quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler

As for the original topic, the phrase is Advice AND Consent, not Advice AND/OR Consent

It was a smart move on Obama's part to demonstrate the character of his opposition

As far as tradition goes, it is tradition, not in the constitution

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

And yet year after year incumbents win 96% of their battles.
Proving this particular poll shows the fallacy from trying to extrapolate from polls.

Agreed it is a fallacy to extrapolate election predictions from it.

But what it DOES clearly show is the approval % of the President VS Congress (CURRENTLY).

Again, meaningless.

90% of Americans cannot name their two senators.

So the people ranking congress poorly

a). either do not represent the average american -or-
b). vote approval without knowing their representative
c). bah. If you don't see the problems with making this kind of comparison, I"m not listing any more.

For the statistic to mean something, it would have to be predictive of something. And it is completely not.

Sorry... No.

I'll agree that it isn't predictive of elections sure. But to say the poll is meaningless, is just silly.

I'd agree with you on the comparison, if the results we're comparing weren't in the SAME poll by the same people.

The false requirement of a statistic having to be predictive of something to mean something is 100% nonsense.

This is a simple poll asking people if they approve or disapprove of Obama and if they approve or disapprove of Congress (not any individual in Congress, or even a particular house of Congress) but Congress.

They approve of Obama slightly more than they disapprove. They DISAPPROVE of Congress significantly more than they approve of Congress.

Those are the facts as Fox News's polling company polled. They are just that. Facts. (Predictive of nothing. But still meaningful facts)

You can dismiss it as meaningless, but this is how people answered the questions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

We agree that its facts.

We disagree on meaningful.

It doesn't change how they vote, it hasn't changed any of the last elections. It is hard to even postulate - let alone prove - how exactly it is "meaningful".


Oh wait. I have one. You are absolutely right.

It means there is a dichotomy between how people view their officials and the body at large.

Wait. We all knew that. Not significan, meaningful, or interesting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
There is a reason for that. Congress (BOTH the House and the Senate) does not closely represent the views of the voters.
Why?
Gerrrrrrryyyyyymandering....
The Senate has a gerrymander built right into the Constitution. (e.g. 10 small southern states representing a smaller population than California and New York have 2.5 times the representation in the Senate) (I made up the population estimate but my point is valid) Each state, regardless of size gets 2 Senators.
The framers knew this and created the House (supposedly the people's house)... Members are chosen by the PEOPLE of the various states. Sounds great except state legislatures redistrict, and redsitrict to the most extreme partisan benefit. Both parties do this, but republicans do it about 10x more (and are far more brazen and extreme)
So now you have a naturally gerrymandered Senate (along state lines) and incredibly badly gerrymandered Republican House.
The result? Massive obstructionist policies, only supported by the most extreme right wing. Moderate Republicans, Independents, and Democrats are turned off.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
There is a reason for that. Congress (BOTH the House and the Senate) does not closely represent the views of the voters.
Why?
Gerrrrrrryyyyyymandering....
The Senate has a gerrymander built right into the Constitution. (e.g. 10 small southern states representing a smaller population than California and New York have 2.5 times the representation in the Senate) (I made up the population estimate but my point is valid) Each state, regardless of size gets 2 Senators.
The framers knew this and created the House (supposedly the people's house)... Members are chosen by the PEOPLE of the various states. Sounds great except state legislatures redistrict, and redsitrict to the most extreme partisan benefit. Both parties do this, but republicans do it about 10x more (and are far more brazen and extreme)
So now you have a naturally gerrymandered Senate (along state lines) and incredibly badly gerrymandered Republican House.
The result? Massive obstructionist policies, only supported by the most extreme right wing. Moderate Republicans, Independents, and Democrats are turned off.

Actually, the Senate is no longer what it used to be. It wasn't supposed to be representative of the popular vote of the residents of the State. The Senate was to be made up of people chosen by the legislatures of the State, until the 17th Amendment changed it back to the general population. So, each State was to have 2 representatives, and each State was equal to every other State.

The House represented the People while the Senate represented the State. The 17th Amendment fucked that right up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Again, I find nothing meaningful in these numbers. congressional approval has been 20%~ish for ten years. With a few exceptions from '98 - 2004, Congressional approval has been substantially under presidential approval (at least 1o points) for 42 years. Meh.

Regarding Gerrymandering. Prior to Scalia dying, there was a fascinating case on the supreme court docket.

Plaintiffs made the case that Equal Protection means that voters are equally represented. Yet congressional districts are allocated by population. Since democrat districts are including large numbers of people that cannot vote they are diluting the voting rights of republicans.

Prior to Scalia's death this was pretty much a slam dunk - now it will pretty much go the other way. So the idea of gerrymandering depends very much where you sit. Some districts in Texas, California have 50% illegal immigrants. Ie., these hispanic, democrat districs elect a democrat with half the number of votes as the republican district next door....http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/10/supreme-court-could-reshape-voting-districts-with-big-impact-on-hispanics/

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Again, I find nothing meaningful in these numbers. congressional approval has been 20%~ish for ten years. With a few exceptions from '98 - 2004, Congressional approval has been substantially under presidential approval (at least 1o points) for 42 years. Meh.

Regarding Gerrymandering. Prior to Scalia dying, there was a fascinating case on the supreme court docket.

Plaintiffs made the case that Equal Protection means that voters are equally represented. Yet congressional districts are allocated by population. Since democrat districts are including large numbers of people that cannot vote they are diluting the voting rights of republicans.

Prior to Scalia's death this was pretty much a slam dunk - now it will pretty much go the other way. So the idea of gerrymandering depends very much where you sit. Some districts in Texas, California have 50% illegal immigrants. Ie., these hispanic, democrat districs elect a democrat with half the number of votes as the republican district next door....http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/10/supreme-court-could-reshape-voting-districts-with-big-impact-on-hispanics/

This poll wasn't just about Congressional approval... It was about REPUBLICAN leadership in Congress. Also, about following the Constitutionally prescribed process of appointments.

Regarding California and Texas. Republicans have a valid point. Their voting rights are indeed being diluted by bloated population numbers from illegal immigrants (and legal temporary residents who have not yet obtained citizenship) (previous parenthetical clause for all hard-core liberals).

However, that is not even an eighth of a drop in the bucket, compared to the massive gerrymandering efforts in every state in which the Republicans can get their hands in the redistricting process. In the past, I have posted very informative graphs of the large disparity between the number of Republicans in a state, and their massively outsized representation in the House.

Just a note about Texas Mr. DeLay (remember him) gerrymandered (engineered from his role in the House) the shit out of Texas (which made him a Republican hero). The Republicans figured, they can take Tom's work in '02 and go even further. They got stopped by a Federal Court inn 2012. The redistricting was getting so ridiculously partisan, and serviing no benefit for the state of Texas, finally someone called bullshit.

The "both parties do it" argument is true, but is very disingenuous. Republicans do it 10x more. That being said, I happen to live in literally, the most liberal place, per capita, in the country. The state Democratic party just gerrymandered our district, and looped in some less populated Republican areas in with us, to basically dilute their votes. I now live in a district completely gerrymandered by democrats.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

The 10x figure is specious. Republicans do it and more recently, due to huge pickups in state control. You have to go back to 1929? for democrats to be in the same position. You can draw no inference of democratic virtue from the recent activity

This map of gerrymandering here:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/05/15/americas-most-gerrymandered-congressional-districts/
shows plenty of gerrymandering in pennsylvania, illinois, maryland, new mexico, Kentucky etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: outlier
Obama has nominated Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/us/politics/obama-supreme-court-nominee.html?rref=homepage
The Democrats, expecting the Republicans to refuse their constitutional obligation,
have started a clock. "Do Your Job"
http://democrats.senate.gov/doyourjob/
From the NYTimes article linked above.
"In choosing Judge Garland, a well-known moderate who has drawn bipartisan support over decades, Mr. Obama was essentially daring Republicans to press their election-year confirmation fight over a judge many of them have publicly praised and who would be difficult for them to reject, particularly if a Democrat were to win the November presidential election and they faced the prospect of a more liberal nominee in 2017."

What does the Constitution say about the timeframe of the Senate's role in this process?

That being said, I sure hope the GOP does vet the candidate and vote him up or down, in a manner as timely as is typical. No need to rush through it, but no need to drag their feet, either.

I agree with the last paragraph 100%. (And it doesn't say anything about the timeframe. Our founders assumed that the Senate would be made up of mature adults who put country before politics.

And to bounty's ridiculous (I mean that in the truest sense of the word) post.... "Advice and Consent" refers to the nomination and choice of nominees. It was never intended for one party to play politics with the process.

Thanks for playing... But no.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

The 10x figure is specious. Republicans do it and more recently, due to huge pickups in state control. You have to go back to 1929? for democrats to be in the same position. You can draw no inference of democratic virtue from the recent activity

This map of gerrymandering here:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/05/15/americas-most-gerrymandered-congressional-districts/
shows plenty of gerrymandering in pennsylvania, illinois, maryland, new mexico, Kentucky etc.

Wow. an amazing link. Watch the video from it.

Here is an AMAZING statistic from that link:
The GOP scored 33 more seats in the House this election even though Democrats earned a million more votes in House races.

All of this is clearly resulting in the latest polls. (And from this wonderful link! Thanks Phydeaux!)

The GOP majority in the House is a result of gerrymandering, and not of voter preference.
The GOP majority in the Senate is a result of the built-in state-line gerrymandering of the proportion of Senators (2 per state regardless of how many voters each Senator represents) and not of voter preference.
The majority of Americans of either party do not support the obstructionism of Congress
The majority of Americans specifically do not approve of the REPUBLICAN leaders in Congress.
The only reason Republicans retain a majority in either house is disproportionate representation (i.e. gerrymandering (in the case of the Senate, built-in to the Constitution))


Why is it that John Kasich polls better against Hilary Clinton, than any other Republican candidate? Ponder that :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

The 10x figure is specious. Republicans do it and more recently, due to huge pickups in state control. You have to go back to 1929? for democrats to be in the same position. You can draw no inference of democratic virtue from the recent activity

This map of gerrymandering here:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/05/15/americas-most-gerrymandered-congressional-districts/
shows plenty of gerrymandering in pennsylvania, illinois, maryland, new mexico, Kentucky etc.

Wow. an amazing link. Watch the video from it.

Here is an AMAZING statistic from that link:
The GOP scored 33 more seats in the House this election even though Democrats earned a million more votes in House races.

All of this is clearly resulting in the latest polls. (And from this wonderful link! Thanks Phydeaux!)

The GOP majority in the House is a result of gerrymandering, and not of voter preference.
The GOP majority in the Senate is a result of the built-in state-line gerrymandering of the proportion of Senators (2 per state regardless of how many voters each Senator represents) and not of voter preference.
The majority of Americans of either party do not support the obstructionism of Congress
The majority of Americans specifically do not approve of the REPUBLICAN leaders in Congress.
The only reason Republicans retain a majority in either house is disproportionate representation (i.e. gerrymandering (in the case of the Senate, built-in to the Constitution))


Why is it that John Kasich polls better against Hilary Clinton, than any other Republican candidate? Ponder that :)

And I, at nearly sixty years old, learned about gerrymandering in the seventh grade. Why is it offensive now? Just because the Repugs are doing it effectively? Come on, would you be as upset if Nancy Palosi was in charge of it and doing it in cahoots with Harry Reid? Get off your high horse. Come to California where the people's republic of California has gerrymandered this state into a place where about 2% (guessing) of the land mass dictates to the entire state.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

The 10x figure is specious. Republicans do it and more recently, due to huge pickups in state control. You have to go back to 1929? for democrats to be in the same position. You can draw no inference of democratic virtue from the recent activity

This map of gerrymandering here:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/05/15/americas-most-gerrymandered-congressional-districts/
shows plenty of gerrymandering in pennsylvania, illinois, maryland, new mexico, Kentucky etc.

Wow. an amazing link. Watch the video from it.

Here is an AMAZING statistic from that link:
The GOP scored 33 more seats in the House this election even though Democrats earned a million more votes in House races.

All of this is clearly resulting in the latest polls. (And from this wonderful link! Thanks Phydeaux!)

The GOP majority in the House is a result of gerrymandering, and not of voter preference.
The GOP majority in the Senate is a result of the built-in state-line gerrymandering of the proportion of Senators (2 per state regardless of how many voters each Senator represents) and not of voter preference.
The majority of Americans of either party do not support the obstructionism of Congress
The majority of Americans specifically do not approve of the REPUBLICAN leaders in Congress.
The only reason Republicans retain a majority in either house is disproportionate representation (i.e. gerrymandering (in the case of the Senate, built-in to the Constitution))


Why is it that John Kasich polls better against Hilary Clinton, than any other Republican candidate? Ponder that :)

And I, at nearly sixty years old, learned about gerrymandering in the seventh grade. Why is it offensive now? Just because the Repugs are doing it effectively? Come on, would you be as upset if Nancy Palosi was in charge of it and doing it in cahoots with Harry Reid? Get off your high horse. Come to California where the people's republic of California has gerrymandered this state into a place where about 2% (guessing) of the land mass dictates to the entire state.

It has always been offensive. It is particularly offensive because the Republicans have taken it to an unprecedented level.

The House of Representatives isn't even close to being a House of Representatives of the people.

The Democrats earned 1,000,000 MORE votes but lost 33 House seats. Most registered Republican voters (that's right Republicans) don't support Republicans in the House.

The Republican party has become such a lapdog of corporate interests, it has disenfranchised registered Republicans. The big 2012 gain, was not a referendum on Republican corporatism, but rather proof of the effectiveness of gerrymandering.

You've got Ted Cruz, who says he is THEEE guy who can stand up to Special Interests. He is a POSTER CHILD for Special Interests!


And yes, I would DEFINITELY be as upset if Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were doing it. I hate the fact that the Democrats do it in my state. (I live in a Democrat gerrymandered district)

I will stay on my high horse, because it is the Republicans who have stolen the House of Representatives from the people and used it to grind government to a halt.