SC Gov Mark Sanford

[Sam Spade]

I would actually argue that gerrymanders just distort the figures.

I would disagree.  For example, Maryland gerrymanders are balanced out by Pennsylvania gerrymanders.

In the end, it comes out to being fairly close, though not entirely accurate.

But as House and Senate elections have started to revolve more around national issues rather than local ones, the numbers have shown much more direct causality than say in the 1980s for example.

[12th Doctor]

Its not like I want the South out of our party, or anything.  I would much rather have them in, believe me.  I'm glad that we have such a solid base.

All I'm saying is that it wouldn't hurt any to expand the base and win over more states.

Right now, Missouri is not in the "base".  Ohio is not in the base.  Iowa is not in the base.  Florida is not in the base.  Nevada and New Mexico are not in the base.  Without them, we can't win.

Of course, Super, by your definition of "base", Oregon, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire are the not in the base either for Democrats.

We just live in very divided times politically in the Presidential realm.  I honestly don't see that changing in the near future, either.

But when that time does come, which side do we want to be onto.  Every moment we dely is another 10 electoral votes that we are losing once the breech closes and "divided times" are over.

[Sibboleth]

I would actually argue that gerrymanders just distort the figures.

I would disagree.  For example, Maryland gerrymanders are balanced out by Pennsylvania gerrymanders.

In the end, it comes out to being fairly close, though not entirely accurate.

But as House and Senate elections have started to revolve more around national issues rather than local ones, the numbers have shown much more direct causality than say in the 1980s for example.

Gerrymandering probably doesn't distort the overall summary figures a great deal, but it massivily distorts where those numbers are coming from making any comparision between Presidential and Congressional numbers somewhat meaningless.

[Notre Dame rules!]

Gerrymandering has nearly killed the Democrat Party in the South.  By concentrating black voters into super majority districts, they have increased the number of black Congressional seats, while at the same time, virtually guaranteed that any white majority district will vote Republican.  There are exceptions, of course, but the trend has been that fewer and fewer white Democrats can get elected anywhere in the South. 

Black Democrats would much rather vote for blsack Democrat to represent them rather than a white Democrat, which is understandable--I suppose.

The  majority white district's Democrat base is considerably weakended in the process. 

So, while gerrymandering has greatly increased the number of black representatives in Congress, it has also served to bolster the GOP majority in Congress as a whole.

[A18]

It's political gerrymandering, not racial gerrymandering. The fact that blacks happen to virtually all be Democrats makes the two look similar, when in reality, they're not.

[Notre Dame rules!]

The Dems were all in favor of race-based districts, the thinking being that a grateful black population would continue to vote Democrat, which it did.  However, they didn't vote for just any Democrat, only black ones.

The GOP, who initially opposed the idea, found that it worked in their favor as well.  It concentrated Democrat voters in majority black districts.

You can say it wasn't racial gerrymandering, but since much of it was designed to increase black representationin Congress, how can you claim it was anything but.

[A18]

I thought you were saying the Republicans did it, which would be for political purposes. Not racially motivated ones.

[Notre Dame rules!]

okay, I see where you're coming from.

[Rob]

I thought you were saying the Republicans did it, which would be for political purposes. Not racially motivated ones.

In this case, the political and racial reasons are the same.

[A18]

That's like saying firing a black guy for doing a lousy job is racist, because black people do lousy jobs.

[nick]

Hey Bob, Im gonna' PM my 2008 blog Im working on.  So far I only have the Democratic rankings done.  Take a peak, tell me what you think, and if you have any suggestions on the layout or color or anything let me know.

[Rob]

Hey Bob, Im gonna' PM my 2008 blog Im working on.  So far I only have the Democratic rankings done.  Take a peak, tell me what you think, and if you have any suggestions on the layout or color or anything let me know.

Okay, sounds cool.

[Rob]

That's like saying firing a black guy for doing a lousy job is racist, because black people do lousy jobs.

No offense, but what the hell are you talking about?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Gerrymandering has nearly killed the Democrat Party in the South.  By concentrating black voters into super majority districts, they have increased the number of black Congressional seats, while at the same time, virtually guaranteed that any white majority district will vote Republican.  There are exceptions, of course, but the trend has been that fewer and fewer white Democrats can get elected anywhere in the South. 

Black Democrats would much rather vote for blsack Democrat to represent them rather than a white Democrat, which is understandable--I suppose.

The  majority white district's Democrat base is considerably weakended in the process. 

So, while gerrymandering has greatly increased the number of black representatives in Congress, it has also served to bolster the GOP majority in Congress as a whole.

Yes, that law requiring minority majority districts has been very effectively used against the Democrats by southern Republicans. We end up with a few 60% black, 85% Democratic districts, and then all of the rest of the districts are Republican. It's a very effective political tool that I oppose.

[A18]

That's like saying firing a black guy for doing a lousy job is racist, because black people do lousy jobs.

No offense, but what the hell are you talking about?

Racial and business motivations are the same in this sitution, according to your logic.

[Rob]

That's like saying firing a black guy for doing a lousy job is racist, because black people do lousy jobs.

No offense, but what the hell are you talking about?

Racial and business motivations are the same in this sitution, according to your logic.

No. I said that the political implications were the same as the political ones, which is true.

I still don't see your point, honestly.

[A18]

The political implications were the same as the political ones...

Erm, okay...I guess I can't argue with that...

[Rob]

The political implications were the same as the political ones...

Erm, okay...I guess I can't argue with that...

You're damn right you can't.

[True Federalist]

I favor school choice, but Sanford's F-ed up scheme is terrible.  All it will do is give a tax-break to those who already home school or send their kids to private schools.  It's too small to provide help for those who send their kids to public school because they can't afford the cost of other options, but large enough to cost the state government a lot of revenue from those who would have chosen those other options anyway.  Sanford has put too much of his political capital on this lame brain idea for him to remain a serious 2008 Preseidential possibility if it doesn't pass, but if it does pass it's not going to improve our schools one bit.  However, it's passage will improve Sanford's 2008 primary chances, as such schemes are a favorite of many GOP core voters.

[ArthurBranch]

Its going to be Jeb, most likely, so no.

[hawkeye59]

LOL
I know it's been 5 years... but yeah.

[feeblepizza]

LOL
I know it's been 5 years... but yeah.

It's funny how laughable a lot of these pre-2008 threads are nowadays

I guess our 2012 predictions will be laughed at after five years though, too, won't they?

[phk]

Lock.