US House Redistricting: Nevada

[Landslide Lyndon]

Krazen listen to me. Your assumption that white democrats don't want minorities put in their district isn't true. Do you by chance know of Bob Filner, Gene Green, or Steve Cohen? They all seem comfortable representing a district that is mostly minority.

I would be a tad problematic for them to express a concern that their districts had too many minorities in it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

You are using the argument by blatent assertion.

Can you translate that in English please?

Everyone knows what a blatent assertion is. What you need to write is some explanation as to why you believe the "True Scotsman" fallacy has been uttered by someone here?

No, I don't know what a "blatent" is. Please, feel free to explain.

[BigSkyBob]

Krazen listen to me. Your assumption that white democrats don't want minorities put in their district isn't true. Do you by chance know of Bob Filner, Gene Green, or Steve Cohen? They all seem comfortable representing a district that is mostly minority.

I would be a tad problematic for them to express a concern that their districts had too many minorities in it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

You are using the argument by blatent assertion.

Can you translate that in English please?

Everyone knows what a blatent assertion is. What you need to write is some explanation as to why you believe the "True Scotsman" fallacy has been uttered by someone here?

No, I don't know what a "blatent" is. Please, feel free to explain.

Stating the definition of "True Scotsman" fallacy doesn't imply that anyone has used that fallacy. If you have reason to believe that anyone has used that fallacy, feel free to state whom has used that fallacy, and how their logic conforms to definition of the "True Scotsman" fallacy.

[Joe Republic]

Ignoring the useless flamewar going on here... the Nevada Latino Redistricting Coalition has decided to release their own map [pdf], which hilariously puts Joe Heck into a 41% Hispanic district, with a 49-28 Democratic registration advantage.

(Ralston points out that it's shaped like a donkey, appropriately enough.  I'd say it's more of a piñata.)

I can't wait for silly season to be over and we get to see what map we'll actually have for the next ten years.

[krazen1211]

Ignoring the useless flamewar going on here... the Nevada Latino Redistricting Coalition has decided to release their own map [pdf], which hilariously puts Joe Heck into a 41% Hispanic district, with a 49-28 Democratic registration advantage.

(Ralston points out that it's shaped like a donkey, appropriately enough.  I'd say it's more of a piñata.)

I can't wait for silly season to be over and we get to see what map we'll actually have for the next ten years.

Splitting Henderson is going to be a no-go, although Heck could probably win a district with that map anyway.

That said, I drew a very similar map above. That should settle the debate as to what the Hispanic community wants, and its not 4 <32% districts

[Joe Republic]

Splitting Henderson is going to be a no-go, although Heck could probably win a district with that map anyway.

I disagree with both of these statements.  You could be right on your second point if we assume that Heck would run in a district he doesn't live in, based on that map.

Moot point anyway.  These 'official' maps are a pointless waste of time.  A bit like arguing on the internet about it, I suppose.

[ex-Senator X]

Ignoring the useless flamewar going on here... the Nevada Latino Redistricting Coalition has decided to release their own map [pdf], which hilariously puts Joe Heck into a 41% Hispanic district, with a 49-28 Democratic registration advantage.

(Ralston points out that it's shaped like a donkey, appropriately enough.  I'd say it's more of a piñata.)

I can't wait for silly season to be over and we get to see what map we'll actually have for the next ten years.

Splitting Henderson is going to be a no-go, although Heck could probably win a district with that map anyway.

That said, I drew a very similar map above. That should settle the debate as to what the Hispanic community wants, and its not 4 <32% districts

And I'm sure you'll be just as vocal about the need for a second minority-majority district in South Carolina, Virginia, and Alabama

[krazen1211]

And I'm sure you'll be just as vocal about the need for a second minority-majority district in South Carolina, Virginia, and Alabama

Not at all. I believe in retribution for decades of Democratic gerrymandering in the south. They get 1 district.

[Gravis Marketing]

And I'm sure you'll be just as vocal about the need for a second minority-majority district in South Carolina, Virginia, and Alabama

Not at all. I believe in retribution for decades of Democratic gerrymandering in the south. They get 1 district.

Interesting, the shift from using "white conservatives" and "white liberals" to party here. Which term do you think better describes the Democrats who controlled state government in the south for most of the last century?

[krazen1211]

And I'm sure you'll be just as vocal about the need for a second minority-majority district in South Carolina, Virginia, and Alabama

Not at all. I believe in retribution for decades of Democratic gerrymandering in the south. They get 1 district.

Interesting, the shift from using "white conservatives" and "white liberals" to party here. Which term do you think better describes the Democrats who controlled state government in the south for most of the last century?

Depends on the issue I suppose. Democrats in the South obviously supported modern day white liberal hero Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his social engineering in absurd numbers, and of course supported the creation of Medicare in 1965 while men like Goldwater and Reagan were opposed. They exhibited many non-conservative fiscal tendencies to this day;  a lot of the ancestrally Democratic generally poor areas love their pork.

It would certainly be fair to describe them as white conservatives though on many social issues, especially at the state level. And of course, what I said earlier is true; they wanted to elect their own and not blacks. There weren't too many blacks in the House until the 1990 redistricting, and most of those were from the North.

Modern day minority conservatives however are quite different from modern day minority liberals. They have to be. In order to get elected they have to win the support of a majority of whites. Tim Scott of course had to defeat a prominent white conservative in order to get his seat; as did the others.

[Invisible Obama]

Not at all. I believe in retribution for decades of Democratic gerrymandering in the south. They get 1 district.

Then your entire argument is moot, you can't argue for a packed district in Nevada that won't even get to 50% and against ones in southern states that will cross the threshold of 50%. The Justice Department is not going to see it like that, they'd never argue for a plurality district.

[ex-Senator X]

Not at all. I believe in retribution for decades of Democratic gerrymandering in the south. They get 1 district.

Then your entire argument is moot, you can't argue for a packed district in Nevada that won't even get to 50% and against ones in southern states that will cross the threshold of 50%. The Justice Department is not going to see it like that, they'd never argue for a plurality district.

My point exactly!

[krazen1211]

Not at all. I believe in retribution for decades of Democratic gerrymandering in the south. They get 1 district.

Then your entire argument is moot, you can't argue for a packed district in Nevada that won't even get to 50% and against ones in southern states that will cross the threshold of 50%. The Justice Department is not going to see it like that, they'd never argue for a plurality district.

That's your territory, champ, only in reverse. That's why California has so few Hispanic districts, and New Jersey just dissolved theirs on the state level, and why some white liberals still whine about Texas, which of course already has 7 Hispanic districts.

I am very consistent; I believe in the legislative process in all states. No serious people in the South want to create such districts you propose. It's you people who want different rules across the board.

[ex-Senator X]

Not at all. I believe in retribution for decades of Democratic gerrymandering in the south. They get 1 district.

Then your entire argument is moot, you can't argue for a packed district in Nevada that won't even get to 50% and against ones in southern states that will cross the threshold of 50%. The Justice Department is not going to see it like that, they'd never argue for a plurality district.

That's your territory, champ, only in reverse. That's why California has so few Hispanic districts, and New Jersey just dissolved theirs on the state level, and why some white liberals still whine about Texas, which of course already has 7 Hispanic districts.

I am very consistent; I believe in the legislative process in all states. No serious people in the South want to create such districts you propose. It's you people who want different rules across the board.

Arguing for a less than 50% VAP packed district in Nevada, while opposing one where it will be greater than 50% is extremely inconsistent.  What is consistent is that when a minority-majority packed district benefits Republicans you say that Democrats oppose it b/c they're evil racist liberals (and ignore the fact that they oppose it NOT b/c of race, but b/c the district is part of a pro-Republican gerrymander).  However, when it benefits Democrats, then you say that Republicans shouldn't create more minority-majority districts b/c it won't lead to their strongest map.   

[Invisible Obama]

That's your territory, champ, only in reverse. That's why California has so few Hispanic districts, and New Jersey just dissolved theirs on the state level, and why some white liberals still whine about Texas, which of course already has 7 Hispanic districts.

