It's a derogatory portmanteau combining the word MAGA with "maggot". Standing for nothing, its sole purpose is to be a derogatory slur used by frustrated, participation-trophy seeking, climate-hoax-agitating, welfare-dependent, nanny-state-loving, constitution-hating, work-averse, law-hating, treasonous, wicked, BBQWTF+, communist, America-hating, regressive Leftists/Liberals who no longer have any political power in order to refer to supporters of Donald Trump. Born out of envy its usage is a last-ditch effort at attention from a political party that has had its relevancy BTFO.
@Thinkerbell Hmm no, I'm literally pointing out that the truth is that the GOP doesn't perform any better. And for the record these are just polls, in actual elections the GOP performs much worse. For instance, it wouldn't have won a single presidency since 2004 in an unrigged, "every vote counts as one" system.
Doubling down when you're proven wrong by observable, documented reality isn't a sign of intelligence, but immaturity and radicalization.
They didn't like either presidential candidate last November, but they liked the Democrat even less. Even by the national popular vote, not just the electoral vote.
You would do well to study how gerrymandered states like New York, Illinois and California already are in favor of the Democrats, and have been for many years.
@Thinkerbell If that was the case, why are Republicans the ones so contrary to the idea of getting rid of the electoral college bs, and let the presidency be determined by popular vote, completely annulling gerrymandering in every state?
Looks like gerrymandering is the favourite toy of the right, not of the Dems, and you just like projecting as pet your usual
You don't understand what gerrymandering is. It applies primarily to the House of Representatives.
States are carved up into geographical voting districts with roughly equal populations, with one representative per district. The shapes and locations of the districts have a strong influence on which party benefits.
For example, in 2024, Trump won 38% of California's statewide vote. But are 38% of California's representatives Republican? Not even close!
Exactly 9 out of 52 California representatives are Republicans, or 17%. THAT is the result of gerrymandering.
As for the electoral college, I always have to laugh when a European complains about it. In parliamentary systems, particularly ones with many parties, the prime minister is chosen by a coalition of political deal-makers behind closed doors, NOT by national popular vote. 🤣
@Thinkerbell Absolish the electoral college and you kill gerrymandering, it's that simple. The GOP could eliminate it nationwide with the stroke of a pen of it wanted to. Gerrymandering is a problem unique to the American system (and at most other countries that use a similar system, where voters have a different weight in the final outcome of an election on the basis of where they reside). You can't gerrymander an election where one means one, no matter where one lives.
lol at mentioning California, while ignoring the elephant in the room
It applies to the house, and control of the house (or lack thereof) directly impacts the effectiveness of a presidency, so in the end it all matters the same. Trump II would look a lot different with a blue house and/or a blue senate.
The parties in Europe don't and can't give themselves an advantage by arbitrary redistricting. European parliamentary systems are far far more democratic than your ancient system will ever be. Direct election of the PM also wouldn't change much as the PM is nothing more than a spokesperson of the governing coalition, and logically we expect the coalition to pick its own mouthpiece, it's not our job. You know, ours are actual republics, without kings de facto.
I don't have time now, but the glaring omission of California on the silly chart you posted above calls not only its methodology into question, but its honesty as well. 🙄
As usual, you're trying to think with your hind quarters, Elli. 🤭
What you posted is not data, it is someone's faulty interpretation of data.
I already pointed out the glaring omission of California on your silly chart.
In the presidential elections of 2016, 2020 and 2024, Trump got an average of 35% of the vote vs 61% average for the Dem candidates. That means (if there is one-person-one vote representation in California) that the Republicans should have 19 representatives in Congress out of the 52 allocated to that state. But do they? NO. They have only 9, which is 10 short of proportional representation.
But does your silly chart show this? NO, there is no mention of California at all, so as far as your chart's "data" are concerned, everything is just fine in Cali. 🙄
Take another large state, New York, as another example.:
NY has 26 representatives in Congress. In his three presidential elections, Trump averaged 39% of the vote in NY, his opponents averaged 59%.
With one-person-one-vote equal representation, the Republicans should have 10 seats, the Democrats 16. THEY DON'T; they have only 7 seats to the Democrats' 19, so the Republicans are 3 seats short of equal representation in NY state, yet your absurd chart says they are over-represented by 2 seats. 🙄
This chart was prepared by an academic who is flagrantly biased in favor of the Democrats. Either that, or he uses the same part of his anatomy for thinking as you do, Elli. 🤭🤭
Oh, there was so much nonsense of yours to wade through, that I forgot this:
"Absolish the electoral college and you kill gerrymandering, it's that simple. The GOP could eliminate it nationwide with the stroke of a pen of it wanted to."
Nonsense. Allocations of Congressional representatives to each state are a federal matter, made every 10 years on the basis of census data.
But how each state arranges its congressional districts is strictly a STATE matter, including gerrymandering. It would require a constitutional amendment to change that, NOT merely "a stroke of a pen" by the GOP. Ditto for abolishing the electoral college.
The proof of that is that there were plenty of times that the Democrats had majorities in both the House and the Senate, yet they never exercised such a "stroke of the pen," as they surely would have if the Republicans benefited so much from gerrymandering as you and your bogus chart pretend. 🤭
@Thinkerbell Republicans control house, senate, presidency and supreme court. Nothing impedes a constitutional amendment, just the lack of political will. You know, they don't want to renounce to their favourite cheating tool. 🤪
No babe. Data and all evidence, starting from who's controlling the house right now, suggest that gerrymandering benefit the GOP more. There's a lot more margin for gerrymandering blue states than there is for gerrymandering red ones. See the chart before. The one that you dismissed because it hurt your feelings 🤣
