HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Rachel Maddow said there ...

Fri Nov 7, 2014, 04:08 AM

Rachel Maddow said there are 9 states totally blue but 29 states are totally red

She then changed the 29 to 30. That makes my hair stand on end. Slowly but surely the Republicans are buying out the whole country through the votes of a minority of the electorate (millions are blocked and/or just not counted or are no-shows election day). Couple that minority of the electorate voting with the super-rich pouring money into the campaigns of their political lieutenants who promote and/or protect their interests and one sees a recipe for the true oligarchy Bernie Sanders keeps warning us this Country is becoming.

As Mitch McConnell came out swinging post election day saying he had the fillibuster-proof votes to pass the Keystone Pipeline (didn't mention the President had to approve it), I couldn't help but wonder exactly how much Koch money flowed into his campaign. As he warms up to step into his Senate Majority Leader shoes, he immediately begins to work for his patrons best interests, mentioning not only the pipeline but lowering corporate taxes as well. The Koch Brothers stand to make ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS if the pipeline is approved....

And I personally sit here wondering if Maryland is to become the next Wisconsin since I learned Hogan has said he is going to take the State into an entirely different direction. I guess the Republicans will be coming after our state legislature next ....

Sam

31 replies, 2467 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 31 replies Author Time Post
Reply Rachel Maddow said there are 9 states totally blue but 29 states are totally red (Original post)
Samantha Nov 2014 OP
stranger81 Nov 2014 #1
Art_from_Ark Nov 2014 #2
stranger81 Nov 2014 #3
Samantha Nov 2014 #7
Samantha Nov 2014 #4
villager Nov 2014 #26
Warren DeMontague Nov 2014 #6
Samantha Nov 2014 #8
BeyondGeography Nov 2014 #12
mattclearing Nov 2014 #18
Warren DeMontague Nov 2014 #5
Samantha Nov 2014 #9
Warren DeMontague Nov 2014 #10
Samantha Nov 2014 #15
Warren DeMontague Nov 2014 #17
Samantha Nov 2014 #23
seveneyes Nov 2014 #14
Name removed Nov 2014 #11
SoCalDem Nov 2014 #13
Samantha Nov 2014 #24
AZ Progressive Nov 2014 #16
Samantha Nov 2014 #21
Samantha Nov 2014 #22
okieinpain Nov 2014 #19
Samantha Nov 2014 #20
fadedrose Nov 2014 #25
kentuck Nov 2014 #27
Samantha Nov 2014 #28
kentuck Nov 2014 #30
Samantha Nov 2014 #31
Township75 Nov 2014 #29

Response to Samantha (Original post)

Fri Nov 7, 2014, 04:18 AM

1. The most infuriating part to me is that, dollars to donuts,

there are more people in the nine blue states than in all thirty red states. Yet they get 60 senators, and we get 18.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stranger81 (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 7, 2014, 04:27 AM

2. That's how it's been since the Constitution was adopted

back in 1787.

But then again, California has a lot more electoral clout than any other single state, and Texas has more electoral votes, and thus more representatives, than all the New England states combined.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Art_from_Ark (Reply #2)

Fri Nov 7, 2014, 04:31 AM

3. The system has obviously been that way.

The extreme population imbalance, as migration pushed westward in the hundred years after the Constitution was signed, has not always been the case. I would hazard a guess that it has never been as imbalanced as it is today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Art_from_Ark (Reply #2)

Fri Nov 7, 2014, 04:36 AM

7. With each new statistic we learn, it becomes more and more clear

why the vast majority of Americans are dissatisfied with its government. But that majority is mostly the middle and lower classes of people and we do not matter, do we?

Thanks for posting on my thread.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stranger81 (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 7, 2014, 04:33 AM

4. That exact point was made yesterday by Ali Velshi (Real Money) Al Jazeera yesterday

The fallout is the equivalent of a very small country ruling a very large Country. Startling, isn't it?

Thanks for posting on my thread.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Reply #4)

Sat Nov 8, 2014, 01:48 PM

26. It's like we're India being ruled/exploited by Britain...

 

But don't have our Gandhi yet!

(The last one who seemed truly Gandhi-esque, was, of course, "coincidentally" gunned down...)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stranger81 (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 7, 2014, 04:35 AM

6. You made my point before I did.

Nice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stranger81 (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 7, 2014, 04:41 AM

8. The Senators are supposed to represent their state as a whole

and the House representatives are supposed to represent the constituency. It is the gerrymandering which distorts fair representation.

But your point is very valid as well: "they" do have 60 and "we" have about less than one-third of that.

Thanks for pointing that out and for posting on my thread.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stranger81 (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 7, 2014, 05:32 AM

12. If Wyoming were a city (what a concept)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stranger81 (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 7, 2014, 05:30 PM

18. Be more upset about the House.

The House is supposed to be proportional, but thanks to gerrymandering it's skewn even worse than the Senate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Original post)

Fri Nov 7, 2014, 04:35 AM

5. Yes, but what is the combined population of the 9 blue states, versus the 30 red?

If you look at a map of the US, most of it is Red, and most of it is pretty empty. The dirt is red. The rocks are red.

Where the largest concentrations of people are, particularly the states, are mostly reliably blue, with the notable exception of Texas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #5)

Fri Nov 7, 2014, 04:46 AM

9. That is true but it does appear the super-wealthy patrons of our political system

are now coming after the blue state governorships and perhaps next the legislatures. Examples from the last mid-term election are Maryland and Vermont -- true, not hugely populated states -- but the right-wingers are just inching along until they capture control over each and every state. That is just my opinion.

Thanks for posting on my thread.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Reply #9)

Fri Nov 7, 2014, 04:50 AM

10. Sure, but they're gonna have real trouble making inroads on the blue coasts.

And there are a lot of liberals in those places with money, too.

I don't know how much you can extrapolate from the defeat of, say, Quinn in Illinois. It is worth noting that Sen. Durbin was handily re-elected.

I think the country will remain divided, and the government gridlocked, but I think we're a long way from anything resembling a "conservative takeover".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #10)

Fri Nov 7, 2014, 12:21 PM

15. I prefer your positive outlook than my skeptical one so perhaps things will start to turn in 2016

I think one thing that goes pretty much not discussed is the fact that the Republicans prevailed because most of the contests were in red states and just a couple of blue. In 2016, I have read they will have to defend 22 seats, and if we develop a better strategy, pick excellent candidates and are more successful in getting out the vote, we can make a dent or perhaps deeply cut into the gains they made this go-around.

Thanks for posting on my thread. Who are you supporting in 2016?

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Reply #15)

Fri Nov 7, 2014, 05:19 PM

17. Yeah, the Senate map is WAY more favorable for us in 2016, for starts.

And, a Presidential election year always brings out more voters, which generally translates to better #s for our side.

It's worth remembering, too, that in 2008 people were writing the obituary of the GOP. Back when I started voting, Walter Mondale's inept Presidential Run had ushered in a state of eternal GOP rule, supposedly. Things always swing back.

As for who I'm supporting in 2016- The Democrat!

Seriously, I'm going to wait and see, haven't committed to any potential primary candidate yet. I suppose it is a distinct possibility that Sen. Clinton will be the nominee, in which case I will support her, but I'm not agitating for her yet. I think she would bring a distinct set of advantages to the table as the nominee but I also have my concerns, personally.

She certainly could convince me to support her in the primaries, but I'd like to see some concrete policy statements and even some brave leadership positions on issues which she hasn't shown a willingness to address, yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #17)

Sat Nov 8, 2014, 01:14 AM

23. This is a wonderful post

Thank you for all your contributions to this thread.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #5)

Fri Nov 7, 2014, 09:24 AM

14. Just one small limited nuclear exchange could change that

 

I believe it was Albert Einstein that said "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Original post)


Response to Samantha (Original post)

Fri Nov 7, 2014, 08:20 AM

13. One thug with an automatic weapon can hold many people hostage

Minorities can (and do rule).. As long as mega-money is allowed, and media presents every race as ...too close to call..neck and neck..ooooh so close, etc, and there is no real exit polling done to corroborate actual votes..and as long as millions can be disenfranchised (as voters) with a few computer keystrokes, we will always be the weak majority, unable to legislate as a majority and too willing to capitulate as a minority..

