Capitol Hill Blue
Posted By: Mellowicious Gerrymandering - 09/13/21 04:24 PM
Omaha is a blue dot in a sea of (Husker) red. And Nebraska is one of (I think) only two states that can split their electoral vote. When Obama was elected, we went 2 to 1, with Omaha being that one blue vote.

Now the Republican state senators are proposing a change to District 2 (Omaha.) They intend to enlarge the district by cutting it in half, and add the Air Force base and the next county over, where many of the base employees live. This is expected to increase the Republican presence in District 2 and reassign the district’s voters of color.

And thereby return Nebraska to its purified red status, silencing the liberals and minorities.
(Expletive deleted)
Posted By: olyve Re: Gerrymandering - 09/13/21 04:50 PM
Oh dear god. Don't get me started.
Athens, Ga is a bright blue spot in a sea (NE Ga) of red also. We vote 70% democratic and about 5% other (Bernie Sanders, Ralph Nader, Elizabeth Warren, etc.)
We're so chopped up it's downright immoral. We are by far the largest town in NE Ga (regional hosipitals, large state chartered university) but are tangled up with the very red counties around us. Some of the craziest of crazies represent us.
(ok I guess I won't do an expletive either....s***)

Doncha just love these census years?
Posted By: NW Ponderer Re: Gerrymandering - 09/13/21 11:21 PM
I get very upset watching the gerrymandering redistricting process. There are many reasonable methods for doing redistricting in a representative manner. Partisans have no interest in this, and the Supreme Cork Court has promoted their partisanship (at least when Republicans are doing it). In Iowa, they passed a Constitutional amendment to prevent it, but the partisans are ignoring that, because the Republicans have a majority on the "independent" redistricting board 5-2. Not content with a skewed legislature, the "new" map would increase their "safe" control from 60% to 66%. There is a better way: Dave's Redistricting
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Gerrymandering - 09/14/21 02:12 AM
Originally Posted by Mellowicious
Omaha is a blue dot in a sea of (Husker) red. And Nebraska is one of (I think) only two states that can split their electoral vote. When Obama was elected, we went 2 to 1, with Omaha being that one blue vote.

Now the Republican state senators are proposing a change to District 2 (Omaha.) They intend to enlarge the district by cutting it in half, and add the Air Force base and the next county over, where many of the base employees live. This is expected to increase the Republican presence in District 2 and reassign the district’s voters of color.

And thereby return Nebraska to its purified red status, silencing the liberals and minorities.
(Expletive deleted)
Republcans have to do that to Omaha - else, they'd never get those electoral votes. It's not as if the Republican platform or Republican ideas are anything for a decent rational person to vote for... coffee
Posted By: Mellowicious Re: Gerrymandering - 09/14/21 02:37 AM
There are barely enough Democrats/liberals in this state to mess with. Years ago I went to a Joan Baez concert and realized if someone had blown up the theater that night they’d have eliminated the entire left wing of Nebraska politics.
Posted By: Ken Condon Re: Gerrymandering - 09/14/21 07:46 AM
Thing is that sort of thing it’s globally universal. Once one heads out to the rural areas of anywhere they are usually dominated by generations people who have been there for……generations. Imagine that!

And the people who inhabit those areas are usually very similar. Of ethnicity, background and their work and of reasons for being. I know them too. They are in-laws of mine from Idaho. And also farmer relatives of mine from Saskatchewan. They only know their own little world and are reluctant to embrace anything outside of it. I cannot say I “blame” them for anything… it’s just the world that they know and the world that they have always and only known.
Posted By: Ken Condon Re: Gerrymandering - 09/14/21 07:56 AM
What do you make of Ben Sasse Mellow? He is obviously very conservative but he seems to be attempting to walk a very fine line that skates slightly outside of the borders of the normal Nebraska conservative venue. Cornbelt wise that is.

Am I being delusional?
Posted By: Mellowicious Re: Gerrymandering - 09/14/21 12:12 PM
Let’s put it this way: every once in a while I forget that Ben Sasse is a Republican from Nebraska. He usually reminds me pretty quickly, but once in awhile…
Posted By: NW Ponderer Re: Gerrymandering - 09/14/21 12:21 PM
A correction to my last post. It was Ohio, not Iowa: Ohio Republicans unveil new state l...rity, despite anti-gerrymandering rules (Cleveland.com)
Posted By: NW Ponderer Re: Gerrymandering - 09/14/21 12:40 PM
Originally Posted by Ken Condon
Thing is that sort of thing it’s globally universal. Once one heads out to the rural areas of anywhere they are usually dominated by generations people who have been there for……generations. Imagine that!

And the people who inhabit those areas are usually very similar. Of ethnicity, background and their work and of reasons for being. I know them too. They are in-laws of mine from Idaho. And also farmer relatives of mine from Saskatchewan. They only know their own little world and are reluctant to embrace anything outside of it. I cannot say I “blame” them for anything… it’s just the world that they know and the world that they have always and only known.
I have a very similar experience. And I get it. They want to be left alone. But, it's when they want to impose their idiosyncrasies upon others that it becomes a problem. It works both ways, frankly. The needs/expectations of city dwellers and rural denizens are quite different. That dichotomy goes back to the country's founding and the conflict between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. It was carried forward by the parties they founded - Federalists and Anti-Federalists that morphed into Republicans and Democrats of today.

The balance was really skewed permanently when the Reapportionment Act of 1929 was enacted, ensuring that rural America would always be overrepresented. Originally it was only the Senate and Electoral College that were so skewed. Now all branches of government represent that imbalance. It's exacerbated by gerrymandering, and emphasized by hyperpartisanship. I'm not sure it can ever be corrected - or at least not until we recognize that reality.
Posted By: NW Ponderer Re: Gerrymandering - 09/14/21 12:45 PM
Originally Posted by Mellowicious
Let’s put it this way: every once in a while I forget that Ben Sasse is a Republican from Nebraska. He usually reminds me pretty quickly, but once in awhile…
Here's what I think about Ben Sasse - he's a conservative, no doubt, who nonetheless recognizes that there are other views out there. He's the kind of conservative I used to be, and the kind of liberal I am today. I could work with him. He should be Minority Leader, not McConnell.
Posted By: perotista Re: Gerrymandering - 09/14/21 01:02 PM
I actually miss some of the old senate leaders of the past. Probably the last two good ones were Daschle and Lott. The last two before we entered today's modern political era of polarization, the great divide and the super, mega, ultra-high partisanship. Those two came up with a deal, a power sharing deal for a 50-50 senate tie back in 2000. Something impossible to do today or since our modern political era began.

https://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/05/senate.powershare/index.html

Something akin to that should have taken place this year with another 50-50 tie.

But sadly, senate leaders of the past like Daschle/Lott, Dole/Mitchell, Baker/Byrd have been replaced by party firsters, McConnell, Reid and Schumer. Although I'd say the jury is still out on Schumer. If I had my way, I'd make Manchin and Romney the senate leaders. Then we'd have cooperation and compromise moving the country forward. No more Republicans automatically opposing anything and every thing Democrats propose and vice versa, Democrat automatically opposing anything Republican. This is a fairly old poll, but I think it still applies today.

Americans Favor Compromise to Get Things Done in Washington

https://news.gallup.com/poll/220265/americans-favor-compromise-things-done-washington.aspx
Posted By: NW Ponderer Re: Gerrymandering - 09/14/21 04:54 PM
I think Schumer is not as much a party-first guy as circumstances indicate. He a compromiser. The problem has been his counterpart who is willing to burn down everything to get his way. McConnell is just wrong for the position. I'd take Romney or Sasse. Manchin is a strong no for me. He's too much a me-first, not a long view thinker.
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Gerrymandering - 09/15/21 02:03 AM
If I had to like a Republican, I'd say Adam Kinzinger. He hella easy on the eyes.

smile
Posted By: Greger Re: Gerrymandering - 09/15/21 04:45 PM
Quote
Americans Favor Compromise to Get Things Done in Washington

No, they don't. Americans don't favor compromise in any way shape or form in anything they do.

They might say they do in the opinion polls but at the election polls, they vote against it every time.

Since this hyperpartisan thing is so new, the gerrymandering problem must be new too...right? Never woulda been any need for it before 1960. Because the parties always worked together to solve the problems of America before that.
Posted By: perotista Re: Gerrymandering - 09/15/21 06:44 PM
In a way, you're probably right Greger. Republicans don't want to compromise with Democrats and Democrats don't want to compromise with Republicans. So if Gallup is to be believed, that's around 60% of the total electorate that don't favor compromise.

That leaves the unwashed middle, call them independents, perhaps moderates, certainly the non-affiliated. Those basically peeved at both parties and how both parties govern for only their base and not America as a whole.

Those who may believe in a middle way, a course in-between the hard core stances of either major party. I really haven't given this much thought. But if voting habits are to be taken into consideration, history shows those who identify with either major party will vote for their party's candidates 92% of the time regardless of who the candidates are.

The in-betweeners, the non-affiliate, perhaps those who favor compromise much more than the anti-compromise crowd of the party faithful, they decide elections.

In the recent wave elections, 1994 independents voted Republican 56-42, in 2006 57-39 for Democratic congressional candidates, in 2010 56-37 Republican, in 2018 54-42 Democratic. Perhaps comparing how independents voted 2 years earlier to these stats.

1992 independents voted 42-28 Clinton over Bush with Perot gaining 30%, 2 years later, 56-42 for Republican congressional candidates.
2004 Independents voted for Bush 49-48 over Kerry, but 2 years later, 2006 they voted 57-39 for Democratic congressional candidates.
2008 Independents voted 52-44 for Obama over McCain, in 2010 they voted 56-37 for Republican congressional candidates.
2016 Independents voted 46-42 for Trump over Hillary Clinton, 12% voting third party, in 2018 independents voted 54-42 for Democratic congressional candidates.

Another way to look at it, from a plus 14 Democratic 1992 to a minus 14 in 1994
From a plus 1 for Republicans in 2004 to a minus 18 in 2006
From a plus 8 Democratic in 2008 to a minus 19 in 2010
From a plus 4 Trump, Republicans to a minus 12 in 2018.

the finicky unwashed, who's loyalty isn't to party, but perhaps to America as a whole.
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Gerrymandering - 09/15/21 07:27 PM
Quote
That leaves the unwashed middle, call them independents, perhaps moderates, certainly the non-affiliated. Those basically peeved at both parties and how both parties govern for only their base and not America as a whole.

I think you are projecting your own studied independence on The Independents. I bet most of them have little awareness of politics, and just vote for celebrities or the snappiest dresser. Those who think a lot about political positions and lament partisanship are a very small minority. Lots more sports fans who would rather watch ESPN than PBS. They are easily manipulated by demagogues like Trump with "simple-but-wrong" catch-phrases. Trump had to practically destroy our democracy to lose their support. If he had been just a bit less blatant, he would have won in 2020.
Posted By: Greger Re: Gerrymandering - 09/15/21 10:27 PM
Quote
That leaves the unwashed middle, call them independents, perhaps moderates, certainly the non-affiliated. Those basically peeved at both parties and how both parties govern for only their base and not America as a whole.

Hey that's ME! Except that even I can see that Dems are actually trying to help Americans.

But they're going about it completely wrong and are doomed to fail.

