Grover Norquist gave voice last night to a sentiment that's been surprisingly common over the last several weeks. It is, to be sure, a transparently dumb sentiment, but the idea keeps popping up anyway.
Hmm. In the mind of this influential uber-lobbyist, Republicans had a great election cycle, so President Obama should just "get over it." In context, this is presumably in reference to the ongoing fiscal talks, in which Norquist apparently thinks the GOP should get its way since John Boehner was "elected Speaker."
In case anyone is confused enough to take this argument seriously, let's set the record straight.
Boehner, for example, wasn't "elected Speaker" by the electorate. The Speaker is chosen by House members, and in this specific case, we don't yet know with certainty that Boehner will prevail when the House votes next week.
But let's put that aside, because it's not really the point. Rather, the national election results speak for themselves: President Obama, whom Republicans fully expected to defeat, won fairly easily, earning 332 electoral votes, and becoming the first president since Eisenhower -- and only the sixth president in American history -- to win at least 51% of the popular vote twice.
In the Senate, where Republicans were certain they'd add seats, Democrats expanded their majority. In the House, Democrats not only added seats, they collectively earned roughly 1.4 million more votes than GOP candidates -- the principal reason House Republicans maintain their majority is gerrymandered districts.
Even among governors, mentioned in the above tweet, Republicans expected a blockbuster cycle, but managed a net gain of only one gubernatorial office.
For that matter, there's overwhelming polling evidence that the American mainstream agrees with Democrats and supports a policy agenda in line with Democratic proposals. It's why nearly all surveys say voters will blame the GOP is a fiscal agreement isn't reached in time.
Norquist doesn't have to like reality -- if I were him, I'd be frustrated, too -- but it's clear Democrats had an excellent cycle and have public opinion on their side. Someone should "get over it," but I'm fairly certain it's not the president.
Leave a Comment:
Like Stephen Colbert, I "don't see color", but friends tell me that POTUS is, well, a, uhm. . .
(Which may explain the Republican position on everything.)
Yeah, DAY, I agree the race thing is a bridge too far for Norquist and his friends, but I also read a very disgruntled streak in Grover - he strikes me as someone who never got over the fact he brought little to nothing to that Saturday morning pick up game in street, or at the park, and subsequently got picked last if at all for such important social interaction! Ouch!
Grover's tweet reflects a hurt he himself never got over! -Kevo
To paraphrase Benjamin Disraeli
"There are lies, Damn Lies and Election returns"
Trying to present facts to a Republican is a fool's errand.
There is spin, there is convoluted pretzel logic, and then there is going around in circles until one pukes and falls down. I think the GOP may in the third stage.
Many Republicans are exhibiting the first stage of grief: denial and isolation. It doesn't get much prettier. Soon they will become angry, at anything and everything. The third stage involves bargaining, in an attempt to regain control of the devastating loss. This only serves to temporarily mask the reality of the situation. Sadly, depression will settle in, and sign a long lease. In the end, only acceptance will bring peace to the suffering.
Note to POTUS : It is possible to govern without republicans but not with them.
President Obama...won fairly easily...becoming the first president since Eisenhower...to win at least 51% of the popular vote twice.
Really? The latest counts I've seen still have him under 51%. Not much under, admittedly (50.98%), but under nonetheless. There are still some votes to be counted in New York and Hawaii that may push him over the 51% mark, but it hasn't happened yet, to the best of my knowledge.
And sure, 50.98% rounds to 51%, but if we're talking about rounding, why not round Reagan's 50.75% in 1980 up to 51% for purposes of this cotton-candy stat?
David Wasserman has Obama at 50.98 and tweeted [on Christmas day, no less...dedicated guy] "Still lots of NYC left to count."
https://twitter.com/Redistrict
--------------------
RealClearPolitics has the results 51.0-47.3
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html
Oh whine some more. Really another Reagan worshiper gee color me surprised. Guess what that really means, you righties claim Reagan won by a land slide yet Obama's re election numbers are better then Reagans yet you rightie insist that Obama barely won, funny how that works.
And Romney got 47%. THAT is how he 'won easily'. When there is 4% difference between the major candidates that is a lot of votes.
I don't see the importance of any fancy tabulation being done for this election, as long as Romney lost. That he got 47% was horrific enough.
How close we came to having that liar as POTUS, paired up with this bunch of particularly nasty and dillustional Congress Republicans stills gives me shudders.
whomitmay - it's always refreshing to be called "you righties" by some bozo.
Here's the thing: facts just are. Given the way the GOP has become unhinged from reality in recent years, facts tend to have a pretty strong liberal bias these days. But not in every last instance.
Helen - I'm curious as to what Wasserman's 'lots' really means, just how many votes remain to be counted in NYC and environs.