I am very consistent; I believe in the legislative process in all states. No serious people in the South want to create such districts you propose. It's you people who want different rules across the board.

You can't create that many more Hispanic districts in California, it's just about maxed out at this point, unless you want to get into precinct-wide gerrymanders, which would ultimately hurt Republicans, but it is very unnecessary since you can draw compact Hispanic districts without much trouble.

You state that no serious people want more VRA districts in certain southern states, but the fact is that these issues may still be raised by the Justice Department. You stated yourself that there should be no more majority black districts in the south because of retribution toward Democrats. That's a huge double standard.

[krazen1211]

Arguing for a less than 50% VAP packed district in Nevada, while opposing one where it will be greater than 50% is extremely inconsistent.  What is consistent is that when a minority-majority packed district benefits Republicans you say that Democrats oppose it b/c they're evil racist liberals (and ignore the fact that they oppose it NOT b/c of race, but b/c the district is part of a pro-Republican gerrymander).  However, when it benefits Democrats, then you say that Republicans shouldn't create more minority-majority districts b/c it won't lead to their strongest map.   

Not at all. The last bit isn't fact at all; I already posted a Nevada map to the contrary that does not involve the racial splitting of  every single municipality that you keep proposing. Admittedly, the Republican proposed map doesn't give the Democrats 2 safe districts, but such a map is obviously possible.

Democrats like the Sherman/Bermans have a history of opposing Hispanic districts specifically because of race, in their own words, not mine. Ultimately they can obviously do what they want to do and pass districts to elect white liberals and not Hispanics; I can merely point out the truth.

Republicans control the trifecta throughout the South because of the policies of the Democratic party. If they want a say they should do what Mr. Sandoval did and win the governor's mansion. Otherwise, nobody cares.

[ex-Senator X]

Arguing for a less than 50% VAP packed district in Nevada, while opposing one where it will be greater than 50% is extremely inconsistent.  What is consistent is that when a minority-majority packed district benefits Republicans you say that Democrats oppose it b/c they're evil racist liberals (and ignore the fact that they oppose it NOT b/c of race, but b/c the district is part of a pro-Republican gerrymander).  However, when it benefits Democrats, then you say that Republicans shouldn't create more minority-majority districts b/c it won't lead to their strongest map.   

Not at all. The last bit isn't fact at all; I already posted a Nevada map to the contrary that does not involve the racial splitting of  every single municipality that you keep proposing. Admittedly, the Republican proposed map doesn't give the Democrats 2 safe districts, but such a map is obviously possible.

Democrats like the Sherman/Bermans have a history of opposing Hispanic districts specifically because of race, in their own words, not mine. Ultimately they can obviously do what they want to do and pass districts to elect white liberals and not Hispanics; I can merely point out the truth.

Republicans control the trifecta throughout the South because of the policies of the Democratic party. If they want a say they should do what Mr. Sandoval did and win the governor's mansion. Otherwise, nobody cares.

So if Republicans wanted to have the DOJ approve their maps in states like Texas, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Alabama, they should have won the Presidency like Obama did b/c otherwise no one cares?

[krazen1211]

That's your territory, champ, only in reverse. That's why California has so few Hispanic districts, and New Jersey just dissolved theirs on the state level, and why some white liberals still whine about Texas, which of course already has 7 Hispanic districts.

I am very consistent; I believe in the legislative process in all states. No serious people in the South want to create such districts you propose. It's you people who want different rules across the board.

You can't create that many more Hispanic districts in California, it's just about maxed out at this point, unless you want to get into precinct-wide gerrymanders, which would ultimately hurt Republicans, but it is very unnecessary since you can draw compact Hispanic districts without much trouble.

You state that no serious people want more VRA districts in certain southern states, but the fact is that these issues may still be raised by the Justice Department. You stated yourself that there should be no more majority black districts in the south because of retribution toward Democrats. That's a huge double standard.

At least 3 are easily possible: the 28th, the 35th, and 37th with some territory swapping in Los Angeles County.

As for the rest, you can play the may/should/would game, but its obvious by looking at the actual maps that such isn't considered serious by the actual mapdrawers. All they have to do is look at the New Jersey map where the 4 Oranges are intentionally cracked and separated to get some ideas.

[krazen1211]

Arguing for a less than 50% VAP packed district in Nevada, while opposing one where it will be greater than 50% is extremely inconsistent.  What is consistent is that when a minority-majority packed district benefits Republicans you say that Democrats oppose it b/c they're evil racist liberals (and ignore the fact that they oppose it NOT b/c of race, but b/c the district is part of a pro-Republican gerrymander).  However, when it benefits Democrats, then you say that Republicans shouldn't create more minority-majority districts b/c it won't lead to their strongest map.   

Not at all. The last bit isn't fact at all; I already posted a Nevada map to the contrary that does not involve the racial splitting of  every single municipality that you keep proposing. Admittedly, the Republican proposed map doesn't give the Democrats 2 safe districts, but such a map is obviously possible.

Democrats like the Sherman/Bermans have a history of opposing Hispanic districts specifically because of race, in their own words, not mine. Ultimately they can obviously do what they want to do and pass districts to elect white liberals and not Hispanics; I can merely point out the truth.

Republicans control the trifecta throughout the South because of the policies of the Democratic party. If they want a say they should do what Mr. Sandoval did and win the governor's mansion. Otherwise, nobody cares.

So if Republicans wanted to have the DOJ approve their maps in states like Texas, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Alabama, they should have won the Presidency like Obama did b/c otherwise no one cares?

That would have been ideal, certainly, but your baseless hypothetical obviously is not a serious concern.

[Invisible Obama]

At least 3 are easily possible: the 28th, the 35th, and 37th with some territory swapping in Los Angeles County.

As for the rest, you can play the may/should/would game, but its obvious by looking at the actual maps that such isn't considered serious by the actual mapdrawers. All they have to do is look at the New Jersey map where the 4 Oranges are intentionally cracked and separated to get some ideas.

The 28th is actually already majority Hispanic, CA-35 is a Black influence district and CA-37 is mainly geographic. Anyway, Hispanic voters in California are distributed out enough where they have influence, they don't want over packed districts.

My point is necessarily rather or not these maps will be considered, but that you can't argue for a plurality VRA district in one place and then oppose districts that go over the 50% threshold in another, it is hypocrisy.

[BigSkyBob]

Arguing for a less than 50% VAP packed district in Nevada, while opposing one where it will be greater than 50% is extremely inconsistent.  What is consistent is that when a minority-majority packed district benefits Republicans you say that Democrats oppose it b/c they're evil racist liberals (and ignore the fact that they oppose it NOT b/c of race, but b/c the district is part of a pro-Republican gerrymander).  However, when it benefits Democrats, then you say that Republicans shouldn't create more minority-majority districts b/c it won't lead to their strongest map.   

Not at all. The last bit isn't fact at all; I already posted a Nevada map to the contrary that does not involve the racial splitting of  every single municipality that you keep proposing. Admittedly, the Republican proposed map doesn't give the Democrats 2 safe districts, but such a map is obviously possible.

Democrats like the Sherman/Bermans have a history of opposing Hispanic districts specifically because of race, in their own words, not mine. Ultimately they can obviously do what they want to do and pass districts to elect white liberals and not Hispanics; I can merely point out the truth.

Republicans control the trifecta throughout the South because of the policies of the Democratic party. If they want a say they should do what Mr. Sandoval did and win the governor's mansion. Otherwise, nobody cares.

So if Republicans wanted to have the DOJ approve their maps in states like Texas, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Alabama, they should have won the Presidency like Obama did b/c otherwise no one cares?

The law is alleged the same no matter whom is elected President.

[Verily]

Arguing for a less than 50% VAP packed district in Nevada, while opposing one where it will be greater than 50% is extremely inconsistent.  What is consistent is that when a minority-majority packed district benefits Republicans you say that Democrats oppose it b/c they're evil racist liberals (and ignore the fact that they oppose it NOT b/c of race, but b/c the district is part of a pro-Republican gerrymander).  However, when it benefits Democrats, then you say that Republicans shouldn't create more minority-majority districts b/c it won't lead to their strongest map.   

Not at all. The last bit isn't fact at all; I already posted a Nevada map to the contrary that does not involve the racial splitting of  every single municipality that you keep proposing. Admittedly, the Republican proposed map doesn't give the Democrats 2 safe districts, but such a map is obviously possible.

Democrats like the Sherman/Bermans have a history of opposing Hispanic districts specifically because of race, in their own words, not mine. Ultimately they can obviously do what they want to do and pass districts to elect white liberals and not Hispanics; I can merely point out the truth.

Republicans control the trifecta throughout the South because of the policies of the Democratic party. If they want a say they should do what Mr. Sandoval did and win the governor's mansion. Otherwise, nobody cares.

So if Republicans wanted to have the DOJ approve their maps in states like Texas, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Alabama, they should have won the Presidency like Obama did b/c otherwise no one cares?

The law is alleged the same no matter whom is elected President.

Don't play dumb. Everyone knows that there was no way a Bush DOJ would push for more minority representation in the preclearance states while the Obama DOJ would.

[BigSkyBob]

Arguing for a less than 50% VAP packed district in Nevada, while opposing one where it will be greater than 50% is extremely inconsistent.  What is consistent is that when a minority-majority packed district benefits Republicans you say that Democrats oppose it b/c they're evil racist liberals (and ignore the fact that they oppose it NOT b/c of race, but b/c the district is part of a pro-Republican gerrymander).  However, when it benefits Democrats, then you say that Republicans shouldn't create more minority-majority districts b/c it won't lead to their strongest map.   

Not at all. The last bit isn't fact at all; I already posted a Nevada map to the contrary that does not involve the racial splitting of  every single municipality that you keep proposing. Admittedly, the Republican proposed map doesn't give the Democrats 2 safe districts, but such a map is obviously possible.

Democrats like the Sherman/Bermans have a history of opposing Hispanic districts specifically because of race, in their own words, not mine. Ultimately they can obviously do what they want to do and pass districts to elect white liberals and not Hispanics; I can merely point out the truth.

Republicans control the trifecta throughout the South because of the policies of the Democratic party. If they want a say they should do what Mr. Sandoval did and win the governor's mansion. Otherwise, nobody cares.

So if Republicans wanted to have the DOJ approve their maps in states like Texas, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Alabama, they should have won the Presidency like Obama did b/c otherwise no one cares?

The law is alleged the same no matter whom is elected President.

Don't play dumb. Everyone knows that there was no way a Bush DOJ would push for more minority representation in the preclearance states while the Obama DOJ would.

The VRA act says what it says. If you can justify politicizing law enforcement that says something about you, not me.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Arguing for a less than 50% VAP packed district in Nevada, while opposing one where it will be greater than 50% is extremely inconsistent.  What is consistent is that when a minority-majority packed district benefits Republicans you say that Democrats oppose it b/c they're evil racist liberals (and ignore the fact that they oppose it NOT b/c of race, but b/c the district is part of a pro-Republican gerrymander).  However, when it benefits Democrats, then you say that Republicans shouldn't create more minority-majority districts b/c it won't lead to their strongest map.   

Not at all. The last bit isn't fact at all; I already posted a Nevada map to the contrary that does not involve the racial splitting of  every single municipality that you keep proposing. Admittedly, the Republican proposed map doesn't give the Democrats 2 safe districts, but such a map is obviously possible.

Democrats like the Sherman/Bermans have a history of opposing Hispanic districts specifically because of race, in their own words, not mine. Ultimately they can obviously do what they want to do and pass districts to elect white liberals and not Hispanics; I can merely point out the truth.

Republicans control the trifecta throughout the South because of the policies of the Democratic party. If they want a say they should do what Mr. Sandoval did and win the governor's mansion. Otherwise, nobody cares.

So if Republicans wanted to have the DOJ approve their maps in states like Texas, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Alabama, they should have won the Presidency like Obama did b/c otherwise no one cares?

The law is alleged the same no matter whom is elected President.

Don't play dumb. Everyone knows that there was no way a Bush DOJ would push for more minority representation in the preclearance states while the Obama DOJ would.

The VRA act says what it says. If you can justify politicizing law enforcement that says something about you, not me.

Are you really that stupid or just very good at pretending to be?

[Verily]

Arguing for a less than 50% VAP packed district in Nevada, while opposing one where it will be greater than 50% is extremely inconsistent.  What is consistent is that when a minority-majority packed district benefits Republicans you say that Democrats oppose it b/c they're evil racist liberals (and ignore the fact that they oppose it NOT b/c of race, but b/c the district is part of a pro-Republican gerrymander).  However, when it benefits Democrats, then you say that Republicans shouldn't create more minority-majority districts b/c it won't lead to their strongest map.   

Not at all. The last bit isn't fact at all; I already posted a Nevada map to the contrary that does not involve the racial splitting of  every single municipality that you keep proposing. Admittedly, the Republican proposed map doesn't give the Democrats 2 safe districts, but such a map is obviously possible.

Democrats like the Sherman/Bermans have a history of opposing Hispanic districts specifically because of race, in their own words, not mine. Ultimately they can obviously do what they want to do and pass districts to elect white liberals and not Hispanics; I can merely point out the truth.

Republicans control the trifecta throughout the South because of the policies of the Democratic party. If they want a say they should do what Mr. Sandoval did and win the governor's mansion. Otherwise, nobody cares.

So if Republicans wanted to have the DOJ approve their maps in states like Texas, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Alabama, they should have won the Presidency like Obama did b/c otherwise no one cares?

The law is alleged the same no matter whom is elected President.

Don't play dumb. Everyone knows that there was no way a Bush DOJ would push for more minority representation in the preclearance states while the Obama DOJ would.

The VRA act says what it says. If you can justify politicizing law enforcement that says something about you, not me.

Who said anything about justifying it? The reality is that administrations usually enforce the VRA when it is politically to their benefit. The text of the VRA is ambiguous enough to support it, and the Supreme Court decisions on the issue intentionally allow them to do it. There is no clear and obvious text in the VRA to forbid this, either; at the least, there are multiple possible readings, and the Supreme Court has been reluctant, even reticent, to choose among them.

[BigSkyBob]

Arguing for a less than 50% VAP packed district in Nevada, while opposing one where it will be greater than 50% is extremely inconsistent.  What is consistent is that when a minority-majority packed district benefits Republicans you say that Democrats oppose it b/c they're evil racist liberals (and ignore the fact that they oppose it NOT b/c of race, but b/c the district is part of a pro-Republican gerrymander).  However, when it benefits Democrats, then you say that Republicans shouldn't create more minority-majority districts b/c it won't lead to their strongest map.   

Not at all. The last bit isn't fact at all; I already posted a Nevada map to the contrary that does not involve the racial splitting of  every single municipality that you keep proposing. Admittedly, the Republican proposed map doesn't give the Democrats 2 safe districts, but such a map is obviously possible.

Democrats like the Sherman/Bermans have a history of opposing Hispanic districts specifically because of race, in their own words, not mine. Ultimately they can obviously do what they want to do and pass districts to elect white liberals and not Hispanics; I can merely point out the truth.

Republicans control the trifecta throughout the South because of the policies of the Democratic party. If they want a say they should do what Mr. Sandoval did and win the governor's mansion. Otherwise, nobody cares.

So if Republicans wanted to have the DOJ approve their maps in states like Texas, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Alabama, they should have won the Presidency like Obama did b/c otherwise no one cares?

The law is alleged the same no matter whom is elected President.

Don't play dumb. Everyone knows that there was no way a Bush DOJ would push for more minority representation in the preclearance states while the Obama DOJ would.

The VRA act says what it says. If you can justify politicizing law enforcement that says something about you, not me.

Are you really that stupid or just very good at pretending to be?

Has naked patisanship so grossly distorted your reasoning, or are you just very good at pretending to be a partisan hack?