What's going on across the aisle is pretty much sheer madness at this point. You're either a part of it or you aren't. What we've seen over the last five decades or so is that republicans have stopped governing. They are the anti-government party who wants an authoritarian strong man to lead them. I've totally washed my hands of all that nonsense.

The ummm...madness on the Dem side is to raise wages, make college affordable, provide healthcare where it's needed...that sort of thing. You know...actually taking care of Americans rather than the American corporate class.
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Gerrymandering - 09/16/21 01:37 AM
The writing is on the wall for the GOP: Adapt or die

Larry Edler showed yesterday that far-right Trumpism is not a winning strategy. smile
Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas Re: Gerrymandering - 09/16/21 01:45 AM
Originally Posted by pdx rick
The writing is on the wall for the GOP: Adapt or die

Larry Edler showed yesterday that far-right Trumpism is not a winning strategy. smile

Doesn't change the fact that at least a billion dollars has been donated to groups that will continue trying to
nullify every election from now till eternity.
Forty nine states left to go.
Posted By: Greger Re: Gerrymandering - 09/16/21 02:08 AM
Quote
from now till eternity.

I honestly don't think we have that kind of time to play with. We're just seeing the beginnings of some truly Biblical climate occurrences.

Republicans have refused to address any of the issues that desperately need attention and block every effort to address any problem at all for decades.

Democrats talk big but offer weak tea solutions to big problems.

It's kind of a good cop bad cop thing...you choose which is which, you're screwed either way.
Posted By: perotista Re: Gerrymandering - 09/16/21 02:55 AM
Originally Posted by pondering_it_all
Quote
That leaves the unwashed middle, call them independents, perhaps moderates, certainly the non-affiliated. Those basically peeved at both parties and how both parties govern for only their base and not America as a whole.

I think you are projecting your own studied independence on The Independents. I bet most of them have little awareness of politics, and just vote for celebrities or the snappiest dresser. Those who think a lot about political positions and lament partisanship are a very small minority. Lots more sports fans who would rather watch ESPN than PBS. They are easily manipulated by demagogues like Trump with "simple-but-wrong" catch-phrases. Trump had to practically destroy our democracy to lose their support. If he had been just a bit less blatant, he would have won in 2020.
I think you're right. Independents, the non-affiliate don't pay much attention to politics until an election nears. They also tend to vote, presidential wise for the more charismatic candidate. although the last two elections, none were charismatic. Independents went twice for Obama, he had charisma up the ying yang. They also went twice for G.W. Bush, very close on both counts. Not that G.W. was charismatic, he was more of a down home boy vs. two statues in Gore and Kerry. Now Bill Clinton was one charismatic candidate, independents voted for him twice over G.H.W. and a dour Dole.

Reagan, another very charismatic candidate who swamped both Carter and Mondale among independents. But independent have a habit of voting one way in presidential elections, then voting for the opposite party's congressional candidates in the next which I outlined before as for the percentages.

Elections to them are what I call beauty contests or popularity contests. Yet, they decide elections, at least on the national level. Neither party's base is large enough to do it on their own.

Actually, I find Democrats and Republican dull and boring. I know how'll they will vote. Independents, now there's a challenge. Little awareness is absolutely correct. Watchers of ESPN, their favorite TV shows, etc. yep. Most may not even watch the news, maybe a minute here or there. They don't know what C-Span is, Yet they do decide elections.

I totally agree on how you portrayed them. Yet it seems the Democrats are trying to get more and more of these non-attentive people to vote. Interesting.
Posted By: perotista Re: Gerrymandering - 09/16/21 03:15 AM
Originally Posted by Greger
Quote
That leaves the unwashed middle, call them independents, perhaps moderates, certainly the non-affiliated. Those basically peeved at both parties and how both parties govern for only their base and not America as a whole.

Hey that's ME! Except that even I can see that Dems are actually trying to help Americans.

But they're going about it completely wrong and are doomed to fail.

What's going on across the aisle is pretty much sheer madness at this point. You're either a part of it or you aren't. What we've seen over the last five decades or so is that republicans have stopped governing. They are the anti-government party who wants an authoritarian strong man to lead them. I've totally washed my hands of all that nonsense.

The ummm...madness on the Dem side is to raise wages, make college affordable, provide healthcare where it's needed...that sort of thing. You know...actually taking care of Americans rather than the American corporate class.
I'll agree the Republicans are great at being the party out of power, but lousy when it comes to governing. Trump was just a caretaker, he didn't accomplish a thing. At least legislative wise. He didn't even try. Trump is still very much disliked by independents, But congressional parties are pretty much even, independents disdain both. Independents view them equally, 25% view both congressional party members favorably, 67% unfavorably,

Okay, a shot in the dark here. I don't think it's what each party is trying to do or not trying to do. It all boils down to the perception that neither party is willing to work with each other for the betterment of the country. Reality plays little to nothing in perception which comes back to the link I posted on compromise. It also comes down to wanting a functional government, with both parties at loggerheads, their view, perception is we don't have a functioning government. Nothing to back this up, like I said, a shot in the dark. I probably didn't hit anything, not even the barn door. But perceptions play a vital role in how independents vote.
Posted By: logtroll Re: Gerrymandering - 09/16/21 11:37 AM
Originally Posted by perotista
Reality plays little to nothing in perception…
Ain’t it da troot!

Posted By: NW Ponderer Re: Gerrymandering - 09/16/21 12:59 PM
Originally Posted by perotista
Originally Posted by Greger
Quote
That leaves the unwashed middle, call them independents, perhaps moderates, certainly the non-affiliated. Those basically peeved at both parties and how both parties govern for only their base and not America as a whole.

Hey that's ME! Except that even I can see that Dems are actually trying to help Americans.

But they're going about it completely wrong and are doomed to fail.
Balance
What's going on across the aisle is pretty much sheer madness at this point. You're either a part of it or you aren't. What we've seen over the last five decades or so is that republicans have stopped governing. They are the anti-government party who wants an authoritarian strong man to lead them. I've totally washed my hands of all that nonsense.

The ummm...madness on the Dem side is to raise wages, make college affordable, provide healthcare where it's needed...that sort of thing. You know...actually taking care of Americans rather than the American corporate class.
I'll agree the Republicans are great at being the party out of power, but lousy when it comes to governing. Trump was just a caretaker, he didn't accomplish a thing. At least legislative wise. He didn't even try. Trump is still very much disliked by independents, But congressional parties are pretty much even, independents disdain both. Independents view them equally, 25% view both congressional party members favorably, 67% unfavorably,

Okay, a shot in the dark here. I don't think it's what each party is trying to do or not trying to do. It all boils down to the perception that neither party is willing to work with each other for the betterment of the country. Reality plays little to nothing in perception which comes back to the link I posted on compromise. It also comes down to wanting a functional government, with both parties at loggerheads, their view, perception is we don't have a functioning government. Nothing to back this up, like I said, a shot in the dark. I probably didn't hit anything, not even the barn door. But perceptions play a vital role in how independents vote.
I agree with the concept that it is "functional government" more than "compromise" that motivates independent voters. But, then they vote against that paradigm in off-year elections thinking "balance" - which doesn't work, but brings gridlock. To really achieve a functional government, they need to vote consistently for one party (currently, the Democrats). As noted, the GOP has failed to govern every time they've had control since the 1980s, thanks mostly to Reagan's pledge to be incompetent. It's the only promise he ever fulfilled.
Posted By: logtroll Re: Gerrymandering - 09/16/21 01:41 PM
Originally Posted by NW Ponderer
As noted, the GOP has failed to govern every time they've had control since the 1980s, thanks mostly to Reagan's pledge to be incompetent.
I'm nominating that for entry in the Nicely Turned Phrase of the Year competition!

ThumbsUp
Posted By: Greger Re: Gerrymandering - 09/16/21 01:49 PM
Quote
Republicans are great at being the party out of power, but lousy when it comes to governing.
So what's the point of a political party which invariably fails at governing?

Most political parties operate under a platform that is roughly a list of what they and their members support and hope to accomplish while in office.

Republicans abandoned that notion in favor of just doing whatever Trump wanted. They have laid out no plans for the future. No plans to mitigate the pandemic. No plans to mitigate climate change. No plans to improve the economy. No plans to improve immigration, no plans to improve healthcare. No plans. No ideas. No proposals. No legislation. No governance and no candidates who appear poised to govern if elected.

What exactly is the point beyond obstruction and owning the libs? Functioning government appears to be just one big joke to them and they will stop at nothing to prevent it.
Posted By: perotista Re: Gerrymandering - 09/16/21 02:51 PM
Originally Posted by NW Ponderer
Originally Posted by perotista
Originally Posted by Greger
Quote
That leaves the unwashed middle, call them independents, perhaps moderates, certainly the non-affiliated. Those basically peeved at both parties and how both parties govern for only their base and not America as a whole.

Hey that's ME! Except that even I can see that Dems are actually trying to help Americans.

But they're going about it completely wrong and are doomed to fail.
Balance
What's going on across the aisle is pretty much sheer madness at this point. You're either a part of it or you aren't. What we've seen over the last five decades or so is that republicans have stopped governing. They are the anti-government party who wants an authoritarian strong man to lead them. I've totally washed my hands of all that nonsense.

The ummm...madness on the Dem side is to raise wages, make college affordable, provide healthcare where it's needed...that sort of thing. You know...actually taking care of Americans rather than the American corporate class.
I'll agree the Republicans are great at being the party out of power, but lousy when it comes to governing. Trump was just a caretaker, he didn't accomplish a thing. At least legislative wise. He didn't even try. Trump is still very much disliked by independents, But congressional parties are pretty much even, independents disdain both. Independents view them equally, 25% view both congressional party members favorably, 67% unfavorably,

Okay, a shot in the dark here. I don't think it's what each party is trying to do or not trying to do. It all boils down to the perception that neither party is willing to work with each other for the betterment of the country. Reality plays little to nothing in perception which comes back to the link I posted on compromise. It also comes down to wanting a functional government, with both parties at loggerheads, their view, perception is we don't have a functioning government. Nothing to back this up, like I said, a shot in the dark. I probably didn't hit anything, not even the barn door. But perceptions play a vital role in how independents vote.
I agree with the concept that it is "functional government" more than "compromise" that motivates independent voters. But, then they vote against that paradigm in off-year elections thinking "balance" - which doesn't work, but brings gridlock. To really achieve a functional government, they need to vote consistently for one party (currently, the Democrats). As noted, the GOP has failed to govern every time they've had control since the 1980s, thanks mostly to Reagan's pledge to be incompetent. It's the only promise he ever fulfilled.

There's a long history that shows independents or swing voters don't or won't continue to vote for one party. If they did, they wouldn't be independents/swing voters. They'd be members of one or the other party or at least affiliated with one or the other.

It might be, here we go again, the two major parties won't work together, so let's make a change. Maybe the other party, the out of power party will work with the other party, we know the party in power won't.

Interesting is when the Democrats controlled the House for 40 straight years, 1955-94, the change occurred at the presidential level. Eisenhower, then Nixon/Ford then Reagan and G.H.W. Bush. Interrupted only by JFK, LBJ and Carter. 28 out of the 40 years of straight Democratic house control, the president was a Republican. Divided government. Perhaps subconsciously, independents don't like one party in full control?

1994 Democrats in full control, presidency, senate and House, independents elected republicans to gain control of the house and senate for the first time in 40 years.
2006 Republicans in full control, presidency, senate and House, independents elect Democrats to regain control of the House and Senate
2010 Democrats in full control of the presidency, House and Senate, independents elect Republicans to the house giving them control there and in 2014 complete their ouster by giving republicans control of the senate.
2018 Republicans in full control, presidency, house and senate. Independents vote Democratic control of the house and in 2020 give the senate to Democrats plus electing a Democratic president.

If not for 9-11, I'd wager independents would have given Democrats control of the House and senate in 2002 instead of waiting until 2006.

I don't know why. Why independents would vote for a president and then in the next midterm, vote against him and his party. What I do know is every president since 1935 has lost house seats in his first midterm with 2002 being the lone exception. Independents will vote for a president one year and in the next election vote for the opposing party in congress. A very long traditional voting habit for independents.

Perhaps there is a reason. Independents/swing voters have a huge dislike, even a disdain for both major parties. If they didn't, they wouldn't be independents. They'd belong to one or the other. So it may be as simple as independents taking out their dislike, distrust, disdain on the party in power or control. The party in power, in control is usually, almost always the party that gets most of the media's attention, the star attraction in the news, the headliner, the star, the party out of power, mostly an afterthought. Maybe, anyone's guess is as good as mine.
Posted By: NW Ponderer Re: Gerrymandering - 09/16/21 03:41 PM
Ohio Redistricting Commission appr...rity despite anti-gerrymandering reforms. You just can't shake the partisanship.
Posted By: perotista Re: Gerrymandering - 09/16/21 09:50 PM
Here's a good site to follow redistricting from Nate Silver's 538. The man is good and so is his site.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-2022-maps/?cid=rrpromo

Nate also includes many interesting articles from a non-partisan position.
Posted By: NW Ponderer Re: Gerrymandering - 09/16/21 10:33 PM
I think gerrymandering is probably the most destructive, anti-democratic activity carried on by parties. But, it has company.
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Gerrymandering - 09/16/21 10:37 PM
I think the main reason independents vote against the Party of the President in the first midterm election, is that the new President has actually done some things their opposition can complain about. The complaints are not necessary valid, but there is some truth in the complaints in that they usually are about some things the new President has done. Independents have no political positions, so they don't really think about those things being good or bad. Somebody in a suit on TV is complaining about them, so that's all the input they need!

Right back to the founding fathers, they worried about an uneducated mob following demagogues down the garden path. Most of the Independents ARE that mob. A bunch of poorly-informed, easily-manipulated people determining who will run the country. Tea-partiers complained about "the elite", but "elite" in this case actually means people who are educated and have some awareness of the consequences of idiots running everything.

Trump said: "I love the uneducated," for a reason.
Posted By: perotista Re: Gerrymandering - 09/16/21 11:57 PM
Two things, Gerrymandering is said to be Congressmen choosing their voters instead of the voters choosing their congressmen.

The Democrats rode that uneducated train for a long time. From 1980-2012 not a H.S. graduate voted Democratic in presidential races. College grads went Republican from 1988-2004, 2008 for Obama, 2012 for Romney and in 2016 for Hillary.

https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2008/results/president/national-exit-polls.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_presidential_election#Voter_demographics

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

There's a lot more info in the links that may or may not interest you.

For someone who follows numbers, history etc. It's easy to spot these. If just the educated voted, G.H.W. Bush would have won reelection in 1992 and Dole would have become president in 1996. G.W. Bush won college grads twice, Obama in 2008. But the educated would have put Romney in as president in 2012. Now come to think about it. Romney would have been the GOP candidate in 2016, no Trump. So perhaps the educated knew exactly what they were doing and who they were voting for.

Now why independents vote the way they do, I really don't know. It's all speculation. I only know what history shows. I find independents fascinating, Republicans and democrats, boring and dull.

I'll add this, every individual has their reasons for voting the way they do. Those reasons are important to them. Although many may think their reasons are asinine.
Posted By: NW Ponderer Re: Gerrymandering - 09/17/21 04:37 AM
Where Redistricting Stands in 14 States (NYT, Subscription) Because this is a subscription source, I will give the highlights:

Quote
Redistricting is happening in every state, even those with only one congressional district, because state legislative maps have to be redrawn, too. But we’ll focus here on congressional maps in some of the states whose choices will shape the battle for control of the House next year. (Some other states — including Texas, which is gaining two seats and could be a gold mine for Republicans — are too early in the process to report anything meaningful, but watch this space.)

Under each state, we’ve indicated the possible shift in partisan power. But remember, there’s still plenty of time for proposals to change.

Colorado +1D Net 1 D
Democrats may gain one seat

Georgia +1R Net 0
Republicans may gain one seat

Illinois +1D; -2R Net 3 D
Democrats may gain one seat; Republicans may lose two

Indiana
Republicans may protect one competitive seat

Iowa (EVEN)
Democrats may gain one seat ("But the Republican-led state legislature may reject the map because it would give Democrats — who hold one of Iowa’s four House seats — a good chance of winning two seats. (That said, it would also effectively cap Democrats at two seats, preventing them from holding three as they did in 2019 and 2020.)")

Maryland +1D Net 4 D
Democrats may gain one seat. Or Republicans might (but probably not).

Missouri (EVEN)
Republicans may protect one competitive seat

Nebraska (EVEN)
Republicans may protect one competitive seat (Tied to that, may make the split that occurred in the Electoral College unlikely)

New Hampshire +1R Net 3 D
Republicans may gain one seat

New Mexico +1D Net 4 D
Democrats may gain one seat

New York +4/5 D Net 8 D
Democrats may gain four or five seats

Oregon (EVEN)
It’s wide open

South Carolina (EVEN)
Republicans may protect one competitive seat

Tennessee +1 R Net 7 D
Republicans may gain one seat

Now, it's early days, and some aggressive States (Texas, Wisconsin, South Carolina) have not weighed in. The end result, however, may not be as dire as often predicted. Red seats will become redder, and blue seats will become rarer.
Posted By: NW Ponderer Re: Gerrymandering - 09/17/21 05:06 AM
Iowa Republicans face dilemma after commission scrambles congressional map (Politico).

"Iowa finally has a proposed congressional map — now Republicans in Des Moines just have to decide if they can tolerate it.

Nonpartisan state legislative staffers unveiled their first stab at redrawing the political boundaries with a draft that upended the political slant of key districts and lumped some state legislators into new seats together.

GOP legislators huddled on Thursday as the proposal was released but have yet to give an indication of whether or not they will vote to adopt it or send the commission back to the drawing board.

"I'm going to study it. I'm going to see what I and my colleagues think is best for the state as a collective whole," said state Rep. Bobby Kaufmann, who chairs the state government committee. "And then we'll make a decision in the next couple of weeks about whether to do a yes vote, or roll the dice and say no and see what map two brings."

Their choice could have huge implications for the battle for control of Congress. Back in D.C., Republicans privately griped that it left them worse off in their quest to reclaim the House. But legislators are still analyzing the state legislative maps, and they must reject or approve them all in union in a process that the state holds up as a "gold standard" for nonpartisan redistricting."
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Gerrymandering - 09/17/21 06:56 AM
There may be up to a million more Covid deaths to come, if most of the vaccine resistors chose to get the virus instead of vaccinations. We are already seeing reports that a lot more Republicans are dying than Democrats. Redistricting is going to be based on census data that does not take that into account. So there is a chance that gerrymandered 55% safe districts may not be safe after all. Gerrymandering depends on a static political divide, to group one Party's voters into as many slightly "safe" districts as possible. But if the politics of a district's voters is changing, that district may flip to the other side. Then most of your "safe" districts may shift Party's.

Parties used to try to preserve some "really safe" enclaves, like 60% of the vote or more, just to keep their leaders in the House. It would be really embarrassing if the Speaker of the House lost his seat. (But he or she could still be elected as Speaker!)
Posted By: perotista Re: Gerrymandering - 09/17/21 04:07 PM
Sometimes I think this gerrymandering thing too hyped up. As Pondering pointed out, districts change over time. Prime example is GA 6th district. It’s just north of Atlanta. In 2012 and 14, R Price was winning the district with 60-65% of the vote. Then folks from Atlanta flooded into the district which in 2018 D McBath won a close one only to win in 2020 55-45. The 6th went from solid Republican to solid democrat in that short time span. Folks moving in, moving out, dying, new voters being added, changed the dynamics immensely.

It seems gerrymandering has a huge impact for the first couple of elections, then it becomes a crap shoot for the final 3. What makes the difference here in Georgia is the court ordered majority minority districts. It meant the democrats would have 5 congress members before any vote took place, all black. The rest was all white GOP until the 6th changed hands in 2018 giving the democrats 6 vs. 8 for the GOP.

At last count there were 22 majority black districts where blacks made up 51% or more of the population, 30 majority Hispanic districts, 2 majority Asian districts. Which means the Democrats are almost guaranteed 50 seats prior to any house election. But this also dilutes the democratic strength in the remaining 385 districts giving the GOP a much better chance of winning in those. For the Record, all 22 majority black districts are represented by black democrats, 25 of the 30 Hispanic districts by democrats with 5 Republican Hispanics and both Asian districts are democratic.

So does these court ordered majority minority districts give the Democrats a huge advantage in that it basically guarantees them 50 seats before any congressional election takes place or is that guarantee offset by the chances the Republicans have in winning in the remaining 385 since these 50 districts are over stacked with Democratic voters? I’ve always wondered about that. I even started doing a paper on it a couple of times before I let it go by the wayside. So, what do you think?
Posted By: NW Ponderer Re: Gerrymandering - 09/18/21 07:24 AM
Federal court says Wisconsin redistricting case can proceed (The Hill).

"A federal court panel on Thursday denied a request from Wisconsin Republicans to dismiss a lawsuit over the state's voting maps, keeping alive a legal challenge brought by Democratic allies and voting rights advocates.

In its ruling, the three-judge panel also granted a request from Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers (D) and the state's five GOP U.S. congressmen to intervene in the partisan court clash over the once-per-decade redistricting process, which involves drawing new legislative and congressional districts.
....
Wisconsin's political maps are among the most gerrymandered in the country, according to experts. Republicans in recent years have won just around half the vote for legislative seats statewide but nearly two-thirds of the districts themselves; they hold 61 of 99 seats in the state Assembly after winning 54 percent of the popular vote."
Posted By: NW Ponderer Re: Gerrymandering - 09/18/21 07:39 AM
It's interesting, you two have addressed the two most common techniques in "cracking and stacking". It's true that demographic changes can alter efforts at cracking, if the margins are narrow enough, but stacking is rarely so undermined. Stacking is also at least facially, consonant with "majority-minority" districting. It's actually a fairly conflicted process. As noted, the very process of stacking/majority-minority districting can result in diluting minority interests in other Districts.

Have either of you read Charles Blow's book, The Devil You Know? He proposes that blacks move back to the South to improve the chances of minority representation in the Senate (and other offices), since minorities already represent near majorities all over the south.
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Gerrymandering - 09/18/21 02:29 PM
The GOP’s Young Stars Don’t Want to Represent Trump’s Party

The decision of Rep. Anthony Gonzalez (R-OH) to not seek reelection, in main part because of attacks by twice-impeached, unre-elected former POTUS Trump have made the Ohio Republican fear for the safety of his family, could open the gates to more Republican incumbents choosing to step aside making GOP plans to take over the House more difficult than they had planned on.

