Skip to main content

Voters did NOT give the GOP a mandate

Congressional Republicans can say all they want that the voters gave them a mandate. The fact of the matter is, though, that's simply not true.

It'd be one thing if the public approved of Congressional Republicans over President Obama and 50-60%+ of voters actually voted (even that number is sad). However, when just 37% of voters voted, and of those voters, President Obama held a 44% approval rating while Congress held an approval rating of just 16%, I'm sorry, but voters didn't give the GOP a mandate.

The public was largely angry and/or indifferent, so those that were angry tended to vote for the party that wasn't in control, so some semblance of change could occur (or the illusion of it), and since Democrats held the majority in the Senate, voters decided it was time to give the Republicans a turn at the Senate wheel.

Delving deeper into the numbers, even if I generously give Republicans 60% of the overall vote on election day, that's 60% of the 37% of people whom actually voted, which would be representative of just 22% of eligible voters. In other words, Congressional Republicans are saying since roughly 20% of eligible voters voted to place them in charge of both chambers of Congress, this gives them a mandate over these next 2+ years. How ridiculous does that sound?

The GOP: "What? About 1 in 5 people voted for us? Well, then, I think those numbers speak for themselves. People obviously love us and are giving us full permission to do everything we want to do!"

Well, I suppose representing 20% of people is about 19% more than the GOP typically represents, so I suppose that's, eh, something...

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"