The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I agree with your first sentence (with words). But the rest does not follow. Incumbents win. Look at the vote % in the year of first election, and all subsequent elections. Typically it's something like 55%, 75%, 90%, 90%, 90% and so on. Close the first year, not afterwards. That's an incumbency advantage, not a gerrymander advantage.

You are confusing apples and oranges. Incumbancy is about incumbancy, and the Gerrymander is about party control. They are two different subjects. However, it is easier to take out an incumbent in a general election than in a primary. I have seen it a few times in teh General. I know of very few in the primary.

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) The point of the paper, and other than your own casual empiricism you have not responded to, is that gerrymandering doesn't necessarily alter the course of what would have happened anyway, at least with any reasonable alternative district. Maybe it alters on the margin a couple of districts, but you make it sound like it's responsible for all ills. Sorry, but Orange County and the Central Valley are going to elect rightwingers no matter how you district.

The Gerrymander makes it almost impossible for the party that doesn't control the legislature to get a majority in the congressional delegation. No matter which way the partisan winds are blowing. In addition, the Gerrymander makes all the seats safe for one party, allowing extremists to take those seats. Your study does nothing to refute those assertions and that is what I have been saying the whole time.

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) So, what you're really saying is that we should constantly redistrict.

I never said we should constantly redistrict. Where the hell did that come from. Every ten years there is a new census and then new lines are drawn. I am just saying those lines should be drawn by retired judges instead of the legislature. About seven states do it that way. It allows for more competitive seats between the partys

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) That's not crazy, and would address the problem of the incumbent advantage. The idea being, eliminate incumbency. Candidates always have to win some new votes. But that has little to do with how one redistricts, so long as there is change--what matters is that you do it at all.

Constantly redrawing would leave us with the same problem. The party in power would draw the lines for the next election which is the problem we have now.

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) Now, because I'm at it, I'll also take issue with your premise, which is that Congress should be less partisan. That works assuming everyone is a moderate. But why shouldn't the right-wing Rs and the left-wing Ds also have some representation. If you look at countries with multi-party gov'ts, the seats don't all go to the centrists. Many of them do, but not all of them. Obviously that's partly a product of the electoral systems used. But, there's some merit there too--why should the district including Berkeley, assuming it consists of mostly like-minded liberals, not be able to sent a hard-core liberal to Congress? Same with Wyoming--why not a hard-core rightwinger? It's very possible that the nation's preferences are such that Congress should be more partisan. The median voter theory doesn't apply nationwide when there are individual elections.

The problem is that no seats go to centrists. There are some seats, as you said that can never be gerrymandered to change. Otherwise the party in power would control all the seats. So naturally the extremists should come from extreme areas. But with a Gerrymander the lines are drawn as such that the moderates are outgunned by the extremists in every district.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
BTW, I read this today and thought of you: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...n/3520667.html

That guy is a joke. Pat Baig is the one that is gong to take out Delay.

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally posted by Spanky
The Bush administration behind the scenes pushed hard for the defeat of the Governators redistricting proposition. In an open letter I stated that Bush was sacrificing the future of California for narrow, self serving, short term, political interests. I also added that I didn't think Republicans in California needed to show any loyalty to the administration since they have shown such contempt for our future and well being.

I think that was the final nail in my coffin. I am expecting the department of Homeland Security any day at my door.

The known presence of water balloon-toting local hooligans may be enough to keep them away.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Spanky
That guy is a joke. Pat Baig is the one that is gong to take out Delay.

For those that are interested, I found her at www.patbaig.com.

Interesting. Where'd you find her? Is she the consensus candidate to take out DeLay?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
The pope, who lived on earth, could see that everything revolved around it. He was presented with evidence that perhaps he was mistaken. He said, no such evidence is heretical because I have seen with my own eyes that the sun revolves around the earth.

