Pelosi defends MS-13 from Trump

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

c'mon...Spence....don't let them push you around like this...put on your pink hat and get back out there and make a fight of it!!!!

I’d rather just let Jim punch himself out. His links don’t even back up his assertion. Demographics and gerrymandering don’t reflect ideology.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I’d rather just let Jim punch himself out. His links don’t even back up his assertion. Demographics and gerrymandering don’t reflect ideology.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

just tell him he's not smart enough to understand the complexities of the argument...that always works

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I’d rather just let Jim punch himself out. His links don’t even back up his assertion. Demographics and gerrymandering don’t reflect ideology.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

First you said democrats didn't lose house seats. Now it was only because of gerrymandering. Well, which is it? Did seats stay flat, or did the democrats lose seats?

"Demographics and gerrymandering don’t reflect ideology."

The articles also talked about the fact that the democrats lost US Senate seats, and governorships. Was that because of gerrymandering? How does gerrymandering impact a statewide race, exactly? And the only reason the GOP could gerrymander, was because of the Tea Party tidal wave of the 2010 midterms. There was no ideological effect that led to the genesis of the Tea Party? No? Tell that to Rick Santorum...

NPR said that no president has come close to losing as many seats as Obama. There was something unique there. Then, we elected the biggest jerk in history, to beat the most inevitable candidate in history. How did that happen? White privilege?

"I’d rather just let Jim punch himself out"

Don't hold your breath, you have a long wait. This is just too much fun.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Well, which is it?

whack-a-mole

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

just tell him he's not smart enough to understand the complexities of the argument...that always works

Don't forget context, I took it all out of context.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

First you said democrats didn't lose house seats. Now it was only because of gerrymandering. Well, which is it? Did seats stay flat, or did the democrats lose seats?

I never said they didn't lose any seats, just if you look at it across the two terms it was pretty flat. The bigger point is there's little correlation between dem losses and your vastly superior ideology. The dems did manage to hold onto a lot of significant government control under Obama and the local numbers can be accounted by a variety of means per the articles your referenced. Most of this stuff just flips back and forth every so often anyway.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I never said they didn't lose any seats, just if you look at it across the two terms it was pretty flat. The bigger point is there's little correlation between dem losses and your vastly superior ideology. The dems did manage to hold onto a lot of significant government control under Obama and the local numbers can be accounted by a variety of means per the articles your referenced. Most of this stuff just flips back and forth every so often anyway.

"I never said they didn't lose any seats, just if you look at it across the two terms it was pretty flat"

The Democrats lost 69 seats, according to NPR. That's not "pretty flat" by any sane definition.

"The bigger point is there's little correlation between dem losses and your vastly superior ideology."

Sure, sure, all those people voted for republicans specifically because they prefer liberalism to conservatism.

"Most of this stuff just flips back and forth every so often anyway"

NPR said no one comes close to Obama, in terms of losses.
You are correct, it goes back and forth. In 2008, the GOP got creamed, creamed all over the place, creamed as bad as you can get creamed.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"I never said they didn't lose any seats, just if you look at it across the two terms it was pretty flat"

The Democrats lost 69 seats, according to NPR. That's not "pretty flat" by any sane definition.

I said across his tenure, they lost the house and then it stayed pretty flat.

"The bigger point is there's little correlation between dem losses and your vastly superior ideology."

Sure, sure, all those people voted for republicans specifically because they prefer liberalism to conservatism.

The votes that actually decide the election aren't cast for highly partisan reasons. Timing, organization and demographic issues pull a lot of people left and right.