Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

New Yorker Column Summarizes the Left: Everything is Broken Because They’re Losing

New Yorker Column Summarizes the Left: Everything is Broken Because They’re Losing

“we are witnessing the dénouement of an outrageous power grab”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDYNVH0U3cs

After Donald Trump’s 2016 victory, the left targeted members of the Electoral College for harassment in an effort to reverse the outcome. When that didn’t work, they began wailing that the EC system was outdated and unfair. That was just the beginning.

Since then, the left has found flaws in nearly every aspect of our system of government every time they lose another battle.

John Cassidy of The New Yorker has written a column which summarizes the left’s position:

Why It’s Right to Be Mad About Kavanaugh and the Supreme Court

Democrats wasted no time in responding to Donald Trump’s nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. On Monday night, while Trump was still speaking in the East Room of the White House, Brian Fallon, Hillary Clinton’s former spokesman, who is now a CNN political commentator, tweeted out links to the Web site StopKavanaugh.com and to a political commercial that described Kavanaugh as an “extreme nominee” whose confirmation would represent an imminent threat to Roe v. Wade and the Affordable Care Act. Meanwhile, a group of protesters gathered outside the Supreme Court, wielding “Stop Kavanaugh” posters…

If all forty-nine Democrats and independents in the Senate vote against Kavanaugh as a bloc, he could still be confirmed. But even if it’s a hopeless gesture, it is vitally important that Democrats, their supporters, and anybody else who harbors a sense of fairness and history register a strong protest in the coming weeks and months.

“Fairness” is the key word here. The left thinks it’s unfair that they lost, unfair that Trump won, and unfair that the winning team gets to make the key decisions. They still haven’t accepted it:

As Kavanaugh prepares to make his way to the Capitol, and, most probably, to a lifetime appointment in the old courthouse behind it, we are witnessing the dénouement of an outrageous power grab by a radicalized political party, its wealthy backers, and a rogue President.

Democrats are calling for the abolishment of ICE and electing socialists, but the Republicans are a “radicalized” political party. Right. This is one of the most telling passages in the piece:

“Ultimately, however, the conservative takeover hinged on ruthless power politics: the G.O.P. exploiting its unearned advantage in the Electoral College, the U.S. Senate, and the Supreme Court itself.”

Wait, I spoke too soon. It’s this:

If these points sound like the complaints of sore losers, they are.

This column has sparked some great reactions on Twitter which have been collected by Twitchy:

If you think it’s bad now, just wait until one of the liberal justices retires.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Memo for John Cassidy: Call an Uber. You’re drunk and we’re cutting you off.

“Unearned?”

I saw Trump hustle like the dickens to all the states of the Union. He saw a path to 270, and he pursued it. I also saw a witless, privileged & wealthy (substitute “unearned” if you like) white woman not work hard, outrageously calling us “deplorables.”

    pfg in reply to fscarn. | July 15, 2018 at 10:58 am

    The rules for being elected president have been in place since June 21, 1788 (date on which the minimum number of nine states approved the 1787 Constitution). The Electoral College has always been a part of the system (slightly changed by the 12th Amendment (1804)).

    Trump followed the rules in his quest to reach the EC’s 270 minimum, necessarily making his case to a broad range of voters in many states. This was precisely and solely the objective of the EC. The harridan knew the rules. And ignored them. And lost.

      Tom Servo in reply to pfg. | July 15, 2018 at 11:57 am

      The Latest Electoral Outrage: Millions of Americans may have colluded with Donald Trump to prevent Hillary from becoming President.

      https://babylonbee.com/news/cnn-report-millions-american-voters-may-colluded-elect-trump/

      The CNN report does not accuse anyone of hacking or rigging the vote, but rather suggests that those colluding with the real estate mogul in the far-reaching scheme may have simply walked into voting booths and cast their vote for Donald Trump, giving him the electoral college victory.

      “It’s far more sinister than we thought,” a visibly disturbed Tapper said.

Bitterlyclinging | July 15, 2018 at 10:14 am

The Left is making this coming next civil war more appealing by the minute.

We already saw a liberal judge retire. Wait until the ideologues retire.

kenoshamarge | July 15, 2018 at 10:45 am

The level of ignorance, or dishonesty is unbelievable. However, dishonesty or ignorance will not matter to the majority of Democrat voters because they are equally dishonest and ignorant. Willfully ignorant in some cases and educated to be ignorant in others.

I don’t talk much about mechanical or technical things for the simple reason that I don’t know much about mechanical or technical things. Doing so would reveal my own ignorance.

If only media types and politicians would speak only of things that they knew something about.

    txvet2 in reply to kenoshamarge. | July 15, 2018 at 12:51 pm

    “”If only media types and politicians would speak only of things that they knew something about.””

