I think you’re spot on. I think her aimless campaign is mostly to blame for her irrelevancy. You’re also right about Booker/Harris/Gillibrand, they started the race pretty much on equal footing but its clear that Booker and Harris are several tiers above her now. 

Im taking a T-Break right now and its HELL on my sleep. Lots of vivid dreams too. 

Really makes you think. 

You are literally the only person who is bringing Bernie Sanders up. You seem to be very preoccupied with the Senator! I will say, it is pretty cheap to imply some sort of agenda when we are talking about something completely unrelated - Gillibrands irrelevant candidacy.

“Yes, she doesn’t have support. Which is why it’s understandable that she’s choosing to calculate her words because the odds are extremely long that she emerges as the candidate thus giving her carte blanche to say whatever she wants.”

So what the heck is the point of running for president if she is going to be gunshy? I think she just doesn’t have the support or the platform. Warren is making headway and gaining in the polls by being bold so I just don’t buy that she is unpopular because she is a woman. 

Working from home helps :)

You are correct, ofcourse. In order to keep the founders original vision of 50-60k people/rep we will need 6000-8000 reps. I didn’t want to go that far but you’ve convinced me!

Those are rookie numbers. 

I think that our country and its various demographics would be better represented. What do you mean that 435 is “pretty granular in terms of total count”? Not being a jerk, just don’t understand what you mean - 435 reps is 1 rep per 700k people. Thats a lot of people for a public servant to represent their interests…

For real, clearly Buck Rogers here doesn’t know what he’s talking about. The biggest hurdle is making room for all of them!

Just for reference sake, I used 3k because it would put us at a similar ratio to Germany of 1 rep per 115k people. The numbers could be tweaked but the point is 435 is not just low its super, super, super low.

Thats twice now, really stinking up the joint. 

Present an argument,dumbass. 3000 reps would make our ratio similar to Germany’s of ~150k people per rep. We could argue about the numbers but the current 435 reps is an absurdly low number, criminally low. 

Isnt he talking to the Senate here? Which leads back to my final point “abolish the Senate”

Yes, I want atleast 3k reps. Do you really think 1 rep/700k people is good?

While we’re on the subject of the house and its idiosyncrasies , isn’t it absurd - like pants on head, socks on hands absurd - that our reps represent ~700k people each  with 435 reps in the house? These are numbers only beat by the European Union and India(1.5 million people per rep on avg, yikes). I truly think this…

Sanders is in the Senate, so he really has no role in impeachment, thats all the House. He will vote to convict in the Senate but as the Dems are the minority there, there’s not much else he can do. Take a civics refresher, friend.

I would think that one of the benefits of Robert Mueller retiring to that farm where all special counsels go after they step down is that we would never have to see De Niro’s not good,very bad impression ever again.

“Okay. Making a concrete statement as regards impeachment proceedings (which, to be clear, he does not have to do) is not “running vs. Trump.””