Pennsylvania proposes allocating electoral votes by Congressional distrct

[Brittain33]

LOL. Republican Congressmen are pushing back against this proposal because they rightly fear that this means Democratic staff won't waste time running up the totals in Philadelphia, but will fan out to try to drive up Dem turnout and win marginal electoral votes in PA-6, PA-7, PA-8, and PA-15. The last thing they want is to have their fates tied to the Republican nominee's, especially if it's a Bachmann or a Perry.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/09/pennsylvania-gop-reps-leery-of-electoral-vote-splitting----would-be-targeted-more-by-dems.php?ref=fpa

Charlie Dent and Pat Meehan are shaking in their boots about this brilliant proposal. Look to them to cut it off.

[Brittain33]

I wonder how many times it has to be said that the Democrats in control of southern states in the early 1900s, or even into the early 1990s, don't really have much in common with Democrats today. I'm pretty sure Krayzen would have been a Democrat in the South in all that time based on his comments on Camden and various other issues, and I don't think Strom Thurmond or Zell Miller was a big fan of gay marriage...

[J. J.]

LOL. Republican Congressmen are pushing back against this proposal because they rightly fear that this means Democratic staff won't waste time running up the totals in Philadelphia, but will fan out to try to drive up Dem turnout and win marginal electoral votes in PA-6, PA-7, PA-8, and PA-15. The last thing they want is to have their fates tied to the Republican nominee's, especially if it's a Bachmann or a Perry.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/09/pennsylvania-gop-reps-leery-of-electoral-vote-splitting----would-be-targeted-more-by-dems.php?ref=fpa

Charlie Dent and Pat Meehan are shaking in their boots about this brilliant proposal. Look to them to cut it off.

I think this was one of the points some of the R's on this site have made.  This isn't a particularly anti-Obama proposal.

[Brittain33]

I think this was one of the points some of the R's on this site have made.

This is probably the first time that the representatives themselves have expressed fear for their own futures.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, Obama only has one election left. It's certainly an anti-Democratic proposal (as well as anti-democratic.)

[J. J.]

I think this was one of the points some of the R's on this site have made.

This is probably the first time that the representatives themselves have expressed fear for their own futures.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, Obama only has one election left. It's certainly an anti-Democratic proposal (as well as anti-democratic.)

Well, we have no idea what the Democratic nominee will do in 2016 and beyond.

I will not agree with you that it is "anti-Democratic."  This is very close to one voter, one vote.  It will probably assure that both party nominees will get some EV in Pennsylvania.

Politically, this could easily benefit Obama in 2012, so it can't really be expressed in R/D terms. 

[pbrower2a]

I wonder how many times it has to be said that the Democrats in control of southern states in the early 1900s, or even into the early 1990s, don't really have much in common with Democrats today. I'm pretty sure Krayzen would have been a Democrat in the South in all that time based on his comments on Camden and various other issues, and I don't think Strom Thurmond or Zell Miller was a big fan of gay marriage...

This is one of the basic realities. Southern white voters have changed little over the last 100 years. They have been consistently conservative and xenophobic. The old Democratic coalition between unionized non-WASP industrial workers in the North and southern white rustics was a marriage of convenience that worked so long as the partners met each other only on rare occasions -- basically at political conventions.

On rare occasions, Southern white people might toy with populism with someone who shared their religious values but asked for some debt relief, some better educational opportunities for their kids, and the permission to ask for some industry to relocate southward (so long as the wages at such work didn't challenge the power of the agrarian elites who really ran the Democratic Party in the South.

The agrarian elites still dominate the rural South -- and its politics. On occasion a Jimmy Carter or a Bill Clinton wins the majority of Southern states by running as a Good Ol' Boy. But the Southern elites abandoned the Democratic party when it became 'untrustworthy' -- that is, when blacks started joining it and voting. The Southern elites are as reactionary as any remnants of feudal elites were in Europe before the Second World War, and as a century ago they firmly believe that the only good economic policies are those that enrich themselves, and d@mn everyone else. Those elites are willing to concede 'pie in the sky when you die' to those people who accept their worldly dominion in return for allowing some material modernity (like sweat-shop factories, military bases, hospitals, expressways, libraries, and high schools) and flattering their obedience. But like those feudal elites they expect the economic order to enrich and pamper them first; they sponsor 'safe' religion; they are militaristic and bigoted. A century ago they identified themselves as Democrats, and they went along with the New Deal  only because that would save capitalism and class privilege from Bolshevism. As Republicans they may now regret that Abraham Lincoln used to be in their party; they have simply rendered him irrelevant.   They align themselves with Northern reactionaries who like them believe that government works best when it serves cartels, trusts, and the executive nomenklatura.

[Keystone Phil]

You mean like the one in North Carolina where they screwed them all, except the VRA ones?
Or the one at Texas where they dismantled Lloyd Dogget's district? Or the one at Georgia where they did the same thing to John  Barrow?

Feel free to mention anything you know.

As J.J. mentioned, there are several other examples in PA. Leave it to you to cherry pick certain situations where incumbents don't try to look out for each other and make it seem like they apply universally.

When you get some free time, take a Politics 101 class, px.

[Landslide Lyndon]

You mean like the one in North Carolina where they screwed them all, except the VRA ones?
Or the one at Texas where they dismantled Lloyd Dogget's district? Or the one at Georgia where they did the same thing to John  Barrow?

Feel free to mention anything you know.

As J.J. mentioned, there are several other examples in PA. Leave it to you to cherry pick certain situations where incumbents don't try to look out for each other and make it seem like they apply universally.

When you get some free time, take a Politics 101 class, px.

Still waiting for those examples, besides Brady and Pennsylvania.

[Iosif]

So is this going to happen then or what?

[Keystone Phil]

You mean like the one in North Carolina where they screwed them all, except the VRA ones?
Or the one at Texas where they dismantled Lloyd Dogget's district? Or the one at Georgia where they did the same thing to John  Barrow?

Feel free to mention anything you know.

As J.J. mentioned, there are several other examples in PA. Leave it to you to cherry pick certain situations where incumbents don't try to look out for each other and make it seem like they apply universally.

When you get some free time, take a Politics 101 class, px.

Still waiting for those examples, besides Brady and Pennsylvania.

I don't know the details of every damn deal made in other states, dude. It's basic political knowledge that the incumbents in both parties typically err on the side of incumbent protection instead of drawing up insane maps. You provided three examples of crazy map making/screwing incumbents and J.J. and I presented three other examples here in PA.

[Keystone Phil]

So is this going to happen then or what?

Not likely.

[Landslide Lyndon]

You mean like the one in North Carolina where they screwed them all, except the VRA ones?
Or the one at Texas where they dismantled Lloyd Dogget's district? Or the one at Georgia where they did the same thing to John  Barrow?

Feel free to mention anything you know.

As J.J. mentioned, there are several other examples in PA. Leave it to you to cherry pick certain situations where incumbents don't try to look out for each other and make it seem like they apply universally.

When you get some free time, take a Politics 101 class, px.

Still waiting for those examples, besides Brady and Pennsylvania.

I don't know the details of every damn deal made in other states, dude. It's basic political knowledge that the incumbents in both parties typically err on the side of incumbent protection instead of drawing up insane maps. You provided three examples of crazy map making/screwing incumbents and J.J. and I presented three other examples here in PA.

You presented three examples from one single state. I presented three states, and we should add Ohio where the Republicans have messed up all the Dem incumbents they could.

Anyway, since you seem to need help I'll do it for you: you could mention Missouri where Clay collaborated with Republicans and they both screwed Russ Carnahan.

[Keystone Phil]

You presented three examples from one single state. I presented three states, and we should add Ohio where the Republicans have messed up all the Dem incumbents they could.

What does it matter if they're all from one state or ten states? They're still examples of the minority party working with the majority party to make sure that their guys are safe.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thanks.

