumstances his predecessors have for eight of the last 10 years: an executive branch controlled by one party and part or all of the legislative branch held by the other.
Biden, elected officials and strategists in both parties agree, will most likely have a limited window to show he can lead successfully. If he can bridge Washington’s bitter partisan divides to craft successful policies to fight the coronavirus pandemic and revive the economy, he may well have a chance to transform his party’s loose anti-Trump coalition into a more stable electoral majority.
(END OPTIONAL TRIM.)
Already, there are mounting signs of just how difficult it may be for either party to govern through pragmatism and compromise. With Trump’s refusal to concede the election and his talk of running again in 2024, Republicans are worried about Trumpian retribution if they break with a leader who remains the cultural and ideological lodestar of the party’s base.
At the same time, Trump’s defeat this month has removed the single most important force holding the Democratic Party’s eclectic coalition together: the president himself. With his ouster, the détente that persisted throughout the year between the Democratic left and center has begun to crumble, with open sniping and blame-casting between figures like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, the party’s most prominent young progressive, and Sen. Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, a centrist of vital importance to Biden’s agenda in the Senate.
It remains to be seen whether either party will embrace a head-on reckoning with its own electoral vulnerabilities. Moderate Democrats have mostly just criticized the party’s left wing for having promoted stances that they believe cost them seats in Congress, while Republicans have largely remained silent on Trump’s intransigence and conspiracy-mongering.
While Biden rebuilt the Democrats’ Blue Wall — reclaiming the swing states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — he carried them by a fraction of the margins former President Barack Obama achieved in both the 2008 and 2012 elections. As long as Republicans manage to amass enormous leads with working-class white voters, those states may not be safely Democratic anytime soon.
Just as troubling to the party, Democrats sagged with voters of color, particularly in Hispanic and Asian American communities where Republicans’ attacks on Democrats as a left-wing party appear to have resonated, denying Biden a victory in Florida and costing the Democrats congressional seats in that state as well as Texas and California. Indeed, the only House seats Republicans picked up that were not in districts Trump also carried were in heavily Hispanic or Asian regions.
On a Democratic conference call this past week, Rep. Linda Sanchez, a former member of the House leadership, criticized Democrats’ Latino outreach strategy as a dismal failure, according to two people who participated on the call. And Rep. Donna Shalala of Florida, who lost her seat in a heavily Hispanic district, complained on the call that her party did not effectively rebut Republicans’ portrayal of Democrats as socialists.
“Defund police, open borders, socialism — it’s killing us,” said Rep. Vicente Gonzalez, D-Texas, who won just over 50% of the vote two years after he nearly captured 60%. “I had to fight to explain all that.”
The “average white person,” Gonzalez added, may associate socialism with Nordic countries, but to Asian and Hispanic migrants it recalls despotic “left-wing regimes.”
(BEGIN OPTIONAL TRIM.)
Rep. Harley Rouda, D-Calif., who narrowly lost his bid for reelection, said the party needed to deliver a more assertive and moderate message if it wanted to claim districts like his. Rouda, who is planning to run again in 2022, said he suffered with centrist voters and his district’s numerous Vietnamese American voters, many of whom recoil from messaging about socialism.
“This narrative that the Democratic Party is borderline socialist, we need to fight back harder on that because it’s simply not true,” he said. “We needed to be more forceful in defending the moderate position of the Democratic Party as a whole.”
Chuck Rocha, a longtime Democratic consultant, said too many white Democrats “see Black and brown people as the same” instead of approaching Hispanics as people open to either party and in need of convincing.
“Our community is not a get-out-the-vote universe,” said Rocha, alluding to voters almost certain to support Democrats if they show up at the polls. “We’re a persuasion universe and should be treated like whites.”
(END OPTIONAL TRIM.)
Yet if Republicans cling to Trump, or to his brand of crude nationalism, they will continue to alienate voters in the fast-growing South and West who helped hand Arizona and Georgia to Biden. As Biden showed, there are hordes of swing voters who find Trump and his divisive politics even more offensive than the slogans of the hard left.
Biden’s map-stretching victories were not isolated events. They cap a steady expansion of Democratic strength, especially in the West, where the party has gained four Senate seats since 2016: two in Arizona, and one each in Colorado and Nevada.
Arizona state Sen. J.D. Mesnard, a Republican who won a difficult race for reelection this month, said his state had clearly become “more competitive,” though he argued that down-ballot results suggested voters hadn’t abandoned the party entirely.
“You see similar things in Georgia and North Carolina — states that have seen a lot of growth,” Mesnard said. “A lot of these places that were pretty hard-core red are now on the bubble.”
The deeper problem for Republicans is the powerful grip Trump retains on the party — exactly the factor that made those states competitive. Among Republicans, there is a stark difference between how lawmakers who are nearing retirement age or are safely ensconced in their seats approach Trump and how those who still require his favor speak of him.
(BEGIN OPTIONAL TRIM.)
Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the senior Senate Republican whose term is up in 2022, insisted that “the Republican Party is the Republican Party, it’s no one man’s party.”
And Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who just won reelection without ever endorsing Trump, said the president “is an important voice but not the dominant voice in party,” pointing to “next generation” figures like Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley.
(END OPTIONAL TRIM.)
But Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who may run again in 2022, was more deferential to Trump. “It’s President Trump’s supporters’ party,” said Johnson. “That’s a group of people I think the Republican Party wants to hang onto.”
For Democrats, the election has illustrated the fragility of their coalition. With Biden racking up overwhelming margins in Philadelphia, Detroit and Milwaukee — and even winning metropolitan Phoenix and Atlanta — progressives have become angered by the party establishment’s complaints about the issues energizing activists.
“While there is a lot of sniping at defund the police, Medicare for All, the Green New Deal and things like that, we also have to recognize that the Black Lives Matter movement was a seminal moment for the country and it also boosted Democratic registration and turnout across the country,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington, co-chair of the House Progressive Caucus.
National Democrats, meanwhile, were shocked that Republicans made incremental gains with voters of color, especially in a campaign pitting Trump’s incendiary persona against Biden’s racial-justice message. That development challenged some of the party’s basic cultural assumptions.
(BEGIN OPTIONAL TRIM.)
Longtime lawmakers in both parties expressed guarded optimism that the depth of the country’s crises would at least initially force consensus and action, adding that their side would pay a political price if they are seen as obstructionists.
“They may not want to compromise with Mitch McConnell, but their choice is doing nothing that improves people’s lives or trying to find a way to compromise,” Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., said of her party’s left.
Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., argued that it would be folly during simultaneous health and economic calamities for McConnell, the Senate majority leader, to reprise his strategy of denying Biden bipartisan success the way he did with Obama.
“We’re going to have a tough map in the midterms and we need to get some stuff done,” said Cole. “Next year we better start governing in a normal way.”
(END OPTIONAL TRIM.)
The question for both parties is how they can satisfy voters who are pulling further apart, energizing their bases without alienating a bigger share of the electorate.
“The more outrageous one sounds, the greater exposure they get to the public,” said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II, D-Mo., lamenting the modern incentive structure in politics. “But it just deepens the divisions and worsens the climate in the country.”
www.reformer.com
- Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns
- Nov 15, 2020 Updated 2 hrs ago
1 of 4
President Donald Trump at the White House in Washington, Nov. 13, 2020. Voters delivered a convincing victory for Joe Biden, but a split decision for the two parties. Now Democrats and Republicans face perhaps the most up-for-grabs electoral landscape in a generation. (Anna Moneymaker/The New York Times)
- ANNA MONEYMAKER
FILE -- Supporters of President Donald Trump on Election Day in the Little Havana neighborhood of Miami, Nov. 3, 2020. Voters delivered a convincing victory for Joe Biden, but a split decision for the two parties. Now Democrats and Republicans face perhaps the most up-for-grabs electoral landscape in a generation. (Scott McIntyre/The New York Times)
- SCOTT MCINTYRE
President-elect Joe Biden listens as Vice President-elect Kamala Harris speaks in Wilmington, Del., Nov. 10, 2020. Voters delivered a convincing victory for Joe Biden, but a split decision for the two parties. Now Democrats and Republicans face perhaps the most up-for-grabs electoral landscape in a generation. (Amr Alfiky/The New York Times)
- AMR ALFIKY
FILE -- Supporters of President-elect Joe Biden gather in Madison, Wis., Nov. 7, 2020. Voters delivered a convincing victory for Joe Biden, but a split decision for the two parties. Now Democrats and Republicans face perhaps the most up-for-grabs electoral landscape in a generation.(Lauren Justice/The New York Times)
- LAUREN JUSTICE
Don't miss the big stories. Like us on Facebook.
WASHINGTON — America’s two major parties had hoped the 2020 presidential election would render a decisive judgment on the country’s political trajectory. But after a race that broke records for voter turnout and campaign spending, neither Democrats nor Republicans have achieved a dominant upper hand.
Instead, the election delivered a split decision, ousting President Donald Trump but narrowing the Democratic majority in the House and perhaps preserving the Republican majority in the Senate. As Joe Biden prepares to take office and preside over a closely divided government, leaders in both camps are acknowledging that voters seem to have issued not a mandate for the left or the right but a muddled plea to move on from Trump-style chaos.
With 306 Electoral College votes and the most popular votes of any presidential candidate in history, Biden attained a victory that was paramount to many Democrats, who saw a second Trump term as nothing less than a threat to democracy.
Yet on the electoral landscape, both parties find themselves stretched thin and battling on new fronts, with their traditional strongholds increasingly under siege. Indeed, Democrats and Republicans are facing perhaps the most unsettled and up-for-grabs electoral map the country has seen in a generation, since the parties were still fighting over California in the late 1980s.
This competition has denied either from being able to claim broad majorities and prompted a series of election cycles, which could be repeated in 2022, in which any gains Democrats make in the country’s booming cities and states are at least partly offset by growing Republican strength in rural areas.
The election also represented a continuation of this trench warfare between two parties that are increasingly defined by their activist flanks and limited to only incremental advances.
“We are more divided than any other time in my lifetime,” said Haley Barbour, the former Mississippi governor and Republican National Committee chair, whose first job in politics was on Richard Nixon’s 1968 campaign. “But usually when we’re at parity we’re bunched up in the middle — now we’ve got parity but with extreme polarity.”
Biden and the Democrats viewed this election as an opportunity to deliver a crushing repudiation to Republicans and the movement known as Trumpism, while Trump and his allies saw the chance to cement a durable governing coalition led by the far right.
Neither party got all it wanted. Democrats improved considerably on their performance in the last presidential race, repairing their standing in the Midwest, building their strength in the Sun Belt. Yet voters in Ohio, Iowa and Florida delivered a stinging rebuke to the idea the Democrats would pick off increasingly conservative states.
The GOP defied expectations and gained seats in the House, limited its losses in the Senate and protected critical state legislative majorities. But the party experienced troubling erosion in the South and West as Biden won Arizona and Georgia.
As the results come into sharper focus, a more sober mood has set in on both sides of the aisle.
(BEGIN OPTIONAL TRIM.)
Unless Democrats can win a pair of Senate seats in Georgia’s January runoff elections, Biden will arrive in the White House facing the same circumstances his predecessors have for eight of the last 10 years: an executive branch controlled by one party and part or all of the legislative branch held by the other.
Biden, elected officials and strategists in both parties agree, will most likely have a limited window to show he can lead successfully. If he can bridge Washington’s bitter partisan divides to craft successful policies to fight the coronavirus pandemic and revive the economy, he may well have a chance to transform his party’s loose anti-Trump coalition into a more stable electoral majority.
(END OPTIONAL TRIM.)
Already, there are mounting signs of just how difficult it may be for either party to govern through pragmatism and compromise. With Trump’s refusal to concede the election and his talk of running again in 2024, Republicans are worried about Trumpian retribution if they break with a leader who remains the cultural and ideological lodestar of the party’s base.
At the same time, Trump’s defeat this month has removed the single most important force holding the Democratic Party’s eclectic coalition together: the president himself. With his ouster, the détente that persisted throughout the year between the Democratic left and center has begun to crumble, with open sniping and blame-casting between figures like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, the party’s most prominent young progressive, and Sen. Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, a centrist of vital importance to Biden’s agenda in the Senate.
It remains to be seen whether either party will embrace a head-on reckoning with its own electoral vulnerabilities. Moderate Democrats have mostly just criticized the party’s left wing for having promoted stances that they believe cost them seats in Congress, while Republicans have largely remained silent on Trump’s intransigence and conspiracy-mongering.
While Biden rebuilt the Democrats’ Blue Wall — reclaiming the swing states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — he carried them by a fraction of the margins former President Barack Obama achieved in both the 2008 and 2012 elections. As long as Republicans manage to amass enormous leads with working-class white voters, those states may not be safely Democratic anytime soon.
Just as troubling to the party, Democrats sagged with voters of color, particularly in Hispanic and Asian American communities where Republicans’ attacks on Democrats as a left-wing party appear to have resonated, denying Biden a victory in Florida and costing the Democrats congressional seats in that state as well as Texas and California. Indeed, the only House seats Republicans picked up that were not in districts Trump also carried were in heavily Hispanic or Asian regions.
On a Democratic conference call this past week, Rep. Linda Sanchez, a former member of the House leadership, criticized Democrats’ Latino outreach strategy as a dismal failure, according to two people who participated on the call. And Rep. Donna Shalala of Florida, who lost her seat in a heavily Hispanic district, complained on the call that her party did not effectively rebut Republicans’ portrayal of Democrats as socialists.
“Defund police, open borders, socialism — it’s killing us,” said Rep. Vicente Gonzalez, D-Texas, who won just over 50% of the vote two years after he nearly captured 60%. “I had to fight to explain all that.”
The “average white person,” Gonzalez added, may associate socialism with Nordic countries, but to Asian and Hispanic migrants it recalls despotic “left-wing regimes.”
(BEGIN OPTIONAL TRIM.)
Rep. Harley Rouda, D-Calif., who narrowly lost his bid for reelection, said the party needed to deliver a more assertive and moderate message if it wanted to claim districts like his. Rouda, who is planning to run again in 2022, said he suffered with centrist voters and his district’s numerous Vietnamese American voters, many of whom recoil from messaging about socialism.
“This narrative that the Democratic Party is borderline socialist, we need to fight back harder on that because it’s simply not true,” he said. “We needed to be more forceful in defending the moderate position of the Democratic Party as a whole.”
Chuck Rocha, a longtime Democratic consultant, said too many white Democrats “see Black and brown people as the same” instead of approaching Hispanics as people open to either party and in need of convincing.
“Our community is not a get-out-the-vote universe,” said Rocha, alluding to voters almost certain to support Democrats if they show up at the polls. “We’re a persuasion universe and should be treated like whites.”
(END OPTIONAL TRIM.)
Yet if Republicans cling to Trump, or to his brand of crude nationalism, they will continue to alienate voters in the fast-growing South and West who helped hand Arizona and Georgia to Biden. As Biden showed, there are hordes of swing voters who find Trump and his divisive politics even more offensive than the slogans of the hard left.
Biden’s map-stretching victories were not isolated events. They cap a steady expansion of Democratic strength, especially in the West, where the party has gained four Senate seats since 2016: two in Arizona, and one each in Colorado and Nevada.
Arizona state Sen. J.D. Mesnard, a Republican who won a difficult race for reelection this month, said his state had clearly become “more competitive,” though he argued that down-ballot results suggested voters hadn’t abandoned the party entirely.
“You see similar things in Georgia and North Carolina — states that have seen a lot of growth,” Mesnard said. “A lot of these places that were pretty hard-core red are now on the bubble.”
The deeper problem for Republicans is the powerful grip Trump retains on the party — exactly the factor that made those states competitive. Among Republicans, there is a stark difference between how lawmakers who are nearing retirement age or are safely ensconced in their seats approach Trump and how those who still require his favor speak of him.
(BEGIN OPTIONAL TRIM.)
Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the senior Senate Republican whose term is up in 2022, insisted that “the Republican Party is the Republican Party, it’s no one man’s party.”
And Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who just won reelection without ever endorsing Trump, said the president “is an important voice but not the dominant voice in party,” pointing to “next generation” figures like Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley.
(END OPTIONAL TRIM.)
But Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who may run again in 2022, was more deferential to Trump. “It’s President Trump’s supporters’ party,” said Johnson. “That’s a group of people I think the Republican Party wants to hang onto.”
For Democrats, the election has illustrated the fragility of their coalition. With Biden racking up overwhelming margins in Philadelphia, Detroit and Milwaukee — and even winning metropolitan Phoenix and Atlanta — progressives have become angered by the party establishment’s complaints about the issues energizing activists.
“While there is a lot of sniping at defund the police, Medicare for All, the Green New Deal and things like that, we also have to recognize that the Black Lives Matter movement was a seminal moment for the country and it also boosted Democratic registration and turnout across the country,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington, co-chair of the House Progressive Caucus.
National Democrats, meanwhile, were shocked that Republicans made incremental gains with voters of color, especially in a campaign pitting Trump’s incendiary persona against Biden’s racial-justice message. That development challenged some of the party’s basic cultural assumptions.
(BEGIN OPTIONAL TRIM.)
Longtime lawmakers in both parties expressed guarded optimism that the depth of the country’s crises would at least initially force consensus and action, adding that their side would pay a political price if they are seen as obstructionists.
“They may not want to compromise with Mitch McConnell, but their choice is doing nothing that improves people’s lives or trying to find a way to compromise,” Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., said of her party’s left.
Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., argued that it would be folly during simultaneous health and economic calamities for McConnell, the Senate majority leader, to reprise his strategy of denying Biden bipartisan success the way he did with Obama.
“We’re going to have a tough map in the midterms and we need to get some stuff done,” said Cole. “Next year we better start governing in a normal way.”
(END OPTIONAL TRIM.)
The question for both parties is how they can satisfy voters who are pulling further apart, energizing their bases without alienating a bigger share of the electorate.
“The more outrageous one sounds, the greater exposure they get to the public,” said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II, D-Mo., lamenting the modern incentive structure in politics. “But it just deepens the divisions and worsens the climate in the country.”
With Trench Warfare Deepening, Parties Face Unsettled Electoral Map
WASHINGTON — America’s two major parties had hoped the 2020 presidential election would render a decisive judgment on the country’s political trajectory. But after a race that broke records for
Bro, seriously, that is not what they are saying.
Read it again, the operative word is "MORE"
yo. The ego is a muthafucka, man. He’s still arguing when all he needed to do is admit he was just adding another point...irrelevant, but a separate point. Now he’s ranting. I’m not even going to reply to him again, but his other reply had my abs burning
Take it easy on the young man, his reading comprehension is kinda off.
lol
Man. This dude misunderstood the word “represent” in the headline of the tweet. I’m done
Somewhere along the way, something got lost in translation. I came in at the middle of the convo. You are correct about the number of Senators for each state. One problem with that is they serve 6-year terms that overlap Administrations. That's the reason that Mitch the bitch has been able to use influence the way he has in order to obstruct the Dems and steamroll the GOPs agenda.
Where the representation becomes lopsided is in the House of...you guessed it..."Representatives." It is in this chamber that the GOP consistently loses but still manages to maintain power with a smaller base.
100% Facts, but that's the balance I think. The population controls the House. The Senate is equal per state. The VP breaks the tie in the Senate. The President has Veto power over it all. The Supreme Court ensure laws are constitutional. I don't see another way to be fair.
I 100% agree on the Senate terms. And the Justices should not be life time appointments. That's some bullshit. I don't want Senators by population tho. It's too many white people. We would get fucked. We barely holding on to the House now. We don't come out to vote in midterm elections. Obama had 8 years and had Congress for only two. That's the problem. They are counting on that in Georgia right now.
How does that change anything? Please explaining it or get off his nuts. How does the Supreme Courts Justices. Republican's splitting the Dakotas, or black people have anything to do with this? You can't so stay in yo lane old man.
Last edited:
okay mayne...let me break it down to you about the senate.
each state has 2 senators, right?
for the sake of argument, lets say state A has 500 people. State B has 50 people.
State B has 1 senator representing only 25 people, she has the same power in the senate as the senator from state A who represents 250 people.
this means that a citizen in state B has TEN TIMES the decision making power as a person from state A.
does this help you understand that a person from state B has more "representation" in the senate?
Yeah, Bro. Do you understand that's why they did it? So small states would have equal representation in the Senate because they are out numbered in the House. Make sense now? How is changing that gonna help us?
but the small states dont have equal representation, they have GREATER representation. if states B and C only have 50 people each, they still have 4 senators. if those 4 senators vote against something that state A needs then the opinion of 100 people will have just shot down the needs of 500 people.
that sir, is the opposite of equal representation.
she was kiddingHannah, have you LOST yo fuckin' mind?
you spelled right cross wrong
TIL
Hold up. I just saw this. Reading comprehension you fucking idiot.
I said the split Dakota into two states. That's exactly what happened. And they devised the scheme to get two extra Senate seats out of it:
"After controversy over the location of a capital, the Dakota Territory was split in two and divided into North and South in 1889. Later that year, on November 2, North Dakota and South Dakota were admitted to the Union as the 39th and 40th states."
and why did that happen you fucking momo?
In 1888, Republicans returned to the same playbook. Democrats had proposed a compromise whereby several western territories would be admitted in numbers that would evenly balance incoming Democrat and Republican senators. Dakota Territory would become a Republican state; New Mexico would be Democratic. But when Republicans swept the 1888 election, they decided to sweeten the deal. Dakota was split in half to create four new Republican senators, and New Mexico would remain a territory until 1912.
Not before the split yo fucking momo. That was decades before the split. All those other territories had been split off decades before The Dakotas was going through statehood.
The Dakotas was: 382,842 km²
Texas is: 695,662 km²
They were "too big" though, right?
I'm going to repost and enlarge the actual verified reason. Read the shit several times
"In 1888, Republicans returned to the same playbook. Democrats had proposed a compromise whereby several western territories would be admitted in numbers that would evenly balance incoming Democrat and Republican senators. Dakota Territory would become a Republican state; New Mexico would be Democratic. But when Republicans swept the 1888 election, they decided to sweeten the deal. Dakota was split in half to create four new Republican senators, and New Mexico would remain a territory until 1912."
And why did they split them.. to get 2 EXTRA SENATE SITES BECAUSE WITH WHITE RURAL VOTERS THE GOP KNEW THEY WOULD OWN THEM.
Now go pick up the reading rainbow for something
Last edited:
Congress has two parts Bro. The House and Senate. Laws must pass both to pass. The more people, more Representatives in the House you get. You get to push shit through there. But Senators are two per State. The larger states have more power in the house. To check that power the Senate has two per state. It seems clear to me but I guess some just won't see the logic in the way it works. Look at the map. NY, Cali, Texas, and Florida would run the country. How does that help us?
According to Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution, “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof for six Years.” The framers believed that in electing senators, state legislatures would cement their ties with the national government. They also expected that senators elected by state legislatures would be freed from pressures of public opinion and therefore better able to concentrate on legislative business and serve the needs of each state. In essence, senators would serve as “states’ ambassadors” to the federal government.
It's so simple and he just doesn't get it
I gave him an example with the Dakotas. I'm literally giving him text that shows how one party took literally changed state admission proposals after they won control over Congress in order to specifically add 2 more Senate seats they would effectively control.
He really thinks this is about "equal representation"
It's like telling a 2-year old that Santa Clause really doesn't slide down the chimney to leave them presents. He doesn't want to hear it
Hold up. I just saw this. Reading comprehension you fixing idiot.
I said the split Dakota into two states. That's exactly what happened. And they devised to scheme to get two extra Senate seats out of it:
"After controversy over the location of a capital, the Dakota Territory was split in two and divided into North and South in 1889. Later that year, on November 2, North Dakota and South Dakota were admitted to the Union as the 39th and 40th states."
and why did that happen you fucking momo?
In 1888, Republicans returned to the same playbook. Democrats had proposed a compromise whereby several western territories would be admitted in numbers that would evenly balance incoming Democrat and Republican senators. Dakota Territory would become a Republican state; New Mexico would be Democratic. But when Republicans swept the 1888 election, they decided to sweeten the deal. Dakota was split in half to create four new Republican senators, and New Mexico would remain a territory until 1912.
Not before the split yo fucking momo. That was decades before the split. All those other territories had been split off decades before The Dakotas was going through statehood.
The Dakota were: 382,842 km²
Texas is: 695,662 km²
They were "too big" though, right?
I'm going to repost and enlarge the actual verified reason. Read the shit several times
"In 1888, Republicans returned to the same playbook. Democrats had proposed a compromise whereby several western territories would be admitted in numbers that would evenly balance incoming Democrat and Republican senators. Dakota Territory would become a Republican state; New Mexico would be Democratic. But when Republicans swept the 1888 election, they decided to sweeten the deal. Dakota was split in half to create four new Republican senators, and New Mexico would remain a territory until 1912."
And why did they split them.. to get 2 EXTRA SENATE SITES BECAUSE WITH WHITE RURAL VOTERS THE GOP KNEW THEY WOULD OWN THEM.
Now go pick up the reading rainbow for something
You so Dumb. The Senate was by popular vote back then clown. You wanna go back to that? The 17th Amendment changed it to two Senators in 1913, dumb ass. The states were split in 1889. They split the congressional seats and added Senators by population. You a fool for that one. That's the same shit you wanna do.
And the Republican's were the ones that freed the slaves. There were not the conservatives we have today. We liked the Republicans then fool. Did you drop outta school? Dumb nigga laughing and don't know shit.
Last edited:
Do you understand that the Senate has given a disproportionate amount of power to smaller states; so much power that it cancels out the intended balance between states?Congress has two parts Bro. The House and Senate. Laws must pass both to pass. The more people, more Representatives in the House you get. You get to push shit through there. But Senators are two per State. The larger states have more power in the house. To check that power the Senate has two per state. It seems clear to me but I guess some just won't see the logic in the way it works. Look at the map. NY, Cali, Texas, and Florida would run the country. How does that help us?
According to Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution, “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof for six Years.” The framers believed that in electing senators, state legislatures would cement their ties with the national government. They also expected that senators elected by state legislatures would be freed from pressures of public opinion and therefore better able to concentrate on legislative business and serve the needs of each state. In essence, senators would serve as “states’ ambassadors” to the federal government.
Senators representing less than a third of the US population have the power to stop all federal policy advancement.
Do you understand this?
another fallacious, irrelevant point.
I just proved to you what I said was factually correct. Instead of just manning up, you're trying to introduce another, irrelevant point. It's literally called "moving the goal post". Every one of your replies is littered with logical fallacies.
I explicitly showed you how one party manipulated state inclusion to harvest Senate seats for their party. It's an undeniable fact. It has nothing to do with "equal" representation.
You're introducing more irrelevant points because your old one is dead. Put your ego to the side. It's ok to be wrong.
This has nothing to do with the fact that splitting the Dakota into two states instead of one was deliberately and explicitly done and publicly stated it was done in order for one party to pick up extra senate seats and they use total congressional control to do it after they had a deal just before they won control. It's literally the reason why it was done. That's not up for the debate. It's a historical fact. And that's still having the same impact 100 years later.... which was the point of the original article I posted... however, you couldn't understand and replied about the VP being able to break ties
You're just bloviating.
This is irrelevant. I'm sure everyone in this thread understands the parties switched positions in response to civil rights movements, reconstruction, etc. We even have extinct political parties and we'll have new ones. it's irrelevant.
The fact remains the same. The rural white voters in the Dakotas still control 2 more Senate seats than they should, specifically.
Overall, rural white voters are disproportionately weighed in the American political system.
Last edited:
Exactly.
I like this take on it I was reading earlier today. It was actually in response to the post I made earlier than tripped him up Thread
No, not really. The President has the Veto Power. The President can change policy not laws. He can just do an executive order. He holds more power than both bodies of Congress separately. And they can take the shit to the Supreme Court and let them decide right? And if the population doesn't want a law it dies in the House where the people are presented. It's chess not checkers homie. Well said tho. It's not perfect but it works. We don't need all them laws anyway.
Is this going to turn into an Ock? Sure feels like it.
another fallacious, irrelevant point.
I just proved to you what I said was factually correct. Instead of just manning up, you're trying to introduce another, irrelevant point. It's literally called "moving the goal post". Every one of your replies is littered with logical fallacies.
I explicitly showed you how one party manipulated state inclusion to harvest Senate seats for their party. It's an undeniable fact. It has nothing to do with "equal" representation.
You're introducing more irrelevant points because your old one is dead. Put your ego to the side. It's ok to be wrong.
This has nothing to do with the fact that splitting the Dakota into two states instead of one was deliberately and explicitly done and publicly stated it was done in order for one party to pick up extra senate seats and they use total congressional control to do it after they had a deal just before they won control. It's literally the reason why it was done. That's not up for the debate. It's a historical fact. And that's still having the same impact 100 years later.... which was the point of the original article I posted... however, you couldn't understand and replied about the VP being able to break ties
You're just bloviating.
This is irrelevant. I'm sure everyone in this thread understands the parties switched positions in response to civil rights movements, reconstruction, etc. We even have extinct political parties and we'll have new ones. it's irrelevant.
The fact remains the same. The rural white voters in the Dakotas still control 2 more Senate seats than they should, specifically.
Overall, rural white voters are disproportionately weighed in the American political system.
Okay, homie. You can't keep up. The state was already split, you're wrong. Black people could not vote so it had nothing to do with us. You're wrong. The Senate was by popular vote, they added more Senators. Exactly what you are suggesting and don't even know it. You're going against your best interest. I'm done with you Butter Cup.
Last edited:
Yeah, right. Who getting Ocked? I'm done with him.
Last edited:
We aren't talking about the president or executive orders.
We're talking about an overpowered republican senate obstructing Obama, obstructing the House, and not creating laws of their own.
Have you not realized this has been the case for the past 8 years?
He introduces a new argument every time a supposition fails. Shit is ridiculous.
Similar threads
