PleaseBlitz

Election 2018 Thread

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Which they will blame on the Democrats, for not extending the temporary tax cuts.  

 

Just like they've done, successfully, for the last two decades.  

 

I really think things are going to be different this time. This tax bill is historically unpopular. 

 

The public backed Reagan and Bush tax cuts. This one is a massive stinker in popularity. It's certainly going to cost the GOP. Only about 20% of the country is buying the horsecrap that this is going to help the middle class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judge Says Pennsylvania Election Districts Give Republicans an Edge, but Are Not Illegal

 

Quote

Judge P. Kevin Brobson of Commonwealth Court in Harrisburg noted that Republicans hold 13 out of 18 Congressional seats in Pennsylvania, a perennial swing state that has one of the most extensively gerrymandered maps in the country. Nonetheless, the judge said that Democrats who brought suit had failed to articulate a legal “standard” for creating nonpartisan maps.

The case now goes to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which has agreed to fast-track it. If the court rejects Judge Brobson’s conclusion, it could order new maps drawn in time for the 2018 midterm elections. Pennsylvania is expected to be fiercely fought terrain next year in elections turning on President Trump’s popularity. Mr. Trump’s 2016 victory in the state was the first for a Republican presidential candidate since 1988, but Republicans are already worried about losing Congressional seats even without new maps.

In practical terms, Judge Brobson’s determination — in the form of a finding ordered by the State Supreme Court — is a recommendation, which the high court may affirm or reject. Five of the court’s seven justices are Democrats.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/29/us/pennsylvania-republicans-gerrymander.html?referer=

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, twa said:

So the judge ruled according to precedent.....imagine that.

 

 

Just a recommendation. The real decision is coming later.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Cooked Crack said:

Just a recommendation. The real decision is coming later.

 

When a higher court (here the PA Supreme Court) tells a lower court to fast-track it, that often means that the higher court does not really care what the lower court has to say, they just want to run it through the proper channels as quickly as possible.

 

FWIW, the lower court judge was a Republican.  The PA Supreme Court is 2 Republicans and 5 Dems.  

 

Quote

Republicans now fill 13 of Pennsylvania’s 18 seats in the U.S. House, despite winning roughly half of the statewide congressional vote in the three ensuing congressional elections held after the map took effect.

 

There HAS to be a 14th Amendment issue when one party can get 50% of the vote but only 25% of the Reps.  "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, PleaseBlitz said:

 

 

There HAS to be a 14th Amendment issue when one party can get 50% of the vote but only 25% of the Reps.  "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers."

 

Does the 14th apply to political parties now?

 

add

perhaps the issue being visited could result in 3rd parties access getting easier....never know these days :evil:

Edited by twa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Does the 14th apply to political parties now?

 

add

perhaps the issue being visited could result in 3rd parties access getting easier....never know these days :evil:

 

No, it applies to the number of voting citizens.  Political parties just happen to be the people drawing the maps; maps which do not apportion representation in the Congress according to actual votes.  The PA case is going to be decided under state law, I have no idea what the PA constitution says.  

 

We'll see.  It just seems wrong that 50% of the voters in PA get 75% of the congressional representation because the maps were deliberately drawn to **** over the other 50%.  Same thing in VA. Dems have won the vast majority of the previous statewide elections (Current Gov, next Gov, both Senators for years), but Rs have 7 of 11 congressional seats and, before this last landslide election, had 66% of the statehouse seats.  Even in a landslide election, Dems can't win the house of delegates because of the way a map is drawn to disenfranchise NoVa residents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was that way in the swing states that handed the election to Trump by 55k votes when Clinton won by almost 3 million popular votes.  Decades in the making.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LadySkinsFan said:

It was that way in the swing states that handed the election to Trump by 55k votes when Clinton won by almost 3 million popular votes.  Decades in the making.

What? The discussion is gerrymandering, which has no effect on national or statewide elections.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You want a strictly gerrymandering thread, start one. This thread is about all things 2018 election.

Edited by LadySkinsFan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

It was that way in the swing states that handed the election to Trump by 55k votes when Clinton won by almost 3 million popular votes.  Decades in the making.

 

ya swing a state by winning electors, whining liberals in large groups can be detrimental in such cases.:)

1 hour ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

No, it applies to the number of voting citizens.

 

It interesting they are trying the Kennedy gambit of the 1st to go with the 14th.

probably go nowhere, but fun anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

There HAS to be a 14th Amendment issue when one party can get 50% of the vote but only 25% of the Reps.  "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers."

 

I used to think that.  It certainly "feels right".  

 

But it's not true.  

 

What did it for me, was to imagine a state in which the entire state votes R 51% of the time, and completely uniformly.  

 

In such a state, no matter how you draw the districts, the state will vote 51% R, and the state's representation will be 100% R.  

 

Nah, it takes more than simply comparing total votes, to proclaim gerrymandering.  

 

6 hours ago, LadySkinsFan said:

It was that way in the swing states that handed the election to Trump by 55k votes when Clinton won by almost 3 million popular votes.  Decades in the making.

 

No, you don;t get to proclaim that the Republicans have gerrymandered state lines.  (At least, not to me.)  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it hypocritical for the Left to complain about fairly representing voters when Hillary had how many delegates wrapped up before the primaries even started.  Both sides are crooked, just in different ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I find it hypocritical for the Left to complain about fairly representing voters when Hillary had how many delegates wrapped up before the primaries even started.  Both sides are crooked, just in different ways.

By that logic she should have won in 2008 cause she had those delegates wrapped up too. Gerrymandering not really the same as a party primary. The sooner we get rid of it nationwide, the better we'll be in terms of representation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

By that logic she should have won in 2008 cause she had those delegates wrapped up too. Gerrymandering not really the same as a party primary. The sooner we get rid of it nationwide, the better we'll be in terms of representation.

The fact that you "cheated" but not enough to win doesnt mean you didnt still "cheat".  Super delegates dont get their directions from voters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cooked Crack said:

 The sooner we get rid of it nationwide, the better we'll be in terms of representation.

 

Party primaries? :)

 

As someone in a court ordered gerrymandered district for the last couple of decades I'd be glad to see a better system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Geez, let's not rehash the Democratic Party primary rules, which anyone who signed up to run under the Party agreed to the Party rules. Sanders isn't even a Democrat, wasn't before and isn't now. Don't like the rules, then try to change them well before primary season. Or shut up about it.

 

Gerrymandering is just one arrow in the Rep' voting manipulation arsenal. In the states, they can gerrymander the legislature, then install their voter supression tactics. 

 

Let's not be naive about this. It's been years in the making. Obama's two terms spoiled and delayed things a bit, after the Supremes handed 2000 to Bush 43when he too lost the popular vote.

Edited by LadySkinsFan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Geez, let's not rehash the Democratic Party primary rules,

Yeah, going to step back from this one. Not trying to bring it into 2018.

 

7 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Party primaries? :)

I'm still okay with those. Getting rid of those and you might end up with the general election being a primary in certain states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Geez, let's not rehash the Democratic Party primary rules, which anyone who signed up to run under the Party agreed to the Party rules. Sanders isn't even a Democrat, wasn't before and isn't now. Don't like the rules, then try to change them well before primary season. Or shut up about it.

 

Gerrymandering is just one arrow in the Rep' voting manipulation arsenal. In the states, they can gerrymander the legislature, then install their voter supression tactics. 

 

Let's not be naive about this. It's been years in the making. Obama's two terms spoiled and delayed things a bit, after the Supremes handed 2000 to Bush 43when he too lost the popular vote.

In my view, gerrymandering is wrong as are super delegates.  But to me, its hard for the Left to try to claim this moral high ground when they do something similar by discounting the voice of the people.  If you want to throw shade at one side, fix yours first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

In my view, gerrymandering is wrong as are super delegates.  But to me, its hard for the Left to try to claim this moral high ground when they do something similar by discounting the voice of the people.  If you want to throw shade at one side, fix yours first.

 

You say this as if the voting base of the left likes super delegates.

 

None of us want them. But your equivalence is completely off in another way. Super delegates are completely useless. Gerrymandering is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/31/2017 at 8:06 PM, TheGreatBuzz said:

In my view, gerrymandering is wrong as are super delegates.  But to me, its hard for the Left to try to claim this moral high ground when they do something similar by discounting the voice of the people.  If you want to throw shade at one side, fix yours first.

people on the left don't like super delegates

 

The Democratic party likes Super Delegates.

 

The left =/= Democratic party

 

 

Gerrymandering isn't bad either. The GOP have abused Gerrymandering to the point that it doesn't come close to representing the people. Not in a party primary, but actual representation for US Congress and State legislatures.

 

When abused, both are wrong, and when used correctly, both work. But clearly party primary races are much smaller than who is elected to legislative bodies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh for ****'s sake superdelegates have had 0 impact on the Democrat primary since they were put in place.

 

Bernie lost, Bernie lost, Bernie lost. He only won lightly attended caucuses while Hillary crushed it in primaries.

 

 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.