... House maps and redistricting laws in Democratic states present significant hurdles. Illinois, for instance, is already so skewed to Democrats that flipping even one of the three Republican seats left would be extremely difficult for mapmakers.
That's a funny use of the passive voice: "is already so skewed." In other words, Democrats have already done what they could to advantage themselves in Illinois. They've already used the practice they now want to condemn as nefarious.
Illinois governor JB Pritzker is quoted saying: "If they’re going to cheat, then all of us have to take a hard look at what the effect of that cheating is on democracy. That means we all have to stand up and do the right thing. So, as far as I’m concerned, everything is on the table."
"If they’re going to cheat..." — as if the Republicans started it. You've just accused your own party of cheating. What is the "right thing" — cancelling the other side's cheating? You are essentially crediting your adversaries with doing the "right thing."
Meanwhile, in California, Gavin Newsom is also talking about the "right thing":
Unlike in Texas, where politicians control the process, California’s congressional districts have been set by an independent commission that is not allowed to consider partisanship in drawing the lines. Mr. Newsom has proposed putting that system on hold for the next three elections to help Democrats counter the Republican plan in Texas. He wants the California plan to contain a provision saying that it goes into effect only if Texas approves new maps mid-decade.
“It’s triggered on the basis of what occurs or doesn’t occur in Texas,” Mr. Newsom told reporters on Monday. “I hope they do the right thing, and if they do the right thing, then there’ll be no cause for us to have to move forward.”'
But if they don't do "the right thing," then Newsom is ready to do the wrong thing. But can he? The system he is talking about putting on hold is a matter of state constitutional law. To amend it, he would be asking the people to vote on a ballot initiative to undo the reform they voted for in 2008 and 2010.
Imagine the campaign against that reform, so recently touted as the right thing to do in California: We're doing it right, but if Texas is doing it wrong, we've got to seize the power to do it wrong like the way we did in the bad old days.
Mga Post
113 komento:
I saw a Illinois district map while browsing last night. Two (D) districts were stretched long and narrow to pull in D-rat cities in largely conservative rural areas. I link if I find it.
Here is free link-
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/illinois-democrats-gerrymandering-texas-lawmakers-j-b-pritzker-9720b2be?st=K9fnop&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Paraphrasing some wag yesterday….. in a game of gerrymandering tit-for-tat, the Commies are out of tits.
Even after Texas passes Redistricting, I welcome California to match Texas in giving Republicans the same representation that Texas gives Democrats. Same with Illinois.
The Illinois Seventh is one of the most hilariously drawn districts in the nation.
The lemons have been squeezed dry by the Dems while the R's sit with a big old bag of juicy limes. Bring water, ice, and sugar.
It's going to get hot next year.
Then there’s the Louisiana racial gerrymandering case the Supreme Court is set to rule on soon. That could be an extinction-level event for the Democrats as the political species they have been since the Johnson Administration.
I don’t recall anyone ever contending that Democrats were prudent, fair-minded, honorable, or the least bit ethical.
I believe the majority of Democrats to be venal, corrupt, soulless pieces of shit.
Shorter Pritzker: Now that we've exhausted our cheating, it's time to end all cheating!
Seriously. I thought the left wanted minority-majority districts. Apparently that’s only about race, not political leanings. Conservative districts aren’t allowed as much as black or Hispanic ones are. Where’s the Voter Rights Act from that angle? MA votes 40% Republican, yet has no R rep in the US Congress! It’s filthy.
Good thing the tide is turning. Four of the five new districts in TX will be majority Hispanic Republican districts.
Whenever a D complains about R map drawing and representation, I just point to Massachusetts. There are 9 Mass reps, all D. The last R rep from Mass left in 1997.
No more needs to be said.
Throughout the 70s, 80s, and 90s political reporters in the MSM would praise the Phil Burton and Willie Brown for being so "clever" in gerrymandering california. As Althouse notes, its this absurd gerrymandering by the Calf State Assembly that led to the Voter Referendum's keeping it out of their hands.
I find all these rhetorical tricks by the Liberal/left Democrats tiresome. It never changes. They do something, they cry foul when the R's respond. Always "Playing the victim" or the "Outraged man with ethics". Digusting - and boring.
Iman said...
"I don’t recall anyone ever contending that Democrats were prudent, fair-minded, honorable, or the least bit ethical.
I believe the majority of Democrats to be venal, corrupt, soulless pieces of shit."
I'm of another mind. The radicals who have insinuated themselves into party leadership for the description. Many, but not all of their faithful voters go along because they think the party is as it was, years ago. And a minority - a growing minority - isn't fooled, and is becoming restive as they see the party's current values at odds with common sense. See: John Fetterman.
'fit the description '
I wonder, if California drew a 100% D map, how would R voters in the state feel? Would a greater proportion of R's leave CA for other states? I speculate "Yes".
As long as Democrats did it better, Gerrymandering was OK. Now that Republicans have some game, it is pure evil.
The other thing about the D's is they work as a team. When's the last time an R Governor was upset at something that effected the R congressmen in another state? Never. In fact, I've already seen news articles about "Swing state R's - think Republican gerrymanding has gone too far". Because in every fight with the D's, the Republicans can always, and I mean always, count on 5-10 percent of their side joining the D's.
Yes Democrats have already maximized the available gerrymandering, like we all said yesterday on here. Republicans control more states but just submitted to the fraudulent 2020 census because that's SOP for GOPe. Trump's triumph truly is in getting a crucial segment of GOP to fight like Democrats. So the fact Democrats keep screaming bloody murder for the mildest of GOP responses to their decades long dominance of edgy politics tells me they are panicking.
Panic has taken the form of distancing themselves from ActBLUE the fraudulent donation machine, messaging in disarray (that actually is true), confused policies where prominent Ds say opposite things publicly then privately within the same news cycle, house organs NYT and WaPo and OTATV in total meltdown losing money talent and readers simultaneously.
California is already pretty much a one-party state. They currently send 43 Democrat representatives and 9 Republican representatives to the US Congress. Both US Senators are Democrats.
In the California State House, there are already 60 Democrats and 19 Republicans. The State Senate has 30 Democrats and 10 Republicans.
There is literally no chance today that any Republican has any say or any influence on any decision made in or for California. And it's been that way for years. Which partially explains the mess California is in today.
Gavin, as usual, is doing a performance based on whatever the daily or weekly outrage is from the left. It is not based on any change in the lives of Californians. They are still, and will continue to be for years, run by the worst policies in the nation.
MadTownGuy said..."I'm of another mind. "
Is that a woke mind? Like in woke mind virus.
I was shocked to see the head of the DNC say (after taking a hit on his asthma inhaler) that they are going to fight fight fight because Trump plans to "cheat and steal" the upcoming election. These are forbidden words according to democrats. He's undermining faith in our democracy. Hell the DNC is ATTACKING democracy itself at this point, according to their own rhetoric.
Pepperidge Farm remembers.
The California Dems have moved beyond gerrymandering. They just steal Republican seats by keep counting “late” mail-in ballots until the Dem wins.
Too bad we don’t have a Supreme Court interested in preserving the right to a republican form of government in each state. I really hate how the politicians can choose their constituents by gerrymandering and vote fraud.
"[Californians] currently send 43 Democrat representatives and 9 Republican representatives to the US Congress. . . . The State Senate has 30 Democrats and 10 Republicans."
So in California, state senatorial districts are actually about 20% larger than U.S. congressional districts? Interesting.
This whole thing is ridiculous and the courts need to step in. The whole point of gerrymandering is to disenfranchise the opposition's voters. If Democrat options in response to Texas are limited b/c they have already fully gerrymandered their states, then it's done its job--it's disenfranchised voters.
The problem is, courts themselves have engaged in gerrymandering with their nonsense about majority minority districts, so they are in no position to complain either.
The process needs to be fully revamped. Redistricting committees should be as non-partisan as possible and the they should only have population data and nothing more to work with as they draw their lines. Anything else just opens the door to more abuse.
"This whole thing is ridiculous and the courts need to step in. The whole point of gerrymandering is to disenfranchise the opposition's voters. If Democrat options in response to Texas are limited b/c they have already fully gerrymandered their states, then it's done its job--it's disenfranchised voters."
What are you talking about? The SCOTUS had to step in and get the Federal judges out of the business of drawing maps because the whole thing just turned into a partisan exercise. The D judges would stop the R's from gerrymandering and allow the D gerrymandering. Or maybe your talking about some other set of judges. But the whole idea that "Judges" are non-partisan is ridiculous.