I am glad I am old.. I would hate to think of having to put up with this shit for decades more..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoCalDem (Reply #13)

Sat Nov 8, 2014, 12:25 PM

24. That is a pretty good analogy

and you hit upon some striking problems, all of which are difficult to address or change. One thing we can do is start holding the media's feet to the fire when they do disingenuous things. During the course of the contests in the mid-term election, I thought they deliberately dwelled entirely too much on issues that detracted the public's focus on the races. They didn't want us paying close attention. We also allow commentators such as Andrea Mitchell to make statements that are totally ludicrous and do not rebuff her analysis. A good example of that was on election night. She commented the voters like candidates with credibility. The one thing that really hurt Grimes' credibility was her refusal to say who she voted for. Her lack of candor on that issue was the point when her numbers stated to fall, so said Mitchell.

Actually, Grimes had the right not to reveal her choice, but if she had, the moment the words, "I voted for Obama" left her lips, the Repubicans would have made an ad out of that and run it in a continual loop to offend the Obama-haters in Kentucky. Critics would have said responding in that manner was the mistake of a political novice which would hurt her tremendously. Grimes was right to stay on the issue.

But back to the credibility thing, if Andrea Mitchell had given a fair analysis, she would have called out McConnell for his lack of credibility in telling voters in Kentucky they could keep the health care website but he would attempt to pull Obamacare out by the root. So which of those candidates had less credibility -- Grimes or McConnell?

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Original post)

Fri Nov 7, 2014, 12:46 PM

16. Republicans now have the governorships of many states that voted for Obama

Including Maryland, New Mexico, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Nevada, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZ Progressive (Reply #16)

Fri Nov 7, 2014, 10:28 PM

21. This is a critical point

I was going to post another thread on this subject today, but I got derailed. If I don't get that done, I will get back to you on this thread.

Thanks for posting on my thread.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZ Progressive (Reply #16)

Sat Nov 8, 2014, 12:49 AM

22. Here is the thread I mentioned below in case you want to read it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025785252

The article at the link mentioned is very interesting.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Original post)

Fri Nov 7, 2014, 05:44 PM

19. only a hundred million I would think it be close to a billion. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okieinpain (Reply #19)

Fri Nov 7, 2014, 06:55 PM

20. You might be right

I just remember reading that figure not too long ago, and it has stayed with me.

Thanks for posting on my thread.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Original post)

Sat Nov 8, 2014, 12:27 PM

25. Oh Dear....nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Original post)

Sat Nov 8, 2014, 02:28 PM

27. I still think we need to partition the Party in order to save it...

Just like the Republicans did with the Tea Party. They get to keep the "crazies" in their Party and pay no penalty for it. At least, up to now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #27)

Sat Nov 8, 2014, 09:11 PM

28. So are you saying split the New Dems off from the Democratic Socialists

or just the people in the middle?

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Reply #28)

Sat Nov 8, 2014, 09:22 PM

30. Split the progressives off from the rest of the Party...

Then they can be as moderate as they want. Our goal should be to move the Party forward without being stymied by the rest of the Party. I think both sides of the Party would grow and be a stronger coalition at election times. If we have the stronger positions, they would compromise with us, and if they had the majority position, then we would compromise with them. But it would add a third, or actually fourth voice, to the debate between Democrats and Republicans in Washington. Just a theory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #30)

Sun Nov 9, 2014, 03:51 AM

31. I think that is very slowly already happening

Some people are stepping out saying they wouldn't mind being a Democratic Socialist. That is something recently I have told a couple of people personally, but I did not post it here. I have now seen it mentioned here. I believe it is the Bernie Sanders influence. He supports Democratic principles but stands by the core value that there are certain things the government should make sure people have, for instance, food, healthy insurance, at least a minimum wage that allows for a reasonable standard of living. I can ride with that label.

If I see many people starting to step up, I will be there with them. How do you feel about this?

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Original post)

Sat Nov 8, 2014, 09:18 PM

29. So who is going to stand up to people like Obama who had way more money than Romney in 2012?

People hate money in politics only if it doesn't help their cause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread