Democrats Planning Effort to Take Back State Legislatures
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:22:37 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Democrats Planning Effort to Take Back State Legislatures
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Democrats Planning Effort to Take Back State Legislatures  (Read 1883 times)
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,509
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 26, 2015, 08:32:24 PM »

I think it may be too late to affect the 2020 redistricting cycle (in which we might see Republicans cementing their dominance, particularly in every southern legislature), but we can begin the process in time to affect the 2030 redistricting cycle:

Democrats planning multi-year strategy to recapture seats

Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 2:00 pm

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,578
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 26, 2015, 09:39:00 PM »



Democrats will not start winning in Midterms again until they fire DWS.
Logged
Bigby
Mod_Libertarian_GOPer
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,164
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: 3.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 26, 2015, 10:18:49 PM »



Democrats will not start winning in Midterms again until they fire DWS.

My question is when that will be. It's amazing how they've kept her for so long already.
Logged
Bojack Horseman
Wolverine22
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,368
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 26, 2015, 10:44:51 PM »

The way it will happen is the same way we can expel the extremists from Congress: redistricting reform. I say we pound the pavement and use the direct democratic process, as we did in Florida in 2010 with Amendments 5 & 6, to pass independent redistricting panels all across the country. Here in Michigan, Republicans have gerrymandered their way to an impenetrable majority that cannot and would not stand if there was a level playing field in redistricting. Same for Pennsylvania, North Carolina, formerly Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, and possibly even Texas. This would put many state legislative chambers into play in states like Montana, Missouri, heck, even North Dakota. It's going to start on the ground, and I think we need to get a concerted effort, a nationwide anti-gerrymandering movement started, just like the term limits movement did back in the early 90's.
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,085
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 27, 2015, 08:28:16 PM »



Democrats will not start winning in Midterms again until they fire DWS.

My question is when that will be. It's amazing how they've kept her for so long already.

Why is she so incompetent exactly?
Logged
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,107
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.10, S: -7.65

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 28, 2015, 12:09:16 AM »

Good luck. What they'll need for 2020:

 - Very good gains in 2018 with the Governorships (and 2020, but a majority are in 2018), and with lots of open seats opportunities will be plentiful.
 - 2020 needs to be a good year for Democrats. They need either a very unpopular Republican president who gets booted out a la Jimmy Carter, or a 1964 redux where the Republicans nominate someone extreme or unelectable against the incumbent Democrat. The downballot effect in those two scenarios will be big enough to flip several legislative chambers in time for redistricting.
 - Democrats need to start caring about every race, not just the national ones, and need to turnout. Not only that, Democratic candidates also need to run top-tier recruits, something absent in recent years as many state benches have been decimated.

But let's also be realistic, they're so far behind in some states they need like Michigan and Ohio that they will need multiple good years to gain, such as 2018 and 2020 being back to back waves. The likeliness of that happening? Slim. It'll be tough.
Logged
smoltchanov
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,376
Russian Federation


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 28, 2015, 01:45:14 AM »

Good luck. What they'll need for 2020:

 - Very good gains in 2018 with the Governorships (and 2020, but a majority are in 2018), and with lots of open seats opportunities will be plentiful.
 - 2020 needs to be a good year for Democrats. They need either a very unpopular Republican president who gets booted out a la Jimmy Carter, or a 1964 redux where the Republicans nominate someone extreme or unelectable against the incumbent Democrat. The downballot effect in those two scenarios will be big enough to flip several legislative chambers in time for redistricting.
 - Democrats need to start caring about every race, not just the national ones, and need to turnout. Not only that, Democratic candidates also need to run top-tier recruits, something absent in recent years as many state benches have been decimated.

But let's also be realistic, they're so far behind in some states they need like Michigan and Ohio that they will need multiple good years to gain, such as 2018 and 2020 being back to back waves. The likeliness of that happening? Slim. It'll be tough.

+100. And i would add my favorite rule: "the district rules!". Republicans can ignore superconcentrated urban liberal hyperdemocratic districts and still have a majority in House (i counted many times and never got more then 180-190 liberal-leaning districts, it's another matter that in many of them Democrats win absolutely unneccessary for victory 80-85 or even 95% of vote), After all - they have about 30 districts "cushion" now... Democrats - can't. They need substantial number of swing and even conservative-leaning (may be - not by much, but - still.....) districts to even have a chance for 218. And to win them - they need moderate or even relatively conservative candidates, not "wild-eyed progressives"... And - no assocication with Obama. Of course - in future Republicans will try to associate Democratic candidates with whatever liberal Democratic president may be, but it will not have the same effect as now...

Or an alternative: repeal VRA!. It leads to relatively few solid Democratic districts (usually - majority-munority) and substantially bigger number of reliably Republican districts as a consequence... Overall result is greatly in favor of Republicans...
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,578
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: November 28, 2015, 02:20:07 AM »

Good luck. What they'll need for 2020:

 - Very good gains in 2018 with the Governorships (and 2020, but a majority are in 2018), and with lots of open seats opportunities will be plentiful.
 - 2020 needs to be a good year for Democrats. They need either a very unpopular Republican president who gets booted out a la Jimmy Carter, or a 1964 redux where the Republicans nominate someone extreme or unelectable against the incumbent Democrat. The downballot effect in those two scenarios will be big enough to flip several legislative chambers in time for redistricting.
 - Democrats need to start caring about every race, not just the national ones, and need to turnout. Not only that, Democratic candidates also need to run top-tier recruits, something absent in recent years as many state benches have been decimated.

But let's also be realistic, they're so far behind in some states they need like Michigan and Ohio that they will need multiple good years to gain, such as 2018 and 2020 being back to back waves. The likeliness of that happening? Slim. It'll be tough.

+100. And i would add my favorite rule: "the district rules!". Republicans can ignore superconcentrated urban liberal hyperdemocratic districts and still have a majority in House (i counted many times and never got more then 180-190 liberal-leaning districts, it's another matter that in many of them Democrats win absolutely unneccessary for victory 80-85 or even 95% of vote), After all - they have about 30 districts "cushion" now... Democrats - can't. They need substantial number of swing and even conservative-leaning (may be - not by much, but - still.....) districts to even have a chance for 218. And to win them - they need moderate or even relatively conservative candidates, not "wild-eyed progressives"... And - no assocication with Obama. Of course - in future Republicans will try to associate Democratic candidates with whatever liberal Democratic president may be, but it will not have the same effect as now...

Or an alternative: repeal VRA!. It leads to relatively few solid Democratic districts (usually - majority-munority) and substantially bigger number of reliably Republican districts as a consequence... Overall result is greatly in favor of Republicans...

Repealing VRA would only make both sides gerrymander even more. Rather than worry about sinking tons and tons of democratic votes into a district to get it to be Black/Hispanic Majority, you divide up that democratic vote into several different districts. We'd likely see the single Safe D district in AL, LA, MS, SC completely eliminated. Perhaps you'd get a semi-competitive district or two in return, but it would still be a Romney district. Anything Republicans kept control of after 2018/2020 would become more gerrymandered than it already is - districts in PA, OH, FL, etc. that are essentially illegal to modify much nowadays because of the VRA rule would suddenly be dramatically altered, expanding the number of districts winnable by Republicans. Sure, Dems could strike back by breaking up some of the heaviest D districts in states they control - but they first have to win control of more states - with the exception of Illinois and perhaps Minnesota, the states that Democrats control are either 1) redistricted by independent commissions, or 2) ones they are already maxed out in in terms of house districts. So, no, repealing VRA is not a substitute to doing well in 2018/20.


Logged
smoltchanov
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,376
Russian Federation


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: November 28, 2015, 08:23:43 AM »

^ Not sure about your reasoning. A LOT of superdemocratic votes, which are now hyperconcentrated in VRA districs, must go somewhere. And districts, which they will go in, will become substantially more Democratic. Yes, under such situation an election of Black or Hispanic representatives will not be guaranteed, but potentially - more Democrats (yes - mostly white, but - still Democrats) may be elected from these new disitricts. Now, if i am not mistaken, 2-3 district are made heavily Republican in order to guarantee 1 minority-majority district according to VRA demands...
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: November 28, 2015, 12:22:32 PM »



Democrats will not start winning in Midterms again until they fire DWS.

