Hillary: I'm not retiring, I'll be back on the "fast track" in a "little while"

[badgate]

Shouldn't it be 2020 that matters for redistricting? By your logic since 2008 was a Dem sweep we won the last redistricting cycle

Most statewide offices are decided in 2018 IIRC.

Exactly. 

I didn't know that guys. Thanks

[morgieb]

I know this is a little bit O/T, but is there any way to overturn the gerrymandering at the state legislative level? I just can't get past the fact that the Reps have the hat trick (Gov., State Sen., State House) in a bunch of big purple states:

Ohio - tried to pass an independent commission, but it failed. Hopefully it passes sooner rather than later. The ORP is stronger than the ODP.
Michigan - recession made this gerrymandered. Plus I think in neutral circumstances I think this is kinda like Illinois, a 'natural' Republican gerrymander. Assuming neutral circumstances I think this would be a independent map.
Pennsylvania - going by political trends here, a Republican president would allow neutral circumstances.
Wisconsin - some evidence it may be trending right, and like other Midwestern states, the Republican vote is less concentrated than the Dem vote. The Dems need another year like 2006 and 2008 to regain control or a say in redistricting.
Missouri - given how concentrated the Dem vote is, I think the Pubbies will have 100% control of Congress. Indeed, they actually have a Democratic governor, but his veto was overturned by renegade black Democrats.
North Carolina - no veto here, so they need a ballot initiative somehow.
Florida - Fair Maps restricts the gerrymander, but the FRP have had control here for quite a long time. Maybe it might change though.
Virginia - the Dems had control of the Senate last time, but decided to pander so they could survive. Hard to tell though due to the cycle and more restrictive term-limits.

The reason this is so important is that these are states where having a Dem veto-point would have been decisive in preventing extreme conservative legislation, like Michigan's right-to-work. In solid blue states, or solid red states, having one party control state government doesn't matter so much because there are certain things state government will or will not do regardless. But in these big purple states, the stakes are huge, and the Republicans just sweep the board. I heard somewhere that the Democrats actually won a majority in the Michigan state legislative elections in 2012, but failed to gain control due to gerrymandering. That would make sense-- an electoral that goes to Obama by a 10 point margin and easily reelected Debbie Stabenow, elects a majority of anti-union Republican legislators at the state level? It just defies belief.

My comments.

[GMantis]

More popular in their home country: Kim Jong-un

You actually believe in the North Korean propaganda?!

[Donerail]

More popular in their home country: Kim Jong-un

You actually believe in the North Korean propaganda?!

TIME Person of the Year (reader poll), Sexiest Man Alive 2012, he has his name visible from space, and also CollegeHumor.

[GMantis]

More popular in their home country: Kim Jong-un

You actually believe in the North Korean propaganda?!

TIME Person of the Year (reader poll), Sexiest Man Alive 2012, he has his name visible from space, and also CollegeHumor.

I meant popularity among the actual people of North Korea.

[Oakvale]

the most popular politician in the world.

rofl

[Beet]

I know this is a little bit O/T, but is there any way to overturn the gerrymandering at the state legislative level? I just can't get past the fact that the Reps have the hat trick (Gov., State Sen., State House) in a bunch of big purple states:

Ohio - tried to pass an independent commission, but it failed. Hopefully it passes sooner rather than later. The ORP is stronger than the ODP.
Michigan - recession made this gerrymandered. Plus I think in neutral circumstances I think this is kinda like Illinois, a 'natural' Republican gerrymander. Assuming neutral circumstances I think this would be a independent map.
Pennsylvania - going by political trends here, a Republican president would allow neutral circumstances.
Wisconsin - some evidence it may be trending right, and like other Midwestern states, the Republican vote is less concentrated than the Dem vote. The Dems need another year like 2006 and 2008 to regain control or a say in redistricting.
Missouri - given how concentrated the Dem vote is, I think the Pubbies will have 100% control of Congress. Indeed, they actually have a Democratic governor, but his veto was overturned by renegade black Democrats.
North Carolina - no veto here, so they need a ballot initiative somehow.
Florida - Fair Maps restricts the gerrymander, but the FRP have had control here for quite a long time. Maybe it might change though.
Virginia - the Dems had control of the Senate last time, but decided to pander so they could survive. Hard to tell though due to the cycle and more restrictive term-limits.

The reason this is so important is that these are states where having a Dem veto-point would have been decisive in preventing extreme conservative legislation, like Michigan's right-to-work. In solid blue states, or solid red states, having one party control state government doesn't matter so much because there are certain things state government will or will not do regardless. But in these big purple states, the stakes are huge, and the Republicans just sweep the board. I heard somewhere that the Democrats actually won a majority in the Michigan state legislative elections in 2012, but failed to gain control due to gerrymandering. That would make sense-- an electoral that goes to Obama by a 10 point margin and easily reelected Debbie Stabenow, elects a majority of anti-union Republican legislators at the state level? It just defies belief.

My comments.

Thanks. I'd forgotten that Missouri does have a Dem governor.