|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2020, 01:03:21 pm
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: Virginiá)
  2020 is the Election Democrats Should Really Be Focusing On.....
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: 2020 is the Election Democrats Should Really Be Focusing On.....  (Read 5805 times)
Grand Mufti of Northern Virginia
Frodo
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,129
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 21, 2014, 06:03:32 pm »
« edited: October 25, 2014, 01:10:42 am by Frodo »

Forget 2016: Democrats already have a plan for 2020

08/26/14 07:34 AM—UPDATED 08/27/14 09:55 AM
By Benjy Sarlin


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,957
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 21, 2014, 06:08:12 pm »

Luckily, unlike 2010, 2020 is a presidential year. Not that it guarantees Dems will do well, but it's much better than it being a midterm.
Logged
Mehmentum
Icefire9
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,541
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 21, 2014, 07:10:11 pm »

With the state legislators being so gerrymandered, it might be best to focus on governorships.
Logged
Devils30
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,911
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.06, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 21, 2014, 09:14:37 pm »

Winning PA and FL is a start for this year and having VA after 2021 would be nice as well. Even if the GOP wins MI and WI, those states along with OH will have open seats in 2018. A court drawn legislative map is a substantial upgrade over what we have now and should give dems a fair shot in a favorable year.
Logged
Mehmentum
Icefire9
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,541
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 21, 2014, 09:39:25 pm »
« Edited: October 21, 2014, 09:42:54 pm by Mehmentum »


This is the current state of state governments in terms of redistricting (blue and red indicate a single party control of both houses of congress and the governorship, grey is either mixed control or states with only one district in them).  Democrats really need to focus on flipping Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
Logged
Devils30
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,911
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.06, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 21, 2014, 09:46:13 pm »

North Carolina is hopeless because the legislature controls redistricting. The best way is for a future liberal Supreme Court to declare their maps unconstitutional 
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,248


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 21, 2014, 09:56:46 pm »

A lot of the gubernatorial elections are in 2018. The Democrats massively dropped the ball in state races in 2010.


This is the current state of state governments in terms of redistricting (blue and red indicate a single party control of both houses of congress and the governorship, grey is either mixed control or states with only one district in them).  Democrats really need to focus on flipping Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

Charles Munger Jr., who gets a large allowance from his daddy, used his money to convince California to unilaterally disarm.
Logged
Devils30
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,911
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.06, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 21, 2014, 09:58:45 pm »

Yeah that hurt bc California dems could draw a 48-5 map probably if they wanted to.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,127
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 22, 2014, 12:26:15 am »

We also need to account for state legislative supermajorities and veto rules.  In the states shaded 60% for a party, that party would have the power to impose a redistricting plan against the will of the governor under that state's rules.  Green is a commission:

Logged
Skill and Chance
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,127
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 22, 2014, 12:36:19 am »
« Edited: October 22, 2014, 12:39:47 am by Skill and Chance »

Now here is a realistic Democratic ceiling for 2021.  Would this be enough to make the House an even playing field?  It's remarkable to think that the all the dark blue states combined could contain as few as 10 D house seats.

Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,119
Liechtenstein


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: October 22, 2014, 07:43:35 am »

Florida also has a commission.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,127
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: October 22, 2014, 12:28:51 pm »


Well, that's complicated.  I would say Florida is more like Michigan.  They both have stricter than normal rules on paper, but in practice it is possible for a party with full control to distort things more than a court would.  There are still only 8 D-PVI seats in Florida today.  If Democrats controlled the process there, they could probably get away with 14-15D/12-13R.  A court would probably draw 15-16R/11-12D.  Similarly, a court map in Michigan would surely have more than 5 Dem seats.
Logged
greenforest32
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,633


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: October 22, 2014, 05:25:09 pm »

How about a majority Democrat-appointed SCOTUS overturning gerrymandering in 2018-2020?
Logged
Mister Mets
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,991
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: October 22, 2014, 07:06:40 pm »

The effects of redistricting are overrated.

It's generally agreed that congressional districts should be geographically contiguous, and that when possible communities should not be divided within congressional districts. With geographic sorting, people have come to live near those who agree with them politically. Rural Arkansas will be very conservative. Harlem will be a safe Democratic seat.

The sorting benefits Republicans. Liberals are more likely to live in areas where their candidate gets more of the vote, or in small enclaves within conservative regions (ie- college towns in Nebraska.) John Sides and Eric McGhee of the Post argued that the post 2010-redistricting (when Republicans gained control of numerous states) didn't actually help them with any net house seats in 2012.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/17/redistricting-didnt-win-republicans-the-house/

The counterargument would be that Democrats might need to gerrymander just to be even with Republicans in the House, although that's not an argument anyone representative of the party wants to make.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,127
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: October 22, 2014, 09:55:28 pm »

How about a majority Democrat-appointed SCOTUS overturning gerrymandering in 2018-2020?

The best thing for the country by far would be an extension of Baker v. Carr or Shaw v. Reno to require that all congressional/legislative districts be drawn without regard to partisanship.
Logged
Lief 🐋
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,609
Dominica


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: October 22, 2014, 10:01:40 pm »

How about a majority Democrat-appointed SCOTUS overturning gerrymandering in 2018-2020?