Let me give you some cold hard facts. In 1990 in California the judges drew the lines, and the congressional delegation from California was even (26-26). In 2000 the lines were redrawn by the Democrats and five Republicans lost their seats. Before the election there were five pro-choice Republican congressmen. After the lines were redrawn four of the five Republicans that lost their seats were Pro-Choice - Bilbray, Kuykendahl, Campbell, and one other guy whose name I forgot. The fifth guy, Rogan, was pretty conservative, but was liked by most moderates. None of the extremists lost their seats. Four of the five guys were replaced by liberal Democrats (none are members of the DLC). One was a moderate: Jane Harman - who is part of the DLC.

So in California the net loss was four moderate Republicans and the liberal democrats gained four seats seat. Conservative Republicans lost one seat and the moderate Dems gained one seat.

From 1990 to 2000 in every election some open seats changed party hands. When combining Congress, Assembly, and State Sentate the average was about fifteen every year. Since the 2002 changeover not a single seat has changed party hands. In 2004 of the one hundred and fifty some odd seats not a single seat changed party hands. Because the proposition was defeated this election will be no different.

We have had one special congressional elections in California recently and will have another shortley. The Republican Cox left to join the SEC, and his seat was replaced by a Republican and Cunningham is leaving because he is going to jail, he will be replaced by a Republican because no Dem has a chance. Before the Gerrymander both these seats might have been taken by Democrats.

As I said, anyone with any political experience knows that the Gerrymander locks in seats for the parties and increasess extremism among the congressional delegation.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
If you want competion, what about multi-member districts? (the Lani Guinier killer).

I thought it was pretty much determined that those were unAmerican. I can't recall why, though.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Gattigap
For those that are interested, I found her at www.patbaig.com.

Interesting. Where'd you find her? Is she the consensus candidate to take out DeLay?

She paid for some ads in the local newspaper critisizing Delay. That is how we found her. She has deep pockets. Never a bad thing. One of the employees of my politial organization just took a leave of absence to go run her campaign. We are going to put the full weight of the Silicon Valley behind her.

Delay should have stayed out of California politics.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone
The known presence of water balloon-toting local hooligans may be enough to keep them away.

They have already been put on high alert.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Spanky
That guy is a joke. Pat Baig is the one that is gong to take out Delay.

I hate to break this to you, Spanky, but I'd vote for Pat. Ergo, she will lose.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I thought it was pretty much determined that those were unAmerican. I can't recall why, though.

I always thought that was a good idea. Does Lani agree with me? Why does that make me unamerican?

I am also for penalizing people if they don't vote. From economic perspective there is no reason to vote. The costs (all the time taken from your day and reading about the issues) is not covered by the return (the chance that your vote might actually mean something).

The only people that have not figured this out are the extremists and losers like me.

So we have to make it in people's economic interest to vote. Like they do in Australia. You don't vote you get a big fine.

That way, in order to win, politicians would have to turn to middle again instead of the base (like Bush was able to do in 2004).

[Spanky]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I hate to break this to you, Spanky, but I'd vote for Pat. Ergo, she will lose.

Oh ye of little faith. If Delay drops out of the race she will be the only one left standing. And if she doesn't, you haven't seen the hit pieces we are putting together (i.e. "there is no more fat left to cut out of the budget").

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Spanky
Oh ye of little faith. If Delay drops out of the race she will be the only one left standing. And if she doesn't, you haven't seen the hit pieces we are putting together (i.e. "there is no more fat left to cut out of the budget").

I mean this in all sincerity: good luck. She seems like not just a good alternative to Delay, but a genuinely decent person who would be an asset to the the country in public office.

[Spanky]

I am taking her around the Bay Area from the 26th to the 28th of December for fundraisers. If anyone is interested in showing up let me know.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I mean this in all sincerity: good luck. She seems like not just a good alternative to Delay, but a genuinely decent person who would be an asset to the the country in public office.

Isn't RT in that district? Why don't you go live with RT for the month of January and February and help us with the ground game.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I mean this in all sincerity: good luck. She seems like not just a good alternative to Delay, but a genuinely decent person who would be an asset to the the country in public office.

Ditto. I am tickled at the thought of DeLay getting crushed, and from the little that I've read, Pat seems like a normal person.



Plus, if Baig wins, you may even get The Fist as a prize (Hi, RT!)