None of our candidates for President will be able to do a whole lot due to gerrymandering.

[mmonk]

What they can do is make the right appointments and executive decisions and quit playing bipartisanship with people with bad destructive policy. That is primarily why I picked Sanders. Why did you pick who you picked?

[bigdarryl]

1. Gerrymandering has been in the political process for years nothing to worry about

To much is being given to it.

[Humanist_Activist]

3. That's not true, it disporportionally disenfranchises minorities, whether racial or political...

due to the way districts are drawn up and the arbitrary limit of 435 seats in the House, there's a growing disparity between popular vote results and actual representation. Right now it sits at about a 5% disparity, but in the future it could increase. And this isn't just partisan either, I wouldn't want any party to gain a huge advantage in numbers in the House due to First past the post voting, districting and gerrymandering and not due to how much of the voting population they actually represent.

[dsc]

10. we have become way way better at it

The same data which allows campaigns to target voters as well as they do allows politicians to draw districts very exactly. To take one example, my state is close to 50/50. Obama carried us once, lost us once. We actually got more votes cast for Congressional Democrats than were cast for Congressional Republicans. Result 9 R, 4 D but one of our wins was by a few hundred votes for a long time incumbent. In 2014, we lost by a few percent, result 10 R 3 D and that is what we will see pretty much until redistricting. Our Dems win by 50 percent (ie 75 to 25) or more, while they win by about 10 or so. In the state legislature, we also get around half the vote, results the GOP has veto proof majorities in both houses.

[mmonk]

13. In my state, it takes 3.5 votes for Democrats to equal 1 Republican. We hold the registered

majority. No way I can agree with your assessment.

[Cosmocat]

34. HORSESHIT

it is THE dominant factor in our politcal process today at the state and federal level.

Rs have at the federal level, rigged enough big swing states that it requires an 06 or 08 massive over turnout of Ds/under turnout by Rs to get the House in D hands. Any kind of normal election as it stands now, even with more D votes than R votes, the Rs will win the house easily.

I live in PA and the gerrymandering is so bad here there were signficantly more D votes than R votes in the state and the Rs hold 12 of 19 congressional seats, and at the state level have a mortal lock hold on the senate and only in a big D turnouts have a shot at the house.

[still_one]

2. That is the house. Appointment of Federal judges, and of course the SC. Probably the most

important thing would be the veto power, which could prevent congress from undoing social programs.

This does not negate anything you said, but to emphasis that there is still a lot a president can do, including treaties for example. I agree that it is fruitless to try to compromise with those whose policies are destructive, but one does have to compromise on some things.

Bernie compromised on the ACA, even though single payer would have been the ideal solution, because it came down that it was not only better than what was before, but it does help a lot of folks through expanded Medicaid, uninsured,etc. and potentially can eventually lead to single payer or medicare for all

[MineralMan]

4. Senators are not subject to gerrymandering at all.

Presidential candidates have coattails. A candidate who generates a lot of voters coming to the polls affects the election of more Democratic Senators.

On the House side, gerrymandering has a greater effect. However, very strong coattails on the part of a Democratic candidate also results in more Democrats being elected to the House, as well. Not all congressionall districts have been gerrymandered, and there are many districts where margins are very low for the winner. A very large turnout almost always results in more Democratic house members being elected, and can swing many districts.

The presidential candidate's popularity does have a great deal to do with the makeup of Congress. It's an important factor in the grand scheme of things, politically speaking.

[KoKo]

7. Gerrymanding affects State Races for Electing both their House and Senate Reps

In heavily Gerrymandered States it makes a huge difference in local politics with Boards of Elections, Budgets for Parks & Public Works and all State Appointed Positions including, State Commissions, Transportation, Utilities, Environment Health Care and Education, etc.

[MineralMan]

9. I am speaking of the federal government only.

Yes, gerrymandering also affect state legislatures. It does not affect US Senate elections, however. Coattails still matter in turnout, and turnout is the key to overcoming gerrymandering. High voter turnout that favors Democratic candidates is how things change. Anyone who doesn't know that to be true has not been paying attention in this country as the balance between Republican and Democratic control of legislatures at all levels shifts.

Minnesota is a great example. In 2010, turnout was low, and the power shifted from Democratic control to the Republicans in both houses of our state legislature. In 2012, turnout was higher and the Democrats regained control. In 2014, turnout was again low, and the state house switched back to Republican control. The number of seats involved each time was small. The difference was that 2012 was a presidential election year and the other two years were not. Barack Obama's coattails were responsible for Democrats regaining control.

It makes a difference at every level. That's why the Presidential candidate is so important to so many other races.

[KoKo]

18. Because if you can't get Dem Candidates working way up to U.S. House & Senate Candidates

because Gerrymandering has cut off their ability to serve in State House or Senate or even get in the door on a State Government Gerrymandered in favor of Republicans... then that means that it is "One Party Rule." In our State under Gerrymandering imposed by Republicans ...only Young Repub Candidates get Groomed (not Young Dem Candidates) who get chance to get on State Boards/Commissions to get needed experience to work way through the system.

Instead you get Big Bucks "Put Up Jobs" by Special Interests with little or no experience Appointed as the Chosen Candidate and the Big Money comes in and Pushes them with little or no experience into the US House or Senate.

But, then, you know this as you are a Precinct Chair in Minnesota. And you may not have Gerrymandering like those of us in other parts of the USA...and Good on You...but, would you support a Think Tank/Chamber of Commerce, Koch Brothers or other Special Interest Candidate being put up for US House or Senate without at least SOME Grooming in your State Senate or House to at least understand how legislation works without High Powered Lobbyists knocking at door constantly...or have you there decided that lobbyists are okay and better to let the "wet behind the ears kids" get used to what they will deal with going forward into DC?

[mmonk]

14. That is true. But since 2010, we have a do nothing government as a result.

Except tax cuts, deregulation, free trade, overcrowded prisons, privatization and war which sucks as far my interests go.

[Cosmocat]

36. POTUS and the senate are buffered

but particularly after the last set of redistricting, the Rs have a near mortal lock on the House for the next decade or so.

I live in Pa, we get more D votes than R votes in most elections, and 12 of 19 congressional districts are in R hands. This is what they have successfully done in key big swing states like Pa, Michigan and Va, as well as solid R states like Texas ...

[MineralMan]

37. GOTV can overcome gerrymandering.

An outstanding turnout of Democrats could easily result in a Democratic House again. But, it would have to be an outstanding turnout. There doesn't seem to be much GOTV spirit in many places, though. We see that in every midterm election, where Democrats make a poor showing at the ballot box.

More's the pity.

[Cosmocat]

41. The math is the math

Pennsylvania had a "outstanding" turnout of democrats in 2012, BHO had a solid win in a tough state by 5 points, 52 to 47.

The republicans won 13 of 19 house seats.

You can't bully your way out of this kind of redistricting with "turnout" because they have democrats bottled up in areas.

They have the same kind set ups in key big swing states like Michigan and Virginia.

Outstanding is not good enough, it has to be epic turnout, with half the republican voters being raptured the night before, to win the house.

[mmonk]

46. Epic is the only description. Or gain in off presidential cycles.

Still very next to impossible where I live though.

http://wunc.org/post/duke-mathematicians-investigate-2012-election-results-north-carolina

[KoKo]

5. "Happy Birthday to Gerry"--A Quick Explanation of Gerrymandering

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[mmonk]

15. +1

[99Forever]

6. I'm beginning to...

....lean towards why bother.

Fuck it, it doesn't change except to keep getting worse.

[KoKo]

19. Not yet.....!

Progessive.......!

[FSogol]

8. Sounds like an excuse. Screw that, GOTV and make the few knuckleheads in gerrymandered districts

irrelevant.

[mmonk]

16. Come to my state and ask the people.

[n8dogg83]

11. I dont think much would get done during a first term with Bernie as prez in terms of legislation...

however, I feel that, with Bernie as president, he would use the bully pulpit to keep America focused on the real issues (not these false issues like the deficit and "death panels&quot . He would constantly call out the right-wing BS and make the Repubs have to answer for voting against the minimum wage, health care as a right, equal pay for equal work, prison reform, etc. We, his supporters, who helped get him elected, will continue the work of informing our fellow citizens about what's important and why they shouldn't vote against their best interest. So in 2018 we will have an election where, hopefully, a large turnout will kick out some of the far-right wing reps and senators and replace them with either moderate dems or (better) progressives. then in 2020 we will have a chance(during a prez election year) to retake the house and hold the senate where the real progressive policies can get implemented. Its gonna be a slow process. But Bernie makes me excited to get started!

[KoKo]

20. ...!

PUSH PROGRESSIVE FDR "NEW DEAL: VALUES...Families and Workers First!

[Cosmocat]

38. Possible, but really, really small possiblity

I agree how Bernie will operate IF he gets there.

But ...

Bernie has gotten to this point as a lone congressman/senator in a small state, Rs and the media just have not paid attention to him. To this point, he mostly has gotten the gritty underdog treatment. The more he presents as a real threat to win the nomination, the more he will be subject to the stupid.

BHO spent two months or so having to deal with the fucking flag pin "scandal," then the "celebrity" bullshit for a few more months.

Just totally, completely stupid ass shit that had no place in national discussion, but because they scream bloody hell and the media goes along for the ride, this people of this country ate it up.

If he becomes the nominee and POTUS, he WILL be subject to a relentless stream of nonsense from Rs and the media gleefully going along for the ride. There WILL be some stupid ass flag pin bullshit that people will go along with.

While his message resonates, this country is THAT fucking stupid, that at some point the Rs will come up with SOME kind of bullshit that people will get on board with.

BHO is a very charming, likeable and pleasant person, has been a darn good president has not scandals, the economy is MUCH better than it was when he took over, we got health care reform, just got the Iran agreement, and ... his popularity is spit because of the R/MSM meatgrinder.

And, while people want to blame BHO for this because he was too nice to Rs, they are totally discounting how much Bernie is going to piss them off if he gets the "bully pulpit."

These jackasses have VERY thin skin, and don't take getting called out for their bullshit well at all.

People are flat out of their minds if they think Rs are going to just take Bernie calling them out, it will piss them off to no end and they WILL come after him like maniacs.

And, god forbid that there is some kind of major terrorist attack on his watch or some major economic meltdown.

Had 9-11 happened on Al Gore's watch, we would not have had another democratic president in our lives.

[HereSince1628]

12. It's the will of the state legislature, the fight belongs to the states

but I am not opposed to federal help in forcing re-districting the abuse.

[mmonk]

17. I like the conversation about gerrymandering but why isn't anyone answering

the question? What are the reasons you have chosen at this early stage the candidate you back?

[KoKo]

21. Your OP asked aboutGerrymandering......

[mmonk]

22. I made a statement about gerrymandering and the effects it will have on

any of our candidates should they win the Presidency. Guess the statement part was too long. My Bad. My question followed the gerrymandering part.

[KoKo]

23. Oh...I see now.

Maybe just make a new post asking why people picked the candidate they support?

Well....hopefully it gave some attention to the problems with Gerrymandering so it wasn't wasted.

Sorry for not reading more carefully.

[stevenleser]

25. I've answered this question for you before. We have a strong candidate now, she represents a win for

women, shattering the biggest glass ceiling in the world, and as you point out in your OP, no Democrat if elected will really be able to do much so even if one prefers the policies of one Democrat over the other, those preferences will virtually never come into play.

I don't care who the other candidate is, Biden, O'Malley, Bernie, etc., trying to overcome Hillary with any of them represents to me a colossal waste of time, effort and money for extremely little gain, and in fact a loss in terms of not getting a victory for women.

[mmonk]

27. Thanks for replying.

[stevenleser]

24. So your advice to Bernie, should he win the primary is to say during the GE campaign...

"I will not be bipartisan. I will not work across the aisle or compromise with Republicans to solve issues."

I realize bipartisanship has a bad connotation here. But if you plan to tell the general public that he will not be bipartisan and work with Republicans, plan to lose.

And lying and saying he will if he won't isn't a good plan either.

[mmonk]

26. He is bipartisan on good legislation.

I don't want someone to be bipartisan on destructive ideas just to appear bipartisan. Republicans aren't bipartisan people. They are more scorched earth except for very few occasions.

[stevenleser]

31. Yeah, well, everybody says that or some version of it.

Expect for the burden to be higher on Bernie after he and his supporters make clear, much as you did in the OP and comments, how much they intend to fight Republicans.

[mmonk]

32. That's because many of their ideas which have subsequently been adopted

by the Democrats such as deregulation of the financial sector which has wrecked me and my family, privatization, free trade that isn't trade but moving operations overseas and not taxing capital, I can't rely on others except O'Malley and Warren to do right on those critical issues.

[Agnosticsherbet]

28. I have not picked a candidate yet for two reasons.

(1) California does not vote until June 7. 2016. It is likely that the nomination will have been decided, as has happened in most presidential primaries. Even if it is not decided, it would be a two person race. I will look at the ballot at the time and decide who is best.

(2) I prefer to remain unaffiliated with a candidate so I can keep justification bias to a minimum.

[mmonk]

29. Not bad. That was my approach in 2008.

[Agnosticsherbet]

35. I vote to elect the best government from a list of available candidates.

The list can be much better in a Primary election. For California, especially for state government, the primary is more critical, in some ways, than the general election with the way our primaries work.

In a rare close primary, I may have some say as to who our nominee will be, but I won't hold my breath.


In the General Election, it will be down to a Democrat or Republican.

I would prefer a world where both parties nominate candidates that most people think will make great Presidents, and where Congress forgets about ideology on he first of a new Congress. That is a pipe dream.

A party carries an ideology, has baggage, and a legislative philosophy. They are no the same.

[mmonk]

39. I ended up being an Obama delegate towards the end of the 1st few primaries.

I was in the party as a precinct officer then. Now I'm not involved in that. But it was my approach up to that point.

[Agnosticsherbet]

42. Up through Gore, I chose a candidate early and remained loyal.

I took polisci 101 in 2001, and that began a real change in my approach towards government. In 2004 I liked Dean, but he flamed out and Kerry won enough delegates on March 11th.
That was the point where I realized that getting behind a candidate before my state Primary did not work.

In 2008, I chose no candidate, and it was over before the California Primary.

I don't like the Primary system. I think that giving huge influence to small, low population states, and the South is not fair to everyone.

As to confirmation bias, I eventually came to realize that becoming overly loyal to any candidate or ideology creates a bias. We don't queston easily those people or ideas that we hold dear.

I keep a score card with the policies that are important to me, and I know where each candidate stands on those policies. That score card will inform my vote in the Primary and the General for all the political races.

[mmonk]

44. Very smart.

[mmonk]

40. Good reasons.

[Zorra]

43. Why you picked Bernie is much the same for me. Chief Executives must have superior skills

in delegating, and must understand how to use the bully pulpit to avoid destructive compromise. Bernie has a remarkable ability to call bullshit immediately and get back on track quickly when faced with contention from legislators and media who shill for wealthy private interests and not for profit.

But my primary reason for choosing Senator Sanders is that his record indicates that he will apply his power to the greatest extent as Chief Executive by governing in the best interests of American citizens, and not in the best interests of wealthy corporate entities and their wealthy owners.

[mmonk]

45. Yes. His interest in doing the right thing for people rather than perceived legacy

or just getting things passed is his best quality.