Quote
"Gonzales is a sterling example of who the Republican Party is sacrificing on the altar of The Donald. Trump's only animating force for interfering in the 2022 primaries is punishing apostates—any party member who suggests that he didn't leave the White House for the warm waters of Mar a Lago voluntarily, or upheld the results of the election he lost or, worst of all, voted for impeachment," Carlson wrote before suggesting, "This is the party of Marjorie Taylor Greene, Jim Jordan, and the pillow guy who missed last month's deadline to move Trump back into the White House. But it's not just fringe characters joining in Trump's bonfire."
The candidates that Trump is backing are not winning elections - even with gerrymandering.

The Trump Phenomena

smile
Posted By: perotista Re: Gerrymandering - 09/18/21 03:16 PM
Georgia is 35% black, give or take a point or two one way or the other. Interesting that through court ordered majority minority districts, we've had 5 black congressmen for quite a long time. That comes out to 35% of our congressional delegation. I live in David Scott's majority black district. What the Republicans have done in 2010 was stack the majority of blacks into those 5 districts along with as many white democrats they could get. So the end results was a 70-30 or an 80-20 win for the Democrats in those 5 districts, if the GOP even ran a candidate with the Republicans winning the other 9 by an average of 55-45.

I only used 2010 because that was the only year when Republicans drew the districts. In 2000 we had a Democratic controlled legislature and a democratic governor. Because of the change in demographics with CD-6 we now have 6 Democrats and 8 republicans. The total congressional vote in Georgia was 2.5 million for Republicans, 2.4 million for Democrats rounded off. Interesting that Biden received 100,000 more votes than the Democratic congressional candidates. Ticket splitters voting for Biden, but voting Republican down ballot.

I think what will happen is as many Democrats of all stripes will be packed into 6 districts, probably all majority minority leaving the Republicans easy winners in the other 8.

As for Gonzalez, Ohio was going to lose a representative anyway. The GOP has a 12-4 advantage in Ohio as it stands today. It might as well be Gonzalez Ohio's loses. 11-4 GOP. Depending on redistricting that is. I don't see how Ohio even in control of redistricting can maintain that huge margin. But time will tell.
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Gerrymandering - 09/18/21 03:56 PM
Quote
...Interesting that Biden received 100,000 more votes than the Democratic congressional candidates...
Actually its not. Decent folks can't stand Donald Trump's guts - no matter which party. smile
Posted By: NW Ponderer Re: Gerrymandering - 09/18/21 04:44 PM
In Wisconsin, Republicans maintained a 60+% advantage, entirely by partisan gerrymandering, despite barely clearing 50% of the vote. They're trying to expand that discrepancy, but I think the voters are tiring of it. Incumbency, however, has advantages (even illicit ones).

The US electorate is turning bluer, but its representation does not reflect that. Much of that is because of Constitutional structures, but the remainder is manipulation. At best, removing the manipulation will change the bias by a couple of percentage points, but about 3% of it is immune because of Constitutional mismatches. It will take decades of demographic and attitudinal change to flip that, but once it does it will be profound and lasting. Unfortunately, the damage inflicted in the interim will also be lasting.
Posted By: perotista Re: Gerrymandering - 09/18/21 06:50 PM
You talking about Wisconsin reminded me of Cook's PVI or partisan voting index. Which states due to demographics, migration, in and out of the state, folks dying off and new voters being added. We have some states, especially in the south moving blue and some in the midwest, going red. the first number is from 2000 and the second 2020. A 20 year trend.

Arizona from an R+7 down to an R+3. Moving blue.
Florida R+3 Same rating as in 2000.
Georgia From an R+10 down to an R+3 Moving blue
Michigan from a D+6 to a R+1 Moving Red
North Carolina from an R+13 down to a R+3 moving blue
Ohio From an R+4 up to an R+6 Becoming more red
Pennsylvania from D+4 to a R+2 moving red
Texas from an R+20 down to an R+5 moving blue
Wisconsin from an D+10 to a R+2 moving red

So which party gains and which loses if Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, Texas turn blue with Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin becoming red states. Ohio is already red and Florida remains the same, a swing state. The big beneficiary would be the democrats 83-44. Mainly because of Texas with its 40 electoral votes.

I don't see Texas changing to blue in 2024, although the rest could indeed switch colors leaving the switch a wash. But in 2028, chances are the dems will add Texas giving them a real electoral college advantage.

then we'll see the opposite of today's popular vote debate taking place with the Democrats wanting to keep the electoral college and the GOP wanting to do away with it. 2028, a year to watch.
Posted By: Ujest Shurly Re: Gerrymandering - 09/18/21 08:27 PM
Michigan is only Red because of gerrymandering, but with the new maps being drawn by an independent commission (4 Republican, 4 Democrat and 5 Unaffiliated/Independents) things look to be changing. Changing in which way, check back 1 Jan 2022...

Da Commission - https://www.michigan.gov/micrc/
Posted By: perotista Re: Gerrymandering - 09/18/21 11:02 PM
Looking at the PVI, Michigan is going red. At one time 20 years ago, Democrats out numbered Republicans there by quite a lot. Today, it's relative even between Republican and Democratic voters. A classic swing state. One also has to remember the once Democratic bastion of Detroit has had a shrinking population. Detroit had a population of 951,000 in 2000 and today is down to 639,000. That's a lot of Democratic voters to lose.

Gerrymandering very well could be the cause in the house. That's not what I'm talking about. That's not what PVI is all about. What PVI does is takes into account the states voting in presidential, senate, governor and congressional. The overall vote in congressional, not who won each one.

Just because Michigan has an R plus 1 today doesn't mean they're automatically going to vote Republican in every election from now into the future. It doesn't work that way. What it means is Republicans have finally caught up with Democrats in the number of voters in that state. It doesn't grantee who'll they vote for. Any state with a PVI of less than 5 for either party is considered a swing state. Independents can easily overcome the PVI advantage of either party. That happened here in Georgia last year. Republicans outnumber Democrats here by a PVI of 3, but independents voted for Biden by 53-44 margin enabling Biden to win Georgia and overcome the PVI of 3 or the Republican numerical advantage.

If independents had voted more 50-50, Trump would have won Georgia.
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Gerrymandering - 09/19/21 02:00 AM
'Our state literally shrunk': Alabama makes history as deaths outnumber births in 2020

I've been saying this for awhile now. COVID will change everything and turn past historical statistics on its head. Hmm

Quote
"Alabama has recently averaged about 60 deaths a day, according to a New York Times database, and only 41 percent of the state's eligible population is fully vaccinated
Vaxx it or casket Karens. coffee

We all make choices in life. smile
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Gerrymandering - 09/19/21 02:06 AM
How pissed are Rightwingers going to be when they finally realize that their choice of listening to asinine Rightwing rhetoric and lies, caused their numbers to decline so much that they'll not win future elections.

Elections are just a numbers game - and these days, margins are so narrow in so many races, that COVID deaths WILL affect outcomes. Oh well. smile

I predict an election shellacking for the GOP in 2022 and it will be the first time, or first time in a long time, that the sitting party does not lose House or Senate seats and the Ds will actually gain seats.

Bow
Posted By: perotista Re: Gerrymandering - 09/19/21 12:54 PM
I won't join you in that prediction Rick. Since 1934 only once has the party of the president gained seats in the house. 2002 when Bush was president, they gained 8 seats. But 9-11 was the cause in my opinion which united the country behind Bush and the GOP.

Just going by hard numbers, leaving the heart and feelings totally out of this, early indications are a 10-15 seat loss for the Democrats in the House, a 1-3 seat gain in the senate. Realistically, these hard numbers mean nothing this far out, too much time left. Redistricting also hasn't happened yet, which could change the hard numbers from today drastically. Here's the history. The average loss is 22 seats for the party that holds the presidency. I'd say the democrats probably will lose about half that. Which in my book, they beat the odds and that would be a victory. Time will tell

Trump lost 42 seats from 241 down to 199 in 2018, lost control of the house.
Obama lost 63 seats from 256 down to 193 in 2010 lost control of the house
*Bush gained 8 seats from 221 up to 229 in 2002
Clinton lost 54 seats from 258 down to 204 in 1994 lost control of the house
Bush lost 8 seats from 175 down to 167 in 1990
Reagan lost 26 seats from 192 down to 166 in 1982
Carter lost 15 seats from 292 down to 277 in 1978
Nixon lost 12 seats from 192 down to 180 in 1970
LBJ lost 47 seats from 295 down to 248 in 1966
JFK lost 4 seats from 262 down to 258 in 1962
Eisenhower lost 18 seats from 221 down to 203 in 1954 lost control of the house.
Truman lost 29 seats from 263 down to 234 in 1950


*Bush lost 33 seats in the 2006 house elections and lost control of the house
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Gerrymandering - 09/19/21 03:18 PM
Quote
COVID will change everything and turn past historical statistics on its head.
smile
Posted By: Greger Re: Gerrymandering - 09/19/21 03:46 PM
Quote
early indications are a 10-15 seat loss for the Democrats in the House, a 1-3 seat gain in the senate.
If Democrats can pull this off it will still be a historically GOOD performance in a midterm election.

There is some small chance that Rick could be right though. When you're already assured a better than average performance you can hope for crazy results.

Right now we've got an economy in crisis and an ongoing pandemic. A mediocre administration and a Congress controlled by conservatives.

The economy isn't going to recover until the pandemic is under control. Like everything else...Republicans are fighting against government control of the virus. They like the bootheels approach where American heroes with guns pull a random medication from the barn vet box and magically cure themselves! Then they shoot some looters.

I don't know the full scope of it but apparently, every country is having problems with anti-vaxxers and anti maskers. Bolsonaro has said he'll be the last man in Brazil to get vaccinated!
Documents have surfaced which show the same cavalier attitudes existed in the 1914 flu epidemic.

That same 30% who keep popping up all over the place.

If they annoy the other 70% enough over the next 13 months then we may see some actual surprises come election day. The signs and portents look good right now with a Dem landslide in Cali and the "Justice for J6" rally flopping mightily in Washington.

Sort of a coast-to-coast middle finger to the anti-science crowd.
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Gerrymandering - 09/19/21 04:00 PM
Originally Posted by Greger
..That same 30% who keep popping up all over the place.
Like a sore thumb. crazy

Originally Posted by Greger
If they annoy the other 70% enough over the next 13 months then we may see some actual surprises come election day. The signs and portents look good right now with a Dem landslide in Cali and the "Justice for J6" rally flopping mightily in Washington.

Sort of a coast-to-coast middle finger to the anti-science crowd.
The J6 Rally's failure is being blamed by organizers on Trump for saying "stay home - it's a trap." Hmm
Posted By: perotista Re: Gerrymandering - 09/19/21 04:18 PM
Originally Posted by Greger
Quote
early indications are a 10-15 seat loss for the Democrats in the House, a 1-3 seat gain in the senate.
If Democrats can pull this off it will still be a historically GOOD performance in a midterm election.

There is some small chance that Rick could be right though. When you're already assured a better than average performance you can hope for crazy results.

Right now we've got an economy in crisis and an ongoing pandemic. A mediocre administration and a Congress controlled by conservatives.

The economy isn't going to recover until the pandemic is under control. Like everything else...Republicans are fighting against government control of the virus. They like the bootheels approach where American heroes with guns pull a random medication from the barn vet box and magically cure themselves! Then they shoot some looters.

I don't know the full scope of it but apparently, every country is having problems with anti-vaxxers and anti maskers. Bolsonaro has said he'll be the last man in Brazil to get vaccinated!
Documents have surfaced which show the same cavalier attitudes existed in the 1914 flu epidemic.

That same 30% who keep popping up all over the place.

If they annoy the other 70% enough over the next 13 months then we may see some actual surprises come election day. The signs and portents look good right now with a Dem landslide in Cali and the "Justice for J6" rally flopping mightily in Washington.

Sort of a coast-to-coast middle finger to the anti-science crowd.
Until redistricting to completed, the House is a crap shoot. Rick may be as right as I. I'm more firm on the senate. I do agree limiting the GOP to a gain of 10-15 seats should be considered a victory of sorts. Moral perhaps. But something to build on come 2024.

What hurt and is hurting the Democrats was losing 13 house seats in 2020 while Biden was winning the presidency by 7 plus million votes. When a presidential candidate wins by that much, one expects him to have coat tails and bring along or get elected at least 20 or more new Democratic house members. 2020 was so unique in that regard, you have to go back to 1884 for the last time a presidential candidate won the popular vote via to white house and his party lost house seats. The reason why, only 41% of independents voted for Trump, but 48% voted for Republican congressional candidates, 51% for GOP senate candidates, 53% for GOP governor candidates. That a lot of ticket splitters. Voting for Biden for president, then voting Republican down ballot.

I was going to add that if the Democrats hadn't lost those 13 seats, the GOP would need a net gain of 18 seats instead of 5 to retake control of the house. But on further reflection, with all new district lines being drawn, I don't think that means much or as much if the voting to be done in 2022 was in the same existing districts. Still, a net gain of 5 seats is still much easier than a net gain of 18, so I'll leave this in.
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Gerrymandering - 09/19/21 05:22 PM
Actually we won't know until November 2022 when the votes are counted. I suspect there are going to be a lot of people missing who usually vote and the missing people phenomena will cited back to COVID.

Hmm
Posted By: perotista Re: Gerrymandering - 09/19/21 06:37 PM
I wouldn't hang all hopes on the right people dying. When whoever complies the numbers, they compile the wants, desires, opinions etc of the living. Sure, some will die between now and Nov 2022. Even so, I doubt deaths will move the needle very far one way or the other.

I think how folks view Biden and the Democratic congress either positive, negative or indifferent will have much more impact than who dies of COVID. But we'll see.
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Gerrymandering - 09/19/21 10:18 PM
I don't think past performance will be a useful predictor of the 2022 election. Republicans have an economy their guy screwed getting fixed by Biden and Democrats in Congress, states passing voter restriction laws to preserve minority rule, a disgraced ex President who sided with Russia over US intelligence, the attempted coup of January 6th, and an unprecedented devotion to maximizing the death toll of the pandemic.

By November 2022, all of these things are just going to be more obvious as more insurrectionists go to prison, more anti-vaxxers die, the House investigation goes public with Republican collusion, more indictments occur, etc.

Not business as usual.
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Gerrymandering - 09/19/21 10:46 PM
Originally Posted by pondering_it_all
...Not business as usual...

100% agree. smile
Posted By: Greger Re: Gerrymandering - 09/20/21 03:23 PM
Quote
Not business as usual.

Yes, it is.

The names and the scandals have changed but it's business as usual.

A perfect storm of some sort is possible in any election. Unlikely in most though.

But there IS that small chance and I'll be keeping my eye out for any hopeful signs.

Here's a thing everyone needs to be thinking about...

VP Harris needs to be gerrymandered out of the picture for 2024.
Posted By: Greger Re: Gerrymandering - 09/20/21 04:07 PM
Quote
I think how folks view Biden and the Democratic congress either positive, negative or indifferent will have much more impact than who dies of COVID. But we'll see.

Quite right! But with a twist...independents also have to approve of what the opposition is offering.

I'm guessing Abbot and DeSantis are polling worse than Biden right now...?

Both are up for re-election. Both races have the potential for domino down-ballot surprises.

Word has it O'Rourke might run in Texas.

Regarding Covid deaths, they are happening mostly in areas with huge majorities of conservative voters. They won't be missed come election day.
Posted By: perotista Re: Gerrymandering - 09/20/21 05:41 PM
I don’t think a real good chunk of independents even think about what the opposition is offering. They know what they like or dislike about the party in power. The party out of power just gives them a means to voice their opposition to what they disliked about the party in power or they’ll support the party in power if they’re satisfied with the way things are going or think the party in power is doing the right thing. I really don’t think, I’ll take a swag here, that 40% of independents don’t even look at the party out of party or even if they have something to offer. They’ll vote for the party out of power just for something the party in power did that they didn’t like. They’re not partisans and they’re not political junkies.

Biden’s numbers are nationally, nationally DeSantis has 30% favorable/35% unfavorable, 36% don’t know. Question 35C. Abbot 25% favorable/32% unfavorable, 43% don’t know. Question 35D. Biden 45% favorable/49% unfavorable, 6% don’t know. Question 50A.

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/lib6k0abqf/econTabReport.pdf

Go to those questions and they’ll give you the breakdown via party, Republican, Democrat, independent.

I really don’t think comparing Biden nationally with either DeSantis or Abbot is fair. Mainly that it seems over a third of all Americans never heard of or don’t know who DeSantis and Abbot are.

Florida Polls, Crist leads DeSantis 55-45

https://floridapolitics.com/archive...on-desantis-voters-backing-vax-mandates/

Texas Polls, Abbot 42, O-Rourke 37

https://www.scribd.com/document/526125317/The-Dallas-Morning-News-University-of-Texas-Tyler-poll

Those are the latest September polls. Biden isn’t up for reelection in 2022, but congress is. I don’t put much stock in the generic congressional ballot as it’s nationally and not district by district where the house is decided. Without redistricting being completed, it doesn’t mean much if anything at this time. But here it is, I might as well include it as it is all we have to go on until redistricting is completed. Democrat 43.8% Republican 41.2%.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-generic-ballot-polls/
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Gerrymandering - 09/20/21 07:56 PM
Originally Posted by Greger
...VP Harris needs to be gerrymandered out of the picture for 2024.
THAT she does. How are we gonna do that without offending peeps? Hmm
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Gerrymandering - 09/20/21 07:57 PM
Originally Posted by Greger
Quote
I think how folks view Biden and the Democratic congress either positive, negative or indifferent will have much more impact than who dies of COVID. But we'll see.

Quite right! But with a twist...independents also have to approve of what the opposition is offering.

I'm guessing Abbot and DeSantis are polling worse than Biden right now...?

Both are up for re-election. Both races have the potential for domino down-ballot surprises.

Word has it O'Rourke might run in Texas.

Regarding Covid deaths, they are happening mostly in areas with huge majorities of conservative voters. They won't be missed come election day.
Beto threw his hat into the ring for TX Govenor. smile
Posted By: perotista Re: Gerrymandering - 09/20/21 09:05 PM
Originally Posted by pdx rick
Originally Posted by Greger
...VP Harris needs to be gerrymandered out of the picture for 2024.
THAT she does. How are we gonna do that without offending peeps? Hmm
Harris is interesting, independents don't like her. Why, I don't know. Maybe it's her personality that just rubs them the wrong way. Who knows. What I do know is as of 14 Sep 2021, only 31% of independents have a favorable view of her, 61% unfavorable. Those are Trump numbers. Actually worst. History shows independents usually don't vote for someone they dislike or in this case, seen unfavorable.Even Democrats are worried about Harris's very low poll numbers.

If I were a Democrat, come 2024 if Harris still has these kind of numbers among independents, I certainly would nominate someone else. My favorite Democrat for 2024 at this early state is Illinois senator, Tammy Duckworth.
Posted By: Mellowicious Re: Gerrymandering - 09/20/21 10:43 PM
Originally Posted by perotista
Originally Posted by pdx rick
Originally Posted by Greger
...VP Harris needs to be gerrymandered out of the picture for 2024.
THAT she does. How are we gonna do that without offending peeps? Hmm
Harris is interesting, independents don't like her. Why, I don't know..

Okay, this was bait, but I’m going to take it. These are not all the reasons, I’m sure, but I’ll bet they’re a significant chunk.

1) She’s a minority
2) She’s female
3) she gives the appearance of not eating a lot of shite (theHillary Clinton word for this was “bi*ch” on a good day, “see you next Tuesday” on a bad one.)
4) she’s first in line for the presidency

Again, not the whole explanation, but …a chunk
Posted By: olyve Re: Gerrymandering - 09/20/21 11:47 PM
Originally Posted by Mellowicious
Originally Posted by perotista
Originally Posted by pdx rick
Originally Posted by Greger
...VP Harris needs to be gerrymandered out of the picture for 2024.
THAT she does. How are we gonna do that without offending peeps? Hmm
Harris is interesting, independents don't like her. Why, I don't know..

Okay, this was bait, but I’m going to take it. These are not all the reasons, I’m sure, but I’ll bet they’re a significant chunk.

1) She’s a minority
2) She’s female
3) she gives the appearance of not eating a lot of shite (theHillary Clinton word for this was “bi*ch” on a good day, “see you next Tuesday” on a bad one.)
4) she’s first in line for the presidency

Again, not the whole explanation, but …a chunk

Yep. And so it starts.
Reminds me of Elizabeth Warren.
Too smart for HER own britches.
Pretty soon we'll start talking about her hairdo or her how she sounds when she talks.
Posted By: Greger Re: Gerrymandering - 09/20/21 11:51 PM
Not bait at all. Harris won't win. Pero explained it pretty well. I'm partial to Liz Warren but would be thrilled to see Duckworth.

I've got absolutely nothing against Harris...but she's unelectable. Everybody knows it.

Independents don't like her...Democrats don't like her.

Who's gonna elect her?
Posted By: olyve Re: Gerrymandering - 09/21/21 01:00 AM
Greger, I was responding to "she's unelectable...Independents don't like her....Democrats don't like her".

Why?
The vice president is always in first spot.

I'm not lobbying for VP Harris. I like her fine and I think she's smart and very capable but she won't necessarily be my choice.

It doesn't seem to matter who 'pops' up. if it's a woman, the s*** starts almost immediately. Even with Dems and Indeps.
I'm a little sick of it. I'm not young anymore and I haven't experienced a woman President of the United States yet? Are you [censored] kidding me?
Posted By: perotista Re: Gerrymandering - 09/21/21 01:24 AM
I tend to look at these things from an election perspective. Going by hard numbers and not by the heart or wants or from a partisan angle. Fact is, regardless of the reason Harris isn't liked, She'd have a very hard time beating Trump today with her numbers.

Of course we don't know what her number will be come 2024. But I don't think they'll change much. My question is, do you want to win an election or do you want to make a statement? Me, I'm all about winning elections.

I think or at least I thought the Democrats had learned a valuable lesson from 2016. That's why the Democrats went with Biden, Biden was a safe bet to beat Trump. A lot of the others weren't. Biden made sense to me. That is from winning an election standpoint. Maybe not from an ideological, from stances on the issues or anything else. But Biden gave the Democrats their best chance at defeating Trump. Biden was acceptable to independents where many others weren't. The final results prove that, independents voted for Biden 54-41 over Trump. One also has to keep in mind that independents make up 40% of the electorate today.