I think it's hilarious that the Dems' reaction to legislation they can't affect through their votes is often the same as Delta Fraternity's reaction in the movie "Animal House" when the Deltas were being kicked off campus. Recall they decided the only appropriate action was one last futile and inconsequential act, specifically they decided on a "road trip." The only difference between the Deltas and the Dems is Otter and Boon admitted it was futile and inconsequential before they hit the road.
It's a good thing for Democrats that most people don't let politics rule their lives, because if they did, there would be uprisings in all those states where Republicans have effectively no representation whatsoever, because of the Democrat's gerrymandering history.
RCOCEAN II said...What are you talking about? The SCOTUS had to step in and get the Federal judges out of the business of drawing maps
If you want to respond to one of my posts, please read it first.
jaydub said...Recall they decided the only appropriate action was one last futile and inconsequential act, specifically they decided on a "road trip.
They did take a road trip in the movie, but the stupid and futile gesture was a terror attack on a parade.
And the media calls NONE of the democrats to task for their blatant hypocrisy. The nyt reports that it will be tough for our party to squeeze more democrats out than we already have. But not the hypocrisy of whining about it. That takes a blog like this one.
On X, you too can get in on the gerrymandering fun thanks to Iowahawk: https://x.com/iowahawkblog/status/1952733339317645651
"In truth, Republicans may have more cards to play in an all-out redistricting war in 2026 than Democrats do.."
because the Dems have ALREADY gerrymandered ALL the states they control.
What is the "right thing"(?)
The right thing is what the right people want. (If you're not one of the "right people", please f$%k off and die.)
Democrats lost the quorum game before, and they aren't going to win this time.
I think they know that too but it is unclear how much political profits they will be able to extract out of this.
No more needs to be said.
Yet the braindead MA governor just went on TV to threaten to retaliate against TX. How?
The tortuous Gerrymeandering boundaries should be designed by AI to maximize Party advantage whatsoever the state government wants. I mean, c'mon. What would Bill Bellycheck do? The parties are competing for control of the most powerful and wealthy government in history.
"This ain't no party, this ain't no disco
This ain't no fooling around
No time for dancing, or lovey dovey
I ain't got time for that now"
Danno said...
[MadTownGuy said..."I'm of another mind. "]
"Is that a woke mind? Like in woke mind virus?"
No, more like a realization that there are three factions:
- Party leadership, using the Woke agenda to disrupt norms and press for socialism,
- Lifelong Democrats (like my Dad, who while he was alive, got misty-eyed about FDR and assumed that the Party's values hadn't changed),
- Democrats who are actually paying attention and who are starting to object to what the Party has become.
Had the Illinois map been enacted by Republicans, "already so skewed" would have been written "already so gerrymandered".
"'If they’re going to cheat... — as if the Republicans started it."
"What was I supposed to do? Call him for cheating better than me?"
--- Doyle Lonnegan
When we lived in Wisconsin, I occasionally crossed party lines to vote (D), because, silly me, I thought voting for the best person was the best plan.
I voted for Jim Doyle, because as Wisconsin's Attorney General, he would have a proper respect for the law. Once in office, I saw that he used his knowledge and experience to game the system - in one case, by using the tobacco settlement to balance the budget, rather than raising taxes or reining in spending.
I voted for Russ Feingold twice, on the proposition that he was a moderate. I couldn't vote for him a third time as it had become evident, based on his support for expanding voting rights for felons, that when push came to shove, he hewed to the more extreme party line. Yes, he voted against the USA Patriot Act, but since he was the lone Nay in the Senate, it was largely symbolic and he lost no political capital. He made awesome commercials, though.
Illinois is a pathetic joke. 100% mob-dem.
Imagine the campaign against that reform, so recently touted as the right thing to do in California:
Look what you made me do.
It will be nearly impossible for the Democrats to gain any more seats in California without creating discontinuous districts. To try otherwise actually puts many of the seats they won last November at risk- 16 of those seats were won with less than 60% of the vote where the opponent was a Republican rather than another Democrat and those districts completely gird the deep blue metropolitan districts of San Francisco and Los Angeles- a result of the gerrymander done by this so-called independent redistricting body.
The dems just brought in millions of illegals - all so they can stack the deck to their terrorist-like one party mob rule. they can all f off.
Yet the braindead MA governor just went on TV to threaten to retaliate against TX. How?
I’m good with Massachusetts making two Republican district to give them something equal to what Texas will give Democrats. Hell, just one will be better than the zero Republican representation in Massachusetts where Trump got 36% of the vote.
Another complicating factor is going to be the identity politics the Democrats have to bow to- to do a deeper gerrymander in the blue states is going to make it harder for Hispanic, Asian, and Black congresscritters to win their primaries easily. It just fundamentally easier for Republicans to gerrymander because Democrats are so concentrated already via demographics and population density.
Peachy said...
"Illinois is a pathetic joke. 100% mob-dem."
No argument here. Pritzker wants, more than anything else, to be Stalin.
I live in Illinois. Phoniness comes naturally to Gov. Jabba and his team of crooks.
To quote from “the princess bride” , “they’re trying to steal what we’ve rightfully stolen”
I can't believe how far we got before someone (Howard) suggested getting AI to draw the lines.
I was all set to be like, "I'm with Howard!" (which seldom happens, much as I enjoy him). But then he added the party about getting the chosen AI to adhere to majority party wishes instead of simply creating relatively un-fractal districts of like population size, and I was out.
JB Pritzker is quoted saying...So, as far as I’m concerned, everything is on the table.
I thought he was talking about the dinner table.
I looked up Pritzker's weight, out of curiosity. He should be FB Pritzker.
The first site said he was 5' 9" and 187 lbs.
The second had this hilarious paragraph:
JB Pritzker, the governor of Illinois, is known for his robust appearance and towering stature. As of the year 2025, JB Pritzker stands at an impressive height of 6 feet 2 inches (188 cm). Despite his height, he maintains a healthy weight of approximately 220 pounds (100 kg), showcasing a well-proportioned physique.
https://equityatlas.org/jb-pritzker-weight-and-height/#
Public sentiment may soon shift leftward if Trump oversteps with aggressive deportations and attacks on universities. Christian nationalists won’t suddenly embrace Michel Foucault’s teachings, but centrist voters who reluctantly supported Trump might say, “This is too much,” and lean the other way. If this happens, it could shape not only their votes in next year’s midterm elections but also their responses to corporate advertising and satire. The right’s brief moment of cultural influence—where Sydney Sweeney can star in a conservative-coded jeans ad, perhaps hinting at traditional values—may prove short-lived.
I'm starting a new conspiracy theory.
The Dems burned the Palisades in LA just so they could move people in there and create a new district. They couldn't gerrymander on the maps so they're doing it in the real world.
"The right thing" is nothing more than what could elect Democrats, it seems. No other factors enter into it. If they seem on the verge of apprehending this, and thus perhaps having some insight into the limitations of this as a moral code, I have not seem many liberals make that leap in my adult life. I wouldn't count on it.
Nice one Leland. Howard! When you're right you're right Howard.
California, New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, Connecticut, New Mexico, New Jersey, and other states have Congressional delegations with partisan splits disproportionate to the partisan voter splits, and that favor Dems. Who, if anyone, is standing for a consistent principle here?
Preference cascades move faster than the Dems can re-draw districts.
Apparently Pritzker and Newsome don't think better messaging is going to cut it.
Jamie, I agree with you 100% in principle. However, I live in the real world.
Kak: it's the economy, stupid. The great silent majority doesn't care about the ephemeral partisan issues that appeal to true believes.
Trump’s influence likely peaked this summer, and his path may now trend downward.
Inflation is poised to rise, and to some extent, it already has. Prices haven’t surged faster or sooner because some businesses stockpiled foreign inventory before tariffs took effect, while others temporarily absorbed cost increases rather than passing them on to consumers.
These buffers won’t last. Nor can cheaper labor offset rising production costs, especially if Trump’s immigration restrictions are effective. All else equal, tariffs of this magnitude will drive higher prices over time. Trump may claim to be a transformative figure, upending the dominant economic thinking of our era, but classical economics still holds in practice.
Recent global politics teaches a clear lesson: voters are far more price-sensitive than expected. Trump’s supporters may be loyal, but a principle is not a principle until it costs you money.
If we can't trust politicians to tell the truth about their weight, why bother with all their other narratives?
Regarding this quote:
"JB Pritzker, the governor of Illinois, is known for his robust appearance and towering stature. As of the year 2025, JB Pritzker stands at an impressive height of 6 feet 2 inches (188 cm). Despite his height, he maintains a healthy weight of approximately 220 pounds (100 kg), showcasing a well-proportioned physique."
I notice the website somehow managed to neglect to include any pictures.
I'm sure it was just an oversight.
California:
🔴40% of the statewide vote
🔵17% of the seats (9 out of 52)
Massachusetts:
🔴35% of the statewide vote
🔵0% of the seats (0 out of 9)
Connecticut:
🔴 38% of the statewide vote
🔵 0% of the seats (0 out of 5)
New York:
🔴42% of the statewide vote
🔵26.9% of the seats (7 out of 26)
New Jersey:
🔴 43% of the statewide vote
🔵 25% of the seats (3 out of 12)
Maryland:
🔴 38% of the statewide vote
🔵 12% of the seats (1 out of 8)
New Mexico:
🔴 44% of the statewide vote
🔵 0% of the seats (0 out of 3)
Hawaii:
🔴 30% of the statewide vote
🔵 0% of the seats (0 out of 2)
Oregon:
🔴 42% of the statewide vote
🔵 16% of the seats (1 out of 6)
Washington:
🔴 38% of the statewide vote
🔵 20% of the seats (2 out of 10)
Rhode Island:
🔴 38% of the statewide vote
🔵 0% of the seats (0 out of 2)
The real Gerrymanderers = the corrupt left.
I looked for pictures of Joe Biden (6 feet tall) and JB Pritzker. It looks like Joe has about an inch on the governor.
I think the next logical step for California is to outlaw the Republican Party, as Ripley quite correctly said "it's the only way to be sure."
California already has the open primary system where the top two vote getters in the primary, no matter their party, run in the general election. They already box Republicans and Independents out of Congressional seats with that system.
Gavin Newsom keeps stepping in shit and dragging it everywhere. Unlike me, whose mom would say that Irish phrase of, "you stepped in shite and came out looking like a rose"
It is possible to shut the other party out the U.S. House if your party gets, let's say, even just 51% of the Congressional vote in your state but it is riskier the closer that share gets to 50%. Discontinuous districts would do it easily since vote share is known on a granular enough basis at the precinct level. It is harder if the districts must have a single continuous boundary but not impossible.
Unfortunately for both parties there is a big enough cohort of voters in every single state who regularly change which party they vote for thus you actually need a higher average vote share to practice the most ruthless gerrymanders.
@G.Callahan
"Oh no. Maura Healey says President Trump and Gov. Abbott have left her with no choice.
She MUST gerrymander Massachusetts to get rid of all the Republican Reps. "
Reality - there are ZERO R reps in MA.
Democrats leaving Texas to stop a gerrymandering power grab is grounds for removal. Republicans leaving Washington to avoid releasing the Epstein files is smart politics.
The Epstein files are going to snare some big Dems. Bill Clinton, first.
You would literally have to gerrymander Massachusetts to get a single GOP House member. Most of the towns are quite blue, even in the rural areas of western MA- the only towns that actually voted for GOP House candidate were in the east of the state and there were only a handful. To even create a single GOP House leaning district would require connecting those eastern towns to a handful in the west that voted for an independent rather than the Democrat- so it would be no sure thing anyway.
If the Epstein ordeal/files were authentically filled with Trump Trump Trump - Biden and his goons would have certainly used it all.
If all the Epstein material were released and Trump wasn't implicated, Kakabich would just claim that all the files were not released. In short, nothing will ever convince him since his position wasn't really fact-based in the first place- it is all his masturbatory imagination. Hilarious, really in a sad, pathetic sort of fashion.
I've lived in California for a bit more than 70 years--from a time when it was a Republican dominated state--that ended a bit more than 35 years ago. Now it's all Democrat all the way, and with a jungle primary, the voter is often reduced to a choice between two Democrats in the general election. Gerrymandering is the state sport--despite what the Brylcreem Boy Governor has to say. The state changed the rules and got an Independent Commission to redistrict the state. Result--same old same old. I have no confidence in judge ordered redistricting. So Newsom and Pritzker can huff and puff--and the Governor of Massachusetts will "guard the state" against such dastardly acts by Republicans. Only problem is that there are no Republicans in the Massachusetts Congressional delegation so she's got to figure out how to create a "negative Republican less than zero". Ah well, let the games begin.
