djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 6, 2014 13:26:04 GMT -5
bills- i meant in terms of WHY the Senate is very likely to flip, not in terms of our republic, or anything so grand. You quoted Sir Virgil's request for American Government 101 information and gave a graduate seminar response. I was clarifying for his sake. LOL! i tend to assume that Virgil knows all of the basic stuff. glad that there are people like you here.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Nov 6, 2014 13:30:26 GMT -5
Dems never show up for Midterms. We don't have a prayer in 2016. I'd rather have the Prez and the House than this set up. Another two years of gridlock and some Presidential Executive Orders. you are absolutely right. the GOP stands less than a 10% chance of winning the Senate in 2016, imo. they have a bit better chance of winning the presidency, but not much. and a bit better still of keeping the gerrymandered House, and better still of keeping a majority of governors and state legisatures. this is WHY the ill fated idea of killing ObamaCare, getting a balanced budget amendment, overturning RvW, or anything else of consequence is extremely unlikely in the next 26 months. but it will be fun to watch them try. It's hard telling what will happen in the next two years. When Dems took control during the last 2 years under Bush, they stonewalled and worked on doing whatever they could to win the next election....it worked for them. It's nice to actually see the President have to work with the other party finally...of course with it being the last two years of his term, I doubt that will happen because both parties will be focused on the next election. If President Obama is really unpopular, he could have the same affect on the election as Bush did due his unpopularity. Either way, I doubt the next President will be given a Nobel Peace Prize without actually doing anything.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Nov 6, 2014 13:31:43 GMT -5
There would have to be photos of him in a compromising position with an underage boy before that would ever happen in this state. i probably shouldn't laugh at this, but i thought it was hilarious. Actually, I'm not even sure that would do it. Remember some time back when Carol Moseley Braun was under fraud investigation (bookkeeping errors my ass!)? She only lost that election by less than 3 points. She did admit to "errors" with placing her mother's assets in her name and filing for Medicaid for her. I think that money had to be paid back. The Democratic voting machine is way too powerful in Chicago. Hell, Jessie Jr. got elected even when he was MIA.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Nov 6, 2014 17:28:33 GMT -5
I channel flipped between Fox, CNN, MSNBC last night. Fox was basically calling all the Senate races before the other two. I do not know if they were taking chances, or the other two could not believe what was happening to the Democrats, but they were slow to report projected winners.
Virginia was a surprise, but the REPUBLICAN lost, so since we were not playing darts, it did not matter....... Nunn's loss percent in Georgia was a big miss in Georgia.
don't know why. she was trailing or tied in something like the last seven polls in that state. reported here!
North Carolina, the pollsters totally blew.
no, not totally. NC was seen as a competitive race. of the last SIX polls conducted, the result was within margin of error. the only one that got it wrong was PPP. the GOP poll (Harper) said that Tillis would win by 3%
Same for West Virginia
the last poll conducted in WV was done by CBS. they predicted that the GOP would win by 22%, and they won by 27.6%, which was only 0.6% beyond polling error, hardly a large mistake.
No one here wants to mention McConnell's level of victory here-it was a blowout.
the last poll showed McConnell up by 9%, he won by 15.5%, which was 2% beyond polling error.
Kansas- the Senator had called Mitch, earlier in the day and told him not to worry, as Orman was not going to win. We had to warhorses that knew in the end, how to finish the campaign properly.
i will discuss this one later. i have some theories about it. but it was a weird race for a lot of reasons.
Then we have Colorado, where Udall totally blew his campaign, and Gardner was a fresh face from Congress who made a strong campaign program work for him.
that one was within polling error. i called it for Gardner myself two weeks ago.
edit: just ask our CO resident. she was not happy when i did.
Governor Walker of Wisconsin, regardless of millions of dollars thrown against him by labor and Democrats, won re-election easily making a mockery of pollsters.
the only one that called this race for Burke was Rasmussen. and i agree, they are a joke.
all of the other major pollsters called this one for Walker, and they were all within polling error. Marquette predicted he would win by 7%, which turned out to be optimistic.