Hillary wasn't acceptable to independents, Biden was. Hillary lost independents and the election, Biden won independents and the election. Quite simple really.

The bottom line, Harris isn't able to attract independents to vote for her in the numbers needed. At least as of today. Why, from winning an election standpoint, why is totally irrelevant. This goes back to winning an election or just making a statement.

My advice for democrats in 2024, come up with a fresh young face, if from flyover country so much the better. Fresh young face, from flyover country, Tammy Duckworth, get it?
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Gerrymandering - 09/21/21 02:13 AM
Originally Posted by Mellowicious
1) She’s a minority For me, that has nothing to do with it.
2) She’s female For me, that has nothing to do with it.
3) she gives the appearance of not eating a lot of shite (theHillary Clinton word for this was “bi*ch” on a good day, “see you next Tuesday” on a bad one.) For me, THAT has something to do with it..
4) she’s first in line for the presidency For me, that has nothing to do with it.

Again, not the whole explanation, but …a chunk
First off, I like Kamala Harris.

BUT...

She has been lackluster, so far, as VP. I thought she'd come in kicking ass and taking names. Kamala is NOT doing that.

Initially, I liked her idea of getting to the root cause of people showing-up at the border. THAT was the correct, and SMART approach. Since, then nothing. Hmm

Kamala needs to step-up to the plate and kick ass. THAT is what I want from her. smile
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Gerrymandering - 09/21/21 02:17 AM
What is that old adage? Behind every successful man is an even more successful woman?

Show us Kamala and quit waisting time. smile
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Gerrymandering - 09/21/21 02:20 AM
I'd take Kamala Harris over Hillary Clinton any day of the week. I'll even throw in weekends. laugh

Why? Because Kamala is WAY smarter than Hillary. Hillary in just too cunning and conniving. Kamala wants to do good in the world - but she isn't showing that side of herself right now, unfortunately.

I've never gotten the "wants to do good for the world" vibe from Hillary.

Hmm
Posted By: perotista Re: Gerrymandering - 09/21/21 03:41 AM
Originally Posted by pdx rick
I'd take Kamala Harris over Hillary Clinton any day of the week. I'll even throw in weekends. laugh

Why? Because Kamala is WAY smarter than Hillary. Hillary in just too cunning and conniving. Kamala wants to do good in the world - but she isn't showing that side of herself right now, unfortunately.

I've never gotten the "wants to do good for the world" vibe from Hillary.

Hmm
I don't think many have gotten good vibes from Hillary. You used the words cunning and conniving for Hillary. Independents used words like elitist, aloof, fake. She was also lazy. Trump both out campaigned her and out worked her. Trump made 116 campaign visits, stops, appearances, etc to Hillary's 71. That 71 looks bigger than what it was as it includes fund raisers in deep blue California and New York.

Deciding states, Wisconsin, Trump 5 visits, Hillary none. Michigan, Trump 6 campaign stops, Hillary 1. Pennsylvania, Trump 8, Hillary 5 and even in electoral rich Florida, Trump 13 trips to Hillary's 8. There's much more to 2016 and Trump's victory, this is only one thing out of many.

My personal opinion is that Hillary thought she deserved the presidency and hence, didn't do what was needed to win. I believe had she gave it the old college try, she would have won. But that's just my opinion. She also had one of the most inept campaign strategies I have ever seen. Such is life.
Posted By: Greger Re: Gerrymandering - 09/21/21 12:41 PM
Harris failed to develop a following in the Democratic primaries. She brought nothing to the table as Biden's VP choice. Her numbers have dropped since the election.

If she's the candidate in 2024 I will vote for her. But I have zero faith in her leadership or her ability to win elections.

Being a woman(of color) is not the only qualification the next president is going to need.

What words are independents using to describe Harris?
Posted By: Mellowicious Re: Gerrymandering - 09/21/21 02:23 PM
Slight course correction/clarification: I almost didn’t use Hillary Clinton’s name, because people are so distracted by her. My point was not Clinton’s campaign or her as a politician, but the words used to describe her and why.

Which makes Greger’s question about words and Harris an interesting one.
Posted By: perotista Re: Gerrymandering - 09/21/21 02:37 PM
I really haven't given Harris any thought outside of looking at the most recent polls when her name popped up. 2022 and what might happen then has been my focus. None given to 2024. So I don't know how independents are describing Harris or the words they're using.

I do know she's seen very unfavorable by them. More unfavorable than Trump is today. Why, I don't know. Perhaps she just grates folks the wrong way. You have people that do that, for no rhyme or reason, you just dislike the person.

I went back checking prior to Harris withdrawing from the Democratic Primaries. She was the 11th choice for the nomination. Yes, Democrats didn't care much for her back then either let alone independents.

I tried finding out about independents. No luck on how they're describing Harris. but I found this. An old May Article.

Here's why Joe Biden polls well, but Kamala Harris does not

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-h...en-polls-well-but-kamala-harris-does-not
Posted By: perotista Re: Gerrymandering - 09/21/21 05:54 PM
And speaking on keeping focused, here's this weeks numbers.

1 Aug numbers, pre-Afghanistan, 31 Aug numbers, end of Afghanistan withdrawal, 21 Sep numbers post Afghanistan.

Interesting numbers, for the first time in the Biden presidency, his disapproval number has hit 50%.

Biden’s overall job approval/disapproval numbers:
1 Aug 51.3% approval, 45.9% disapproval/31 Aug 46.3% approval, 48.6% disapproval/21 Sep 46.3% approval, 50.0% disapproval.

Generic congressional vote
1 Aug Democrats 48% Republican 41% D plus 7/31 Aug Democrats 46% Republicans 44% D plus 2/21 Sep Democrats 44% Republicans 41% D plus 3.

Direction of the Country, right track/wrong track

1 Aug right track 40%, wrong track 53%/31 Aug right track 30%, wrong track 61%/21 Sep right track 30%/wrong track 62%.

Immigration 1 Aug 42% approve, 54% disapprove/31 Aug 34% approve, 57% disapprove/21 Sep 36% approve, 56% disapprove.

COVID 1 Aug 62% approve, 38% disapprove/31 Aug 53% approve, 43% disapprove/21 Sep 52% approve, 44% disapprove.

Economy 1 Aug 55% approve, 45% disapprove/31 Aug 46% approve, 49% disapprove/21 Sep 46% approve, 49% disapprove.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president-biden-job-approval-7320.html

Three weeks with basically no change after the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Biden and Company experienced a 10 drop in their approval or positive numbers during August. But since 31 August, there have remained the same. No improvement, no drop. I had expected to see a slow improvement which isn’t happening. Perhaps these numbers will remain constant where they’re at until the next unforeseen major event. Time will tell.
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Gerrymandering - 09/22/21 02:03 AM
As we all know, the American voter has a really short memory span - Joe's numbers don't mean squat diddly today.

smile
Posted By: perotista Re: Gerrymandering - 09/22/21 04:25 AM
I agree, I just like to keep track of them. Hobby of mine. Those along with around 10 other types and categories of numbers I keep track of helps in forecasting. But as you pointed out, it is as of today, not tomorrow and certainly not Nov 2022. Although one can follow a trend which trends are important to gauge the future.
Posted By: perotista Re: Gerrymandering - 09/22/21 01:48 PM
As I said, I always look for trends. The steadiness of Biden’s numbers has been amazing. That is until the earthquake of August. Then steadiness after. So far, 3 weeks into September isn’t enough to provide a concrete trend. But interesting. I never considered the withdrawal from Afghanistan as being important. But it certainly caused a downheaval in Biden’s numbers. I expected a small drop, then a quick recovery. That hasn’t happened. The numbers.

Biden’s overall job approval January through July between 52-55%, 1-21 Sep 46%
Direction of the country, right track January through July between 40-42%, 1-21 Sep 30%
Generic Congressional Ballot January through July, voting for Democratic congressional candidate between 48-50%, 1-21 Sep 43-44%.

The rest, the economy, COVID, foreign policy, immigration all show a 5-10 point drop in approval during August. I never attached much importance to the withdrawal from Afghanistan. It seems I was wrong. Or was it more than just the withdrawal. Perhaps, I’m taking a SWAG, it may be independents became aware Trump is gone, ancient history and they began to look at Biden closely for the first time in 6 months. I do know independents approval of Biden dropped from an approval average of 51-53% January through July down to 47% at the end of August, down to 43% today. Democrats maintained their approval of Biden between 90-95% January through 21 September, Republicans their low approval from January through 21 September between 6-12%. So it’s a no brainier to figure out independents are responsible. But what was so important about the Afghanistan withdrawal? That I can’t figure out. The only thing I can come up with, it wasn’t the withdrawal per se. It was the realization Trump is gone. Just not being Trump is no longer enough for independents. I may be all wet here. But it's the only thing that makes sense to me.

As for the numbers, 3 weeks doesn’t make a trend, it’s the trend I’m looking for. If these numbers continue through September and October and beyond, then we know a trend has developed and the democrats are in trouble come the midterms. The possibility exists that the month of August 2021 could be the month that decided the results of the midterms. Then again, probably not. But interesting, nonetheless. Afghanistan has me flummoxed. The drop has to be about something else. I may have completely missed the reason. What say you?
Posted By: perotista Re: Gerrymandering - 09/22/21 04:34 PM
Back to gerrymandering. Here's something I know you all don't want to hear. Democrats attempting to gerrymander Oregon. Also Larry Sabato covers the Virginia governors race.

The VA-GOV Polls: 2013, 2017, and now

Oregon redistricting: Tense times as Democrats attempt a gerrymander

https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/notes-on-the-state-of-politics-sept-22-2021/

This goes back to what I've always said, whenever a political party can gerrymander, they will. The Republicans hold more state trifectas, the governor and both chambers of the state legislature than the Democrats do. So they'll probably gerrymander a couple of more states than the Democrats. Just because one can gerrymander doesn't make it right, but neither party will pass up the opportunity. I don't like gerrymandering, I think it's totally wrong. But I don't blame the Oregon Democrats for doing it. As long as one party is doing it, one can't expect the other to stop or cede whatever political advantage gerrymandering gives them.
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Gerrymandering - 09/22/21 05:51 PM
Yes, Democrats do it. Considering that Republicans do it a LOT more, they would be stupid not to in the few states where they can. It would be far better if all states went to non-partisan commissions to draw minimally-convoluted districts. There are some very good computer programs that do this, while still respecting communities, etc. Ideally, every state would have a party split of representatives that reflected the voter split.

This is old, but still pretty nice: Busting the both sides do it myth
Posted By: Greger Re: Gerrymandering - 09/22/21 07:31 PM
More democrats than not probably think gerrymandering should be abolished.
It's easy enough to divide a region into fair and equitable districts.

Those Democrats who feel it's an appropriate tactic probably feel that it's only fair to fight back against Republican cheating.

Both parties are corrupt. To me, one appears to be (much)more corrupt than the other.

One appears to be trying to fix some broken things.

One appears to be trying to break more things.

Maybe a switch hitter like Pero could explain to me why this isn't true...? I try to view both parties through the same lens, but it's difficult with the Donald Trumps, Loie Gohmerts and Marjorie Greenes in the mix. Does "the squad" balance out these crazies somehow...or do they only appear crazy because of my ideological lean, even though I don't share that same lean with most Democrats...

