Rob's House Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 And when people talk about election bloodlettings and sea changes (and destruction) in the leadership and electorate, they should know better. Did control of the Senate not change hands? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 ... How does that change the % of incumbents retaining their seats? Did control of the Senate not change hands? "Control" of the Senate? That basically takes 60 seats now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 "Control" of the Senate? That basically takes 60 seats now Under Harry Reid and his 'nuclear option', control of the Senate only requires 51 seats. If I was Mitch McConnell, I'd be tempted to leave that policy in place, or to adopt it if required to do so after the new Senate convenes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 Wrong. Many of those seats did not have incumbents even running. They were open seats Question: Of the seats in the Senate, how many have incumbents sitting in them? Answer: 89 of 100. That's 89% of the incumbents retained, you unmitigated retard. "Control" of the Senate? That basically takes 60 seats now It took 60 seats before your party changed the parliamentary rules to break the Republican filibuster. Be careful what you wish for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 89/100 equals 89%. Is the math too hard for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 (edited) Funny how quickly the mainstream media got by a President committing what was arguably the biggest constitutional violation of the last 50 years. Apparently when a Republican President fires a few US attorneys it's front page news for weeks, but when a Democrat President unilaterally enacts an immigration bill by executive order it's old news by the weekend. Edited December 1, 2014 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 Were there any House members that didn't run this time? The list I saw had 41 Reps that didn't run for re election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 The list I saw had 41 Reps that didn't run for re election. Between that alone, and the Senate rolls, that would be about a 9% turnover of seats. Myself, I agree with JA's basic point that it's a rather high rate of incumbent retention (particularly in a Congress with an approval rating only slightly higher that Gatorman's IQ)...but it's not it the 4% JA is claiming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 The list I saw had 41 Reps that didn't run for re election. Maybe I'm missing something here, but if a term in the House is for two years, then how are they not all running for reelection every two years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 Maybe I'm missing something here, but if a term in the House is for two years, then how are they not all running for reelection every two years? I think maybe he simply meant that the incumbents didn't run for reelection for whatever reason. Just guessing, as I haven't checked myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 I think maybe he simply meant that the incumbents didn't run for reelection for whatever reason. Just guessing, as I haven't checked myself. That's the bit that's confusing to me. Wouldn't they actually have to be elected, whether opposed or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 I think maybe he simply meant that the incumbents didn't run for reelection for whatever reason. Just guessing, as I haven't checked myself. Yes the 41 was the number of incumbents who decided not to try to go back to House. Some were seeking other elected office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 Yes the 41 was the number of incumbents who decided not to try to go back to House. Some were seeking other elected office. Okay, that makes sense. I was incorrectly assuming that they were all running to keep their seats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 DOING THE JOB AMERICAN JOURNALISTS WON’T DO: Judicial Watch: Documents: Obama Administration Paid Baptist Family Services Over $182 Million to House Illegal Aliens. FTA: The documents show that the government has spent $86,846.34 per child at Ft. Sill, OK, since the surge of illegal crossings earlier this year, for a total of $104,215,608 for the 1,200 unaccompanied children housed at that base alone. HHS also paid out $77,914,178 to care for 1,200 unaccompanied children who are housed at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas. That’s just two bases covered in the documents. The government has housed illegal aliens, many but not all children, at numerous points in many communities around the country. The costs included in these documents only cover federal spending, not local or state spending as school districts around the country take in thousands of illegal alien kids. The documents also show that the Obama administration expects the surge to continue up to September of 2016, near the end of Obama’s presidency. That is when the contract, which began in October 2013, ends. The costs include providing “multicultural crayons” to children at Ft. Sill, along with cell phones including international calling capabilities, “laptop kits,” board games, soccer balls and much more. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 DOING THE JOB AMERICAN JOURNALISTS WON’T DO: Judicial Watch: Documents: Obama Administration Paid Baptist Family Services Over $182 Million to House Illegal Aliens. . What I find truly funny is that this is brought to you by the same minds that flipped out over Bush's "faith-based initiatives." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 Obama Administration Releases Illegal Aliens with Terror Ties, Blames It on a ‘Judge’ The DHS secretary needs to answer some questions. It wasn't me . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 Obama Administration Releases Illegal Aliens with Terror Ties, Blames It on a ‘Judge’ The DHS secretary needs to answer some questions. It wasn't me . Is Chuck Hagel still around? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 Obama Administration Releases Illegal Aliens with Terror Ties, Blames It on a ‘Judge’ The DHS secretary needs to answer some questions. It wasn't me . This is going to be a LOOOOOOONG two years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 (edited) It will happen a lot sooner than when they start collecting Social Security. It will happen every January. The EITC... Thanks be to Obama! Hereis The Atlantic breaking it down. The IRS has neither the means nor the resources to deny EITC and ACTC to anyone with a valid nine-digit Social Security number. ACTC already pays huge amounts to illegal aliens holding only ITINs—$4.2 billion in 2010, according to the Treasury Department’s own inspector general. Once those ITIN holders gain Social Security numbers, it will become even less feasible to distinguish between presidentially and congressionally authorized resident aliens, even supposing the administration wished to do so—which of course it does not. So both the EITC and the ACTC are destined to grow hugely. How much? Here’s one indicator, courtesy of the Center for Immigration Studies. About 14.5 percent of the native-born population of the United States earns little enough to qualify for the EITC. Almost twice as great a portion of the total immigrant population, 29.7 percent, qualifies. But the specific immigrant groups most likely to benefit from the president’s action earn even less. Fifty-three percent of Mexican-born immigrants, 55 percent of Honduran-born immigrants, and 57 percent of Guatemalan-born immigrants earn little enough to qualify for the EITC. About half the migrants from these communities in the United States are present illegally, and they dominate the numbers among the newly legalized. Almost 87 percent of those who have received deferred action under the president’s 2012 action come either from Mexico or Central America. Everything points to a huge surge in EITC eligibility following this year’s executive action. Maybe the President will catch up with this little tidbit the next time he watches the news. Edited December 4, 2014 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 Hereis The Atlantic breaking it down. Maybe the President will catch up with this little tidbit the next time he watches the news. It'll be entertaining, in a sense, to follow the warped, twisted logic by which he blames this on the Republican Congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts