|
FlamingLiberal posted:I have to think she's done, much like Martha Coakley in Mass, right? Let's not diminish Martha Coakley's accomplishments by blowing two elections in Massachusetts as a Democrat by comparing them to losing in a less blue state 
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 01:57 |
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:So what's up with the Permanent Republican Majority thing, I thought demographics were dooming them to a slow lingering death In the presidential election. When it comes to the House, as people have mentioned, it's both naturally gerrymandered (Democratic areas tend to be more highly Democratic than Republican areas) and very effectively intentionally gerrymandered. The Senate is also naturally gerrymandered, though obviously not intentionally gerrymandered.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
Joementum posted:You can probably argue some of the leans and tossup picks, but there's not a ton of pickup opportunities for the Democrats outside of those. IA is a purple state, but Grassly is hugely popular in the state, which is why I put it as a solid hold for him. Same with Thune in SD, which is not as purple as IA. Kentucky and Florida will be interesting, depending on what Rand and Rubio decide to do extracurricularly that year, but aren't easy targets for the Democrats either way. I genuinely think the Democrats can nab Rand's senate seat if he is not on the ballot. The state Democratic party has a significantly stronger bench than the state GoP, and Obama-era Democratic policies are popular here (we just don't vote that way in the nationals due to our horrific racism, which should be less of a factor once Hillary eclipses the President). They would have to run a better campaign than Grimes did in 2014, but it can be done. We also have at least one Republican-held House seat (the 6th, which contains Lexington, Frankfort, and a blue-leaning swathe of Appalachia along with the heavily red-leaning outer Bluegrass) that is ripe for picking off. PupsOfWar has issued a correction as of 16:56 on Nov 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:That is pretty much just gerrymandering in the opposite way though, isn't it? The problem is that Democrats are very concentrated in cities, while Republicans are much more spread out. So unless you are districting purposefully to spread out the dems it is going to result in fewer Democratic candidates being elected by large margins while more Republicans are elected by lower margins. Should the idea be more to create more competitive districts for both parties rather than accept "natural districts"? State borders are inflexible, but there isn't a reason for district to be. It would help Democrats more theoretically but it would also open up the potential for Republicans to take once "safe" Democratic districts. Either way it makes even less sense when the very nature of a responsible representatives breaks down because of it, not just because of party balance but that those districts will be so ultra-safe that they don't really need to be as responsive. It is actually fairly hard to look at the way the US does things and come up with much of a fair reason to keep it beyond it won't be allowed to change.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Should the idea be more to create more competitive districts for both parties rather than accept "natural districts"? State borders are inflexible, but there isn't a reason for district to be. It would help Democrats more theoretically but it would also open up the potential for Republicans to take once "safe" Democratic districts. Either way it makes even less sense when the very nature of a responsible representatives breaks down because of it, not just because of party balance but that those districts will be so ultra-safe that they don't really need to be as responsive. You've got two opposite inclinations here. The first is that the point of a district is that it has its own unique interests and needs someone to represent those particular interests. That tugs in favor of 'natural' districts: you'd want to put like people together in a district so that their representative represents those interests. The second is democracy - there's a problem when the elected representatives do not represent the electorate, and you've got a, say, 50-50 state that sends 75% of one side to Congress. This leans in favor of making each district competitive so that you avoid wasted votes as much as possible. Going to pure competitive districts solves the second problem, but not all that well. At that point you're better off just doing a pure proportional representation system. Given our political limitations independent redistricting with the mandate to create competitive districts is the way to go. You have to be aware though that what you are doing is basically gerrymandering - you're explicitly drawing the map to favor specific types of elections instead of creating natural districts. That's going to lead to the sort of absurd districts you see bandied about as examples of extreme gerrymandering and you've got to be aware of that and able to defend it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Eh, remember though that any GOP candidate has to make it through their primary to get to the general election. That means that unless things change they'll pretty much have to at least say the right things to the fringe, if not outright embrace it. Neither of those actions (especially the latter) plays well in the general election. I don't think this is some inevitable thing, this forum way overestimates how much they have been 'forced' to do so for the past 2 presidential elections vs. the strategy of swinging to the right being seen as the optimal one to do. They weren't stupid in '12 - they knew Obama was still pretty drat popular outside their true believers so there wasn't much chance for the center. At that point the only choice you have is to swing to the right and hope to beat them on turnout. All considered, Romney did pretty drat well considering the incumbent advantage, Obama's campaigning skills, and the state of the country (economic recovery was 2-3 years underway by then). Romney simply wasn't going to win without a huge fuckup from Obama that never really happened. Summary: Looking to 08 and 12 for how the republicans are going to go forward is probably going to steer you the wrong way. 08 was essentially impossible to win and 12 was really close to so. We could easily see a repeat of 2000, except the conditions when Obama leaves will almost certainly be worse than when clinton left. I mean poo poo, there was 4% unemployment after 8 years of a dem president in 2000 and they still managed to lose. Forums Terrorist posted:So what's up with the Permanent Republican Majority thing, I thought demographics were dooming them to a slow lingering death There are certainly demographic problems, but they are far off and things could change in that time which makes them irrelevant. Say the millennials turn out to be a lot more conservative upon hitting 30 then previous generations or 3rd+ generation hispanics swing to the right. For now, turnout makes all the difference and the dems got crushed on the last couple offyear elections. Dems need to look hard in how to change this - only offyear in recent history they have done well on is 06 and that's more on bush than the democrats being any good. Failing to do so gives the republicans a huge senate advantage, 2/3 of it is elected on the offterms.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
tsa posted:All considered, Romney did pretty drat well considering the incumbent advantage, Obama's campaigning skills, and the state of the country (economic recovery was 2-3 years underway by then). This is just not true - the economy may have been in technical recovery but unemployement was still extremely high. Romney significantly underperformed relative to the state of the country (though not compared to the incumbent advantage and Obama's campaigning skills). Every economic indicator would have suggested in a vacumn a massive Obama defeat. tsa posted:Failing to do so gives the republicans a huge senate advantage, 2/3 of it is elected on the offterms. Half is. Every seat alternates between being elected in a Presidential year and a non-Presidential year.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
tsa posted:There are certainly demographic problems, but they are far off and things could change in that time which makes them irrelevant. Say the millennials turn out to be a lot more conservative upon hitting 30 then previous generations or 3rd+ generation hispanics swing to the right. You're using "conservative" as a one dimensional axis, though. Maybe they are more conservative about economic issues than their parents and grandparents (although being saddled with lots of debt tends to stymie that trend), but that doesn't mean they'll vote for the party that is basically explicitly white supremacist, it just means they'll make the Democrats more conservative.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
computer parts posted:You're using "conservative" as a one dimensional axis, though. Maybe they are more conservative about economic issues than their parents and grandparents (although being saddled with lots of debt tends to stymie that trend), but that doesn't mean they'll vote for the party that is basically explicitly white supremacist, it just means they'll make the Democrats more conservative. I think that analysis of Hispanics basically assumes that Republicans solve the problem of the immigration rhetoric, at which point you probably would see a greater split of the hispanic vote.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:You've got two opposite inclinations here. The first is that the point of a district is that it has its own unique interests and needs someone to represent those particular interests. That tugs in favor of 'natural' districts: you'd want to put like people together in a district so that their representative represents those interests. The second is democracy - there's a problem when the elected representatives do not represent the electorate, and you've got a, say, 50-50 state that sends 75% of one side to Congress. This leans in favor of making each district competitive so that you avoid wasted votes as much as possible. Having a "natural district" breaks down though when it doesn't respond to demographic changes, that district doesn't represent the population when it was created more way or another. Ultimately while it would be nice to have a natural district retain a "unique character" ultimately it is a luxury when there are such other vast issues. quote:Going to pure competitive districts solves the second problem, but not all that well. At that point you're better off just doing a pure proportional representation system. It would be better, but it would require massive constitutional changes. I actually think our system is drastically inferior compared to a proper PR system. quote:Given our political limitations independent redistricting with the mandate to create competitive districts is the way to go. You have to be aware though that what you are doing is basically gerrymandering - you're explicitly drawing the map to favor specific types of elections instead of creating natural districts. That's going to lead to the sort of absurd districts you see bandied about as examples of extreme gerrymandering and you've got to be aware of that and able to defend it. The point is that a natural district is no longer competitive and if anything doesn't fit its purpose any longer, it is redrawing lines but not necessarily to strictly benefit one party. Oregon for example if anything keeping the same districts would benefit the Democrats, right now the "natural" district of Eastern Oregon so that it is the only one the GOP can consistently win. Also, hopefully you wouldn't have to create a crazy snake district to make them more competitive (if anything it is more likely those specific types of districts would disappear). If your system is so rigid it can't reflect demographic changes into competitive districts, it simply isn't working. The US system was always a more restrained form of a representative republic to begin with, it has just reached the point it is more and more unclear whether that system is actually responding to the needs the population any longer. Ardennes has issued a correction as of 17:18 on Nov 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:You've got two opposite inclinations here. The first is that the point of a district is that it has its own unique interests and needs someone to represent those particular interests. That tugs in favor of 'natural' districts: you'd want to put like people together in a district so that their representative represents those interests. The second is democracy - there's a problem when the elected representatives do not represent the electorate, and you've got a, say, 50-50 state that sends 75% of one side to Congress. This leans in favor of making each district competitive so that you avoid wasted votes as much as possible. We also have minority/majority districts right now that exist pretty much solely because of gerrymandering. Geographically based representative districts actually gets really complicated in a hurry. Like evilweasel said, it's a lot easier to have a purely proportional representation system. Good luck with that here though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I think that analysis of Hispanics basically assumes that Republicans solve the problem of the immigration rhetoric, at which point you probably would see a greater split of the hispanic vote. Well, the issue with that is that immigration rhetoric is fairly constant, only changing with the demographic migrating. To "fix" it you either have to have a new ethnicity migrate in large numbers or you have to stop migration of Hispanics. Really their best bet would've been to establish a separate identity of "Mexican-American" vs "Mexican" (and so on for the other nationalities) but that ship sailed with LULAC in the 40s-60s.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:We also have minority/majority districts right now that exist pretty much solely because of gerrymandering. Geographically based representative districts actually gets really complicated in a hurry. Like evilweasel said, it's a lot easier to have a purely proportional representation system. Good luck with that here though. Ultimately though it becomes the question of "waiting for a PR" system or pushing more complex changes with the system we are obviously going to be stuck with until we die.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Ultimately though it becomes the question of "waiting for a PR" system or pushing more complex changes with the system we are obviously going to be stuck with until we die. We can definitely still fight for more fair districts, I was pointing out that the Democrats house woes are more than just gerrymandering by the Republicans in 2010. Not to single you out specifically, I just hear that reasoning lots of places, coworkers/facebook/other forums etc. If we focus on that aspect of losing the house we ignore the larger (more complicated) problem.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:It would be better, but it would require massive constitutional changes. I actually think our system is drastically inferior compared to a proper PR system. It wouldn't actually, there's no constitutional requirement for single-district House voting. A state declaring it will elect its representatives at-large through a proportional representation vote is completely consistent with the Constitution.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It wouldn't actually, there's no constitutional requirement for single-district House voting. A state declaring it will elect its representatives at-large through a proportional representation vote is completely consistent with the Constitution. Yes, but that's PR on the state level, which still gives a structural advantage to Republicans (because most one-to-two-district states will go 100% Republican, while pretty much every multi-district state will have both Democrats and Republicans in a more even split.). I assume Ardennes was talking about national PR, which would, in fact, be unconstitutional.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It wouldn't actually, there's no constitutional requirement for single-district House voting. A state declaring it will elect its representatives at-large through a proportional representation vote is completely consistent with the Constitution. I suspect that would prove incredibly unpopular, however. People don't want a passel of representatives representing their state at large. They want a specific name that is designated as their representative that they can call when they need a pothole fixed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
tsa posted:There are certainly demographic problems, but they are far off and things could change in that time which makes them irrelevant. Say the millennials turn out to be a lot more conservative upon hitting 30 then previous generations or 3rd+ generation hispanics swing to the right. There's also the possibility that the generation after the millennials, a generation who knew not Bush, might not be nearly as friendly to the Democrats. Isn't the standard definition of millennial born 1982-1995? There are already members of the post-millennial generation voting and that number is just going to grow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:You've got two opposite inclinations here. The first is that the point of a district is that it has its own unique interests and needs someone to represent those particular interests. That tugs in favor of 'natural' districts: you'd want to put like people together in a district so that their representative represents those interests. The second is democracy - there's a problem when the elected representatives do not represent the electorate, and you've got a, say, 50-50 state that sends 75% of one side to Congress. This leans in favor of making each district competitive so that you avoid wasted votes as much as possible. Any state could already do pure PR. As far as the federal government is concerned, there's nothing prohibiting PR, and any state could immediately choose to select their representatives through PR without using geographic districts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:There's also the possibility that the generation after the millennials, a generation who knew not Bush, might not be nearly as friendly to the Democrats. Isn't the standard definition of millennial born 1982-1995? There are already members of the post-millennial generation voting and that number is just going to grow. There's not really a standard definition but I think most people know it as 1980-2000 or so. Also, as long as the Republicans continue to be the party of white supremacy the (increasingly less white) younger generations aren't going to go over to them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It wouldn't actually, there's no constitutional requirement for single-district House voting. A state declaring it will elect its representatives at-large through a proportional representation vote is completely consistent with the Constitution. It really would have to happen on a Federal level though which would necessitate a constitutional change. That would be fine and everything, but I wouldn't hold my breath. quote:I suspect that would prove incredibly unpopular, however. People don't want a passel of representatives representing their state at large. They want a specific name that is designated as their representative that they can call when they need a pothole fixed. Other countries do it all the time, it does have its issues obviously but the current system is just something else. gently caress You And Diebold posted:We can definitely still fight for more fair districts, I was pointing out that the Democrats house woes are more than just gerrymandering by the Republicans in 2010. Not to single you out specifically, I just hear that reasoning lots of places, coworkers/facebook/other forums etc. If we focus on that aspect of losing the house we ignore the larger (more complicated) problem. It is fairer to say that the issue is that more and more districts are becoming non-competitive for a variety of reasons. That said, I think there is counter-attitude that urban districts becoming non-competitive isn't a real big issue even though it is not from gerrymandering. It should be "it isn't gerrymandering, but something that shouldn't happen regardless." Ardennes has issued a correction as of 17:42 on Nov 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Any state could already do pure PR. As far as the federal government is concerned, there's nothing prohibiting PR, and any state could immediately choose to select their representatives through PR without using geographic districts. There's a federal law that currently prohibits multi-member districts. That would have to be repealed first.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:There's also the possibility that the generation after the millennials, a generation who knew not Bush, might not be nearly as friendly to the Democrats. Isn't the standard definition of millennial born 1982-1995? There are already members of the post-millennial generation voting and that number is just going to grow. Yeah, it's definitely possible that those who were too young to remember the Bush years could be less friendly to the Democrats; I heard it's the case with a lot of British millenial voters, who were much too young to remember Thatcher but remember Blair.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Yeah, it's definitely possible that those who were too young to remember the Bush years could be less friendly to the Democrats; I heard it's the case with a lot of British millenial voters, who were much too young to remember Thatcher but remember Blair. 18-24 year olds voted least often for the Torys in 2010 though and had the smallest increase compared with 2005 (55-64 had a decrease).
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Yes, but that's PR on the state level, which still gives a structural advantage to Republicans (because most one-to-two-district states will go 100% Republican, while pretty much every multi-district state will have both Democrats and Republicans in a more even split.). I assume Ardennes was talking about national PR, which would, in fact, be unconstitutional. That's an extremely minor structural advantage in the grand scheme of things. Far, far less than the simple existence of the Senate, which the Democrats are still able to reasonably contest even with their inherent disadvantage. Ardennes posted:It really would have to happen on a Federal level though which would necessitate a constitutional change. That would be fine and everything, but I wouldn't hold my breath. No it wouldn't (besides that irritating multi-member district law). Why do you think it would have to happen on a federal level? Deteriorata posted:I suspect that would prove incredibly unpopular, however. People don't want a passel of representatives representing their state at large. They want a specific name that is designated as their representative that they can call when they need a pothole fixed. I disagree. I'm reasonably interested in politics and I couldn't actually name my congressman 99% of the time (the only exception would be shortly after filling in the actual ballot) and I doubt I'm alone on that. Most people have a generalized desire for a party to control the House and wouldn't ever really actually think they can call their congressman. The only people who actually do that are political activists. evilweasel has issued a correction as of 17:56 on Nov 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:There's a federal law that currently prohibits multi-member districts. That would have to be repealed first. Purely out of curiosity, was there a specific thing that happened, or was threatened to happen, to prompt that law?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Kirk is in, he's quite workable on a personal level even if a bit brain-dead, especially now that his deputy chief of staff is Rauner's chief of staff for transition. Madigan wants mayor if Rahm gets picked for '16, and Duckworth is still angling for a cabinet/veep slot. Rahm isn't getting picked for poo poo and will probably lose mayor. Madigan isn't running for mayor and will likely be the Senate candidate, if for whatever reason she doesn't run my money is on Simon for name recognition because who else is there?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:Purely out of curiosity, was there a specific thing that happened, or was threatened to happen, to prompt that law? I am almost certain it's because Southern states were going to use it to eliminate the black vote, but not a PR system - instead you'd vote individually on every at-large representative so that 51% would always get 100% of the seats. edit: wow, I'm extremely wrong, they were banned in 1842 http://archive.fairvote.org/library/history/flores/apportn.htm evilweasel has issued a correction as of 18:03 on Nov 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:No it wouldn't (besides that irritating multi-member district law). Why do you think it would have to happen on a federal level? The reasoning being to eliminate the chance of strategic decisions by states, rather it is what I think needs to happen if you want to make that change. I would say the same thing about restricting but I think someone get on my case about its practicality.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
computer parts posted:18-24 year olds voted least often for the Torys in 2010 though and had the smallest increase compared with 2005 (55-64 had a decrease). I was referring to this opinion poll from last year. Though given the changes since then, I dunno how accurate it is now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:Purely out of curiosity, was there a specific thing that happened, or was threatened to happen, to prompt that law? It was passed as a well-meaning attempt to head off lawsuits citing the rightly discriminatory nature of the at-large districts of Texas, Ohio and Maryland in the 89th Congress following Reynolds v. Sims evilweasel posted:edit: wow, I'm extremely wrong, they were banned in 1842 http://archive.fairvote.org/library/history/flores/apportn.htm Later apportionment bills lifted that prohibition. ComradeCosmobot has issued a correction as of 18:27 on Nov 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
Oracle posted:Rahm isn't getting picked for poo poo and will probably lose mayor. Madigan isn't running for mayor and will likely be the Senate candidate, if for whatever reason she doesn't run my money is on Simon for name recognition because who else is there? Simon couldn't organize her way through a state senate campaign, much less US Senate. Madigan did polling for mayor in 2010, and still eyes the slot. Rahm is angling for something higher than mayor; Senate might be a demotion for him. Cullerton is grooming his guy, and there is an opportunistic Hispanic candidate. Besides that, there's not much of a plate that I know.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Later apportionment bills lifted that prohibition. What's the current law?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Simon couldn't organize her way through a state senate campaign, much less US Senate. quote:Madigan did polling for mayor in 2010, and still eyes the slot. quote:Rahm is angling for something higher than mayor; Senate might be a demotion for him. quote:Cullerton is grooming his guy, and there is an opportunistic Hispanic candidate. Besides that, there's not much of a plate that I know.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
Oracle posted:She'd be a figurehead if she ran for U.S. Senate, the party would handle that poo poo, she'd be making phone calls and posing for pictures. I don't see that happening while daddy runs the statehouse. Simon couldn't dial for dollars if a purple people lady were on the line, and that's the lowest of low-hanging fruits. It'd be the national party coming in to fund the whole thing, something the DSCC don't like to do. Far likelier someone like Schneider runs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:What's the current law? Public Law 90-156, "For the relief of Doctor Ricardo Vallejo Samala and to provide for congressional redistricting." which basically reinstituted the language of the 1842 Apportionment Act you cited. It's even discussed in the very next chapter of the essay you linked. The otherwise controlling legislation is the Reapportionment Act of 1929
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Well, the issue with that is that immigration rhetoric is fairly constant, only changing with the demographic migrating. To "fix" it you either have to have a new ethnicity migrate in large numbers or you have to stop migration of Hispanics. How do you explain the R wins in the TX border areas? They're majority Latino, but put Rs into office. It would appear that they voted against your perception of their self interest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:How do you explain the R wins in the TX border areas? They're majority Latino, but put Rs into office. It would appear that they voted against your perception of their self interest. Why don't you link something to support your claim and I expect we can debunk it in about thirty seconds.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Why don't you link something to support your claim and I expect we can debunk it in about thirty seconds. My, you're sure impressed with yourself. http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Texas-Latino-vote-splits-5876952.php Houston Chron posted:In the state's only competitive congressional race, a heavily Hispanic district between San Antonio and El Paso, Republican challenger Will Hurd narrowly beat Democratic incumbent Pete Gallego. also, some related stuff here http://www.pewhispanic.org/2014/11/07/hispanic-voters-in-the-2014-election/
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 01:57 |
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:My, you're sure impressed with yourself. The article you linked is paywalled, but another article that has the same opener has this: quote:Gallego indeed outpolled Hurd in heavily Hispanic border areas around Eagle Pass and El Paso, but Republicans believe Hurd could not have flipped the district without winning a significant portion of Latino votes. Basically all of the races referenced in your two articles bear out that Republicans slightly outperformed 2012, but not by a whole lot - by a few percentage points (and as was discussed in the other thread this is still worse than 2010 which suggests it's the usual midterm thing). Basically, what this all bears out is that you can indeed find rare examples of Republicans outperforming the baseline but the baseline is there and solidifying. The conclusion you want people to reach - that latinos are going to start voting Republican - is obviously false from the Pew link.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 21:07
|
|