Christie is in. Does he have a constituency?

Hi again.

I'm confused by "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." [Italics mine.] Gerrymandering, even extreme gerrymandering, does not change the total number of congressional districts. Those are set by allotment based upon the 10 year census.

The state of Mississippi is 37% black. Mississippi has not elected a black politician to statewide office since Reconstruction, btw.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

This message is brought to you by Krispy Kreme donuts.

That lard ass needs to join the party he actually represents. In between donut breaks at CNN. What a vile POS.

 

My statement is not predicated on the notion that Gerrymandering changes the overall number of congressional districts. I feel like I have stated my position clearly, but obviously something is not being communicated.

When I say break into more districts...... Lets say that a state has 10 districts and that there is one giant city in that state that is primarily black. That city, by population alone might represent 20% of the states population, hence it should represent 2 out of the states 10 districts if they just divide the city in half. Democrats want to carve that up so that parts of it are in 4 of the states ten districts rather than 2. They dont want to win 2 districts by 90% and then lose the other 2 by 10%. They want to break that city up so that parts extend into 4 districts so that they can win all 4, albeit with smaller margins than they would have won when it was in 2 districts.

Does that make sense to you? The last thing that Democrats want is for those majority black cities to all be in one or two districts. They do not want to win a district by a large margin, they want to barely win it. That is how a party maximizes its ability to win the house. Democrats need this ability far more than do Republicans, because Republicans have no problem letting those large cities only represent 2 districts. The only way to make 2 into 4 is to Gerrymander.

Republicans do not have districts where they win by giant margins, hence they are not as beholden to the concept of Gerrymandering as would Democrats. As I said forom the beginning, if we were able to mandate a truly objective district breakdown by simple geography, that would hurt Democrats far more than it would Republicans. That is not to say the Republicans dont also Gerrymander, rather it is to say that Republicans nationwide dont need it as much because it is Democrats that really need to break up their 90% margin geographic districts.

 

My assertion is he labels anything an unfair format when he feels it will not advantage him. Or in retrospect, labels a format unfair if he does poorly.
Of course he likes to sling the mud. It's all he can do. It's more difficult to do in a virtual format which is why he cancelled the debate with Biden.

 

You've just made a compelling case for abolishing the anachronistic EC.

 

Here we go, it's not Dems doing the fat-shaming, as to your accusation, but YOUR hero:



Are you proud that you voted for him, twice?

 

You say this because he refused to do a Zoom debate?

Wow, that is a big conclusion off almost no information.

 

I made no such case, but im not surprised that is what you see.

When one is a hammer, EVERYTHING looks like a nail.

 

Hi, for the last time on this thread, FAW.

Your posts continue to include statements which are not in agreement with the data. Your argument continues along quite nicely up to a point. Then I run into something like this: "Republicans do not have districts where they win by giant margins, . . .". A simple check of the data from the last election shows Mr. Robert Aderholt in Alabama's third district willing by a margin of 64.56%, Mr. Neal Dunn in Florida's 2nd district winning by a margin of 95.73%, and Mr. Hal Rogers in Kentucky's 5th district winning by a margin of 68.42%. I don't know what you consider 'giant' margins to be, but I suspect that even if you wish to quibble about margins in the mid and upper 60's, 95.73% would certainly qualify for most readers as 'giant'.

Wishing you and yours the very best.

 

64% to 36%, I do not consider to be a giant margin. What I am calling a giant margin is 85 or 90%+ which you see quite regularly in many primarily black inner city voting precincts all across the country. If there is a 95% margin somewhere for a Republican I will have to take your word on that, but id bet a bundle that is due to some sort of special circumstance, perhaps the other candidate had a massive scandal or there wasnt an oppnent on the ballot and the other 5% was a write in. Something there does not add up.

At any rate, that is the exception and not the rule. We are talking about major cities with massive populations that comprise a very large percentage of their states populations while occupying a fairly small geography. These exist all across the country. Just because you can find some anomaly somewhere does absolutely NOTHING to invalidate my point. Quite frankly I am shocked that you would be trying to hold that up as something that changes the dynamic I have pointed out.


PS...After posting I decided to google Neal Dunn election in the Florida House District 2 that you mentioned. He did not win with 95% of the vote as you claimed. He won by 59%
U.S. House Florida District 2: Neal Dunn pushes out Al Lawson (tallahassee.com)


I KNEW something about that claim was off. It appears to be a simple case of dyslexia.

 

When one is in denial, one can't see the nail in front of his face.

 

@FAW @Torus34

a feature of gerrymandered districts is that 1 district will have as many oft he opposition as possible, and huge wins for the opposition while several districts are solidly, but not hugely, taken by the gerrymanderers.

 

Nice attempt at a profound statement, but no cigar.

 

That perception, shared by many Republican primary voters, probably puts a hard ceiling on his support.

 

It can be yes, but it also requires disfiguring districts into unrecognizable shapes. If a 5mile by 5 mile area is all black and votes Democrat by 90%+, having them all together is not Gerrymandering. It is just the reality of the geography of where those people live. Wanting to split up into an odd shape to disperse them is when Gerrymandering would come into play.

 

Does he have a constituency? No. He’s currently at 1% in the latest RCP Republican Primary polls. Trumpers don’t like him, never Trumpers don’t either as some remember how he destroyed the opposition to Trump back in the 2016 GOP NH primary debates. Besides, Trump has stated he is skipping the first two Republican primary debates and might skip them altogether.


Unless something major happens to Trump, like going to jail or something akin to that, he’s your GOP nominee. To stop him if nothing major happens to Trump, the anti or never Trump crowd, candidates must coalesce around a single candidate to challenge Trump which isn’t going to happen. Trump is currently at 55% in the RCP GOP primary polls.


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e..._republican_presidential_nomination-7548.html


Trump must fall below the 50% level for anyone else to have a chance. I doubt he will.

 

a compact, area with natural borders might indicate an honest effort at districting. now what does the rest of the state look like? in 2030 the repub artificial intelligences will be much better at making the districts look more natural.

 

I guess for the point that I was making, what is relevant is that it is Democrats that so desperately need Gerrymandering to break up these giant black voting districts that exist in most large inner cities.

My point was that if there ever were a way to have a truly objective means of breaking up districts that has nothing to do with who votes for which party in those districts, it would hurt Democrats far more because such a large percentage of their voters live in a relatively small, condensed geography in major cities.

 

not necessarily. adding orleans parish to the closer white flight parishes rather than east baton rouge might dilute that 90% into 2 competitive districts, bordered by coastline and river, rather than one that is safe for scalise curling around one that votes 90% for richmond.

the dems, by the way, created these "black majority districts" for a reason. i disagree with them, but it must have seemed like a good idea at the time.

 

Gerrymandering worked for Democrats most of the 20th Century after the 1930s wipeout of the Republican Party and has favored Republicans since. Consider 2012...



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections

 

Dividing a 90% high population into two would do more than create 2 competitive districts. It would absolutely overwhelm any other district.Respectfully, I dont think you are considering the true impact. A 90% district means that 10 votes create a +8 for Democrats. Mixing that with even a 60/40 district which would be a high margin district for Republicans, would only create a +2 after the same 10 votes. The 90% district therefore has 4 times the impact versus even a 60/40 which is an extremely high margin for a Republican district.

A 90% district would without a doubt overwhelm any other district. It could be divided into 3 districts and still overhwelm, and if you divided it by 4 it would then create 4 competitive districts.

As I said from the beginning. If there were a way to draw every single district completely objectively by geography rather than how those voters vote, it would hurt Democrats significantly more. Democrats on the whole need Gerrymandering more than Republicans. That is not to say that Republicans cannot and do not benefit from gerrymandering, because like democrats they certainly do, rather it is only to say that on the whole, Democrats need it far more because of the geographic dispersion of a large segment of their voters. Those 90% districts do not do the Democrats any favor in regards to the House.

 

I am not sure that I understand your meaning.

I am going to repost a post I made earlier, because to me this addresses your graphic....

We are talking about congressional districts, not a mythical 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 when it comes to the House, 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.

 

A hit man from Jersey, who would have figured?

Unfortunately there’s always a constituency for *******s.

 

That was my thought as well - he doesn't have a chance of winning, but he appears to be happy to say what other Rs are afraid to say for fear of base backlash. We shall see if he inspires courage in others.

 

The party Christie's views align with is no longer. Trump bludgeoned it to death with bigoted bluster.