Dems take the House

[twocoach]

Gerrymandering is A. 90% an excuse used by people who don't understand demographics; and 10% American historical tradition.

I'm fine handing all redistricting decisions over to non-partisan panels, but to insist that the House composition as a whole is affected to any significant degree by redistricting is to broadcast your ignorance.

And as the American voters proved (again!) last night, Obama's vote totals are non-transferable. Is it possible to have negative coattails?

It is because I understand the demographics of the changes made to my District in 2011 that I understand why they were made. They used results of the 2010 census to move the lines around to ensure no groupings of dems large enough to win a district. They didnt have enough white people in District 2 and more than enough in District 1 so they redrew the lines.

And "it really doesn't change anything" is a terrible excuse to be OK with a system of cheating designed to keep the GOP in control as long as possible.

Sadly, Dems have to wait for the last of the baby boomers to die before any real progress can be made. They can get more youth and more women involved and energized. But real change in this country is still 20 years away. Tick, tick, tick...

[DCHawk1]

Have you tried a billboard? This message board doesn't quote get you the exposure you need for your broadcast.

[seahawk]

Have you tried a billboard? This message board doesn't quote get you the exposure you need for your broadcast.

Two coach presented a cogent explanation that you choose not to address. That’s on you, not him.

[zsn]

that should go well.

It will be ugly, stupid, petty, and partisan. It will also accomplish nothing. Welcome to American politics.

Glad you are realizing the error of your ways!

Benghazi! BENGHAZI!! EMAILS!!! BENGHAZI!!!!!!!!!!!

Except this time there may actually be a there there (cf. Zinke, Don Jr., money laundering)

[HouseDivided]

that should go well.

It will be ugly, stupid, petty, and partisan. It will also accomplish nothing. Welcome to American politics.

Glad you are realizing the error of your ways!

Benghazi! BENGHAZI!! EMAILS!!! BENGHAZI!!!!!!!!!!!

Except this time there may actually be a there there (cf. Zinke, Don Jr., money laundering)

Yeah, I wouldn't get my hopes up if I were you. If being responsible for the deaths of Americans and selling uranium to our enemies doesn't get traction, I'm not sure what will.

[jhawks99]

LOL

[twocoach]

Have you tried a billboard? This message board doesn't quote get you the exposure you need for your broadcast.

/\

[DCHawk1]

Have you tried a billboard? This message board doesn't quote get you the exposure you need for your broadcast.

Two coach presented a cogent explanation.

No he didn't. He argued his partisan interpretation of an event and pretended it was fact.

Moreover, anyone who has bothered to look at the data over several election cycles dating back decades knows that the Democrats' biggest problem in the House is the overconcentration of votes in too few districts. It does the party no good, for example, to run unopposed candidates in California or to win by a margin of 90-10 in other urban districts. Almost all of those votes are wasted, in that they contribute to larger vote totals but deliver no more seats.

The regression models are pretty clear. When you control for overconcentration of votes, the differences between the parties in terms of total votes earned nationally trends toward statistical insignificance. Even on a district-by-district basis, the models clearly show that advantage attained by the GOP by redistricting is vanishingly small.

[MICHHAWK]

The 21st century ain't been good to American politics. I have little faith that last night will change our luck. Sigh.

[Leawood]

"The models clearly show that the advantage attained by the GOP by redistricting is vanishingly small."

No it isn't. Missouri is a prime example. Redistricting University City and portions of Jefferson County (union heavy) into Republican districts, just as an example (there are others, even in the Springfield,MO area) resulted in Republicans having a super, veto-proof majority in both houses of the General Assembly. That is significant and damages the notion of separation of powers.

[DCHawk1]

"The models clearly show that the advantage attained by the GOP by redistricting is vanishingly small."

No it isn't. Missouri is a prime example. Redistricting University City and portions of Jefferson County (union heavy) into Republican districts, just as an example (there are others, even in the Springfield,MO area) resulted in Republicans having a super, veto-proof majority in both houses of the General Assembly. That is significant and damages the notion of separation of powers.

This is a different animal altogether.

I don't doubt that the district-fixing (gerrymandering) has an impact at the state legislative level. I would guess that it's a smaller effect than you think, but nonetheless significant. I have seen no data on this at all, but I'd guess you're more right than wrong.

[zsn]

...............to look at the data over several election cycles dating back decades knows that the Democrats' biggest problem in the House is the overconcentration of votes in too few districts.

Isn't that the definition of 'gerrymandering', when done intentionally (cf. Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, House districts which include areas of Austin, TX)?

While California and Wyoming meet the semantic definion of a gerrymander, one can argue that State lines were not drawn to effect electoral outcomes.

It has been shown conclusively that the districts in PA were drawn with nefarious intentions, and the composition of the Congressional delegation has corrected itself when the partisan legislature was overruled and "fair" districts boundaries were drawn.

[DCHawk1]

...............to look at the data over several election cycles dating back decades knows that the Democrats' biggest problem in the House is the overconcentration of votes in too few districts.

Isn't that the definition of 'gerrymandering', when done intentionally (cf. Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, House districts which include areas of Austin, TX)?

While California and Wyoming meet the semantic definion of a gerrymander, one can argue that State lines were not drawn to effect electoral outcomes.

It has been shown conclusively that the districts in PA were drawn with nefarious intentions, and the composition of the Congressional delegation has corrected itself when the partisan legislature was overruled and "fair" districts boundaries were drawn.

No. It's the definition of "Democrats bunching all of their votes in too few districts."

If the # of Republican and Democratic voters is roughly similar, but Republican votes are spread out in as many 55-45 districts as possible, while Democratic votes are concentrated in 75-25 districts, then Republicans are going to win more districts. It's not complicated math.

[seahawk]

"The models clearly show that the advantage attained by the GOP by redistricting is vanishingly small."

No it isn't. Missouri is a prime example. Redistricting University City and portions of Jefferson County (union heavy) into Republican districts, just as an example (there are others, even in the Springfield,MO area) resulted in Republicans having a super, veto-proof majority in both houses of the General Assembly. That is significant and damages the notion of separation of powers.

I've lived in the same place for 20 plus years and had the Congressional District change several times as Republicans specifically redistricted out 2 Democratic Congresspersons. They redistricted one congressman out of the area where his family home was located, for several generations. Then, when another congresswoman was elected, they redistricted her out of her own district.

What DC doesn't mention is that in doing so, Republicans are able to short-circuit the careers of promising Democrats or those with a lot of seniority--because DC doesn't want to admit that it actually does matter--a lot.

[zsn]

No. It's the definition of "Democrats bunching all of their votes in too few districts."

If the # of Republican and Democratic voters is roughly similar, but Republican votes are spread out in as many 55-45 districts as possible, while Democratic votes are concentrated in 75-25 districts, then Republicans are going to win more districts. It's not complicated math.

What if the the way you get to putting Republicans in as many 55-45 districts and concentrating Dems in 75-25 districts is done intentionally by drawing district lines as shown below (NC 12th District shown in top left)



How about the "Preying Mantis" Maryland 3rd?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... 27279e6767

Of course, all of this could be fake news.........

[DCHawk1]

Did you even read the article?

[Deleted User 89]

lol...those pictures alone should tell you SOMETHING is amiss

[Deleted User 75]

The 21st century ain't been good to American politics. I have little faith that last night will change our luck. Sigh.

Both parties are failing, while simultaneously blaming the other party for all the failures.

[twocoach]

Have you tried a billboard? This message board doesn't quote get you the exposure you need for your broadcast.

Two coach presented a cogent explanation.

No he didn't. He argued his partisan interpretation of an event and pretended it was fact.

Moreover, anyone who has bothered to look at the data over several election cycles dating back decades knows that the Democrats' biggest problem in the House is the overconcentration of votes in too few districts. It does the party no good, for example, to run unopposed candidates in California or to win by a margin of 90-10 in other urban districts. Almost all of those votes are wasted, in that they contribute to larger vote totals but deliver no more seats.

The regression models are pretty clear. When you control for overconcentration of votes, the differences between the parties in terms of total votes earned nationally trends toward statistical insignificance. Even on a district-by-district basis, the models clearly show that advantage attained by the GOP by redistricting is vanishingly small.

I don't care about overconcentration. That has nothing to do with what we are discussing; which is the overt acts of the GOP at the state and local level to cheat to stay in power.

[Deleted User 75]

Only the GOP engages in cheating to maintain political power? Who knew!