GOP gerrymandering and Democratic voters’ clustering in urban districts has moved the median House seat well to the right of the nation. Part of it is bad timing. Democrats have been cursed by a terrible Senate map in 2018: They must defend 25 of their 48 seats1 while Republicans must defend just eight of their 52.Statistics and charts at the link. I just want to address the language usage: "GOP gerrymandering and Democratic voters’ clustering in urban districts..." Note where agency is ascribed. GOP politicians are doing something (gerrymandering) and Democratic voters are doing something (clustering). But you could just as well say that the district drawing (done by legislatures consisting of politicians in both parties) is bad for the Democratic Party because it presents itself in a way that appeals to voters who are living in urban areas. If you draw district lines according to traditional principles like compactness, you're going to end up with urban districts with a high concentration of people who vote for Democratic Party candidates. It's not that people are "clustering," but that a party has shaped its message and its campaigning to take advantage of the votes that are available from people who live in urban areas.
But there’s a larger, long-term trend at work too.... In the last few decades, Democrats have expanded their advantages in California and New York... But those two states elect only 4 percent of the Senate. Meanwhile, Republicans have made huge advances in small rural states — think Arkansas, North and South Dakota, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana and West Virginia — that wield disproportionate power in the upper chamber compared to their populations....
Today, the pro-GOP biases in both chambers are at historic highs...
৭ আগস্ট, ২০১৭
"The Congressional Map Is Historically Biased Against Democrats."
Writes David Wasserman at FiveThirtyEight.
এতে সদস্যতা:
মন্তব্যগুলি পোস্ট করুন (Atom)
পোস্টগুলি
১৪৩টি মন্তব্য:
At some point we need to split California into 4 states.
Prof A: your view is entirely too reasonable/empirically correct. Expect a maelstrom of outrage.
More statistics they ignore
The democrats are only doing well in corrupt urban cloisters that have "amazing" turnout.
Look for this trend to fade as well as voter rolls are cleansed.
The Senate is heavily biased against Republicans. The urbanites elect both Senators in every state.
They chose not to appeal to rural voters. Hence Hillary's comments about a basket of deplorables, or her refusal to go to Michigan during the general election. Even now, the left won't dare consider candidates who are anti-abortion, which doesn't play well outside of urban areas.
The reality is that despite their complaints, many in the democratic party like being in the minority as long as they can have power. Nancy Pelosi would love to be Speaker again, but she's doing just fine where she is. Same with Chucky Schumer. And there are plenty of left-wing voters who are happy to look down on right-wing voters and moderates, sneer at them, call them names, and generally act with a air of superiority, even if it costs them elections.
Henry offers: At some point we need to split California into 4 states.
At some point we need to split California from the US. FIFY.
Meh. Elected officials from both parties vote like lefties when it really matters. No need for Democrats to rock the boat.
Even now, the left won't dare consider candidates who are anti-abortion, which doesn't play well outside of urban areas.
Not just those outside urban areas but a majority of Catholics and virtually all Evangelical Christians.
The Senate is heavily biased against Republicans
No, it is biased against conservatives. Obviously, Republicans can win, but they're very wet.
I'm not sure if it is simply bad writing, or bad logic, but gerrymandering and the Senate makeup are not related.
I also find it ironic that the term gerrymander (1812 for the Democratic-Republican party) predates the beginnings of the Republican party in 1854.
Is it true that the Republicans can call a constitutional convention if they control 2 more states?
Here is one state that blows up the premise that Gerrymandering is biased towards R's: Illinois. They seem to always ignore that one.
"I'm not sure if it is simply bad writing, or bad logic, but gerrymandering and the Senate makeup are not related. "
The quote I focused on is in a sentence about House districting. The Senate is also discussed in the article, and the issues are not confused. There's quite a bit of detail about the way the state boundaries institute what is the equivalent of a pro-GOP gerrymander. Which just goes to show that what gets called a gerrymander could be a consequence of settlement and residential choices that were not about partisan politics.
The gerrymandering in the House and State legislatures (you can't gerrymander the Senate) may slightly favor the GOP but the Democrats have been complicit, for two reasons:
1. For at least 20 years, redistricting has become more about protecting incumbents of both parties, in a sort of conspiracy to lock in the people currently at the table and lock out challengers, and only secondarily at most about partisan advantage.
2. The pursuit of "minority super-majority" districts, to ensure that recognized ethnic groups utterly control those elections, has tended to concentrate minority voters, who tend Democratic, in fewer districts, meaning the GOP controls districts that under a different rubric would have more minorities and be more competitive. Dems are starting to wake up to this.
This latter has contributed to the polarization of Congress where now most districts do NOT swing, but lean strongly one way or the other. There are only maybe 60 districts out of 435 where there is ever any doubt as to which Party will win... so the House is never split more than about 255-180 and is usually much closer. The really pernicious effect is that in most districts, the real election is the primary, where extreme views tend to prevail. As members fear being primaried more than they fear the other party in the general, this forces everyone to the extremes.
The geographic concentration of Democratic votes into mono-cultures is also why the new measure of "wasted votes" that is being used in gerrymandering cases is wrong-headed and while a lower court may be fooled, it is less likely that the Supremes will be. Basically, the most populous urban areas that vote Dem are often about 95-5 Democratic--look at the 2016 election results by county or city. Similar areas that voted GOP were about 75-25. By a "wasted vote" measure, that Dem area wasted about 45% of its votes, while the GOP area wasted "only" 25%. But "rectifying" taht will require gerrymandering at least as extreme as anything going on now--long, skinny districts (NOT geographically compact) marrying very heavily Democratic urban areas to suburban/exurban areas that are more politically balanced or even tend GOP.
Either way, it's gerrymandering which is really nothing more than drawing districts to get a particular result. At that level, there is nothing moral or immoral about it, it's all just about power, whether for incumbents or ethnic groups or political parties.
Democrats are in danger of losing even more power as Trump has put together an election commission.
The reason Democrats do so well in urban areas is because you get more bang for your buck. If you're cheating, why cheat where there are only 1000 votes? Too easy to get caught. Cheat where there are millions of votes. Easier to hide in that.
As another example of this. Keep your eye on Democrat strongholds over the next three years.
You're going to start to see news stories that say, "X area legalizing undocumented immigrants ability to vote."
This is because
1) Illegals are being removed from the country for voting illegally and are being scared into not voting (as opposed to Obama reassuring them that nothing will happen)
2) Trump's voter commission which scares illegals bcuz they are now afraid they might get caught.
There was a Senate candidate in California many years ago. A Republican guy, Asian decent, mostly liberal. He put out a pamphlet that said immigrants can't legally vote. The media and Dems excoriated him for lying. The idea was many US Citizens are immigrants. Obviously he wasn't talking about citizens. Everyone knew what he was talking about. But the media twisted it perfectly to give the impression he had lied and that immigrants could indeed vote. Even non US citizen immigrants.
And they've been pushing this narrative for years.
Now Trump comes along and is pulling the window back to the right. Suddenly news stories all over making it clear you must be a citizen to vote. Talks of arrests and jail time for those who voted and aren't supposed to. Stories of deportation.
This is causing the Democrats to panic.
Bigly.
Henry offers: At some point we need to split California into 4 states.
By the same token we could merge Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Maine into one state.
So, even though Democrats routinely have had more control of Congress... both chambers, by the way. That's hard to swallow.
Also, I wish that they wrote more clearly. The "bias" in the Senate is... the intended purpose of the chamber. Read what 538 is complaining about: "In the last few decades, Democrats have expanded their advantages in California and New York — states with huge urban centers that combined to give Clinton a 6 million vote edge, more than twice her national margin. But those two states elect only 4 percent of the Senate. Meanwhile, Republicans have made huge advances in small rural states — think Arkansas, North and South Dakota, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana and West Virginia — that wield disproportionate power in the upper chamber compared to their populations." That's *exactly how the country was founded for the Senate to work.* That isn't a problem. It isn't a problem. It isn't wrong, and it certainly shouldn't be lumped with "gerrymandering."
I lived in California in 1980 and remember the redistricting battle very well. Any Democrat who complains about gerrymandering as something Republicans do to Democrats is either grossly ignorant of history, or a lying weasel, or (usually) both. Here's the short version, from Wikipedia's 'Redistricting in California' article, with the notes omitted:
"After the 1980 census California became entitled to 45 congressional districts, a growth of two. Democrats controlled both houses of the legislature and the governorship but were feeling vulnerable after former Governor Reagan had won California by a landslide in the 1980 presidential election. Democratic Congressman Phillip Burton and new State Assembly Speaker Willie Brown devised a redistricting plan that would result in five new safe Democratic seats. Congressman Burton would boast that the bizarrely shaped map, which included a 385-sided district, was 'My contribution to modern art'. Reacting to what was called 'one of the most notorious gerrymanders' of the decade, Republicans successfully placed a veto referendum on the primary ballot and California voters overwhelmingly rejected the legislature's redistricting plans in the June 1982 election, the same election that enacted the California Constitution's Victim's Bill of Rights.
"A majority of the California Supreme Court justices, however, had been appointed by Governor Jerry Brown and a sharply fractured court ordered the rejected districts to be used in the November election because only it was 'practicable'. Democrats won 60% of the congressional seats despite only taking 49.9% of the statewide vote. Democrats still lost the statewide elections, losing the governorship and incumbent Governor Jerry Brown losing his U.S. Senate bid to San Diego Mayor Pete Wilson. Governor Brown responded by calling an extraordinary legislative session, amending a previously passed bill with the redistricting plan that had just been rejected by the electorate, and signing the redistricting plan into law hours before being replaced by Republican George Deukmejian."
To repeat, I don't want to hear one more goddamned word from lefties about gerrymandering.
"A page of history is worth volumes of logic"
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Were these kids at 538 born yesterday?
Until 1994, the House and Senate had large Democratic majorities for nearly 70 years (except for a few minor blips in the 50s, and 1 6-year period for the Senate 80-86). Why? Because the South mostly voted Democrat.
After 1964, the alliance between Northern Dems and Southern Dems broke over Civil rights. The deck was reshuffled. Blacks became loyal Dems, white Southerners (mostly) moved to the GOP over time. Northern GOP types also slowly moved to the Democratic party.
Now, that the Democrat party has mostly confined itself to the Coastal elites of Cali and New York -- Yes, they will continue to lose many local races.
Dr Weevil is right, the repugs learnt gerrymandering from the slimocrats. What was the real death blow to the GOP in Cali was the idiotic term limits petition they supported which made the government unions uber powerful. God, I miss Willy Brown.
One thing I really agree with Arnold about is the need to reform how congressional districts are drawn. I don't care one bit if sensible reform gives an advantage to Republicans or Democrats. If reform is done right, I would expect fewer safe seats and more moderation. I would also expect less ideological conformity in the national parties. I think that, along with limiting presidents to a single 6-year term*, would do a tremendous amount of good for our political culture. Everything is so toxic now, and it's spilling into nearly every aspect of life.
* This would do two things. First, it would give us a bit of a respite from presidential politics. Campaigns last almost two years now -- it's insane. Second, it would tend to reduce the status and usefulness of political aides in the White House. The president would still have to care about the House and the Senate, but he would not have to be concerned about his own reelection. It's not perfect but in my opinion it's better than what we have now.
The democrats are only doing well in corrupt urban cloisters that have "amazing" turnout.
I eagerly await the clarity fivethirtyeight's statistical analysis of this situation will provide.
"At some point we need to split California into 4 states."
Nooooooooo
You'd add six Senators. Maybe if the inland areas were separated but the California corruption is too deep.
California tried to reform redistricting years ago by setting up a panel of retired judges.
Willie Brown ran a deceptive campaign against it and won, then bragged about how he had fooled voters.
The biggest advantage of a single six-year term, is that two years of the president's first term aren't surrendered to running a campaign.
538 is a millennial circle-jerk abusing stats to confirm their political bias. Some of their sports stuff is interesting. Groups like this depend on readers who don't understand algebra.
There is an inconvenient historical aspect of this: Years ago Democrats fought for urban districts that favored their party. White flight and demographic changes have since made those Democrat defined districts counter-productive because they are now 90+% Democrat and hold "wasted votes". The Democrats now see the problem, but have lost control of the gerrymandering process.
" God, I miss Willy Brown."
So does Kamala, I guess.
McCain-Feingold wrecked national politics. The "Members" spend all their time raising money and the staffs run the legislature.
Cali into 2 states. Mountains and flatlands. Red and Blue.
"Today, it would take even more cataclysmic events under GOP rule to propel Democrats to a supermajority over the next six years."
-- And if Democrats believe that, then I expect at the congressional level for them to try and make sure that a crisis doesn't go to waste.
A fun thing to look at: For 538's analysis, Republicans lost Congress after a series of cataclysmic events... all it took for the Democrats to lose Congress was for Obama to screw up the ACA.
"Even if there’s a Democrat in the White House in 2021, the Senate majority that is so critical to confirming his or her nominee could be much harder to come by than it has been in decades past."
-- Well, there's some irony there too.
The electoral map is not biased for or against any single party. It is biased against the left-wing extremism that has overtaken the Democrat party in the era of Obama. If the Democrats gets away from identity politics and gets back to caring about ordinary Americans, it will come back strongly. Per Jeff Flake (and my own Barbara Comstock), truly caring about ordinary Americans makes certain Republicans feel icky.
"The Democrats now see the problem, but have lost control of the gerrymandering process."
-- This was actually one of the many consequences warned about when the weird maps first started appearing. But, they knew better.
"...that wield disproportionate power in the upper chamber compared to their populations."
The way it is phrased it makes it sound like a bad thing. The rules for Senate composition were specifically designed so that smaller population states would join the union and not feel like the the United States would really mean "whatever Virginia wants".
@Doc Weevil,
Excellent points. I remember Willie Brown and Burton in the 80s, and, if you can believe it, those old leftist geezers are still around (both 80+ year old), still calling the political shots from the sidelines.
The bottom line is that California voted GOP in the Presidential election almost every year until 1992. And, from 1982 -1998, it had 16 straight years of GOP Governors (Deukmaejian twice, Wilson twice).
What changed was the demographics -- the flood of illegals. The Dems then relaxed any and all standards and verifications for registering to vote, so a couple million illegals got on welfare and started voting for Dems. Voila' -- California is now a crowded left-wing, Democratic state.
My working hypothesis was that Dems were trying to do the same in Texas, hence all the immigration wars. Thankfully, they were foiled.
Geographically, though, California remains very beautiful. And if you own real property, well, this big ass influx of people bid up housing prices to astronomical levels.
So, there's that.
Howard (11:12am):
What's ironic is that California voted in term limits, yet somehow the same Jerry Brown who was screwing up the state so spectacularly 35 years ago is still doing it today. Term limits don't seem to have limited his terms in any way.
By the way, I had previously lived in California when Reagan beat Pat Brown for governor. A neighbor's "If it's Brown, flush it" bumper sticker made a big impression on me. I was 12 years old, so just the right age for that kind of joke.
Better for California to secede, than to split into 4 states.
"white Southerners (mostly) moved to the GOP over time."
A lot of that happened in Texas but the left uses this excuse to accuse the GOP of racism.
Much of the shift to GOP came because of air conditioning, then movement to the "sun belt" and the non-union nature of southern workers.
South Carolina and Alabama changed because northerners moved there once the climate was tolerable.
You still see the traditional Alabama types in rural counties but they are still largely Democrats out of family loyalties.
The Democrats in Texas were always conservative and the Democrats after LBJ left them. They went Republican only in recent decades.
BDNYC: I agree with your points on redistricting. Districts should be drawn up based on census derived population contour maps into simple geometric shapes. I disagree about a single 6-year term for POTUS. Insteadt, we should eliminate the 22nd amendment because the Pres becomes a lame duck on January 21st of his second term.
Term limits shifts power to K-street and unions.
Anytime anyone claims to you that gerrymandering is an inherently Republican device to secure House votes, ask them to have a look at Illinois' 4th District, created to elect Luis Guitterez (D-IL) to the House.
Here's the link: https://standupforamerica.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/what-happened-to-reason/illinois-4th-district-map/
Click on the map to get an enlarged view. Some things to understand:
1) It's about 15 miles from the eastern to western extremes of the district.
2) Those are all either the City of Chicago or suburbs thereof, rather densely populated except for the green areas which are forest preserve.
3) That thin vertical strip on the west is I-294, the Tri-State Tollway - no one actually resides on that land.
Ann,
There's quite a bit of detail about the way the state boundaries institute what is the equivalent of a pro-GOP gerrymander.
I am not seeing that in the article. Yes, it says that NY and CA are huge and dominated by their city votes, while smaller states tend to be more rural and more Republican. But given the way this country was established and grown, that isn't a "gerrymander," nor even the "equivalent" of one.
Neither the Senate nor governorships can be gerrymandered. "State boundaries" merely mean the existence of states; it's not as though tweaking the borders of ID or MO or AL would change anything at all. What you'd need to do would be to eliminate outright several states, which just isn't gonna happen.
I find it curious, btw, that this issue surfaces now. The state "bias" has been there forever. Is it just because right now the numbers really, really favor the GOP? I think it is.
"We can quantify the partisan bias of Congress over time by measuring the distance between each national presidential result and each year’s presidential result in the median House and Senate seats."
-- Wait. How is this a valid statistic? For example, let's say you have someone who voted a split ticket (say a Bernie Bros who voted Democrat for Senate/House, but Trump). If someone votes for, say, a Joe Manchin or a Lisa Murkowski... is that really the same as voting for a Trump or a Clinton?
How does this get you what a "median" seat should look like, and how can that median seat lean left when looking at Gallup, the division between Republican/Democrat is very small, and Gallup in 2017 pointed out that conservatives outnumbered liberals.
So... if your data is telling you the median house seat leans left, which contradicts with what we actually see in the data, and inaccurately represents the realities of voting in a two-party system... is your number actually valid?
The Senate map for Democrats in 2018 is even worse that you expressed. The Democrats have 10 seats up for election in states that Trump won. The GOP has exactly 0 seats up for election in states that Clinton won.
I was in first grade when Ronnie took the helm in Sacramento. The state is still surviving on the water projects started by the Brown who got flushed. As bad as Moonbeam is, he is the most conservative of the democratic vultures that currently run the state. Following Dr. K's lead, we are planning to cash out and pull the pin as well.
tcrosse,
By the same token we could merge Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Maine into one state.
No, you won't. NH wouldn't stand for it.
Biased Against Democrats."
Writes David Wasserman at FiveThirtyEight.
Any relation to the Congressional Blot?
I guess the democrat media party members need to get out there and compete better, eh?
I mean that's what they would tell any republican in chicago.
The biggest factor isn't the way the lines are drawn for districts and states, it is that the Democratic party as a whole is moving left faster than the population as a whole is.
@Doc K,
"A lot of that happened in Texas but the left uses this excuse to accuse the GOP of racism."
