Yes it was. The 5th amendment does not require grand juries.
I have real bad news for you nutters, the Republicans are going to take back the house.
And Trump is a shoo in for PrezX2
I don't know where you are going to go hide, but make it some place dark, like your souls
Of course Trump was on the ballot...he campaigned almost every day for Republicans. He held rallies. "Build that wall" was the chant. It was only 11 months ago.
Right, so you're not taking the right lessons away from what happened last year. If a 10 million vote margin is completely out of the norm, then what does that mean for the 2018 election?
Even more rare? A ten million vote margin.
So first you said they always lose seats, then you changed that to say they "almost always" lose seats. Then you say how it was rare for them to gain seats, even though it happened twice in the last 20 years. The last time there was a 10 million vote margin? 1974.
So which is rarer? The thing that happened twice the last twenty years, or the thing that happened once the last 45?
I understand what you are saying and you might be right, but a mid-term does not predict the following presidential election.
In 2010 Obama lost over 60 seats by a margin of 5 million in the House and 3 million in the Senate, but did not affect his reelection in 2012. In 1994 Clinton lost 62 seats, and both houses of Congress by a margin of 5 million in the House and 3 million in the Senate, but easily won re-election.
My only point is that we cannot predict anything based on the mid-term, especially since we do not
When proven wrong you always change the argument. The discussion was predicting the 2018 mid-term election. I said that aside from any other factors we know that the president's party always loses seats in mid-term elections; therefore, we could expect Republicans to lose seats.
I had to change it to "almost always" because everybody but you knows it is not literally always. But when the president's party loses seats 26/29 mid-term elections (90%) since 1900 that is almost always which proved my point. We could expect Republicans to lose seats in 2018 regardless of who was president.
Switching to the margin of votes won has nothing to do with the fact that the president's party "almost always" loses seats
Seats are gerrymandered, so you're not actually capturing the electorate when you look solely at gerrymandered seat totals, and you certainly can't divine the reasons for why the vote margin was so large by ignoring it. 2018 was a bellweather. It's why 19 Republicans have quit since. Unlike other midterms, voter engagement, and even voter turnout, was at historical highs for midterms. Hell, the turnout in 2018 was 50%. In 2016, it was 55%.
They actually hate the Constitution, which is why they tried to create their own country with their own Constitution in the 1860's.
They lost.
Seats are always gerrymandered. But obviously the gerrymandering did not prevent the Democrats from winning the House, so gerrymandering is not an excuse for losing elections.
The large margin of victory is due to the very high turnout in a mid-term election. No doubt Trump was a major cause of that increased turnout plus Democratic efforts to get out the vote (which usually occurs after losing an election based on low turnout).
I don't think it is a bellweather because we cannot assume that high level of turnout will continue (it never has). Also, I am much more reluctant to predict major changes occurring (rapidly) because all those predicting such changes in past have been wrong. When I was in college we went around talking about "when the revolution comes" but it never did (thankfully). It is very hard to keep voters enthused. Hopefully, the Republican party will return to a political party rather than a cult of personality.
On the other hand, I don't see any of the Drumpf supporters abandoning him. His approval level has held about the same as his percentage of popular votes (43%). Democrats will have to turn out and outvote them to win.
You are right about Republicans quitting but add to that the Republican term limits on committee chairs always causes some to retire.
But the seats are gerrymandered...what's important is the margin. 2018 was not like any other midterm election since 1974. The losses Trump faced were likely magnified by his shittiness. Trump was a drag on the ballot, even though his name wasn't physically on it. Voters associated the GOP with Trump because he is the party's standard bearer.
Ah, but nothing about these times are normal, and twice in the last twenty years, the President's party gained seats, despite that happening only 1 other time since 1900, if your facts are correct. But to lose a midterm by 10 million votes and nearly 10% is historically unmatched since 1974. So there's a reason why that happened, and it wasn't just because of conventional politics.
Seats are gerrymandered, so you're not actually capturing the electorate when you look solely at gerrymandered seat totals, and you certainly can't divine the reasons for why the vote margin was so large by ignoring it. 2018 was a bellweather. It's why 19 Republicans have quit since. Unlike other midterms, voter engagement, and even voter turnout, was at historical highs for midterms. Hell, the turnout in 2018 was 50%. In 2016, it was 55%.
Nor because of gerrymandering can you divine the meanings of an election based solely on the seat totals. That's my point.
So why was turnout so high?
The GOP has been a cult of personality since 1964, and it's never going to change. That's because all the Conservative policies the GOP has adopted have all failed. All of them. Every. Single. One.
So cult of personality is all the GOP has left...well, not all...they still have the racism that speaks to their base.
And how do you get turnout? By proposing something people want...like free public colleges, legal pot, a Green New Deal, and Medicare For All.
Well, the latest guy to quit was in line for Committee Chairmanship should the GOP retake the House.
I think ever trying to divine the meanings of an election is a simplistic, impossible task. We can list some factors that affected some voters, but the motivations are diverse.
Seat totals, however, do tell us the party in power did not fare well and, if large, affect policy-making in Congress (1994).
I stated that in the post that you included in your reply: "No doubt Trump was a major cause of that increased turnout plus Democratic efforts to get out the vote (which usually occurs after losing an election based on low turnout)."
BS. Certainly Nixon or Bush were no more based on cult of personalty than Clinton or Obama.
The primary and caucus voters still determine the presidential nominees despite any opposition from the party organizations.
Not for most voters.
"While these partisan voters continued to display high levels of party loyalty in this year's House elections, independent voters flipped their partisan preference sharply compared to 2014. That year, they leaned Republican by 12 points, but this election they supported Democrats by 12 points."
"Increased representation of Democrats at the polls also contributed to Democratic victories in the House. More self-identified Democrats than Republicans headed to the polls this year (37 to 33 percent). This represents a shift from 2014 midterm election, when more Republicans showed up at the polls (36 to 35 percent)."
Yes, and some quit because Republicans limit their terms as chair. And multiple other reasons explain why members leave.