    That would involve them exercising their right to remain silent, and we know that isn’t going to happen.

The Left: They’re funny as heck when they’re out of power, and terrifying when they get it back.

    maxmillion in reply to georgfelis. | July 15, 2018 at 11:02 am

    If history is a guide, there is a very high likelihood they will be back in charge in 6-1/2 years

      1972 to 1992 was 20 years. (I dion’t count Carter because he was a byproduct of Nixon/Ford).

        Tom Servo in reply to MSimon. | July 15, 2018 at 12:13 pm

        Actually we’ve been at a rare period where no party has predominated for quite some time, hence the back and forth. If history is truly a guide, then soon one side or the other will lose, and the winners can anticipate about 40 years of relative control.

          maxmillion in reply to Tom Servo. | July 15, 2018 at 1:48 pm

          After Trump the Republican cupboard is bare.

          tom_swift in reply to Tom Servo. | July 15, 2018 at 2:53 pm

          As the two parties become more and more indistinguishable, this is what one would expect. If they start to become different again, and actually stand for something, then voters have something to choose.

          And I expect that, when given the opportunity, voters will choose. As in 1860, there are some things which just can’t be compromised.

“If you think it’s bad now, just wait until one of the liberal justices retires.”

Yes and no. They can only call President Trump ‘Hitler’ and his supporters ‘Nazis’ so many times before it loses all meaning. Will they call Trump “really, literally Hitler” this time?

    pfg in reply to rdmdawg. | July 15, 2018 at 11:41 am

    Imagine this. One of the Fabulous Four (G,B,S,K) leaves the bench. Trump chooses the replacement. The powerless Ds kick up a sand storm to no avail. Trump wins in 2020. Then in late 2023 both Thomas and Alito, who by then will be in their mid-70s, come to Donald, announce their plans to retire, asking him to name as their successors people in their mid-40s.

    “Then we are agreed. The traffic in originalist thinking will be permitted, but controlled by the words of the Constitution, and Don Trump will give us similar judges – and there will be the peace.”

      Othniel in reply to pfg. | July 15, 2018 at 1:44 pm

      Man, I forgot Alito was that old. But I guess it has been 12 years since he was appointed.

Shortly after the election, I asked a friend “Are you satisfied?” He said no, that there were too many people had been drinking the koolaid, and that he could see no way of coming together and going forward.

I thought he was wrong, and looked forward to the usual Presidential honeymoon. He was right, though. His fears were well-founded. He is a California Democrat.

The prolonged hissy fit by the Democratic Party and the Democratic media is disgusting and unAmerican. It is also a losing strategy, because they are turning off a lot of people who, until recently, were regularly voting in support of the Democratic Party.

    DaveGinOly in reply to Valerie. | July 15, 2018 at 12:32 pm

    #TheResistance has done more harm to America than Russian election hacking could have ever done. #TheResistance isn’t colluding with Putin, but it sure is doing his work.

      “#TheResistance isn’t colluding with Putin”

      Are you sure?

      oldgoat36 in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 15, 2018 at 8:51 pm

      Given their propensity to just follow whatever their leaders tell them to, and they all march happily along no matter what the “cause”, this includes open socialism, I’m not so sure that there isn’t collusion going on with the leftist leaders and Putin or China. Of course Soros is big time in the mix as well.

It is pointless to attempt to find logical reasons for what most liberals do. They are delusional; insane. That sums it up completely. Liberals fight to the death to continue abortion and want to expand it to unlimited abortion. They work tirelessly against the death penalty for heinous criminals, deadly force used by police and even deadly force used by ordinary citizens in lawful self defense. But, they go to the mattresses over killing children in the womb. Insane. That is your analysis.

Unearned advantage in the Senate. Must be from all the gerrymandering.

(yeah, I know… but I vaguely remember seeing that complaint years ago during another GOP majority)

    gospace in reply to malclave. | July 15, 2018 at 1:22 pm

    Actually, my one remaining liberal acquaintance on Facebook has accused the Republicans of gerrymandering the Senate. The mindset is just, well, beyond understanding.

Comanche Voter | July 15, 2018 at 12:02 pm

Kiss my pet buffalo’s backside, you silly toads. Outrageous power grab my Aunt Fanny (not that a Comanche has an Aunt Fanny–my aunt’s name was actually White Deer).

Bucky Barkingham | July 15, 2018 at 12:14 pm

Retires or expires.

The article is correct that the R advantage in the electoral college and the senate is unearned, and the commenters here who claim that it was earned by campaigning or by winning elections completely miss the point. The structure of our republic gives a small but real advantage to the smaller states; this is deliberate and built into the system. And it so happens that currently the R party is more popular in the smaller states while the D party is more popular in the larger ones. Therefore this advantage works to the Rs’ benefit.

The Rs did nothing to earn this advantage; it’s not as if they deliberately set out to become popular in the small states while ceding the large states to the Ds. It just worked out that way. Therefore the advantage is unearned. There’s nothing wrong with that, but the loser in such a case will always feel aggrieved. This advantage could very easily have worked for the Ds instead, in which case the Ds would feel smugly entitled to it and the Rs would be complaining. That’s just human nature.

None of this makes the result any less legitimate. The system was designed this way for good reasons that continue to be good, and the way it affects the two major parties’ fortunes is what it is.

    DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | July 15, 2018 at 12:38 pm

    Them’s the rules, Milhouse. If a baseball team won a game in the last of the ninth inning because a batted ball went over the fence in fair territory, would anyone call the win “unearned” because the rules gave the winning run to the team and the team did nothing to “earn” the rules, but that the rules just happened to work out in their favor?

      Tom Servo in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 15, 2018 at 12:59 pm

      The word “earned” is a value judgment that is really meaningless in this context. The weighting given to small states was intended from the start to counter the obvious advantages that the large states would always have in any national government. That’s what the Compromise of 1787 was all about; the small states said that unless you give us a break, we aren’t gonna play in your game and we’re gonna go our own way.

      It always amazes me how many otherwise rational people think that this could be undone now – nope, the same imperatives still hold. Try to undo that compromise, and the fabric that holds 50 states together in one union flies apart.

        Milhouse in reply to Tom Servo. | July 15, 2018 at 3:13 pm

        DavGinOnly, can you not read? This is not about the win being unearned, but about the structural advantage being unearned. The playing field is tilted towards the Rs. It is easier for the Rs to win the presidency or the senate than it is for the Rs. Not because of anything they did to earn it, or even because they cleverly took advantage of an anomaly in the rules, but because it just happens to be that the anomaly currently works in their favor. As you say, them’s the rules. I don’t understand why you thought it necessary to point that out to me, as if I didn’t know it, when I explicitly cited it in my comment. What part of “none of this makes the result any less legitimate” was unclear to you?

        Tom Servo, the weighting to smaller states is a feature of the system, not a bug. It was not designed to give the Republican Party an advantage, because that party did not yet exist, and it was far from inevitable that the smaller states would end up so solidly R. The Rs did not work to arrange things that way; they didn’t sit down and create a strategy to bring the small states to their side while ignoring the big ones. This is just how it currently is; who knows what will be in 20 years? Therefore the R advantage is both real and unearned.

        Arminius in reply to Tom Servo. | July 15, 2018 at 3:40 pm

        “Not because of anything they did to earn it, or even because they cleverly took advantage of an anomaly in the rules…”

        Shhh! Don’t tell the Dems, Milhouse, but that “anomaly in the rules” is actually called the electoral college. The obscure quirk that the founders hid in plain site in the Constitution. It requires two abilities to “game” the system.

        1. Being able to read a map.
        2. Count.

        The leftists still think Hillary Clinton actually won because they’ve been told all their lives there’s something called the national popular vote, and that it matters. It’s sort of like insisting your team won the Superbowl because your team gained more yards rushing and who cares what the scoreboard says.

        Of course, when it comes to winning elections, it also helps to listen to what voters want, then give it to them. Instead of making it clear that all the really smart people on the left know what’s best for you and only idiots and fascists could possibly disagree.

        “Hi, we’re the Kalifornia Democratic Villista party! We’re for open borders, gun confiscation, abortion on demand up to one month post birth, wealth redistribution, abolishing ICE, abolishing the PO-lice in general, outlawing profit, outlawing hate speech, getting rid of prisons, free college for all, free medical care for all, and racial reparations, and if you don’t like any of this you are literally HITLER, Nazi racist!”

        Gee, I wonder why people in the smaller states don’t vote for more leftists.

        Arminius in reply to Tom Servo. | July 15, 2018 at 4:09 pm

        “The Rs did not work to arrange things that way; they didn’t SIT DOWN AND CREATE A STRATEGY to bring the small states to their side WHILE IGNORING THE BIG ONES. This is just how it currently is; who knows what will be in 20 years? Therefore the R advantage is both real and unearned.”

        How about this for sitting down and creating a strategy. You said a stupid thing, and now you’re following it up with more stupid things because you embarrassed yourself and you have to prove you’re always the smartest person in the room.

        Which only means you need to find different rooms.

        First rule of strategy creation: when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

        You’re still digging. Stop. The Republicans don’t ignore the big states. Texas is a pretty big state with a lot of electoral votes, Congressional seats, and like every other state no matter how big or small, two Senators. It wasn’t until 1978 that Texas got its first Republican governor since reconstruction and until the mid 90s when the GOP won the majority of House seats. The state legislature was majority Dem until after Y2k.

        So we don’t ignore big states. Again, we listen to what voters want and give it to them.

        Contrast that to the Kali Dems. I left that state in disgust about 15 years ago came to TX and started a business.

        Don’t worry, TX I didn’t bring any STDs (Statist Transmitted Diseases) with me.

        So many people like me came to TX that Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom came out on a “listening tour” to find out why. I didn’t bother to join other ex-kali TX business owners because I’m from Oakland and I had an up-close look at the leftist Dem from SF.

        Sure enough it went about as I expected. It was a lecturing tour, not a listening tour. Every time someone told him why they left he said, “No, that can’t be it.”

        You see, in his view who wouldn’t want skyrocketing housing costs to protect “open spaces,” to put farmers out of business to save the Delta Smelt, higher and higher state income, sales, and property taxes, potholed roads because we need to prioritize LGBTQ teen rec centers, and ever expanding welfare state, and welfare benefits and in-state tuition for illegal aliens, asphyxiating clean air regulations (it may sound like an oxymoron but its not), gun ban, internet ammo sales bans, a fingerprint and background check requirement for over the counter ammo sales, high speed rail to nowhere that’s tens of billions of dollars overbudget, $6/gal gasoline,

        Arminius in reply to Tom Servo. | July 15, 2018 at 4:30 pm

        I just wanted to add, Kali pols think it’s a good thing to have a business environment modeled on Greece, and those in Texas don’t. So, hello, Texas!

        The Kali Democratic Villista party members look at each other in confusion. “Maybe” one says softly, “If we increased the mandatory minimum wage to $20/hr those business owners* will come back.” The other Villistas nod and look at each other hopefully.

        *It isn’t just the minimum wage hikes that drive businesses out or drive automation. It’s also “little things” like how overtime is calculated. For instance in fast food a lot of managers are paid hourly. To most Americans when I mention overtime you’d probably think “more than 40 hours a week.” Not in Kali where overtime is paid by the day. So if someone works over 8 hours a day they get overtime pay. It doesn’t matter that your company would give them the flexibility to manage their own schedules. And it doesn’t matter if they knew they had to work an hour or so extra because of some emergency such as the ice machine breaking down and you had to get the repairman in as fast as you could. Nope, Kali doesn’t let you have that flexibility.

        It’s rare that you can find a company-owned fast food place as most companies have converted them into individual franchises and then left the state. I even know of some companies that were forced to fire some of their managers because they were too dedicated to their jobs and the company got fined, but as they were firing those managers they told them if they followed them out of state they had guaranteed jobs in Arizona or New Mexico.

          Milhouse in reply to Arminius. | July 15, 2018 at 5:21 pm

          Arminius, are you quite done ranting? I understand wanting to spill your thoughts on the screen, but you should stop once in a while to read what you’re responding to. It may be possible to game the system but the Rs did not do that. They did not sit down and create a strategy to bring the small states to their side while ignoring the big ones, as you yourself point out just after criticizing me for saying so. Geez, even if you won’t listen to anyone else, don’t you at least listen to yourself?

          Fen in reply to Arminius. | July 15, 2018 at 11:55 pm

          Arminius (Chieftain of Germanic tribes, Battle of tTeutoburg Forest in 9 AD) is correct.

          The Democrats “unearned” their advantage in the EC by marginalizing blue collar voters in once Blue States.

          We can even point to specific examples – Michigan and Pennsylvania. These were people who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012, before the Democrats marganilzed them as subhuman deplorables.

      Arminius in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 15, 2018 at 3:18 pm

      Haven’t you heard, Dave? There are federal and state laws against Democrats winning elections in smaller states that have the built in advantage. It’s why Hillary had to stay out of Wisconsin; it would have been against the law for her to even campaign there so close to the election. In fact those laws are based on the Constitution written by those slave-holding old patriarchal gender-conforming heterosexual christofascist white men in order to entrench a system of white supremacy, white privilege, and guaranteed wins in the smaller states. You can look it up.

      Please, continue, Milhouse. You’re on a roll.

        Milhouse in reply to Arminius. | July 15, 2018 at 5:26 pm

        No, Arminius, there are no such laws. How could you possibly have concluded that I implied such a thing, when I wrote the exact oppoite. It just so happens that the people who live in smaller states support the Rs by a higher percentage than do the people who live in larger states. Not because anyone planned it that way, it just happened. It wasn’t always so, and it may not continue to be so, but right now that is the situation, and it gives the Rs an unearned advantage. This is not a bad thing. Considering how insane the Ds are nowadays the country is very lucky it worked out this way. But it’s understandable why the Ds feel aggrieved. We’d feel that way if it were the other way around.

    pfg in reply to Milhouse. | July 15, 2018 at 1:19 pm

    In the Pirates’ much-celebrated 1960 World Series win over the dreaded Yankees, the Pirates won the Electoral College, 4 games to 3 games. But the Yankees won the Popular Vote, scoring 55 runs to the PP’s 27.

    The rules were followed. And to this day we continue to celebrate that the Pirates beat the reigning behemoth.

    Milwaukee in reply to Milhouse. | July 15, 2018 at 1:36 pm

    Milhouse: when you write for the Onion, what is your pen name? This isn’t the Onion, by the way. Small states tend to be Republican, or more to it, smaller government, than big states. Big states have big cities, which can carry state elections, and tend to be socialist pits. For example, Chicago, and New York City, in two large states, Portland and Seattle in two others. Before the Supreme Court upset things, all states had senates based on geographical area, not population. Rural people tend to be more independent and self-sufficient, because they must be to survive. Hence they are not interested in government handouts, in general.

    Your explanation is, unexpectedly, tedious, pedantic, and like tech-support help from Microsoft, technically correct but practically worthless.

    Oh, I don’t know, Milhouse. I think you’re being entirely too harsh. In my book, the Republicans earned the advantage through heavy participation in winning:

    – The War of Independence
    – The Civil War
    – WWI
    – WWII
    – The Cold War

    And that is why the British Parliament, the South, Imperial and Nazi Germany, and Mother Russia, did not get to write the electoral rules for the United States of America. I also believe these victories came at some cost.

    I hope you don’t find this comment to be unfair, but the minute the Senate became fully elected, the “designed as a body to thwart democracy” argument should have died a well-deserved death.

      Milhouse in reply to JBourque. | July 15, 2018 at 3:00 pm

      Um, the Republican Party fought none of those wars. Nor were those wars responsible for the electoral system we have, or for the fact that it currently works to the Rs’ advantage. The fact is that the Rs enjoy a structural advantage, and did nothing to earn it. It just works out that way.

        You’re going to take a lot more than that to convince me that the Republican Party didn’t fight the Civil War. And, that’s not even the wording I used – I said participated heavily in.

        I’m not going to take the notion that the War of Independence is not responsible for the electoral college as a serious comment. Have a nice day.

    MrE in reply to Milhouse. | July 15, 2018 at 2:08 pm

    I wish something akin to the Electoral College were applied at the state level. In WA, there’s little point in voting on any national or state-wide issue because the moon bats in King County will so overwhelmingly vote Dem/Socialist, it simply overwhelms the remaining 38 counties.

    Wouldn’t it be just as fair to say that the Dems exploit an unearned advantage in the demographic makeup of major urban areas and the failure of states to adopt an voting system akin to the EC?

      Milhouse in reply to MrE. | July 15, 2018 at 3:20 pm

      Something akin to the Electoral College is applied at the state level; every state’s legislature is elected on the basis of single-seat electorates, which gives a structural disadvantage to a party whose support is heavily concentrated in certain areas, so that they win seats by large margins while losing them by small ones.

      Wouldn’t it be just as fair to say that the Dems exploit an unearned advantage in the demographic makeup of major urban areas and the failure of states to adopt an voting system akin to the EC?

      On the contrary, that is a disadvantage to them, because the voting system is akin to the EC. The Ds would be better off if state legislatures were elected across the whole state, by proportional representation. But that’s not how it works, so tough luck for them.

    tom_swift in reply to Milhouse. | July 15, 2018 at 2:57 pm

    The system was designed this way for good reasons that continue to be good

    What, we need Rhode Island to ratify the Constitution again?

    RI was a close vote last time, 34 to 32. But there’s no provision for a re-vote.

      Milhouse in reply to tom_swift. | July 15, 2018 at 3:21 pm

      We don’t need RI to ratify it again, but we need the continued legitimacy that we get from abiding by the agreement that was made then. If we were to break it now our republic would be less legitimate.

    MaggotAtBroadAndWall in reply to Milhouse. | July 15, 2018 at 3:20 pm

    >> The Rs did nothing to earn this advantage; it’s not as if they deliberately set out to become popular in the small states while ceding the large states to the Ds. It just worked out that way. Therefore the advantage is unearned.<<

    Ds have chosen a portfolio of policy preferences that appeal to people who live in "megacities". For example, they want strong restrictions on guns. That policy appeals to people who live in densely populated cities because that's where most of the gun violence happens. But something like 50% of the counties have one or zero gun related murders per year. There is a strong gun culture in many of those counties. The people who live there have no reason to be scared of guns.

