Pelosi Minority Leader Again

[Ben]

Just heard it on the news. I can't remember the exact vote count, but she won by a LARGE margin. Those people are doubling down on the stupid. In fact they be taking over the mantle of "the stupid party" from the R's. Or maybe a new title, "the absolutely clueless party".

[Angel Eyes]

[RevDisk]

Just heard it on the news. I can't remember the exact vote count, but she won by a LARGE margin. Those people are doubling down on the stupid. In fact they be taking over the mantle of "the stupid party" from the R's. Or maybe a new title, "the absolutely clueless party".

Interesting. No sarcasm, but I honestly never thought that the Republicans would give up their "stupid party" mantle. Not meant as an insult whatsoever. But what else can you say when Republicans passed numerically more and more effective gun control laws than Dems. Or spent money by the hundreds of billions in ways that'd make drunken sailors blush. Or expanded domestic government authority by the most significant amount since the Civil War. Or using TARP to put hundreds of billions directly into bank's pocketbooks who then donated percentages of the take primarily to the Dems. Or tried their damnest to get the worst or dumbest political candidates possible for the Presidency. Or any other number of incredibly stupid moves.

They got a BIT less stupid under the Dem regime. Lately though, yeah, they've been trying to wrestle the Stupid Party mantle from the Republicans with grim determination. They still haven't understood that identity politics makes headlines, but people care about their jobs at the end of the day above practically anything else.

[Unisaw]

Pelosi is the gift that keeps on giving...to Republicans.

[Perd Hapley]

They got a BIT less stupid under the Dem regime. Lately though, yeah, they've been trying to wrestle the Stupid Party mantle from the Republicans with grim determination. They still haven't understood that identity politics makes headlines, but people care about their jobs at the end of the day above practically anything else.

An analysis of Obama's legacy for the Democratic Party.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xL0am0yLpI

What Obama leaves behind after eight years is a loss of 10 senators, 14 governors, 31 statehouses, and 63 House seats. The Democrats are at the lowest ebb in the House that they have been since the 1920s...they have no bench. When you talk about the Vice President being the face of the party now, that tells you how decimated the party is.

The joke on those who are upset about the popular vote winner losing the presidency is that the true oddity (one might almost say the injustice) is a blue president governing a country so overwhelmingly red. A country that's gone red in both of the national legislative chambers, in most state legislatures, and most governor's mansions.

[RoadKingLarry]

So the Dem Ryan that challenged her. How much of a political future do you bet he has now?

[RocketMan]

After seeing that Pelosi won minority leader again, the definition of insanity keeps coming to mind.

[Jamisjockey]

that delegate count is higher for Trump now with Michigan officially called.

[Perd Hapley]

that delegate count is higher for Trump now with Michigan officially called.

I doubt those delegates get to vote for a minority leader, but OK!  


(I believe it's now 306-232 Trump.)

[TechMan]

So the Dem Ryan that challenged her. How much of a political future do you bet he has now?

From what I've read about him, he will be fine since he has a very strong union backing.

[Hawkmoon]

The Dems still don't get it (obviously).

http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/rural-democrats-ignored-suffer-consequences

But they are staying on message:

These nonwhite voters might have cost Clinton the most: She performed poorly in rural counties populated mostly by Hispanic voters, too, as The Washington Post’s political science blog Monkey Page tabulated in a recent post. That weak showing likely accounts for why Clinton did worse than Obama with Latino voters, according to exit polls, despite Trump’s racist rhetoric about Latino immigrants. - See more at: http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/rural-democrats-ignored-suffer-consequences#sthash.IX0mTqZh.dpuf

So calling illegals "illegals" is racist. Got it. I guess I'm a racist after all, and I'll just have to live with myself.

[TommyGunn]

"Pelosi's my right-hand gal!   -- I LIKE it!!!!"

[makattak]

Poor Illinois. Yet again the cancer on the lake makes a pretty solidly red state (by county) into a solidly blue one. (Even more so than New York.)

[DittoHead]

a country so overwhelmingly red.

If only land owners were allowed to vote the map might look like that but counties are irrelevant in the presidential race. Just like the popular vote...

[Perd Hapley]

If only land owners were allowed to vote the map might look like that but counties are irrelevant in the presidential race. Just like the popular vote...

