politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Just sounds like desperate copium.
Not at all. People don't understand a lot of the nuances of gerrymandering, and this sort of reliance on it often backfires, especially as a decade goes on.
The redistricting happens at the beginning of the decade, following the Census. As the decade progresses, many areas change, with some areas booming, others waning, and their original influence on the redistricting changes. For instance, a Red rural area may start to lean Blue as new housing developments around a new industry pop up, and by the end of the decade, that reliable Red district is now very Purple, maybe even fully Blue.
This unusual mid-decade redistricting happened based on 6 year old data, a period of extreme political upheaval. To expect that the political make-up is exactly the same as it was back then is expecting a LOT. Many districts are an unknown factor.
Consider this:
They got rid of one solid Blue district, but diluted three solid Red districts. Those Red districts are probably 30% Blue now. Normally, that wouldn't be enough to win the district, but we have been seeing elections in Trump districts that are showing enormous drops in support, sometimes by 30 points or more. If this redistricting has given Dems a 30% boost in a year on which MAGAs are down 20-30%, those previously solid districts become prime for flips. And that's without even considering that the party make-up may already be far different than expected, because of time.
The thing to remember is that MAGAs always have a plan, but it's always a bad plan. They only see what's right in front of them, and they never look down the road, to the next several steps. In this case, they killed a Blue district, and that's good enough. They have no idea they've endangered three districts. Maybe they won't get all three, but if they flip even one, then their efforts will be a net negative, because now they have three MAGA Congressional reps who now have a significant number of hostile constituents they'll have to deal with, whether they like it or not. They'll screw this up, they always do.