    Similarly, Ds have made it clear they want to use government power to destroy the livelihood of people who make a living in the oil, gas, coal, pipeline, refinery, nuclear and related industries. Most of those jobs are in the heartland. There aren't many coal miners living on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. But there are lots of Democratic donors and voters there.

    Saying "it just worked out that way" makes it sound like elections are random events. They're not. Ds have chosen a deliberate strategy to pursue policy preferences that not only appeal to people in megacities but in some cases (like energy policy) are harmful to people in rural areas, towns and smaller cities.

    Ds losing share in rural areas, towns, and small cities seems to coincide with their strategy to move away from "class based" New Deal politics toward "identity" politics. That shift in messaging seems to have alienated many blue collar working class white voters who were the heart of their coalition for most of the 20th century.

      You are arguing that the Ds chose to give themselves a structural disadvantage, by knowingly adopting policies that will not appeal to those to whose votes the constitution gives a little boost, not that the Rs cynically chose to pander to those voters by adopting policies that would appeal to them.

      Also, I think you have things backwards. There’s no inherent reason why city-dwellers should be anti-gun or anti-extractive-industries. In fact you’d think it would be the opposite. City-dwellers suffer from high crime, therefore have more need to defend themselves, therefore ought to support gun rights. And city-dwellers get the advantages of the extractive industries without suffering the disadvantages, such as they are, so they ought to be more supportive of those industries, while rural areas ought to be more “environmentalist” since they have to live with whatever environmental damage the industries cause. Right now that’s not the voting pattern, but I don’t think anyone made it that way. It just is.

        Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | July 15, 2018 at 11:19 pm

        “You are arguing that the Ds chose to give themselves a structural disadvantage, by knowingly adopting policies that will not appeal to those to whose votes the constitution gives a little boost…”

        That’s precisely what we’re what we’re saying. The D’s chose to give themselves that structural disadvantage because they thought they would always have the SCOTUS and they didn’t need the small states because their activist judges could simply impose their policy preferences on fly-over country.

        “…not that the Rs cynically chose to pander to those voters by adopting policies that would appeal to them…”

        Your NYC is showing, Milhouse. It’s cynical to listen to voters and then it’s pandering to them to adopt a platform that appeals to them.

        Instead of, say, like the Kali Democratic villista party deciding to just speak more sloooowly, and looouuudly, using teeensy tiiiny words to the primitives until they understand the sheer genius of their betters and turn over their wallets and control of their lives to their Lord and Savior the Government.

        “We can’t let you keep more of your own money, you’ll just spend it on stupid things.”

        Actual words out of the mouth of a Kali Democratic Villista.

        “Republican voters don’t really think they can run their own lives, do they?”

        An actual question a Democratic congressional aid pulled my friend aside to ask, my friend then working a Republican congressional aid.

        And now here you are Milhouse, insisting that things are the way they are not because anybody because anybody planned anything or worked at anything. Small state or more rural voters don’t have any rhyme or reason behind their vote. They just wake up each morning and shake the Magic 8 Ball and someday the Magic 8 Ball will tell us to vote Democrat and we’ll just say, “Duhh, well, OK 8 Ball if you say so.”

          Milhouse in reply to Arminius. | July 16, 2018 at 3:05 am

          Yes, adopting policies because they’re popular with voters is pandering. Policies should be adopted because they’re right, whether the voters like them or not.

          Arminius in reply to Arminius. | July 16, 2018 at 2:27 pm

          Gee, thanks for the lecture, Milhouse. None of us ignorant hillbillies in flyover country knew the difference between popular and right.

          Your condescending NYC is showing again. Which is why we despise the Democratic party.

          One of things that is both popular and right out here in the sticks is that we demand the right to be left alone. Apparently you think that at some point we’re going to decide we enjoy being sneered at by coastal elitists. It’s just random chance and the Magic 8 Ball that tells us not to enjoy it right now, but you insist that could change at some hazy point in the future for no reason whatsoever and then we’re going to like the Ds again.

          And at the moment the Repubs deserve no credit for getting the message the left can’t grasp and is on board with the notion of getting government out of our lives.

          Bake your own damned cake, Milhouse.

          https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2018/07/15/this-is-just-sad-rob-reiners-anti-bush-movie-starring-tommy-lee-jones-and-woody-harrelson-was-a-total-bomb-at-the-box-office/

          “‘Rob Reiner’s Iraq War movie SHOCK AND AWE earned $41,000 this weekend. Not a misprint. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/

          ‘*SHOCK AND AWE* $41,000 divided by 100 theaters = $410.00 per theater. $410 divided by $14/ticket = 29 tickets sold per theater. 29 tickets divided by 3 days = 10 tickets per theater per day. 10 tickets divided by 2 showings per day = 5 tickets per showing.’

          ‘They’re going to keep making these movies until America feels guilty enough to pay to see them.'”

          What Rob Reiner is to film making, The left (and you) are to politics. You’re going to keep lecturing us until you can harangue us into seeing things your way.

          Ain’t gonna happen.

    Mac45 in reply to Milhouse. | July 15, 2018 at 3:58 pm

    As you note, the current Republican advantage in the electoral college is unearned. However, that is irrelevant. The electoral college is based, almost entirely, upon the population of each state. In the early part of the 20th century, this gave the advantage to the Democrats, as they enjoyed the farm vote and most of the working class vote. And, the states adopted voting rules for their delegations which favored the Dems. The only time that the Dems lost the Presidency was when most of the people were unhappy with the actions of the Democrat party, while a Dem Prez was in office. After 8 years of the Obama debacle, a plurality of the voters were desirous of a change. What we saw was the vote split almost exactly between major metropolitan areas and rural/suburban areas; with the urban areas voting Democrat.

    The heavily urbanized areas already enjoy a large advantage in the House of Representatives and in the Presidential election. If the President was elected on a straight popular vote, a very few states would dominate the national politics in this country. The Electoral College worked exactly as it was supposed to work and kept the high population, urban states from dominating.

      Milhouse in reply to Mac45. | July 15, 2018 at 5:30 pm

      Yes, exactly. All of that. The Rs do have an unearned advantage, the article we’re discussing is correct to point this out, and so what? That’s the way it happens to have worked out, for the moment.

        Mac45 in reply to Milhouse. | July 15, 2018 at 8:25 pm

        I always feel that it is a good idea to point out what the Founders were trying to accomplish and what they were protecting against. If every national election was decided by the popular vote, then six big states would control the entire nation. Also, most of the Founders did not envision The United states of America as a singular nation with a strong central government. It was supposed to be a confederation of strong states which had a limited central government designed to facilitate the existence of the Union. The Civil War changed all that. But, the protections put in place by the Founders keep this nation from becoming a tyrannical political construct.

        As to the Republicans having an unearned advantage, that is meaningless in the 2016 presidential election. That election was one of the purest non-partisan elections in the history of this nation. The Republicans worked against Trump, their own candidate. The Dems worked against Trump, virtually every special interest in the country worked against Trump. What happened was that individuals voted AGAINST the established political order and elected Trump.

    Fen in reply to Milhouse. | July 15, 2018 at 11:15 pm

    Faulty premise. By the same logic you could say Democrats abandoned the rural “advantage” by choosing to overpopulate the Blue City States.

    And you of all people here know the power of language – whenever the Democrats say something is unearned, they mean to take it away to “level” the playing field

    “And the trees were all kept equal
    By hatchet, axe and saw- ”

    Not now Geddy (and you’re bogarting again)

    Anyways, the point is this is a sideways attack against the Electoral College. Which protects people from Montana to New Hampshire from the mob tyranny of California and Texas. You support the Electoral College, yes? So let’s not be naive.

      Milhouse in reply to Fen. | July 16, 2018 at 3:02 am

      Yes, I support the Electoral College. And I’m glad it currently happens to give the Rs a structural advantage. But the article is correct that this was unearned.

      But I’d support it even if it gave the Ds that advantage (as once was the case, and as may once again be the case). I doubt you would.

Trump was a vital course correction. The actions and words of the Left now should FRIGHTEN any sane person about an impending purge of any vestige of rule of law, THE Constitution and conservative participation in politics should the Left gain control of all the reins of power. One additional point….many Dems may be applauding the Deep State for blunting Trump….but the Dems do not control the Deep State as they think….The Deep State wants to control them.

Ohio Historian | July 15, 2018 at 1:00 pm

The left is radicalizing more and more. They would be unrecognizable by a 1900’s progressive. They are anarchists who believe in a communist government.

Christopher B | July 15, 2018 at 2:50 pm

The Rs did nothing to earn this advantage; it’s not as if they deliberately set out to become popular in the small states while ceding the large states to the Ds.

Like a number of other comments I find this phrasing to be either unintentionally clumsy or deliberately intended to obscure that the Democrats basically have abandoned the field in their pursuit of votes using a strategy of identity based grievance mongering that only appeals to a loud minority of Americans. Within my lifetime the Democrats were competitive in states like Iowa, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and across the South. They now have an edge in large urban areas but that puts them at a distinct disadvantage in a system that apportions political power geographically in any way. I believe they are going to be at a disadvantage while they continue this strategy because unless they dominate a state from urban areas as occurs in Illinois, Washington, or New York, population shifts to urban areas in red states are actually going increase the GOP advantage.

“What in the blazing saddles does this even mean???”

Don’t try to make sense of the leftist howl of pain, fear, and impotent rage.

It can’t be deciphered. It can only be enjoyed.

I’m not unsympathetic to certain ideas that have come to be termed “leftist”, but I’m truly frightened by the Leftists’ throwing out the law and the Constitution in order to shaft conservatives, then screaming like infants when they don’t get their own way.

Electoral success is the new standard of illegitimacy. The Democrats have long since moved on to the USSR model where election results are manufactured by the KGB/FBI/DOJ.

This didn’t change after Hillary lost. It was how she won over Sanders and is how she arranged to defeat Trump: with an actual Hillary bought and paid for phony anti-Trump dossier produced in mercenary collusion with Russia.

They all need to be convicted for these highest of high crimes and they should all face the traditional punishment for treason/insurrection: execution, and I don’t see any way Mueller is not part of it. He hired Strzok because he knew exactly who Strzok is. He just didn’t know about the text messages or that Horowitz would find them, which is when he fired Strzok: only after his hand was forced.

The kicker is Mueller’s criminal behavior in the bogus Flynn persecution, reportedly based on falsified 302s. If that is borne out Mueller definitely needs to swing. The Obama-Hillary attemp to permanently usurp our democracy must be torn out root and branch, most importantly out of government, secondly out of society, and only thirdly out of existence, but history shows that this last step remains very important.

    randian in reply to AlecRawls. | July 15, 2018 at 8:16 pm

    “The kicker is Mueller’s criminal behavior in the bogus Flynn persecution, reportedly based on falsified 302s”

    I wonder how you could prove it since there the recording of the interview, if any, was presumably destroyed according to FBI policy?

    Since the FBI won’t allow third-party recordings of interviews with witnesses, what other conclusion should I draw than FBI agents routinely lie on their transcripts of interviews? I’ve seen interviews of local police agencies saying they have the same policy (interviewing cop makes a transcript and then destroys the recording), to which I have an identical reaction.

What is the Democratic Party doing in response to the emergence of a somewhat conservative Trump? The party is doing the same thing as CNN and MSNBC are doing: they are sprinting hard to the Left, ignoring the looming abyss. The latest is the California Democrats shunning long standing Liberal Senator Diane Feinstein. Other recent actions are their love affair with the socialist darling from Yonkers and the insanity of wanting to abolish ICE.

The Leftists/Progressives in media companies have fully supported this seismic shift, ignoring the reality of their collapsing ratings and mounting debt. This blindness has even affected professional sports, a historically non-political business model, along with its major benefactor, ESPN. Until the Democrats realize this futility, their party will continue to bitch and complain about “unfair” things are.

Great article and you nailed this. Thank you.

Republicans. Radicals since 1854.

Republicans. Anti-slavery since 1854.

(deploy Attack Pattern Fen Bravo, raise shields)

I wish we would challenge the Won Popular Vote rhetoric more often and more fiercely.

No one won or lost The popular vote because the popular vote wasn’t in play. It’s an asterisk, as another upthread said, it’s the final score that counts not Total Yards Gained.

If the popular vote matter both candidates would have campaign differently spending more time energy and money in states like California and Texas.

If the popular vote mattered voters trapped in blue States and red States would have turned out to the polls to vote. I live in Maryland which goes Democrat 2-1 most Republicans don’t bother to vote. The reverse can be set of states like Texas.

If the popular vote mattered the outcome would have been a set of numbers entirely different from what we recorded on Election Day

It’s a false argument we should stop enabling it.

“The Rs did nothing to earn this advantage; it’s not as if they deliberately set out to become popular in the small states while ceding the large states to the Ds.”

I find this remark intellectually dishonest. Yes, I agree the GOP is stupid, but if they didn’t design their campaign strategy around the Electoral College, to include ceding states like Maryland and California, they would have been fired.

Trump Campaign Rallies, during eneral Election
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Usa_edcp_location_map.svg

The New Yorker magazine is a platform that somehow combines ads for absurdly costly baubles, wealth-management services aimed at those who plenty of wealth to manage, reviews of high-culture events and products, along with a near-total ignorance of science and its methods and (of course) a smug, unreflective left-political worldview that would seem poorly informed and argued if offered by somewhat dull students in a high-school lunchroom.

Arguably it remains more readable than The Atlantic Magazine, which just went off the rails after Hillary’s defeat. The New Yorker is a stew made of ingredients that would seem to be incompatible, yet somehow they continue publishing and, presumably, somehow in some way apparently retain a core of supportive and loyal readers.

Wait, the left is complaining about something because it is “unearned?” I swear, I no longer know what they, theirs, them are thinking. 😉

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend