Penelope
Diamond Member
- Jul 15, 2014
- 60,265
- 15,804
- 2,210
- Thread starter
- #21
That's is true, but it didn't start with census, it started before, and along with the Tea Party, bail outs and yes the ACA introduction, but mainly within a few states it started.
Every state handles creating their district maps a little differently. Arizona, Iowa, California, Washington, Idaho, and New Jersey all use various commission models. But the vast majority of states leave redistricting up to some combination of the legislature and the governor. Jankowski looked for states that were likely to gain or lose seats after reapportionment, and would therefore be tearing up the old maps and starting from scratch with a different number of districts. Pennsylvania, Michigan, Texas, and North Carolina made that list. He looked for states where control was tight, and swinging just a handful of districts might tip the chamber to the Republicans, such as Wisconsin, Ohio, and Virginia, even New York. Then he checked for states where Republicans might control the legislature and the governor’s office, and would therefore be able to lock the Democrats out of redistricting altogether. He didn’t want a Democratic governor, for example, to be able to veto a plan.
The House the GOP Built: How Republicans Used Soft Money, Big Data, and High-Tech Mapping to Take Control of Congress and Increase Partisanship
He was right, who controls the states pretty much control who the state votes for. 2018 is coming and many seats are up for grabs, and after the GOP , I think we can pretty much assure to take back many seats within states and Fed government.
That's is true, but it didn't start with census, it started before, and along with the Tea Party, bail outs and yes the ACA introduction,
Yes. The claims that the ACA didn't cost seats, just redistricting was comically incorrect.
Due to the ACA, the GOP got more seats, so not true!! It was due to
Hey!! That was your comic thread.
He was right, who controls the states pretty much control who the state votes for.
After Obama, Dems control so many fewer states. He really eviscerated your party.
In 2008, Dems held 29 governorships. Now, they hold 16. What a wipeout!!!
At that time I really doubt the ACA was a trigger for the increase in GOP seats but the Tea Party and Bail outs. Also more Dems are least likely to vote in mid term elections, and I know in MI they (the GOP in charge) are trying to make it as hard as possible to vote, decreasing the voting places for the known Democratic areas, and trying to get rid of straight ticket ballots. I foresee a huge mid term turnout in 2018.
At that time I really doubt the ACA was a trigger for the increase in GOP seats but the Tea Party and Bail outs.
What we do know, for sure, is it wasn't redistricting.
And of course the huge Dem wipeout in governorships isn't redistricting either.
I foresee a huge mid term turnout in 2018.
Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised to see a big Dem loss in the Senate.
Its was not the ACA, it was a conscious decision to transfer power in a few swing states, plus the Tea Party propaganda, so the GOP saying it was the ACA is not true.
Its was not the ACA,
Then what did Obama and the Dems do in 2009 & 2010 that pissed off so many voters that the Dems lost
63 seats?
Bail out and Tea Party. He also had and still has brown skin. Most didn't even know what the ACA and Medicaid expansion was except for the GOP and Tea Partiers. Mi right now has 27 GOP Senators and 11 Democrats , and way to many GOP Representatives.
Last edited: