5 ms·

- Not if they can cling to power through gerrymandering: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/29/us/politics/north-carolina-gerrymandering.html https://w

- Not if they can cling to power through gerrymandering: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/29/us/politics/north-carolina-gerrymandering.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/29/us/politics/n... - Not if they can strip the powers of positions that they have lost: https://www.apnews.com/62c976c13a574fa7a8cbb2aa4de425da https://www.apnews.com/62c976c13a574fa7a8cbb2aa4de425da - Not if they have a propaganda media outlet that misinforms voters: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/03/11/the-making-of-the-fox-news-white-house https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/03/11/the-making-of-... The cronysm and party-before-country behavior of the republican party is a threat to the democracy of the nation.

balabaster 8y ago
How do the American people put up with this nonsense? Don't give me "we don't have the power to do anything about it." You are the very people that rose up and threw off British rule with the single most devastating civil war on the planet, perhaps barring only the French Revolution. You have the power to do anything. Edit: Flagged? :D Oh come now, I'm not inciting violence, I'm merely suggesting that people shouldn't put up with the political status quo and make excuses just because they think "that's just the way it is." You need to get out and vote and do whatever you can to ensure your ability to participate in your democracy.
ctlby 8y ago
Do you genuinely believe these things explain >1% of Republican electoral success? If so, can you explain your thinking?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- hannasanarion 8y ago
  North Carolina is gerrymandered so that Republicans reliably win 77% of the seats despite getting only 49% of the votes, that's 2% of the House of Representatives right there.
  - ctlby 8y ago
    The House of Representatives is currently in Democratic hands, so the system there would appear to be working as intended. Meanwhile, the Senate and the Presidency are controlled by Republicans, and gerrymandering is utterly irrelevant to those outcomes.
    - bduerst 8y ago
      You asked how "these things explain >1% of Republican electoral success", but have now moved the goalposts to "It's still not enough to control the entire house".
      - ctlby 8y ago
        I'm really not trying to move the goalposts. It just seems weird to use the House to argue about the incredible effectiveness of the Republican's underhanded tactics--when they don't even control the one body where those tactics should help! In any event, the House sits beside the Senate and the Executive. As another commenter pointed out, this case at best explains ~2% of the dynamics of one out of three legislative bodies offices. And sure, other states might contribute a bit more. Fine, maybe it clears my 1% threshold; but just barely.
        bduerst 8y ago
        You did though, and when faced with the evidence you shifted the burden of proof to maintain your opinion that gerrymandering by Republicans isn't a problem. The fact you continue to minimize it and ignore the other problematic Republican behavior shows confirmation bias.
        ctlby 8y ago
        You're unnecessarily fixated on the 1% threshold I set out earlier. While nothing you said has changed my mind (my estimate is still <1%), I'm not really interested in the exact number. My point is that your concerns are qualitatively irrelevant (practically, not morally). So what if, in the absence of gerrymandering, there would be 100 fewer Republican congressmen? The Senate still isn't passing NN, and Trump is still stacking the judiciary with conservatives. I'm not here to defend Republicans (I think they're pretty bad) or the practices you described (I also think those are bad). But that doesn't change the fact that gerrymandering and power grabs and Fox News are nearly completely inconsequential in explaining the world in front of us. Quit with the liberal wishcasting. People don't vote Republican because they've been misled by some sinister conspiracy. They just don't want what you're selling.
- bduerst 8y ago
  The articles I listed do a good job of explaining that, especially the NYT one and how they cling to control in states they lose votes in. It's much more than the 1% or 2% which you keep repeating to minimize it.
  - ctlby 8y ago
    Your article explains the House of Representatives makeup in what the NYT concedes is the single most gerrymandered state in the country. Should we really be generalizing from that? Regardless. The biggest obstacle to NN is currently the Senate and the Presidency. Two out of your three points are completely irrelevant to those offices. Is it all just Fox News? The Russians?
    - bduerst 8y ago
      Are you aware of the term sea lioning? If you were genuinely interested in the answer to your questions, you would have read the article to see that it was talking about the most recent example in NC, but that it also talks about Pennsylvania. You would be also be able to quickly find that Texas, Michigan, Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and other states are also heavily gerrymandered to the point that it "explains >1% of Republican electoral success". The fact that you are not doing this, along with minimization and your continued line of questions, leads me to believe that you're more interested in JAQing off than actually finding answers to those questions.
      - ctlby 8y ago
        Dude, you're just hand-waving at this point. Add up all the gerrymandering you want. Maybe it gets you to 2%. Maybe 5%. Heck, let's say it accounts for 100% of Republican House members! Wave your wand and make it disappear. The House is now... still Democratic. And the Senate is now... oh dang, still Republican! And the Trumpenfuhrer... still there! Sounds to me like your electoral boogeymen don't have that much explanatory power.

balabaster 8y ago

How do the American people put up with this nonsense? Don't give me "we don't have the power to do anything about it." You are the very people that rose up and threw off British rule with the single most devastating civil war on the planet, perhaps barring only the French Revolution. You have the power to do anything. Edit: Flagged? :D Oh come now, I'm not inciting violence, I'm merely suggesting that people shouldn't put up with the political status quo and make excuses just because they think "that's just the way it is." You need to get out and vote and do whatever you can to ensure your ability to participate in your democracy.

ctlby 8y ago

Do you genuinely believe these things explain >1% of Republican electoral success? If so, can you explain your thinking?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
hannasanarion 8y ago
North Carolina is gerrymandered so that Republicans reliably win 77% of the seats despite getting only 49% of the votes, that's 2% of the House of Representatives right there.
- ctlby 8y ago
  The House of Representatives is currently in Democratic hands, so the system there would appear to be working as intended. Meanwhile, the Senate and the Presidency are controlled by Republicans, and gerrymandering is utterly irrelevant to those outcomes.
  - bduerst 8y ago
    You asked how "these things explain >1% of Republican electoral success", but have now moved the goalposts to "It's still not enough to control the entire house".
    - ctlby 8y ago
      I'm really not trying to move the goalposts. It just seems weird to use the House to argue about the incredible effectiveness of the Republican's underhanded tactics--when they don't even control the one body where those tactics should help! In any event, the House sits beside the Senate and the Executive. As another commenter pointed out, this case at best explains ~2% of the dynamics of one out of three legislative bodies offices. And sure, other states might contribute a bit more. Fine, maybe it clears my 1% threshold; but just barely.
      - bduerst 8y ago
        You did though, and when faced with the evidence you shifted the burden of proof to maintain your opinion that gerrymandering by Republicans isn't a problem. The fact you continue to minimize it and ignore the other problematic Republican behavior shows confirmation bias.
        ctlby 8y ago
        You're unnecessarily fixated on the 1% threshold I set out earlier. While nothing you said has changed my mind (my estimate is still <1%), I'm not really interested in the exact number. My point is that your concerns are qualitatively irrelevant (practically, not morally). So what if, in the absence of gerrymandering, there would be 100 fewer Republican congressmen? The Senate still isn't passing NN, and Trump is still stacking the judiciary with conservatives. I'm not here to defend Republicans (I think they're pretty bad) or the practices you described (I also think those are bad). But that doesn't change the fact that gerrymandering and power grabs and Fox News are nearly completely inconsequential in explaining the world in front of us. Quit with the liberal wishcasting. People don't vote Republican because they've been misled by some sinister conspiracy. They just don't want what you're selling.
bduerst 8y ago
The articles I listed do a good job of explaining that, especially the NYT one and how they cling to control in states they lose votes in. It's much more than the 1% or 2% which you keep repeating to minimize it.
- ctlby 8y ago
  Your article explains the House of Representatives makeup in what the NYT concedes is the single most gerrymandered state in the country. Should we really be generalizing from that? Regardless. The biggest obstacle to NN is currently the Senate and the Presidency. Two out of your three points are completely irrelevant to those offices. Is it all just Fox News? The Russians?
  - bduerst 8y ago
    Are you aware of the term sea lioning? If you were genuinely interested in the answer to your questions, you would have read the article to see that it was talking about the most recent example in NC, but that it also talks about Pennsylvania. You would be also be able to quickly find that Texas, Michigan, Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and other states are also heavily gerrymandered to the point that it "explains >1% of Republican electoral success". The fact that you are not doing this, along with minimization and your continued line of questions, leads me to believe that you're more interested in JAQing off than actually finding answers to those questions.
    - ctlby 8y ago
      Dude, you're just hand-waving at this point. Add up all the gerrymandering you want. Maybe it gets you to 2%. Maybe 5%. Heck, let's say it accounts for 100% of Republican House members! Wave your wand and make it disappear. The House is now... still Democratic. And the Senate is now... oh dang, still Republican! And the Trumpenfuhrer... still there! Sounds to me like your electoral boogeymen don't have that much explanatory power.