Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So math isn't one of your "stronger" attributes right?
You honestly believe the population of a major democrat city should be split up into the vast reaches of all the republican suburb districts?
The Virginia number includes independent candidate votes...I guess I could correct it but...meh, the point is the same.
If urban clustering was the "sole reason" for the GOP house majority we wouldn't have seen Democrat Majorities right before the census in 2007-2010. We did...the majority was there, it's possible with urban clustering. Myth 100% debunk.
huh? Can someone translate this lib logic?
The Virginia number includes independent candidate votes...I guess I could correct it but...meh, the point is the same.
If urban clustering was the "sole reason" for the GOP house majority we wouldn't have seen Democrat Majorities right before the census in 2007-2010. We did...the majority was there, it's possible with urban clustering. Myth 100% debunk.
huh? Can someone translate this lib logic?
You're saying "all democrat voters are in big cities, that's why there's no democrat majority"
I'm saying "the big cities were there in 2007-2010 when the democrats had a majority and it didn't stop the Democrats from winning a good majority in both elections"
The difference between the 2006/2008 and 2010 elections? The census.
I did not say what you quoted me as saying. Your quote is a blatant lie.
You honestly believe the population of a major democrat city should be split up into the vast reaches of all the republican suburb districts?
Further you anecdotal evidence is ... well retarded.
If there are a million people in one district that is solidly democrat, and a hundred districts each with 1 person that is solidly republican. Then you will will the senate in a landslide and loose the house in a landslide. As per your accusation the the dems loosing the house is proof of republican gerrymandering... I can only point out that another unsubstantiated alternative would be the democrats gerrymandered it to win before, won the house then later the courts ruled against the gerrymandering done by the democrats and turned it back to how it is supposed to be.
I did not say what you quoted me as saying. Your quote is a blatant lie.
Okay...then this statement is pointless then:
You honestly believe the population of a major democrat city should be split up into the vast reaches of all the republican suburb districts?
anyway...
Further you anecdotal evidence is ... well retarded.
If there are a million people in one district that is solidly democrat, and a hundred districts each with 1 person that is solidly republican. Then you will will the senate in a landslide and loose the house in a landslide. As per your accusation the the dems loosing the house is proof of republican gerrymandering... I can only point out that another unsubstantiated alternative would be the democrats gerrymandered it to win before, won the house then later the courts ruled against the gerrymandering done by the democrats and turned it back to how it is supposed to be.
Each congressional district by law has roughly equal population...your point is moot.
Furthermore no court case about "democrat gerrymandering" exist. I'm sorry but it just didn't happen! There were gerrymandering court cases in TEXAS but...uhh...that was against the GOP.
To go FURTHER on this....the census district lines were drawn in 2000.....SIX YEARS before the democrats won a majority. If the democrats so cleverly gerrymandered the districts why would it take them SIX YEARS to get the majority...yeah, not buying it bud.
I did not say what you quoted me as saying. Your quote is a blatant lie.
Okay...then this statement is pointless then:
You honestly believe the population of a major democrat city should be split up into the vast reaches of all the republican suburb districts?
anyway...
Further you anecdotal evidence is ... well retarded.
If there are a million people in one district that is solidly democrat, and a hundred districts each with 1 person that is solidly republican. Then you will will the senate in a landslide and loose the house in a landslide. As per your accusation the the dems loosing the house is proof of republican gerrymandering... I can only point out that another unsubstantiated alternative would be the democrats gerrymandered it to win before, won the house then later the courts ruled against the gerrymandering done by the democrats and turned it back to how it is supposed to be.
Each congressional district by law has roughly equal population...your point is moot.
Furthermore no court case about "democrat gerrymandering" exist. I'm sorry but it just didn't happen! There were gerrymandering court cases in TEXAS but...uhh...that was against the GOP.
To go FURTHER on this....the census district lines were drawn in 2000.....SIX YEARS before the democrats won a majority. If the democrats so cleverly gerrymandered the districts why would it take them SIX YEARS to get the majority...yeah, not buying it bud.
Dems pushed for majority-minority districts. You got them.
This is one result. Too bad.
Dems pushed for majority-minority districts. You got them.
This is one result. Too bad.
Majority-Minority districts should be done away with. Anyway, they exist overwhelmingly in the deep south which isn't the primary area that is talked about when dealing with Gerrymandering (although it could easily be)
Let's say in the city the districts are each 70% democrat and in the suburbs the districts are 55% republican. Can you explain to the class what would happen in that situation? Would not the democrats then have the majority in the state but not the majority of districts?
Dems pushed for majority-minority districts. You got them.
This is one result. Too bad.
Majority-Minority districts should be done away with. Anyway, they exist overwhelmingly in the deep south which isn't the primary area that is talked about when dealing with Gerrymandering (although it could easily be)
How about Illinois are the republicans gerrymandering there too?
Let's say in the city the districts are each 70% democrat and in the suburbs the districts are 55% republican. Can you explain to the class what would happen in that situation? Would not the democrats then have the majority in the state but not the majority of districts?
