The situation in Texas and the likely resulting reprisals from blue states is a very bad thing for the health of the country. If it blows up it will ratchet up the division to a brand new level.

6 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

The situation in Texas and the likely resulting reprisals from blue states is a very bad thing for the health of the country. If it blows up it will ratchet up the division to a brand new level.

The ball is in MAGA's court. They wouldn't be pulling this ish unless their internal polls were in the toilet.

I agree that it is a Fd situation, but if MAGA starts doing it, Dem states need to pull out all the stops to counter it.

1 hour ago, Bill said:

The ball is in MAGA's court. They wouldn't be pulling this ish unless their internal polls were in the toilet.

I agree that it is a Fd situation, but if MAGA starts doing it, Dem states need to pull out all the stops to counter it.

Yep, the Dems will be forced to counter with as much as they can muster and the entire thing will be one big sheetshow.

repugs being repugs, desperate for power at any cost. it’s the repug way.

They have total control to implement their brand of neo fascism, and there is no way they are going to give up that power.

I see the hypocritical leftists here are crying because the Republicans are late in the game in gerrymandering. Rules for thee but not for me, right? The real reason why you pathetic leftist losers are crying so hard is because without gerrymandering in Democratic states, your party is sunk and you know it. Republicans finally woke up and correctly decided that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Truth is that most blue states are so heavily gerrymandered already, that there's little room for any additional D seats to be created. Cry harder.

8 minutes ago, Procus said:

I see the hypocritical leftists here are crying because the Republicans are late in the game in gerrymandering.

Meh, the obvious response.

Notice anything about the most gerrymandered states?

2 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

Notice anything about the most gerrymandered states?

The ones you used the red fill on

9 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

The ones you used the red fill on

Well, I didn’t do that, but yeah lmao

16 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

Notice anything about the most gerrymandered states?

The first thing I noticed is that you posted a map with the false claim that the highlighted states are the most gerrymandered

41 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Meh, the obvious response.

Also a truthful response

1 hour ago, Procus said:

I see the hypocritical leftists here are crying because the Republicans are late in the game in gerrymandering. Rules for thee but not for me, right? The real reason why you pathetic leftist losers are crying so hard is because without gerrymandering in Democratic states, your party is sunk and you know it. Republicans finally woke up and correctly decided that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Truth is that most blue states are so heavily gerrymandered already, that there's little room for any additional D seats to be created. Cry harder.

Wonder where he gets his talking points from

46 minutes ago, Procus said:

Shocker!! You don’t understand what gerrymandering is

40 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

Shocker!! You don’t understand what gerrymandering is

7 minutes ago, Procus said:

Illinois is gerrymandered, but not as badly as the states in the graphic I posted.

What I’ve learned about the subject is that it’s really bad when the other side does it. When my side does it, it’s okay.

1 hour ago, Procus said:

This has less to do with gerrymandering and more to do with this:

2 hours ago, Procus said:

I see the hypocritical leftists here are crying because the Republicans are late in the game in gerrymandering. Rules for thee but not for me, right? The real reason why you pathetic leftist losers are crying so hard is because without gerrymandering in Democratic states, your party is sunk and you know it. Republicans finally woke up and correctly decided that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Truth is that most blue states are so heavily gerrymandered already, that there's little room for any additional D seats to be created. Cry harder.

Oh GFY.

Gerrymanders are heavily in favor of Republicans.

Republicans are freaking out because they are going to lose midterms if they don't gerrymander more.

Wisconsin - a 50/50 state yet 75% if reps are Republican. +4 to Republicans.

North Carolina - a 51R/49D state, yet 10/14 reps are Republican. +6 to Republicans.

Maryland - a 62D/36T state, 7/8 reps are Democrats. Let's generously say +4 to Democrats.

Pennsylvania - a 50/50 state, yet 10/17 reps are Republicans. Generously let's say the gerrymander is only +2 to Republicans.

Kentucky - a 64R/33D state, yet 5/6 reps are safe Republican seats and only one safe D seat. +2 to Republicans.

