Talk Elections

General Politics => Political Geography & Demographics => Topic started by: dpmapper on December 11, 2010, 10:37:39 AM



Title: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: dpmapper on December 11, 2010, 10:37:39 AM
Utah:

Northern:
()

Southern:
()

Salt Lake County:
()

Utah is so red that there really is no need to concede a district to Matheson.  This is my attempt to knock him out - his eastern Salt Lake City base is drawn into a district (in white) with Davis, Morgan, Rich, and Cache counties (all basically 70% or more McCain).  I also put half of Weber in there, but made sure to leave out Ogden proper (which has a fair number of Hispanics and academic types).  The portion of Weber that is in the district is probably close to 70% McCain then.  If we assume that the SL City  part of the district went 60-40 Obama and the Salt Lake County part was 50-50, then my rough calculations put the district at 62-63% McCain, compared with 58% previously.  I suspect I'm underestimating the McCain percentage in the SLC areas (I put all Hispanic areas in CD1 and CD3 - in fact, CD2 is only 7% Hispanic) so that might be even higher.  

Chaffetz and Bishop are still safe for the GOP, of course, as is the open seat.  Bishop's district is technically contiguous, but to get from his home up north to the parts in Salt Lake or Utah counties without leaving the district, you have to go off-roading west of the lake.  :)  


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: Torie on December 12, 2010, 08:35:34 PM
Utah seems to have a certain tolerance for LDS Tory Dems, and Matheson will be very hard to take out, and if you try too hard, an LDS Tory Dem might knock off some incumbent Pubbie unexpectedly, or win an open seat if somebody vacates it. It has happened before - or nearly happened. So I would bear that in mind.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: Stranger in a strange land on December 12, 2010, 08:40:20 PM
Matheson survived the biggest Republican wave in decades, so he's probably safe from redistricting. If the UT-GOP is smart, they'll create a district that's safe for Matheson (but not for a more liberal Dem if he retires) in SLC and three ultra-safe Republican districts in the rest of the state. If they get too greedy, they run the risk of creating two seats that are winnable for Dems if the national environment changes.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on December 12, 2010, 09:35:18 PM
The only reason Matheson didn't lose this year was because the Republican nominee was a pathetic loser, and Matheson still only ended up winning by 4.5%. A decent candidate would've taken him out.

Here's what I did with Utah:

()
()

Splits up Matheson's share of Salt Lake County between a Happy Valley-based district and a district that stretches up to the north. Either way Matheson would be screwed, since he's not known to voters in the north part of the state, and the Happy Valley will not vote for a Democrat ever.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: dpmapper on December 13, 2010, 01:08:06 PM
The only reason Matheson didn't lose this year was because the Republican nominee was a pathetic loser, and Matheson still only ended up winning by 4.5%. A decent candidate would've taken him out.


Splits up Matheson's share of Salt Lake County between a Happy Valley-based district and a district that stretches up to the north. Either way Matheson would be screwed, since he's not known to voters in the north part of the state, and the Happy Valley will not vote for a Democrat ever.

Agreed; that was basically the premise of my map.  Although yours also has the quirk that  Park City liberals will be represented by Jason Chaffetz.  :) 

What was pathetic about Philpot, might I ask? 


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: Verily on December 13, 2010, 02:04:31 PM
The only reason Matheson didn't lose this year was because the Republican nominee was a pathetic loser, and Matheson still only ended up winning by 4.5%. A decent candidate would've taken him out.


Splits up Matheson's share of Salt Lake County between a Happy Valley-based district and a district that stretches up to the north. Either way Matheson would be screwed, since he's not known to voters in the north part of the state, and the Happy Valley will not vote for a Democrat ever.

Agreed; that was basically the premise of my map.  Although yours also has the quirk that  Park City liberals will be represented by Jason Chaffetz.  :)  

What was pathetic about Philpot, might I ask?  

Park City is already represented by Rob Bishop, so it wouldn't be a huge change.

Anyway, Davis + Morgan + Weber + Box Elder + Cache + Rich is only a couple thousand people over exactly one district (when there are four districts), fixed when you drop North Salt Lake. Therefore, it will be difficult to justify tying part of the north around the west side of the lake where there are no roads again. Northern Utah is pretty parochial and will want its own district. That may defeat attempts at gerrymandering away Jim Matheson.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on December 13, 2010, 06:50:39 PM
Philpot didn't raise much money (though he finally got some in the last couple months) and just seemed pretty hapless.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: minionofmidas on December 14, 2010, 11:48:24 AM
Philpot didn't raise much money (though he finally got some in the last couple months) and just seemed pretty hapless.
In other words, not much different from some people who won in similar districts.