A conundrum.
Posted By: perotista Re: Gerrymandering - 09/22/21 08:12 PM
More Republicans do gerrymanders mainly because they had more trifectas after 2010 and 2020. Although the first one to try it is Oregon. As I said, I don't blame them. It will be done to them in other states and the Democrats will do gerrymandering in a few more. But this tit for tat doesn't make it right.

Historically, 1960, 70, 80 and 90 were good years for Democratic Party gerrymandering. Mainly because they controlled more states and could. the GOP began to control more states, having the trifectas in 2000, 10 and this year. So I expect no change in those who can, will. That's being realistic or is it being cynical?

I distrust and dislike both major parties. I'll not defend or support either one. Not as a party, on certain issues yes, on others I'll oppose, but I won't walk lockstep with either one like some mindless robot.

But when one party or the other jumps all over the other party for doing something, when I can point out they do the same, I get a kick out of that. For 10 years all I heard was about the GOP gerrymandering Texas, North Carolina and Pennsylvania. But not a peep about the Democrats doing the same for Illinois and New York. Yeah, realist or cynic, either one will do.
Posted By: Greger Re: Gerrymandering - 09/22/21 09:34 PM
At least you don't try to defend the indefensible.

I wouldn't be so kind if asked to defend democrats. Gerrymandering is stupid. An outdated old partisan trick which proves that partisanship has always been rampant.
Posted By: NW Ponderer Re: Gerrymandering - 09/23/21 12:19 AM
Originally Posted by pondering_it_all
Yes, Democrats do it. Considering that Republicans do it a LOT more, they would be stupid not to in the few states where they can. It would be far better if all states went to non-partisan commissions to draw minimally-convoluted districts. There are some very good computer programs that do this, while still respecting communities, etc. Ideally, every state would have a party split of representatives that reflected the voter split.

This is old, but still pretty nice: Busting the both sides do it myth
There's an old truism in management (and certainly held true in the military) that 20% of the personnel create 80% of the problems, and vice versa. That's about where I think the GOP/Dem divide is - although it may be low - that about 20% of the problems are created by Dems, but the GOP is responsible for 80% of the nation's woes.
Posted By: perotista Re: Gerrymandering - 09/23/21 01:15 AM
I've always said gerrymandering is nothing more than congressmen choosing their voters instead of the voters choosing their congressmen. There's no defending it.

Perhaps I had the misfortune of growing up in an era that included Eisenhower and JFK. Where basically there wasn't the partisan divide of today. Where both parties had their conservative and liberal wings. Remember the solid conservative democratic south and the old Rockefeller liberal Republican Northeast? Perhaps all are too young which I'm showing my age here. Or I continue to live in the past.

IKE would have LBJ, then the Democratic Senate Majority Leader over to the White House once a week to discuss how to get IKE's agenda through congress. Both JFK and LBJ worked closely with then Republican Senate minority leader Everett Dirksen. Times change, but maybe my politics haven't.

Maybe the 80-20 equation is correct and maybe it isn't. Perhaps today's political leaders could use a lesson from Reagan and Tip O'Neal.

https://www.ajc.com/news/opinion/re...-worth-recalling/sjbyaGCQcropVcAwYk0GBI/

I suppose things are what they are, today's political era is what it is. But I don't have to like it.
Posted By: Greger Re: Gerrymandering - 09/23/21 01:57 AM
Yes, yes, If we could just Make America Great Again! Good lard, man...there have been fisticuffs and even duels to the death, Americans have always been hyper partisans. My grandfather was named after a four-time Democratic presidential candidate(who never won)
That's partisanship. The civil war, prohibition, civil rights...
What issue has this nation ever faced that had no partisan divide? That's normal politics.

Whatever it is that Republicans have become is not politics as usual. And they've been going this direction for several decades. Trump is just the culmination of it.

The two parties have to agree to exist in the same realities before negotiations can begin.
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Gerrymandering - 09/23/21 03:08 AM
Originally Posted by Greger
...The two parties have to agree to exist in the same realities before negotiations can begin.
...that's gonna be hard to do for the alternative facts and conspiratorial crowd who believe child abuse happens in pizza parlor basements.

Hmm
Posted By: logtroll Re: Gerrymandering - 09/23/21 11:09 AM
Originally Posted by Greger
What issue has this nation ever faced that had no partisan divide? That's normal politics.
This one is not currently a partisan divide, but maybe it could be made into one - the proper pronunciation of gerrymander is “gary”mander.

The portmanteau was created in a political cartoon showing Vice President Elbridge Gerry’s redrawn Massachusetts district as a medieval salamander. The Gerry family, to this day, says its name with a hard ‘g’.

Gerry, curiously enough, was a nonpartisan politico (by today’s party descriptions), being a Democratic-Republican.
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Gerrymandering - 09/23/21 07:54 PM
Democratic-Republicans had their opposition Party: The Federalists. And the opposition was pretty heated. Just because their Party name contains the names of the current major Parties, doesn't mean their positions were a combination of current Democratic Party and Republican Party positions.

Gerry was a member of the Party of Jefferson, Monroe, and Madison.
Posted By: logtroll Re: Gerrymandering - 09/23/21 10:00 PM
It must have been nice when the Republicans were Democratic...
Posted By: Mellowicious Re: Gerrymandering - 09/24/21 02:43 AM
Originally Posted by perotista
I
Here's why Joe Biden polls well, but Kamala Harris does not

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-h...en-polls-well-but-kamala-harris-does-not

Thanks, perotista. The major issue seems to be immigration. Oddly enough this does remind me
of the way back machine of Ms. Clinton and health
care. Both women were assigned almost unsolvable tasks and both are/were (apparently) taking a beating for it. (Again, not looking for a Hillary discussion; just comparing tasks and reactions.)

I think Harris has made some dumb PR mistakes, but I also know the problem is so complex that the average American doesn’t really know what’s been done/not done. They see pictures of people under a bridge…but there’s so much more to know, I expect..

Thanks.
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Gerrymandering - 09/24/21 03:40 AM
Originally Posted by Mellowicious
Both women were assigned almost unsolvable tasks....
I dunno...Nancy Pelosi did a good job on ACA back in 2009 and got it passed in 2010. Hmm
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Gerrymandering - 09/24/21 03:42 AM
Originally Posted by logtroll
It must have been nice when the Republicans were Democratic...
Pretty much everyone has shifted right except for Bernie and the Squad. Hmm
Posted By: NW Ponderer Re: Gerrymandering - 09/24/21 05:51 AM
The modern Republican party is the culmination of the Reagan-Gingrich bastardization of party politics. Reagan set the government up as the fall-guy, and Gingrich introduced scorched-earth strong-arming. THE MAN WHO BROKE POLITICS (The Atlantic, Subcription).
Quote
few figures in modern history have done more than Gingrich to lay the groundwork for Trump’s rise. During his two decades in Congress, he pioneered a style of partisan combat—replete with name-calling, conspiracy theories, and strategic obstructionism—that poisoned America’s political culture and plunged Washington into permanent dysfunction. Gingrich’s career can perhaps be best understood as a grand exercise in devolution—an effort to strip American politics of the civilizing traits it had developed over time and return it to its most primal essence.
Reagan, too, was an aficionado of authoritarianism. All of the autocratic tendencies have flowed from that, including McConnell's abuses of the Constitution and parliamentary procedures.

It must be recognized that where we are now is a direct effort to Nazify the Republican party. Bill Barr is an outright fascist, and makes little bones about it. The current efforts to eliminate universal suffrage and take over counting the vote are part of the plot. Even though Stalin never said it, current Republican leadership firmly believes "The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." If they are allowed to get away with it, the American democratic experiment will end. The Republicans will accomplish what the Nazis failed to do in the 1940s.
Posted By: Greger Re: Gerrymandering - 09/25/21 04:16 PM
Quote
The Republicans will accomplish what the Nazis failed to do in the 1940s.

Oddly it is Democrats hammering the last nails into this president's agenda right now while republicans sit back and watch.
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Gerrymandering - 09/25/21 04:51 PM
Originally Posted by Greger
Oddly it is Democrats hammering the last nails into this president's agenda right now while republicans sit back and watch.

Bow , Hmm
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Gerrymandering - 09/25/21 10:09 PM
Let's see what happens with the voting rights bill, before we hold the funeral. Democrats are talking about changing to a talking filibuster or passing a carve-out so filibusters do not apply to voting rights bills, just like Republicans did when they changed the Senate rules to get rid of filibusters against Supreme Court nominee confirmation. Manchin has previously expressed some openness to such changes.

Manchin and Senema should consider that unless the voting rights bill gets passed, THEY will not be reelected! They also might want to look at all the people running for Senator in 2022: I think every one of them wants to dump the filibuster. So if Democrats gain just two more seats, Manchin and Senema are outvoted.
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Gerrymandering - 09/25/21 10:25 PM
Terry Gross from Fresh Air interviewed this week a NYT writer who wrote a book on Munchin. Mnuchin considers himself a moderate.

All I know is that I wouldn't invite the guy to a party. Hmm
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Gerrymandering - 09/26/21 11:09 PM
Manchin is a Democrat from a pretty Red State. He has to do a balancing act, if he doesn't want to get replaced. It may be that any more liberal Democrat would not win that general election. But I think he needs to pick his battles more carefully. Being in favor of things that would actually help a lot of people in his state, probably won't hurt his chances. Being in favor of Democracy (like insuring people can vote) probably wouldn't either. Those are pretty much "motherhood and apple pie" in American politics. Being concerned about debt is a losing position in his state considering most people are not going to pay a lot of taxes. Taxpayers in California and New York are going to end up paying for the infrastructure bill!
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Gerrymandering - 09/27/21 12:00 AM
Red states don't pay much in taxes and us blue states support red states by sending red states more money than they send to the federal government.



Anyway, it's all on Joe Munchin now. Every other Dem moderate has now signed onto the infrastructure bill.
Posted By: perotista Re: Gerrymandering - 09/27/21 12:24 AM
Pretty red for West Virginia is an understatement. Trump beat Biden 69-29 there. Trump didn't lose a single county. The governors races was a bit closer, 65-30 in favor of Republican Justice. Republicans hold a 23-11 advantage in the WV state senate and a 78-22 edge in the WV state legislature, all three of WV`congressional delegations are Republicans with all 3 winning by 30 points give or take.. There's not a single Democrat that holds statewide office in WV.

Manchin was a popular governor when WV was blue which helped him to win a senate seat. But he won by a 49-47 margin in 2018. Once Manchin retires, a republican is guaranteed to replace him.

So pretty much red, yeah, an understatement. West Virginia is the 2nd reddest state in the nation with a PVI of R+23. Only Wyoming with an R+26 is redder.

The funny thing about WV is how fast they went from solid blue to solid red, basically in one election, 2014. WV had 2 Democratic senators until 2014, Democratic governors until 2020. All WV Representatives were democrats until 2000 when they elected their first Republican congressman, WV elected their second in 2010 and their third in 2014.

https://www.wvpublic.org/news/2014-...ia-gop-made-history-in-the-2014-election
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Gerrymandering - 10/01/21 01:53 PM
Hate to say I told you so, but I told you so. smile

Covid is killing rural Americans at twice the rate of people in urban areas
The pandemic is devastating rural America, where lower vaccination rates are compounding the already limited medical care.
Quote
...an estimated one out of every 434 residents in rural areas has died from COVID-19.
THAT is going to affect election outcomes.

Hmm
Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas Re: Gerrymandering - 10/18/21 03:14 AM
Originally Posted by pdx rick
Hate to say I told you so, but I told you so. smile

Covid is killing rural Americans at twice the rate of people in urban areas
The pandemic is devastating rural America, where lower vaccination rates are compounding the already limited medical care.
Quote
...an estimated one out of every 434 residents in rural areas has died from COVID-19.
THAT is going to affect election outcomes.

Hmm

If we hit ONE MILLION dead, that's one in every 335 people.
So yeah, that WOULD affect election outcomes drastically.
In fact, since we are talking about the 2020 census, losing a million or more changes House elections and not in their favor, because the majority of lost seats would BE IN those rural areas.
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Gerrymandering - 10/18/21 03:28 AM
I know...

Perotista keeps ignoring my predictions. smile
Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas Re: Gerrymandering - 10/18/21 04:15 AM
Originally Posted by pdx rick
I know...

Perotista keeps ignoring my predictions. smile

This was LAST YEAR...
After dodging the worst of COVID-19, rural areas of Minnesota are 'lit up with cases'

Last week, the spike in COVID-19 cases in northwest Minnesota prompted drastic measures in the town of Nevis, where the City Council closed the municipal bar to help contain virus spread.

Well shee-it, the town owns their own BAR and they had to close THAT! ROTFMOL LOL

Damn libtards!
Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas Re: Gerrymandering - 10/18/21 04:20 AM
Originally Posted by pdx rick
I know...

Perotista keeps ignoring my predictions. smile

There are a great many posts where he simply repeats a lot of the same thing, just hangs a band-aid on it
with the label of whatever we're talking about is.

When my kids were small, I had to measure the cereal very carefully because they were in a phase where they were watching
to see if I was favoring the one or the other, and I guess the cereal was one criteria.
That's okay, it's amusing years later just as it was when it happened.

But I think I see Pero as a person that relies on measuring stuff a little too much.
When it comes to state policies or something like that he's a pretty solid guy, smart too.

But when it comes to elections he is just measuring cereal bowls.
Not that I think I have my finger on the pulse of Murricuh but cereal bowls only work for so much and for so long.
Posted By: logtroll Re: Gerrymandering - 10/18/21 10:07 AM
What kind of cereal?
Posted By: Ken Condon Re: Gerrymandering - 10/18/21 10:42 AM
Cereal killer?
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Gerrymandering - 10/18/21 10:49 AM
Alternating between Cherrios and Puffed Wheat. coffee
Posted By: Ken Condon Re: Gerrymandering - 10/18/21 10:50 AM
Go to bed Rick. Why are you up so early?
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Gerrymandering - 10/18/21 11:12 AM
Originally Posted by Ken Condon
Go to bed Rick. Why are you up so early?
Some of us work and have to drive 30 mins to catch a ferry. I'm leaving in 2 mins, dad. smile
Posted By: Greger Re: Gerrymandering - 10/18/21 02:26 PM
Originally Posted by pdx rick
I know...

Perotista keeps ignoring my predictions. smile

That's because your predictions are based on nothing but wishful thinking. The polls are not gauging the opinions of the dead. The living don't approve of Biden either.

Simply put...if one in three hundred or even one in ten dies, in most rural areas a Republican will still win the election.
Posted By: perotista Re: Gerrymandering - 10/18/21 03:36 PM
Speaking of Gerrymandering, Oregon is done. One Republican drawn out of his district and the new district Oregon gained has been drawn to ensure a Democrat wins. So it's plus 2 in the Gerrymandering wars for the democrats.

Illinois, I think I reported on this state earlier. But to make it short on the proposed map now under consideration by the Illinois state legislature, it would another plus 2 seats for the democrats once the map is approved. So far, it's Democrats plus 4 or will be in the Gerrymandering war. But there are 38 states to go. So this is the first firing of the shot of the Gerrymandering war. Kind of like Ft. Sumpter, but a long way to go. Or kind of like a team scoring 2 runs in the first, 2 more in the second inning for a 4-0 lead. But with 7 more innings to go.

Now I go by numbers, not the heart. here's the latest any of us have to go by when it comes to who'll control the house.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-generic-ballot-polls/

But since that is nationwide and not district by district, I take it with a grain of salt.

This may have more of an effect than anyone or the numbers who died of COVID.

As Trump Thunders About Last Election, Republicans Worry About the Next One

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-thunders-last-election-republicans-121100734.html
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Gerrymandering - 10/18/21 03:40 PM
Originally Posted by perotista
...Oregon is done...
What does THAT mean? Oregan will never be Republican again? Awww... violin
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Gerrymandering - 10/18/21 03:44 PM
Originally Posted by Greger
The living don't approve of Biden either....
That was actually brought-up on NPR this past Saturday. The pundants are saying that Joe Biden was voted in because he was NOT Donald Trump - not because of his plans for a new economy per the most recent Gallop poll.
Posted By: Greger Re: Gerrymandering - 10/18/21 03:56 PM
Originally Posted by pdx rick
Originally Posted by perotista
...Oregon is done...
What does THAT mean? Oregan will never be Republican again? Awww... violin

Not at all.

It means Oregon is done with their gerrymandering for now.

Florida might turn blue again someday too. Neither of us should hold our breath until it happens though.
Posted By: Greger Re: Gerrymandering - 10/18/21 04:09 PM
Quote
The (pundits) are saying that Joe Biden was voted in because he was NOT Donald Trump - not because of his plans for a new economy per the most recent Gallop poll.

Well DUH! If they'd wanted a new economy they'da voted for Bernie.

They wanted America to be great again like it was under Obama so they elected Obam's VP...

They wanted politics to be boring again. And now the DEMS are trying to pass legislation!

70% of all Americans are against any new legislation.
Posted By: perotista Re: Gerrymandering - 10/18/21 05:03 PM
70% may be high Greger, but I'd say you're right. 1994 is a great example as is 2010. Bill Clinton with his healthcare or his wife's healthcare task force, the raising of taxes which included raising the amount from 50% to 85% that the federal government can tax social security. Gun control legislation, an active congress that probably caused a 54 seat loss in the Nov 1994 midterm.

2010, you had the ACA. results, a 63 seat house loss. 55% of all Americans were against it then, so it was the wrong time to pass it. It hung around the democrats necks like an albatross all during Obama. Caused the loss of the senate in 2014 and perhaps even helped Trump defeat Clinton in 2016. It took Trump to make the ACA popular. It never was during Obama.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

I think it has to do with peoples comfort zones. They're very comfortable with the way things are and have been. They become use to living that way, they have their routine. New Legislation upsets all of that. Takes them out of their comfort zone, their routine, changes what they have become use to. Whether or not the new legislation helps them is irrelevant. The majority of Americans don't like change.

For six months, Biden and company didn't try to make a whole lot of changes or pass a lot of legislation. Biden and company flew high in his and their approval rating, between 52-55%/ Now you have this fight on new legislation going on, approval drops 10 points.
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Gerrymandering - 10/18/21 08:29 PM
Yeah, medical bankruptcy was a wonderful thing. A great American tradition we almost lost there before Republicans made it possible again. Hooray!
Posted By: perotista Re: Gerrymandering - 10/18/21 09:36 PM
I followed the ACA for awhile, more interested in how it would affect my forecasts for elections than the law itself. It didn't effect me, so I really didn't care one way or the other.

But Gallup was polling whether the law help more people or hurt more people. For most of the Obama regime, the poll came out on hurt. Here's an example.

More Still Say Health Law Has Hurt Instead of Helped Them

https://news.gallup.com/poll/178094/say-health-law-hurt-instead-helped.aspx

This is why it was an albatross around Obama's and the Democrat's neck. Those for the law didn't want to hear from those who it hurt and those against the law didn't want to hear from those it helped. Nothing new in the political partisanship round there.

The thing is with the ACA, people became use to it, it became part of their comfort zone. Once that happens, it becomes politically stupid to try to repeal it. But while people were very uncomfortable with it, the GOP milked it for all it was worth. Peoples view on the ACA was one of the reason Trump won in 2016, 49% opposed it, 40% favored it. Then Trump and the GOP overplayed their hand big time which resulted in 2018 happening.

All in all, Trump is political deaf and dumb when it comes to elections.
Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas Re: Gerrymandering - 10/18/21 11:41 PM
Originally Posted by perotista
I followed the ACA for awhile, more interested in how it would affect my forecasts for elections than the law itself. It didn't effect me, so I really didn't care one way or the other.

But Gallup was polling whether the law help more people or hurt more people. For most of the Obama regime, the poll came out on hurt. Here's an example.

More Still Say Health Law Has Hurt Instead of Helped Them

https://news.gallup.com/poll/178094/say-health-law-hurt-instead-helped.aspx

Wow, a poll from 2014, in which few of the provisions really had just BARELY taken effect.
Wow, maybe you could have used a poll from 2010 instead, when almost NONE of the provisions had taken effect and there's a good likelihood a GIGANTIC number of Americans expressed doubts.
Posted By: perotista Re: Gerrymandering - 10/19/21 12:19 AM
LOL, okay. Now you know why people voted the way they did. The facts are,
2010 52% of all Americans opposed the ACA. This resulted in a 52-44 margin of all Americans voting for Republican congressional candidates letting the GOP gain 63 seats and retake control of the House of Representatives.

2014 27% of all Americans were saying the ACA was hurting them vs. 16% who said it helped them. The people were saying the law hurts more folks than it helps. 53% of all Americans opposed the ACA. Due to this Americans voted 52-46 for Republican congressional candidate enabling them to retain control of the house. More importantly, Americans voted 52-43 in the senate elections enabling the Republicans to pick up 9 senate seats and take control of the senate.

The opposition to the ACA in 2016 40% in favor/49% against helped Trump defeat Clinton. Of those opposing the ACA, Trump won them 82-13 over Hillary Clinton.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls/national/president

Then in 2018, once Trump made the ACA popular the year before, 47% favor, 40% oppose, it helped the Democrats regain the house, the Democrats gaining 44 seats as Americans voted for the Democratic congressional candidates 54-45.

Although in 2018, I think the dislike of Trump had much more to do with the the American People kicking out the Republicans than the ACA. But no doubt, the ACA figured into it.

These are the facts. I posted the links prior. Now Jeffrey, you can try to dispute the facts if you like. But I take that as more a partisan rant than disputing the facts the ACA played a major role in deciding the 2010 House elections, the 2014 senate elections, probably a significant role in the 2016 election. Less, but also played a role in 2018.

Once the American people became use to the ACA, where it fit into their comfort zone, Trump and the GOP were politically stupid to try to repeal it. All that did was make a piece of legislation that had been highly unpopular, popular. Without Trump, in my opinion the ACA would still be unpopular. But that's irrelevant, the ACA certainly influenced if not decided certain elections. What I found strange was in 2012 when Obama beat Romney, neither talked about the ACA or made it a campaign issue. Most likely because of RomneyCare in Massachusetts when Romney was governor. He didn't have a leg to stand on.

Now which facts are you disputing here?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

https://news.gallup.com/poll/178094/say-health-law-hurt-instead-helped.aspx

Or didn't you read the whole post before you went off on a partisan rant?
© ReaderRant