So New York just finished up redistricting and it ended up going to the courts, with a judge finally drawing the lines. A nice NY Times interactive map of the changes.
I'm personally saddened I lose my D congressman since I'm no longer in the 23rd but got moved into the 22nd. Having now taken a look at the lines they got rid of much of the stupid gerrymandered districts, with no more long strips into adjacent districts.
Of course, the first time my new R congressman said that made the news is that people should give cash to Democrats....so now I'm conflicted.
So New York just finished up redistricting and it ended up going to the courts, with a judge finally drawing the lines. A nice NY Times interactive map of the changes.
I'm personally saddened I lose my D congressman since I'm no longer in the 23rd but got moved into the 22nd. Having now taken a look at the lines they got rid of much of the stupid gerrymandered districts, with no more long strips into adjacent districts.
Of course, the first time my new R congressman said that made the news is that people should give cash to Democrats....so now I'm conflicted.
It's almost like party identification shouldn't be the only thing one considers when voting.
Non Snarky Response: Research your new guy and any opponents, then make a choice based on that. Just 'cause he's a republican doesn't make him a shit and just because he said a shiny speech doesn't mean he walks the walk.
So New York just finished up redistricting and it ended up going to the courts, with a judge finally drawing the lines. A nice NY Times interactive map of the changes.
I'm personally saddened I lose my D congressman since I'm no longer in the 23rd but got moved into the 22nd. Having now taken a look at the lines they got rid of much of the stupid gerrymandered districts, with no more long strips into adjacent districts.
Of course, the first time my new R congressman said that made the news is that people should give cash to Democrats....so now I'm conflicted.
It's almost like party identification shouldn't be the only thing one considers when voting.
Non Snarky Response: Research your new guy and any opponents, then make a choice based on that. Just 'cause he's a republican doesn't make him a shit and just because he said a shiny speech doesn't mean he walks the walk.
Get informed. Get involved.
Sorry, but he still votes the wrong way on the most important vote in the House.
So New York just finished up redistricting and it ended up going to the courts, with a judge finally drawing the lines. A nice NY Times interactive map of the changes.
I'm personally saddened I lose my D congressman since I'm no longer in the 23rd but got moved into the 22nd. Having now taken a look at the lines they got rid of much of the stupid gerrymandered districts, with no more long strips into adjacent districts.
Of course, the first time my new R congressman said that made the news is that people should give cash to Democrats....so now I'm conflicted.
It's almost like party identification shouldn't be the only thing one considers when voting.
Non Snarky Response: Research your new guy and any opponents, then make a choice based on that. Just 'cause he's a republican doesn't make him a shit and just because he said a shiny speech doesn't mean he walks the walk.
Get informed. Get involved.
Sorry, but he still votes the wrong way on the most important vote in the House.
No reason to apologize to me, I couldn't care less about a representative in a state I don't live in getting the boot if he's a cock. I'm busy making sure my congresscritter gets corralled correctly.
Yea, that one vote is pretty damning in the current environment. Previously I was much more tolerant with of "New York Republicans" which were more liberal than some Democrats. Lately though....the next district on the other side got Burkle who is a scary stepford wife spewing Fox News talking points.
I'll be really pissed if we end up with a GOP majority in the senate because of King. If the dems can manage 50 or more members without him, then I could really care less.
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
There's really no way that the GOP doesn't get a majority unless Obama has a blowout and his coat tails pick up a lot of slack down ticket. The GOP only needs 4 seats and something like 21 or so of the seats up for grabs are Democrats and 10 Republicans.
But, if the Democrats are smart they should pick up the house.
There's really no way that the GOP doesn't get a majority unless Obama has a blowout and his coat tails pick up a lot of slack down ticket. The GOP only needs 4 seats and something like 21 or so of the seats up for grabs are Democrats and 10 Republicans.
But, if the Democrats are smart they should pick up the house.
Wouldn't we expect most of the seats to remain with the party they are with? A 4 seat swing is pretty big when you consider the fact that 90% of districts won't change hands. Honestly I'd expect the republicans to lose more as a fraction than democrats, since while the republicans are spouting a lot of rage their campaign has been a disaster for them with anyone except the religious hard right.
