'When gerrymandering backfires': Democrats go after once-safe GOP seats

[DonViejo]

Republican redistricting maximized GOP gains in past years, but it could exacerbate the party’s losses in 2018.

By ELENA SCHNEIDER 05/10/2018 05:00 AM EDT

Republicans redrew congressional districts across the country in 2010 in an attempt to consign Democrats to a semi-permanent House minority. But in 2018, the long-successful GOP insurance policy is at risk of backfiring in a big way — not only carving a path for a takeover, but possibly allowing for bigger Democratic gains.

In many states, Republicans maximized gains in the House by spreading GOP voters across as many districts as possible. Typically, that left Democrats with around 40 to 45 percent of the vote in those districts, making them difficult under normal circumstances for the minority party to contest.

But this election year is anything but normal. Many of the once-secure 55-45 Republican districts are very much in play, even in states that have not had competitive congressional races since 2012, the year new maps were installed. And North Carolina and Ohio — where Democrats chose nominees in primaries on Tuesday — are turning into the prime examples.

Neither national party has spent money in North Carolina or Ohio in the last two elections. But operatives in both states now rattle off a half-dozen Republican districts that could become fierce battlegrounds this fall, including fast-changing suburbs of Cincinnati, Charlotte, Columbus and Raleigh. President Donald Trump won less than 55 percent of the vote in each of the seats in 2016 — and some of the Republican incumbents have been caught by surprise by the ferocity of their competition.

more
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/10/gerrymandering-midterms-democrats-house-seats-579890

[zipplewrath]

1. Democrats did it different

I'm not exactly defending gerrymandering. But I do think there is a bit of false equivalency in the discussion. I can't prove it, and I'm sure there were exceptions, but generally the democrats arranged districts to spread their voters around in every district. They did this by dividing up concentrated groups of democrats into multiple districts. The GOP tends to do just the opposite. They tend to concentrate democrats into single districts.

The democrats have long had a majority, or plurality, of voters in the US. So they could afford to spread around those voters. The GOP has traditionally been a minority party, and so they have to concentrate democrats into single districts, so they can have a majority in all the others. If you looked at the results of democratic gerrymandering, it gave them a slightly larger representation than the general population would suggest. But the result of the GOP version, is that a minority controls a majority of the districts. That isn't the same thing.

Look at Alabama where they just (barely) elected a democratic senator. They have 7 congressional seats, only ONE has a democrat. That's because they stuck a huge portion of the democrats into one single district. Democrats represent easily 40% of the population there, and yet have less that 15% of the representation. Democratic gerrymandering could be accused of padding, or distorting their majority. The GOP version CREATES a majority where none exists.

[NewJeffCT]

8. Most of the blue states

do not have the state legislature draw congressional districts - they're typically done in a non partisan fashion in NY, NJ, CT, Mass, California, etc. I think Maryland is the only blue state considered to be in the top 10 "most gerrymandered" states.

[Nitram]

12. Zipple, that's been my observation, too, and that of the commentators from whom I've been learning

about how gerrymandering works. Pennsylvania is another good example of this. I'm not sure why the OP seems to draw the opposite conclusion.

[zipplewrath]

14. Well, they speak to a specific point

They're just talking about the GOP's current problem in a few states. They've arrange things in places like NC where they have slim majorities that can be overtaken by small shifts in demographics or voting patterns. Where the democrats did that historically, they suffered the same problem.

My larger point is that this issue was common with the democrats, and rare with the GOP. The democrats can spread themselves around and achieve their goals. The GOP has to concentrate the democrats and marginalize them. The result, other than this slim example the OP addresses, tends to be quite the opposite. The GOP creates majorities where none exist, the democrats tended to pad majorities they already had.

It is the false equivalency that underlies his larger point. (And I tire of these false equivalencies). Yes, the GOP has a problem in some specific areas because of how they did those specific gerrymandered districts. But there is nothing "the same" about it with respect to the democrats. The democrats got there (and process is important) because they try to spread themselves around. The GOP got there because they barely had enough to spread EVEN WITH concentrating democrats to certain districts.

Metaphors rarely work in this forum, but I'll try anyways. 2 cars drive off a bridge. One drove through barriers saying "bridge out". The other drove off a bridge that just collapsed due to an earth quake. They may both have made mistakes, and they may both have driven off of a bridge. But one drove through warning signs, and the other reacted slowing to a developing situation. But saying "they both drove off a bridge" is a serious false equivalency.

[SWBTATTReg]

2. Perhaps gerry mandering is moving too slow for ...

demographics which are changing more rapidly than changes to political maps can keep up w/?

[hedda_foil]

3. Fox willing and the Russpublicans don't flip the vote in key precincts.

Let's not count our chickens while the fox is in the henhouse. Mmkay?

[bucolic_frolic]

4. We will pick up some of these seats

but I expect a mixed bag where we take the House, lose a few of our own incumbents, take 5-6 safe GOP seats as well as 25-30 that are in play. Good enough for a House majority. Voter anger can throw out incumbents of all types. We'd best tamp down the anger and work on GOTV.

[Me.]

5. What Bothers Me About This

is we have three male Dems seeking/or have sought votes based on the fact that they won't support Speaker Pelosi

[Nitram]

13. If they turn a Republican district into a Democratic one, they can say whatever they want about

Pelosi as far as I'm concerned. Gaining a House and Senate majority is more important than any purity test. It is the only way we can get Trump off our backs.

[Me.]

15. It's Not About A Purity Test

it's about trying to gain an advantage by joining the Cons in their thinking and beating up on a woman who has done nothing but be a superior speaker for the Dems. And the question is how often will they join the Cons in their memes because the truth is, if they join the Cons often enough we won't get rid of Comrade Trump. Turning your back on your own is a sign of weakness so I wonder how far these men can be trusted.

[Nitram]

16. OK, I didn't realized he had exhibited conservative thinking and "beaten up on" Pelosi.

I was thinking of someone like Connor Lamb who supported liberal policies in general but didn't support Pelosi. As far as I know, he didn't beat up on Pelosi.

[Me.]

17. Even With Conor Lamb

I wondered why he felt compelled to join the Cons in agreeing to never vote for her. Sorry, but I consider it bad judgment on his part especially if he considers himself a Dem. The Cons use her and HRC as punching bags and it's all very sexist and misogynistic. And how would he feel if Speaker Pelosi who raises more money for the Dems than any member of Congress said find your own cash? But she won't because she's a realist and sees how the game is being played and stays above it. I just don't see any reason for these guys, including Lamb, to join in the fray. When he gets to the House, if he doesn't want to support her, which I expect he won't as he campaigned on it, that's his choice as there are other members who don't. But to make it an integral part of his campaign enjoins him to the witch hunt

[Nitram]

18. Lamb will undoubtedly support and vote for many of Pelosi's policies.

- Lamb wants to keep the Affordable Care Act in place.
- Lamb blasted the GOP tax plan as “giveaway” to the rich.
- Lamb said that he personally opposes abortion but that he doesn't think the right to have one should be taken away.
- Lamb wants to strengthen background checks for gun sales.

[Me.]

19. Fingers Crossed

[Gothmog]

6. Gerrymandering has a downside and when a race is close enough safe seats will flip

[grantcart]

7. And with the huge advantage to incumbents those seats could stay in Dems hands for a decade

[gristy]

9. I had suspected this but hadn't taken the time to work it out.

That is, the GOP's advantage of gerrymandering holds only for a range of GOP popular vote %. Once that percentage drops enough, the advantage of gerrymandering goes to the Democrats. Not to say that it's ever a good thing, but still.

[Cha]

10. Yeah, like I hope all their

shite BACKFIRES!

[rplcmint67]

11. I often wonder how many 18 yo kids will be old enough to vote

will do so now that the NRA issues have come to light in recent months. I believe 3M are eligible to vote.