Sure, a dozen, maybe more. But the GOP only leads the Dems by 33 votes, likely less next year. And many of those gerrymanders districts have hard-core Tea party rep, unwilling to compromise-* because they are safe.
*
" RCP projects Democrats picking up 19 seats in the House of Representatives with an overall range of 14 - 24 seats. " So let us say Trump does his worst and it is 24 seats- not unreasonable. Add in those 12 safe seats, and you have a House which is just about 50-50, maybe even a edge to Dems. So, Gerrymandering is critical to the GOP plan.
Do you actually know that “many of those gerrymanders districts have hard-core Tea party rep” or is it something you are just making up or have heard? Again we are talking about a dozenish seats … which particular Freedom Caucus members are “safe” because of gerrymandering and wouldn’t be in office if not for it?
Just checking on the one we have documented, the one district in PA that seems to have been gerrymandered into a GOP win, the 6th, Ryan Costello … I am sure he is way too conservative for my taste but Conservative Review rates him as an “F”.
The “safe” claim actually runs against how gerrymandering works. The idea is to not have overwhelming majorities in “your” districts but to make the other party’s districts very lopsided in their favor, and to have your side have more frequent but more moderate majority wins.
Can you please give a few examples of districts that are only safe Tea Party as a result of gerrymandering?
Meanwhile I’ll point to Tea Party darling, Caucus leader, Koch brothers backed, Tim Huelskamp losing his primary to a previously unknown more moderate Republican to go forward in an uncontested general election.
Yes point accepted that if the election results in a House within a dozen, heck I’ll grant even up to 20 seats, then gerrymandering could be what majority control rests upon. That was not the case in 2012 or 2014. And the balance has not been that close, close enough that the dozen or even 20 seats would hold the balance, since 2000. It’s been, in reverse chronological order margins of: 59; 33; 49; 79; 31; and 24 seats. The 79 was +D btw and was in 2008.
Could this election be one in which the majority depends on the 12ish seat buffer provided by gerrymandering? Maybe.
It can actually be either way depending on how solid the state majority is. If you have a statewide 60-40 majority, you could split up a liberal city to give yourself five 60-40 districts instead of four 70-30 districts and one 90-10 district to give yourself an edge of one. Austin is one example of this.
Or if you have a 51-49 majority then you can do the classical five 55-45 vs one 90-10 gerrymandering to give yourself also an edge of one (3 vs 2).
The hypothetical which would fall under the second part: “to have your side have more frequent but more moderate majority wins” … point specific to the claim that gerrymandering makes Tea Party Republicans “safe” and fearless when they otherwise would not have been. In each winning district they are still safe and if anything slightly less safe than before gerrymandering.
I’m not going to decry gerrymandering. It’s what Democrats desperately need to do in 2020. In every major metro area, make a bunch of districts that look like skinny pieces of pie, radiating around the urban core. Problem is, the selfish members of the CBC would scream bloody murder.
Article suggests that some Republican Senators up for re-election are losing ground in the polls, in tandem with The Donald’s sinking polls in their states; Sen. Kelly Ayotte (NH); Sen. Pat Toomey ¶; Sen. Ron Johnson (WI); and Sen. Mark Kirk (IL) may all be in trouble.
And, if Clinton and Kaine are elected, the Democrats only need to take four Senate seats to flip the Senate…
I’ll impetuously say they’re all gone, and more. Burr looks done in NC. In Florida, Patrick Murphy is within the MOE against Little Marco, even though he hasn’t actually started campaigning yet.
Avery interesting thought from three months ago. We all wondered if Trump could straighten his act up and, at least, appear presidential. We know the answer to that now. The pressure is getting to him as the list of reasons to avoid him grows almost daily. The audience may have a short memory, but a memory isn’t necessary when he fuels his political demise almost daily.
Absolutely correct. The next moment for Trump will be the first debate (if he attends at all). A former Palin staffernoted that Trump knows even less about foreign policy than Palin. What’s worse is that according to the source, Palin spent a great deal of effort trying to learn more (bless her heart!), whereas Trump has shown no great desire to learn anything. Why should he, when his adoring crowds don’t want to hear it anyway? That’s what he bases everything on - the cheering throngs of hateful morons who attend his rallys.
Republican strategists have said that what Trump needs to do now is focus, focus focus on the debates- work 15 - 20 hours per week preparing. Ha ha ha ha ha! Trump simply CANNOT do this. It’s not possible.
Personally, I think he’ll bail. He already thinks he has “veto power” over who will be the moderator. He’s setting the press up to be the fall guy.
All of this is going to have a tremendous effect on the down-ticket races IMHO. Mainly in that many reliable Republican voters will not bother showing up.
It’s getting almost past the point when some of the more vulnerable House members and Senators need to not only bail on Trump, but actively run against him.
Senate and House members need to pay careful attention to what Trump said on Thursday:
So basically, don’t hold your breath waiting for a “pivot”. There ain’t gonna be one. And Trump does not give two shits if he loses and takes the Senate and House with him. He’s not a Republican, so the fate of the party is inconsequential to him.
And once again, his advisors quickly go to the press to explain that the Donald did not actually mean what he said:
These poor bastards are not being paid enough to spin this hard.
You can’t convince someone who thinks they know everything that studying is a good use of their time. Recall that Trump said this, “It would take an hour-and-a-half to learn everything there is to learn about missiles . . . I think I know most of it anyway.”
In Trump’s defense it’s not like it’s rocket science. Wait a second… it is precisely rocket science. What the fuck is wrong with this guy.
The good news for Republicans is that once again Democrats had to pick conservatives and mavericks in order to have a shot(Tammy Duckworth, Evan Bayh, Russ Feingold). Chuck Schumer may have to block a lot of bills from the House from coming to a vote lest they pass with the help of one or more of these new Senators.
Bayh is a Blue Dog, up there with Manchin on the conservative scale. Tammy Duckworth and Russ Feingold have heterodox views. Both can be relied on to support the GOP on earmarks, hopefully keeping them banned. Duckworth is also fiscally more conservative than the average Democrat. Feingold is a rock-ribbed progressive, but also a reformer, so Republicans can rely on him to handicap the Democrats’ political operation when it comes to earmarks and government personnel acting in a partisan matter. He’s not the kind of guy who will carry water for Democrats on issues like the IRS’s misconduct.
