« It's Morning in America... | Main | Are Your Emoticons Racially Sensitive Enough? »

November 05, 2014

Apres Le Deluge.....

...comes l'overreach journalistique and politique. Can the inevitable flood of "THIS IS THE DEATH OF...." articles be far behind?

Rep. Greg Walden of Oregon, the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, proclaimed Wednesday that Republicans may have built a “hundred-year majority” in the House.

“We’re as back to a majority as any of us have seen in our lifetimes. It may be a hundred-year majority,” he said.

House Republicans have swelled their majority to at least 243 and are on track for more pickups that would give them the biggest House majority since the Truman administration nearly a century ago.

Sacre bleu! We were told there would be no math! [whipping out handy pocket calculator]

Let's see... it's 2014. Truman's administration began in 1945, which would make that.... about 70 years ago. That doesn't seem like "nearly" a century, but perhaps there's more to this:

They could end up with as many as 249 seats, which would be the largest House Republican majority since 1930.

OK.... 2014 - 1930 = 85 years. That's closer to 100 years than 70 was, but what does 1930 have to do with the Truman administration?

But Daniel Scarpinato, a spokesman for the NRCC, said Walden was merely putting Tuesday’s resounding victory into historical context, not predicting decades of House GOP rule.

“His reference to a ‘hundred-year majority’ was that it’s been nearly 100 years since we’ve seen a majority this size," he said, noting a NRCC memo that pointed to those likely gains. “[He] wasn’t suggesting in any way that the majority is safe for 100 years.”

Well, that's certainly more like it. (whipping yesterday's handy chart from the WaPo and scribbling all over it):

perspective.png

This really *is* a big deal, after all.

Posted by Cassandra at November 5, 2014 03:23 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/5377

Comments

Meet the new dopes.
Same as the old dopes.

Posted by: spd rdr at November 5, 2014 03:58 PM

OMG WE'RE WITNESSING THE AGONIZING DEATH OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!!!!

...or perhaps not :p

Posted by: Cassandra at November 5, 2014 04:18 PM

You know, that's another Glenn Reynolds-style point: looking at that chart, I realize it must be Republicans who passed the 19th Amendment out of Congress. And sure enough! Apparently it was a Republican who wrote it, too.

Amazing mess, this history stuff. Almost as bad as math.

Posted by: Grim at November 5, 2014 04:32 PM

Speaking of math, how the helk do they get a greater than 100% majority?

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at November 5, 2014 04:46 PM

that's another Glenn Reynolds-style point: looking at that chart, I realize it must be Republicans who passed the 19th Amendment out of Congress.

Well gosh, I've made that point several times:

Before 1920, women possessed no Constitutional right to vote. For six decades afterwards, women voted at lower rates than men. Conservatives love to slam liberals for "giving" women the vote. The truth is that it was the Republican Party who championed women's sufferage:

Only after the Republicans won control of congress in 1919 did the Equal Suffrage Amendment pass. It found favor in the House of Representatives in May and then passed the Senate in June.

As the 19th Amendment was circulating for ratification, the states with Republican legislatures passed the amendment. Thirty-six states ratified the Amendment. Twenty-six states had Republican legislatures and easily ratified the Amendment. Nine states voted against its ratification—eight of those states had Democratic legislatures.

Even before the Amendment was part of the Constitution, twelve states, all with Republican congresses, had conferred suffrage rights on women.

Posted by: Cassandra at November 5, 2014 05:01 PM

I don't doubt you've mentioned it, it's just that it suddenly occurred to me looking at your chart. "Oh, wow: those evil Republicans must be the ones who gave women the vote, as well as blacks. Let's check that."

Turns out. Although, in fairness, that guy was also the force behind the Chinese Exclusion Act!

Posted by: Grim at November 5, 2014 10:56 PM

Conservatives love to slam liberals for "giving" women the vote.

They do? I find that shocking. I can't remember ever hearing or reading a conservative who honestly suggested giving women the right to vote was a mistake.