Of course, the Utah legislature already tried to take out Matheson in 2000. But did so somewhat halfheartedly.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: Nichlemn on December 18, 2010, 04:58:38 AM
Utah seems to have a certain tolerance for LDS Tory Dems, and Matheson will be very hard to take out, and if you try too hard, an LDS Tory Dem might knock off some incumbent Pubbie unexpectedly, or win an open seat if somebody vacates it. It has happened before - or nearly happened. So I would bear that in mind.

Whatever district you draw for Matheson, the other three districts are going to be R+20ish anyway. (You can't weaken them too much or else Matheson will just run in one of them). The increased safety at the margin from making them a few points more Republican is pretty inconsequential.

Furthermore, you have to weigh up the risk that Matheson retires in the next ten years and the district you drew for him gets won by one of these "Tory Dems" you refer to it. I think the chance of this is higher than one of the other three districts going Democratic.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on December 18, 2010, 11:14:29 AM
I suspect one reason why Matheson has hung on is his last name -- remember, his father was Governor in the 80s, so he probably still has some residual goodwill from that. Joe Smith the Mormon Democrat probably couldn't win an open seat in Utah unless it were drawn to pack in every Democrat in Salt Lake County.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: jimrtex on December 21, 2010, 01:39:34 PM
I suspect one reason why Matheson has hung on is his last name -- remember, his father was Governor in the 80s, so he probably still has some residual goodwill from that. Joe Smith the Mormon Democrat probably couldn't win an open seat in Utah unless it were drawn to pack in every Democrat in Salt Lake County.
What about Joseph Smith?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: RBH on December 21, 2010, 05:45:37 PM
here's a quick attempt at a 4 district map

()
()

Matheson could be in a good spot there, but at the same time, trying to placate Dems might damage his statewide hopes of appealing to the state at-large.. so there is some good strategy involved in trying to confine his district.

Not sure where West Valley City and Sandy stand politically, since they flip between the 2nd and 3rd here.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: Lunar on December 22, 2010, 12:25:32 AM
Matheson could be in a good spot there, but at the same time, trying to placate Dems might damage his statewide hopes of appealing to the state at-large.. so there is some good strategy involved in trying to confine his district.

What do you mean?  Surely he can't be THAT threatening that they'd give him an easier district so that he'd represent fractionally less swing voters statewide, immediately after a redistricting.  


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: Lunar on January 24, 2011, 11:23:47 PM
http://www.politico.com/blogs/davidcatanese/0111/New_Utah_GOP_chair_Beat_rascal_Matheson.html

Although, it should be said that from a state party chairman's perspective, expansion makes you look great and Matheson's seat is the only place possible for him to expand.

On the other hand, is there really the serious risk that an attempt to gerrymander Matheson's defeat would cause the loss of more than one seat?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: krazen1211 on January 25, 2011, 01:09:10 AM
http://www.politico.com/blogs/davidcatanese/0111/New_Utah_GOP_chair_Beat_rascal_Matheson.html

Although, it should be said that from a state party chairman's perspective, expansion makes you look great and Matheson's seat is the only place possible for him to expand.

On the other hand, is there really the serious risk that an attempt to gerrymander Matheson's defeat would cause the loss of more than one seat?

Not really. The idea of 'risk' in R+20 seats that will last for more than 1 cycle is rather silly.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: cinyc on February 25, 2011, 02:35:11 AM
I doubt it will be drawn this way, but there is about as much population outside of the big 4 SLC/Ogden/Provo I-15 corridor counties for the rest of the state not along that corridor to get its own CD.  By my math, Salt Lake, Weber, Davis and Utah counties combined have just about 11,000 residents more than the population necessary for 3 CDs.  The rest of the state is about 11,000 residents short of the population necessary for a CD.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on May 19, 2011, 07:42:30 AM
A group headed by former Governor Olene Walker has released four proposals for redistricting:

http://www.utahcitizenscounsel.org/?page_id=325

Every single one cracks Salt Lake City.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: Miles on May 19, 2011, 10:21:49 AM
Which plan would be the best for Matheson?

I'm thinking the 3rd plan...

He would have the options of running in the SLS district or the dark gray district, which includes most of his current territory.



Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on May 19, 2011, 11:06:10 AM
He would never get elected in the dark gray district that includes Utah County. I'd say the first to run in the Salt Lake City district.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: Padfoot on May 20, 2011, 12:06:45 AM
Just a casual look at the maps makes it seem like Matheson's current portion of Salt Lake County would be found in any of the east/west divisions.  However, I'm sure he would be the heavy favorite in any of the maps.  With a consolidated SLC district he is probably more vulnerable in a primary than in a general considering what he has weathered.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: Padfoot on September 28, 2011, 01:33:30 AM
The Utah thread is born again!

This map appears to be moving forward:

http://www.redistrictutah.com/maps/congress-sumsion_06-modified-a


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: minionofmidas on September 28, 2011, 11:19:11 AM
So, from a cursory glance, Matheson's to run in the yellow district - combining much of his downtown SLC territory with those rural parts of his district that he didn't do well in plus new rural territory that no Democrat has done well in for a lifetime? Why did they forget to excise the Navajo though?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: krazen1211 on September 28, 2011, 11:45:04 AM
So, from a cursory glance, Matheson's to run in the yellow district - combining much of his downtown SLC territory with those rural parts of his district that he didn't do well in plus new rural territory that no Democrat has done well in for a lifetime? Why did they forget to excise the Navajo though?

It looks like the only Dem territory in that district is Salt Lake City itself. One wonders what will happen in a primary there.

His base was cut into 3 districts.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: minionofmidas on September 28, 2011, 11:55:04 AM
So, from a cursory glance, Matheson's to run in the yellow district - combining much of his downtown SLC territory with those rural parts of his district that he didn't do well in plus new rural territory that no Democrat has done well in for a lifetime? Why did they forget to excise the Navajo though?

It looks like the only Dem territory in that district is Salt Lake City itself. One wonders what will happen in a primary there.
His base was cut into 3 districts.
SLC really is his base (though I would suppose that part was cut up too, don't know the geography enough to judge), there are just some rural pockets that Dems are competitive in, either historically or lately, and somehow they all (Indians, Italian miners, hippy skibunnies) ended up in his district. Which is odd given that it was drawn to get rid of him... but then again other rural areas in the district were and are superheavily Republican, and have more votes.
Which makes me wonder why the Indians were left in.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: Verily on September 28, 2011, 02:05:45 PM
So, from a cursory glance, Matheson's to run in the yellow district - combining much of his downtown SLC territory with those rural parts of his district that he didn't do well in plus new rural territory that no Democrat has done well in for a lifetime? Why did they forget to excise the Navajo though?

It looks like the only Dem territory in that district is Salt Lake City itself. One wonders what will happen in a primary there.
His base was cut into 3 districts.
SLC really is his base (though I would suppose that part was cut up too, don't know the geography enough to judge), there are just some rural pockets that Dems are competitive in, either historically or lately, and somehow they all (Indians, Italian miners, hippy skibunnies) ended up in his district. Which is odd given that it was drawn to get rid of him... but then again other rural areas in the district were and are superheavily Republican, and have more votes.
Which makes me wonder why the Indians were left in.

FWIW, the ski bunnies are not in Matheson's district, and I don't think they've ever been in his district.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on September 29, 2011, 04:23:39 PM
No they haven't. Summit County is currently in UT-01. Utah was actually drawn logically pre-2002, with one district for the SLC area and the rest of the state split in half.

Tooele County has a bit of a Democratic tradition and voted Democratic for President as recently as 1996, so that part is particularly harsh for someone like Matheson. I'm surprised the GOP just didn't give him a chunk of Provo or something. I suppose that part of the state has too much influence and doesn't want to be that split up.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: krazen1211 on September 29, 2011, 04:59:01 PM
"Waddoups noted that "doughnut" plan divided Salt Lake City, and complained that Democrats and others had told him that keeping that city whole was a priority - so he had fought to do that in the "pizza slice" plan. He said he now releases Republicans who had been loyal to his request from that, and said Republicans may look at splitting the city now into more severe pizza plans"



Hehe.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: nclib on September 29, 2011, 04:59:22 PM
What are we defining as Matheson's base? In 2002, the GOP gave him a ton of rural territory when he had only previously represented SLC. In any CD, he'll have at least a chunk of SLC plus some of the current outstate UT-2. If there is still a McCain <60% CD, I wouldn't count Matheson out. Where does Matheson best overperform the Obama numbers?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: krazen1211 on October 04, 2011, 11:33:53 AM
It's pizza time!

http://www.redistrictutah.com/maps/congress-ipson-update-sumsion6a


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: minionofmidas on October 04, 2011, 11:37:30 AM
It's pizza time!

http://www.redistrictutah.com/maps/congress-ipson-update-sumsion6a
So now Matheson basically loses downtown SLC?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: krazen1211 on October 04, 2011, 11:47:41 AM
It's pizza time!

http://www.redistrictutah.com/maps/congress-ipson-update-sumsion6a
So now Matheson basically loses downtown SLC?

