Meet In CommonNews

Local

Throw the rascals out

Meet in Common connects news with real conversations. Use ThinkMatch to arrange a Roundtable and meet people to discuss this story.

Source: The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel

By GREG WALCHERThis year’s election began with a record-low number of Americans thinking incumbent congressmen should be re-elected. When Gallup started asking that question in 1994, 54% of Americans thought their own congressman should be re-elected, but only 38% thought most other congressmen should be. This year, barely 15% thought congressmen in general deserved re-election, and only 43% thought even their own congressman deserved another chance.The rout experienced by the congressional majority last week reflected that distrust. It is a deep-seated anger that has been building for years, not just lately. Consider that in the 10 elections between 1960 and 1978, voters changed the party in control of the House, Senate, or White House only three times. And during the next 10 elections through 1998, only four times. But in the 14 elections since, voters have switched party majorities in one house, or both houses, or the White House in all but two, including every election since 2014.

This excerpt comes from the named source. Read the original for the full reporting.

Read the original at The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel

Featured places to meet in Palo Alto, CA

Explore these places and arrange a conversation through ThinkMatch.

Yutori

Yutori 3375 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA, 94306 US

Cafe Riace

Cafe Riace 200 Sheridan Avenue Palo Alto, CA, US

City guide for Palo Alto, CA

Community Poll

A tradition can remain authentic while changing with the community that practices it.

Share your view, then see how readers voted. No sign-in required. This poll is shared across stories.

Do you agree or disagree?

Choose one answer

Common Quandary

A Common Quandary to discuss

Another conversation to explore, separate from this news story.

A disgraced billionaire's name is on the beloved campus library. Does it come down?

A major donor funded a beloved public building decades ago. New evidence shows they also caused serious harm that was legal and accepted by many peers at the time. Removing the name may jeopardize future donations.

What does an institution owe the truth when its history funded the present?

Explore this quandary