In the afterglow (or is it aftermath) of the election
Some reflections of a political junkie.
1. Non-partisan redistricting and its effects. The pattern is not completely clear. In Iowa, which went from 5 to 4 seats, the Democrats went from a 3-2 majority to a 2-2 tie in a state Obama won by more than 5%. On the other hand, in AZ, which added a seat, and in which the Governor tried to mess with the results of the non-partisan redistricting effort, the Dems went from 3-5 to an apparent 5-3 (assuming Ron Barber holds on to his lead) in a state Obama lost by 10%. On the other hand, nationally Dems drew half a million more votes for the House than did the Republicans yet failed to take control of the chamber in large part because of gerrymandering. This can be seen in states like OH and PA, which Obama won, but in which Republicans maintained large leads in the delegation. I do not think the answer is for our side to gerrymander in return, although with the Texas precedent we could now do that in MN and CO and gain a few seats in time for the next election. The country would be better served with districts that are more compact and do a better job of recognizing subsidiary political boundaries (cities, towns, counties) and having the parties compete more vigorously.
2. Given the gerrymandered districts, moves like that of Ohio Secretary of State Husted to change that state's
Republican Hypocrisy
1. Non-partisan redistricting and its effects. The pattern is not completely clear. In Iowa, which went from 5 to 4 seats, the Democrats went from a 3-2 majority to a 2-2 tie in a state Obama won by more than 5%. On the other hand, in AZ, which added a seat, and in which the Governor tried to mess with the results of the non-partisan redistricting effort, the Dems went from 3-5 to an apparent 5-3 (assuming Ron Barber holds on to his lead) in a state Obama lost by 10%. On the other hand, nationally Dems drew half a million more votes for the House than did the Republicans yet failed to take control of the chamber in large part because of gerrymandering. This can be seen in states like OH and PA, which Obama won, but in which Republicans maintained large leads in the delegation. I do not think the answer is for our side to gerrymander in return, although with the Texas precedent we could now do that in MN and CO and gain a few seats in time for the next election. The country would be better served with districts that are more compact and do a better job of recognizing subsidiary political boundaries (cities, towns, counties) and having the parties compete more vigorously.
2. Given the gerrymandered districts, moves like that of Ohio Secretary of State Husted to change that state's
Republican Hypocrisy
4 Americans died in the tragedy of Benghazi. Now many Republicans are calling for massive investigations, ostensibly bi-partisan and bi-cameral, because they claim the American people want to know.
On September 11, 2001, almost 4,000 people died, including American military personnel. Many of these same Republicans opposed any serious investigation of what had happened, and even when an inquiry was empaneled, backed the Bush administration in limiting the scope of the inquiry.
4 versus 4,000.
Oh yes, there is one other difference.
The 4 died on the watch of a Democratic President.
The 4,000 on the watch of a Republican President.
As I said, Republican Hypocrisy.
On September 11, 2001, almost 4,000 people died, including American military personnel. Many of these same Republicans opposed any serious investigation of what had happened, and even when an inquiry was empaneled, backed the Bush administration in limiting the scope of the inquiry.
4 versus 4,000.
Oh yes, there is one other difference.
The 4 died on the watch of a Democratic President.
The 4,000 on the watch of a Republican President.
As I said, Republican Hypocrisy.