2016 Postmortem

Yo_Mama

(8,303 posts)

26. Gerrymandering may have an effect, but first the Republicans have to gain state control.

Fri Dec 16, 2016, 09:45 PM

Dec 2016

The gerrymandering occurs AFTER we lose on the state level. It may make it more difficult to rebound, but it is not the cause.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/after-winning-7-more-seats-gop-dominance-state-legislatures-all

Republicans added to their historic 2014 gains in the nation’s state legislatures with the addition of five state House chambers and two state Senate chambers in last week’s election, while Democratic control was reduced to levels not seen since the Civil War.

Republicans are now in control of a record 67 (68 percent) of the 98 partisan state legislative chambers in the nation, more than twice the number (31) in which Democrats have a majority, according to the bipartisan National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL).

“That’s more than at any other time in the history of the Republican Party,” according to NCSL. “They also hold more total seats, well over 4,100 of the 7,383, than they have since 1920.”

This is the reality which must be confronted by the Democratic party. Simply blaming the Russians or gerrymandering won't help AT ALL.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

36 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

We have to explain ALL the losses [View all] zipplewrath Dec 2016 OP

Yes hueymahl Dec 2016 #1

Not without all the data, we don't. Orsino Dec 2016 #2

Evidence of their effect? zipplewrath Dec 2016 #3

The evidence is in the roster of usual suspects who conspire to keep this information secret. Orsino Dec 2016 #4

Where is the effect zipplewrath Dec 2016 #5

The effect is as stated. Orsino Dec 2016 #8

So you have nothing but suspicions zipplewrath Dec 2016 #9

No one will ever be able to... Orsino Dec 2016 #13

So instead zipplewrath Dec 2016 #14

The key word is work. Orsino Dec 2016 #16

I'd start with turn out data zipplewrath Dec 2016 #17

But the Republicans had less and spent less this cycle, at least on a national level. Yo_Mama Dec 2016 #28

(If we don't count the billions in free airtime for Trump.) Orsino Dec 2016 #29

Yeah, he was good at getting publicity, but Hillary had awesome name recognition. Yo_Mama Dec 2016 #30

(If we don't count the billions in free airtime for Trump.) Orsino Dec 2016 #32

It can't be counted. If Hillary wanted to go out on those shows Yo_Mama Dec 2016 #33

It was counted. It was over US$ 3 bn. Orsino Dec 2016 #36

I dislike myself for reading your post and thinking conspiracy theory. NCTraveler Dec 2016 #20

Dark money? The Clinton campaign spent a lot more than the Trump campaign. Yo_Mama Dec 2016 #25

It's okay to count swings of the pendulum... Orsino Dec 2016 #31

I agree utterly with your points here, and I think this was one of the main issues in 2016 Yo_Mama Dec 2016 #35

I think the loses at the state level are in some ways even more worrying than the presidential loss. Willie Pep Dec 2016 #6

Yes. Time to panic early so we can turn this around - not since 1920 have we seen this. Yo_Mama Dec 2016 #27

The losses can almost entirely be attributed to rigging elections philosslayer Dec 2016 #7

Evidence? zipplewrath Dec 2016 #10

Read the original post philosslayer Dec 2016 #11

But not the presidential or senate zipplewrath Dec 2016 #18

DOWN BALLOT philosslayer Dec 2016 #19

yes, but zipplewrath Dec 2016 #23

Gerrymandering may have an effect, but first the Republicans have to gain state control. Yo_Mama Dec 2016 #26

I wouldn't argue it is meaningless mythology Dec 2016 #24

It would seem any rational discussion that does not include Russian hacking is letting LaydeeBug Dec 2016 #12

You're spot on. Captain Stern Dec 2016 #15

Agreed 100%. Kick and rec Arazi Dec 2016 #21

Collate the data as you instruct others to do, analyze it and please let us know what you find out.. LanternWaste Dec 2016 #22

Starting with Russ Feingold oberliner Dec 2016 #34