Does anyone know of a democratic opponent to republican Crenshaw? Abel Harding? This is the 4th congressional district.
The flip side to Brown's gerrymandered 3rd District is that the 4th, 6th, and 7th are all safe Republican districts. Personally, I doubt Crenshaw see's a serious Democratic opponent at least until redistricting is complete and all court challenges are settled, but I have no inside knowledge.
Quote from: stephendare on January 09, 2012, 11:34:12 AM
Quote from: Traveller on January 09, 2012, 10:32:03 AM
The flip side to Brown's gerrymandered 3rd District is that the 4th, 6th, and 7th are all safe Republican districts. Personally, I doubt Crenshaw see's a serious Democratic opponent at least until redistricting is complete and all court challenges are settled, but I have no inside knowledge.
what do you mean, thats the 'flip side'? Thats the whole point of these gerrymandered democratic districts.
To create overwhelming democratic majorities in one district that pulls at least 10% of the democrats out of the surrounding mixed districts, thereby giving the republicans the advantage.
Exactly........all this gerry-mandering was primarily intended to help Republicans more than Democrats: for every Democratic gerry-mandered district, three solidly Republican district are created.
The Democratic one is 80-20 in favor of a Democratic candidate
The Three Republican districts thus created are 60-40 in favor of a Republican candidate
On top of that, an incumbent has by definition a 95% re-election chance.
There will be no Democratic opponent for John Mica or Cliff Stearns either, in addition to Ander Crenshaw. Last time they all had credible Democratic opponents was in 2008, but outcomes were pre-determined as expected.........see above.
Some kind of Democracy we live in huh?
Quote from: FayeforCure on January 09, 2012, 12:08:49 PM
Quote from: stephendare on January 09, 2012, 11:34:12 AM
Quote from: Traveller on January 09, 2012, 10:32:03 AM
The flip side to Brown's gerrymandered 3rd District is that the 4th, 6th, and 7th are all safe Republican districts. Personally, I doubt Crenshaw see's a serious Democratic opponent at least until redistricting is complete and all court challenges are settled, but I have no inside knowledge.
what do you mean, thats the 'flip side'? Thats the whole point of these gerrymandered democratic districts.
To create overwhelming democratic majorities in one district that pulls at least 10% of the democrats out of the surrounding mixed districts, thereby giving the republicans the advantage.
Exactly........all this gerry-mandering was primarily intended to help Republicans more than Democrats: for every Democratic gerry-mandered district, three solidly Republican district are created.
The Democratic one is 80-20 in favor of a Democratic candidate
The Three Republican districts thus created are 60-40 in favor of a Republican candidate
On top of that, an incumbent has by definition a 95% re-election chance.
There will be no Democratic opponent for John Mica or Cliff Stearns either, in addition to Ander Crenshaw. Last time they all had credible Democratic opponents was in 2008, but outcomes were pre-determined as expected.........see above.
Some kind of Democracy we live in huh?
In 2000 they were done by dems for dems. As usual unintended consequences
The original 1992 redistricting, and all those since, was made possible by a coalition between black and other minority Democrats and Republicans. The Reps felt that creating minority access districts would make things easier for Republicans in the other districts; the minorities felt such districts would ensure there would be minority representation in the legislature, as there had been nearly none before. By all accounts, the measure has had both effects.
I'm not going to defend this gerrymandering, but the near-total lack of minority representation in this state prior to 1992 is a much more serious offense than anything the redistricting has done.
Quote from: Tacachale on January 09, 2012, 01:03:22 PM
The original 1992 redistricting, and all those since, was made possible by a coalition between black and other minority Democrats and Republicans. The Reps felt that creating minority access districts would make things easier for Republicans in the other districts; the minorities felt such districts would ensure there would be minority representation in the legislature, as there had been nearly none before. By all accounts, the measure has had both effects.
I'm not going to defend this gerrymandering, but the near-total lack of minority representation in this state prior to 1992 is a much more serious offense than anything the redistricting has done.
Actually no........I think that having a state with districts being distorted like this:
17 Republicsn
8 Democratic
in a state where the majority of voters are Democratic, is just sickening and bad for women.
Republicans have been by and large anti-women's rights.
And we still pretend to be some kind of Democracy!
I can't believe you're actually arguing that an almost total lack of minority representation was not a serious problem.
Quote from: FayeforCure on January 09, 2012, 01:17:15 PM
Actually no........I think that having a state with districts being distorted like this:
17 Republicsn
8 Democratic
in a state where the majority of voters are Democratic, is just sickening and bad for women.
Republicans have been by and large anti-women's rights.
And we still pretend to be some kind of Democracy!
wow!
#1 - the districts are currently divided 17/8....doesn't mean it has to stay that way....and yes, the districts are constructed to be somewhat homogenuous....are you implying that you would have beat Mica if the district was drawn differently?
#2 - you say the 17/8 balance between D and R is bad for women...is that becasue all women are Dems and/or support only Dems? If so, I can assure you there wouldn't be any elected Republicans in Florida
#3 - we don't have a Democracy....it has always been and continues to be a Democratic Republic.
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 09, 2012, 02:40:23 PM
Quote from: FayeforCure on January 09, 2012, 01:17:15 PM
Actually no........I think that having a state with districts being distorted like this:
17 Republicsn
8 Democratic
in a state where the majority of voters are Democratic, is just sickening and bad for women.
Republicans have been by and large anti-women's rights.
And we still pretend to be some kind of Democracy!
wow!
#1 - the districts are currently divided 17/8....doesn't mean it has to stay that way....and yes, the districts are constructed to be somewhat homogenuous....are you implying that you would have beat Mica if the district was drawn differently?
Nothing homogenous about district 7 that has pieces of 6 different counties, ranging from a tiny sliver of Orange county, just enough to have Mica's home in district7, a third of Seminole county, half of Volusia county, all of Flagler, all of St Johns, and half of Putnam county. It snakes alongside Corinne Brown's district.
Corinne's district has an 80 to 20 ratio of Democrats, John Mica's district has an approx. 60 to 40 ratio of Republicans. Neither one is considered homogenous and are the laughing stock of any sane person except yourself, apparently.
And yes, if the ratio had been closer to 50/50 and independents weren't Republican voting libertarians, a Democrat would actually have a chance in district 7!!
As it was, I DID pull in about 150,000 votes, which represented 39% of the vote in 2008, which was far better than the woman who ran in 2010 did. She only was able to get 32% of the vote against Mica. I am proud of how I did, but I do wonder what would have happened if I hadn't campaigned at all. Same outcome? Probably.
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 09, 2012, 02:40:23 PM
#2 - you say the 17/8 balance between D and R is bad for women...is that becasue all women are Dems and/or support only Dems? If so, I can assure you there wouldn't be any elected Republicans in Florida
Many religious women will vote whatever their husband tells them to. There aren't many female candidates to vote for anyway. Republicans won't let women make their own decisions regarding their medical care.
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 09, 2012, 02:40:23 PM
#3 - we don't have a Democracy....it has always been and continues to be a Democratic Republic.
I have heard that one a million times ::)
It's still supposed to be democratic, which it clearly isn't when 95% of incumbents are guaranteed re-election. We have congressmen for life............just like little dictatorships.
Well run again Faye. I'll vote for you.
From now until ??? I am voting every incumbent out.
Incidentally, Faye is exactly right about District 7. Talk about gerrymandering!
Faye, we often disagree, but I'll even canvass for you.
That said, I will continue to defer to Ock on all things transit oriented, and lake gets the nod for planning.
I will be an ardent supporter of your Florida Single Payer Health System Act. Get to writing. ;)
Yes, Faye, consider it. You have my vote and support! Throw the incumbents out!
Thank you Jerry and buckethead. My first instinct indeed had been to run again........having more name recognition the second time around. Then I remind myself that the only reason I ran was I thought we'd have a clean sweep in FL due to strong anti-Bush and strong anti-incumbents sentiments.
But studies have shown that the anti-incumbent sentiment is for all 435 congressmen, except for their own.
I found out that America doesn't like change..........as much as they complain......they are afraid of change.
Obama's change was based on fake hope. I never liked the "hope" message because it is soooo passive. My own motto is: Expect More, Don't Settle for Less
Obama in 2008 also didn't have the expected coat-tails in FL: only 2 districts out of 25 changed from R to D!!
Here is a piece from 1993 that explains the dismal chances of anyone still believing in Democratic elections in the US:
(http://www.jstor.org/action/showArticleImage?image=images%2Fpages%2Fdtc.161.tif.gif&doi=10.2307%2F2111546)
Will Democratic elections ever be restored in FL? Not likely:
Breaking down the Florida GOP’s redistricting map
Posted by Aaron Blakeat 03:29 PM ET, 01/26/2012
Florida Republicans have apparently settled on a new congressional map they hope will help them cement their overwhelming majority in the state’s delegation for a decade to come.
While the state’s GOP lawmakers have been tossing around a series of proposals for the past few weeks, sources tell The Fix that they have settled on a map that is expected to pass out of the state legislature in the coming days. (The map can be viewed here.)
We stress that this is not the final product, and whatever the GOP winds up passing will be subject to review under the state’s new redistricting laws, which Democrats hope will invalidate the GOP map. But it’s worth a look at what the GOP is trying to do.
Here’s a brief recap. (And be sure to check out our updated Redistricting Scorecard.)
* Open seats
With the state gaining two seats thanks to population increases, the map creates one solidly Republican seat (the 17th) in the Everglades region and one Democratic-leaning seat (the 9th) just south of Orlando.
The Democratic leaning seat would have gone 60 percent for President Obama in the 2008 election but also would have gone narrowly for President Bush in 2004, suggesting it’s not unwinnable for the GOP.
In addition, Rep. Connie Mack’s (R-Fla.) decision to run for Senate left his seat open. Formerly labeled the 14th district, it is now the 19th and is safely Republican.
* Who gets help?
The winners on this map are Republican Reps. Dan Webster, Sandy Adams and Mario Diaz-Balart. All hail from competitive districts but are looking safer now.
Webster and Diaz-Balart’s districts (renumbered the 10th and 25th) both get about five points more Republican and should be tough for Democrats to pursue.
Adams is drawn into the 7th district with Rep. John Mica (R), but the two have already worked it out, and Mica will run in the neighboring 6th district instead ( Mica will run in St Johns and Flagler, Volusia and Putman, that were formerly named the 7th district, even though he will not even live in the district). Adams’s district gets one or two points better for the GOP.
* Who gets hurt?
Because the GOP has such a huge majority of seats in a swing state â€" 19 of 25, to be exact â€" shoring up all 19 of those members was a difficult task. And that means some Republicans see their districts get tougher under the new map.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/breaking-down-the-florida-gops-redistricting-map/2012/01/26/gIQAdCFYTQ_blog.html
Excellent post, Faye.
Further evidence of a Romney victory in November. He'll take Florida rather easily.
Quote from: jerry cornwell on January 28, 2012, 03:00:31 PM
Excellent post, Faye.
Further evidence of a Romney victory in November. He'll take Florida rather easily.
If you're willing to wager on a rather easy victory (I assume this means a 5 point spread), I'll take that bet
Quote from: jerry cornwell on January 28, 2012, 03:00:31 PM
Excellent post, Faye.
Further evidence of a Romney victory in November. He'll take Florida rather easily.
Actually the gerry-mandering of congressional districts by Republicans, has little effect on state-wide races such as the Presidential race.
Remember there are more registered Democrats in Florida than there are registered Republicans. Just need to make sure Dems aren't too intimidated by Republicans to go out and vote ;)
Go Republican Lite Obama!!!!