JFLNYC wrote:I thought he was moving to Belgium. Guess they didn't want him.

There always is a serious faction of Democrats who have a sweet tooth for tough-daddy Republicans — and, yes, I'm looking at you, Matthews, and you, O'Donnell, and you, too, Rendell — and Christie now fits that bill admirably. You don't have to be clairvoyant to predict that people are going to confront what appears to be yet another field full of extremists contending for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination, and then you will have Chris Christie, who "took on his own party" over storm relief, and who "worked with a Democratic president" in the aftermath of a horrendous natural calamity. Plus, he is "honest." He "says what's on his mind." And he likes Springsteen! I can write Mike Allen's piece in Politico for him right now.

The fact is that he's still the same guy he always was. Somebody who would pull the wings off flies if he thought it meant 15 minutes on CNN. Someone who almost never picks on anyone his own size. Someone who kicks down, always. Someone who was OK with federal storm relief, but ostentatiously refused federal money for another tunnel connecting New Jersey and New York. He's still the same megalomaniac who stunned the party in Tampa by giving a keynote address at the Republican National Convention in which he barely mentioned the nominee. He's the guy who put the bully in the bully pulpit. And he has not changed, any more than Washington has. Be advised. The aurora's rising behind him.

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Why 'gerrymandering' doesn't polarize Congress the way we're told

It shouldn't really be a surprise that no single factor in isolation explains all of the observed polarization. That's rare with respect to any phenomenon respecting human beings. The author acknowledges that gerrymandering plays a role, and merely asserts that it doesn't explain all of the observed polarization. He doesn't trouble to examine whether gerrymandering combined with primary processes exaggerates seatholders' ideological positions. What do you think?

jerseyhoya wrote:

Harry Enten ‏@ForecasterEnten
Ohio Newspaper Poll is a tie at 49-49
Harry Enten ‏@ForecasterEnten
This has historically been an EXCELLENT poll in Ohio. Calls cell phones. Live interviews.

And the ignoring the polls I don't like was a bit tongue in cheek. The polls with Obama up 3-5 in Ohio are all built off of different assumptions than the ones that have it tied. They're, for the most part, more optimistic for Dem turnout and pessimistic for GOP turnout than 2008. If their turnout/electorate composition is right, then Obama will win. I do not think that is likely, so I don't put much stake in them. Can't ignore them completely, but they've got to be taken with as big of a grain of salt as anything I predict.

pacino wrote:let's not crown King Christie just yet, sez Esquire:

There always is a serious faction of Democrats who have a sweet tooth for tough-daddy Republicans — and, yes, I'm looking at you, Matthews, and you, O'Donnell, and you, too, Rendell — and Christie now fits that bill admirably. You don't have to be clairvoyant to predict that people are going to confront what appears to be yet another field full of extremists contending for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination, and then you will have Chris Christie, who "took on his own party" over storm relief, and who "worked with a Democratic president" in the aftermath of a horrendous natural calamity. Plus, he is "honest." He "says what's on his mind." And he likes Springsteen! I can write Mike Allen's piece in Politico for him right now.

The fact is that he's still the same guy he always was. Somebody who would pull the wings off flies if he thought it meant 15 minutes on CNN. Someone who almost never picks on anyone his own size. Someone who kicks down, always. Someone who was OK with federal storm relief, but ostentatiously refused federal money for another tunnel connecting New Jersey and New York. He's still the same megalomaniac who stunned the party in Tampa by giving a keynote address at the Republican National Convention in which he barely mentioned the nominee. He's the guy who put the bully in the bully pulpit. And he has not changed, any more than Washington has. Be advised. The aurora's rising behind him.

sure would like NJians opinion on this. he still has 3 years of campaigning to pull a Romney and become a crazy so he can get by the primary. he's still very very conservative.

bury me wrote:why was the Violence Against Women Act blocked

td11 wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Why 'gerrymandering' doesn't polarize Congress the way we're told

It shouldn't really be a surprise that no single factor in isolation explains all of the observed polarization. That's rare with respect to any phenomenon respecting human beings. The author acknowledges that gerrymandering plays a role, and merely asserts that it doesn't explain all of the observed polarization. He doesn't trouble to examine whether gerrymandering combined with primary processes exaggerates seatholders' ideological positions. What do you think?

i don't really get the point jerz is making either. gerrymandering is not the only reason why our politics are so polarized? ok, we knew that. does that mean we should just leave gerrymandering alone?

reminds me of when jerz cherrypicked an enten tweet during election season to hold up some flimsy point, or rather poll:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Harry Enten ‏@ForecasterEnten
Ohio Newspaper Poll is a tie at 49-49
Harry Enten ‏@ForecasterEnten
This has historically been an EXCELLENT poll in Ohio. Calls cell phones. Live interviews.

