U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-16-2012, 11:07 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 13,807,761 times
Reputation: 4539

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frozenyo View Post
Shocking, you agree with him on what you want to happen
On what we want to happen? No, I don't think so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frozenyo View Post
Anyway, no need to jump the gun, the republicans are still in full implode mode. Hopefully the last two Presidential losers will keep spewing their bitter vile hate and continue to smear the entire party.
How are the last two presidential losers spewing "bitter vile hate"?

And you all said the Republicans were in full implode mode after 2008... Then look what happened in 2010. Then you say we are in full implode mode after 2012 when we lost by far less than we did in 2008.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-16-2012, 11:08 PM
 
6,872 posts, read 7,758,628 times
Reputation: 2972
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariadne22 View Post
Is there anything that can be done about gerrymandering? It doesn't serve the American people of either party well.
To abolish it is to abolish the census. Believe it or not. The census was primarily used for redistricting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2012, 11:10 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 13,807,761 times
Reputation: 4539
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey View Post
To abolish it is to abolish the census. Believe it or not. The census was primarily used for redistricting.
No, the Census can be used to redistrict without gerrymandering. You can just set up an independent redistricting commission (theoretically).

Look, I don't think gerrymandering is a good thing but those "independent" commissions may not always be able to come up with solutions that are 100% fair anyway. As long as both red states and blue states are gerrymandering, they cancel each other out to some degree. When they can't completely cancel each other out, it's because one party had a disproportionate of power because the other f***ed up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2012, 11:12 PM
 
Location: Southeast
4,296 posts, read 6,130,904 times
Reputation: 1444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariadne22 View Post
All due to the 2010 mid-terms, which then took advantage of the 2010 Census to gerrymander control to the GOP until 2022.
This is untrue, redistricting did not take place before the 2010 elections. The census may have been in 2010, but the final tally was not presented to state governments until later. 2012 was the first election where redistricting was a factor. The 2010 midterms used the exact same format as 2008.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2012, 11:13 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
20,877 posts, read 41,705,045 times
Reputation: 14102
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey View Post
To abolish it is to abolish the census. Believe it or not. The census was primarily used for redistricting.
Wow. I didn't know that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2012, 11:13 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 13,807,761 times
Reputation: 4539
The Senate doesn't look to good for the Dems in 2014 either...

Senate Democrats face a very tough 2014 map

That being said, it didn't this year and look what happened.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2012, 11:15 PM
 
6,872 posts, read 7,758,628 times
Reputation: 2972
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
Nate Silver isn't always accurate long before elections. Hell, even in September of 2010, he said the Republicans had a ~25% chance of gaining 60 seats in the House.

G.O.P. Has 2-in-3 Chance of Taking House, Model Forecasts - NYTimes.com

This being said, he is correct on this. It would take a huge Democratic wave which is even less likely in a mid-term with a Democratic president.
2 in 3 chance. lol

Do you know what that means?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2012, 11:16 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 13,807,761 times
Reputation: 4539
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey View Post
2 in 3 chance. lol

Do you know what that means?
Did you click the link and read the part about 60 seats? The GOP did not need 60 seats to take the House....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2012, 11:21 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,054 posts, read 28,402,817 times
Reputation: 7824
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
And you all said the Republicans were in full implode mode after 2008... Then look what happened in 2010. Then you say we are in full implode mode after 2012 when we lost by far less than we did in 2008.
Well the Republicans did kind of implode after 2008, they succumbed to the Tea Party losing a number of primaries to them and then having them win a surprising number of seats in 2010 for a number of reasons, which the Democrats didn't see the Tea Party as a threat which was a poor choice on their part. In 2012 we saw a number of those Tea Party members turn into one term Congressmen, though some survived thanks to redistricting.

Now after 2012, we Liberals would love to see the Republicans implode, but it really is up the Republicans what happens with their party, do they embarrass the far right even more than before or do they cut them off and try to move back to the more moderate side trying to court voters through more reasonable moves and trying to do more compromising this next two years to show America that they can work with the majority to get this country moving again. It is their choice what happens next.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2012, 11:24 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,054 posts, read 28,402,817 times
Reputation: 7824
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
Did you click the link and read the part about 60 seats? The GOP did not need 60 seats to take the House....
You are combining quotes in that link, the article said they had a 2 in 3 chance of taking the House in 2010, it said they had a 25% chance of taking 60 seats, which they came very close to. Those are two separate things they are talking about in that article.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top