Mother Jones: The GOP's genius plan to beat Obama in 2012

[BzaDem]

"Here's the rub, though: Each state gets to determine how its electoral votes are allocated. Currently, 48 states and DC use a winner-take-all system in which the candidate who wins the popular vote in the state gets all of its electoral votes. Under the Republican plan—which has been endorsed by top Republicans in both houses of the state's legislature, as well as the governor, Tom Corbett -- Pennsylvania would change from this system to one where each congressional district gets its own electoral vote. (Two electoral votes—one for each of the state's two senators—would go to the statewide winner.)

This could cost Obama dearly. The GOP controls both houses of the state legislature plus the governor's mansion—the so-called "redistricting trifecta"—in Pennsylvania. Congressional district maps are adjusted after every census, and the last one just finished up. That means Pennsylvania Republicans get to draw the boundaries of the state's congressional districts without any input from Democrats. Some of the early maps have leaked to the press, and Democrats expect that the Pennsylvania congressional map for the 2012 elections will have 12 safe GOP seats compared to just 6 safe Democratic seats."

--snip--

"It doesn't necessarily end there. After their epic sweep of state legislative and gubernatorial races in 2010, Republicans also have total political control of Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin, three other big states that traditionally go Democratic and went for Obama in 2012. Implementing a Pennsylvania-style system in those three places—in Ohio, for example, Democrats anticipate controlling just 4 or 5 of the state's 16 congressional districts—could offset Obama wins in states where he has expanded the electoral map, like Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, or New Mexico. "If all these rust belt folks get together and make this happen that could be really dramatic," says Carolyn Fiddler, a spokeswoman for the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, which coordinates state political races for the Dems."

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/09/gop-electoral-college-plan-beat-obama-2012

If they were to do this in more states than Pennsylvania (and they have the power to unilaterally do so in several Democratic electoral college lynchpins), it might be almost impossible for a Democrat to win the Whitehouse in a non-landslide election. I have been playing with the map, and it looks like in the worst case scenario, Republicans could make it so even if Obama wins all the Kerry states and Gore states, plus Nevada, Colorado, Virginia, and Ohio (!), Obama (or our 2016 nominee) would still lose. He would have to win Florida, which he only barely won last time in one of the best years for Democrats in decades.

[Bandit]

1. I think Obama and elected Democrats have no one to blame but themselves

Everyone knows what Republicans are like and what they will attempt if given the opportunity...Democrats had a HUGE Majority in Congress to accomplish Democratic goals and yet they went with Republican ideas instead....I see the Democratic Party dissolving in the near future, as they have become pretty much irrelevant. I see a new Party being introduced, maybe the Labor Party, which will pick up on Progressive goals and actually work toward those goals...I feel like Nader,,"Things are going to have to get worse before they get better" and I believe things are most definitely going to get worse....With Republicans in full control there is no other alternative..:shrug:

[sufrommich]

2. Yes, no doubt a collapse of the democratic party with

the republicans in complete control will lead to a better,more progressive America. Delusional.

[Bandit]

4. You sound as if you don't believe Republicans are already in complete control.

Talk about delusional....:shrug:

[BzaDem]

6. Tell me this. If Republicans are in complete control, why do Medicare and Social Security exist?

Why don't we have Supreme Court justices that rule them unconstitutional?

If someone believes that

a) Republicans want to get rid of Medicare
b) Republicans are in complete control
c) Medicare still exists

isn't that a textbook example of delusion?

[sufrommich]

7. Whatever. I don't buy the Democrat = Republican

bullshit.

[NNN0LHI]

3. Here is your dream ticket right here

[BzaDem]

5. What you miss is that Republicans in full control can make changes that last generations,

even if progressives win in several consecutive elections.

Progressive laws don't matter if they are struck down by justices appointed in 2013. Popular vote wins don't matter if the electoral college is gerrymandered to prevent the inauguration of any progressive.

Democratic politicians don't suffer at all. If they lose an election, they go to the private sector and usually make 3-5 times much as lobbyists. People that think the Democrats need to be taught a "lesson" will be the ones that suffer, since they will see any chance of ever enacting policy they favor go down the drain due to actions they themselves caused. They will be very remorseful, as in 2000 After all, it is hard to look at yourself in the mirror when you realize how much damage your actions have caused and how permanent that damage is. They will wake up and figure all this out, just as happened in 2000. And they will regret their actions for the rest of their lives, even if they deny that now. But by then it will be too late. They ignored the warnings when there was something they could have done, and now there is nothing they can do to repair the damage they caused.

They can blame elected Democrats all they want, but their assignment of blame is really irrelevant. Elected Democrats aren't the ones that will suffer, and in many cases they will profit from going into the private sector. The ones that will suffer will be themselves, at least until their wake-up moment, and probably decades afterwards.

[Fumesucker]

8. When have "progressives" won an election in the last thirty years?

It's been center right versus ultra far right ever since Reagan..

Not to mention that the political center of gravity has quick marched to the right at the same time.

[BzaDem]

9. If you believe that, isn't it about time to recalibrate your expectations?

More generally, if someone hasn't been satisfied with any Democratic president in (say) 50 years, isn't that a signal that their expectations are probably out of sync with reality? If they haven't approved of any Democratic president in a few decades, what makes them think that they are EVER going to see one that they can approve of, under their current expectations?

Some people seem to say that "if the current two parties keep winning, we are doomed." In that case, they need to

1) accept the fact that according to their own expectations, we are doomed
2) moving forward from that premise, determine that the only variables in politics left for the rest of their lives are degrees of being doomed (again, according to their own expectations), and
3) go from there

The idea that there is some self-correcting mechanism in this country that will magically generate Presidents they are satisfied with is ludicrous. It is nothing more than an attempt to deal with cognitive dissonance -- specifically, resolving the tension between wanting something and never getting it.

[Fumesucker]

10. The soft bigotry of low expectations, eh?

Just because you aren't going to get anything any better is no reason to be satisfied with thin gruel.

Hell, who knows, if we bitch enough they might throw a chunk of well aged hyena gristle into the gruel as a sop to the serfs.

[BzaDem]

11. There are people on both sides that say exactly the same thing.

In fact, there are people on every side in every political system, who have views such that they will never be satisfied with anyone that gets elected. That is literally a defining aspect of democracy itself. Many of these folks want vastly different policies, but the one thing they all have in common is that they are not ever going to get what they want.

Whether or not one of them is "satisfied with (what they consider to be) thin gruel" is exactly as relevant as the sound a tree makes when no one is there to hear it. Their only chance to become relevant is to decide to attempt to maximize (what they consider to be) the "gruel," rather than to minimize the "gruel" and maximize the pain in furtherance of some imaginary self-correcting mechanism that doesn't actually exist.

[Fumesucker]

12. So in essence you're saying it's hopeless to expect anything better..

Being interested in politics has certainly not done a damn thing to enhance my life or my livelihood, exactly the opposite in fact.

In retrospect I can see several points in my life where having an interest in politics has directly led to me making personal decisions that were to my long term emotional, personal and financial detriment.

If you are trying to discourage people from getting involved in the political process I must say that you're doing an excellent job.

[BzaDem]

13. It isn't hopeless to expect anything better (though I doubt we will get a more liberal President

than Obama any time in the short or medium term). But for some people (depending on their views), it is hopeless to expect that things will get sufficiently better that there will ever be a President that satisfies them. This is simply a mathematical fact that affects those with all different types of views in all political systems.

[KamaAina]

14. Forget Ohio

that's one of the other places this could well happen. :scared:

Meanwhile, they just pulled off a 100-mile Toledo-to-Cleveland gerrymander for the sole purpose of pitting two of the few genuine progressives in the House, Dennis Kucinich and Marcy Kaptur, against one another in a Dem primary. :grr:

[BzaDem]

17. At first, I thought they wouldn't do it in Ohio. But now they very well might.

The reason they wouldn't do it in Ohio is that Ohio is one place that Democrats could conceivably lose yet still win 270, under the normal rules. Therefore, doing this in Ohio would help Obaam were he to lose the popular vote in Ohio.

But the operative words there are "under the normal rules." If they do this in PA or MI, it will be extremely difficult if not impossible for Obama to win 270 without Ohio. This means that were Ohio to join in the bandwagon, Republicans could limit Obama to 267 or 268 even if Obama were to win the popular vote in all the Kerry/Gore states, and NV/OH/CO/VA (which itself isn't likely).

In other words, they could (before the election even started) make it impossible for Obama to win the election without winning Florida -- which he barely won last time in a great year for Democrats, and has been trending away from Democrats for each of the last three consecutive elections.

[KamaAina]

18. I think we're talking about two different things

California and other states are considering a different proposal which would award all their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. This would take effect only after states with 270 total lectoral votes had signed on.

While somewhat worrisome for Dems, especially if mostly Blue states sign on, that pales in comparison to the Pennsylvania proposal. What Pennnsylvania is doing is splitting up their EVs by congressional district. Nebraska and Maine already do this; in fact, Obama won one Nebraska elector from the 2nd District centered on Omaha.

But Nebraska has only three CDs, and Maine has two, so there's not a lot of room for gerrymandering. Pennsylvania, however, has 18 CDs, and with repukes firmly in charge of redistricting, it is expected that they will control 12 of them, with the Dems down to six, mostly around Philly and Pittsburgh. So it is entirely possible that Obama could rack up enough votes in those two cities and their suburbs to carry the state, just as he did in 2008, while losing 12 of the 18 CDs. Result: 12 EVs for the repuke, 8 for Obama (2 EVs, representing the two senators, would go to the statewide winner), as opposed to 20 for Obama under the current scheme. Tack on other states like Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin that are under repuke control and we've got a problem. :scared:

[BzaDem]

19. I am only talking about the vote splitting proposal. I am not talking about NPV at all.

I agree with everything in your post. That's my entire point. This would essentially give the GOP a lock on the presidency, even if the Democrat wins the popular vote by several points in several consecutive elections.

[KamaAina]

20. Ah. I see now.

But the downside for the repukes is minimal, as their recent gerrymandering tour de force gives them 12 of the 16 CDs (plus the two-at large votes, in your scenario).

[Parker CA]

15. Kick and Rec! This sounds pretty bad. nt

[KamaAina]

16. About as mature as kicking the board over when you're about to be checkmated

in other words, par for the repuke course. :eyes:

[butterfly77]

21. ...