This happened while I was at work and my reaction was: "What's this all about?" followed by "Not surprising." I just don't think the man has the temperament to be Speaker. I mean, all that crying.
Also, I have to wonder how much losing Eric Cantor - in a primary challenge - hurt his leadership. I think Boehner depended on Cantor to herd the cats and, without him, Boehner was overwhelmed.
24 comments:
Boehner's legacy is a charred wasteland, but blaming his failures misses the bigger picture. The Republican House doesn't have a top-down problem, they have a bottom-up problem.
The Republican House doesn't have a top-down problem, they have a bottom-up problem.
That's exactly what has to happen for significant change to occur. Just not the change you would want.
That's very true. After 44 consecutive dudes, a female president will be a significant change. And this House is going to help us get there.
Who Carly? Because you can't be talking about Hillary.
No, he meant Hillary, not Carly. Didn't you notice he titled his comment "Bottom of the Barrel"?
Oh, certainly not Hillary, I hear she'll be in prison by next year.
White men as a percentage of all voters:
1976-- 45.4%
1980-- 44.9%
1984-- 40.4%
1988-- 40.8%
1992-- 40.9%
1996-- 39.8%
2000-- 38.9%
2004-- 35.4%
2008-- 34.8%
2012-- 33.8%
2016-- ????
Thought experiment! You're the GOP majority in the House of Representatives. You see the direction those numbers are taking. What do you do?
Answer: Why, push a Mexican wall to keep out the scum, of course. And try but fail to defund Planned Parenthood (a suicide mission that John Boehner was impeding until this week). Double down on government shutdowns and Benghazi hearings... their past failure means they're due! Most of all, purge the party of RINOs, squishes and aisle-crossers. Only by burning down the big tent can a party widen its appeal with the general public. It's Electoral Demographics 101!
2014
And 2010, and 2006, and 1994, and 1986, and 1974, and 1966, and 1958, and, and, and, and. Midterms. Midterms are always different.
What's the equivalent of Ronald Reagan's 49-state reelection for a midterm election? It's the President's party picking up something like 5 House seats. Which has happened less frequently in American history than a Reagan/Nixon/LBJ/FDR-level wipeout. Look it up.
The silver lining? Your team's gonna do great in 2018.
You've yet to explain the historic nature of Republicans' gains in 2014. With dwindling white male participation, and the tidal wave of Democrat-obsessed women, how was it even remotely possible for the Republicans to have their best showing since the late 1920's? An explanation is out there somewhere. Your job is to find it.
"Midterms are always different" just doesn't cut it. They're not that different.
Ha, I knew you'd bite on the "and and and."
Midterms aren't that different, huh? As Dennis Hopper said in Speed, “Pop quiz, hot shot.”
Question One! Since 1870, there have been 37 midterm elections. How many times has the President’s party gained seats in both the Senate and the House?
Don’t worry, I won’t make you guess. The answer is: Twice!
As opposed to the 25 times when the President's party has lost seats in both the Senate and the House.
(Bonus fact: It has been twice as common for a President’s party to lose 75+ seats than to win 1 seat.)
Question Two! In those same 37 midterms, how many times has the President’s party lost 25 or more seats?
The answer is: Twenty-four times!
(Bonus Fact: Those 24 times do NOT include 2014, because the Democrats only lost 22 seats. Excuse me, cough... the historic 2014.)
Extra Bonus Fact: Since World War Two, all Presidents’ parties combined have won a total of 21 seats in midterms. They have lost 575 seats.
Let's dwell on that. 575 to 21. But don't jump to any conclusions. Give it another 70 years... you might start to see a trend emerge.
And to answer the question you pretend you don't already know the answer to:
2012 turnout: 57.5% of the voting-eligible population
2014 turnout: 36.4% of the voting-eligible population
White men, 2012: 33.8% of voters
White men, 2014: 37.2% of voters
65 and older, 2012: 16% of voters
65 and older, 2014: 22% of voters
An explanation is in there somewhere. Your job is to ignore it.
I think the key here is that there's no fighting demographics. When the voting population turns increasingly female and Democratic, the female Democrat is a complete shoo-in.
That's what I heard from Governor Coakley (formerly Senator Coakley).
Question: The Republicans currently hold 247 House seats as a result of the 2014 election. How many other elections since 1928 have resulted in them holding that many seats or more?
The answer is: Zero!
Since there have been many midterms during that extended period of time in which a Democrat President's party faced off against the Republicans, you would think that the principle called "Midterms are that different" would have produced many instances of even bigger Republican victories. I mean, considering everything you've told us about how women have been becoming a rising tidal wave of Democrat voters, and the white male voter becoming rarer and everything. But as things are, someone might get the impression that only one midterm was that different.
Give it another 70 years... you might start to see a trend emerge.
Here's a series of numbers - not from the next 70 years, but from the last 57. See if you can spot a trend:
153
173
175
140
187
192
180
192
144
143
156
192
166
180
177
173
167
176
228
226
223
220
229
233
202
178
242
234
247
After you've studied them and figured out the emerging trend, you can get extra bonus points by researching what those numbers are and reporting back to us.
No, the key is that fighting demographics requires fighting. Republicans are starting at a numerical disadvantage in presidential elections, which is incrementally widening each cycle. So maybe-- difficult to say, but maybe-- it isn't the shrewdest strategy to rail against Mexicans, women, and gays.
On the other hand, Governor Baker. There, that balances the scales. As we know, it's incredibly rare for Massachusetts to elect a Republican Governor.
Obviously, demographics mean that the United States will never, never again elect a Republican president ever, just as Martha Coakley marked the end of Democratic success in Massachusetts.
You can get extra bonus points by researching what those numbers are and reporting back to us.
That in the last 57 years, the Republicans' astonishing, historic, current high water mark of success in the House of Representatives would have been the 17th-highest for the Democrats?
Since there have been many midterms during that extended period of time in which a Democrat President's party faced off against the Republicans, you would think that the principle called "Midterms are that different" would have produced many instances of even bigger Republican victories.
Democratic losses of 71, 55, 45, 29, 47, 52, and 63 House seats during the last ten Democratic president midterms don't do it for you? Man. Tough crowd.
Sure, dismiss that female running for the Senate in a heavily Democrat state (for Ted Kennedy's seat no less!) because that's different. Martha Coakley was an unlikable candidate with a thin resume and no common touch. Completely unlike Hillary.
At this stage, I'm fearful she won't be the nominee. Stay home, Joe!
A special election in January for a state office is a strong parallel and precursor to a national presidential election. There are so many past examples of this, I don't want to list them all, or even single one out.
And although that 2010 upset had zero impact on the 2012 election-- not even on Senator Scott Brown himself-- the Coakley loss is still lying in wait, and will be a direct harbinger for 2016. Persuasive.
Right: the character of a candidate is irrelevant. Because it's GOT to be.
I'm sure Hillary can reverse that 20-point-underwater favorability rating.
Hillary's got no chance, up against the huge favorables, common touch and experienced resume of [Miscellaneous].
[Those numbers show] that in the last 57 years, the Republicans' astonishing, historic, current high water mark of success in the House of Representatives would have been the 17th-highest for the Democrats?
Um, no. The numbers show that in the last 57 years, a time, according to you, of ever-increasing numbers of Democrat voters, and ever-decreasing Republican voters, there is a clear and persistent upward trend in the number of House seats held by the R's. And your best explanation for that is "Midterms are different". Yup. The pain must be intense.
Democratic losses of 71, 55, 45, 29, 47, 52, and 63 House seats during the last ten Democratic president midterms don't do it for you?
I love the sound of a towel being thrown in, in the morning.
Oh, well. I see one more lesson is needed.
Congressional pickups and losses, all elections since World War Two, combined:
*The Presidents’ party in MIDTERMS: Lost 575 seats, won 21.
*The President-elect’s party in PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS: Lost 46 seats, won 281.
That's minus -545 versus plus +235. And then we have your counterarguments to date: “2014,” “They’re not that different,” and "Yup." Dear God, even midterm elections don’t get this lopsided.
Unlike you, I don’t need to pick the non-random cutoff of “the last 57 years” in order to make the numbers look better for my case. Why’d you choose 57? Because GOP House seats going from 201 to 247 in 59 years is so much less emphatic than 153 to 247 in 57 years. But we can go with 25 years, or 57 years, or 150 years, and I'll still be correct, because... drum roll... midterms are different.
575 to 21. 46 to 281. Stop making me kick you in the face.
Oops, a typo. It's minus -554, not -545.
Now, now, now. No snapping the towel.
And calm down. You're having a MIDTERM, err, I mean, a meltdown.
Shhh. It's already over. But you're going to be okay. Like midterm elections, just tell yourself that being right and being humiliatingly crushed aren't that different.
Post a Comment