I doubt Scalia or Kennedy will retire before 2020.
Logged
greenforest32
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,633


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: October 24, 2014, 01:58:52 am »

How about a majority Democrat-appointed SCOTUS overturning gerrymandering in 2018-2020?

I doubt Scalia or Kennedy will retire before 2020.

Wikipedia says they're both 78 currently while Ginsburg is 81 and Breyer is 76. Is there cumulative data on the ages when Justices step down? Those four look like prime retirement candidates in the next six years.
Logged
ConnoRhett
Newbie
*
Posts: 15
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: October 24, 2014, 09:43:32 am »

I don't know if this article (I know, it's from late August) was ever posted here, but if not:


They may have any plan they like, but as I can see, people now seem more turned to the changes to good old conservatism which is absolutely impossible with the Democrative party at a helm!
Logged
Lief 🐋
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,609
Dominica


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: October 25, 2014, 04:02:50 pm »

How about a majority Democrat-appointed SCOTUS overturning gerrymandering in 2018-2020?

I doubt Scalia or Kennedy will retire before 2020.

Wikipedia says they're both 78 currently while Ginsburg is 81 and Breyer is 76. Is there cumulative data on the ages when Justices step down? Those four look like prime retirement candidates in the next six years.

Ginsburg (and possibly Breyer) will likely retire before 2020 if Clinton is elected. But unless their health takes a turn for the worse, I would think Kennedy and Scalia would want to hold on until at least 2020 to see if a Republican is elected.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,195
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: October 25, 2014, 04:33:40 pm »
« Edited: October 25, 2014, 04:55:23 pm by politicus »

How about a majority Democrat-appointed SCOTUS overturning gerrymandering in 2018-2020?

I doubt Scalia or Kennedy will retire before 2020.

Wikipedia says they're both 78 currently while Ginsburg is 81 and Breyer is 76. Is there cumulative data on the ages when Justices step down? Those four look like prime retirement candidates in the next six years.

Ginsburg (and possibly Breyer) will likely retire before 2020 if Clinton is elected. But unless their health takes a turn for the worse, I would think Kennedy and Scalia would want to hold on until at least 2020 to see if a Republican is elected.

Why would Kennedy care about who replaces him? He doesn't seem to be an ideologue. Even if he does, would a Republican pick necessarily be closer to Kennedy's positions than a moderate compromise candidate chosen by Hillary Clinton.
Logged
DS0816
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,173
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: October 26, 2014, 02:55:16 am »

For those who want to seriously crunch numbers (or who can point to a source who already has)Sad Is it possible to get every state to draw congressional districts assuring that the Partisan Voting Index is no more than 10 percentage points (one party or the other)?
Logged
Gass3268
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,673
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: October 26, 2014, 12:43:16 pm »

How about a majority Democrat-appointed SCOTUS overturning gerrymandering in 2018-2020?

I doubt Scalia or Kennedy will retire before 2020.

Wikipedia says they're both 78 currently while Ginsburg is 81 and Breyer is 76. Is there cumulative data on the ages when Justices step down? Those four look like prime retirement candidates in the next six years.

Ginsburg (and possibly Breyer) will likely retire before 2020 if Clinton is elected. But unless their health takes a turn for the worse, I would think Kennedy and Scalia would want to hold on until at least 2020 to see if a Republican is elected.

Could you imagine the firestorm that would occur if Scalia were to die during a Clinton term?
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,988
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: October 26, 2014, 03:14:17 pm »

For those who want to seriously crunch numbers (or who can point to a source who already has)Sad Is it possible to get every state to draw congressional districts assuring that the Partisan Voting Index is no more than 10 percentage points (one party or the other)?

I believe PVI is calculated relative to the vote shares in presidential elections. Therefore, it would be impossible to do so in any state with PVI > 10 in either direction. My knowledge of PVI is rather hazy, so if anyone wants to correct me, please do.

Also, I question why this would be a good aim. Making all districts competitive would itself be a sort of gerrymandering, since you'd have to throw out any notion of community of interest in order to make ultra-Democratic cities have competitive districts.
Logged
DS0816
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,173
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: October 26, 2014, 09:08:54 pm »

For those who want to seriously crunch numbers (or who can point to a source who already has)Sad Is it possible to get every state to draw congressional districts assuring that the Partisan Voting Index is no more than 10 percentage points (one party or the other)?

I believe PVI is calculated relative to the vote shares in presidential elections. Therefore, it would be impossible to do so in any state with PVI > 10 in either direction. My knowledge of PVI is rather hazy, so if anyone wants to correct me, please do.

Also, I question why this would be a good aim. Making all districts competitive would itself be a sort of gerrymandering, since you'd have to throw out any notion of community of interest in order to make ultra-Democratic cities have competitive districts.


Your answer, from the first paragraph, agrees with what I've been thinking. But, from the second paragraph, I disagree because it should be encouraged to move the United States people off the rigged system of having mostly uncompetitive U.S. House races.
Logged
Clamdick McClaw
HockeyDude
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,077
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: October 26, 2014, 11:32:00 pm »

Yea, they really need to run with that after they restrained Al Gore in 2000 and kept him from mentioning anything about Clinton, including the unbelievable prosperity we had under his administration.  Gore did squeak out a win, but that election should've been a Democratic wave after Clinton used "free market solutions" to foster economic growth.   
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines