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.
So packing republicans into 4 districts was solely a race policy. Those dems were angels.
What are you talking about? There were no significant changes to NC's district for many years prior to the 1992 election, and once again, those changes were made in response to federal pressure. There was no "packing republicans"...the changes were made to address racial issues.
Do you just make things up to feel good about yourself, or are you really that clueless?
What are you talking about? There were no significant changes to NC's district for many years prior to the 1992 election, and once again, those changes were made in response to federal pressure. There was no "packing republicans"...the changes were made to address racial issues.
Do you just make things up to feel good about yourself, or are you really that clueless?
Yes, I made up the fact that the republican and democrat presidential candidates almost evenly split the vote yet the republican could only win 4 of 12 congressional districts.
Yes, I made up that the republican senate candidate beat the democrat by 4% yet the republican could only win 4 of 12 congressional districts.
Yes, the GOP has gerrymandering is a factor in only winning 3 congressional districts last time out. Want to know what else was a factor? Democrats electing a chair who bankrupted the state party because his opponent couldn't stay sober enough(allegedly) to give a speech to the delegates.
Yes, I made up the fact that the republican and democrat presidential candidates almost evenly split the vote yet the republican could only win 4 of 12 congressional districts.
Yes, I made up that the republican senate candidate beat the democrat by 4% yet the republican could only win 4 of 12 congressional districts.
Yes, the GOP has gerrymandering is a factor in only winning 3 congressional districts last time out. Want to know what else was a factor? Democrats electing a chair who bankrupted the state party because his opponent couldn't stay sober enough(allegedly) to give a speech to the delegates.
Thanks, I think this clearly answers my last question.
Thanks, I think this clearly answers my last question.
“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.†There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.†There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
If you're losing an argument, just act crazy. Stops everything in its tracks!
If you're losing an argument, just act crazy. Stops everything in its tracks!
My argument is both political side partake in gerrymandering and I'm arguing against the belief that the democrat politicians were to altruistic to take part in that activity.
The funny thing is we all agree that the practice should be stopped. The difference is I said this before and after my party got to redraw the districts. The Pubs got their chance to get to draw them once. They will not be in power forever and the process should be changed.
My argument is both political side partake in gerrymandering and I'm arguing against the belief that the democrat politicians were to altruistic to take part in that activity.
An effective argument usually cites examples or facts to support one's position. You've offered neither to support your contention that NC Democrats have gerrymandered districts. I've explained to you several times that a) they historically didn't need to gerrymander because there was an overwhelming majority of Democratic voters in the state, and b) the only gerrymandering they have done (in the early 1990's) was not done for partisanship, but rather to comply with directives from the feds to address racial disparities in the election process. Now, if you want to convince anyone otherwise, you'll need to present us with some solid evidence to support your view. We'll be waiting.
And I should also add that I never said Democrats were too altruistic to resort to gerrymandering, so I don't know why you'd argue that point. The fact remains that Democrats haven't gerrymandered anything other than that which they were required to do by the feds. Whether its altruism or some other reason doesn't really matter--the point is that they haven't done it.
This ignorant assumption among many of the state's right-wingers is completely wrong. Democrats did not gerrymander districts "for better than 100 years" because they didn't have to. There was an overwhelming majority of Democratic voters in the state for most of the 20th century, up until the late 70's and early 80's when the Republicans began to close the gap. Gerrymandering that was done when the Democrats were in charge was in response to lawsuits and Justice Dept. pressure to address a lack of minority representation...it had nothing to do with Democrat vs. Republican voters.
Clearly, the Republicans are better at gerrymandering because they are doing it for purely partisan reasons. And it's wrong when Democratic House candidates receive 51 percent of the vote, yet only four of thirteen seats were won by Democrats (as happened in the 2012 election).
Yes, even with the "Democratic-gerrymandered" districts as late as 2008, the 13 US House seats split 7D-6R, just about what you would expect in a state that had the thinnest R-D margins in both of the two past Presidential elections). Suddenly the Reps get control and now it's 10R-3D with a population that is, if anything, MORE Democratic?
As for "getting better at it"--that's due to newer technology, plain and simple. By 2020, they'll probably be able to gerrymander house to, using Amazon and Netflix algorithms and Facebook and Twitter posts (or whatever has come along and taken their place)
McCrory got a ton of split tickets democrats who thought he would be progressive. That didn't pan out. So I'm guessing it's within a point or so whether he wins or not
My argument is both political side partake in gerrymandering and I'm arguing against the belief that the democrat politicians were to altruistic to take part in that activity.
The funny thing is we all agree that the practice should be stopped. The difference is I said this before and after my party got to redraw the districts. The Pubs got their chance to get to draw them once. They will not be in power forever and the process should be changed.
I'll reprint this.
Here's a little reality check for those who seem to think that Democrats rule in the state was the result of gerrymandering. They pretty much sucked at gerrymandering. Listed are the total votes for congressional dems+reps in the two cycles following a redistricting, the Democratic percentage of the vote and the number of seats they won. Note in 1992, when Reps won only 34% of the vote they got more seats (4) than the Dems did in 2014 when they won 44% of the vote (3).
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.
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.