My question is when that will be. It's amazing how they've kept her for so long already.

Why is she so incompetent exactly?

DWS is a sort of shrill hackish blowhard who consistently says things demonstrating a certain imperviousness to reality. But she's still not really the Democrats' problem. Geographic voting distribution is their largest one when it comes to state legislatures.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: November 28, 2015, 01:40:57 PM »



1) Drive GOP below supermajority status in as many states as possible by 2021
2) Win a metric s[inks]-ton of Governors races in 2018, 2019 & 2020
3) Force GOP legislatures to moderate the maps, producing fairer results
4) If necessary, obstruct, block and obfuscate the process until the courts are forced to draw the maps
5) Still probably be at an aggregate disadvantage for another decade even under best-case scenario
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,578
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: November 28, 2015, 06:43:21 PM »

^ Not sure about your reasoning. A LOT of superdemocratic votes, which are now hyperconcentrated in VRA districs, must go somewhere. And districts, which they will go in, will become substantially more Democratic. Yes, under such situation an election of Black or Hispanic representatives will not be guaranteed, but potentially - more Democrats (yes - mostly white, but - still Democrats) may be elected from these new disitricts. Now, if i am not mistaken, 2-3 district are made heavily Republican in order to guarantee 1 minority-majority district according to VRA demands...

To a point, you are correct. But let's look at an example map for a non-VRA South Carolina:



1. 64-35 McCain
2. 51-48 McCain
3. 50-48 McCain
4. 51-48 McCain
5. 58-40 McCain
6. 51-48 McCain
7. 53-46 McCain

Sure, districts 2-4 and 6 give democrats hope, but how much chance do they really have in districts that even McCain carried? Even if you run Mike McIntyre-style candidates, you still might lose due to lower turnout among the democratic base. Plus you have to take into account that South Carolina may revert back to its 2004 position in presidential years once Obama isn't driving up black turnout anymore, so these districts might not actually be as competitive as they seem from the 2008 results. And most if not all mainstream democrats would have no chance of victory in any of these districts outside of democratic wave years and perfect storm situations.
Logged
Asian Nazi
d32123
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,523
China


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: November 28, 2015, 07:05:18 PM »

Yeah getting rid of the VRA would obliterate the Democrats in the South and have little effect on increasing their representation elsewhere.  This isn't the 1990's anymore.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: November 28, 2015, 08:56:03 PM »

Multi member districts (STV or something similar) could be a better way to boost minority representation IMO.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: November 28, 2015, 10:20:18 PM »

Getting rid of the VRA would still help the Democrats...if the Democrats were still in power in the South. You could easily double House representation in most Southern states without the VRA and with Democrats in charge of map creation, but alas. Still, VRA abolition might still help Dems in some states, as it would eliminate the justification for the drawing of some rather ludicrous districts that would likely lead to certain sets of maps being struck down by the courts and redrawn in a fairer manner.
Logged
smoltchanov
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,376
Russian Federation


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: November 29, 2015, 12:38:18 AM »

Agree with many arguments here, but - still think that Republicans will gladly agree for "change" i described above: creation of 1 very Democratic VRA district in exchange for 2-3 districts made heavily Republican instead of swingish. And yes, IF Democrats want to win swingish or even somewhat republican-leaning districts in the  South, they must run a candidates like McIntyre, Barrow, Taylor and Bright in them. Otherwise - they will lose them even in relatively good years, and to rather lousy Republican candidates. Simply because most of the South (in fact - almost all, except some big metropolises) is NOT especially progressive. Nancy Pelosi-style candidates seldom win there. But JBE-type (populist, but pro-life, pro-gun, and so on) - can...
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,578
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: November 29, 2015, 02:46:38 AM »

Agree with many arguments here, but - still think that Republicans will gladly agree for "change" i described above: creation of 1 very Democratic VRA district in exchange for 2-3 districts made heavily Republican instead of swingish. And yes, IF Democrats want to win swingish or even somewhat republican-leaning districts in the  South, they must run a candidates like McIntyre, Barrow, Taylor and Bright in them. Otherwise - they will lose them even in relatively good years, and to rather lousy Republican candidates. Simply because most of the South (in fact - almost all, except some big metropolises) is NOT especially progressive. Nancy Pelosi-style candidates seldom win there. But JBE-type (populist, but pro-life, pro-gun, and so on) - can...

Oh, of course the Republicans would never agree to repeal VRA, and I'm not trying to argue they would support doing so. Obviously, being guaranteed all but one district in the state no matter what is better than being at risk of losing 2 or 3 swingish seats in a state during a wave year. But you seemed to think upthread that repealing VRA would be a good way to ensure future democratic success. Given the current state legislature map - or even one slightly better for dems - repealing VRA would actually be a net negative for democrats.
Logged
smoltchanov
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,376
Russian Federation


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: November 29, 2015, 05:06:54 AM »

Agree with many arguments here, but - still think that Republicans will gladly agree for "change" i described above: creation of 1 very Democratic VRA district in exchange for 2-3 districts made heavily Republican instead of swingish. And yes, IF Democrats want to win swingish or even somewhat republican-leaning districts in the  South, they must run a candidates like McIntyre, Barrow, Taylor and Bright in them. Otherwise - they will lose them even in relatively good years, and to rather lousy Republican candidates. Simply because most of the South (in fact - almost all, except some big metropolises) is NOT especially progressive. Nancy Pelosi-style candidates seldom win there. But JBE-type (populist, but pro-life, pro-gun, and so on) - can...

Oh, of course the Republicans would never agree to repeal VRA, and I'm not trying to argue they would support doing so. Obviously, being guaranteed all but one district in the state no matter what is better than being at risk of losing 2 or 3 swingish seats in a state during a wave year. But you seemed to think upthread that repealing VRA would be a good way to ensure future democratic success. Given the current state legislature map - or even one slightly better for dems - repealing VRA would actually be a net negative for democrats.

Still disagree. somewhat Of course -what you say is  possible under an extremely heavy gerrymandering. But, frankly, i think, Democrats don't have too much to lose having now 0 districts in Arkansas and Oklahoma (and West Virginia if we count it as Southern), 1 - in Kentucky, Alabama, South Carolina, Louisiana and Mississippi, 2 - in Tennessee, and even 3 in Virinia and North Carolina and 4 - in Georgia. In 12 states out of 14 we count as Southern here Democrats essentially have nowhere to go, but up. IMHO, under more or less "normal" district borders Democrats would have no worse chances without VRA. Yes, some Democrats would be white "blue Dogs", but - nevertheless.... As it is - it's utterly uninteresting to observe typical southern politics anymore: statewide - all Republican (with few exceptions because of specific circumstances), VRA-districts - black Democratic, all other - white, Repubican and conservative... Boring...
Logged
Bandit3 the Worker
Populist3
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,952


Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -9.92

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: December 02, 2015, 02:07:31 PM »

I think it may be too late to affect the 2020 redistricting cycle (in which we might see Republicans cementing their dominance, particularly in every southern legislature), but we can begin the process in time to affect the 2030 redistricting cycle:

2030 will be too late. I'll be 57. Most Americans my age will have grandkids by then.

Many of us won't make it that long.

Things have to start changing NOW.
Logged
Bandit3 the Worker
Populist3
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,952


Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -9.92

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: December 02, 2015, 02:13:20 PM »

Probably the best thing to do would have a progressive version of the Tea Party. Too bad The Media won't allow it.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,999
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: December 02, 2015, 05:43:51 PM »

Probably the best thing to do would have a progressive version of the Tea Party. Too bad The Media won't allow it.

Yeah, imagine all the seats you'd win ... LOL.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,999
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: December 02, 2015, 05:56:20 PM »

Probably the best thing to do would have a progressive version of the Tea Party. Too bad The Media won't allow it.

Yeah, imagine all the seats you'd win ... LOL.

Sometimes I wonder if a McCain win in 2008 would have led to Sanders types winning D primaries in red states come 2010.

Certainly possible.  McCain almost certainly would have been a one-termer no matter what.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.054 seconds with 13 queries.