Skip to main content

View Diary: Did Gerrymandering Cost Dems the House? A 34-State Look at Alternative Nonpartisan Maps Suggests Yes (161 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This is so true (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stephen Wolf, elwior

    And I think we need to market this independent commission plan better to big Democratic donors so they can fund initiatives like the one in Ohio which had insufficient funding.

    Turning out voters does not work unless they are in the right districts. All the strategy and messaging and funding could be put into the right candidate but if they are in a district that is too Republican and does not have enough Democratic votes, our efforts just will not work and we cannot rely on every House district to nominate an Akin style Republican.

    For more election analysis and redistricting maps, check out my blog CA-2 (former CA-6) College in CA-37. Go Trojans!!

    by Alibguy on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 03:50:28 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  The highest unemployment and poverty (0+ / 0-)

      levels are in Red States. Whatever the gerrymandering, people will abandon their previous identifications if the choice is a do-nothing Republican and a Democrat looking to get them past living on food stamps, I'd think.

      I seriously doubt that, today, there's enough districts in the US composed exclusively of the well-off to keep giving Repubs majorities in every one. But they need a reason to abandon their previous loyalty.

      Actual Democrats is the surest, quickest. route to More Democrats

      by Jim P on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 04:32:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sadly they won't though (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        and I'll give you an example that is truly deplorable.

        Consider, for example, the Black Belt of the Deep South; that region stretching from roughly the Mississippi Delta up through northeastern South Carolina/Southeastern NC. It's one of the poorest regions in the country among both blacks (predictably) and whites, yet the whites there vote about 90-10 Republican in Louisiana through Alabama and 75-25 Republican through Georgia to North Carolina. This is despite the fact that they'd almost all gain from Democrats' economic policies. This is despite the fact that the choice is do-nothing Republicans and a Democrat looking to get them past living on food stamps. Republicans just play to their racism and that gets them so mad they vote against their own interests. Now obviously this isn't every white voter in that region, but the point still stands. This is a very poor region yet the whites are hyper-Republican.

        So it isn't just a matter of people overcoming gerrymandering because then it wouldn't be an issue! Obviously this is a problem that needs another solution than non-partisan redistricting but that's part of my point. We can't begin to help these people when they won't help themselves if we can't help ourselves.

        Think about this in broader terms. There aren't enough voters who are in the 1% to help the 1% repeatedly, yet the 1% makes out like bandits solely because there are a huge proportion of voters who vote Republican consistently and don't care. So clearly they don't need a reason not to abandon their loyalty.

        Thankfully those folks aren't close to a majority, but they get a majority of districts because they draw the lines and pack us into fewer districts. That is why we need electoral and redistricting reform.

        •  Well, still not convinced. Not that it's (0+ / 0-)

          an either/or situation, both angles, getting the non-voter to vote; redistricting need doing. But you don't get a chance for the second, if you don't get the first. Or at least I don't see how.

          Again, there's districts which go overwhelmingly for Republicans, but then how many just squeak by? And higher turnout... I think that's a wildcard we can play.

          Actual Democrats is the surest, quickest. route to More Democrats

          by Jim P on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 05:37:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Issue 2's loss in Ohio (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      was about way more than "underfunding." The GOP threw every dirty trick in the book at it, so much so that our 6-1 Republican state Supreme Court tossed out the first ballot language rigged up by the Republicans because it was untruthful. Their subsequent language was merely misleading. They saved untruthful for the campaign.

      In addition, the "underfunding" was relative to the glut of money on the other side from special interests who wanted to protect their investment in the politicians they owned.

      The GOP was frantic to hang onto their gerrymander because people in Ohio do not support their policies, now that the Tea Party has their nuts in a vise.

      Jon Husted is a dick.

      by anastasia p on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 04:36:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site