Getting mighty crowded in here

So: 619 million Americans, then? No wonder I can’t find a parking place.

2014 Bureau of the Census estimate is 319,309,000. So no matter what kind of number-crunching Abramowitz thinks he’s doing, it’s wrong from the word Go. And this whole scene could have been avoided had we realized from the start that the Seventeenth Amendment was a crock and killed it off before it could do any more damage.


  1. fillyjonk »

    8 December 2014 · 12:17 pm

    Maybe he’s using the “Chicago voter” counting method?

  2. CGHill »

    8 December 2014 · 1:18 pm

    I thought at first he was trying to argue that the 46 Democratic senators had a greater, um, mandate than the 54 Republicans, then gave up when it dawned on him that senators don’t have any mandate worthy of the name at all.

  3. Tatyana »

    8 December 2014 · 2:05 pm

    Maybe he was counting them in Russian rubles -to-dollar?

  4. CGHill »

    8 December 2014 · 2:12 pm

    I’d hate to see his conversion ratio.

  5. mushroom »

    8 December 2014 · 3:00 pm

    But 131 and 188 would add up to 319.

  6. McGehee »

    8 December 2014 · 3:18 pm

    He must be including illegal aliens.

  7. mushroom »

    8 December 2014 · 3:23 pm

    A true 46/54 percent breakdown would be about 147m/172m.

  8. Francis W. Porretto »

    9 December 2014 · 3:30 am

    Abramowitz is implying, quite slyly, that Republicans can’t, won’t, and don’t represent Negro or Hispanic Americans. Perhaps he’s said so more explicitly elsewhere.

  9. CGHill »

    9 December 2014 · 3:45 am

    In some later proclamations, he makes noise about “weighting Senate votes by population.” For instance:

    In 37 least pop states, Reps have 44-30 Senate edge. In 13 most pop states, Dems have 16-10 edge. 13 big states have over 60% of total pop.

    So I’m thinking he’s one of those guys who think Wyoming and North Dakota senators shouldn’t count so much compared to the important states.

  10. fillyjonk »

    9 December 2014 · 7:22 am

    “Weighting votes by population” is the House, no? I mean, I thought that’s how it was set up: one part of Congress have seats apportioned based on population, the other part have them apportioned equally to each state. Seems a reasonable compromise to me, but then I suspect there are lots of people in politics today who prefer things be as UNreasonable as possible. Or maybe who just don’t like compromise.

  11. McGehee »

    9 December 2014 · 7:41 am

    I’ll bet he thinks the Electoral College should be scrapped too, so the giant cities can decide even more easily what’s best for the rest of us who choose to live outside of their boundaries.

    That and weighting the Senate by population would leave the states nothing but their names.

  12. mushroom »

    9 December 2014 · 10:13 am

    That and weighting the Senate by population would leave the states nothing but their names.

    Which is precisely what the demagogues want. The great threat to the federal government’s monopoly on power is not a bunch of overweight rednecks with AR15s (and I’m all for armed rednecks and hillbillies since I am one) but state governments.

RSS feed for comments on this post