TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

Nov 2023 Mod notice:


There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.

If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.

Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.

If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.


In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.

Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM

Tangent128 from Virginia Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Gonna take a lot to drag me away from you
#39251: Nov 8th 2012 at 7:34:37 PM

Well hey, apart from abortion I find myself sympathetic to the Greens ona lot of issues too.

Even with her habit of getting arrested every other week, I gave Stein strong consideration.

Do you highlight everything looking for secret messages?
DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#39252: Nov 8th 2012 at 7:39:13 PM

Mitch McConnell is already back to obstruction at all costs

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#39253: Nov 8th 2012 at 7:40:15 PM

The Greydon Square albums gotta go though.
Canada PM (Stephen Harper) urges Obama to avoid "fiscal cliff"
Small wonder. Even our Republican North party doesn't want you to burn the economy to the ground. Y'all buy most of our stuff.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
HilarityEnsues Since: Sep, 2009
#39254: Nov 8th 2012 at 7:42:39 PM

The American people... preserved Republican control of the House of Representatives.

nope

RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#39255: Nov 8th 2012 at 7:48:28 PM
Completion oldtimeytropey from Space Since: Apr, 2012
oldtimeytropey
#39256: Nov 8th 2012 at 7:48:56 PM

Gerrymandering. Also, Democrats increased their seats by about 10 (?).

Also - Republicans in 2016! Who do think will run? I'm placing money on Santorum, Christie, and Rubio.

nightwyrm_zero Since: Apr, 2010
#39257: Nov 8th 2012 at 7:58:34 PM

Doesn't the GOP runner-up always get to be the new candidate? Santorum 2016 would be hilarious.

Filby Since: Jan, 2001
#39258: Nov 8th 2012 at 7:59:57 PM

It'll be another extremist—Santorum, Perry, Huckabee, one of their ilk. The GOP just doesn't learn.

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#39259: Nov 8th 2012 at 8:01:35 PM

I think it's far to early to make any solid predictions on candidates four years down the line.

Kind of doubt Santorum will run again, though.

PotatoesRock Since: Oct, 2012
#39260: Nov 8th 2012 at 8:04:19 PM

"Newt Gingrich 2016: He'll take us to the moon where we can found the New United States of America."

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
Swish Long Live the King Since: Jan, 2001
Long Live the King
#39262: Nov 8th 2012 at 8:09:38 PM

Got to be honest... I find the implication that Democrat controlled States were not gerrymandered to be amusing...

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#39263: Nov 8th 2012 at 8:12:31 PM

All we can hope for is a follow through of voting in Democrats in the '14 election. No idea if people will still be listening at that point, though.

GlennMagusHarvey Since: Jan, 2001
#39264: Nov 8th 2012 at 8:16:12 PM

Well crap. :/

Well, if it gives you any comfort, Reichert, Gerlach, and Matheson are of a very different sort from Bachmann. The three of them are of the wrong party given their districts' leans. (Though Reichert just got more favorable turf this time around so he won't be as much of an example.)

On the other hand, Bachmann's issue is that she's the "right" party given her district's lean but she's way far on the end of that side.

terlwyth Since: Oct, 2010
#39265: Nov 8th 2012 at 8:17:05 PM

Christie/Rubio please,it's the sanest

NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#39266: Nov 8th 2012 at 8:19:13 PM

Got to be honest... I find the implication that Democrat controlled States were not gerrymandered to be amusing...
Do you have anything to suggest that they actually were? Because otherwise you're just blowing false equivalence smoke.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
HilarityEnsues Since: Sep, 2009
#39267: Nov 8th 2012 at 8:32:21 PM

Didn't say the Democrats didn't do it. I just think the claim that there was resounding support for a Republican majority in the house falls a little flat when the gap in the votes is that high.

And I'd like to see Huntsman/Christie, but that has about as much chance of happening as, well, Huntsman/anyone.

Completion oldtimeytropey from Space Since: Apr, 2012
oldtimeytropey
#39268: Nov 8th 2012 at 8:38:20 PM

Santorum's been gearing up for a primary. I'll find the article I read, but it seems like he's going to do it.

Here we go

edited 8th Nov '12 8:40:32 PM by Completion

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#39269: Nov 8th 2012 at 8:56:47 PM

In California, Gerrymandering is a bipartisan sport.

...I'm being serious.

After the 2000 year census, the legislature was obliged to set new district boundaries, both for the state Assembly and Senate and for federal congressional districts (C Ds). The Republican and Democratic parties came to an agreement to gerrymander the boundaries. It was mutually decided that the status quo in terms of balance of power would be preserved. With this goal, districts were assigned to voters in such a way that they were dominated by one or the other party, with few districts that could be considered competitive.

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Swish Long Live the King Since: Jan, 2001
Long Live the King
#39270: Nov 8th 2012 at 9:03:49 PM

Do you have anything to suggest that they actually were? Because otherwise you're just blowing false equivalence smoke.

There are roughly 200 years worth of evidence to show that both parties gerrymander the House districts...

The only difference between most other decades and this one is that the Republicans were especially blatant about it this past time around. That'll bite them in the ass in 2020(assuming Democrats take the state legislatures in those states), but it's nothing "new"...


Didn't say the Democrats didn't do it.

I didn't say you said that. I said you implied it. tongue

edited 8th Nov '12 9:05:20 PM by Swish

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#39271: Nov 8th 2012 at 9:06:12 PM

[up]

That's pretty amazing considering neither party is 200 years old. tongue

But yeah, both parties are pretty damn guilty when it comes to Gerrymandering.

edited 8th Nov '12 9:06:33 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#39272: Nov 8th 2012 at 9:07:57 PM

Its a natural product of allowing governments to control electoral boundaries. Anyone who doesn't do it is shooting themselves in the foot.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
GlennMagusHarvey Since: Jan, 2001
#39273: Nov 8th 2012 at 9:10:13 PM

I don't like Christie that much because he's a bit of a jerk.

> > Got to be honest... I find the implication that Democrat controlled States were not gerrymandered to be amusing...
> Do you have anything to suggest that they actually were? Because otherwise you're just blowing false equivalence smoke.

The only example where the Dems got to go absolutely nuts with gerrymandering is Illinois. And even there, its incumbent delegation is 8 D 11 R, and that became 12 D 6 R after the 2012 elections. And that state went for Obama 57-41, so it actually now more accurately reflects its partisan lean. Okay, fine, lop off a D.

You could argue that Massachusetts has too Dem of a delegation, so maybe lop off three seats of its full-slate nine.

New York's delegation will be 21 D 6 R. Maybe if you really care, lop off a D or two, but remember it did go O 63 R 36.

New Jersey's current delegation will be a 6-6 tie. Yet NJ went 58-41 for Obama...so we should be adding another D to that, perhaps.

Maryland went for Obama 61-37, and will have a 7 D 1 R delegation. You could argue for lopping off two Ds in the new delegation, as this definitely was a D-favoring gerrymander.

In Arkansas, Dems controlled the redistricting trifecta but somehow produced a gerrymander favoring the Repubs. Yes, you read me right. Dems held all four seats a few cycles ago; they currently hold just 1 (3 R), and come January, they'll hold 0 (4 R). I don't know what idiocy possessed them, but this actually ought to be +1 D.

A few Dem gains in the 2012 elections were in California, but it was actually "un-gerrymandered", arguably—the district lines were completely redrawn and re-numbered by an independent redistricting commission. The previous map was an incumbent-protection map which...well, favored incumbents, which actually has been more R-leaning. The current delegation is 34 D 19 R and I feel too lazy to add up the new delegation but it's similar but with a few fewer Rs. Lop off a few Ds if you want, let's say three.

Also lop off a couple Ds from the Connecticut delegation if you want; that state has 5 D 0 R but went 58-41 for Obama. And lop one off for Oregon's 4 D 1 R.

Finally, lop off one D each for Hawaii, Maine, and New Hampshire.

So in total that's -14 D.

All this is not enough to compare to these results:

  • Florida (O 50 R 49) - 10 D 17 R (should have +4 D)
  • Ohio (O 50 R 48) - 4 D 12 R (should have +4 D)
  • Wisconsin (O 53 R 46) - 3 D 5 R (should have +1 D)
  • Michigan (O 54 R 46) - 6 D 8 R, soon to be 5 D 9 R (should have +2 D at least)
  • Virginia (O 51 R 48) - 3 D 8 R (should have +3 D)
  • Indiana (O 44 R 54) - 2 D 7 R (should have +2 D)
  • North Carolina (O 48 R 51) - 4 D 13 R (should have +4 D)
  • Kansas (O 38 R 60) - 0 D 4 R (should have +1 D)
  • Nebraska (O 38 R 61) - 0 D 3 R (should have +1 D)
  • Oklahoma (O 33 R 67) - 0 D 5 R (should have +2 D)
  • Texas (O 41 R 57) - 12 D 24 R (should have +3 D)

That's +27 D, for a net gain of 27 - 14 = +13 D. Now, a House with 229 Republicans is still under Republican control, but that is much more reasonable, especially given how the western state lines are effectively gerrymandered to favor Republicans (as I think was actually intentional way back when they joined the Union, but which persists because these largely rural areas tend to be more Republican-leaning).

Now you could take issue with the fact that I was just matching delegations to the closest approximation of their presidential results, rather than taking into account things like keeping districts reasonably compact or something. It might very well be that Dems in Oklahoma are so scattered that it would be hard to draw +2 D for OK, for example. And note that when an independent redistricting authority redrew the California lines, it basically unraveled an incumbent protection map and actually favored the Dems more than the Pres numbers would suggest.

But...still.

edited 8th Nov '12 9:17:28 PM by GlennMagusHarvey

RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#39274: Nov 8th 2012 at 9:15:23 PM

In my family, and this is a tradition that goes back, there's a rule for dividing slices of cake among children. Whoever slices the cake is the last person to choose his or her slice. The resulting slices of cake are meticulously even in size

Here's an idea: the party that's out of power gets to divide the districts. HOWEVER, they have to divide the state up into TWICE as many districts as are necessary. The party that's in power gets to merge pairs of districts, as they choose, so as to come to the right number.

I bet that will produce the fairest districts ever. They'll be measuring it down to the inches.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
shimaspawn from Here and Now Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: In your bunk
#39275: Nov 8th 2012 at 9:15:23 PM

Actually, most of Illinois' Gerrymandering is to keep like minorities together so that they get representation. It is really insane though especially in and around Chicago. My district looks like a backwards c.

[up] Districts aren't by size, they're by population. That's why a lot of times cities are their own districts separate from the surrounding areas.

edited 8th Nov '12 9:17:05 PM by shimaspawn

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick

Total posts: 417,856
Top