I agree. Nixon's "Southern Strategy" has been framed as the ultimate bogeyman of politics, but it was a minor reaction to the real driver, which was the Civil Rights Vote of 1964 -- which, was filibustered by Southern Democrats.
Goldwater was practically the ONLY Republican to oppose the Civil Rights bill, but his vote (a mistake in my opinion) was seized on to tar the GOP in general.
The truth is when the South was its most virulently racist -- it was all Democrat. As it has become much less racist over the years, it has become much more GOP.
Ann,
Forgot this:
Which just goes to show that what gets called a gerrymander could be a consequence of settlement and residential choices that were not about partisan politics.
Yes, that's the deal. Democrats "cluster" in cities where they are the overwhelming majority. Republicans live everywhere else, sometimes in the majority, sometimes in the minority. The new meme is "wasted votes," meaning those where there are already enough people to elect your candidate, so why bother? But the "wastage" is in the eye of the beholder, yes? There is comfort (assuming you're a HRC supporter) in knowing that no one within miles of you actually voted for Trump. Why discount this?
I am familiar with "wasted votes." I have never lived in a state where anyone but a Democrat would be elected to any public office (excepting the governorship of CA).
Dems in Wisconsin ran both houses of the legislature and the governorship before losing all three in 2010. Never run things so poorly that you will get your butt handed to you in a census year.
What clustered urban Dems do is primary each other until only the most proggy of the proggy wins. In 2012, any Dem legislator in Milwaukee not toeing the prog line was primaried out of office. These folks (and those in Madison) now are the face of the state's Dem party and non-partisans throughout the state do not like them and vote accordingly.
One important fact missing from the "wasted votes" argument is that the GOP doesn't run candidates in proggy districts while the Dems put warm bodies in every race. The voting percentages are then skewed because GOP voters in some districts have no one to vote for. Bad long-term strategy by the GOP. However, it isn't good for the Dems either because they run people who don't fit the district and they end worsening their perception problem outstate.
Martin,
All excellent comments. The "majority-minority" thing needs addressing, because Democrats have finally cottoned on to the reality that maybe some of these districts needn't be quite so heavily weighted.
Again, the "wasted vote" business is apparently to be remedied by making the opposite of "compact and contiguous" districts: districts that encompass a sliver of city and another sliver of suburb, radiating out from the city center. I am not sure what the fate of this will be; I imagine most Democratic incumbents will be displeased at suddenly finding themselves in a district where they need to compete.
"The truth is when the South was its most virulently racist -- it was all Democrat. As it has become much less racist over the years, it has become much more GOP."
The south improved its economy and race relations significantly by the introduction of air conditioning and it voting with the GOP.
Virtually all of those southern racist Democrats from the Civil Rights era are dead, replacing them were a large influx of non-Democrats from the north seeking better weather and economic opportunity as the northeast deindustrialized.
Terrific post, Professor Althouse. I think you got it right, and your commenters today have added some really excellent commentary.
Bay Area Guy's comment at 11:10 is superb. Very good comment by Matthew Sablan at 11:05.
Dr. Weevil; your comment about gerrymandering being a Democrat phenomenon as well as a Republican phenomenon is of course true. The (old) Democrat-drawn districts in California were classic gerrymandering. Illinois' districts (also Democrat-drawn) were nearly as bad.
Trouble with the "Democrats did it too" argument is that the election law scolds will say that the partisan redistricting vandalism on both sides just proves that we need commissions to do the redistricting. And the reason that I'll never go along with that is that those kinds of commissions are always going to follow O'Sullivan's First Law: "All organizations that are not actually conservative will, over time, become liberal organizations.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/its-the-law/article/2001893
There have been a few badly-mistaken comments too:
Achilles claims that "The democrats are only doing well in corrupt urban cloisters that have "amazing" turnout." And, "Look for this trend to fade as well as voter rolls are cleansed." I don't expect that we will be seeing any major purge of voter rolls any time soon; I don't think that they are so bad to start with. Urban turnouts were "amazing" in 2008 and 2012. They were shitty, in 2010, and quite crappy, in 2014, and off by a sufficiently significant percentage in 2016 to hand the general election to Trump. See how that works? Anything special, about '08 and '12? Think about it.
Martin comes close to getting it right in describing the new "wasted votes" theory in the judicial review of redistricting cases, but he suggests that: "2. The pursuit of "minority super-majority" districts, to ensure that recognized ethnic groups utterly control those elections, has tended to concentrate minority voters, who tend Democratic, in fewer districts, meaning the GOP controls districts that under a different rubric would have more minorities and be more competitive. Dems are starting to wake up to this."
No, we don't create "minority super-majority districts" to comply with the racial demands of the Voting Rights Act in redistricting. We only create "majority-minority districts." If we really went out of our way to create super-majority districts, we could be accused of "packing" which has long been held to be illegal. We might be able to get away with it as long as we weren't reducing the number(s) of minority seats in Congress. But if, for instance, we turned the entire city of Detroit into one nice neat super-black Congressional district, we'd get sued, because Michigan has two black Representatives, and giving Detroit to just one of them would be viewed as "packing."
Regarding California. If you are going to dream, dream big.
Split California into two or more states and then allow any of those new states to secede if they so desire.
None of it is ever going to happen. Sigh.
If you want real change and to lessen gerrymandering, double (or triple - yes triple) the size of the House.
Districts would have 1/2 or 1/3 of the current population. It would be much more of a populism hot house. Greenies, Communists, Bible Thumpers, and Libertarians would actually get elected into office.
This would be harder to gerrymander. Right now they have to grab a bunch of population in dense area A and run a corridor with no souls in it to dense area B and C. Now you have to cut that in half.
If you really wanted to improve the quality of the politicians in DC (without changing party composition), pass an amendment that would prohibit Any person elected to the Senate from being eligible to be elected President (or Vice President) of the United States.
So far, beyond the Gorsuch appointment, the value of GOP control of Congress has not become apparent to anyone but GOPe swamp dwellers.
I eagerly await the Supreme contortions from our Ruling Class when this case goes to SCOTUS. The final decision should be one of the most hilarious decisions we've ever seen. They will probabaly have to resurrect "penumbras " and "emanations" to get there. But the nice thing about SCOTUS is that they are never wrong. It's good to be more infallible than the Pope.
RonF, Illinois can't be worse than the infamous 160 mile long 1991 I-85 district in NC.
They're still fighting with the courts over the 5th? version of it.
Henry offers: At some point we need to split California into 4 states.
At some point we need to split California from the US. FIFY.
Oh please. Not all of Calfornia. The Northern part...State of Jefferson, where I live is conservative, votes overwhelmingly republican, hates the rest of the lunatics in the South. This area has been trying to separate from California since BEFORE WWII.
In the interior valleys of the State (Sacramento valley and San Joaquin) the ares are also rural, agricultural, conservative and votes Red.
Let US separate from the rest of the State and they can secede all they want. WE have the water, the timber, the minerals, electric generation, hydro and wind power, natural gas, the FOOD production. They have Google, Tesla and Nancy Pelosi.
replacing them were a large influx of non-Democrats from the north
Not in the last 40 years or so. The yankee imports are Dems fleeing oppressive, expensive state/local government and then voting for more of it here.
"I was in first grade when Ronnie took the helm in Sacramento."
I was not a Reagan fan as governor. That was when I still thought UC, Berkeley was a great institution.
He basically ran against UC.
Pat Brown was a good governor but a lousy father. The hospital I was practicing in was run by a couple of crooks who put Jerry in the Governors chair. The hospital had its own printing shop and we were running out of printed pages for medical charts and stuff. It turned out the print shop was printing Jerry's campaign materials. The hospital officers, except multimillionaire Richard O'Neill, went to prison.
Jerry didn't.
At some point we need to split California into 4 states.
That's would probably have been doable in 1850 when CA became a state, but the effect on national politics is the same as if CA in its current incarnation got eight senators instead of just two. I can't see the other states going along with that.
Michael, my liberal California relatives just love Governor Moonbeam. California is just a weird state and people who live there are even weirder. Unfortunately, many have escaped to WA and OR to Californicate them, as well.
Split California into two or more states and then allow any of those new states to secede if they so desire.
Secession. Yeah, right. Any chance we could ask Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman about that?
Splitting California into 3 or 4 states just creates six or eight new senators; and it would be a net of at least a couple to the Dems, right? Plus two new Democrat Puerto Rican senators? And two Democrat D.C. Senators while we're at it?
Thank you very little.
This article brings to mind the situation in Texas. Before the map was redrawn last time around every statewide elected office was held by a Republican, and yet the delegation sent to Washington was something like 60% Democratic as a result of gerrymandering in the previous allocation.
Somehow the Democrats never mention that when they complain about gerrymandering.
Also, adding senators will be a shame. 100 is such a nice, round number.
"Unfortunately, many have escaped to WA and OR to Californicate them, as well."
When I moved to Arizona, the first thing I did was change our license plates. When my youngest daughter went to U of A, I changed hers the first week. California plates are cop magnets.
In the unlikely event California secedes, would they then want readmission to the Union if the rest of us elected a President more to their liking ? Trump won't last forever, after all.
Michelle Dulak Thomson said...
I imagine most Democratic incumbents will be displeased at suddenly finding themselves in a district where they need to compete.
8/7/17, 11:46 AM
Well the ideal Democrat district is one where it is 58% Democrat. Ideal redistricting plan is for as many of these types of districts as can get built and lump the remaining into as few R districts as possible. The flip is the ideal Republican district plan.
I remember from my youth, Democrat state governments playing this game as well as the minority majority districts game (got to have a black!). Saw some VERY strange district maps back in those days (not that it isn't still going on but the courts seem much more involved these days).
Why would we want four senators from California? Two are bad enough.
Michael K,
We are CA refugees, fled to OR, and we don't want to Californicate it. In fact, we are rather enjoying the absence of sales tax.
DBQ, don't knock Tesla. We rather like ours.
My name goes here,
Not bad, but what you'd need to do (among other things) is lower the age requirement for the Presidency. (Which reminds me: What happens if the President and VP are both gone, and it goes to the Speaker, and he's under age?)
We wait for him to grow up.
UC Berkeley has been left for a good while, but they used to do good work in Computer Science. The Internet as we know it today is basically the result of Berkeley Unix (BSD) and the socket interface they implemented. It's not that they *invented* TCP/IP, but without them whatever we would have would be a lot different than what we do have.
@Dr. K,
"I was not a Reagan fan as governor. That was when I still thought UC, Berkeley was a great institution."
UC Berkeley was great back then! People forget that, historically, the City of Berkeley was mostly a GOP-type, small business, Chamber of Commerce City until about 1970 or so. My Mom went there in the late 1950s/early 60s -- she said boys mostly wore shirts and ties on campus, and even on Telegraph Ave.
Then, then hippies took over, and it went to shit.
Then, affirmative action was banned, so it's practically 60% very serious asian students. The byproduct is that the students have actually become less political over the years. The faculty though are mostly leftists, and the community activists, who don't attend the school, are uniformly leftwing crazy people.
The restaurants are good though -- and the views of SF.
@mockturtle -- 8 senators from California! The two from the new state of Cascadia might be relatively conservative.
We make up for it by folding Rhode Island into Massachusetts, Vermont and New Hampshire into Maine, and Delaware into Maryland.
Florida and Texas also get split in two and any pair of states that have a North and South or East and West are rejoined.
As long as we're talking about increasing the number of representatives, it wouldn't be a bad idea to increase the number of Senators. Currently. A Senator in CA, represents 18 million people. It's what turns them into Princesses. Or Princes. Increase the number to 5 per state and designate Senatorial districts where they must reside and run.
We are CA refugees, fled to OR, and we don't want to Californicate it.
Jesus ! Have you been to Portland ?
My stepson lives in McMinnville and that is red country. But the college towns are all leftyville.
I agree about Cal. My high school did not know what USC was so when I asked them to send a transcript, it went to Cal. I got a letter accepting me and asking me to submit an application. It was a far better engineering department but I had a scholarship to USC.
I was a member of Phi Gamma Delta and the Cal chapter was a great one. I don't even know if there still is one there.
In LA County, "the total number of registered voters now stands at a number that is a whopping 144% of the total number of resident citizens of voting age."
Paddy O, I have previously posted that my wife's drivers license expired on her January birthday 2016. She could not get a DMV appointment to renew until April because the DMV was overflowing with illegals.
She had no valid ID for four months so the state could accommodate the illegals getting registered to vote.
I am repeatedly told by Democrats there's no evidence of noncitizen voting. Is it possible they're not being entirely truthful?
@Paddy O,
California population:
1980: 24 Million
2017: 40 Million
No. of Illegal immigrants in California:
2.35 Million (roughly 6% of the Cal population).
Gee, I wonder if this influx of illegals correlates with the increase in population and increase in the Democrat voting rolls?
At the time the constitution was ratified, the largest state (Virginia) was roughly 12x more populous than the smallest (Delaware). Today the difference between California and states like Alaska or Wyoming or Montana, is more than 60x.
Jack Wayne said...
As long as we're talking about increasing the number of representatives, it wouldn't be a bad idea to increase the number of Senators. Currently. A Senator in CA, represents 18 million people. It's what turns them into Princesses. Or Princes. Increase the number to 5 per state and designate Senatorial districts where they must reside and run.
8/7/17, 1:00 PM
The "proper" fix for that is to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment. That is the amendment that never should have been. It screwed up a good balancing act destroying the Senate representing state interest, the House representing citizen interests, the executive (via the President - through the electoral college) a combination of citizen/state, and SCOTUS to balance it out. Now the states have been neutered and Senators have too much power (and are beholden to too many interests). The House has the local citizen focus as it should be and the Senate was to protect state's rights.
I got to kiss the pig, Michael K.
Michael K,
Yes, of course we've been to Portland, many times. (My husband much more often than I, because he's interested in instrument dealers and luthiers.) Me, I like Powell's. I haven't seen a bookstore like that since Foyle's in London. Penzey's spices round the corner, too, though recent news about them isn't all that nice.
But we actually live in Salem, which is rather conservative for western OR.
TosaGuy said... [hush][hide comment]
Virtually all of those southern racist Democrats from the Civil Rights era are dead, replacing them were a large influx of non-Democrats from the north seeking better weather and economic opportunity as the northeast deindustrialized.
Bullshit!
The shift started in 52 when places like East Tennessee and Western North Carolina came out for Eisenhower over Stevenson. These were not exactly hotbeds of Yankee re-enlightenment.
They chose not to appeal to rural voters. Hence Hillary's comments about a basket of deplorables, or her refusal to go to Michigan during the general election. Even now, the left won't dare consider candidates who are anti-abortion, which doesn't play well outside of urban areas.
This isn't a new thing. Obama won pretty handily despite his description of rural people "clinging to their guns and religion".
I still believe Hillary's big problem is she just isn't very likeable. A great many people decide who to vote for based on likeability and then go casting about for policy reasons to justify the decision.
Henry corrects me: @mockturtle -- 8 senators from California! The two from the new state of Cascadia might be relatively conservative.
Duh! Yes!
Michael K,
I should've added that Salem is a "college town," home of Willamette U. Not to the degree that Corvallis or Eugene are, but reasonably enough.
The "proper" fix for that is to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment. That is the amendment that never should have been. It screwed up a good balancing act destroying the Senate representing state interest, the House representing citizen interests, the executive (via the President - through the electoral college) a combination of citizen/state, and SCOTUS to balance it out. Now the states have been neutered and Senators have too much power (and are beholden to too many interests). The House has the local citizen focus as it should be and the Senate was to protect state's rights.
A "fix" of the Seventeenth Amendment (which I think is a really wonderful subject for conversation) would be ironic in the Age of Trump. It was the turn-of-the century Populists who wanted the amendment. They regarded it as an important weapon against corruption; to "drain the swamp." And it was people like William Jennings Bryan -- a populist, nationalistic, Trump-like figure in his time -- who pushed it.
If anybody wants my vote to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment, I shall give it to them. I would however in return like to be given a job at a federal customs house in Charleston SC.
"Yes, of course we've been to Portland, many times"
My question was rhetorical. We thought about moving there as my wife's oldest son lives in McMinnville but the climate is too cold and wet. She does better in Tucson.
Next year, now that our house is done, we may take some long summer vacations. It was 115 here for a couple of weeks before monsoon season got started. I have spent a lot of time in Tucson, even in summer, and had never seen it get that hot. Phoenix, yes but not Tucson until this year.
Repealing the 17th is not gonna happen. I like voting for my senators and have no intention of letting the goofball state legislators pick for me. Further, the states never had any control over the senators. They could choose someone else but that rarely happened. Once in power, a senator had a lock on re-election because of their patronage. The real power over a person is their wages and that was taken away from the states.
~
We deny parliamentarianism even nominal status. We use alternatives to motions of no confidence.
In our underbelly, we’re more Indian (India-Indian) harboring a wide range of theocratic polyplural gods and goddesses.
Maintaining the feint of bi-partisan-hood.
Ask Kochs.
Third parties - up next. Numbers say.
Poor little Democrats. Everybody is against them. It's so unfair!
" And it was people like William Jennings Bryan -- a populist, nationalistic, Trump-like figure in his time -- who pushed it."
You're correct about Bryan but it was a big part of the "Progressive" movement.
You may consider Trump a "Progressive" but he is the enemy of the Administrative State, which in turn is the logical outcome of Wilson's rule by elites.
Bay Area Guy:
Democrat voters in the South died. They did not switch parties. That pernicious falsehood distorts reality in favor of lying Democrats.
Stop it!
Chuck said...
"They were shitty, in 2010, and quite crappy, in 2014, and off by a sufficiently significant percentage in 2016 to hand the general election to Trump. See how that works? Anything special, about '08 and '12? Think about it."
When you get 1-10 votes per voter a drop in enthusiasm goes a long ways silly.
I think the LLR knows but is avoiding why a lot of GOPe types are not particularly interested in stopping voter fraud.
I am guessing the primaries in some red states are going to look different soon too.
@Birkel,
Except for Strom Thurmond and Phil Graham and Jesse Helms.....and ..,,,,
Per Jack Wayne: Once in power, a senator had a lock on re-election because of their patronage.
Like Henry 'Scoop' Jackson, the Senator from Boeing, some Senators are kept in power by special interests alone and by the part of the state that relies on them.
Jack Wayne said...
Further, the states never had any control over the senators.
8/7/17, 1:41 PM
Did you know that Americans were originally not allowed to vote for Senators? Believe it or not, the legislature of every state used to elect the state’s senators and the people would elect the Congressmen that serve in the House of Representatives.
Not everyone is in favor of the 17th amendment. States complain that their power to influence the federal government was taken away by the federal government. They could no longer have their interests represented in the legislature, as the Senators became disconnected with their state’s government, an arrangement that many states did not like. The popularity of the 17th amendment with the people was important though and that helped the 17th amendment survive all the way to today.
http://kids.laws.com/17th-amendment
Personally, I agree with Chuck on this one. It would be much fairer and more representative of a state's interests to have senators elected by the state legislatures as once was the case.
If you live in eastern WA state, for instance, your vote for Senator doesn't count. Ever. Our senators are almost always Seattle-area liberals.
Once in power, a senator had a lock on re-election because of their patronage.
Heh, yeah, which is totally different from today.
mockturtle said...
"If you live in eastern WA state, for instance, your vote for Senator doesn't count. Ever. Our senators are almost always Seattle-area liberals."
More like west king county. The democrats don't really even dominate the west side of the state completely. The legislature is split because the democrats don't have the ability to pack votes outside Seattle.
And you should remember Patty Murray defeated a republican after a dubious recount where King county found a pile of votes.
If you clean up King County voting procedures Washington becomes purple overnight.
Bay Area Guy:
Look at the state houses instead of a few non-random senators. The state houses stayed Democrat controlled into the late 1990s. Georgia didn't switch to a Republican legislature until 2008.
State houses are much more representative of voting habits than votes for nations office, I submit.
The Democrats love the lie about the Civil Rights Acts switching the South because it gives them a false sense of moral superiority. Don't let them have their lie.
Achilles suggests: If you clean up King County voting procedures Washington becomes purple overnight.
And if pigs had wings, they could probably fly. ;-) King County has been crooked ever since I can remember.
Look further where Jesse Helms' strongest support was: the coastal and mountain areas if you look at voting patterns, those areas were the most Democrat in the state, excepting urban city centers.
Those people elected state house reps who were Democrats.
And by the late 1990s they were dead.
My favourite:
If my grandma had wheels, she'd be a bicycle.
Michelle Dulak Thomson: (Which reminds me: What happens if the President and VP are both gone, and it goes to the Speaker, and he's under age?)
It skips him and goes to the next person in line.
Next: The United States Senate is unconstitutional. Because equal protection or something.
@Birkel,
"Look at the state houses instead of a few non-random senators. The state houses stayed Democrat controlled into the late 1990s. Georgia didn't switch to a Republican legislature until 2008."
You're right about that. It was common for "yellow dog" Dems to stay Dem at the local level, but vote GOP at the National level -- well after the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
And, even at the National level, as late as 1976, Dems were still voting for hometown Jimmah Carter. He carried most of the old confederacy.
And even one particular Southern Dem, who served in the KKK and filibustered the Civil Rights Act (cough, cough, Robert Byrd, cough, cough) stayed a Democrat throughout and became Dem Senate leader in the 1980s.
Dems like to accuse folks of racism, but ignore their own racist history.
"And you should remember Patty Murray defeated a republican after a dubious recount where King county found a pile of votes. "
She's not the only one. Ask Governor Dino Rossi about ti.
In what was notable for being among the closest political races in United States election history, Republican Dino Rossi was declared the winner in the initial automated count and again in the subsequent automated recount. It wasn't until after the third count, a second recount done by hand, that Christine Gregoire, a Democrat, took the lead by a margin of 129 votes.
Although Gregoire was sworn in as Governor of Washington on January 12, 2005, Rossi did not formally concede and called for a re-vote over concerns about the integrity of the election. The Republican Party filed a lawsuit in Chelan County Superior Court contesting the election, but the trial judge ruled against it, citing lack of evidence of deliberate electoral sabotage.[1] Rossi chose not to appeal to the Washington State Supreme Court, formally conceding the election on June 6, 2005.
Who do you suppose appointed that judge ?
Booth Gardner, D
Bill Clinton carried 9 out of 13 southern states...
Checks google...
Nope. He won about half of the southern states in 1992.
And again in 1996.
So two generations later the South was not solid Republican.
As usual, Ann, you nailed it! When I was a legislator in Iowa in the early '80's, the "non-partisan" bureau tasked with redrawing the lines after the census uniformly drew them to benefit Democrats and to make it difficult for sitting Republicans to retain their seats. They (Democrats) took over for a few decades. Since I've lived in California for 20 years, I quit paying attention to Iowa, so I was pleasantly surprised when Trump won.
She's not the only one. Ask Governor Dino Rossi about [it]
Gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi. Should've been Governor Dino Rossi!
And Gregoire was one of the worst of a long strong of really dreadful governors.
I think the LLR knows but is avoiding why a lot of GOPe types are not particularly interested in stopping voter fraud.
Name one. Name anybody who is an established member of the Republican Party who is "not particularly interested in stopping voter fraud."
By the way, I would insist that the people who are MOST interested in stopping voter fraud -- Kris Kobach, Hans von Spakovsky, Brad Smith, the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, the Federalist Society, state legislators in Texas, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Michigan, Georgia and elsewhere -- are very much the definition of "establishment Republicans."
It's a great thing, after Trump had no chance to win Michigan, that President Clinton appointed Hans von Spakovsky to her commission on voting irregularities.
Name one. Name anybody who is an established member of the Republican Party who is "not particularly interested in stopping voter fraud."
Well...we're still not sure that you're really a Republican.
Michael K, our weather isn't as unlike yours as you'd like; there were several days in the last week in triple digits. I can see 114 in Kansas (something that stuck in my memory 45 years on), but 105 in Salem, three days running, is just wrong.
SeanF, thanks. That's the obvious solution, and the problem isn't likely to arise anyway.
"but 105 in Salem, three days running, is just wrong. "
The problem unlike Tucson , is some of those places don't have AC.
I've been in Hanover New Hampshire and London with 105 temps. It's ugly.
We were in Simpson's on the Strand one time in July when it was 103 and the sweat was dripping off the Pakistani waiter.
You only want to see that once, if at all.
One thing I'm hoping is we get two more years out of the AC as it is 19 years old. We've replaced most of the systems in this house and can only hope that one has a few more months to go.
One thing I'm hoping is we get two more years out of the AC as it is 19 years old.
I searched the serial numbers, and found that ours is 25 years old. We'll replace it this year whether we need to or not, and hope we don't get another June like this last.
People are leaving NY in droves and maybe CA as well.
Bad Lieutenant,
"Well...we're still not sure that you're really a Republican."
I ruv Repubrican!! I vote repubrican rong time!!
The Congressional Map Is Historically Biased Against Democrats.