And the ignoring the polls I don't like was a bit tongue in cheek. The polls with Obama up 3-5 in Ohio are all built off of different assumptions than the ones that have it tied. They're, for the most part, more optimistic for Dem turnout and pessimistic for GOP turnout than 2008. If their turnout/electorate composition is right, then Obama will win. I do not think that is likely, so I don't put much stake in them. Can't ignore them completely, but they've got to be taken with as big of a grain of salt as anything I predict.

None of this is to say that partisan gerrymandering doesn't have any effect. Sam Wang believes Republicans are far more likely to gain seats than Democrats when they control the redistricting process. Goedert's analysis, which includes more states, agrees, but also shows that Democrats are likely to take more seats than they should if they gerrymander as well. Goedert demonstrates that Republicans gain more seats by about 18 percentage points in a state when they control redistricting. Democrats pick up only about 9pt more when they draw the lines. This difference is, in my opinion, likely a reflection of the natural disadvantage Democrats have in redistricting – as seen in the 7pt Democratic underperformance in the non- and bipartisan states.

td11 wrote:i learned from the article, too. but really, the biggest point he makes is that gerrymandering may not be the cause for the current polarization in the house, but is still shitty and the article actually says as much

None of this is to say that partisan gerrymandering doesn't have any effect. Sam Wang believes Republicans are far more likely to gain seats than Democrats when they control the redistricting process. Goedert's analysis, which includes more states, agrees, but also shows that Democrats are likely to take more seats than they should if they gerrymander as well. Goedert demonstrates that Republicans gain more seats by about 18 percentage points in a state when they control redistricting. Democrats pick up only about 9pt more when they draw the lines. This difference is, in my opinion, likely a reflection of the natural disadvantage Democrats have in redistricting – as seen in the 7pt Democratic underperformance in the non- and bipartisan states.

did you really learn from this article that gerrymandering isn't the main reason for house polarization? wasn't that already your view? my cherry picking comment was to point out that the only two times i am aware of that you posted an enten article/tweet was when they agreed with your already held views at the moment. if not, i apologize

Both pundits and scholars have blamed increasing levels of partisan conflict and polarization in Congress on the effects of partisan gerrymandering. We assess whether there is a strong causal relationship between congressional districting and polarization. We find very little evidence for such a link. First, we show that congressional polarization is primarily a function of the differences in how Democrats and Republicans represent the same districts rather than a function of which districts each party represents or the distribution of constituency preferences. Second, we conduct simulations to gauge the level of polarization under various “neutral” districting procedures. We find that the actual levels of polarization are not much higher than those produced by the simulations. We do find that gerrymandering has increased the Republican seat share in the House; however, this increase is not an important source of polarization.

td11 wrote:i learned from the article, too. but really, the biggest point he makes is that gerrymandering may not be the cause for the current polarization in the house, but is still shitty and the article actually says as much

None of this is to say that partisan gerrymandering doesn't have any effect. Sam Wang believes Republicans are far more likely to gain seats than Democrats when they control the redistricting process. Goedert's analysis, which includes more states, agrees, but also shows that Democrats are likely to take more seats than they should if they gerrymander as well. Goedert demonstrates that Republicans gain more seats by about 18 percentage points in a state when they control redistricting. Democrats pick up only about 9pt more when they draw the lines. This difference is, in my opinion, likely a reflection of the natural disadvantage Democrats have in redistricting – as seen in the 7pt Democratic underperformance in the non- and bipartisan states.

did you really learn from this article that gerrymandering isn't the main reason for house polarization? wasn't that already your view? my cherry picking comment was to point out that the only two times i am aware of that you posted an enten article/tweet was when they agreed with your already held views at the moment. if not, i apologize

Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-MS), whose Mississippi district is situated on the Gulf Coast, was one of 67 Republicans on Friday to vote against a $9.7 billion relief package to victims of Hurricane Sandy.

Mississippi’s Fourth Congressional District, which Palazzo has represented since 2010, includes the city of Biloxi, one of the most heavily damaged communities in the region by Hurricane Katrina. Congress quickly passed an initial $10.5 billion relief package in the immediate aftermath of Katrina in September of 2005. Palazzo’s predecessor, former Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS), supported that legislation.