Republican Gerrymandering

[AVG-JOE]

You beat me to it they just recently elected the extreme and also phony Indian Elizabeth Warren and the extremely radical nut job Alan Grayson as just two examples.

"Well... well... well... they do it too!" is not a solution.

Besides... who gives a fuck about the democrats? I want to discuss how republican gerrymandering is damaging republican chances nationally.

It doesn't damage diddly squat. Republicans would be stupid not to do it when Democrats do it with gusto.

We really believe that you're concerned about helping Republicans win elections. A better strategy would be to convince Democrats to stop their Gerrymandering.

The best strategy would be to convince EVERYONE to stop gerrymandering.

 

[daveman]

The TEA Party wing of the Republicans may not owe its existence to Gerrymandering, but the tail-wagging-the-dog power it holds over the party and the nation is a direct result.

The Republican insistence on nominating conservative candidates who are right-wing buffoons in the general elections is a direct result of Gerrymandering.

Gerrymandering may be protecting the ideology of the Right, but it's rendering the Republicans impotent in national elections.

Gerrymandering is THE reason that Americans have a less than 10% approval rating for Congress.

It's the REPUBLICANS who're being hurt by Republican Gerrymandering in the long run.

`​

16 of the 21 most-gerrymandered Congressional districts are Democratic.

Which has NOTHING to do with how gerrymandering is damaging the republicans by helping to preserve a minority ideology.


At some point in time, you guys are going to have to stop settling for a devil just slightly less heinous than the democrats.

Until there's a real, actual conservative party, we're stuck with the GOP.

 

[Samson]

"Well... well... well... they do it too!" is not a solution.

Besides... who gives a fuck about the democrats? I want to discuss how republican gerrymandering is damaging republican chances nationally.

It doesn't damage diddly squat. Republicans would be stupid not to do it when Democrats do it with gusto.

We really believe that you're concerned about helping Republicans win elections. A better strategy would be to convince Democrats to stop their Gerrymandering.

The best strategy would be to convince EVERYONE to stop gerrymandering.

What would motivate either political party to wanna do that?

 

[FA_Q2]

In reality, the Tea Party is the sole potential salvation for the GOP. The national GOP, that miscreant collection of weak-willed losers, are more interested in staying in power than in doing the heavy lifting of governance. And they aren't very intelligent about retaining (or reclaiming) power, at that.

The GOP is too busy attempting to placate the liberal media and the false portrayal it offers of the "mood" of the electorate to bother attending to the logic of reality and history.

The institutional GOP "leadership" tries to "sanction" the conservatives. All the better to keep a version of Party discipline which is in keeping with their own myopic views on what they need to do to get votes.

But there's nobody tripping over themselves to vote for the national GOP candidates when the national Party has no discernible distinguishing principles.

If the fucking dishonest liberally-biased media claims that "the Hispanic vote" is the be all and end all of getting elections won, then the GOP dutifully "reaches out" to the Hispanic population by caving-in on matters of immigration reform. Does it work? Will THAT help get the "Hispanic vot"e to perform a sea change shift from the Dim Party to the GOP?

Of course not.

All the GOP manages to accomplish is to LOOK like snake oil salesmen to the very constituency they are hoping to woo. And they get what SHOULD be their base to lose faith in what the GOP stands for. The GOP-base voters might as well vote for a Dim since there are fewer and fewer substantive differences between the two national Parties. Or, on election days, the GOP base just stays home, more and more, which effectively concedes the field to the opposition. It turns out that it's not such a great idea to take "counsel" or "advice" from the FakeyStarkeys of the world, and their media stooges.

If the national GOP had a brain in its collective head, they'd study recent history. What led to their ascendancy when they achieved any form of electoral success? Seriously. Did Ronald Reagan pander to the liberals? Or did he TAKE THEM ON? Did he spend lots of time agreeing with them or did he expose the hideous leftist logic behind the Democrat Parody agenda.

So, once again, the question is urgent, pressing and quite real: What led to the GOP ascendancy when they achieved any form of electoral success?

Hint: it was NOT acting like a pale version of the Dim Party.

Very true. The GOP should not be a duplicate of the dems but they look more and more like it every year.

I would disagree with the social aspect though and they are the only real divide between the GOP and the Dems at the moment. The GOP needs to abandon that track and get back to the actual values that the party is supposed to stand for. The STATES can take care of the social aspects; the federal government needs to get back to what it was meant to do rather than running our lives.

Do that and you alienate the single largest voting block of the GOP-Social Conservatives.

Hence the problem with getting rid of the RR in primaries.

The reality is though that voting bloc is republican no matter what. They are not going to stay home or vote for Dems if gay marriage and abortion are not hot topics. The right MUST learn to deal with that or die. There really is no other options here. I prefer they die to be honest and then they can be replaced but such a thing does not happen quickly.

 

[FA_Q2]

It doesn't damage diddly squat. Republicans would be stupid not to do it when Democrats do it with gusto.

We really believe that you're concerned about helping Republicans win elections. A better strategy would be to convince Democrats to stop their Gerrymandering.

The best strategy would be to convince EVERYONE to stop gerrymandering.

What would motivate either political party to wanna do that?

The people. They are the only ones that can do that.

 

[rightwinger]

In reality, the Tea Party is the sole potential salvation for the GOP. The national GOP, that miscreant collection of weak-willed losers, are more interested in staying in power than in doing the heavy lifting of governance. And they aren't very intelligent about retaining (or reclaiming) power, at that.

The GOP is too busy attempting to placate the liberal media and the false portrayal it offers of the "mood" of the electorate to bother attending to the logic of reality and history.

The institutional GOP "leadership" tries to "sanction" the conservatives. All the better to keep a version of Party discipline which is in keeping with their own myopic views on what they need to do to get votes.

But there's nobody tripping over themselves to vote for the national GOP candidates when the national Party has no discernible distinguishing principles.

If the fucking dishonest liberally-biased media claims that "the Hispanic vote" is the be all and end all of getting elections won, then the GOP dutifully "reaches out" to the Hispanic population by caving-in on matters of immigration reform. Does it work? Will THAT help get the "Hispanic vot"e to perform a sea change shift from the Dim Party to the GOP?

Of course not.

All the GOP manages to accomplish is to LOOK like snake oil salesmen to the very constituency they are hoping to woo. And they get what SHOULD be their base to lose faith in what the GOP stands for. The GOP-base voters might as well vote for a Dim since there are fewer and fewer substantive differences between the two national Parties. Or, on election days, the GOP base just stays home, more and more, which effectively concedes the field to the opposition. It turns out that it's not such a great idea to take "counsel" or "advice" from the FakeyStarkeys of the world, and their media stooges.

If the national GOP had a brain in its collective head, they'd study recent history. What led to their ascendancy when they achieved any form of electoral success? Seriously. Did Ronald Reagan pander to the liberals? Or did he TAKE THEM ON? Did he spend lots of time agreeing with them or did he expose the hideous leftist logic behind the Democrat Parody agenda.

So, once again, the question is urgent, pressing and quite real: What led to the GOP ascendancy when they achieved any form of electoral success?

Hint: it was NOT acting like a pale version of the Dim Party.

Very true. The GOP should not be a duplicate of the dems but they look more and more like it every year.

I would disagree with the social aspect though and they are the only real divide between the GOP and the Dems at the moment. The GOP needs to abandon that track and get back to the actual values that the party is supposed to stand for. The STATES can take care of the social aspects; the federal government needs to get back to what it was meant to do rather than running our lives.

Do that and you alienate the single largest voting block of the GOP-Social Conservatives.

The largest voting block in the GOP is, and always has been, the moderate republicans. They have been overwhelmed by the smaller and more vocal social conservatives. The GOP has suffered as a reasult

 

[rightwinger]

It doesn't damage diddly squat. Republicans would be stupid not to do it when Democrats do it with gusto.

We really believe that you're concerned about helping Republicans win elections. A better strategy would be to convince Democrats to stop their Gerrymandering.

The best strategy would be to convince EVERYONE to stop gerrymandering.

What would motivate either political party to wanna do that?

The courts

 

[AVG-JOE]

I can't help it if the republicans are the current poster child for the problem.

John Sarbanes, Democrat HOR MD 3rd District

It's not the fact of gerrymandering that I bring to the table... The discussion I bring is how gerrymandering has stifled any creativity and moderation remaining in the republican party when it comes to crafting their message, causing this downward spiral of trying to find the perfect messenger, when what needs changing in the republican party is the fucking message.

 

[Samson]

I can't help it if the republicans are the current poster child for the problem.

John Sarbanes, Democrat HOR MD 3rd District

It's not the fact of gerrymandering that I bring to the table... The discussion I bring is how gerrymandering has stifled any creativity and moderation remaining in the republican party when it comes to crafting their message, causing this downward spiral of trying to find the perfect messenger, when what needs changing in the republican party is the fucking message.

So you're saying that although BOTH parties are guilty (actually, based on the 10 most gerrymandered districts in the nation, 9 are Democrat), somehow this has worked for the Democrats, but has harmed the one Republican?

How does that supposed to make any sense?

The "downward spiral" is an illusion. Politics is a cyclic function, with periods when one party dominates for a large number of different variables, most of which are completely beyond their control.

 

[Samson]

The best strategy would be to convince EVERYONE to stop gerrymandering.

What would motivate either political party to wanna do that?

The people. They are the only ones that can do that.

The people cannot pass an 8th grade math test, much less even know what a congressional district is.

 

[BorisTheAnimal]

I can't help it if the republicans are the current poster child for the problem.

John Sarbanes, Democrat HOR MD 3rd District

It's not the fact of gerrymandering that I bring to the table... The discussion I bring is how gerrymandering has stifled any creativity and moderation remaining in the republican party when it comes to crafting their message, causing this downward spiral of trying to find the perfect messenger, when what needs changing in the republican party is the fucking message.

Translation, the Republican Party needs to become Democrap-Lyte, correct??

 

[rightwinger]

HOR, DEMOCRAT, Texas 35th District;

Texas 35th District

The key to Gerrymandering is not an individual district, but how that districts composition affects the rest of the states representatives
Texas 35 is a great example. It is a district Gerrymandered to be a Democratic seat. By putting all the Democrats in Austin and San Antonio into one district, you give one seat that is 90% Democrat and allow three or four other Districts to be Republican with only 60% Republican majority

Texas 35th District is a godsend to Republicans

 

[AVG-JOE]

​

With the current house & senate?!?

Redistricting is a state level function. The composition of Congress has nothing to do with it.

Yes, but Avg Joe is a political expert, let him espouse his grandiose opinions, it's fun to watch him make a fool of himself.

As a writer, I'm glad I'm entertaining, if nothing else!

 

[AVG-JOE]

So... "The Democrats do it too, so republicans need to perfect the game." is the answer.



So much for American spine.

Huh?

The OP only mentioned Republican Gerrymandering.

Like they invented it....


...they didn't.

You read way too much in to it then.

Fuck the democrats... They're their own problem.

I'm trying to show how gerrymandering by republicans is damaging the electability of republicans in national and state-wide elections.

I further contend that gerrymandering is directly responsible for the stale republican ideology that always seems like it's trying to catch up these days.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Without gerrymandering, Maxine Waters would never have been elected to Congress.

Or Charles Rangel, or Eleanor Holmes Norton.
Why is it OK for Dems to gerrymander, so they could get their far left liberals in, but it's suddenly not Ok for the Repubs, to get any representation for the far right?

I'm certainly not saying that it's 'o.k. for democratic gerrymandering'.



I would be curious as to thoughts, if any, on what kind of gerrymandered damage the democrats have self inflicted....

Maybe their ability to win elections followed by their inability to govern....?

​

 

[RetiredGySgt]

In the process of setting electoral districts, gerrymandering is a practice that attempts to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating district boundaries to create partisan advantaged districts.

Gerrymandering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The TEA Party wing of the Republicans may not owe its existence to Gerrymandering, but the tail-wagging-the-dog power it holds over the party and the nation is a direct result.

The Republican insistence on nominating conservative candidates who are right-wing buffoons in the general elections is a direct result of Gerrymandering.

Gerrymandering may be protecting the ideology of the Right, but it's rendering the Republicans impotent in national elections.

Gerrymandering is THE reason that Americans have a less than 10% approval rating for Congress.

It's the REPUBLICANS who're being hurt by Republican Gerrymandering in the long run.

`​

Of course No Democrat has ever gerrymandered and they sure don't do it now do they? Check out district 13 in NC.

 

[Samson]

HOR, DEMOCRAT, Texas 35th District;

Texas 35th District

The key to Gerrymandering is not an individual district, but how that districts composition affects the rest of the states representatives
Texas 35 is a great example. It is a district Gerrymandered to be a Democratic seat. By putting all the Democrats in Austin and San Antonio into one district, you give one seat that is 90% Democrat and allow three or four other Districts to be Republican with only 60% Republican majority

Texas 35th District is a godsend to Republicans

Yet, you give no examples.

 

[Samson]

So... "The Democrats do it too, so republicans need to perfect the game." is the answer.



So much for American spine.

Huh?

The OP only mentioned Republican Gerrymandering.

Like they invented it....


...they didn't.

You read way too much in to it then.

Fuck the democrats... They're their own problem.

I'm trying to show how gerrymandering by republicans is damaging the electability of republicans in national and state-wide elections.

I further contend that gerrymandering is directly responsible for the stale republican ideology that always seems like it's trying to catch up these days.

So, show us the gerrymandered republican districts.

I've gone through the trouble to research 10 seperate districts that are clearly gerrymandered, and you haven't done squat.

 

[Samson]

I would be curious as to thoughts, if any, on what kind of gerrymandered damage the democrats have self inflicted through gerrymandering....

Maybe their ability to win elections followed by their inability to govern....?

​

Maybe its because gerrymandering IS NOT THE PROBLEM you believe it is.

 

[AVG-JOE]

HOR, DEMOCRAT, Texas 35th District;


Texas 35th District

Samson, no matter how many of those graphics you put up, the damage that gerrymandered districts on ALL sides is doing to republicans is worthy of discussion.

Don't forget... both sides gerrymander districts for the other guys too, so the MOST gerrymandered district is irrelevant. What's relevant is the affects gerrymandering has had / is having on American parties and politics.

The effect most noteworthy to me remains the apparent stalling of the republicans on the national scene while they continue to show a certain dominance in maintaining the edge exactly where gerrymandering is designed to be an asset: the Congressional House and the state houses.

If you want a test as to which side is actually the better side at USING the currently legal tool of gerrymandering, the now fairly long term republican dominance in the House and state houses is pretty close to 'proof' in my average book.