Well what would call it when some poster goes apeshit over a typing error. Good God, man. Maybe you need to find a real job and get off these boards for a while. Go back and look at all your posts over the last week and tell me that's a sane, healthy and happy person.
Your typing error changed the entire context of your argument, if it was a typing error then fine, however I have seen infinite varieties of 'WHATABOUT' from your side, it's hard to assume that it was simply an error rather than intentional. And I am not a happy person when it comes to politics, you either encounter sophistry or absolute idiocy, how can any thinking person be happy about the state of affairs. It's a literal cult of absolute retards out there. This is the only board where I even discuss politics, on reddit I can just downvote the idiots, here you don't have that option.
How fair are NC's voting maps? Check the math http://www.wral.com/how-fair-are-nc-s-voting-maps-we-did-the-math/17343694/ Watch the 5 minute Video for full information - http://www.wral.com/news/state/nccapitol/video/17346839/ Raleigh, N.C. — Across the country, courts are wrestling with a fundamental question that has far-ranging impacts on democracy: How do you define an illegal partisan gerrymander? Political maps have come a long way since 1812, when a newly-drawn, salamander-like district in Massachusetts invoked the ire of voters. Judges have found that a district doesn't have to look monstrous to qualify as unconstitutional, especially given the capabilities of mapmakers to use computational power to precisely slice and dice a state into pieces more favorable to Democrats or Republicans. But where you draw the line on gerrymandering is a matter of debate so hotly contested it's currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. Back in 2013, a team of mathematicians at Duke University, led by professor Jonathan Mattingly, set out to find a way to analyze maps to determine what was fair and what wasn't. Their methods worked so well that a three-judge panel in January used the research as justification to overturn Republican-drawn congressional maps from 2016. However, the maps will stand for the 2018 elections following a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the panel's order redraw the lines. Watch the video above to learn how the Duke team's math works and what it showed about the state of congressional districts in North Carolina.
the lefties should be careful what the wish for. based on watching how gerrymandering has been done of the years. I would bet that democrats may pick up a few seats but that instead of being able to run a party full of lefty wackos in sure win areas. They will have to start competing with more centrist and partially conservative candidates party wide or the close seats will flip back anyway. Gerrymandering helped create the polarization of a Congress filled with far too many morons owned by a few cronies. Getting rid of the gerrymandering (properly) should be good for patriotic, non pre- fascist, non identity politics Americans.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/.../us/.../supreme-court-north-carolina-gerrymandering.h... The Supreme Court’s move was expected and not particularly telling. The court, which is considering two other major tests of partisan gerrymandering, has granted stays in similar settings. Its decisions in the pending cases, from Wisconsin and Maryland, are likely to effectively decide the North Carolina case, too.
Why the new Pennsylvania map is a 'huge' deal in the fight for House control http://www.wral.com/why-the-new-pen...deal-in-the-fight-for-house-control/17356604/ On Monday, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court redrew the state's congressional lines in advance of the 2018 election. (The court had previously ruled that the map drawn by Republicans earlier in the decade was driven mainly by partisan consideration and therefore in violation of the state's constitution.) The new map will fundamentally rejigger the state's politics and, at first glance, will make Democrats much more competitive in a state that has leaned their way for most of the last two decades. For more perspective on the Pennsylvania map -- and what it means in both Pennsylvania and in the fight for control of the House nationally, I reached to out my friend Jonathan Tamari, the national political reporter for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Our conversation, conducted via email and lightly edited for flow, is below. Cillizza: How did we get to this point? And is this the final final map for the 2018 election? Tamari: This is one of those stories that show how sometimes big things in politics take a long time to happen -- and then seem to happen all at once. In many ways, the fight traces back to the tea party wave of 2010. It gave Pennsylvania Republicans big wins in congressional races, and control of the Pennsylvania statehouse just as it was time to draw up new congressional maps. The GOP promptly took that control and made maps that effectively locked them into those competitive Congressional seats. Even with Barack Obama winning PA in 2012, and Dems winning about 51% of the congressional vote, they made zero gains in Congress -- and held just five of 18 seats. In 2015, though, Democrats won a majority on the state Supreme Court, and this year the court took up the gerrymandering debate. The court threw out the existing map as unfair in late January and ordered the GOP-controlled legislature and Democratic governor, Tom Wolf, to come up with a new plan. Of course they didn't compromise, and the court imposed its own map Monday. The result: in less than a month, the court has scrambled the political math that could affect control of the entire US House. Cillizza: This map seems to be very friendly for Democrats. Fair? Tamari: Yes. Democrats argue that this is basically establishing a PA map as it should be: almost evenly divided in a state where the vote typically splits close to 50-50. They'd add that this comes after years of facing an unfair GOP advantage, and that competitive districts are good for everyone, regardless of party. But when it comes to immediate electoral implications, I think few independent analysts thought it would turn out this well for Democrats -- who face natural geographic disadvantages, regardless of any gerrymandering. As some real smart analysts have said (among them, the Upshot crew at the NYT and Cook Political Report's Dave Wasserman) there were a number of decisions in these maps that could have reasonably gone either way. In almost every instance, they went in the Democrats' favor. You could make a fair case for just about all of them individually, and the map overall is inarguably more compact, contiguous and rational than what preceded it. It's not as if the court drew up a tortured Democratic mirror of the old GOP version. But add up all the decisions and this map helps Democrats more than almost anyone expected. Cillizza: What's the fallout been -- if any -- from the map so far? Do we expect retirements? Incumbents moving districts? Tamari: People were still trying to get their heads around it even late Monday night. Folks who have been working in politics for a long time were basically reduced to saying "this is crazy." I think a few key players are going to have to make big decisions that start the domino chain of decisions. Most immediately, Democrats are hoping Conor Lamb can pull off a big upset in a special election in western PA next month -- but even if he does, he might have to move districts by November to survive. In Philly, one incumbent, Democrat Brendan Boyle, has a very different district, and will have to decide if he stays in his current seat or moves over to neighboring Montgomery County (which he partially represents now, but is cut out of his new district). Depending on where he goes we could see a Democratic free-for-all for his open seat in Philly, or the one in Montgomery. A bunch of people who had lined up to run for an open Philly seat being vacated by Democrat Bob Brady suddenly are staring at two incumbents ahead of them and no opening (unless Boyle moves). Republican Scott Perry is one incumbent who, out of the blue, faces a much tougher district. Same with the GOP's Keith Rothfus in western PA. But can Democrats find good challengers fast enough to take advantage? These guys weren't even on the radar two days ago. Cillizza: Take a step back. How big a deal is this new map for Democrats trying to take back the House? For Republicans trying to keep it? Tamari: Huge. Under the old map, Democrats had one really good chance to flip a GOP seat and two or three others that were possible, but tough. Now you have to make Democrats the favorite to gain at least three Pennsylvania seats, and maybe more given the political environment this year. If a major wave shapes up, you could even see them going from five seats in Congress to 11. In another year, they'd be unlikely to fare that well and Republicans would have a good shot at a majority of the seats in good GOP years. But for 2018, you combine this new map with the traditional midterm backlash against the party in power, the current Democratic energy and presidential approval ratings, and suddenly, the state that effectively sealed President Trump's victory could be on the leading edge of Democrats' push to win back the House. Cillizza: Finish this sentence: "In 2019, at the start of the new Congress, the partisan breakdown of the Pennsylvania delegation will be _________." Now, explain. Tamari: "Nine-nine." Democrats hold the two seats in Philly and one centered on Pittsburgh (duh). They gain three seats in the Philly suburbs (based in Chester, Delaware and Montgomery counties). They gain a Lehigh Valley seat (where Republican Charlie Dent is retiring) and hold Matt Cartwright's competitive seat in northeast PA. And given the wind at their backs they pick up one more of the three real competitive races left on the map. Why not more? I think it's late for Democrats to go out and find quality candidates to take on those incumbents. With this caveat: I've covered both politics and sports, and the one constant is that my predictions are terrible in both.
David Wasserman looks at the new Pennsylvania map this way: The six Democratic pick-up opportunities became even stronger pick-up opportunities when it comes to the Cook Political Report’s Partisan Voting Index. Under the old map, the six most vulnerable Republican seats were a median R+3: PA-6: R+2 PA-7: R+1 PA-8: R+2 PA-15: R+4 PA-16: R+5 PA-18: R+11 Under the new map, they are even: PA-1: R+1 PA-5: D+13 PA-6: D+2 PA-7: D+1 PA-10: R+6 PA-17: R+3 Being evenly matched is what Republicans hate, without collusion and corruption, they won't win anything outside of the evengelical base.