There are two kinds of stories about Democrats:
1. Winning!
2. Historically biased against
Sooooo, the Congressional district map is acting as a counter-vailing force to the media, which is overwhelmingly to the left of much of the country. And the media doesn't like it. IN OTHER NEWS: this just in! Water is wet.
Sooooo, the Congressional district map is acting as a counter-vailing force to the media, which is overwhelmingly to the left of much of the country. And the media doesn't like it. IN OTHER NEWS: this just in! Water is wet.
An important question might be: Is the tail wagging the dog? And is/are the media the dog or the tail?
I ruv Repubrican!! I vote repubrican rong time!!
...
You think Chuck is a Vietcong whore?
I didn't think he was Vietnamese. But I guess it's all in how you choose to identify. E.g., Chuck identifies as a Republican.
Kevin said...
The Congressional Map Is Historically Biased Against Democrats.
There are two kinds of stories about Democrats:
1. Winning!
2. Historically biased against
3. Collusion with Russia
Those of you desiring a poster child for gerrymandered districts: I present to you none other than the largest and douchiest example:
Congressman Andre Carson of the Indiana Seventh Congressional District.
If there's a more precise definition of a "fish out if water" I'd like to hear it.
Sorry ... I meant "fish out OF water"
I didn't think he was Vietnamese. But I guess it's all in how you choose to identify. E.g., Chuck identifies as a Republican.
Time for another story,. Back in 1978 I was on the medical society's admissions committee. We had lots of Vietnamese doctors applying and that's another story.
We had a young orthopedic surgeon applying and one question is about any criminal history. Naturally, very few medical association applicants say yes. This guy, we found from a records check, had been convicted and served time for kidnapping. Holy shit !
Naturally, we asked him about it. He told us he had been in Vietnam and had married a Vietnamese girl.
When they came back to the US she was with him but, when the war was lost in 1975, he found out she was a Viet Cong !
She was celebrating the North's win.
He paid some south Vietnamese guys to kidnap her and take her to Thailand and shove her over the border into Vietnam.
We accepted him for admission.
Gee, I wonder if this influx of illegals correlates with the increase in population and increase in the Democrat voting rolls?
Clinton won California by over 4.2 million votes. Are you seriously contending that every undocumented man, woman, and child (plus almost 2 million actual Americans) voted for Clinton, robbing trump of his popular vote victory?
You are as much a insane racist as Michael L
The republians bought up all the cheap properties on the monopoly board while the democrats thought having Boardwalk and Park place would win the game.
Representatives should represent eligible voters, not population. There is no good reason children or non-citizens should get "representation" in Congress. Would require a constitutional amendment, I think.
"You are as much a insane racist as Michael L"
Yrs, only a racist would say, that Los Angeles has 144% of citizens registered to vote,
The Election Integrity Project California, Inc. has joined Judicial Watch, Inc., a non-partisan organization in Washington, D.C., in sending a National Voter Registration Act (“NVRA”) Section 8 notice of violation letter to California Secretary of State, Alex Padilla.
…
For example, a comparison of the 2011-2015 U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, and the most recent California active and inactive voter registration records shows there were more total registered voters than there were adults over the age of 18 living in each of the following eleven (11) counties: Imperial (102%), Lassen (102%), Los Angeles (112%), Monterey (104%), San Diego (138%), San Francisco (114%), San Mateo (111%), Santa Cruz (109%), Solano (111%), Stanislaus (102%), and Yolo (110%). Our own research shows that the situation in these counties is, if anything, worse than the foregoing data suggest. For example, we contacted Los Angeles County directly this past June. At that time, county officials informed us that the total number of registered voters now stands at a number that is a whopping 144% of the total number of resident citizens of voting age.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
So the ex-commie Washington State environmentalists are clustering in the big cities. I guess they don't want to be accused of dodging a cell meeting.
Real environmentalists would go where the air is pure and where the Northern Spotted Owl needs protection from logger's cutting trees for the good of man.
The republians bought up all the cheap properties on the monopoly board while the democrats thought having Boardwalk and Park place would win the game.
Very good, db!
LA County resident. I have as surprised at the 144%.
Couple of thing to watch that may change the democratic / republican vote percentages.
- Bannon gets Culture and politics, which is why he's so hated.
- Alternate media is growing in power.
- Trump is not afraid of being called a racist. This give him a lot of freedom.
- Voter commission is not to be under estimated. Members are A+.
- Judges Trump is nominating
- loss of credibility by mainstream media
- changes in immigration policy
- Echo chamber on the left
- Primaring of GOPe. Cantor was the first...
- Trump minority out reach.
- Trump focus on blue collar workers. Lots of minorities in this class.
- GOP control at the state levels
- upcoming pension tsunami for mostly democratic states.
- growth of alt right tech. Gab and infogalactic are just the start.
- voter ID laws
- affirmative action against Asians in college admissions. Lose lose for Democrats.
- assimilation by latinos after 2 or 3 generations.
Unknown is the economy, and Who gets the blame when the bubble bursts.
- Trump is not afraid of being called a racist. This give him a lot of freedom.
And power. Knowing he is neither a racist nor a Nazi, the left and the MSM [but I repeat] persist in trying to cow him with these epithets. These types of accusations have been so successful against other conservatives, they can't understand why Trump hasn't folded by now.
Forgot to mention Brave the browser for alt tech, Eich revenge for getting booted out of Mozilla...
There are two kinds of stories about Democrats:
1. Winning!
2. Historically biased against
Achilles said... "3. Collusion with Russia"
Let's check: "OMG! Russia for the first time ever interfered in our election targeting Democrats and colluding with the Trump campaign to deny Hillary her rightful place as the first woman president! In addition, Hillary won the popular vote, so Trump should be impeached and removed from office. In the mean time, we don't know what to say to our children who ask us why such a qualified woman didn't shatter the glass ceiling and make our daughters believe they can do anything."
See, it's just #2.
And I didn't even continue the thinking to how Trump's presidency will continue the historic gender wage gap and restrict any NFL owner from considering Colin Kaepernick's MVP-level QB play.
In short, there are two kinds of stories about Democrats:
1. Winning!
2. Whining.
Democrats like to abort and pack people in compact spaces for leverage and welfare profits, respectively.
Democrats compensate through preaching Planned Parenthood, advocacy for the abortion industrial complex (a subsidiary of the social complex), and forcing catastrophic anthropogenic immigration reform in social justice adventures that target native people in order to increase [class] diversity or "color of skin".
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন