Christie is in. Does he have a constituency?

That was never my assertion. My assertion had to do with refusing to debate unless he felt it would advantage him. https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/08/politics/second-presidential-debate-virtual

 

Sysco Food services must be thrilled.

 

Hi, Endeavor.

As to the Republican Party being saved, it's in no real danger as an institution, as far as I can see. It's now firmly ensconced in many states, gerrymandered to remain that way for a long time. Tinkering with voting regulations is a side industry in the party, helping to firm up its foundations. In addition, the present mindset of bypassing many of the unspoken agreements and procedures of the past between the two parties gives it a decided advantage.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

My assertion is that he has only been against debates that he thought were an unfair format. The link you provided is an example of such. Of course he wanted to make Biden come out of his basement.

That in no way would indicate that he would be ducking Christie. Trump LOVES to roll in the mud.

 

One man's 'misconstrued' is another man's reading between the lines.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see (if his campaign lasts long enough to even publicize an objective platform...).

 

I am not sure if you are accusing Republicans of Gerrymandering more than Democrats, but it is worth noting that Gerrymandering is indeed a two way street. Both sides do it to maximize their advanatge when they hold the state legislatures.

It is also worth noting that if there were a way to truly objectively break up all congressional districts, this would hurt Democrats FAR more than it would hurt Republicans. While voting is typically pretty close nationally to 50/50 for each side, Democrats have these enormous mostly black large city centers that vote Democrat 80% plus and often times 90% plus. Being that a large chunk of their voters come from these enormous inner cities, Democrats desperately need those split up when it comes time to apportion Congressional districts if they want to maximize the number of congressional seats that they win. Republicans dont have much in the way of districts that vote as heavily in their favor. A heavy Republican area would probably be 60/40, and not nearly as populated as the inner city areas.

To which unspoken agreements and procedures are you referring?

 

I agree that gerrymandering, changing election laws will help GOP to win House seat and Red state, but that will not help them win swing state like WI, MI, PA , GA, or AZ . without these state GOP can say goodbye to winning WH.

 

Saved from what? It's just people declaring their candidacy for a political office. The more the merrier. It'll play out like all races.

 

I’m sure seeing a lot of body shaming from the party of “tolerance” in here
Gotta love the double standards of the left

 

what a fighter! one round with a senile old man was enough for trump.

 

No. Just.... no.

 

LOL! Trump body shamed him before any liberal in this thread. I bet you don't care.

 

I dont get your meaning?

 

Responding to the possibility of objective district allocation, I can describe one method.

I'll note a single instance of an 'agreement': to bring up for a vote the nominees for the Supreme Court in the Senate soon after the nomination's made. There are many more.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

Hi again, Endeavor. [Great British mystery series with that title, btw.]

Occupying the White House is not necessary to sustain a political party. The 1930-40's showed that to be true. Holding one of the two houses of Congress is sufficient.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

-What method did you describe? You didnt answer, are you implying that Republicans Gerrymander to a greater degree than Democrats? What do you have to say about my point about Democrats needing Gerrymandering far more due to the realities of the geographic dispersion of their voters?


-I am not aware of an unwritten agreement to bring up a vote "soon".

While there have not been a lot of instances of the need for a vote during an election year, I had never heard of there being some unwritten agreement that it will be soon, and what does "soon" mean?

I would venture to say that if either side had one of their justices die in office during an election year, that they would not bring the candidate up for a vote if they were also in charge of the Senate. If they did bring them up for a vote, certainly they would not approve that justice. The decision not to bring up for a vote in that sense was simply to avoid an unnecessary circus.

Any claim to the contrary, IMO, is little more than hot air. The decision whether to bring up for a vote or not is a political calculation. It has absolutely nothing to do with any unwritten rule. Politically they could get away with it, so they did. It is as simple as that.

 

Going to run for president? Not sure he has the balls for it.

 

Hi again, FAW.

I simply stated that I can describe one method that would be 'fair' -- that is, unbiased in initial concept -- to border districts. Here it is. Use a repetitive computation to minimize the overall length of the sum of the borders. Repeat, say, 10 times to reach a relatively steady state.

As to my example, I stand by it. It actually occurred. It is not conjecture.

Regards, stay safe 'n well..

 

Thanks for the unbiased method. I had hoped that you would have responded to what I said on the subject, but it looks like that is not to be.

I dont recall labeling your example as conjecture or that it did not occur, rather my response was that it was not an example of an unwritten rule. I had hoped you would respond to that as well.

It seems we have done nothing other than talk past each other.

 

those 90% black majority districts are what make the gop gerrrymander work. we have almost as many dems as repubs in louisiana, but we live mostly in orleans, east baton rouge, and the thin connecting "cancer alley" that make up la2.

in return, the repubs get 4 easy districts or 80% of our congresscritters.

 

I think I saw the add on Netflix about Endeavor. Have not watched it yet.

I took the name from “HMS Endeavour” vessel that James Cook took to Australia.

I hear what you are saying , and yes GOP can survive in Red state, few senate seat and House. But more and more swing state will turn blue because GOP don’t have any solution, any true policy which are related to 21st century problem. They are more interested about who is using which bathroom or if someone wearing skirt, they want to make sure their desired privet parts are under that skirt. You can win Senate seat in Alabama with that kind of policy but you can’t win senate seat in MI or PA.

 

Those black majority districts are naturally combined based on housing patterns.

How are you rationalizing that to be Gerrymandering?

Gerrymandering is shaping unusually shaped districts to pick and choose which voters one wants. Just leaving inner cities as they naturally are is NOT Gerrymandering. It sounds to me like you are complaining that you are unable to gerrymander in order to spread those voters out over a larger geography than they legitimately occupy.

 

That doesn’t make it right. He isn’t a virtue signaling leftie and he’s also fat so I take his fat shaming comments with a grain of salt but I expect better from the high and mighty all inclusive shining beacon of morality democrats!

 

Hi again FAW.

I guess you mean your assertion that Democrats need gerrymandering more than Republicans. OK. Let's tackle that.

Democrats have more registered voters than do the Republicans. Excluding the aberration of the Electoral College, which selects the President of the United States of America, the Democrats, all else being equal, would have less need to tinker with the borders of congressional districts. The concentration of people into cities, though, coupled with a preponderance of Democratic voters within them, means that all else is not equal. That much is verifiable demographics.

So, if the Democrats engage in gerrymandering, it would be to structure those city districts so that some of the voters would end up in surrounding predominantly Republican areas. I'm not sure that we see that in any of the big city states.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

More registered voters is misleading.

We are talking about congressional districts, not a mthical popular vote for President. How many people vote for Democrats in California couldnt possibly be more irrelevant to Ohio. These are all 50 different state elections with Congressional districts that are not dependant upon voters in other states.

Looking solely at race....The fact of the matter is that blacks vote 90% plus for Democrats. That means that after 11 black votes, Democrats are at a +10. Whites vote roughly 55-45 for Republicans. That means that to get that same plus 10, Republicans need 100 votes. This means that 11 black votes counter 100 white votes. This is great for Democrats EXCEPT when it comes to congressional districts, this puts them at a huge disadvantage because these huge inner cities contain extremely high percentages of black voters, which limits the number of Congressional seats that Democrats can win because the districts they win tend to be by huge margins, and the districts that Republicans win tend to be by slim margins. It does Democrats no good to win districts by huge margins, thus they NEED these black areas to be Gerrymandered so that their votes can be spread out over a far larger geography than their population dispersion represents.

This reality means that Democrats would be far more disadvantaged from a truly objective form of district apportionment than would Republicans. Republicans as a whole are more than happy to let those Democrat congressional districts win by 90%. It is the Democrats that desperately need to break those voting areas into more districts so that they can spread out the black vote into as many districts as possible.

In reality, this objective method will never occur because it would require a national directive and our elections are not set up like that. Being that it is the states elections, every legislature from either side that is in power in any state is going to want to retain the ability to utilize that advantage in their state.

If there were a national directive however, it would benefit Republicans to a FAR greater degree due to the principles I have outlined above.