Redistricting
Posted: Tue August 10, 2021 11:54 am
In purely functional immediate (redistricting) terms this is a very unexpected boon to Democrats, and in future political decision-making terms, this is it:
I feel like it doesn't matter what the numbers say, the GOP is drawing the lines in their favor regardless.tragabigzanda wrote:I’m with you on the future plans for the GOP coalition build, but thing about the immediate impact on redistricting feels somewhat premature. As for apportionment, wouldnt the rural losses just mean that the rural areas are even further lumped together, with the potential benefit of picking up some suburban/geographically outlying urban areas to make the numbers work?
Is this really a thing we need to be worried about?elliseamos wrote:I feel like it doesn't matter what the numbers say, the GOP is drawing the lines in their favor regardless.tragabigzanda wrote:I’m with you on the future plans for the GOP coalition build, but thing about the immediate impact on redistricting feels somewhat premature. As for apportionment, wouldnt the rural losses just mean that the rural areas are even further lumped together, with the potential benefit of picking up some suburban/geographically outlying urban areas to make the numbers work?
He would have loved thattragabigzanda wrote:I just don’t see these results having a real impact on the immediate districting battles. It’s still largely going to be a fight for the suburban vote, Andy I don’t see any shift in tactics prior to 2022.
I am confused. Is gerrymandering a good thing or bad thing?McParadigm wrote:
Depends what state we're talking about.surfndestroy wrote: I am confused. Is gerrymandering a good thing or bad thing?
A bad thing. And also a “neither side will trust the other enough to deescalate” kind of thingsurfndestroy wrote:I am confused. Is gerrymandering a good thing or bad thing?McParadigm wrote:
It's a bad thing. But if this is how the game must be played, then played it shall be.McParadigm wrote:A bad thing. And also a “neither side will trust the other enough to deescalate” kind of thingsurfndestroy wrote:I am confused. Is gerrymandering a good thing or bad thing?McParadigm wrote:
I'm going to be very curious to see if Dem-dominated states that have independent redistricting commissions push to get rid of them for this reason. California is the most prominent in that regard.elliseamos wrote:It's a bad thing. But if this is how the game must be played, then played it shall be.
I'm sure independence has a price, GH. Soros is a wealthy man.Green Habit wrote:I'm going to be very curious to see if Dem-dominated states that have independent redistricting commissions push to get rid of them for this reason. California is the most prominent in that regard.elliseamos wrote:It's a bad thing. But if this is how the game must be played, then played it shall be.
Ah yes, California's famously independent in name if not in deed redistricting comission.Green Habit wrote:I'm going to be very curious to see if Dem-dominated states that have independent redistricting commissions push to get rid of them for this reason. California is the most prominent in that regard.elliseamos wrote:It's a bad thing. But if this is how the game must be played, then played it shall be.