To get 51% of the final national tally, if my arithmetic is correct, Obama needs to get the equivalent of the next 61,000 votes, plus 51% of everything after that. That means that if there are only ~100,000 votes outstanding, he needs ~80% of them, if there are ~200,000 votes still to count, he needs ~66% of them, if there are ~300,000 votes still out there, he needs ~61% of them, and so forth.
And if 'lots' means more like 50,000, then there's no way for Obama to clear 51%, even if he gets every last vote of those 50,000. So I'm curious about 'lots.'
Yet oddly enough there are no conservative facts, to conservatives facts are best under played or better yet ignored and instead present hype, which you did in the post I was replying to. Trying to under play Obama's re election numbers as being nothing more then a squeak by win, when facts are Obama won by more then Reagan, which the right claimed was a huge land slide victory. Really everything in your post reeks of a righty trying to under play Obama's victory. We have seen righties trying to pull this after every election they lose.
You're pretty unhinged if you are calling low-tech cyclist a right winger because he points out a simple fact (even if trivial). All TWELVE people who upvoted whomitmay need to go hang their heads in shame.
Dear Helen, you might want to update your data (I know, physical reality is so very UNFAIR):
51.06% of the popular vote, Margin: FOUR MILLION, NINE HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED AND NINETEEN.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0AjYj9mXElO_QdHpla01oWE1jOFZRbnhJZkZpVFNKeVE&toomany=true
You guys might want to update your data (I know, the physical reality is so very UNFAIR):
51.06% of the popular vote, Margin: FOUR MILLION, NINE HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED AND NINETEEN.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0AjYj9mXElO_QdHpla01oWE1jOFZRbnhJZkZpVFNKeVE&toomany=true
@GarotadaGavea
Just came by to update, but I see you beat me to it, thanks
Seem that this is what Wasserman meant when he tweeted "Still lots of NYC left to count," on Christmas...
His newest tweets from Dec. 29
NY: Staten Island reports 10,554 new @BarackObama votes, just 7,624 @MittRomney.
NY: Queens reports 65,545 new @BarackObama votes, just 14,705@MittRomney.
NY: Manhattan reports 66,579 new @BarackObama votes, just 12,044 @MittRomney.
NY: Brooklyn reports 83,261 new @BarackObama votes, just 14,152@MittRomney
NY: Bronx reports 44,961 new @BarackObama votes, just 2,906@MittRomney.
https://twitter.com/Redistrict
@low-tech cyclist
"if there are ~300,000 votes still out there, he needs ~61% of them, and so forth."
This part of your math was fairly close...Turns out there were 322,000 uncounted votes in NYC and Obama received 84%: 272,000
Current total count: Obama 51.06%, Romney 47.21%
Its amazing how the left loves to whine about the gerrymandered districts that gave the Republicans the HOR majority, but never said a word all of those years when the Democrats had the majority for the exact same reason. One thing you can always count on from the left...Hypocrisy.
that being said, I am TOTALLY against gerrymandering by either political party. Congressional districts should be drawn along county lines based on population. While we are at it, congressmen should have 4 year terms instead of 2 years and they should be limited to a total of 12 years of service.
just saying...
No re reg onc again you make a claim that both sides do it and once again you fail to provide proof of the democrats doing the same as republicans. Really re reg, with all the lies you spew what on gods green earth gives you the ideal that you can be taken at your word. Why you can't even define lie you make up your own definitions when it suits your need.
More than happy to oblige you with facts Whom, even though you never give your own...
http://www.southernstudies.org/2012/12/how-dark-money-helped-republicans-hold-the-house-and-hurt-voters.html
and to quote a portion of the article....Where Democrats were in control, they drew gerrymandered maps just like Republicans. They also had their own secretive redistricting funding. (Last year, we detailed how Democrats in California worked to undermine the state's attempt at non-partisan redistricting.) But Democrats got outspent 3-to-1 and did not prioritize winning state legislatures. They also faced a Republican surge in 2010.
and...
http://www.propublica.org/article/how-democrats-fooled-californias-redistricting-commission
Would like a spoon or a fork to eat your crow with...
just saying...
So to prove your point you try to use right wing hack sites. Yep typical re reg, ignore the facts and run with the lies.
ProPublica is a leftist website...
Here's their lead on "How Dark Money Helped Republicans Hold the House:"
In the November election, a million more Americans voted for Democrats seeking election to the U.S. House of Representatives than Republicans. But that popular vote advantage did not result in control of the chamber. Instead, despite getting fewer votes, Republicans have maintained a commanding control of the House. Such a disparity has happened only three times in the last century.
http://www.propublica.org/article/how-dark-money-helped-republicans-hold-the-house-and-hurt-voters
Just to show how bad this election was, while Obama won PA, the GOP won 12 of the 18 seats while in Ohio, which Obama also won, the GOP took 12 of the 16 house seats
Ok I stand corrected but hey its a re reg that likes to hide behind Glen Becks skirt so I don't ever open his posts because 9 times out of 10 its just spin and hype. I see that re reg is trying to spin that democrats also gerrymander but leaves out that what the democrats done is no where as equal as what the GOP has done.
