I wouldn't call North Carolina or Wisconsin the center of Liberalism.

Like I said. You are choosing to not be fair and using such a flawed talking point that you would never accept me using it.

There is no magical rule that says all states must have an equal chance among ladies bs and cons winning. Some states based on demographics are going to have a natural conservative tilt. While others will have a liberal tilt. There is no magical rule that says the state lines must be 25/25 split evenly along the political spectrum.

Population centers tend to be on a coast. So unless you want to create a state 3x the size of Texas from the Mississippi River to Boise there are going to be more conservative states than liberal states.

Its pathetic I have to explain that.

(12-15-2016 07:57 AM)bullet Wrote:  Or the North Carolina districts before the Republicans took over? They were classic examples of gerrymandering. Even worse than what the Democrats in 1980 and 1990 did in Texas.

No that isn't correct. There was some gerrymandering but nothing to the extent that the Republicans created in 2011. Our congressional districts were mostly competitive.

(12-15-2016 11:19 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 11:15 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 10:21 AM)john01992 Wrote:  Owl there are two ways to Gerrymander. The VRA is designed to prevent one kind and conservatives respond by doing it the other way then blaming it on the law. It's a freaking joke that you buy into this argument.

So you ignore the reality of 'what he says' to continue to argue a completely unproven point.

He's right. The most obvious examples of gerrymandering is to create districts designed to elect minority representatives.

Why is that okay? I'm not saying it isn't, I'm asking why YOU think it is? If it's okay to do that, why isn't any other manipulation okay? Just because YOUR SIDE isn't the one doing it?

He's not right. The most obvious example is dems winning 1.8 million more votes but 31 fewer seats. That is a fact.

No it's not a fact. It doesn't take into consideration the myriad of other contributing factors to the vote total, the primary one being voter participation.

It also ignores the fact that conservatives hold an overwhelming majority of governorships in this country and every single one of them is elected via the popular vote.

(12-15-2016 04:47 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 07:57 AM)bullet Wrote:  Or the North Carolina districts before the Republicans took over? They were classic examples of gerrymandering. Even worse than what the Democrats in 1980 and 1990 did in Texas.

No that isn't correct. There was some gerrymandering but nothing to the extent that the Republicans created in 2011. Our congressional districts were mostly competitive.

Thats because its hard to gerrymander NC for the Dems on a federal level. NC votes GOP for federal offices despite being a majority Dems state in registration.

The NC GOP controlled legislature is drunk with power. The NC Governorship is one of the least powerful. They are now in the process of stripping what little power the position does have because their puppet lost the latest election. It wasn't like they even gave McCrory a second thought to begin with, but they new they could control him. Cooper will not be their puppet but at the same time there wasn't much he would be able to do to stop any General Assembly actions. Now they are going to beat him down before he even takes office. These guys are abusing their power.

Remember this was a special session to address Hurricane Matthew and the wildfires. When we warned our fellow citizens that they might be up to mischief especially with the possibility of court and position packing they said we were being foolish, called it much ado about nothing. Of course they also wouldn't say what was on their agenda. Then they spring this on us. This is typical of these legislators. They have no shame. They are creating an all powerful legislature at the expense of the other two branches of government. They are not only weakening the executive branch but the judicial as well.

There is an old saying, "no man is safe while the legislature sits," has never been more true.

(12-15-2016 05:09 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 04:47 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 07:57 AM)bullet Wrote:  Or the North Carolina districts before the Republicans took over? They were classic examples of gerrymandering. Even worse than what the Democrats in 1980 and 1990 did in Texas.

No that isn't correct. There was some gerrymandering but nothing to the extent that the Republicans created in 2011. Our congressional districts were mostly competitive.

Thats because its hard to gerrymander NC for the Dems on a federal level. NC votes GOP for federal offices despite being a majority Dems state in registration.

It wasn't hard for David Lewis to gerrymander the heck out of it in 2011! I would also disagree with the federal office point. Presidential races do tend to favor the GOP but senate races are clearly back and forth. Congressional races in fair districts are back and forth as well.

(12-15-2016 05:30 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 05:09 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 04:47 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 07:57 AM)bullet Wrote:  Or the North Carolina districts before the Republicans took over? They were classic examples of gerrymandering. Even worse than what the Democrats in 1980 and 1990 did in Texas.

No that isn't correct. There was some gerrymandering but nothing to the extent that the Republicans created in 2011. Our congressional districts were mostly competitive.

Thats because its hard to gerrymander NC for the Dems on a federal level. NC votes GOP for federal offices despite being a majority Dems state in registration.

It wasn't hard for David Lewis to gerrymander the heck out of it in 2011! I would also disagree with the federal office point. Presidential races do tend to favor the GOP but senate races are clearly back and forth. Congressional races in fair districts are back and forth as well.

In 2011 the GOP gerrymandered. No disputing that. My point remains that it is hard if not impossible for Dems to get the type of gerrymander the GOP has which is why Dem gerrymanders pre 2011 resulted in 7 to 6 Dem advantages and not 10 to 3

GOP has a natural advantage in Senate races. Hagan in 08 won by riding Obama's coattails combined with dole doing something really dumb if i recall and she was a one termed. Edwards in 2000 ran as a southern populist democrat and was something of a charismatic one timer, like an NC version of Obama.

(12-15-2016 09:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 09:05 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  both parties gerrymander badly.... Stop trying to take the moral high ground on that.

And most gerrymandering, at least in the south, is in response to the mandate in the Voting Rights Act that minority representation districts be created. The only way to create a district that ensures the election of a minority candidate is to gerrymander together minority neighborhoods. You look at the worst gerrymandered districts around the country, again particularly in the south, and you'll find that they are represented predominantly by minorities.
The other thing to keep in mind is that gerrymandering affects the districts around it as well. When you gerrymander all of the minorities into one district, the surrounding districts 1) end up shaped a bit weird in many cases, and 2) are all going to be predominantly white, which also tends to mean predominantly republican. The geometry and the math simply cannot work out differently. Disagree? Fine, point out a way that they can work differently.

That's an interesting argument, and it seems counter-intuitive to me. In reading up on this, the reasons seem more complex than just the creation of majority-minority districts. This article from three years ago was enlightening, and advances the idea of multi-seat districts (though at first blush, I hate the idea of multi-seat districts). The author is behind the FairVote organization.

How the Voting Rights Act Hurts Democrats and Minorities - The Atlantic

Quote:Election simulations have shown that partisan demographics -- even more than the gerrymandering of district lines -- give the GOP a natural, built-in edge in a majority of House districts. Those simulations predict that in 2014 the GOP will maintain control of the House even if Democrats win the nationwide House vote by nearly 10 percentage points. This dynamic was illustrated in the 2012 election, when President Obama defeated Mitt Romney by nearly five million votes nationwide, but Romney's vote was more efficiently dispersed -- he won 226 House districts to Obama's 209. That means Democrats can win a House majority only if their candidates win numerous districts won by Romney, a steep uphill climb. This explains the oddity of 2012, when the Democrats won the most votes nationwide in House races but still ended up with a minority of seats.

Many analysts incorrectly blame this partisan tilt on the extreme gerrymandering of legislative districts for partisan advantage. While gerrymandering contributes a bit to this bias, its impact is marginal -- the big culprit is single-seat, winner-take-all districts themselves, combined with the over-concentration of Democratic voters.

(12-15-2016 05:06 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 11:19 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 11:15 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 10:21 AM)john01992 Wrote:  Owl there are two ways to Gerrymander. The VRA is designed to prevent one kind and conservatives respond by doing it the other way then blaming it on the law. It's a freaking joke that you buy into this argument.

So you ignore the reality of 'what he says' to continue to argue a completely unproven point.

He's right. The most obvious examples of gerrymandering is to create districts designed to elect minority representatives.

Why is that okay? I'm not saying it isn't, I'm asking why YOU think it is? If it's okay to do that, why isn't any other manipulation okay? Just because YOUR SIDE isn't the one doing it?

He's not right. The most obvious example is dems winning 1.8 million more votes but 31 fewer seats. That is a fact.

No it's not a fact. It doesn't take into consideration the myriad of other contributing factors to the vote total, the primary one being voter participation.

It also ignores the fact that conservatives hold an overwhelming majority of governorships in this country and every single one of them is elected via the popular vote.

What the hell does the primary have to do with this? And no you can't blame the gov stats on this. How the hell does a state that went lib in the last three POTUS elections walk away with a 3:9 dem GOP ratio?

In thread A cons are bashing that blog for being a lib rag that shouldn't be taken seriously under any circumstances. In thread B the cons are propping it up because it agrees with their agenda. Oh the irony

(12-15-2016 09:05 PM)john01992 Wrote:  What the hell does the primary have to do with this? And no you can't blame the gov stats on this.

Not primary as a noun, primary as in the adjective. You know as in first. If that confused you then perhaps you need to work on your reading comprehension.

Quote:How the hell does a state that went lib in the last three POTUS elections walk away with a 3:9 dem GOP ratio?

The same way that a state that went leftist in the last three POTUS elections went conservative in the Governor's race....intelligent people vote for the person not the party. I can understand how you wouldn't know this being a hyperpartisan hack and all.

Gimme a break kap. You can make that argument for a lower than the POTUS election results but certainly not that low in dem support from national to congressional level. Why don't you go look up the MOV of each house race? That will either prove or disprove your assertion. But my money is on disprove

(12-15-2016 09:23 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Gimme a break kap. You can make that argument for a lower than the POTUS election results but certainly not that low in dem support from national to congressional level. Why don't you go look up the MOV of each house race? That will either prove or disprove your assertion. But my money is on disprove

Evidently I do need to give you a break because from your thought process on this topic it's obvious you aren't capable of the critical thought processes required to come up with a reasonable, educated response.

Here's the facts:

The majority of the citizens of NC voted for the Republican candidates for President and Governor in 2012. FACT

Because of federal law, not state law but federal law, the state of NC is forced to artificially create minority-majority districts. FACT

As has been exposed in this and ALL of the other myriad of threads on the subject of NC and elections BOTH parties have when in power gerrymandered the districts to their benefit. FACT

That due to the fact that every governor's race in the country is decided by popular vote that gerrymandering can't be used as to why the GOP controls the vast majority of governorships. FACT


That in 2010 despite districts gerrymandered for their benefit the dims lost control of the NC legislature to the GOP. FACT

Despite the fact that it's considered a swing state the GOP Presidential nominee has won NC in both of the last two Presidential elections after only narrowly choosing Obama over McCain in 2008. FACT

Here's what isn't fact:

That gerrymandered districts are the primary reason for the party demographics. That's an OPINION

That this GOP version of gerrymandering in NC is worse than what the dims have done in the past. That's an OPINION

Now if you want to discuss facts we can discuss facts but what you can't do is state an opinion and claim it as fact no matter how much you want it to be fact.

The coup has wrapped up now. About 50 arrested, lawsuits imminent, new districts and elections in 2017 because the are unconstitutional, gotta vote the bums out

(12-16-2016 05:02 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  The coup has wrapped up now. About 50 arrested, lawsuits imminent, new districts and elections in 2017 because the are unconstitutional, gotta vote the bums out

What specifics of what was passed do you disapprove?

Just like we criticized Harry Reid for the nuclear option and warned they'd regret it when a Republican became President, the NC Reps should understand that they are likely to have a Republican governor in the future.

That said, there are constitutional limits on governors (and Presidents) and when a governor expands their powers, they should be limited.

There needs to be a recognition of the traditional roles of the governor/President and legislature.

(12-17-2016 07:37 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-16-2016 05:02 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  The coup has wrapped up now. About 50 arrested, lawsuits imminent, new districts and elections in 2017 because the are unconstitutional, gotta vote the bums out

What specifics of what was passed do you disapprove?

1. The legislative approval of governor's appointments to head departments in the executive branch.
2. The stripping of the authority of the governor to appoint members to the university boards of trustees.
3. The overhaul of the Board of Elections where as the party of the governor has had a 2 to 1 majority in the county boards and 3 to 2 majority on the state board.
4. The granting of the Board of Elections chairmanship to the GOP in even years thus giving them control of these bodies for every federal and state election cycle.
5. The stripping of the authority of the governor to appoint members to the Board of Education.
6. The passage of a disaster relief bill that is only about 1/4 of what is needed to address the needs of those effects and then using this specially called session as a means to call a second special session in which these bills were passed. This is insulting to all our citizens affected by the hurricane and wildfires as they were used as puppets and not even treated fairly in the process.
7. The passage of controversial bills in a special session without an opportunity for public input and for them to be thoroughly examined and debated before voting.
8. The reduction of the governor's "at the pleasure" hires from 1,500 to 425 after when McCrory was elected the GA increased the number from around 500 to 1,500. These 1,000 or so "at the pleasure" jobs that are reverting back to "due process" or none political positions will lock those hired by McCrory over the last four years in and leave McCrory partisans in the Cooper administration. If those positions were reclassified after Cooper took office, giving him the opportunity to dismiss the holdovers and then have the positions refilled as "due process" hires this would be acceptable. There aren't 1,500 positions in the executive branch that should be policy hires. The proper number is somewhere around 500. Note that when these positions were reclassified when McCrory took over these state employees were fired without due process. They were career employees were unjustly terminated. The people in those positions now came in as political hires knowing that they served at the pleasure of the governor.
9. The changes to the Appeals Court process for considering cases and for moving cases forward to the the State Supreme Court.
10. The making of Supreme Court races overtly partisan. We should be working at taking the partisanship out of these races not making them more partisan.
11. The heavy handedness of this whole power grab. They have a super majority in the general assembly but just because you can do something doesn't mean that it is wise, ethical or just to do so. The total disregard of those that disagree or just want them to listen and consider their concerns.
12. The disruption of the equilibrium that is intended to be in place between the three branches of government. The executive branch has always been the weakest of the three branches and claims by the legislature that they are simple taking back power that had been previously ceded to the executive branch because it had become too powerful is total hogwash. The judicial branch is also being usurped, though to a lesser extent. In short the legislature is creating a state government that renders all other branches subservient to it.

(12-17-2016 09:50 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Just like we criticized Harry Reid for the nuclear option and warned they'd regret it when a Republican became President, the NC Reps should understand that they are likely to have a Republican governor in the future.

That said, there are constitutional limits on governors (and Presidents) and when a governor expands their powers, they should be limited.

There needs to be a recognition of the traditional roles of the governor/President and legislature.

I agree. But other than taking away the right to appoint the UNC board of governors what did they fundamentally change

(12-17-2016 11:50 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-17-2016 09:50 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Just like we criticized Harry Reid for the nuclear option and warned they'd regret it when a Republican became President, the NC Reps should understand that they are likely to have a Republican governor in the future.

That said, there are constitutional limits on governors (and Presidents) and when a governor expands their powers, they should be limited.

There needs to be a recognition of the traditional roles of the governor/President and legislature.

I agree. But other than taking away the right to appoint the UNC board of governors what did they fundamentally change

see my post