Depends on which district you think is his. Chaffetz will likely take the district that includes Alpine (grey), and Bishop the red district, so the Gold goes to Matheson. He basically keeps his half of SLC and loses the entire rest of Salt Lake County (Cottonwood Heights, Sandy, Draper) that he has now.

Bountiful is added to that district and its chock full of straight ticket LDS.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: minionofmidas on October 04, 2011, 11:56:56 AM
Well yeah, I was just musing because that other district looks so much like the one he last represented at first glance. Of course, he was originally elected in a purely SLC district.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: Chancellor Tanterterg on October 04, 2011, 12:29:40 PM
I read somewhere that Herbert wasn't happy with this map (probably b/c he doesn't want Matheson to run for governor), is there any chance he'll veto it?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on October 05, 2011, 05:42:40 PM
Redistricting session postponed. (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705391902/House-Senate-GOP-cant-agree-on-congressional-maps-postpone-session.html)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: krazen1211 on October 06, 2011, 09:55:32 PM
New compromise plan out. Brilliance.

http://www.redistrictutah.com/maps/froerer02


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: edtorres04 on October 07, 2011, 01:25:19 PM
This looks to be a good map.  Mattheson could choose to challenge Bishop in this map though.  Bishop also adds Park City in addition to Eastern Salt Lake County.

Any thoughts on how safe Bishop would be from a Matheson challenge here?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: krazen1211 on October 17, 2011, 04:10:18 PM
http://www.redistrictutah.com/maps/sb3002s17


These cracks keep getting better and better.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: muon2 on October 17, 2011, 11:35:41 PM
http://www.redistrictutah.com/maps/sb3002s17


These cracks keep getting better and better.

I don't understand the current iteration with Daggett, Duchesne, and Uintah attached to the Ogden district. There's no connection across the Wasatch, and I'm missing the political advantage, if any.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: Miles on October 17, 2011, 11:38:40 PM
http://www.redistrictutah.com/maps/sb3002s17


These cracks keep getting better and better.

All the comments on that page are negative...even the ones from Republicans.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: BigSkyBob on October 18, 2011, 12:12:48 AM
http://www.redistrictutah.com/maps/sb3002s17


These cracks keep getting better and better.

All the comments on that page are negative...even the ones from Republicans.

Which "Republicans" would that be?

Maybe, this one:

"I am 'far right wing' republican, and am frustrated with the legislature with these maps."

In my entire life I have never meet a Republican whom characterized himself as "far right wing." I have encountered Democrats pretending to be Republicans describe themselves as such.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: dpmapper on October 18, 2011, 08:06:05 AM
http://www.redistrictutah.com/maps/sb3002s17


These cracks keep getting better and better.

I don't understand the current iteration with Daggett, Duchesne, and Uintah attached to the Ogden district. There's no connection across the Wasatch, and I'm missing the political advantage, if any.

I'm guessing it has to do with removing Moab and the Navajo from Matheson and replacing them with more of Davis County.  As a bonus, it unites the entire Wyoming border CoI!  :)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: Miles on October 18, 2011, 11:08:57 PM
http://www.redistrictutah.com/maps/sb3002s17


These cracks keep getting better and better.

All the comments on that page are negative...even the ones from Republicans.

Which "Republicans" would that be?

Maybe, this one:

"I am 'far right wing' republican, and am frustrated with the legislature with these maps."

In my entire life I have never meet a Republican whom characterized himself as "far right wing." I have encountered Democrats pretending to be Republicans describe themselves as such.

Ahhh, its always refreshing to hear from my good friend BS Bob!

I've met Republicans who would probably characterize themselves in such a way; you shouldn't base your argument on such a provincial claim.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: BigSkyBob on October 18, 2011, 11:35:45 PM
http://www.redistrictutah.com/maps/sb3002s17


These cracks keep getting better and better.

All the comments on that page are negative...even the ones from Republicans.

Which "Republicans" would that be?

Maybe, this one:

"I am 'far right wing' republican, and am frustrated with the legislature with these maps."

In my entire life I have never meet a Republican whom characterized himself as "far right wing." I have encountered Democrats pretending to be Republicans describe themselves as such.

Ahhh, its always refreshing to hear from my good friend BS Bob!

I've met Republicans who would probably characterize themselves in such a way; you shouldn't base your argument on such a provincial claim.

Either you have meet Republicans who did characterize themselves in such a way, or you haven't.

I, personally, have never meet such a person. Nor, is it a claim very consistent with human nature. I meet people whom would consider themselves "very conservative," but, I have never meet a person whom called himself "far right wing." Generally, conservatives believe "right wing" is a slur made against conservatives because "conservative" simply doesn't carry the baggage "liberal" does.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: Nichlemn on October 19, 2011, 01:27:17 AM
http://www.redistrictutah.com/maps/sb3002s17


These cracks keep getting better and better.

All the comments on that page are negative...even the ones from Republicans.

Which "Republicans" would that be?

Maybe, this one:

"I am 'far right wing' republican, and am frustrated with the legislature with these maps."

In my entire life I have never meet a Republican whom characterized himself as "far right wing." I have encountered Democrats pretending to be Republicans describe themselves as such.

Ahhh, its always refreshing to hear from my good friend BS Bob!

I've met Republicans who would probably characterize themselves in such a way; you shouldn't base your argument on such a provincial claim.

Either you have meet Republicans who did characterize themselves in such a way, or you haven't.

I, personally, have never meet such a person. Nor, is it a claim very consistent with human nature. I meet people whom would consider themselves "very conservative," but, I have never meet a person whom called himself "far right wing." Generally, conservatives believe "right wing" is a slur made against conservatives because "conservative" simply doesn't carry the baggage "liberal" does.

It's not much that "right wing" is a slur, but "far right" certainly is. "Far right" is most commonly used to describe neo-Nazi and other white nationalist-esque groups. To call someone who is merely very conservative "far right" is to call upon that equivocation. A self-identified "very conservative" person would not describe themselves as such for that very reason.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: BigSkyBob on October 19, 2011, 01:48:19 AM
http://www.redistrictutah.com/maps/sb3002s17


These cracks keep getting better and better.

All the comments on that page are negative...even the ones from Republicans.

Which "Republicans" would that be?

Maybe, this one:

"I am 'far right wing' republican, and am frustrated with the legislature with these maps."

In my entire life I have never meet a Republican whom characterized himself as "far right wing." I have encountered Democrats pretending to be Republicans describe themselves as such.

Ahhh, its always refreshing to hear from my good friend BS Bob!

I've met Republicans who would probably characterize themselves in such a way; you shouldn't base your argument on such a provincial claim.

Either you have meet Republicans who did characterize themselves in such a way, or you haven't.

I, personally, have never meet such a person. Nor, is it a claim very consistent with human nature. I meet people whom would consider themselves "very conservative," but, I have never meet a person whom called himself "far right wing." Generally, conservatives believe "right wing" is a slur made against conservatives because "conservative" simply doesn't carry the baggage "liberal" does.

It's not much that "right wing" is a slur, but "far right" certainly is. "Far right" is most commonly used to describe neo-Nazi and other white nationalist-esque groups. To call someone who is merely very conservative "far right" is to call upon that equivocation. A self-identified "very conservative" person would not describe themselves as such for that very reason.

That is why I believe that the poster was in fact a Democrat.

In a political debate I consider it best for the Democrats to state their position, and the Republicans to state their's; the left their position, and the right their position, etc. Democrats shouldn't tell Republicans what their position is, and, visa versa.  When that Democratic poster postured as a "far right wing Republican" and when Miles spoke on behalf of Republicans, without having any evidence that any Republican in fact agreed with him, they violated what I believe ought to propriety in political discourse. Civil discourse requires civil behavior.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: Miles on October 19, 2011, 02:01:59 AM
http://www.redistrictutah.com/maps/sb3002s17


These cracks keep getting better and better.

All the comments on that page are negative...even the ones from Republicans.

Which "Republicans" would that be?

Maybe, this one:

"I am 'far right wing' republican, and am frustrated with the legislature with these maps."

In my entire life I have never meet a Republican whom characterized himself as "far right wing." I have encountered Democrats pretending to be Republicans describe themselves as such.

Ahhh, its always refreshing to hear from my good friend BS Bob!

I've met Republicans who would probably characterize themselves in such a way; you shouldn't base your argument on such a provincial claim.

Either you have meet Republicans who did characterize themselves in such a way, or you haven't.

I, personally, have never meet such a person. Nor, is it a claim very consistent with human nature. I meet people whom would consider themselves "very conservative," but, I have never meet a person whom called himself "far right wing." Generally, conservatives believe "right wing" is a slur made against conservatives because "conservative" simply doesn't carry the baggage "liberal" does.

It's not much that "right wing" is a slur, but "far right" certainly is. "Far right" is most commonly used to describe neo-Nazi and other white nationalist-esque groups. To call someone who is merely very conservative "far right" is to call upon that equivocation. A self-identified "very conservative" person would not describe themselves as such for that very reason.

That is why I believe that the poster was in fact a Democrat.

And I believe you're reading too far into this.

I sent you a nice message; surely, you'd rather be amicable than continuing to attack me.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on October 19, 2011, 05:50:59 PM
Roll Call came up with the numbers for the proposed map:

UT-01: McCain: 67; Bush: 76
UT-02: McCain: 58; Bush 67
UT-03: McCain: 67; Bush: 76
UT-04: McCain: 56; Bush: 66


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: Nichlemn on October 19, 2011, 10:15:01 PM
Roll Call came up with the numbers for the proposed map:

UT-01: McCain: 67; Bush: 76
UT-02: McCain: 58; Bush 67
UT-03: McCain: 67; Bush: 76
UT-04: McCain: 56; Bush: 66

Seems inefficient if true. Even if they want to give Matheson his own seat to deter him from embarking on a statewide run, why not distribute PVI more equally among the three other districts?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: BigSkyBob on October 19, 2011, 11:58:56 PM
http://www.redistrictutah.com/maps/sb3002s17


These cracks keep getting better and better.

All the comments on that page are negative...even the ones from Republicans.

Which "Republicans" would that be?

Maybe, this one:

"I am 'far right wing' republican, and am frustrated with the legislature with these maps."

In my entire life I have never meet a Republican whom characterized himself as "far right wing." I have encountered Democrats pretending to be Republicans describe themselves as such.

Ahhh, its always refreshing to hear from my good friend BS Bob!

I've met Republicans who would probably characterize themselves in such a way; you shouldn't base your argument on such a provincial claim.

Either you have meet Republicans who did characterize themselves in such a way, or you haven't.

I, personally, have never meet such a person. Nor, is it a claim very consistent with human nature. I meet people whom would consider themselves "very conservative," but, I have never meet a person whom called himself "far right wing." Generally, conservatives believe "right wing" is a slur made against conservatives because "conservative" simply doesn't carry the baggage "liberal" does.

It's not much that "right wing" is a slur, but "far right" certainly is. "Far right" is most commonly used to describe neo-Nazi and other white nationalist-esque groups. To call someone who is merely very conservative "far right" is to call upon that equivocation. A self-identified "very conservative" person would not describe themselves as such for that very reason.

That is why I believe that the poster was in fact a Democrat.

And I believe you're reading too far into this.

And, I believe that you were wrong to take his proclamation that he was "very far right" Republican at face value. His statement simply strains all credibility.

Quote
I sent you a nice message; surely, you'd rather be amicable than continuing to attack me.

I simply have not "attacked you." I have pointed out that you are making an assumption that a certain posters was a "very right wing" Republicans simply because he claimed it. People engage in false-flag tactics on the internet all the time. There is absolutely nothing personal in my noting that. If you take it personally, that is not my fault. On the other hand, claiming that I have "attacked you" when I haven't is an attack against me.

If you wish to have "amicable" relationships with folks whom have significant policy differences from you, then, I suggest you eschew certain tactics. When you try to pass off someone whom acts like a bad caricature as an authentic Republican you should expect a reply of, "How stupid do you think I am?"


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: Miles on October 20, 2011, 01:21:10 AM

I simply have not "attacked you." I have pointed out that you are making an assumption that a certain posters was a "very right wing" Republicans simply because he claimed it. People engage in false-flag tactics on the internet all the time. There is absolutely nothing personal in my noting that. If you take it personally, that is not my fault. On the other hand, claiming that I have "attacked you" when I haven't is an attack against me.

If you wish to have "amicable" relationships with folks whom have significant policy differences from you, then, I suggest you eschew certain tactics. When you try to pass off someone whom acts like a bad caricature as an authentic Republican you should expect a reply of, "How stupid do you think I am?"

A few things:

FINE; I'll admit that my original comment was based off of a pretty cursory look at the comments.
Can you just let this die now!!? Jeez, its not like I insulted your mother or anything. (cough, cough, kinda like what you did to Nathan...)

Yes, I do take these things quite personally because I try to keep good relations with everyone on this forum. When others, chiefly yourself most of the time, are unrelentingly presumptuous and curt in their demeanor, it really bugs me.
I would put you on my ignore list, like most of the forum community has done, but I find your seemly arbitrarily-motivated rants to be somewhat amusing.

'Come to think of it,I really haven't seen you write any positive comments on this forum; it seems like all you do on here is bring others down while you practice using vocabulary words.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on October 20, 2011, 07:00:42 AM
Putting BS Bob on ignore is the quickest step to a more pleasant forum experience.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: Napoleon on October 20, 2011, 07:09:20 AM
Roll Call came up with the numbers for the proposed map:

UT-01: McCain: 67; Bush: 76
UT-02: McCain: 58; Bush 67
UT-03: McCain: 67; Bush: 76
UT-04: McCain: 56; Bush: 66
"
Seems inefficient if true. Even if they want to give Matheson his own seat to deter him from embarking on a statewide run, why not distribute PVI more equally among the three other districts?

More important local factors are at work. PVI doesn't matter much at these levels of safe seats anyway ignoring Mathewson.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: minionofmidas on October 22, 2011, 08:02:19 AM
()

Attempt at a fair map of Utah. West Jordan is the only split municipality. (Bingham Canyon in the rural district is presumably quite unfortunate - alternatives involved splitting off one precinct of either Provo or Alpine, pulling the first district into Salt Lake County, or just living with a district undersized by about 2000 people. Maximum deviation in this map is just 136.)
Can someone with a better grasp of party strength in the Wasatch Front tell me just how Democratic that 2nd district is?

And an alternative of sorts.

()


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: BigSkyBob on October 22, 2011, 11:30:57 PM

I simply have not "attacked you." I have pointed out that you are making an assumption that a certain posters was a "very right wing" Republicans simply because he claimed it. People engage in false-flag tactics on the internet all the time. There is absolutely nothing personal in my noting that. If you take it personally, that is not my fault. On the other hand, claiming that I have "attacked you" when I haven't is an attack against me.

If you wish to have "amicable" relationships with folks whom have significant policy differences from you, then, I suggest you eschew certain tactics. When you try to pass off someone whom acts like a bad caricature as an authentic Republican you should expect a reply of, "How stupid do you think I am?"

A few things:

FINE; I'll admit that my original comment was based off of a pretty cursory look at the comments.
Can you just let this die now!!? Jeez, its not like I insulted your mother or anything. (cough, cough, kinda like what you did to Nathan...)

1) I presumed that Nathan's mother was a decent and virtuous woman whom attempted to instill proper moral training in Nathan.

2) You have just attacked me a second and third time. This is hardly the behavior of someone whom wants to "let it die."


Quote

Yes, I do take these things quite personally because I try to keep good relations with everyone on this forum. When others, chiefly yourself most of the time, are unrelentingly presumptuous and curt in their demeanor, it really bugs me.

Fourth attack.

Quote
would put you on my ignore list, like most of the forum community has done, but I find your seemly arbitrarily-motivated rants to be somewhat amusing.

Fifth attack.

Quote
'Come to think of it,I really haven't seen you write any positive comments on this forum; it seems like all you do on here is bring others down while you practice using vocabulary words.

Sixth attack.

Again, I think it is important that political debate be conducted in a manner is which all sides are able to present their viewpoint, and the reader can sort it all out. When members of one side of a debate presume to speak for the other side that detracts from the debate. And, when a poster states something that is false, and reacts to his falsehood being exposed by unloading a series of ad hominem attacks that creates a chilling effect on open and free debate.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on October 23, 2011, 07:02:24 AM
So what's worse, a process like Ohio or Illinois where a map is created and passed without any public commentary, or a situation like this where there's the illusion of openness (draw your own maps and submit them for consideration!) but in the end the legislature ignores the strong public sentiment to keep SLC together in one district and instead cracks the map to eliminate Matheson?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: Padfoot on October 23, 2011, 08:46:09 PM
So what's worse, a process like Ohio or Illinois where a map is created and passed without any public commentary, or a situation like this where there's the illusion of openness (draw your own maps and submit them for consideration!) but in the end the legislature ignores the strong public sentiment to keep SLC together in one district and instead cracks the map to eliminate Matheson?

I don't think either one is better because in the end the power is still in the hands of a single political party.  That's not a how a multiparty democracy is supposed to work.  In order to have an unbiased electoral process all parties must have an equal say in creating that process.  For every step of the way that a particular party or group is given complete control, the voters become more and more disenfranchised.

I suppose if forced to pick which one is worse I'd pick the Ohio/Illinois method just because at least the Utah method allows for some degree of public input even if it is largely ignored.  When there is public input there's always the slim chance that a group of conscientious lawmakers will step forward to promote a reasonable and publicly supported option.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: nclib on October 23, 2011, 09:19:22 PM
Roll Call came up with the numbers for the proposed map:

UT-01: McCain: 67; Bush: 76
UT-02: McCain: 58; Bush 67
UT-03: McCain: 67; Bush: 76
UT-04: McCain: 56; Bush: 66

Which of UT-2 and UT-4 is better for Matheson? It's hard to tell the population distribution by looking at the land area because of the concentration of the population in western states.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on October 23, 2011, 09:37:48 PM
Roll Call came up with the numbers for the proposed map:

UT-01: McCain: 67; Bush: 76
UT-02: McCain: 58; Bush 67
UT-03: McCain: 67; Bush: 76
UT-04: McCain: 56; Bush: 66

Which of UT-2 and UT-4 is better for Matheson? It's hard to tell the population distribution by looking at the land area because of the concentration of the population in western states.

UT-4 not only has downtown SLC but the only rural areas remaining in Utah that still are willing to vote for Democrats besides the ski and Sundance country.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: minionofmidas on October 24, 2011, 05:33:46 AM
Roll Call came up with the numbers for the proposed map:

UT-01: McCain: 67; Bush: 76
UT-02: McCain: 58; Bush 67
UT-03: McCain: 67; Bush: 76
UT-04: McCain: 56; Bush: 66

Seems inefficient if true. Even if they want to give Matheson his own seat to deter him from embarking on a statewide run, why not distribute PVI more equally among the three other districts?
Because the 1st and 3rd have Republican incumbents and the 4th does not, and incumbents have clout?

Roll Call came up with the numbers for the proposed map:

UT-01: McCain: 67; Bush: 76
UT-02: McCain: 58; Bush 67
UT-03: McCain: 67; Bush: 76
UT-04: McCain: 56; Bush: 66

Which of UT-2 and UT-4 is better for Matheson? It's hard to tell the population distribution by looking at the land area because of the concentration of the population in western states.

UT-4 not only has downtown SLC but the only rural areas remaining in Utah that still are willing to vote for Democrats besides the ski and Sundance country.
UT-2, you mean. UT-4 is western Salt Lake County and Tooele.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: Miles on October 24, 2011, 12:20:24 PM
I just lost a lot of respect for Herbert:

"I find that the Legislature followed the law, and the outcome, although not entirely satisfactory to everyone, is reasonable," Herbert said. "Let us remember, in the final analysis, our representatives are not chosen by lines drawn on a map; they are elected by the people of Utah.”

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705392874/Herbert-signs-redistricting-bills.html

So, under that logic, it seems like the way the lines are drawn shouldn't matter at all....


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: BigSkyBob on October 24, 2011, 12:34:21 PM
I just lost a lot of respect for Herbert:

"I find that the Legislature followed the law, and the outcome, although not entirely satisfactory to everyone, is reasonable," Herbert said. "Let us remember, in the final analysis, our representatives are not chosen by lines drawn on a map; they are elected by the people of Utah.”

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705392874/Herbert-signs-redistricting-bills.html

So, under that logic, it seems like the way the lines are drawn shouldn't matter at all....

1) I gained respect for Herbert because he didn't selfishly try to duck a race against a sitting Democratic Congressman. This is in contrast to Ohio in 2000 where the Republican governor saved the seat of a Democrat Congressman just to avoid a race against him in 2002.

2) Herbert said the outcome was "reasonable." By that logic, it does matter where the lines are drawn.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Utah
Post by: Miles on October 24, 2011, 04:23:43 PM
I just lost a lot of respect for Herbert:

"I find that the Legislature followed the law, and the outcome, although not entirely satisfactory to everyone, is reasonable," Herbert said. "Let us remember, in the final analysis, our representatives are not chosen by lines drawn on a map; they are elected by the people of Utah.”

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705392874/Herbert-signs-redistricting-bills.html

So, under that logic, it seems like the way the lines are drawn shouldn't matter at all....

1) I gained respect for Herbert because he didn't selfishly try to duck a race against a sitting Democratic Congressman. This is in contrast to Ohio in 2000 where the Republican governor saved the seat of a Democrat Congressman just to avoid a race against him in 2002.

2) Herbert said the outcome was "reasonable." By that logic, it does matter where the lines are drawn.

I knew you'd have something to say about that! You always have to take an arbitrarily contrary position to whatever I post.

No, thats not how I see it. Just reading the last sentence, it sounds like he's implying that as long Congressmen are elected by the people of Utah, it almost doesn't matter where the lines are drawn.