   I don't think anyone claimed that we elect presidents by county or by electoral vote. The point is the incongruity of a nation full of red-staters, voting for Republican leadership in most of the country, being presided over by someone opposed to our beliefs, and disdainful of us.

Oh, and the map does look like that - no land-owners needed. Where does a property qualification come into all of this?

[DittoHead]

a nation full of red-staters

Lots of red states yes. Red counties too. Red voters are a minority though.

Oh, and the map does look like that - no land-owners needed. Where does a property qualification come into all of this?

The map that matters doesn't look like that. A big red county with a low population doesn't outweigh a small blue county with a high population. As mentioned, just look at Illinois. With a county level map you see a lot of red because there's a lot of low population density land where red voters are the majority.  That's where the property qualification comes into it - the county level map is reflecting what that would probably look like.

[Perd Hapley]

Lots of red states yes. Red counties too. Red voters are a minority though.
The map that matters doesn't look like that. A big red county with a low population doesn't outweigh a small blue county with a high population. As mentioned, just look at Illinois. With a county level map you see a lot of red because there's a lot of low population density land where red voters are the majority.  That's where the property qualification comes into it - the county level map is reflecting what that would probably look like.

So you took my comments to mean that I thought the president was elected by counting up the counties that he won?

I did not mean that.

[DittoHead]

So you took my comments to mean that I thought the president was elected by counting up the counties that he won?

I took your comment to mean that the county level map is in some way meaningful or important.  My point is that not only is it irrelevant,  it is also deceptive.

[mellestad]

It's insane that she won again, after the drubbing the party just took.

I wonder what her blackmail file looks like?

[Ben]

It's insane that she won again, after the drubbing the party just took.

I wonder what her blackmail file looks like?

I think part of the problem is that she is still immensely popular with the clueless bicoastal progressive crowd. Even Michael Moore lamented her winning, and he was practically tarred and feathered.

http://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2016/12/01/old-gray-mare-aint-what-she-used-to-be-michael-moore-has-a-sad-over-nancy-pelosis-win/

[wmenorr67]

I think part of the problem is that she is still immensely popular with the clueless bicoastal progressive crowd. Even Michael Moore lamented her winning, and he was practically tarred and feathered.

http://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2016/12/01/old-gray-mare-aint-what-she-used-to-be-michael-moore-has-a-sad-over-nancy-pelosis-win/

That could explain why she keeps getting elected to her seat but why in the hell are the D's that insane to let her be their mouth piece again?

[Angel Eyes]

That could explain why she keeps getting elected to her seat but why in the hell are the D's that insane to let her be their mouth piece again?

Did they decide that they lost the election because they weren't "progressive" enough?

[Perd Hapley]

I took your comment to mean that the county level map is in some way meaningful or important.  My point is that not only is it irrelevant,  it is also deceptive.

Deceptive? It is what it is. It marks counties red that voted one way, and blue that voted another (with varying shades that reflect the margins of victory). In order to be deceived by it, one would have to misinterpret it. Yes, a person might assume that each bit of red has the same population density as each bit of blue. A state-level map could be misconstrued in exactly the same way, or to mean that everyone in the state of Virginia voted for the Democrat.

If you mean, by your first sentence, that you see no significance in the county-level map, then I'm sorry. Perhaps, with some reflection, you will.

[DittoHead]

a person might assume that each bit of red has the same population density as each bit of blue.

Yep, that's the issue. Maybe deceptive is going a bit far as I don't think that map was created specifically to deceive, however it is very easy to misinterpret and since county level votes aren't used I don't see the reason to aggregate to that level when other more precise or meaningful measures are available. I mean, we could make a fun map aggregated to the country as whole but it's not very informative.

A state-level map could be misconstrued in exactly the same way, or to mean that everyone in the state of Virginia voted for the Democrat.

I agree, the state level map has the same issue. However that map at least represents something relevant and important - how the electoral college will vote (mostly).

[Perd Hapley]

I agree, the state level map has the same issue. However that map at least represents something relevant and important - how the electoral college will vote (mostly).

You really don't see any relevance or importance to the geographic distribution of partisan voting blocs? To the way that blue cities hold sway over red areas in their states? You don't find that interesting, or informative? I would not keep admitting to that, were I you.