Posted by: Tom at November 6, 2014 08:05 AM

I can't remember ever hearing or reading a conservative who honestly suggested giving women the right to vote was a mistake.

Gosh, I've seen a fair number. It's not "a man thing" either - Ann Coulter is probably the most famous example, but there's also John Derbyshire. I can't remember what I was reading back then (I do remember there were a bunch of posts on the topic - not sure who stirred up the anthill or why). Anyway, here are just a few links:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/340823/19th-amendment-michael-walsh

http://tygrrrrexpress.com/2008/01/repeal-the-19th-amendment/

http://thecampofthesaints.org/2011/05/03/offend-a-feminist-the-case-for-repealing-the-19th-amendment/

(one of a series of posts on the subject)

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/07/mailvox-contra-suffrage.html

(one of a series of posts on the subject)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/08/jesse-lee-peterson-fox-news-womens-rights-voting_n_1501070.html


Posted by: Cassandra at November 6, 2014 10:01 AM

One of the funniest things I remember on this was participating in a comment thread where one of the guys (someone I very much like) said he'd never, ever seen conservatives suggesting that letting women vote was a mistake.

That same guy had been on another comment thread on a different blog just the day before and guess what the topic was?

I honestly wonder if this is maybe something men are more likely to screen out (the same way I don't notice things that bother some of you guys?). That would make sense to me - I've asked my husband about this and he says that if he doesn't take someone seriously, he tends to just ignore whatever they say.

Years ago we had an ongoing debate about the pervasiveness of violence against women on TV. He didn't see why I find most TV so unpleasant to watch and didn't see what I was seeing.

He came home from a year in Afghanistan with no TV and volunteered that he had been very shocked on his return at the sheer volume of sex/violence on TV. He said he thought he had just gotten used to it, but being away from it for a year made him see things differently because for a year, that hadn't been commonplace.

Posted by: Cassandra at November 6, 2014 10:08 AM

I honestly wonder if this is maybe something men are more likely to screen out (the same way I don't notice things that bother some of you guys?). That would make sense to me - I've asked my husband about this and he says that if he doesn't take someone seriously, he tends to just ignore whatever they say.

There are quite literally commenters on blogs (not this one, mind you) who I will literally not read. I either skim right past their comment unread, or close it to make the other comments more readable. I refuse to give certain people the time it would take to read what they wrote, based upon the unmitigated nonsense they have spewed in the past.

And that's about the nicest way I can think of to put that.

Posted by: MikeD at November 6, 2014 04:32 PM

That sounds very much like what the spousal unit said - they're just invisible to him :p

I also think we notice what we care about (or what affects us) more. I'm always intrigued by a lot of the observations you guys come up with. Often what jumps out at you is something I didn't even see.

Guess that's why men and women tend to pair up (well, it's one reason :) - we complement each other.

Posted by: Cassandra at November 6, 2014 06:48 PM

As a member of a minority group in more ways than one in my own country (although it feels less and less my own country with each passing day), I'm ruddy glad we all have the vote.

As a *man* (or at least an adult male), there are times when I feel like (liberal) women voters can spoil the broth. But... if we don't give women the vote, I suspect that we'd have to ensure that women can't be nominated to political positions either, and, well, given the amount of intelligence and good governance people like Sarah Palin, Margaret Thatcher and (even if only for symbolic purposes) Benazir Bhutto have demonstrated, that would have been a tragic loss.

Nothing's perfect. Plenty of liberal men voters spoiling the broth too. So let every mentally-competent and qualified adult vote.


Having said that, I beseech the conservatives of the West; please, for the love of all that is holy and right and true, please, please, start making more babies and bring them up right! The Muslim populations all over the world are outbreeding even the Chinese (mostly because of mainland Chinese stupidity). Otherwise that bar graph is going to look sideways within a couple of decades...

Posted by: Gregory Kong at November 13, 2014 10:25 AM