I looked at New York, too- not easy to gerrymander in more Democrats without risking actually losing the more marginal Dem seats. Almost all of GOPs win with 60% plus of the vote. Again, it can be done but would probably require discontinuous districts and would put black Democrat congresscritters at risk of losing the primaries.
Also, it has been forgotten, even by myself who pays attention to these sorts of things, that New York was already a new gerrymander since it was redrawn in early 2024 by the state legislature. More than a few stories seems to believe the boundaries were the same as in the 2022 race.
Here's the irony. I think this remap is going to do nothing for them. I think this is the wrong cycle to remap.
If you were really trying to maximize Republican districts, you'd have done this before a presidential. Why? Trump voters don't show up for midterms.
You look at the map they put out there, I think they pick up one on their best day in a midterm. It may go better for them in a presidential, but they're assuming that this Latino vote has shifted permanently. Well, that to me seems to be a bit like being high in your own supply here, right?
I don't accept that premise that you're gonna see Latino voters stick the way they think they're gonna stick. I think actually they're the swing vote of America, and I think you're gonna see working class Hispanics vacillate quite a bit over the next couple of election cycles.
A classic case of tit for tat strategy. The democrats have gerrymandered every state they can and now that the republican are doing a tit for tat strategy, they are complaining. The republican response should be we will stop when you correct what you have already done. Add to that California's delayed count in republican districts until a democrat is ahead.
So am I to understand that without a census that includes illegal aliens who are ineligible to vote and extreme gerrymandering, the democrats would be a rump party in the house?
According to current CA law, the deadline to submit a ballot measure for a special election has passed. According to an interpretation by the SOS the latest date is August 23rd. The Assembly is in recess until the 18th. They’d have five days to draw and approve maps per that interpretation.
Interesting take:
every blue state is already gerrymandered to the maximum possible extent. None of these states have a Republican congressperson:
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Vermont
New Hampshire
Hawaii
New Mexico
Connecticut
Delaware
These states have only ONE Republican congressperson:
Maryland
Oregon
Maine
and these states have 2-5:
Colorado
Minnesota
Illinois
Virginia
New Jersey
Which means the only states that they could gerrymander more to get rid of Republicans would be California and New York. This is why they are all losing their minds about gerrymandering.
https://x.com/WallStreetApes/status/1953078888042733821
So am I to understand that without a census that includes illegal aliens who are ineligible to vote and extreme gerrymandering, the democrats would be a rump party in the house?
So much so that Chuck E Schuner spilled the beans last year the week polls gave Kamala the fake bump, as if she had pulled ahead of Trump, when he said Ds would pack SCOTUS, end the electoral college, give statehood (and four Senate seats) to DC and PR. They were going to rig the game and salt the earth after killing democracy.
They cannot survive on an even playing field. They cannot win in the arena of ideas. They have to have an edge.
I don't accept that premise that you're gonna see Latino voters stick the way they think they're gonna stick. I think actually they're the swing vote of America, and I think you're gonna see working class Hispanics vacillate quite a bit over the next couple of election cycles.
Even a blind pig sometimes finds an acorn.
I think this is true. Much will depend on the state of the economy.
Democrats hate it when Republicans do what they have been doing all along.
Reality - there are ZERO R reps in MA
@Peachy, that’s because Massachusetts was already Gerrymandered long ago.
So, as far as I’m concerned, everything is on the table."
Fine by me, fat boy. Bring it.
and these states have 2-5:
Colorado
Minnesota
Illinois
Virginia
New Jersey
Add Washington state.
“I hope they do the right thing, and if they do the right thing, then there’ll be no cause for us to have to move forward.”
It has a "This is not over until I win" Feingold flare. Doesn't it?
"Here's the irony. I think this remap is going to do nothing for them. I think this is the wrong cycle to remap."
Wow, a comment from Bich that I agree with. This should have been done with the last reapportionment- just another piece of evidence that the GOP is the dumb party.
Mid-decade redistricting is allowed in some states and forbidden in others. For old-timers, the current Texas dramedy is a rerun of the events of 2003. Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida, and Virginia redistricted in the 2010s, because courts threw out the earlier redistricting plans. State legislators, bless their hearts, are a lot less keen on having their own district boundaries redrawn between censuses and most states forbid that.
Bob Boyd said...
"I'm starting a new conspiracy theory:
The Dems burned the Palisades in LA just so they could move people in there and create a new district. They couldn't gerrymander on the maps so they're doing it in the real world."
So, what's the new conspiracy theory?
"I don't accept that premise that you're gonna see Latino voters stick the way they think they're gonna stick."
I think you're right. Latino voters voted for Trump because of the awesomeness of Trump. And the pathetic mess of Harris. (I originally wrote 'patheticness' to play off awesomeness; word correction suggested 'pathetic mess'. Works for me.)
I think we can all agree gerrymandering is the right thing when we do it and the wrong thing when they do it.
Illinois district 13 is a thing of beauty. Starting in East St. Louis, a town of deep poverty, it follows interstate 72 to the capital Springfield, home of people who will get government pensions, to the main University town of Champaign Urbana. The thing is 150 miles long and is at a minimum of 3 miles wide. It uses interstate 72 to run through miles of Republican farmers in a narrow corridor to get to the rich vein of social science profs in Champaign.
It is to cry for. The last house race was 56% dem. Sounds like they can trim a few dem voters over to the next distirct and keep it about 52%.
Biden = Newsom = Pritzker = "safe" white-guy puppets owned by people of color and back-room big money guys.
They all sold their souls and cut off their b*lls so they could pretend to drive the train and make some $$$.
Ego will eat you if you let it.
FB Pritzker will eat you if you let him.
Jabba the Gov.
Jabba the Putz
Bob Boyd said...
"FB Pritzker will eat you if you let him."
You never see him around children.
Or as I like to call him, Baron Harkonnen of the prairie.
"I think we can all agree gerrymandering is the right thing when we do it and the wrong thing when they do it."
No, we can't. It's wrong and in a perfect world, neither party would do it.
But we don't live in that world. Unfortunately, we are living in one where the Democrats are strenuously opposed to maintaining current and accurate voter rolls, oppose efforts to enforce any sort of voter ID and endorse policies that allow for voter fraud.
In that case, it's hard to object if Republicans do what they can to counter Democrat dishonesty and duplicity. IMO, anyway- YMMV.
Let me simplify all this. Democrats are liars, frauds and cheats. If you understand and accept that, everything they do makes sense. There really is little to accomplish by examining and discussing what they do, because that's all there is to it.
"because that's all there is to it."
That's the way it looks from here. The "Both Sides" people are delusional.
Democrats today are what happens when the (ever present) anarchy and revolution wing of a leftist party is given full control. Their funders/oligarchs consciously do this to maintain power and to use some fresh pawns.
Cattle, pigs, chicken, sheep and well-fed human pawns can be plenty happy with their lives, and never notice when they are entering an abattoir.
Schwarzenegger is one of my least favorite Republicans, but I'm with him 100% on the gerrymander.
“His thing is gerrymandering is evil everywhere,” said Daniel Ketchell, Mr. Schwarzenegger’s chief of staff. “No matter where it’s done, he opposes it and wants the people to be in charge, not the politicians.”
Kudos!
the ambitions in California include not just creating the same number of new Democratic seats but also shoring up as many as a half-dozen incumbent Democrats in the state who are in potential battleground districts.
Everybody knows the Democrats now hate our freedom of speech. But now they're hostile to our right to vote as well. Any move by the people in power to keep themselves in power by excluding voters is anti-democratic as hell. Quit lying about how "democratic" you are. Your gerrymander is a fascist game to stay in power indefinitely.
it's hard to object if Republicans do what they can to counter Democrat dishonesty and duplicity
Why it’s almost as though I telepathically detected your thoughts.
Newsome cannot get it on the ballot before 28, to be effective in 30, at which point it is in effect for one year before they get to redistrict due to losing either 1 seat due to population loss, or several seats due to illegal aliens not counting for representation purposes. Empty rhetoric, which is about all Newsome has ever been good for.
"Independent redistricting commissions" my a**. As LBJ once told a reform-minded freshman senator, "you can't take the politics out of politics". I guess we could have an AI try to set fair districts but who knows about them even?
Mag-post ng isang Komento
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.