Go back to Stormfront where you belong, Stormguy.
It really hurts when facts get in the way of your lies isnt it?
Does Whom ever get tired of spinning things? First it was that the Democrats dont do it, now it is ... well, they dont do it as much as Republicans...
You stand corrected? Guess what WHOM...you lied...something you have never been able to catch me doing...I am willing to leave the site if you catch me in a lie...I know that you aren't willing to do the same thing.
just saying..
The question still remains re-reg, when did the Democrats gain or regain control of the House while still polling less votes for their candidates?
I'll wait...
Does that have a legal impact on who controls the HOR? The LAW says that the party which wins the election in the most number of congressional district wins control of the HOR...in the last few elections that has been the Republicans.
just saying...
Arguing for term limits in the comments of an article about a lobbyist suggests to me that your political education may have stopped at age 12, just like Grover Norquist.
It seems the gerrymandering of districts to favor House Republicans has backfired. That explains why some of them act irrationally about having primary opposition. They are reflecting their home electorate, which has learned to think fluently in Rush-ian. While they individually maintain their seats, the overall Republican party is suffering. I look for a wave of Republicans in the 114th Congress to change parties after they are elected. I don't see how they can keep up the crazy act. Charlie Crist couldn't, and he never was that crazy.
"Rush-ian" - Love it and plan to steal it!
You're assuming a fact clearly not in evidence: that there are any Republicans in the current House of Representatives who believe as you suggest, and if they do, have the stones to step up and say so with actions.
Oh Boy !
The thought of a large incoming body of elected blue dog official , yay ...
Oh boy oh boy oh boy , oh dear -_-
Grover, unfortunately, you elected a speaker that is bad at his job.
Although it's speculative, I bet the gerrymandering of today uses digital information about voters (read: consumers) much, much more granular than just having a "sense of a neighborhood" back in the day. Does anyone have a feel for whether Republican legislatures resisted the temptation of over-populating Democratic districts and designing many more underpopulated Republican districts? Cuz that would be unconstitutional.
Assuming you could get today's Supreme Court to agree with you. Truly "a fact not in evidence."
Funny how a newly-elected 2nd term president is viewed as "lame duck" by Grover and his ilk. They plan to obstruct for another 4 years and hope the American public sees only Obama failure by 2016 (or, perhaps another influx of "true patriot Tea Baggers" in Congress in 2014). Someone needs to pop that bubble the GOP has been living in for the past 4+ years.
It's really an insult to Grover that Norquist shares his name.
Grover Norquist is still mentally and emotionally the same age when he wrote his idiotic pledge. Twelve years old.
"Permanently 12 years old" is a requirement for membership in the Republican Party.
I've always thought of them as being 14: old enough to do most of the things adults can do (nudge, nudge) but still too much children to be worth a damn as far as responsible behavior goes.
Hey 2012 Republican white male: Are you tired of fighting battles with yourself? Do you want to be somebody else?
"How does one do that?" you might ask. Discover a useful suggestion at
http://lifeamongtheordinary.blogspot.com/2012/12/somebody-else.html
How is Obama a "lame duck" when he just got elected to another four year term???
Because it's what Norquist wishes to believe, probably.
But it's the way with these people. It doesn't matter how much or little they have won. Even the tiniest victory is enough for them to have a go at claiming everything as their prize.
Last night, I watched 2 versions of Charles Dickens:" A Christmas Carol" Its VERY easy to see that the GOP/TP/ RWNJ's NEED a *Scrooge-like visit by Jacob Marley and the 3 spirits.
To Paraphrase Marleys warning to Scrooge:" Would you know the length and breadth of the strong coil of chains you bear yourself. It was as full and heavy as this several Christmas' ago. You have labored on it since, it is a ponderous chain "!
But before you even GET There, I have to wonder if your going to have to stand before God and answer his question as to WHY you treated your fellow man the way you did! And he will also likely tell you that his son Jesus has some questions for you too.
Lastly, remember this: WHAT EVER *RICHES* you have accumulated in your life, you CANNOT take them with you !
This is so typical of the right wing lunatics that now infect the Republican party. Right after the election they said that "this means Obama's got to be more humble". What?!? Obama's got to be more humble after whuppin' the GOP's ass 6 ways from Sunday in the election?
Grover is helping Republicans justify the future obstructions that will continue until at least 2014. But Dems are getting better at pointing out the Republican Tea Party is crazier than the Mad Hatter. In fact, Dems are getting better at pointing out Republican loyalty to the Norquist oath over their Constitutional duty to faithfully represent the people of their district. I expect to see more Tea Partiers involuntarily leaving the House. Voters turned out a few this time around and rejected a bunch of new ones running for Congress. It will take a couple more election cycles for the the TP to be thoroughly rinsed out of Congress, but it will happen.