I was merely pointing out you were exhibiting the exact same behavior you were complaining about. I think we should shelve this now, and let the discussion go back to section 702, if people so choose.
I’ve developing a theory that the rapid fire internal coups of the republican party are a result of gerrymandering. I don’t think the Tea Party could have happened in the same way if it weren’t for “safe seats”. (Though Roy Moore showed even safe seats have limits)
3 Likes
You’re right, they are a direct result of successful gerrymandering. But we have to separate Senate from House.
The Tea Party got its start in New York, Massachusetts and Kentucky senate races in 2008-9. Those are winner-take-all by state, not congressional districts, so gerrymandering didn’t have any effect there.
Gerrymandering definitely had a role in the 2010 midterm House elections. When the Republicans were concentrated into one district more than they ever had been before (and Democrats marginalized) that allowed the possibility of a critical mass of Tea Partiers forming a hostile takeover in that district. Without the high concentration of R’s, as you suggest, the Democrat would just win. But if the Democrats are made irrelevant, that allows two Republican factions to duke it out and one will win, which we saw many times in 2010, 2012, etc.
Translated to a state level, that same kind of thing could have happened in Alabama if Republicans had realized it early enough. Doug Jones won against Roy Moore because the Republican was so unpalatable, and there was no other choice. If Alabama had put up a second Republican to challenge the first one, that person would have won. But there wasn’t enough time, and #MeToo spread like friggin wildfire, thank goodness.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