That is three wins for him in four years, not bad for someone that is supposed to be hated by the citizens of the state..... Quinn in Illinois- defeated by a non politician, despite repeated visits from the President and Biden to back Quinn and the Democratic ticket Another race that pollsters always had Quinn winning.
this is also false. Rauner was shown leading the state in EVERY POLL between January and August, by as much as 13%. there were only THREE polls taken in all of 2014 that showed Quinn leading beyond MOE. there were FOUR four Rauner. if you had asked me to call this race, i could not have done so. the polling was too close. and yes, he won by 5%, which was outside of MOE for ALL BUT ONE POLL (Chicago Trib). however, i think most people missed something very shocking in the polling, and that is that the one pollster that got it right also showed a THIRTEEN POINT SWING for Rauner. anyone watching should have taken notice there. but clearly, a couple of pollsters did indeed get this one very wrong.
If only Durbin suffered the same fate, but alas, we cannot have it all. Then we have Iowa, where we had a talented woman who ran an excellent campaign to take the Senate seat. Ernst is a whackadoodle. seriously. she is a hot mess. but i wish her luck. i didn't see you much on this thread, VB. if you had been following it, not much you just mentioned would have surprised you. i thought after 2012, you, of all people, would have taken the time to turn off the cable and tune into the polldancer. clearly, i need better PR. Oh, I have been around, but mostly reading rather than posting. I am retired now, and very busy planning the future Been in Kansas City Missouri and now Florida for three weeks As far as Quinn in Illinois, I just know Chicago stations have all claimed Quinn was leading the polls. Once in awhile Rauner would close the gap, but immediately fall back to the 8% level, give or take. Trust me, Chicago politicians are surprised over this result. They thought it was in the bag. North Carolina was a surprise to all the networks who reported the polls. Kansas was a surprise and yes, Colorado probably was not a surprise to anyone but the Dems. and MSNBC Yes, you were accurate in your weeks of analysis. Better than the pollsters imo, but the polls blew a ton of elections.
Ernst is not a whackadoodle,imo
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,612
|
Post by Tennesseer on Nov 6, 2014 17:43:17 GMT -5
I saw this on Facebook.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 6, 2014 18:00:57 GMT -5
Maybe it's time I learned how exactly elections scheduling works in the US. In Canada, it's simple. Election is called. All MPs are elected simultaneously four weeks later. Senators are appointed by the Prime Minister and have a lifetime term. Life goes on. The only hiccup is when an MP resigns or dies, necessitating a by-election. In the US, primaries are run... unless there isn't a need for a primary... but it's an election year... and then senators are elected sometimes... for some states, every four years, but not the same four years that the President is elected leader of the ruling party... which isn't the party controlling the House... unless they were elected two years earlier... but not for 33 states with Senate races... Is there maybe a flowchart or diagram that explains the major points? I'm interesting in the timing specifically, not a lengthy overview of the US congressional system. Senate 100 members, 2 from each state. You have to mentally "jump into the middle of the ongoing flow" here. Senators are elected to a six year term. Roughly one-third are up for election every two years, never two from the same state. That means every third cycle, there isn't a Senate race in each state. (Vacancies can have special rules determined by state.) OK. That's got to be the most bizarre rotation I've ever heard of in a modern political system, but it is what it is. Thanks for the info. Senate 100 members, 2 from each state. You have to mentally "jump into the middle of the ongoing flow" here. Senators are elected to a six year term. Roughly one-third are up for election every two years, never two from the same state. That means every third cycle, there isn't a Senate race in each state. (Vacancies can have special rules determined by state.) There is no "ruling party". The House, everyone elected every two years, votes for a "Speaker of the House". In theory this could be any member. In practice, whichever party has more members elected gets together and picks someone, then that person is rubber stamp elected by the whole House. The Senate elects a "Majority Leader" in the same way. The President is not a part of this process. OK, yes. I should have said "House majority party". I'm aware of the positions of House Speaker and Senate Majority Leader. How do elections to the House of Representatives work timing-wise? They're on a four-year cycle, the same as up here in the Great White North, no? I always believed they were brought in en masse during the same year the President was elected, but I notice the election results talk about House races. So are they on a staggered 4-year schedule too, or a staggered 6-year schedule? Your enlightening answers are appreciated. Also, I constantly hear rumblings about Republican gerrymandering, but in the interactive map of county-by-county election results, I couldn't find a single county that wasn't split by at least 20-30 percentage points between the Democratic vote and the Republican vote. It seemed like everything was either "deep red" or "deep blue". Gerrymandering doesn't do that. A successfully gerrymandered electoral map would have a lot of deep blue and a whole lot more "shallow red". The point of putative Republican gerrymandering would be to dilute the Democratic vote. I'm just not seeing a lot of places where that's happened. The country seems to be virtually all comprised of large, contiguous patches of deep red (> 70% Republican) and large, contiguous patches of deep blue (> 70% Democrat). So where is all this gerrymandering supposedly taking place? As a final observation: most of the electoral districts, geometrically speaking, look fairly regular. Most are more-or-less rectangular shaped, and not too oblong. Gerrymandering of course gets its name as a portmanteau of "Gerry's salamander", which was an absurdly contrived crescent-shaped blob that wound its way around a county in Massachusetts. I'm not seeing a lot of geometrically contrived districts on the 2014 electoral map.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 6, 2014 20:08:18 GMT -5
Ernst is a whackadoodle. seriously. she is a hot mess. but i wish her luck. i didn't see you much on this thread, VB. if you had been following it, not much you just mentioned would have surprised you. i thought after 2012, you, of all people, would have taken the time to turn off the cable and tune into the polldancer. clearly, i need better PR. Oh, I have been around, but mostly reading rather than posting. I am retired now, and very busy planning the future Been in Kansas City Missouri and now Florida for three weeks As far as Quinn in Illinois, I just know Chicago stations have all claimed Quinn was leading the polls. Once in awhile Rauner would close the gap, but immediately fall back to the 8% level, give or take.
8%? no. i don't recall him EVER being 8% behind. huh. that must have been amusing. but the facts are that Quinn never REALLY lead that race in the final weeks. it was within MOE, which means a statistical dead heat. i am SURE that the stations didn't play it that way, but those are the facts.
Trust me, Chicago politicians are surprised over this result. They thought it was in the bag.
sounds like Romney. but that doesn't mean it was in the bag, NOR does it mean the polls said it was.
North Carolina was a surprise to all the networks who reported the polls.
that result was also within polling error. so, you have a case of reporters forgetting to mention stuff like "she is leading by 2% according to the polling average, but with a 3% error, that doesn't mean anything".
Kansas was a surprise and yes, Colorado probably was not a surprise to anyone but the Dems. and MSNBC Yes, you were accurate in your weeks of analysis. Better than the pollsters imo, but the polls blew a ton of elections.
there were very few races that at least one pollster didn't get right. almost none.
Ernst is not a whackadoodle,imo
i can't stomach anyone that thinks that Saddam had a functioning weapons program. anyone who tries to justify that war is never going to earn ANY respect from me. i know that Iowa and probably you feel differently, and that is fine. but from where i sit, anyone who thinks that, after all of the hell we have been through as a nation over this issue, that there is still a WMD argument to be made is, in fact, a whackadoodle. her castration silliness was icing on the cake, as well. her shooting ObamaCare with her gun is also stupid. do i think she is stupid? no. i think she is a whackadoodle. i respect her service to the country, i just wish she had limited it to the military.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 6, 2014 21:12:15 GMT -5
... OK. That's got to be the most bizarre rotation I've ever heard of in a modern political system, but it is what it is. Thanks for the info. The idea is it provides institutional stability.... How do elections to the House of Representatives work timing-wise? They're on a four-year cycle, the same as up here in the Great White North, no? ... No. 100% every two years. The idea is that it is quickly responsive to public passions.
So, The House is responsive. The Senate stable. A couple other little pieces. The Senate has an age requirement, antiquated to be sure but still there. Also the Senate was set up to be selected by state legislature, not popular vote. You can research the history of that change easier than I can type it.
Also, I constantly hear rumblings about Republican gerrymandering, but in the interactive map of county-by-county election results, I couldn't find a single county that wasn't split by at least 20-30 percentage points between the Democratic vote and the Republican vote. It seemed like everything was either "deep red" or "deep blue". Gerrymandering doesn't do that. A successfully gerrymandered electoral map would have a lot of deep blue and a whole lot more "shallow red". The point of putative Republican gerrymandering would be to dilute the Democratic vote. I'm just not seeing a lot of places where that's happened. The country seems to be virtually all comprised of large, contiguous patches of deep red (> 70% Republican) and large, contiguous patches of deep blue (> 70% Democrat). So where is all this gerrymandering supposedly taking place? As a final observation: most of the electoral districts, geometrically speaking, look fairly regular. Most are more-or-less rectangular shaped, and not too oblong. Gerrymandering of course gets its name as a portmanteau of "Gerry's salamander", which was an absurdly contrived crescent-shaped blob that wound its way around a county in Massachusetts. I'm not seeing a lot of geometrically contrived districts on the 2014 electoral map. Do you have a link to the maps you are looking at? Don't want to attempt to explain this "blind". (Redistricting was special area of study for me in my undergrad time)
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 6, 2014 21:32:50 GMT -5
you are absolutely right. the GOP stands less than a 10% chance of winning the Senate in 2016, imo. they have a bit better chance of winning the presidency, but not much. and a bit better still of keeping the gerrymandered House, and better still of keeping a majority of governors and state legisatures. this is WHY the ill fated idea of killing ObamaCare, getting a balanced budget amendment, overturning RvW, or anything else of consequence is extremely unlikely in the next 26 months. but it will be fun to watch them try. It's hard telling what will happen in the next two years. When Dems took control during the last 2 years under Bush, they stonewalled and worked on doing whatever they could to win the next election....it worked for them. It's nice to actually see the President have to work with the other party finally...of course with it being the last two years of his term, I doubt that will happen because both parties will be focused on the next election. If President Obama is really unpopular, he could have the same affect on the election as Bush did due his unpopularity. Either way, I doubt the next President will be given a Nobel Peace Prize without actually doing anything. there is so much wrong with this post that i can't really take the time to respond to it. but i will repeat: the GOP is very unlikely to win all three branches in 2016. in fact, they are very unlikely to win TWO of them. edit: no strike that, i think it was quite easy to predict what happened in this election two years ago. think about why. it's not that hard. you might not have guessed anything more than "good for Republicans", but that is the kind of guess i am talking about.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 6, 2014 22:18:36 GMT -5
... OK. That's got to be the most bizarre rotation I've ever heard of in a modern political system, but it is what it is. Thanks for the info. The idea is it provides institutional stability.... How do elections to the House of Representatives work timing-wise? They're on a four-year cycle, the same as up here in the Great White North, no? ... No. 100% every two years. The idea is that it is quickly responsive to public passions.
So, The House is responsive. The Senate stable. A couple other little pieces. The Senate has an age requirement, antiquated to be sure but still there. Also the Senate was set up to be selected by state legislature, not popular vote. You can research the history of that change easier than I can type it.
Also, I constantly hear rumblings about Republican gerrymandering, but in the interactive map of county-by-county election results, I couldn't find a single county that wasn't split by at least 20-30 percentage points between the Democratic vote and the Republican vote. It seemed like everything was either "deep red" or "deep blue". Gerrymandering doesn't do that. A successfully gerrymandered electoral map would have a lot of deep blue and a whole lot more "shallow red". The point of putative Republican gerrymandering would be to dilute the Democratic vote. I'm just not seeing a lot of places where that's happened. The country seems to be virtually all comprised of large, contiguous patches of deep red (> 70% Republican) and large, contiguous patches of deep blue (> 70% Democrat). So where is all this gerrymandering supposedly taking place? As a final observation: most of the electoral districts, geometrically speaking, look fairly regular. Most are more-or-less rectangular shaped, and not too oblong. Gerrymandering of course gets its name as a portmanteau of "Gerry's salamander", which was an absurdly contrived crescent-shaped blob that wound its way around a county in Massachusetts. I'm not seeing a lot of geometrically contrived districts on the 2014 electoral map. Do you have a link to the maps you are looking at? Don't want to attempt to explain this "blind". (Redistricting was special area of study for me in my undergrad time) www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dre/politics/election-results-2014?office=senateClick on "Counties" to show a county-by-county breakdown. Somebody posted it earlier in response to a question I asked.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 6, 2014 22:35:01 GMT -5
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 6, 2014 22:49:33 GMT -5
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 7, 2014 7:08:01 GMT -5
In terms of "most contrived shape", the worst are: Texas 35 - +30% Democratic Texas 15 - +11% Democratic Texas 18 - +45% Democratic Texas 29 - +90% Democratic Texas 2 - +40% Republican Texas 7 - +30% Republican Texas 8 - +90% Republican 18 and 29 are definitely the worst, but they're both overwhelmingly Democratic, and if you consider them together, they form a very regular shape. 2 and 7 are also ugly looking. But they're overwhelmingly Republican with roughly the same spread, and if you consider them as a single block, they're not too irregular. If you consider them together with the purely Republican 8, the regularity is further increased. If Republican gerrymandering was successful, we would expect to see concentrated blocks of Democratic support (such as 18/29 or 15/28/34/35) that, when considered as a single large block, would have highly irregular (Republican-leaning) incursions or (deep blue) extrusions sharing a border with mildly Republican districts. One incredibly obvious example of this would be TX-20 extruding into TX-23, where the Republican candidate won by a mere 2%, save for the fact that TX-20 appears to comprise most of San Antonio and conforms nicely to the layout of the city. Deep blue blocks surrounded by deep red blocks, which is all I'm really seeing, either isn't gerrymandering or is a failed attempt at gerrymandering. Redrawing district boundaries between a contiguous block of n deep blue districts is of little-to-no benefit to Republicans. Likewise, redrawing boundaries between deep red districts is of no benefit to them. The idea is to dilute the red as much as possible while concentrating the blue as much as possible, and I just don't where that's happening.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 7, 2014 7:32:09 GMT -5
In the above hypothetical, A and D are indicative of successful Republican gerrymandering. B and C, despite comprising the same irregular districts, either aren't being gerrymandered or aren't being successfully gerrymandered to the benefit of the Republicans. I'm seeing a whole lot of B and C on the actual electoral map.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 7, 2014 10:15:40 GMT -5
In terms of "most contrived shape", the worst are: Texas 35 - +30% Democratic Texas 15 - +11% Democratic Texas 18 - +45% Democratic Texas 29 - +90% Democratic Texas 2 - +40% Republican Texas 7 - +30% Republican Texas 8 - +90% Republican 18 and 29 are definitely the worst, but they're both overwhelmingly Democratic, and if you consider them together, they form a very regular shape. 2 and 7 are also ugly looking. But they're overwhelmingly Republican with roughly the same spread, and if you consider them as a single block, they're not too irregular. If you consider them together with the purely Republican 8, the regularity is further increased. If Republican gerrymandering was successful, we would expect to see concentrated blocks of Democratic support (such as 18/29 or 15/28/34/35) that, when considered as a single large block, would have highly irregular (Republican-leaning) incursions or (deep blue) extrusions sharing a border with mildly Republican districts. One incredibly obvious example of this would be TX-20 extruding into TX-23, where the Republican candidate won by a mere 2%, save for the fact that TX-20 appears to comprise most of San Antonio and conforms nicely to the layout of the city. Deep blue blocks surrounded by deep red blocks, which is all I'm really seeing, either isn't gerrymandering or is a failed attempt at gerrymandering. Redrawing district boundaries between a contiguous block of n deep blue districts is of little-to-no benefit to Republicans. Likewise, redrawing boundaries between deep red districts is of no benefit to them. The idea is to dilute the red as much as possible while concentrating the blue as much as possible, and I just don't where that's happening. Fun with maps. let's look at the issue in a different way. Proportional representation. Using results from statewide races to get a sense of the party split in a state and then seeing how that compares to percentages in House seats. Texas 60\40 Republican statewide races 36 House seats 25 Republican 70\30 Republican Georgia 55\45 Republican 14 seats 10 Republican 70\30 Republican North Carolina 50\50 13 seats 10 Republican 75\25 Republican Florida 50\50 27 seats 17 Republican 60\40 Republican Tennessee 60\40 Republican 9 seats 7 Republican 80\20 Republican And for contrast: Illinois 55\45 Democrat 18 seats 10 Democrat 55\45 Democrat www.politico.com/story/2014/11/election-results-2014-by-state-and-county-111632.html#WA
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 3:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2014 10:32:55 GMT -5
In the above hypothetical, A and D are indicative of successful Republican gerrymandering. B and C, despite comprising the same irregular districts, either aren't being gerrymandered or aren't being successfully gerrymandered to the benefit of the Republicans. I'm seeing a whole lot of B and C on the actual electoral map. You would have to know how they were voting before the district redraw. I am from MD. I used to live in the 6th district, which consistently went R, even in years like 2008. Then in 2012, it starts going D and I am no longer in it. I am now in the 8th. The 6th has been redrawn and the heavier R areas have been split up so they can't win get a majority in either the 6th or the 8th. So if you look at the 2014 congressional map, you see a sea of blue in western MD and don't think anything of it, except maybe the shape is a little wonky.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 7, 2014 10:38:04 GMT -5
In the above hypothetical, A and D are indicative of successful Republican gerrymandering. B and C, despite comprising the same irregular districts, either aren't being gerrymandered or aren't being successfully gerrymandered to the benefit of the Republicans. I'm seeing a whole lot of B and C on the actual electoral map. You would have to know how they were voting before the district redraw. I am from MD. I used to live in the 6th district, which consistently went R, even in years like 2008. Then in 2012, it starts going D and I am no longer in it. I am now in the 8th. The 6th has been redrawn and the heavier R areas have been split up so they can't win get a majority in either the 6th or the 8th. So if you look at the 2014 congressional map, you see a sea of blue in western MD and don't think anything of it, except maybe the shape is a little wonky. Maryland - great example of disproportionate representation advantage Democrats
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 7, 2014 11:21:14 GMT -5
In terms of "most contrived shape", the worst are: Texas 35 - +30% Democratic Texas 15 - +11% Democratic Texas 18 - +45% Democratic Texas 29 - +90% Democratic Texas 2 - +40% Republican Texas 7 - +30% Republican Texas 8 - +90% Republican 18 and 29 are definitely the worst, but they're both overwhelmingly Democratic, and if you consider them together, they form a very regular shape. 2 and 7 are also ugly looking. But they're overwhelmingly Republican with roughly the same spread, and if you consider them as a single block, they're not too irregular. If you consider them together with the purely Republican 8, the regularity is further increased. If Republican gerrymandering was successful, we would expect to see concentrated blocks of Democratic support (such as 18/29 or 15/28/34/35) that, when considered as a single large block, would have highly irregular (Republican-leaning) incursions or (deep blue) extrusions sharing a border with mildly Republican districts. One incredibly obvious example of this would be TX-20 extruding into TX-23, where the Republican candidate won by a mere 2%, save for the fact that TX-20 appears to comprise most of San Antonio and conforms nicely to the layout of the city. Deep blue blocks surrounded by deep red blocks, which is all I'm really seeing, either isn't gerrymandering or is a failed attempt at gerrymandering. Redrawing district boundaries between a contiguous block of n deep blue districts is of little-to-no benefit to Republicans. Likewise, redrawing boundaries between deep red districts is of no benefit to them. The idea is to dilute the red as much as possible while concentrating the blue as much as possible, and I just don't where that's happening. Fun with maps. let's look at the issue in a different way. Proportional representation. Using results from statewide races to get a sense of the party split in a state and then seeing how that compares to percentages in House seats. Texas 60\40 Republican statewide races 36 House seats 25 Republican 70\30 Republican Georgia 55\45 Republican 14 seats 10 Republican 70\30 Republican North Carolina 50\50 13 seats 10 Republican 75\25 Republican Florida 50\50 27 seats 17 Republican 60\40 Republican Tennessee 60\40 Republican 9 seats 7 Republican 80\20 Republican And for contrast: Illinois 55\45 Democrat 18 seats 10 Democrat 55\45 Democrat www.politico.com/story/2014/11/election-results-2014-by-state-and-county-111632.html#WAI agree a lack of proportional representation is unnerving. We have the same problem here in Canada. It doesn't prove the existence of gerrymandering. Indeed, if you had a country where the vote was perfectly homogenous everywhere: 51% Republican, 49% Democrat, then no matter how you drew up the districts, the Republicans would take 100% of the seats. I've always disliked the first-past-the-post system for precisely this reason. I was never more ashamed of my countrymen than I was roughly six years ago when the federal government proposed a simple hybrid system (first-past-the-post plus a group of 40 party MPs elected by proportion of the total vote) to grant the parties with diffuse support (e.g. the Greens, the old PC party) a greater say, and it was overwhelmingly rejected by voters as being "too confusing". It's one of the few times I found myself thinking, "Boy, Canadians really are a bunch of idiots." The sad fact is that disproportional representation is a way of life in our system of government. Gerrymandering can certainly make it worse--that's it's purpose--but the mere existence of disproportionate representation doesn't prove claims of gerrymandering.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 7, 2014 12:58:30 GMT -5
Fun with maps. let's look at the issue in a different way. Proportional representation. Using results from statewide races to get a sense of the party split in a state and then seeing how that compares to percentages in House seats. Texas 60\40 Republican statewide races 36 House seats 25 Republican 70\30 Republican Georgia 55\45 Republican 14 seats 10 Republican 70\30 Republican North Carolina 50\50 13 seats 10 Republican 75\25 Republican Florida 50\50 27 seats 17 Republican 60\40 Republican Tennessee 60\40 Republican 9 seats 7 Republican 80\20 Republican And for contrast: Illinois 55\45 Democrat 18 seats 10 Democrat 55\45 Democrat www.politico.com/story/2014/11/election-results-2014-by-state-and-county-111632.html#WA... the mere existence of disproportionate representation doesn't prove claims of gerrymandering. Of course it doesn't. So, let us look at the process which created the lines that resulted in the results we see: Redistricting in Georgia
|
|
Icelandic Woman
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 4, 2011 22:37:53 GMT -5
Posts: 4,832
Location: Colorado
Favorite Drink: Strawberry Lemonade
|
Post by Icelandic Woman on Nov 7, 2014 13:43:07 GMT -5
DJ, yes it was all very disappointing. The only bright spot is the Governor did squeak by and got re-elected.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 7, 2014 14:19:50 GMT -5
... the mere existence of disproportionate representation doesn't prove claims of gerrymandering. Of course it doesn't. So, let us look at the process which created the lines that resulted in the results we see: Redistricting in GeorgiaRead the whole thing. It sounds like a lot of "he said, she said". It also sounds as though the Republicans and the Democrats were playing by exactly the same rules.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 7, 2014 14:59:35 GMT -5
Of course it doesn't. So, let us look at the process which created the lines that resulted in the results we see: Redistricting in GeorgiaRead the whole thing. It sounds like a lot of "he said, she said". It also sounds as though the Republicans and the Democrats were playing by exactly the same rules. Agreed. The rule of "get the most you can for your party". The Republicans had more votes in the legislature and got the lines drawn to their advantage i.e. gerrymandering.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 7, 2014 15:10:42 GMT -5
Of course it doesn't. So, let us look at the process which created the lines that resulted in the results we see: Redistricting in GeorgiaRead the whole thing. It sounds like a lot of "he said, she said". It also sounds as though the Republicans and the Democrats were playing by exactly the same rules. As far as the "he said, she said": You certainly can't go by what they say. You need to also look at the results from the lines drawn. Should we look at a "third leg of the stool"? What was the party alignment of those who voted for and signed the law which established the lines? 1) People claimed the process was partisan. 2) The vote was along party lines and it was signed by a person aligned with those who approved it. 3) The results were disproportionately advantageous to the party that voted for the lines. If it talks like a salamander and walks like salamander, it could be a duck I guess.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 7, 2014 15:52:54 GMT -5
the American people deserve exactly what we got. it is our government, after all. if we want more, we should advocate for what we want, and get it. The problem doesn't lie in advocating - I think we all do a pretty good job of that LoL!
only if advocating means "whining on a public board to people who share your view".
The problem lies in getting it. And I'm referring to a democratic process here, not specifics on any one topic. The first major piece of legislation our current president was involved in was "Obamacare" and it made a mockery of our democratic process.
don't be silly. subjecting something to nine months of semi-public debate is not a "mockery". if you want to see a mockery, why don't you check out how the Fairness Doctrine got overturned- during a lame duck, after hours session, with half of congress gone on vacation, without any press coverage, and NO debate. that is a mockery of democracy.
That's the sort of thing you expect from a third-world dictatorship.
congratulations for winning the Captain Hyperbole award for 2014:
Which is partly the reason it's such a piece of shit, and even reasonable Democrats agree that it needs work. Unfortunately that set the tone for his entire two terms - which is why his approval rating is now in the toilet and politicians in his own party would rather he not shill - err, "campaign" - for them.
We pay our politicians a good salary to represent us, not to play games. That's why "deserve" is the correct word. If they were working for free and doing it as a charitable thing then we - the American people - wouldn't really have an argument. But we're paying them a wage to perform a service, and they're not doing that service.
imo, the ACA was probably the only health insurance reform that could pass. my proof is how it barely survived the filibuster. bitch about it all you like- i have plenty of complaints, but i think it was that or nothing.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Nov 7, 2014 22:03:41 GMT -5
That's true- with the shitheads we have in power the ACA was about all that could be done. It was destined to be a pile of shit once the public option dropped- so all we have is very little reform that does a lot of good for a lot of people- but does jack to deal with costs (other than the MLR requirement) inherent in our fucked up hybrid system that costs now 2X+ any other modern country and still leaves our citizens on the hook for huge medical bills.
And really it is a double screwing because the shitty healthcare system has sucked up wage growth.
But word has it it is going to be repealed for the 51st time soon Gotta put an end to those government 'death panels' ya know- damn bureaucrats getting in between me and my insurance company and my doctor I miss the good old days when the insurance company just told you you're fucked we aren't paying- good luck!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 8, 2014 0:44:41 GMT -5
That's true- with the shitheads we have in power the ACA was about all that could be done. It was destined to be a pile of shit once the public option dropped- so all we have is very little reform that does a lot of good for a lot of people- but does jack to deal with costs (other than the MLR requirement) inherent in our fucked up hybrid system that costs now 2X+ any other modern country and still leaves our citizens on the hook for huge medical bills.
And really it is a double screwing because the shitty healthcare system has sucked up wage growth.
But word has it it is going to be repealed for the 51st time soon Gotta put an end to those government 'death panels' ya know- damn bureaucrats getting in between me and my insurance company and my doctor I miss the good old days when the insurance company just told you you're fucked we aren't paying- good luck! if you think it through strategically, how is the GOP going to repeal. let's say they have the votes to send it to Obama. is he gonna sign that? NFW. does the senate have 67 votes to override. no....way. so, the only way this gets repealed is if the GOP has 61 votes in the senate and occupies the WH in 2017. i rate that at about a 0.1% chance. maybe 1% if i am feeling sunny. so...no way. even if i wanted to see it go, and half the time i do, it is here to stay. the best thing EITHER party can do is plug the holes in it.
|
|
marvholly
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:45:21 GMT -5
Posts: 6,540
|
Post by marvholly on Nov 8, 2014 7:07:41 GMT -5
Actually, I'm not even sure that would do it. Remember some time back when Carol Moseley Braun was under fraud investigation (bookkeeping errors my ass!)? She only lost that election by less than 3 points. She did admit to "errors" with placing her mother's assets in her name and filing for Medicaid for her. I think that money had to be paid back. The Democratic voting machine is way too powerful in Chicago. Hell, Jessie Jr. got elected even when he was MIA. Isn't something like 3 of the last 5 IL governors in prison right now?
Rod Blagojevich George Ryan Thought there was another one?
I think Rod is the only one still in prison. Ryan got out several months ago. Our IL governors have a very sad history of going to prison, generally within a year or 2 of their finishing their term in office. As far as I recall (and I am old enough to collect full soc) Rod is the ONLY one to be sent while still in office.
|
|