Arkansas - a 64R/34D state, yet all four reps are gerrymandered into reliably Republican districts and in fact no Democrat has held a Congressional seat in over a decade.

Utah - a 59R/38D state, but yet again a gerrymander reliably delivers all four Congressional seats to Republicans by splitting up SLC until the various districts.

Texas - a 56R/42D state, but the current gerrymandered map has exactly TWO of the 38 districts being at all competitive, with a split of 25R and 13D reps (I'm allowing for the vacant seat in a safe D seat to count for Dems). The current gerrymander advantages Republicans +4 with Democrat districts like these to pack Dem voters in:

Ohio - long a swing state but went 55R/44D last presidential election, yet 10/15 reps go to Republicans. Generously let's say this advantages +2 to the Republicans.

Tennessee - a 63R/35D state, gerrymandered by splitting Nashville into three separate districts and reliably delivering 8 of its 9 districts to Republicans. +4 to Republicans.

Florida - long a close but consistently Red state, let's call it 55R/44D. Yet its gerrymandered map (especially around Jacksonville) yields only a couple remotely competitive districts and delivers 20 of 28 seats to Republicans. I'll be generous with a +6 advantage to Republicans.

Illinois - a firmly Dem state at 56D/43R, this second Dem gerrymandered map delivers 14 of its 17 house seats to Dems. Call this a +8 to Dems, it's certainly the most egregious gerrymander, but not enough to remotely offset the consistently gerrymandered red states in the south.

California - another firm blue state with Dem presidential candidates getting over 60% in 4 of the last 5 elections, let's call it 60D/40R. In an effort to combat gerrymandering, California has a citizens commission that draws maps - a system developed under the Governator IIRC. A higher percentage of districts are competitive than every other state on this list, but California still delivers 43 of its 52 seats to Dems currently. I'll call this a +12 advantage to Dems, though more owed to the self-sorting of the population than map design.

All told Republican states deliver +32 beyond what their state's popular vote would suggest, while Dem states deliver +24.

This doesn't get into the dozen or so low population states who don't even have to gerrymander their maps to result in 100% of their representatives being Republican. This is a natural advantage that Republicans have in the current environment.

Each safe district deviating from the state's popular vote totals in recent presidential elections I'm counting as +2 towards the advantaged party, as it takes one vote from one side and gives it to the other resulting in a +2 advantage in voting in the House.

3 hours ago, Procus said:

I see the hypocritical leftists here are crying because the Republicans are late in the game in gerrymandering. Rules for thee but not for me, right? The real reason why you pathetic leftist losers are crying so hard is because without gerrymandering in Democratic states, your party is sunk and you know it. Republicans finally woke up and correctly decided that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Truth is that most blue states are so heavily gerrymandered already, that there's little room for any additional D seats to be created. Cry harder.

What a dumb tweet that is...

For comparison:

Red states with ZERO Democrat House Seats:

Alaska

Arkansas

Idaho

Iowa

Montana

Nebraska

North Dakota

Oklahoma

South Dakota

Utah

West Virginia

Wyoming

Red states with ONE Democrat House Seat:

Kansas

Kentucky

Mississippi

South Carolina

Tennessee

Red States with TWO-FIVE Democrat House Seats:

Alabama

Arizona

Colorado (it's a 4-4 split- I'm not sure it's a good example of democrat gerrymandering to be a blue state where the 2 parties have equal representation with a democratic voter majority)

Georgia

Indiana

Louisiana

Missouri

North Carolina

Ohio

Wisconsin

So, in summary...

Blue States w/zero Red seats: 8 vs. Red States w/zero Blue Seats: 12

Blue States w/1 Red Seat: 3 vs. Red States w/1 Blue Seat: 5

Blue States w/2-5 Red Seats: 5 vs. Red States w/2-5 Blue Seats: 10

Weird- this data that DC Draino is using to try to illustrate how gerrymandered Blue states are looks terrible until you actually compare it to the reality of the balanced data where you look at these numbers from both sides... I'm no math teacher (oh wait, yes I am), but it appears to me 12>8, 5>3, and 10>5