Probably the one that likes to illustrate its argument with large colored swaths of unpopulated desert and plains.
Sam, In 2008, you liked to post a map that showed the whole country getting bluer (comparing district to district from 2006 to 2008) with the exception of Appalachia. I haven't seen a similar one comparing 2008 to 2010. Do you know where I can find one?
Probably not - considering that turnout was about 35% lower. Entendies why the stats ne marche pas? Sim ou Nao?
If Republicans are the regional party what region would that be? the region known as the not north-east?
Race-oriented votes: always a reliable source for the Democrats. Anyway too bad for you, those votes will be fractured along district lines. Gerrymandering, Ever heard of that? Republican controlled state legislatures will get to further break up your coalitions. Plus, the Latino vote talk doesn't take in to account illegal immigrants who can't vote. Illegal immigration hurts Democrats more than you realize. Census takes into account every legal and illegal citizen and distributes seats accordingly, but then the very people used in the census are not allowed to vote. Continue with the open door policy and Democrats will continue to lose more seats. Illegal immigrants have no desire to live in blue states where they can't find work.
there are three aspects to the new census, and this is the first, the "why" people moved. the second is the fact that most of these states have republican state majorities, and so in states that gained EC votes, republicans will control redistricting. the third aspect is the political ramifications for 2012 and beyond. the redrawn districts will favor republicans, so they should benefit at the national level for the next ten years. of course, republicans can be counted on for only one thing: to screw it up. on va voir...
TX gain wasn't all northern flight; a lot of it had to do with the expansion of the Hispanic population instate (who over whelmingly vote democrat). I will hazard to say the TX isn't a safe as republicans make it out to be and will be a lot more competitive in 12' than people think
I would have said the same thing before the debacle with the midterm election in Texas for Democrats. I agree that this will have a big impact in a few years, but not as much of an impact in 2012. I'd love to be wrong, but I don't think I am. Maybe if there's some unforeseen scandal involving Perry, or something similar. And even then, I don't know. Perry is about as corrupt as they come and he got 57% of the vote.
People are going where the jobs are. People have been moving to Texas from the Midwest since the 1970s.
Yes apparently you haven't, otherwise you would know that the republican strategy toward redistricting was to ISOLATE minorities in majority-miniority districts, in a quaint little move showing their good faith, called "Operation Rat****" - I kid you not. This is basically the opposite of what you are saying. The problem with your approach is, you eventually get too many brown people and they start becoming kingmakers in swing districts - is that what you were proposing?
but rhad said he wasnt moving... Fish...hilarious that you knock someone for posting a link to some info when that's pretty much all you do...when you're not just blinding insulting. But, people seem to, like usual, people are reacting to from one extreme to the other. The grass is always greener...right?
Redistricting and its effects are a misunderstood practice. While Republicans controlling redistricting does benefit them in the short-term, it can have many long-term negative consequences. What normally happens with redistricting is the controlling party wants to win more seats. So they do two things (let's say the GOP is in charge in a 50/50 swing state): 1. The GOP will make a few super-Dem districts - say 80/20 Dem/GOP. 2. The GOP will make a bunch of slight-GOP lean districts - say 60/40 GOP/Dem. This lets the GOP win more seats. But the problem is that's where the analysis usually stops. This setup creates some additional results: 1. The Dem districts become very solidly Dem. This means you will often end up with a more liberal legislator in that district; and it means they generally don't have to worry about re-election. 2. In some cases, the GOP legislators have to become more moderate, because they are more vulnerable to a challenge from the center since their district is not nearly as solidly GOP. 3. In a "wave election", the GOP has far more vulnerable seats at risk, while the Dems have fewer seats but they are relatively safe. If, for example, you have a +10 Dem switch, all the 60/40 GOP seats become 50/50 seats, while a +10 GOP switch wouldn't affect an 80/20 Dem district. If you took this process out across the entire country, the Dems would have many fewer seats, but they would never have to defend any of them in an election, so they spend all resources on offense. The GOP would control the House - but if there was a 2006 or 2008 wave-election with people fed up with the GOP, they would be playing defense everywhere and in serious danger of losing a whole hell of a lot of seats. (Those seats that Dems gain would be extremely vulnerable, however, in another wave election - as we saw in 2010) So in the end, you end up with a more liberal Democratic Party, and a Dem Party that can spend their resources playing offense - but one that will generally lose more than win. All in all, a win for the GOP most of the time, but it makes them extremely vulnerable to shocks to the system.
http://tinyurl.com/2cy5v8c Oh basso. Were the 90's really that long ago? I mean there was even a big Supreme court case about majority-minority redistricting actually. Early onset alzheimer's? You actually are getting towards the risk area. Maybe get that checked out.
I think your are correct that this is how I thought gerrymandering is done. The goal for the Republicans is too make every district either 100% democrat or about 60% republican. A 100% democrat district is wasting atleast 49% of their votes, which the goal of gerrymandering is to get the other side to waste as many votes as possible.
