Reapportionment

[onejayhawk]

This is going to be a major topic in the next two years. Here is general information.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_redistricting_cycle

Regardless how the court cases turn out in the Presidential race, the Republicans will be flipping up between nine and fourteen seats in the House. The current leans have it eleven seats with two extremely close races remaining. Giving both of those to Nancy for Christmas, the next Congress will be 224 D - 211 R, a paper-thin thirteen vote margin. Reapportionment could wipe that out, without even starting the gerrymandering.

Below is a two part article on the way the various states look to be settling out. Their final tally is -6 D, +6 R, which would leave Democrats with a single vote majority.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...ld_mean_for_house_control_in_2023_144644.html
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...awn_house_maps_could_mean_in_2023_144651.html

J

 

[warpus]

How incompetent are the Democrats that their opponents are winning seats at a time like this?

Like, what's even going on south of the border.. I heard Obama say that the American voters no longer care about policies and instead rely on their emotions (or whatever he said). I am not looking forward to the next.. eh.. couple decades of insanity.

 

[Quintillus]

I agree with the article's assessment of my state. It's currently 75% Republicans in Congress, but closer to 55% Republicans among voters. They predict the GOP will lose a seat here due to downsizing, and despite the fact that they'll control the maps, I'm inclined to agree. Voters overwhelmingly approved an anti-gerrymandering amendment a few years ago (one which the GOP governor supported), and if the minority party doesn't agree, the maps will be re-drawn in 2024 instead of 2030. My guess is the GOP will go for the 11-4 balance instead of the current 12-4, to get the approval until 2030. The anti-gerrymandering amendment also includes provisions that make it illegal to create districts such as the Snake by the Lake, so it would be challenging to come up with a 12-3 map that wasn't egregiously gerrymandered.

I would agree that most U.S. voters care more about emotions on a one or two issues than about actual politics. On the right, that's often about abortion. On the left, it's often about identity politics of some sort. But there are a lot of people who will vote on their pet issue alone without considering the broader implications. Although it isn't exclusively that way. I have an anti-abortion Democrat friend and a pro-Biden Republican friend who both take into account multiple factors when deciding who to vote for. That consideration isn't as common as it used to be, however.

As for the why... I think there are multiple contributing factors. The media is part of it. Fox News being the top candidate with their often glowing-and-uncritical praise of Trump, but they aren't all of the problem. During most of Trump's term, news organizations - including mainstream, non-Fox ones - would routinely report whatever Trump said, even when it had no basis in fact. In the past six months, I've seen far more notices of the sort, "Trump claimed there was election fraud. There is no factual evidence for Trump's claims." - italics being the part that I didn't see much of until this year. The media being willing to present facts and note when public figures' claims contradict the facts could help.

I think another big one is an inability by the public to tell what is factual reporting online, and what is political propaganda. Particularly via social media. We've only had ubiquitous Internet for a couple decades, and social media for 10-15 years. It used to be that broadstreet newspapers were pretty trustworthy, your local news channel was fairly reliable, and you knew you should take what the tabloids reported with a grain of salt. Now, there are far more news sources, and many of them aren't as trustworthy as the traditional ones, but people don't necessarily realize that, and a lot of people still trust whatever they read online. And the social networks have done a very poor job of helping people figure out what they can trust. I remember seeing a link shared on Facebook in 2016 that claimed the Pope had endorsed Trump. I was immediately skeptical because it seemed highly unlikely, but how many people saw that (false) claim and believed it? As a society, we haven't inoculated ourselves against misinformation spread online.

 

[innonimatu]

How incompetent are the Democrats that their opponents are winning seats at a time like this?

Like, what's even going on south of the border.. I heard Obama say that the American voters no longer care about policies and instead rely on their emotions (or whatever he said). I am not looking forward to the next.. eh.. couple decades of insanity.

Americans seem to came more than ever in recent history about politics. It's the parties available that do not care no present policies other that "let's continue to do what we've been doing". The passion therefore is against the political establishment, and Trump presenting himself as an outsider carried much of it.
That he can still now present himself as an outsider is courtesy of the intense media campaign against him. That alone validates his status of being an "enemy of the estabelishment".

It's so bloody obvious that I can't understand why so many people here refuse to see it.

And what's reapportionment anyway?

 

[onejayhawk]

Here is one of many map projections based on the census. Note that the map would change the 2016 election only three EV. Impact on the House of Representatives will be much larger.
https://www.270towin.com/news/2019/...-based-on-new-census-population-data_925.html

 

[warpus]

Americans seem to came more than ever in recent history about politics.

Ask your average Trump supporter what policies they are supporting in particular. They'll answer your question in terms of who they stand against, not what they stand for. They are supporting something that stands against the people they hate - liberals. That's not politics, that's fanaticism.

This isn't caring about politics, this is buying into the propaganda and being brainwashed enough to ignore rational discourse and vote for "your side" no matter what.

 

[innonimatu]

Ask your average Trump supporter what policies they are supporting in particular. They'll answer your question in terms of who they stand against, not what they stand for. They are supporting something that stands against the people they hate - liberals. That's not politics, that's fanaticism.

This isn't caring about politics, this is buying into the propaganda and being brainwashed enough to ignore rational discourse and vote for "your side" no matter what.

They're not brainwashed, they're pissed. Most of them, I believe. That attitude you heard and repeat that "they're brainwashed" is precisely one of the things they're pissed at. "Liberals" spent their last 4 years sneering at them, despising them. When you declare someone to be your enemy, expect enmity... That, done as part of group dynamics, very much is politics.

Hillary threw the opening salvos and helped define the camps more than Trump did. This didn't happen in a void. Trump just stepped into the place that was open and rode the wave. It's not about Trump, these are not just Trump supporters and Trump is not some aberration who will go away. You may call it "Trumpism" but you could call it any other -ism, If Trump leaves the stage someone else will fill the void. Probably someone more competent. Then the US can have its civil war...

 

[Gorbles]

They're not brainwashed, they're pissed. Most of them, I believe. That attitude you heard and repeat that "they're brainwashed" is precisely one of the things they're pissed at. "Liberals" spent their last 4 years sneering at them, despising them. When you declare someone to be your enemy, expect enmity... That, done as part of group dynamics, very much is politics.

Hillary threw the opening salvos and helped define the camps more than Trump did. This didn't happen in a void. Trump just stepped into the place that was open and rode the wave. It's not about Trump, these are not just Trump supporters and Trump is not some aberration who will go away. You may call it "Trumpism" but you could call it any other -ism, If Trump leaves the stage someone else will fill the void. Probably someone more competent. Then the US can have its civil war...

If you're suggesting indoctrination and having feelings are somehow mutually exclusive, I would strongly disagree. You're positing something as an either / or when it has no need to be.

Also, very funny that you have no problems claiming liberals do X, and feel Y, whilst pushing back on the same others are doing of Republicans. How very objective.

 

[Birdjaguar]

They're not brainwashed, they're pissed. Most of them, I believe. That attitude you heard and repeat that "they're brainwashed" is precisely one of the things they're pissed at. "Liberals" spent their last 4 years sneering at them, despising them. When you declare someone to be your enemy, expect enmity... That, done as part of group dynamics, very much is politics.

Hillary threw the opening salvos and helped define the camps more than Trump did. This didn't happen in a void. Trump just stepped into the place that was open and rode the wave. It's not about Trump, these are not just Trump supporters and Trump is not some aberration who will go away. You may call it "Trumpism" but you could call it any other -ism, If Trump leaves the stage someone else will fill the void. Probably someone more competent. Then the US can have its civil war...

You lack perspective. Conservatives have been hearing that all libruls are bad and evil and the enemy for 30 years. It has been a persistent theme on Rush led talk radio. Fox News picked up the story only 15 years ago. Right wing hate for anyone who to their left has been an ongoing theme for a very long time. The left's response didn't heat up until racism came front and center in 2009 with the Tea party. Trump's win in 2016 finally sparked a liberal response that matches what they have faced for decades.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

They're not brainwashed, they're pissed. Most of them, I believe. That attitude you heard and repeat that "they're brainwashed" is precisely one of the things they're pissed at. "Liberals" spent their last 4 years sneering at them, despising them. When you declare someone to be your enemy, expect enmity... That, done as part of group dynamics, very much is politics.

Hillary threw the opening salvos and helped define the camps more than Trump did. This didn't happen in a void. Trump just stepped into the place that was open and rode the wave. It's not about Trump, these are not just Trump supporters and Trump is not some aberration who will go away. You may call it "Trumpism" but you could call it any other -ism, If Trump leaves the stage someone else will fill the void. Probably someone more competent. Then the US can have its civil war...

You're such a disengenuous partisan, did you forget the bush years? The Obama years? These people will gladly kneecap themselves and their own children if it means owning the libs.

@Birdjaguar like most conservatives, @innonimatu has bought into the lie that the Conservatives are the poor persecuted majority that simply wish to exist withouy harming others

 

[innonimatu]

If you're suggesting indoctrination and having feelings are somehow mutually exclusive, I would strongly disagree. You're positing something as an either / or when it has no need to be.

Also, very funny that you have no problems claiming liberals do X, and feel Y, whilst pushing back on the same others are doing of Republicans. How very objective.

This forum is totally dominated by chorus spending its time attacking the deplorables. Someone needs to point out that there are two doing this dance. The liberals are not any better.

Granted the "Tea Party" as a thing before. But where did that came from? A reaction against Obama who presided over a huge transfer of wealth to the wealthier, bailouts for the rich and continued repression for the poor.

As for the Bush years, Bush was reviled for his foreign wars and for increasing the power of the "intelligence community" even within the country. Fast forward a decade and "the liberals" in the media are firmly allied with the Bush republicans, cheering for the lying heads of the NSA, lighting candles for FBI agents, and decrying any pullout of troops from foreign wars that have lasted two decades now. Anyone wants to talk about objectivity?

 

[Cloud_Strife]

The gop literally lost their **** mind over a center right African American man with a non waspish name getting elected potus twice, don't give us this **** about "deploreables"

We don't have a liberal establishment in America, we have a far right party that loves to pall around with white supremacists and militia groups and then we have the Democrats who are liberal only when it comes to social issues (and even then they're still not great) and right wing when it comes to everything else

 

[warpus]

They're not brainwashed, they're pissed.