It would depend on the populations of the urban/suburban/rural areas altogether...but anyway...
If urban clustering was the "sole reason" for the GOP house majority we wouldn't have seen Democrat Majorities right before the census in 2007-2010. We did...the majority was there, it's possible with urban clustering. Myth 100% debunk.
Majority-Minority districts should be done away with. Anyway, they exist overwhelmingly in the deep south which isn't the primary area that is talked about when dealing with Gerrymandering (although it could easily be)
How about Illinois are the republicans gerrymandering there too?
yes.
Let's say in the city the districts are each 70% democrat and in the suburbs the districts are 55% republican. Can you explain to the class what would happen in that situation? Would not the democrats then have the majority in the state but not the majority of districts?
It would depend on the populations of the urban/suburban/rural areas altogether...but anyway...
If urban clustering was the "sole reason" for the GOP house majority we wouldn't have seen Democrat Majorities right before the census in 2007-2010. We did...the majority was there, it's possible with urban clustering. Myth 100% debunk.
What the hell does the phrase "myth 100% debunk" mean?
Again I ask, can someone translate the sentence "If urban clustering was the sole reason for the GOP house majority, we wouldn't have seen Democrat Majorities right before the census in 2007-2010." This sentence is so illogical so as to be completely asinine. He makes up some stupid straw-man about clustering being a sole reason for a majority, then he flips and says that it is impossible for his straw-man to occur because the census that forced the redistricting changed the districts to the benefit of republicans. As if it's the fault of the republicans that they don't want to live next to democrats in the inner cities being burned down by democrats.
Dems pushed for majority-minority districts. You got them.
This is one result. Too bad.
Majority-Minority districts should be done away with. Anyway, they exist overwhelmingly in the deep south which isn't the primary area that is talked about when dealing with Gerrymandering (although it could easily be)
Majority-Minority districts should be done away with. Anyway, they exist overwhelmingly in the deep south which isn't the primary area that is talked about when dealing with Gerrymandering (although it could easily be)
How about Illinois are the republicans gerrymandering there too?
yes.
It would depend on the populations of the urban/suburban/rural areas altogether...but anyway...
If urban clustering was the "sole reason" for the GOP house majority we wouldn't have seen Democrat Majorities right before the census in 2007-2010. We did...the majority was there, it's possible with urban clustering. Myth 100% debunk.
What the hell does the phrase "myth 100% debunk" mean?
Again I ask, can someone translate the sentence "If urban clustering was the sole reason for the GOP house majority, we wouldn't have seen Democrat Majorities right before the census in 2007-2010." This sentence is so illogical so as to be completely asinine. He makes up some stupid straw-man about clustering being a sole reason for a majority, then he flips and says that it is impossible for his straw-man to occur because the census that forced the redistricting changed the districts to the benefit of republicans. As if it's the fault of the republicans that they don't want to live next to democrats in the inner cities being burned down by democrats.
Were there big cities that voted democrat in 2006 and 2008? Did those votes make up a good portion of democrat's house vote?
The obvious answer to both is yes.
If what you're saying is true...that it's just because big city urban areas overvote for democrats and that's why the democrats can't get a majority NOW (2012)....then why didn't it work the same way THEN (2006, 2008).
Dems pushed for majority-minority districts. You got them.
This is one result. Too bad.
Majority-Minority districts should be done away with. Anyway, they exist overwhelmingly in the deep south which isn't the primary area that is talked about when dealing with Gerrymandering (although it could easily be)
No, they exist primarily in big cities, north and south.
Look at the these unfireable assclowns who've been in Congress for more than 40 years.
John Conyers -Detroit
Charlie Rangel-Harlem
I'm pretty sure they're above the Mason-Dixon line.
Because as you said the census forces a re-districting cycle. The burbs may have been being under-counted prior to the census re-districting. That would be my guess. One would have to study what happened in each set of districts before and after.
Another thing that would affect the numbers is the % of people that show up for the elections. It appears the democrats have become quite adept at getting 100% of contested voting districts to show up and vote 100% democrat, as statistically improbable as that might seem.
How about Illinois are the republicans gerrymandering there too?
yes.
This Chicagoan is pointing and laughing at you.
Sorry Ny, but I have to agree with him. Dems totally gerrymandered this state.
Because as you said the census forces a re-districting cycle. The burbs may have been being under-counted prior to the census re-districting. That would be my guess. One would have to study what happened in each set of districts before and after.
Another thing that would affect the numbers is the % of people that show up for the elections. It appears the democrats have become quite adept at getting 100% of contested voting districts to show up and vote 100% democrat, as statistically improbable as that might seem.
Virtually all growth in the past 10 years has favored Democrats (Hispanics, Asians, young vote...pretty much anything) To say that the suburbs were under-represented and then suddenly became is GOP-leaning when the redistricting was done is crazy and backed up with nothing.
