Are you ready for redistricting?

[Radical Activist]

No matter what happens in the election next Tuesday, we can ensure large Democratic majorities for the next decade if we win the redistricting fight.

It's tempting for state governments to draw bi-partisan incumbent protection districts that heavily favor one party or the other. The result is Republican wackjobs in Congress who never face a competitive challenger. We need to draw out the worst Republican Congressmen and we need more districts that are competitive.

For example, in Illinois we could easily eliminate two Republican Congressmen by redrawing their incumbent-protection districts. Potentially three. That's one more reason why we need to win these races for Governor and state representative. When the election is over I'm going to start bugging Democratic leaders to draw a better map that puts Congress in Democratic control and eliminates the extremist zealots.

[de novo]

1. Actually, it depends on what happens this Tuesday.

The elected state reps get to redraw the districts.

[Radical Activist]

2. Yes.

As I wrote, that's one more reason why we need to win these races for Governor and state representative.

[de novo]

3. The state races are arguably more important this year than the national

races for that very reason.

[HockeyMom]

4. I live in Naples

Golden Gate City, poor and Mexican, is districted into MIAMI. We are a good 100 miles from Miami. Why? Look at their demographics. The good, rich REPUKES don't want this area (Democrats) changing their status quo. Guess what? I am neither poor, Mexican, nor live in that area, but I VOTE WITH THEM, until I GET OUT of this miserable "city" and state.

[Radical Activist]

9. My Congressman lives about 90 miles from me.

Some of these districts are ridiculous.

[HockeyMom]

5. I live in Naples

Golden Gate City, poor and Mexican, is districted into MIAMI. We are a good 100 miles from Miami. Why? Look at their demographics. The good, rich REPUKES don't want this area (Democrats) changing their status quo. Guess what? I am neither poor, Mexican, nor live in that area, but I VOTE WITH THEM, until I GET OUT of this miserable "city" and state.

[NoPasaran]

6. No

Need to go to the store and pick up some lube.

[Radical Activist]

7. Well then,

I'm sure there's time for that, other activities involving lube, and still getting ready for redistricting. :rofl:

[FBaggins]

8. Redistricting isn't a magic pill... You have to put those voters somewhere.

If you swap a 70% republican district for a 50-50 district, those 20% republicans have to go somewhere.

IOW, more competitive R districts means more competitive D districts.

[Radical Activist]

10. Yes, in some cases.

It could also mean making a district 60% Democratic instead of 65%, while making a Republican district competitive. Or, it could mean drawing two Republican incumbents into a district together in an area where the district has to be Republican.

Either way, it means we can make significant gains in 2012 when a Democratic President is running for re-election.

[FBaggins]

13. You're assuming that we'll control redistricting.

In far too many of the key states, that isn't looking like the most likely scenario... and it's much easier to gerrymander in favor of republicans than democrats (we tend to live closer together and in large population centers).

I think that you'll probably read of a number of cases were the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ will be out line of defense for some redistricting schemes.

Either way, it means we can make significant gains in 2012 when a Democratic President is running for re-election.

The gains we'll see in 2012 will come in large numbers from seats that republicans win because Obama isn't on the ballot... that switch back when he is. Particularly if republican redistricting in places like PA try to protect too many of the gained seats (thining out their strength too far).

Contrary to your earlier position, what you really want to do in redistricting is pack your opponents into a handful of easy-win seats... the bigger the majority the better. This ensures the maximum number of reachable seats for democrats while simultaneously ensuring that the nuttiest republicans win in landslides and are there to use as targets (and to drive their party astray) for decades to come.

[Radical Activist]

14. No, I'm not assuming anything.

Why do you think I wrote that it makes races for Governor and state legislator more important? Because the outcomes of those races determine whether we control redistricting. I didn't think that needed to be explained any more plainly than I wrote it.

I haven't written anything in contradiction to my original post. There are many redistricting strategies. The right one depends on the state and region the district is in. I chose not to spell out every strategy in my OP. What I don't want, as I wrote, are districts drawn to ensure the safety of every incumbent.

I'm not sure what the point of your nitpicking details is but if you're trying to downplay the importance of redistricting then you're way off mark. It's a major reason why Republicans took Congress in '94. The fact that Obama will also be up for re-election in 2012 makes this an opportunity to create the largest Democratic majority the House has seen in a generation.

[sally cat]

11. Not sure the "large Democratic majorities" really matter, looking at the last 2 years.

[Radical Activist]

12. The House did a decent job.

They passed a lot of progressive bills that were blocked by the Senate. Conservative Senate Democrats and the filibuster rule were the problem for these two years. There are solutions to that problem.