Democratic Majority in the House

[Filuwaúrdjan]

There are actually a hell of a lot more competative districts than people think... thing is most of 'em have popular and/or longserving incumbents and if said incumbents runs for re-election the district in't competative (although it would be if he retired).

Gotta wait for the retirements before you can predict anything with the House IMO.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Did you actually read what I posted?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Plenty of House members retire all the time. Senators tend to serve longer.

If you had at least half a brain left in that pot-addled head of yours, you'd have noticed that less Congressmen in potentially competative districts retired than is normal last time round and that big turnovers in the House tend to be accompanied by one side being very unlucky in retirements.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True, but's always been the case. It's not the result of gerrymandering (although it's true that there's less of 'em than there were in Rayburn's or even O'Neill's day).

You may or may not have noticed, but several longserving Congressmen in potentially competative districts had only a paper candidate running against them. If that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bullsh**t

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Know what? You don't need computors to draw a really foul partisan gerrymander. It just saves you a little bit of time. That's all.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

1. This is by far the most polarized election for as far back as the exit polls go (1972)

Exit polls? You're basing you're entire theory on exit polls? Look at the actual results you eejet.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wrong. A "good" gerrymander just needs some people who are good with maps and a lot of statistics on voting patterns, demographics etc.
Now, what computers have done is make it easier to doodle incumbent protection gerrymanders, which isn't entirely the same thing

[Filuwaúrdjan]

1. Look at what actual results?  The exit polls show an increasing polarization, with 2004 the most polarized, and 2000 the 2nd most.

Um... I mean the results of all the elections held in early November 2004.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Listen, to get a "good" gerrymander all you need to use is townships and (in some cases) precincts. You do not need to go down to houses and stuff.
The PA gerrymander was part partisan and part incumbent protection. Incumbent protection costs a lot more. The really fancy work in the PA map (PA-13 and PA-17) backfired.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I do actually. You seem to be paranoid and prone to exaggerating everthing.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

1. Look at the actual results, *please*... this includes finding out how many congressmen is potentially competative districts had only paper opponents.

2. I don't see why this matters so much to you. Certainly computers make anything to do with maps easier, but the idea that you can't draw a gerrymander without computorised stuff is idiotic.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Um... and? I never said gerrymandering hasn't got worse, it has, but I'm going to repeat this:

The idea that you can't doodle a gerrymander without fancy equipment is absurd.