How Democrats Fooled California’s Redistricting Commission

[Napoleon]

Sorry red but that's a lot of coulda shoulda woulda. The base refuses to allow Republicans to even pretend to moderate themselves. The open primaries may help...or it may just be the shove that throws your party off the cliff for good. I don't expect the maps to help Democrats as much as some of my fellow Democrats do, though I underestimate our strength in California if that CA-36 election was any indicator. You might see what's left of the bench eliminated if Pubbies can't have an epiphany or two real, real soon.

[Napoleon]

It doesn't really matter too much. Dems are still vulnerable to losing seats in a wave election under the new lines.

There's no evidence that there will ever be such an election.

Sure thing. Democrats are going to continue to win elections in California, and Californians are going to continue to put up with all the craziness the loons who dominate the party put into law. The redistricting gives Republicans excellent shots of making net gains in the Congressional delegation and State Assembly.

It's been that way since the election of 1996. Last year, in the midst of a huge Republican wave, the California Republicans made no gains whatsoever. You tell me when it's coming.

This is the reason no wave hit last year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California%27s_congressional_districts#2002:_Bipartisan_gerrymandering

I would accept that argument if the Democrats hadn't gotten over 54% of the vote for State Assembly last November. It's not about the boundaries; California voters just have no desire to vote Republican.

Gerrymandering draws weaker challengers and therefore weaker results for the minority party, wave or not. Having an incumbent governor with pathetic approval ratings doesn't help the Republican cause much either.

[Napoleon]

The districts honestly look much better now than during the bi-partisan-mander monstrosity. Personally I see this just as liberal grass-roots organizations doing a better job of working the system, which is entirely fine and is one of the purposes of the public hearings (to give a voice to the various interests groups).

By the way one of my favorite sections of the article Tory cited:
"One woman who purported to represent the Asian community of the San Gabriel Valley was actually a lobbyist who grew up in rural Idaho, and lives in Sacramento. "
Who cares where she grew up? If this woman lives in Sacramento now that is what is important.

Am I the only Democrat willing to put partisanship aside and be objective?

If she grew up in the SGV and now lives in Sacramento, she could claim ties to the community. Apparently she is just a puppet. But does anyone have any doubts that Republicans tried and failed to accomplish the same? Isn't this "their" commission idea?

[Napoleon]

Can anyone draw a CA map with more than 25 <53% Obama districts? Mine has 25 with Ca-10 and Ca-36 about 55-56% Obama. Now on to my massive Dem gerrymander!!

[Napoleon]

My goal is 7.

[Napoleon]

Kings
Merced
Yuba
Monterey