So three chances to redistrict over a period of 30 years is not “gradual”? It has also been a gradual process that Republicans have taken over legislatures and redistricting commissions.
There’s your gradual.
Yes, but many of those districts were already Republican-majority districts. The Democrats had a rare chance to win several of them because of other circumstances. But by 2010 those other circumstances had faded. Did you not read my last post?
Funny how one data point among several offered becomes “by itself.” Gerrymandering is not necessarily an exact science, and it doesn’t produce predictable results every time, but if a single party maintains redistricting power over a period of decades, things add up.
The Republicans aren’t that stupid. If they have public opinion on their side enough to repeal, they will.
More likely, they’ll be able to repeal as long as existing Obamcare beneficiaries keep their benefits. Unlike Democrats, Republicans will keep a promise: If you like your Obamacare, you can keep it.
So I figure we have to find something for oh, half a million people. Shouldn’t be too hard.
Yes they are. This is the party that has wasted millions of taxpayers money on (what are we up to? Forty-some?) attempts to repeal Obamacare including a government shutdown that they then tried (and continue to try) to pin on Obama. While Obama is hardly unscathed, the GOP continue to nuke their reputation from orbit.
The GOP’s “there must be a pony in this barn somewhere!” approach is based on pure blind ideological optimism that one day theirs will be the right side of the issue, if only by dumb luck. In the meantime they just keep shovelling horseshit.
The loss of the House in 2010 was not gradual. It happened suddenly. There was no gradual loss of seats. Blaming it all on gerrymandering is ridiculous.
Uh, no, the opposite.
These are the number of Dems elected to the House each year starting in 2002, the first year of redistricted seats after the 2000 Census:
205
201
232
257
The Dem majority basically GREW after redistricting. There was a gradual INCREASE in the majority.
Your claims are simply not supported by the evidence.
Rare chance? They built their numbers almost steadily after 2000. There were no circumstances in redistricting that changed enough in 2010 to change the margin.
Funny how one data point among several offered becomes “by itself.” Gerrymandering is not necessarily an exact science, and it doesn’t produce predictable results every time, but if a single party maintains redistricting power over a period of decades, things add up.
[/QUOTE]
Yet I’ve shown this didn’t happen. You can’t just throw out a hypothesis and not support it.
The shutdown was stupid. The first part of your statement though is a Democratic talking point that you fell for without demanding a cite from them.
There have been over 40 votes pertaining to ACA, a few of which were for full repeal. Others were for changes to ACA, at least one of which passed Congress and was signed by the PResident(The repeal of CLASS). Others got bipartisan support. Democrats just get annoyed when the public is reminded how much they hate ACA.
You are correct in that the absolute best scenario for the GOP is to have the election RIGHTNOW before their candidates have a chance to talk to the media on pretty much any subject. Also, before actual knowledge about the benefits of the ACA have more of a chance to spread through the population. Misinformation, disinformation and just plain made-up lies are the GOP’s last, best hope.
Alas, the election isn’t until November, and when they wake up the morning after with fewer seats than before, I expect the GOP won’t be any closer to answering the OP than today.
No, what’s actually been happening with ACA has been the GOP’s best hope. Years of your “misinformation” didn’t move public opinion, but when ACA actually started taking effect the polls started going south for it.
Be interesting to see what happens when small business plans get cancelled right before the election.
Mitt Romney was doing equally ‘dandy’ at various times during the campaign. Lately, though, Republicans have not been doing ‘dandy’ on election day. The numbers don’t mean anything until there’s actually voting. The Republicans haven’t been doing anything right in the last few years.
[Adaherbot-2000]The Republicans were doing pretty damn good in the 2010 election, wouldn’t you say?[/Adaherbot-2000]
Since then pretty much every major decision the party’s made has been laughably wrong.
If things change due to campaigning, then all that means is that the GOP isn’t as skilled at campaigning. That doesn’t require deep changes in the party’s ideology.
And we’ve got a special election in Florida pretty soon that Democrats are supposed to win. Let’s see if they actually do it.
The number of seats is not gradual, it’s the statistical effect over time that is gradual. All the circumstances came together in 2008 to lift the Democrats over the top to a large majority, but everyone who knew anything at the time was saying that the Democrats were winning a lot of seats that in any other circumstance would be safe Republican seats and they would find it very hard to hold onto them. In 2010, the cumulative effect of weakly held Republican-leaning districts, the loss of the Obama surge, and other political events turned the whole thing around, and after 2010, Republican controlled state governments tightened gerrymandering even more.
Your data are not relevant to the issue. You’re confusing the weather with the climate.
If you’ve looked at any real analysis of Congressional districts, you’ll find that Republicans have a natural majority and that gerrymandering has not increased this majority a great deal.
Do you believe that state boundaries are gerrymandered too? It is quite possible, and it is currently fact, that the way Democratic voters are concentrated means more red districts than blue.
Democrats should figure out why their appeal is so limited that their voters are so concentrated in certain places, usually big cities.
That turned out to be a huge tactical mistake. Romney had things going in his favor after that first debate, but suddenly the national conversation got switched to ground more favorable to the Commander-in-Chief, between Benghazi and Sandy.
So let’s see what happens in this election. There’s no way the last few weeks won’t be about health care, since cancellation notices for several million employees of small businesses will be due by mid-October.
This is why I believe the United States should move toward the mixed-member proportional system as practised in Germany to counter the inequalities of voter concentration. And I don’t see why you think the Democrats’ appeal is “limited” when they in fact have the support of the majority of the population.
Of course admittedly the Democratic Party can really become the permanent majority party again if it emerged from the wedge issue trap its been stuck in since 1972 and offer Big Ideas again.