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
There's really no way that the GOP doesn't get a majority unless Obama has a blowout and his coat tails pick up a lot of slack down ticket. The GOP only needs 4 seats and something like 21 or so of the seats up for grabs are Democrats and 10 Republicans.
But, if the Democrats are smart they should pick up the house.
Wouldn't we expect most of the seats to remain with the party they are with? A 4 seat swing is pretty big when you consider the fact that 90% of districts won't change hands. Honestly I'd expect the republicans to lose more as a fraction than democrats, since while the republicans are spouting a lot of rage their campaign has been a disaster for them with anyone except the religious hard right.
Four seats is less than they got last time, much less. The GOP is going to be funneling money into the Senate races. There's massive anti-incumbent feeling for Congress right now, which will hurt the Republicans in the House and the Democrats in the Senate. Unless the GOP keeps up its shit through the year and there's a Democrat sweep, but I doubt that very much.
There's really no way that the GOP doesn't get a majority unless Obama has a blowout and his coat tails pick up a lot of slack down ticket. The GOP only needs 4 seats and something like 21 or so of the seats up for grabs are Democrats and 10 Republicans.
But, if the Democrats are smart they should pick up the house.
Wouldn't we expect most of the seats to remain with the party they are with? A 4 seat swing is pretty big when you consider the fact that 90% of districts won't change hands. Honestly I'd expect the republicans to lose more as a fraction than democrats, since while the republicans are spouting a lot of rage their campaign has been a disaster for them with anyone except the religious hard right.
Four seats is less than they got last time, much less. The GOP is going to be funneling money into the Senate races. There's massive anti-incumbent feeling for Congress right now, which will hurt the Republicans in the House and the Democrats in the Senate. Unless the GOP keeps up its shit through the year and there's a Democrat sweep, but I doubt that very much.
I think that the actual breakdown of voters will have a much bigger influence than you think. If Obama wins, then I don't think the Democrats lose many seats no matter how much anti-incumbancy there is. If he does well, I think they gain seats in both houses. It really comes down to which seats are up for grabs, yeah, if 10 of the seats for the democrats are seats no democrat had ever won in a decade then sure there will be losses but I imagine it's the standard mix of long termers, first time people in safe seats, and first time people in risky seats for both sides. Unless the democrats have a much larger fraction of the latter simple anti-incumbancy wont mean anything.
The republicans have grabbed onto the sword of extremism pretty hard, and in the 'always on camera' world we live in there is no way for their candidate to get away from those statements he made in the primary. So they just have to hold on and hope, and it's just going to lead to a nice high turnout which will be good for democrats. Last time there was a very low turnout, and people were upset that Obama wasn't magic. This time there is much more experience of what massive government cutbacks mean, and centrists have realized they don't like it.
There has never been an anti-incumbent cycle (defined as hurting significant numbers of members of both parties); in every election in the last century, we've either had virtually everyone reelected, or most people defeated being from the same party. Similarly, though the map is hard for Senate Democrats this cycle, it's by no means impossible or even unlikely to hold the Senate, particularly with a bad nominee in Florida. If Brown loses in Massachusetts, then Democrats can lose Florida, Montana, North Dakota, and Nebraska (only the latter two are likely at this point), but still hold the Senate, if by a hair.
Other way around. Connie Mack has been posting at parity against him, but the two guys running against him in the GOP primary are not doing as well.
Ah, ok. My mistake then. Yeah, the whole GOP Senate race down here is shenanigans.
0
valhalla13013 Dark Shield Perceives the GodsRegistered Userregular
edited March 2012
I wish I could care more about congressional elections. Even though the city in Georgia I live in has a high minority count, and would likely vote mostly democratic, districting has ensured none of our congresspeople will ever be democrats. So even though I vote, it seems like it just doesn't matter.
There's really no way that the GOP doesn't get a majority unless Obama has a blowout and his coat tails pick up a lot of slack down ticket. The GOP only needs 4 seats and something like 21 or so of the seats up for grabs are Democrats and 10 Republicans.
But, if the Democrats are smart they should pick up the house.
Actually things have improved. There's two likely R pickups (ND, NE) and a whole bunch of toss-ups that the Democrats win in a good year. With Romney killing enthusiasm, I would no longer be shocked to see the Democrats retain control of the Senate.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
There's really no way that the GOP doesn't get a majority unless Obama has a blowout and his coat tails pick up a lot of slack down ticket. The GOP only needs 4 seats and something like 21 or so of the seats up for grabs are Democrats and 10 Republicans.
But, if the Democrats are smart they should pick up the house.
Actually things have improved. There's two likely R pickups (ND, NE) and a whole bunch of toss-ups that the Democrats win in a good year. With Romney killing enthusiasm, I would no longer be shocked to see the Democrats retain control of the Senate.
So Paul Ryan has a new budget which probably shocks no one by offering tax cuts to the rich and tax hikes (oh sorry, "closing loopholes" by eliminating deductions) for the poor, which will somehow balance out.
I looked and realized he represents Wisconsin, so I wasn't sure if I should put this here or in the Wisconsin thread.
It's campaign news more than governing news, so here is accurate. Though it's also been discussed a little in the primary thread, as he's a VP candidate.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
So Paul Ryan has a new budget which probably shocks no one by offering tax cuts to the rich and tax hikes (oh sorry, "closing loopholes" by eliminating deductions) for the poor, which will somehow balance out.
He's speaking truth to power. Of course, Big Poverty will crucify him over this.
So Paul Ryan has a new budget which probably shocks no one by offering tax cuts to the rich and tax hikes (oh sorry, "closing loopholes" by eliminating deductions) for the poor, which will somehow balance out.
He's speaking truth to power. Of course, Big Poverty will crucify him over this.
This makes me laugh.
Of course, I never expected to see a news show talk about how Obama's in the pocket of "Big Labor" either.
Heh. George Allen has web ads for raising $25,000. George, if that's your idea of a goal for a fundraiser, you're going to have a lot of trouble paying for anything.
Go the fuck away, Olympia Snowe. Go make your millions lobbying for whoever and shut up.
Fucking egotistical blowhards like her are why the Senate should be abolished. Well, more specifically the ridiculous rules that make them all egotistical blowhards, but whatever.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I want to be optimistic that we might just see Cantor go this year. Except I have to remember that our media pretty much fails, the GOP has created plenty of willing idiots through inadequate education systems, the Dems have a bad habit of shooting themselves in the foot and that the GOP tends to do a good job at controlling the narrative.
That said, if this results in a move to unseat Cantor as the Majority/Minority Leader (depends on when it'll happen and who will control the house) before the general election. That might be enough to entice people to not vote for him since that should be a clear indication that if he loses, he isn't going to have much say in House affairs and a freshman democrat may have more influence than Cantor. It would also make the charge that he doesn't care about anyone but himself stick even better, which already has some traction thanks to his response to providing aid in regards to last fall's earthquake and the two tropical systems that followed it.
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
edited April 2012
I have this funny feeling that instead of Cantor getting the boot, the full force and fury of the party is going to go toward the Super PAC for letting it slip that he gave the money.
And it will add to the chorus of "We wouldn't have Super PACs if people could just give money to candidates, that's everyone's problem with campaign financing, yeah? Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to continue my experiment to shove my head up through my own ass until it comes out of my mouth again."
I'm pretty sure the last successful challenge to Congressional leadership happened in 1910, when Joe Cannon lost a chunk of his power.
The thing is it doesn't even have to be successful or even have a good chance of succeeding. All that really needs to happen is that it takes place and the public learns that it's happening because Cantor was backstabbing members of his own party. Just that along would be enough to make him look weaker during the election season. Like I said, I'm not holding my breath but since it looks like I'll be redistricted into his district, I'll do what I legally can to help his opponent win and anything that hurts him is a godsend IMO.
Right, but that's not a challenge to Congressional leadership, that's just the Speaker being defeated for reelection. Which is very rare, I'll grant you, but not what I'm talking about.
Posts
I'm personally saddened I lose my D congressman since I'm no longer in the 23rd but got moved into the 22nd. Having now taken a look at the lines they got rid of much of the stupid gerrymandered districts, with no more long strips into adjacent districts.
Of course, the first time my new R congressman said that made the news is that people should give cash to Democrats....so now I'm conflicted.
It's almost like party identification shouldn't be the only thing one considers when voting.
Non Snarky Response: Research your new guy and any opponents, then make a choice based on that. Just 'cause he's a republican doesn't make him a shit and just because he said a shiny speech doesn't mean he walks the walk.
Get informed. Get involved.
Sorry, but he still votes the wrong way on the most important vote in the House.
No reason to apologize to me, I couldn't care less about a representative in a state I don't live in getting the boot if he's a cock. I'm busy making sure my congresscritter gets corralled correctly.
Anybody who votes for someone based on one speech is a bit of a goose.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
But, if the Democrats are smart they should pick up the house.
Wouldn't we expect most of the seats to remain with the party they are with? A 4 seat swing is pretty big when you consider the fact that 90% of districts won't change hands. Honestly I'd expect the republicans to lose more as a fraction than democrats, since while the republicans are spouting a lot of rage their campaign has been a disaster for them with anyone except the religious hard right.
Four seats is less than they got last time, much less. The GOP is going to be funneling money into the Senate races. There's massive anti-incumbent feeling for Congress right now, which will hurt the Republicans in the House and the Democrats in the Senate. Unless the GOP keeps up its shit through the year and there's a Democrat sweep, but I doubt that very much.
I think that the actual breakdown of voters will have a much bigger influence than you think. If Obama wins, then I don't think the Democrats lose many seats no matter how much anti-incumbancy there is. If he does well, I think they gain seats in both houses. It really comes down to which seats are up for grabs, yeah, if 10 of the seats for the democrats are seats no democrat had ever won in a decade then sure there will be losses but I imagine it's the standard mix of long termers, first time people in safe seats, and first time people in risky seats for both sides. Unless the democrats have a much larger fraction of the latter simple anti-incumbancy wont mean anything.
The republicans have grabbed onto the sword of extremism pretty hard, and in the 'always on camera' world we live in there is no way for their candidate to get away from those statements he made in the primary. So they just have to hold on and hope, and it's just going to lead to a nice high turnout which will be good for democrats. Last time there was a very low turnout, and people were upset that Obama wasn't magic. This time there is much more experience of what massive government cutbacks mean, and centrists have realized they don't like it.
I believe the point was that the GOP nominee is a weak candidate.
Ah, ok. My mistake then. Yeah, the whole GOP Senate race down here is shenanigans.
Actually things have improved. There's two likely R pickups (ND, NE) and a whole bunch of toss-ups that the Democrats win in a good year. With Romney killing enthusiasm, I would no longer be shocked to see the Democrats retain control of the Senate.
This is heartening news, EB.
I looked and realized he represents Wisconsin, so I wasn't sure if I should put this here or in the Wisconsin thread.
He's speaking truth to power. Of course, Big Poverty will crucify him over this.
This makes me laugh.
Of course, I never expected to see a news show talk about how Obama's in the pocket of "Big Labor" either.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Fucking egotistical blowhards like her are why the Senate should be abolished. Well, more specifically the ridiculous rules that make them all egotistical blowhards, but whatever.
God damn, is it too much to hope that this might mean he has to take a "leave of absence"
Copied over from the POTUS election thread
@Gosling linked us up on this story.
I'd like to think it'll get some play, but I really doubt it.
Bob Corker's gonna have a challenger this year... I highly doubt he'll be dismounted, however.
that's a damn shame. the whole point of a SuperPAC is the donations are anonymous, right? Poor Cantor, betrayed by the people he gave $25K to,
That said, if this results in a move to unseat Cantor as the Majority/Minority Leader (depends on when it'll happen and who will control the house) before the general election. That might be enough to entice people to not vote for him since that should be a clear indication that if he loses, he isn't going to have much say in House affairs and a freshman democrat may have more influence than Cantor. It would also make the charge that he doesn't care about anyone but himself stick even better, which already has some traction thanks to his response to providing aid in regards to last fall's earthquake and the two tropical systems that followed it.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
And it will add to the chorus of "We wouldn't have Super PACs if people could just give money to candidates, that's everyone's problem with campaign financing, yeah? Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to continue my experiment to shove my head up through my own ass until it comes out of my mouth again."
The thing is it doesn't even have to be successful or even have a good chance of succeeding. All that really needs to happen is that it takes place and the public learns that it's happening because Cantor was backstabbing members of his own party. Just that along would be enough to make him look weaker during the election season. Like I said, I'm not holding my breath but since it looks like I'll be redistricted into his district, I'll do what I legally can to help his opponent win and anything that hurts him is a godsend IMO.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
But I doubt D-Trip will make a serious effort.