New Board

For refugees from MyWay and Tek Board II, and for anyone else wishing to participate.

    OK, let's get started with the excuses


    Posts : 3618
    Join date : 2016-08-26
    Age : 65
    Location : Home

    OK, let's get started with the excuses

    Post  sinister_midget on Sun Oct 28, 2018 12:41 pm

    Democratic wave faces GOP gerrymandering in US House races

    As a freshman congressman, Republican Ted Budd seems to have several strikes against him as he faces his first re-election in his North Carolina district.

    He belongs to the same party as the president, a historical negative in midterm elections. President Donald Trump's national disapproval ratings have risen since taking office. And Budd faces a female challenger in a year when women's political involvement has been intensifying.

    Hold it. That statement is only partially true. It's rare for a president's party to lose one or both houses in the first midterm. It's not uncommon for a few seats to change hands. But to lose one or the other house is unusual.

    Barry lost the House in 2010. Slick Willie lost the House in 1994.

    Republicans actually GAINED a seat in the Senate during Reagan's first midterm, and lost seats in Reagan's second midterm.

    Democrats LOST a Senate seat and 8 seats in the House in 2002 when Dubya was in the White House.

    I can't think of any other elections where one party had the White House and at least one house of Congress that changed hands the first midterm. Just those two Democrats.

    But the statement above is written to lead you to believe it's common. That's deception. It's not typical.

    Yet Budd has at least one built-in advantage: He's running in a district intentionally drawn to favor Republicans.

    Like Democrats do when they control the state mechanisms that draw district lines, you mean?

    Unless the U.S. Supreme Court says otherwise, "it is constitutional to politically gerrymander," Budd said while defending a practice that also has benefited Democrats in the past.

    Across the nation, numerous congressional Republicans are hoping to survive forecasts of a Democratic wave due partly to a political seawall erected by Republicans who controlled the redistricting process in more states than Democrats after the 2010 census. The big question is whether enough of that seawall will hold to thwart Democrats' attempt to retake the U.S. House.

    It's more than that. The district wall built by Republicans may be real, but the enthusiasm for the party that just maybe will back Trump carries a lot more weight.

    And the disgust with the behavior of Democrats, especially this year, is killing enthusiasm for them as well as chasing people away from the party, in many cases permanently.

    Democrats need to gain 23 seats in the Nov. 6 elections to wrest the House away from Republicans for the first time in a decade. Believing it has a chance, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has targeted 85 Republican-held seats in 31 states, ranging from GOP strongholds such as Texas to Democratic-leaning states such as California.

    Those targets include about two dozen Republican seats in districts where Democrat Hillary Clinton beat Trump in 2016 and three dozen that Republicans won with less than 58 percent of the vote in the last election.

    Whatever you do, don't mention the vulnerable Democrats that may just lose. (Earlier this year they made a list of 12 seats they see as vulnerable.) Meaning they'd have to flip about 35 seats, give or take a couple that might not get defeated, to make up for their losers and still get enough gains.

    Nationally, election forecasters have rated more than 40 Republican-held seats as tossups or leaning toward Democrats, with only several Democratic-held districts in a similar position to flip.

    "...with only several..." The Democrats themselves named 12. Plus "earlier this year" when they made that list of 40 the landscape was quite different. I'd be surprised if the number is at 25 or below now.

    The 12 is probably higher, too, as the Democrat list was compiled in March.

    Democratic gains seem all but assured in some states. In Pennsylvania, candidates will be running in new districts that improve Democrats' chances after the state Supreme Court ruled the old ones amounted to an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander by the Republican-led state Legislature. Under the old map, the GOP had won 13 of the state's 18 U.S. House seats in three straight general elections, despite Democrats holding a statewide edge in registered voters.

    Voting for House members is by district, not statewide. So Pittsburgh and Philly might be heavy Democrat and assure a liberal is elected. But that doesn't mean liberals should be automatic winners in rural western and farming areas. 

    Yet nationally, a blue wave of strong Democratic turnout still could "crash against a wall of gerrymandered maps," the Brennan Center for Justice said in a report earlier this year.

    To flip control of the House, the Brennan Center has projected that Democrats would need to win the national popular vote for congressional districts by a nearly 11 percentage point margin — which would be their largest midterm victory size since 1974.

    Again, they want to pool all voters nationally, then divide by district and declare winners based on that average.

    To put it another way, "fair" is letting New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and San Fransicko determine representation in rural areas of Iowa and mountainous parts of Idaho.

    This election is "a true test case of voter behavior and the insurance policy that Republicans hoped to have with these districts," said Michael Bitzer, a political scientist at Catawba College in North Carolina.

    Republicans had the upper hand during the 2011 redistricting because they flipped numerous state legislative chambers and governor's offices during the 2010 elections. Since then, the GOP has expanded its state control to two-thirds of all legislative chambers. It now holds a trifecta of both houses and the governor's office in 25 states compared with just eight for Democrats.

    Politicians who want to gerrymander typically pack lots of voters who support the opposing party into a single district while spreading their own likely voters among multiple districts. The result lets the minority party overwhelmingly win one district while the majority party wins several districts by smaller margins.

    That's the scenario in North Carolina, where Republican state lawmakers under a court order to fix racial gerrymandering acknowledged redrawing the congressional districts in 2016 to try to ensure they could win 10 of the state's 13 House seats. Democrats won three seats that year, each with at least 67 percent of the vote. In six of the 10 districts won by Republicans, the GOP candidate received 59 percent of the vote or less.

    A federal court in August declared 12 of North Carolina's 13 districts unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders and ordered yet another redraw, but placed that on hold pending an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    As has been the case with AP for a lot of years, they get their instructions from the DNC, polish up a few meaningless bullet points, make up some "facts" to suit the narrative, throw in some scary-sounding unrelated things, then explain why their overlords will win, lose, take away your freedom, ignore the Constitution or anything else the instructions they get tell them to do. Because that's who they are.

    When Hitlery lost, they grabbed the first excuse they were given: the electoral college was at fault, followed by voter intimidation, and finally it was RUSSIARUSSIARUSSIA.

    This time, the shoo-in Democrats will lose and it will be an "unfair" voting system (majority of the country doesn't get to make the rules for everyone) and gerrymandering (deliberately stacked, but always much closer to fair and representative than what the liberals concoct when they have the power to do it). And probably some more voter intimidation thrown in because Republicans demand voters be legal.

    Remember, when the Democrats lose, it's never what they stand for, what they've done, what they promise to do, etc. It's always the other side manipulating "deplorables" and stealing the reigns of power from the rightful owners. Because 100% of the people absolutely adore the people (20% of the total population, give or take at any particular point in time) who want to control your every move and take away everything you work for to give to people who contribute zero to the nation.

    Owning guns isn't a right. If it was a right it would be in the Constitution.
    -- Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

      Current date/time is Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:12 pm