Media Bias

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

G1, you can’t gerrymander the senate...the point is this journalist is a moron.

LOL,........sure chico,sure.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Giantone

LOL, it worked for republicans .







chico , you still don't get it. Everything the republicans have done or are doing is going to come back at them ten fold! Stop the phony outrage .





https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...olina-michigan



https://www.businessinsider.com/part...mocrats-2017-6



The AP scrutinized the outcomes of all 435 U.S. House races and about 4,700 state House and Assembly seats up for election last year using a new statistical method of calculating partisan advantage. It’s designed to detect cases in which one party may have won, widened or retained its grip on power through political gerrymandering.



The analysis found four times as many states with Republican-skewed state House or Assembly districts than Democratic ones. Among the two dozen most populated states that determine the vast majority of Congress, there were nearly three times as many with Republican-tilted U.S. House districts.



Yet the data suggest that even if Democrats had turned out in larger numbers, their chances of substantial legislative gains were limited by gerrymandering.



“The outcome was already cooked in, if you will, because of the way the districts were drawn,” said John McGlennon, a longtime professor of government and public policy at the College of William & Mary in Virginia who ran unsuccessfully for Congress as a Democrat in the 1980s.

G1 you live in Md, a gerrymandered state for the Dems. Both parties have done that on the House level.

As for Gerrymandering the Senate (a fairly impossible thing) we ought to repeal the direct election of senators and move back to the state legislatures appointing them.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[SunnySide]

MD is gerrymandered but I think rational people can agree that the Republicans have abused the trick much more and more often than Democrats.

The census is coming up and new districts will be drawn based on census numbers. That is why Trump and Republicans wanted the "citizenship" question on there, so that minorities would be less likely to respond, thus under reporting in traditionally democratic areas so those areas will have less House Reps. The census is used to determine how many people live in the US per district and is not designed to measure how many voters per district.

District drawing should be non-partisan, using natural land barriers or other objective ways. To allow a R or D state controlled legislature to draw maps for the specific purpose of watering down the other parties votes seems so unconstitutional to me.
------------
The 2012 election provides a number of examples as to how partisan gerrymandering can adversely affect the descriptive function of states' congressional delegations. In Pennsylvania, for example, Democratic candidates for the House of Representatives received 83,000 more votes than Republican candidates, yet the Republican-controlled redistricting process in 2010 resulted in Democrats losing to their Republican counterparts in 13 out of Pennsylvania's 18 districts.[32]

In the seven states where Republicans had complete control over the redistricting process, Republican House candidates received 16.7 million votes and Democratic House candidates received 16.4 million votes. The redistricting resulted in Republican victories in 73 out of the 107 affected seats; in those 7 states, Republicans received 50.4% of the votes but won in over 68% of the congressional districts.[33] While it is but one example of how gerrymandering can have a significant effect on election outcomes, this kind of disproportional representation of the public will seems to be problematic for the legitimacy of democratic systems, regardless of one's political affiliation.

In Michigan, redistricting was constructed by a Republican Legislature in 2011.[34] Federal congressional districts were so designed that cities such as Battle Creek, Grand Rapids, Jackson, Kalamazoo, Lansing, and East Lansing were separated into districts with large conservative-leaning hinterlands that essentially diluted the Democratic votes in those cities in Congressional elections.[citation needed] Since 2010 not one of those cities is within a district in which a Democratic nominee for the House of Representatives has a reasonable chance of winning, short of Democratic landslide.[citation needed][clarification needed]

-------

[CRedskinsRule]

As far as Gerrymandering on a whole, seems to me that at this point we ought to be smart enough to realize that redistricting needs to be taken out of the political arena and done with neutrality in mind. It's not right when done to favor Republicans or Democrats.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

As far as Gerrymandering on a whole, seems to me that at this point we ought to be smart enough to realize that redistricting needs to be taken out of the political arena and done with neutrality in mind. It's not right when done to favor Republicans or Democrats.

Exactly and for MSNBC to think it’s plausible is 1. Fucking retarded bc she’s an idiot journalist as it’s not an option in the senate2. She Brings it up to circumvent electoral process...exactly what you and ss are criticizing.

But msnbc gonna msnbc

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Exactly and for MSNBC to think it’s plausible is 1. Fucking retarded bc she’s an idiot journalist as it’s not an option in the senate2. She Brings it up to circumvent electoral process...exactly what you and ss are criticizing.

But msnbc gonna msnbc

Totally agree but you are basing dems about it when it has been used more as a tool by republicans.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Totally agree but you are basing dems about it when it has been used more as a tool by republicans.

Lol g1 I’m not bashing either side...look at the clip, I’m clearly bashing Katy Tur because she’s incompetent liberal hack and her guest cringes when correcting her. Go back and watch.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

As far as Gerrymandering on a whole, seems to me that at this point we ought to be smart enough to realize that redistricting needs to be taken out of the political arena and done with neutrality in mind. It's not right when done to favor Republicans or Democrats.

I totally agree.

[CRedskinsRule]

We all agree, Gerrymandering is bad, and a better - nonpartisan way should be developed.

I think that deserves a round of beers!! now, can we agree G1 is buying?

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

We all agree, Gerrymandering is bad, and a better - nonpartisan way should be developed.

I think that deserves a round of beers!! now, can we agree G1 is buying?

The G1 and Mooby think the beers should be re-distributed from the top down and in a Free-Beer-for-all model where we have to wait a month out to get our Beer and once we do, its Miller Lite quality.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

The G1 and Mooby think the beers should be re-distributed from the top down and in a Free-Beer-for-all model where we have to wait a month out to get our Beer and once we do, its Miller Lite quality.

Again chico will lie, have I not talked about my Beer excursions to the Berkshires ? Miller Lite hasn't touch these lips in over 40 years!

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Again chico will lie, have I not talked about my Beer excursions to the Berkshires ? Miller Lite hasn't touch these lips in over 40 years!

Just like I thought...an elitist.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Just like I thought...an elitist.

..............when it comes to Beer , hell yes! ..................and?

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

The G1 and Mooby think the beers should be re-distributed from the top down and in a Free-Beer-for-all model where we have to wait a month out to get our Beer and once we do, its Miller Lite quality.

chico , only you would bitch about free beer.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

The G1 and Mooby think the beers should be re-distributed from the top down and in a Free-Beer-for-all model where we have to wait a month out to get our Beer and once we do, its Miller Lite quality.

Before I forget to respond to this, I'm not in favor of the free-beer-for-all model, I just wish everyone (especially the top 1%) had to give away 25% of their yearly beers the way I have to give away 25% of my yearly beers.