US politics: Georgia on my mind

[DMC]

13 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

That's fair, but given some of the fairly amazingly bad tactics used in many of the states, I'm not particularly counting on the governors to be Democrats after this cycle.

We'll see.  Michigan, Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin all look pretty good, and those four would go a very long way.

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I'm saying that the change in redistricting won't occur (if it occurs at all) until 2022. They won't kick in for the 2020 election for either the federal or state level. Meaning the soonest you'll start seeing actual changes in gerrymandering will not be until 2022 at the very earliest. 

It's certainly important to win now. It isn't clear to me that those wins will translate into a 2020 win, and 2020 is the more important win to change districting. This year, while it matters, doesn't tend to matter for the redistricting values.

Ok, gotcha.  And yes, while 2020 is more important than this cycle, this cycle is still quite important because (1) most state senators have four year terms and (2) incumbency is still a significant factor.

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

We'll see.  Michigan, Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin all look pretty good, and those four would go a very long way.

Not really; Wisconsin and Ohio are both not particularly gerrymandered, Florida is only a bit that way. Michigan would help, but it's not going to help nearly as much as, say, North Carolina, West Virginia or Louisiana. 

Honestly, Pennsylvania was probably the biggest win, and that's already kind of happened. That being said, I kind of feel like this is the last war, and the next war has already been won - with voter suppression and legal packing making it effectively the law of the land. When you can remove 300,000 registered voters 4 weeks before the election occurs and have no real challenge to it legally at any level, I'm not sure how gerrymandering even matters at that point. 

 

[Fez]

52 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

No, they won't. Most state congresses only last for two years, and they have to do well against an incumbent POTUS and whatnot. They won't see gains there for at best another two years (so 2022), and by then who knows what state we will be in?

And that STILL doesn't change things like the makeup of the Senate or how the judiciary will be completely fucked by then. 

Keep in mind that in order to change the districting they have to hold the line through 2020 AND hold the line against any legal challenges. Guess who will be making those judicial decisions?

As DMC pointed out, governors (except in NH and VT) have 4 year terms, and there's 44 up for election this year, so this is the year for Democrats to ensure a say in 2021 redistricting. This isn't the year for gaining the trifectas to create their own maps, but it is the year for gaining the power to block Republican maps. Even more so with the various 4 year state senates that are up for election as well. There's no guarantees for 2020 of course, but if Democrats do take the House this year, I don't think they lose it that year unless Trump is winning re-election anyway and its a good Republican year.

As for the Senate, remember that Trump won 7 of the 10 most populated states and Clinton won 5 of the 10 least populated (and 7 of the 12 least) states. People always cite California and Wyoming each only getting 2 senators, but what about Texas and Vermont? It cuts both ways. The senate map absolutely sucks this year and it'll blunt any Democratic wave, but the same thing happened in reverse in 2010. I need to see a lot more evidence before I believe the senate structural is a longterm dis-advantaged for Democrats.

And keep in mind that the judiciary is both generally only powerful when other branches of government are dysfunctional and are loath to get proactively involved in election issues. It was just last year that the Supreme Court unanimously decided to not hear a Republican challenge to the new non-partisan Pennsylvania maps; 8 of the those 9 members are still on the bench.

[Fez]

27 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Not really; Wisconsin and Ohio are both not particularly gerrymandered, Florida is only a bit that way. Michigan would help, but it's not going to help nearly as much as, say, North Carolina, West Virginia or Louisiana. 

Are you kidding? The Ohio delegation is 12-4 Republican, in a near 50-50 state and only one of those 12 is considered even kinda competitive. Florida is 16-11, which isn't terrible but not great either. Michigan is 9-5 and Wisconsin is 5-2. Democrats getting a seat in these maps would be enormous.

Meanwhile, West Virginia only has 3 seats total, and probably down to 2 after the next census. Its also extremely Republican, as is Louisiana, there aren't hidden Democratic seats there. Not more than one anyway.

 

[IheartIheartTesla]

Michigan currently has a GoP trifecta at the state level, and regardless of what happens in the State House and Senate, prop 2 on the ballot (voter initiative) allows for an independent commission to set the districts. I think it has broad bipartisan support and should pass...at least I hope it will. I havent looked at it in detail, but in theory I suppose that should keep the state relatively gerrymander free irrespective of the election cycle and who is in power.

[Martell Spy]

Quote

 

It is a popular fiction that despite its many foibles, the Trump administration has been successful in dismantling environmental regulations. Given the sheer number of attacks levied on energy and environmental regulations involving the coal, oil, gas, and automotive industries, casual observers might reasonably conclude that the administration is deploying a successful deregulatory strategy.

It is not. The administration has made multiple efforts to put Obama-era regulatory requirements on ice, but these efforts have largely failed. With its delay tactics in tatters, the administration is now taking a different approach—instead of just stopping old regulations, it’s surfacing new replacement rules that would let industry walk away from environmental and public-health and safety obligations that have solid evidentiary support and broad appeal. But having squandered half of its four-year term, the White House faces an uphill climb in developing and finalizing many of its major environmental rollback initiatives, and getting them past now-skeptical courts, before the clock runs out.

 

Trump’s Biggest Attempts to Roll Back Environmental Regulations Remain at the Starting Gate
Our system is actually set up to prevent what Trump wants to do—which is erase regulation for no good reason.

https://slate.com/technology/2018/10/trump-methane-emissions-deregulation-is-failing.html

[ThinkerX]

Ok, how about some facts - or at least semi-credible news stories - to go with the discussion on voter turnout and the likelihood of a 'blue wave?'  Early voting turnout looks promising for the democratic party candidates.  Start with Texas, with a unreal early turnout in Houston. 

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/shocking-turnout-for-first-day-of-early-voting-in-houston/ar-BBOJ6px?ocid=ob-fb-enus-580&fbclid=IwAR0UV0BUyLI1ESsRgjdkJT0mn2owGOVIFrBfcMDCUITPbNi0Pxrs8-26Iik

 

Quote

Thousands of people were already camped out at a key early voting location in Houston on Monday morning, hours before voting was even set to begin.

Nearly 2,000 people stood in line outside of the Metropolitan Multi-Service Center on West Gray near River Oaks in a scene that looked more like a Black Friday shopping morning.

 

Next, early voting in other states:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/early-voting-points-to-massive-turnout-potential-warning-signs-for-gop/ar-BBOJ1Ln?ocid=ob-fb-enus-580&fbclid=IwAR0I153ljzoXPOGH0jh7T51WXeFXRW7fTrhK0AsAx9eAdD08X_ObUqZ1pHo

 

 

Early voting numbers show a dramatic increase in voter engagement in this year's midterm elections compared with 2014 totals, and preliminary turnout results in some states are sending Republicans renewed warnings of a so-called "blue wave" just weeks before Election Day.

More than 4.3 million Americans have already voted, and results posted over the weekend by Nevada's secretary of state indicate a strong Democratic showing across the board in that state. In Washoe County, where Reno is located and where Republicans hold an edge in voter registration (99,675 to 94,520), 3,409 Democrats voted in-person compared with 2,365 Republicans on Saturday.

And on Sunday, when many polling places and businesses in urban areas are closed, 1,927 Democrats cast ballots in-person in Washoe County, compared with 1,483 Republicans. Taking into account mail-in votes after two days, Democrats have a roughly 6 percentage-point, 600-vote lead there, despite Republicans' built-in registration advantage.

[DMC]

44 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Not really; Wisconsin and Ohio are both not particularly gerrymandered, Florida is only a bit that way.

What @Fez said.

[Jace, Extat]

If we can get voters out in Department Store Sale numbers we have a chance !

[Kalbear]

Just now, DMC said:

What @Fez said.

I was looking at this data. And you're right - Ohio would be a good win as far as that goes, though North Carolina is worse. Michigan isn't nearly as bad, however, nor is Florida.  

[ThinkerX]

17 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

If we can get voters out in Department Store Sale numbers we have a chance !

That is happening right now in Houston, Nevada, and even Georgia (among black voters).  I put up links to two separate articles on this a short while ago, only to have the post butchered by the abysmal quote system here,

[felice]

38 minutes ago, Fez said:

I need to see a lot more evidence before I believe the senate structural is a longterm dis-advantaged for Democrats.

The senate structure is horrifically undemocratic, irrespective of which party is benefiting from it.

[Kalbear]

45 minutes ago, Fez said:

As DMC pointed out, governors (except in NH and VT) have 4 year terms, and there's 44 up for election this year, so this is the year for Democrats to ensure a say in 2021 redistricting. This isn't the year for gaining the trifectas to create their own maps, but it is the year for gaining the power to block Republican maps. Even more so with the various 4 year state senates that are up for election as well. There's no guarantees for 2020 of course, but if Democrats do take the House this year, I don't think they lose it that year unless Trump is winning re-election anyway and its a good Republican year.

Again, 2020 will be the same map it is now, which has a built in 5-6% advantage for Republicans. Depends a lot on the news cycles, but chances are good that Trump will be getting a LOT of people out to vote for him as an incumbent. I'd imagine it's going to depend essentially on the economy. If it's going about as well as it is now, chances are decent he can flip the House again, and I'm going to think that however that goes, the state houses are going to go roughly the same way. 

45 minutes ago, Fez said:

As for the Senate, remember that Trump won 7 of the 10 most populated states and Clinton won 5 of the 10 least populated (and 7 of the 12 least) states. People always cite California and Wyoming each only getting 2 senators, but what about Texas and Vermont? It cuts both ways. The senate map absolutely sucks this year and it'll blunt any Democratic wave, but the same thing happened in reverse in 2010. I need to see a lot more evidence before I believe the senate structural is a longterm dis-advantaged for Democrats.

I don't know what you need to see; there are simply more red states than blue ones. It has less to do with California and more to do with the simple numbers of rural states. 

2010 was blunted not because of the wave, but simply because only 33 seats are open at any time, period.  IIRC, the 2010-2016 'class'  (class 3) is the most Dem-friendly of the 3 classes (it has the west coast and the Northeast). 2012-2018 is the least friendly. But really, this is all you need to know: there is a -7 overall value in Republican/Democrat states. And that gap is only increasing. 

45 minutes ago, Fez said:

And keep in mind that the judiciary is both generally only powerful when other branches of government are dysfunctional and are loath to get proactively involved in election issues. It was just last year that the Supreme Court unanimously decided to not hear a Republican challenge to the new non-partisan Pennsylvania maps; 8 of the those 9 members are still on the bench.

We're just ignoring them overturning the Voter's Rights Act then? And you're talking about SCOTUS, which is accurate but meaningless; if the judiciary at the lower circuit is on board with changes, SCOTUS isn't going to challenge them. And that I agree that SCOTUS is not likely to do much, but that's sort of the point - they're not going to do much, which almost certainly means they're not going to overturn the most egregious cases, or when they do it'll be in favor of voter suppression. 

[Morpheus]

Trump, ever the enemy of objective verifiable fact

 

[Bonnot OG]

http://time.com/4236640/donald-trump-racist-supporters/

nearly 20% of of Trump supporters think freeing slaves was a bad idea. That seems to be a bit of a low percenage. No doubt more of them thin it they just wont admit it.

[Gertrude]

Just voted early. Really wish one of my senators was on the ballot, but it felt good to vote against my current House Rep. Baby steps ...

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

I was looking at this data. And you're right - Ohio would be a good win as far as that goes, though North Carolina is worse. Michigan isn't nearly as bad, however, nor is Florida.

My original point was between those 4 states the Dems could net about 10 seats - or at least make 10 seats much more winnable - simply by the governor ensuring a fair process, and that would go a long way in mitigating the impact of gerrymandering.  And, yes, of course the NC gerrymander is really bad, but Cooper (D) isn't up for reelection til 2020.  So, I don't really know what we're arguing about at this point.

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

And you're talking about SCOTUS, which is accurate but meaningless; if the judiciary at the lower circuit is on board with changes, SCOTUS isn't going to challenge them. And that I agree that SCOTUS is not likely to do much, but that's sort of the point - they're not going to do much, which almost certainly means they're not going to overturn the most egregious cases, or when they do it'll be in favor of voter suppression.

This seems to miss the fact that the judiciary is a passive branch.  While it's true there are a handful of court challenges each census cycle - and the vast majority of these challenges are handled at the circuit court level - there's no case if the apportionment is fair.  Further, circuit courts of appeals use three-judge panels, so there's absolutely no way to tell how this will shake out vis-a-vis gerrymandering.

[lokisnow]

2 hours ago, Bonnot OG said:

http://time.com/4236640/donald-trump-racist-supporters/

nearly 20% of of Trump supporters think freeing slaves was a bad idea. That seems to be a bit of a low percenage. No doubt more of them thin it they just wont admit it.

well most republicans would view freeing the slaves as a redistribution of wealth so they would be ideologically against such action very stridently and enthusiastically.

[drawkcabi]

I had a dream last night, I was watching the TV Movie "V", the original one not the remake. I remembered how it was supposed to be inspired by Sinclair Lewis' "It Can't Happen Here" about fascism in America. They decided to make the fascists lizard aliens for better TV.

But all the parallels were depressingly interesting. The use of media and a specific reporter that was a mouthpiece for the aliens to influence the public, the accusation of "fake news"to anyone trying to tell the truth, the mistrust and then hatred instilled against science and scientists, plus other factors.

Then there was the scene where the old man saw the kids spray painting over Visitors posters and he corrected them, showing how to spray paint a red "V" over them instead of just scribbling and it caught on.

I thought "Hmmmm, wish someone would spray paint red "V's" over all the Trump/Pence posters and it'd catch on. (I guess it was 2020, not 2018).

Anyway, it was a nice idea to wake up to amidst a scary dream that was too real.

[Bonnot OG]

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/412649-trump-you-know-what-i-am-im-a-nationalist

Just flat out called himself a nationalist.