[Landslide Lyndon]

You presented three examples from one single state. I presented three states, and we should add Ohio where the Republicans have messed up all the Dem incumbents they could.

What does it matter if they're all from one state or ten states? They're still examples of the minority party working with the majority party to make sure that their guys are safe.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thanks.

Except that in these cases it wasn't the "minority party" that collaborated. The Democratic establishment doesn't seem very happy with Brady's behavior, and they certainly didn't approve of what Clay did.
These are cases where selfish politicians threw their party under the bus in order to save their asses.

[J. J.]

You mean like the one in North Carolina where they screwed them all, except the VRA ones?
Or the one at Texas where they dismantled Lloyd Dogget's district? Or the one at Georgia where they did the same thing to John  Barrow?

Feel free to mention anything you know.

As J.J. mentioned, there are several other examples in PA. Leave it to you to cherry pick certain situations where incumbents don't try to look out for each other and make it seem like they apply universally.

When you get some free time, take a Politics 101 class, px.

Still waiting for those examples, besides Brady and Pennsylvania.

I don't know the details of every damn deal made in other states, dude. It's basic political knowledge that the incumbents in both parties typically err on the side of incumbent protection instead of drawing up insane maps. You provided three examples of crazy map making/screwing incumbents and J.J. and I presented three other examples here in PA.

You presented three examples from one single state. I presented three states, and we should add Ohio where the Republicans have messed up all the Dem incumbents they could.

Anyway, since you seem to need help I'll do it for you: you could mention Missouri where Clay collaborated with Republicans and they both screwed Russ Carnahan.

Muon mentioned one in Illinois that was about 15 feet wide at points.  This has been happening in the US since at least 1812. 

[Keystone Phil]

You presented three examples from one single state. I presented three states, and we should add Ohio where the Republicans have messed up all the Dem incumbents they could.

What does it matter if they're all from one state or ten states? They're still examples of the minority party working with the majority party to make sure that their guys are safe.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thanks.

Except that in these cases it wasn't the "minority party" that collaborated. The Democratic establishment doesn't seem very happy with Brady's behavior, and they certainly didn't approve of what Clay did.

Uh...Brady is the establishment and represents plenty of those that do this stuff all of the time. Yes, certain Dems did not like it for obvious reasons but plenty of others did and do the same for themselves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which happens more often than you're suggesting. You certainly know this (I don't believe that you're a total idiot) but your excessive, painful hackery is keeping you to the strict talking points that the Republicans are the only ones that actually gerrymander.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Uh...Brady is the establishment and represents plenty of those that do this stuff all of the time. Yes, certain Dems did not like it for obvious reasons but plenty of others did and do the same for themselves.

Brady is part of the establishment but I doubt that he is controlling the Pennsylvania Democratic party like a Richard Daley or an E. H. Crump did. Otherwise he wouldn't have been taking such heat by his colleagues over his collaboration.
And he certainly doesn't seem to exert a significant amount of influence to the national establishment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even if there were such people in other states, all evidence suggests that Republicans ignored them and decided to go for the kill. Even when they suggested that they actively sought Democratic input, their supposed collaborators angrily refused that (see GK Butterfield).

[Keystone Phil]

Uh...Brady is the establishment and represents plenty of those that do this stuff all of the time. Yes, certain Dems did not like it for obvious reasons but plenty of others did and do the same for themselves.

Brady is part of the establishment but I doubt that he is controlling the Pennsylvania Democratic party like a Richard Daley or an E. H. Crump did.

He has a huge role in the party. If his Philly team wasn't ruled by an iron fist and if they didn't deliver, Dems would never win here. Ever. Denying that would show extreme ignorance. Sorry.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What the hell do you expect them to say? At the end of the day, they know how this works. They might not be happy and voice their concerns but until he is beaten, he rules the roost. 
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, more ignorance. Just because you don't hear his name as often as you hear others doesn't mean that he isn't a big player. He controls Philadelphia in a major swing state. Don't tell me that every major Democrat in the country knows Bob Brady.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...they went in for the kill in the states you mentioned.

[Landslide Lyndon]

...they went in for the kill in the states you mentioned.

Which are almost all the states they control.

BTW, if Brady is so powerful why he failed so miserably when he ran for mayor?

[Keystone Phil]

Which are almost all the states they control.

Only two or three states? I doubt that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Excellent question. When Brady first got in, everyone thought he was going to win. I was one of them. The establishment rallied around him. However, he ran a terrible campaign and isn't the best campaigner to begin with. He's a party boss. If he wasn't the boss and totally controlled certain factions, his dismal showing would have been even worse. The white, working class vote was split with another white candidate and the support he had within the black community was split between himself and black candidates. Nutter ran a stellar campaign, surging ahead in the final week or two. He was the true reform candidate (funny to hear that now) while the others split up the establishment.

It isn't anything new that a party boss wouldn't do well in an election outside of their niche.

[Sbane]

I think this was one of the points some of the R's on this site have made.

This is probably the first time that the representatives themselves have expressed fear for their own futures.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, Obama only has one election left. It's certainly an anti-Democratic proposal (as well as anti-democratic.)

Well, we have no idea what the Democratic nominee will do in 2016 and beyond.

I will not agree with you that it is "anti-Democratic."  This is very close to one voter, one vote.  It will probably assure that both party nominees will get some EV in Pennsylvania.

Politically, this could easily benefit Obama in 2012, so it can't really be expressed in R/D terms. 

So why not follow something like Pbrower's proposal(posted on the page before the posted on the 12th page) and take gerrymandering out of the game? And it would benefit Republicans in Illinois of course and in later years in many other states based on who wins the 2020 elections around the country.

[krazen1211]

So is this going to happen then or what?

No, it seems pretty much dead.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6106804/ns/politics-tom_curry/t/split-colorados-electoral-votes/

Helping lead the charge for the measure, called Amendment 36, is Democratic consultant Rick Ridder, a veteran of the Howard Dean campaign.
Julie Brown, the campaign director of Make Your Vote Count, the Denver-based group pushing the measure, said the idea began in 2001, when a Democratic state legislator from Boulder, Ron Tupa, proposed a bill to allocate Colorado’s electoral votes as Maine and Nebraska do: the popular vote winner would get two electoral votes and the winner of the rest of the state’s electoral votes would be determined by who carried each congressional district.



Hmm.

[Sbane]

So is this going to happen then or what?

No, it seems pretty much dead.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6106804/ns/politics-tom_curry/t/split-colorados-electoral-votes/

Helping lead the charge for the measure, called Amendment 36, is Democratic consultant Rick Ridder, a veteran of the Howard Dean campaign.
Julie Brown, the campaign director of Make Your Vote Count, the Denver-based group pushing the measure, said the idea began in 2001, when a Democratic state legislator from Boulder, Ron Tupa, proposed a bill to allocate Colorado’s electoral votes as Maine and Nebraska do: the popular vote winner would get two electoral votes and the winner of the rest of the state’s electoral votes would be determined by who carried each congressional district.



Hmm.

What will happen in PA? Thanks for bringing up irrelevant, 6 years old sh**t.

[krazen1211]

So is this going to happen then or what?

No, it seems pretty much dead.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6106804/ns/politics-tom_curry/t/split-colorados-electoral-votes/

Helping lead the charge for the measure, called Amendment 36, is Democratic consultant Rick Ridder, a veteran of the Howard Dean campaign.
Julie Brown, the campaign director of Make Your Vote Count, the Denver-based group pushing the measure, said the idea began in 2001, when a Democratic state legislator from Boulder, Ron Tupa, proposed a bill to allocate Colorado’s electoral votes as Maine and Nebraska do: the popular vote winner would get two electoral votes and the winner of the rest of the state’s electoral votes would be determined by who carried each congressional district.



Hmm.

What will happen in PA? Thanks for bringing up irrelevant, 6 years old sh**t.

Read the first sentence; as I said, it appears dead. A lot of people seem to not like it.

[Fritz]

The Colorado story is from 2004.  How did you dig that up?