Kavanaugh is a flat-earth moron, not qualified to be a middle school science teacher
- Thread starter bhoyal
- Start date
SouthernUnkleRitchie
Verified User
Yes he's very impeachable. He's already lied under oath.
Guno צְבִי
We fight, We win, Am Yisrael Chai
SouthernUnkleRitchie
Verified User
Irish Exit
Verified User
You might be a little premature. Republicans still hold a near record number of partisan political offices (a gain of 1,000 since 2008).
They mastered gerrymandering. It makes a vast majority of political offices noncompetitive.
Governors, U. S. Senators, and other state-wide offices are not affected by gerrymandering. Gerrymandering was mastered many years ago--the term comes from 1812. And noncompetitive offices occur not only because of gerrymandering but because of the "sorting" of the population to live among people like themselves. It would be hard today to draw competitive districts without some drastic gerrymandering.
Yes gerry was a long time ago and it has been used periodicaly since. The Repubs weaponized it. It is easy as hell to draw fair districts. In gerrymandered states, the colleges have produced formulas that will do the job. It is a simple mathematical formula. The reubs refuse to do it because it gives them an unfair advanatage. Several court rulings have gone against Republican gerrymandering. In some cases the courts demanded the districts get redrawn fairly. The judges were presented with evidence showing how easy it is to be fair.
My original point was simply that Republicans have a near record number of elected partisan offices. They have gained 1,000+ seats since 2008. Those are simple facts. To blame it on gerrymandering or anything other than simply more people voting Republicans is just partisan refusal to admit reality and to seek excuses for losing.
Republicans could not gerrymander anything until they first got control of state legislatures which they did by getting the most votes--they couldn't gerrymander legislatures they did not control.
Democrats did not have to gerrymander because they simply refused to redistrict which left all the power in rural districts while the population was shifting to urban areas. The Supreme Court had to make them redistrict and stop using at-large House members because the states were one-party Democratic--weaponizing the redistricting process.
Both parties whine when they lose and find some excuse to blame the other party for their loss. I assumed Trump would lose and thought he would blame illegal votes, "rigging" the system or other excuses. Instead, he won and now I have to listen to Democrats do the same thing. Both sides are poor losers.
I understand there are people who really don't get into the nuts and bolts of politics. Here is the Repub master of gerrymandering who changd the world of drawing districts. https://slate.com/news-and-politics...nt-behind-republicans-redistricting-plan.html
Back to Kavanaugh. He is lying like hell to the senators. The Dems have emails in which he says Roe v wade is not settled law,. that is not what he told senators in conferences. He said he had no trouble with affirmative action. But again they have emals in which he called it "naked racial set asides" They also have emails showing he lied when he said he was not involved in Judge Pryors nomination.
Kavanaugh is acting. he is not testifying.
Kavanaugh is acting. he is not testifying.
I understand the politics of gerrymandering and how it is used to the advantage of both parties. In Democratic states districts are drawn to benefit Democrats and in Republican states they are drawn to benefit Republicans. Certainly there was nothing in those emails that surprised anyone familiar with redistricting. Democrats controlled the House and Senate almost every year from 1932-1994 even when Southern states had become Republican. Redistricting (it doesn't have to fit the "gerrymandering" tag) certainly helped them maintain that control.
You failed to address my point. When most states were controlled by Democrats how did Republicans win control of the legislatures to have the power to draw the districts?
Obviously gerrymandering did not give them control of a majority of state legislatures and governors.
Truth is some states want to have a neutral party draw the districts so they are fair. Every fuckling one of those is a Democratic led movement. The dems are not like the repubs. The Repubs are goal oriented, regardles of what it takes. Replace winning wiith cheating and you will see the real mantra.
Gerrymandering was a play toy in the past. It was the repubs who weaponized it a decade ago. Now it is a tool to cheat on a grand scale.
It was worse than a toy and was used to maintain Democratic power in the South long after it had become Republican. They went beyond simple partisan gerrymandering and engaged in unconstitutional actions.
CA has one of those "nonpartisan" redistricting commissions and incumbents are protected as much as ever. It certainly did not increase competition.
"California just proved how cracking down on gerrymandering isn’t all it’s cracked up to be"
"For the fourth time in 12 years, not a single one of the state's 50-plus congressional districts switched parties. Just as in 2010, 2008 and 2004, every single seat returned to the party that previously controlled it.
And if you exclude the post-redistricting election of 2012, only two California districts have flipped parties since 2004. That's two out of 314 individual races — 0.6 percent. (And one of the two was a fluke in which the GOP briefly held a blue-leaning seat thanks to two Republicans advancing to the general election in 2012.)"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-its-cracked-up-to-be/?utm_term=.7bc26d9b7457
California is overwhelmingly Democratic voting. That is why the Dems win. Same for the south. They did not gerrymander much, they simply stopped who they did not want to vote, from the polls. From poll taxes, to voter suppression, they stopped the unwanted from exercizing their political rights.