After Tonight, Trump Should Have NO Place in the GOP

Hey, why didn't you come to this conclusion after 1/6? Would have saved your party a lot of trouble if you had kicked him to the curb then. Better late than never. However, give Fox News a couple of weeks to come up with a narrative that shifts the blame away from Trump and keeps him politically alive. Old habits die hard.

BTW: Trump never was a decent president. He was just lucky to inherit a strong economy from Obama, which he further juiced for a while with government stimulus money (err tax cuts). Then came covid, which he totally mismanaged, and which probably would have seen +2 million covid deaths if cooler heads didn't prevail. When the history books are written, they will show that Trump did EVERYTHING to feed his own ego, at the expense of the country.

 

Please remember....
Love or hate Trump...Trump did not fabricate the things the deep state has burdened him with... he made a great politician because.... he was not a politician.
And yet again, DeSantis, will meet the same fate as Trump...the left will never stop with this nonsense.... any statement or misstep will be deaminized by the left and media.

 

Why, to continue abusing the gerrymandering in free states that value liberty?
It seems like Republicans just prefer authoritarian policy if it gives the illusion of less crime. Let democracy dictate policy as long as it doesn't violate the constitution, and if people prefer authoritarian rule, Florida's the place to be.

 

As far as Florida demographics goes, we've had a housing boom in the State all during Covid in which this scenario; house goes on market, local prospective buyer calls about it, and oops, it's already been sold for cash to an out of state buyer; played out over and over for years. That only stopped (or slowed) this year. Then there is the power of The Villages. That retirement community in the middle of the State has been growing like weeds for years and since it's inception, has turned those blue counties it was located in Red. Florida went for Obama twice. It was a purple State trending blue until out of state migration turned more red. Now it's pretty safely a red state. So it's not just about DeSantis.

As for Trump, he was far less involved in this election than the NRSC, and the PACs by McConnell and McCarthy which spent their money this year targeting Republican Primary candidates. That happened in my Congressional District. Of course, my district was so red that the GOP campaign ads were between the guy in hunting clothes with a shotgun and a guy in camo shooting an AR-15, so it was a win either way, but McCarthy's PAC targeted people who were not going to vote for him for speaker. Trump endorsed candidates but didn't give them much money and it's unclear how much influence he had since he was looking for people he thought would win their primaries in the first place. He may have helped JD Vance in Ohio, which was a MAGA win, but in Pennsylvania, although I thought Oz was a bad candidate, he was running against one of the worst major party senate candidates in my life time, a guy who should be in a rehab center rather than in the senate. If that's the winner, than no GOP candidate would have made a difference.

 

Fake News. The most unequal voting Districts are Democrat, and most of them were drawn by Democrats.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_Partisan_Voting_Index#By_congressional_district

If Dems want more competitive voting districts, they should draw them.

 

I don't know what any of that means, but I don't think it proves your point.
I have no idea how to read that chart yet, but it does look like something to pay attention to if one were to track republican policy and its economic effects in a given area.

Iv often wondered why Republicans fail at running any major metropolitan areas.

 

It proves it beyond all doubt.

It has nothing to do with that. It measures the partisan propensity of each congressional district. If, for example, a national election had two candidates dead even, a D+8 district would be expected to come in 46-54 advantage Democrat.

So, take a district that is greater than D+30. That means that Dems have a partisan advantage. Essentially you could probably run a Democrat corpse in a D+30 district, and win. It's not an election, it's a beauty contest.

Now sort that list by partisanship and you find the most partisan districts the nation:

1. California 12 D+40
2. Maryland 4 D+40
3. Pennsylvania 3 D+39
4. New York 13 D+38
5. California 11 D+37
6. California 37 D+37
7. Illinois 7 D+36
8. Washington 7 D+36
9. Massachusetts 7 D+35
10. New York 10 D+35
11. New York 15 D+35
12. New York 12 D+34
13. California 34 D+32
14. California 43 D+32
15. Georgia 5 D+32
16. New York 7 D+31

GA 5 and PA 3 the GOP likely helped draw, but the rest of those were drawn by Democrats.

Now let's sort that same list the other way:

Alabama 4 R+33
Kentucky 5 R+32

The GOP has two >R+30 districts and those were both drawn by Republicans. The Dems have 16.

It's trade off between more heavily you protecting your incumbents at the cost of being competitive in fewer districts. Heavily partisan protected districts are insulated from a wave election.

The legislatures that draw these maps determine if they want to be competitive in more districts or do they want their key incumbents (maybe they are great fundraisers, who then supply campaign cash to a large number of candidates in more marginal districts) well protected. Each elected legislature makes these choices and decisions.

Now let's look at the outcomes. Every time Dems lose the House they scream "We Wuz Robbed!" and give the impression that they received a far lower percentage of seats than their percentage of the total vote, but, is this true or yet another myth? Let's take a look.

2020: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections

435 house elections.
On 50.8% of the vote, Dems took 222 seats, or 51% of the seats. That is, they didn't win fewer seats than their total vote, they won an additional seat!

So, it's a lot more blubbering than substance.

Well, they don't fail at running them, on a good number of our failing cities if you go back to when they had Republican governance they were not failing at all. They do fail to win city wide elections. And that leads logically to the next question that I have and I do not have the answer, "why do we have so many failing cities?"

When I'm in Europe, we can be in cities that are 10 centuries old or more and their downtowns are vibrant safe and full of life. When I research the experience of pre 60's US cities, the stories told are of vibrant safe effectively functioning cities.

I don't know what happened or why, but, I'd much rather see a national effort to restore our cities to greatness than I would the US funding various projects throughout the world. In my mind, charity starts at home. We have Americans in our cities living existences that no American should have to endure.

 

Disagree. DeSantis is not the way forward. Florida is a small stage and his act won’t play on a national one: he’s severely lacking in retail skills. And if you’re going toss Trump the Freedom Caucus needs to follow. A small c revolution is necessary for survival but it presents quite a conundrum of balancing the management/labor equation. The country is ripe for a competent rational labor driven message. If the rumblings in the nether regions can be transformed into a coherent platform addressing reality there’s a way forward. Now the withdrawal from the paranoid hysterical emotional drivel would be a bitch but long term solutions are never easy. Relevancy with larger share of the electorate.

 

Here is the cook state map, looks to me like most gerrymandered are the red states.

https://www.cookpolitical.com/cook-pvi/2022-partisan-voting-index/state-map-and-list

If you look at the history of gerrymandering, Dems started gerrymandering as a reaction to Repub gerrymandering which Repubs with hogwild on after SCOTUS gutted the voting rights act..

It was the last gerrymander in FLA that give Repubs the house, only 4 or 5 seats they flipped because of it.

But, over the years, following SCOTUS gutting the voting rights act, the bulk of the gerrymandering advantage was Republicans.

Here, VOX did an analysis of the Cook report.



https://www.vox.com/22961590/redistricting-gerrymandering-house-2022-midterms

 

That's Fake News.

In 2020 Dems didn't get fewer seats that their voting percentage, they got MORE.

 

Interesting..Ok, ill check it out.

 

That's the key. That's why Al Gore created the internet, so that we could look things up ourselves. Take the current election:

Enough votes have been counted to award 407 of the House Seats.
Of the vote so far counted, 46.4% went to Democrats.

Guess what percentage of those seats went to Dems? 46.4% would be 189 seats. Guess how many Dems have won? 196!

Data here: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/live_results/2022/house/

Of course we don't have final totals, but the data we do have shows that, once again, their claims of "We Wuz Robbed By Gerrymandering Republicans!" is BS. Without those 7 extra seats going to Dems, the GOP would already have the majority.

 

Fake Comment

the cook analysis clearly shows that the bulk of the gerrymandering since 2012
was republicans And that the recent Democrat gerrymandering was a reaction to Republican gerrymandering Because if we didn't republicans would have way too much of an advantage so they forced dems to do it So this argument that democrats do it too does not negate the broader more salient facts which you conveniently omit

 

My comment is irrefutable. In 2020 Congressional Elections Dems received 50.8% of the popular vote and 51% of the seats. The fake news claim that Democrats were "robbed of seats through GOP Gerrymandering" is complete fake news.

And consider the data on this election which is of course still incomplete, but, of the vote counted so far, and the seats called, we have:

• 407 seats called.
• Dems got 196 seats and 46.4% of the vote.
• 46.4% of the seats is 189 seats.
• Dems already have 7 seats MORE than the percentage of their vote..

Data here: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/live_results/2022/house/

That's total crap. Why would you refer to an analysis about what the future data will show, when you now have the actual data that falsifies your analysis?

 

My thoughts are we should let Republican voters decide what they want.