Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


(6,907 posts)
Thu Feb 18, 2016, 11:10 AM Feb 2016

The problem I see

Is gerrymandering.

When Bush was in the white house the republicans took over many state legislatures. The districting was based on the 2000 census and the GOP used that in many states to gerry mander districts for the House. And to gerry mander districts for the state legislatures. There are many districts that are so republican that there are always going to be republicans elected to the house in those districts.

Through primaries, republicans have been running to out-nut each other, to prove who is the most "true conservative." Because only the extreme vote in the primaries, they get a nominee in those gerrymandered district who is extremely right. Then when the general comes more people come out and vote for whoever the republican is. So the House moves right, and there isn't a lot we can do about it right now in my view.

For the senate, a state like California or New York gets two senators each, a state like Idaho or Alabama gets two each. So even though the entire US population may prefer center-left over all, the small states with smaller and more rural populations get equal numbers of senators. I'm not saying that is a bad thing, but it makes it more likely for republicans to get voted in by those small states.

We can win the presidency if we get the vote out, but we aren't going to win congress.

Now here is the thing, if we don't get the vote out and win the Presidency, then we have an increasingly crazy, right-wing legislature from the gerrymandering and a right wing President that won't veto them. I think it is a worse scenario than during the Bush years because the people who get elected to the legislature from the GOP have become even more extreme. I find that really scary.

I hate to think that grid-lock is the best we can do, but it is sure better than a GOP-led executive and legislative branch and a who knows what judicial.

We have got to get the vote out. I am not saying that we can't win congressional seats, I think we can, but I think it is going to be harder to take majorities with the gerrymandering.

That's just my opinion and I may be wrong.

4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The problem I see (Original Post) d_r Feb 2016 OP
With an organized DNC (!) dragonfly301 Feb 2016 #1
OH, I think the Senate is possible d_r Feb 2016 #2
we just need to pick up 4 seats dragonfly301 Feb 2016 #3
OH I get it now d_r Feb 2016 #4


(399 posts)
1. With an organized DNC (!)
Thu Feb 18, 2016, 11:21 AM
Feb 2016

we should be able to pick up the senate - here's a link to the senate seats that are up http://www.270towin.com/2016-senate-election/
detailing which seats are safe for the incumbent party and which seats might be flipped. It's definitely possible for the dems to take control of the Senate especially with a presidential candidate that voters are enthusiastic about.


(6,907 posts)
2. OH, I think the Senate is possible
Thu Feb 18, 2016, 11:29 AM
Feb 2016

On that map, if we win every contested state then it is a straight 50-50 split, and then the vp is tie breaker. Is that our best case scenario though? If we lose just one of those 9 contested states it would be 51-49 GOP, and 6 of the 9 are GOP incumbent. I just see winning the presidency as critical.


(6,907 posts)
4. OH I get it now
Thu Feb 18, 2016, 01:17 PM
Feb 2016

Thanks for that, makes me feel better about the world. I see where I was thinking wrong.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The problem I see