jerseyhoya wrote:I don't think what I said was ridiculous at all. The Voting Rights Act has been interpreted by the Supreme Court and various DOJ's since the 1960s as requiring majority minority districts to be drawn and states' redistricting plans have to receive DOJ approval in part to see that they have fulfilled this requirement. So that seems pretty clearly about race. Recently it has come to "protect" Hispanics as well, but it started out as a black thing.

I'm just saying that apportionment hijinks did not start with VRA. Your post suggests, perhaps inadvertently, that they did.

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I don't think what I said was ridiculous at all. The Voting Rights Act has been interpreted by the Supreme Court and various DOJ's since the 1960s as requiring majority minority districts to be drawn and states' redistricting plans have to receive DOJ approval in part to see that they have fulfilled this requirement. So that seems pretty clearly about race. Recently it has come to "protect" Hispanics as well, but it started out as a black thing.

I'm just saying that apportionment hijinks did not start with VRA. Your post suggests, perhaps inadvertently, that they did.

I don't think I said or suggested anything about gerrymandering in general or racial gerrymandering starting with the drawing of majority minority districts for the purpose of helping blacks gain representation in the House. Currently it's the law of the land though.

TenuredVulture wrote:Majority-minority districts have been a boon to Republicans in many Southern states. One reason probably why Dems have a stranglehold on the Arkansas delegation to the House is the fact that the state is too small to have a minority-majority Congressional district.

I think the reason Arkansas has a majority Dem delegation is the Arkansas GOP blows. McCain won all four Arkansas districts. Dems also have a majority of seats in (this is off the top of my head so I might be wrong) MS, TN, NC and are close in VA, AL and GA.

Even though we do a lot of seats in the South, there sure are a number of them out there that we should win, and these numbers are helped certainly by the consolidation of the black vote in a smaller number of districts. Ending the practice of majority minority districts wouldn't help the GOP in any way.

jerseyhoya wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Majority-minority districts have been a boon to Republicans in many Southern states. One reason probably why Dems have a stranglehold on the Arkansas delegation to the House is the fact that the state is too small to have a minority-majority Congressional district.

I think the reason Arkansas has a majority Dem delegation is the Arkansas GOP blows. McCain won all four Arkansas districts. Dems also have a majority of seats in (this is off the top of my head so I might be wrong) MS, TN, NC and are close in VA, AL and GA.

Even though we do a lot of seats in the South, there sure are a number of them out there that we should win, and these numbers are helped certainly by the consolidation of the black vote in a smaller number of districts. Ending the practice of majority minority districts wouldn't help the GOP in any way.

True, the Arkasnas GOP does blow, and that is part of the reason. But if you carved out a majority minority district, even the incompetents who run the Arkansas Republican party should be able to get at least 2, and maybe 3 of the 4 seats.

And you final sentence is pretty much what I'm saying--ending wouldn't help the GOP, in fact, it would be likely to hurt the GOP.

The outsider critique of "incumbent protection program" certainly seems on point when you think about a district that's D+30 surrounded by four that are R+10. This was Tom DeLay's whole Texas redistricting strategy, IIRC, but both parties do it.

I see no good reason at all to allow legislatures to continue control over redistricting. The same technological advances that allow politicians to self-perpetuate (and since I mentioned Obama above, I'll add that I read last year about how he literally redrew his own state senate district to better position himself for upward mobility--pulling in constituents who could be huge donors, that sort of thing) could allow for fairer, more competitive districts that might even yield representatives in tune with the midpoint of public opinion in their districts, rather than in thrall to the most extreme right or left element.

And with that, I guess I should go vote, totally without enthusiasm, in my local primaries.

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I don't think what I said was ridiculous at all. The Voting Rights Act has been interpreted by the Supreme Court and various DOJ's since the 1960s as requiring majority minority districts to be drawn and states' redistricting plans have to receive DOJ approval in part to see that they have fulfilled this requirement. So that seems pretty clearly about race. Recently it has come to "protect" Hispanics as well, but it started out as a black thing.

I'm just saying that apportionment hijinks did not start with VRA. Your post suggests, perhaps inadvertently, that they did.

I don't think I said or suggested anything about gerrymandering in general or racial gerrymandering starting with the drawing of majority minority districts for the purpose of helping blacks gain representation in the House. Currently it's the law of the land though.

Ok, sorry. Another conclusion I jumped to.

Why did seven Republicans vote for that stupid Wilson resolution? And could a weirder group of seven have gotten together from the caucus? At the same time, the 12 Dems that voted against it are a pretty bizarre bunch as well.

jerseyhoya wrote:Why did seven Republicans vote for that stupid Wilson resolution? And could a weirder group of seven have gotten together from the caucus? At the same time, the 12 Dems that voted against it are a pretty bizarre bunch as well.

The whole thing was stupid. I'd like to think that if I'd been in Congress, I would have voted against it too.

The guy did a jerkassed thing, admitted as much and apologized, and the president accepted his apology. What possible good could come out of either side going any further with it?

It's that sort of utterly meaningless bullshit, and their transparent preference for said meaningless bullshit over doing the public business, that makes Americans of every stripe so disgusted with Congress.

Five Democrats voted Present.

I think this was one of those good times to vote Present. You're saying, "I'm here, so don't say I don't show up to votes, but I think this is stupid. Please register my displeasure with this whole process."

You're probably right--that's likely a more eloquent, and certainly less troublesome (in that if you vote "No," Pelosi will make sure you never get any pork again) way of registering disgust with the whole circus.

jerseyhoya wrote:Why did seven Republicans vote for that stupid Wilson resolution? And could a weirder group of seven have gotten together from the caucus? At the same time, the 12 Dems that voted against it are a pretty bizarre bunch as well.

wasn't it you who posted the data on the extent to which any congressperson sponsors/votes on legislation that might be regarded as meaningful? B/c if it was you, you should not wonder.

I have no idea what you're talking about, so probably not.

I had a great idea for a class project--see if we could get some representative from a tobacco producing district to sponsor a "smoker appreciation day". Because smokers are heroes, in a way. They sacrifice their own health, decreasing the burden on social security and they pay more taxes to do so.

i don't really follow politics, so bear with me..

but obama hasn't raised taxes, has he?

Proud moment for New Jersey:

[O]ne out of every three New Jersey conservatives think that Obama could be the anti-Christ. To be precise, 18% of self-identified conservatives affirmatively say that Obama is the anti-Christ, with 17% not sure. Among the self-identified Republican label, it's 14% who say Obama has the number 666 hidden underneath his hair, plus 15% who aren't sure.

But oh it gets even worse on some other questions -- among both the right and the left.

It turns out that 33% of New Jersey Republicans say that Obama was not born in the United States, plus 19% in the Birther-Curious undecided category.

But Democrats shouldn't be too eager to laugh at this. On the other side of the political spectrum, there's some significant 9/11 Trutherism among Dem voters. We've got 32% of Jersey Democrats who say that George W. Bush had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. In addition, another 19% of Jersey Dems are Truther-Curious, in the undecided column.

If the Republicans take back Congress next year, I fully expect a Sense of the House resolution that Obama shave his head, just so's we can know for sure. Can't you imagine Mike Pence or Darrell Issa at the mic, declaring, "Now, personally, I have no reason to believe that the president is the Anti-Christ. But the easiest way to put the controversy to bed is for him simply to shave his head. And frankly, the fact that he's refusing to do so is only adding to the concerns that Americans have on this question."

To be fair, I can't imagine these numbers--either way--are much better anywhere else, except maybe Vermont and Hawaii (where I imagine even the Rs are fairly satisfied that Obama's a local).

It's kind of amazing that we've gotten this far, isn't it?

jamiethekiller wrote:i don't really follow politics, so bear with me..

but obama hasn't raised taxes, has he?

Outside the substantial increase in federal tobacco tax?

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

jamiethekiller wrote:i don't really follow politics, so bear with me..

but obama hasn't raised taxes, has he?

Outside the substantial increase in federal tobacco tax?

yea. i was just watching some video of the tea party thing and people were complaining about the taxes that were being raised.

jamiethekiller wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

jamiethekiller wrote:i don't really follow politics, so bear with me..

but obama hasn't raised taxes, has he?

Outside the substantial increase in federal tobacco tax?

yea. i was just watching some video of the tea party thing and people were complaining about the taxes that were being raised.

Lots of states and municipalities have raised taxes. This of course has nothing to do with Obama, but people tend to have a hard time figuring out when it's their state that has done something and when it's the feds.

Also, some of the Bush tax cuts are set to expire at some point, and as far as I'm aware, Obama and the Dems aren't going to extend them. So, if you've got a rich granny, and you expect to inherit a big estate, and well, you know.

jamiethekiller wrote:i don't really follow politics, so bear with me..

but obama hasn't raised taxes, has he?

TV's answer is right. And if you want to be even more on point, Obama himself doesn't have the power to tax. But at this point, his administration has said that taxes will need to be raised (once the economy turns around) to help close the growing budget deficit. And this will be done by Congress.