I mean, these people deny reality and substitute it with their own. That's the definition of being brainwashed.

aka "why not both"?

 

[Cloud_Strife]

I mean, these people deny reality and substitute it with their own. That's the definition of being brainwashed.

aka "why not both"?

These people thought Obama was the literal antichrist

 

[Gorbles]

This forum is totally dominated by chorus spending its time attacking the deplorables. Someone needs to point out that there are two doing this dance. The liberals are not any better.

Granted the "Tea Party" as a thing before. But where did that came from? A reaction against Obama who presided over a huge transfer of wealth to the wealthier, bailouts for the rich and continued repression for the poor.

As for the Bush years, Bush was reviled for his foreign wars and for increasing the power of the "intelligence community" even within the country. Fast forward a decade and "the liberals" in the media are firmly allied with the Bush republicans, cheering for the lying heads of the NSA, lighting candles for FBI agents, and decrying any pullout of troops from foreign wars that have lasted two decades now. Anyone wants to talk about objectivity?

I don't know what forum you visit but it obviously ain't this one. Besides "the liberals" are a vague catch-all group that at-best represent a segment of the US political spectrum. I get called a liberal. Outright conservatives, depending on their patter, get called liberals.

As for objectivity, you're talking to a Brit who's not exactly going to jump and dance for Obama or Bush so . . . again, falling into another (conservative) reactionary trap? Assuming that you can gotcha me about objectivity when you just assume by default that criticising Obama is going to get anything more than a shrug from me?

Yeah, the Republicans of Bush's time are perceived as more moderate now. You got that bang-on correct. Now please think why that's the case. What could cause them to be more championed by a broad segment of nominally-liberal (if not actually conservative) media personalities? The Overton Window has moved significantly right, and here you are going "but someone needs to point out that liberals can be mean as well". Yeesh.

 

[warpus]

These people thought Obama was the literal antichrist

Let's not forget why either - because he's black.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Let's not forget why either - because he's black.

Alot of conservatives had their brains broken by a black guy holding power over them, unfortunately their brains will never recover hence trump

 

[Birdjaguar]

Granted the "Tea Party" as a thing before. But where did that came from? A reaction against Obama who presided over a huge transfer of wealth to the wealthier, bailouts for the rich and continued repression for the poor.

The Tea Party has deep roots that go way back before 2010. You are just too young to know about it and too far from US culture to see them. Obama being black brought a lot of things to the surface that had been simmering for a long while. What was this huge transfer of wealth under Obama?

 

[warpus]

Alot of conservatives had their brains broken by a black guy holding power over them, unfortunately their brains will never recover hence trump

That's assuming they have brains in the first place. I wouldn't be so sure.

I also don't think it's fair to group all conservatives in with these idiots. These are not conservatives, these are extremists. I don't mind some socially and fiscally conservative politicians. It's possible to do that and not be evil.

 

[innonimatu]

I keep pointing out that the strategy you endorse is hopeless, reality keeps showing that it has failed. But you simply refuse to get it.

The "minorities" are not on board with this liberal idpol crap. Which was always been a distraction to not address the economic issues, the class issues. And these people are not buying into propaganda. They're seeing through propaganda and disgusted. Why vote for one set of thieves over another, when the "liberal set" set on top of being thieves loves finger-wagging and lecturing them?

Sure, there are racists among the "deplorables". There are deluded conspiracy theorists. There are nazis, though I doubt any cares what nazism was all about. There are religious fanatics who would teach the earth was created 400 years ago and criminalize even sex. But there are many more other people. Regular people. People who just want some stability and don't see that coming for them from the "liberals" who have been all about disruption without caring to explain how people fit in changes and what they gain from them. Often because the disruption works against these "deplorables" and the liberal idea is that they should go die far away and without too much fuss. Unemployed? Retrain to be a coder! No health care? Buy insurance! And so on...

@Birdjaguar Obama picked up from Bush to bail out wall street. Refused to protect the victims of fraudulently resold mortgages thrown into the street. Let hedge finds but those defaulted mortgages for cents on the dollar and set up REITs to exploit tenants. Protecting the FIRE sector was his top priority. income distribution grew even more unequal. Notice the wealth share of the bottom 50% in the charts here. It was tiny in 2008, at 1,8%. Obama let it slide to hit 0,3%, and ended his presidency with 1,2%. That looks like peanuts, but for the lower 50% of the population involved it meant living with their wealth halved, living under permanent threat of cruising debt. It was a huge transfer of wreath against the bottom 50% of the population! Of course they were pissed off in 2016.

Then notice that in the last 4 years, despite all the tax breaks for the wealthy, that share of wealth held by the bottom 50% actually grew back to 1,8%. Pre-covid of course. Don't act surprised then that some many "deplorables" stuck to Trump. Again, it looks like peanuts in the grand scheme, but it's a 50% increase in the "financial security" of these people.

I pity this world where people settle for so little. But can perfectly understand why they would rather vote for Trump over Obama's VP.