HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Does it bother anyone els...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:06 PM

Does it bother anyone else

That even with President Obama on the ticket in 2012 the republicans still held the house. The Senate isn't so much a threat but the President is sort of screwed if the repubs hold the house in 2014. Midterms are typically bad for the sitting President, gerrymandering is real.

15 replies, 1299 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to madville (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:10 PM

1. single member districts, incumbent advantage and the gerrymandering that accompanies has probably

put the house out of reach for a few cycles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madville (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:10 PM

2. Yes it bothers me, but that's an explanation I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madville (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:12 PM

3. The Dems received over 1 milliin more votes

in House elections, but gerrymandering after the 2010 census screwed us. We dropped the ball in 2010 in state elections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #3)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:56 AM

11. Very true

Losing a bunch governors races was a major mistake that we will have to live with until 2020. How bad it will hurt, only time will tell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madville (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:14 PM

4. If you aren't bothered by all the nonsense of the last few decades ...

... etcetc ....

The thing about elections for the house of representatives: They are local contests where the president of an opposing party may have little impact ... It is far more difficult to change minds in those little hamlets and villages than you might think ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trajan (Reply #4)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:43 AM

9. It is most definitely tougher to change minds around here. So many people here, NW PA, are of the

mindset that they have learned all they ever need to by about age 30 and if they 'know' something, it must be true. No matter what facts you have, they completely ignore them.

It is a strange phenomena indeed. Maybe too much lead exposure over the years?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madville (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:18 PM

5. Why can't we do something about the gerrymandered districts. I thought gerymandering was

illegal. No?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lonestarnot (Reply #5)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:30 PM

6. actually we can do something about the gerrymander....

and that would be to hold power in the states in 2020... those district boundaries are set in the 10 year... in 10 year intervals the same as the census...

no it's not illegal.. we do it also, but not on as broad a basis

third point these districts were set in 10.. every election cycle after that ages the demographics, so its not hopeless... finally it looks like O F A is taking a special interest in the 14 election.. and we do have an awesome political machine at this time..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldhippydude (Reply #6)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:46 PM

7. Welp.

Political Gerrymandering
Political gerrymandering is the drawing of electoral district lines in a manner that discriminates against a political party. When used to insure party success, political gerrymandering is usually legal but can be contested. At this time it is legal to draw district lines to protect incumbents of both parties.


Racial Gerrymandering I
Racial gerrymandering originally referred to manipulating legislative district lines to under-represent racial minorities. Tactics such as "packing" black voters into a given district or "cracking" them to make black voters a minority in all districts can be illegal. This sort of gerrymandering was first used in the South after the Civil War to dilute the black vote.


Racial Gerrymandering II
In 1982, the Voting Rights Act was amended to require many political jurisdictions to create "majority-minority" districts in order to allow more racial minorities to elect candidates of their choice. After the 1990 census, the Supreme Court invalidated several such redistricting plans as unconstitutionally race-conscious.

http://archive.fairvote.org/redistricting/legality.htm


``occurs only when the electoral system is arranged in a manner that will consistently degrade a voter`s or a group of voters` influence on the political process as a whole.``

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1986-07-01/news/8602160795_1_political-gerrymandering-indiana-democrats-supreme-court


I agree, we do have a great machine in place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lonestarnot (Reply #5)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:50 PM

8. It's not entirely gerrymandering; even sanely-shaped districts give R's an advantage

Basically, we "waste" a lot of votes crowded into very very blue urban districts. Take Ohio: there's no reasonable Congressional district that's "as red" as the 11th district (Cuyahoga county) is blue. We crowd a whole lot of Democrats into urban districts, so Cuyahoga county is something like 80/20 while even a very red rural county doesn't get redder than 60/40.

So, Democrats in general do better a statewide races (Senate and the Presidency) than we do in the House, gerrymandering or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #8)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:02 AM

12. And the House deals more with local issues too

A Senator represents an entire state. A House representative represent communities. So there there are local politics involved in House elections. And that can muddle the bigger picture.

And yes Democratic communities tend to be more densely packed in urban areas. Conservative communities are more spread out in rural areas. Therefore the House naturally favors conservatives since they dominate the geography.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madville (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:47 AM

10. Or the fact that 48.9% of the country voted against the President?

It's a divided electorate.....almost right down the middle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madville (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 02:15 AM

13. I've never understood why the Obama ground teams

that performed so well and actively in 2008 were not utilized more in the 2010 elections.

The Dem national team knew very well, as we all did, that redistricting would occur following the 2010 census, and therefore, it was incumbent on Dems to do well in the states legislatures.
Frankly, they dropped the ball, and much damage has been done and will continue to be done until the Dems are represented more proportionately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to No Vested Interest (Reply #13)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 09:00 AM

15. Basically, Mitch Stewart was too busy trying to get people to make calls about HCR

OFA was kind of flailing until Messina took over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madville (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 02:29 AM

14. try giving people something worth voting for. alien concept? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread