Ongoing NC GOP debacle thread

[Highland Deac]

Dems are losing ground with Hispanic voters. Do you all not read any data? Texas and Florida are turning redder.

It's not the job of District Drawers to walk-back your hateful and dismissive messaging to rural areas. They heard you, and they're telling you to go fuck yourselves.

Um, that's not really true in Texas. The Democrats have made slow but steady gains there for the past 20 years. Democratic presidential candidates received 38% in 2000, 43% in 2008, 43% in 2016, and nearly 47% in 2020. Also, what kind of "hateful" messaging are Democrats specifically making to rural areas? And given that urban areas are by far the main economic engines of this country - and especially states like NC - how much sense does it make to have impoverished rural areas dictating policy to booming urban areas where all of the job and population growth is? From an economic viewpoint it makes no sense.

 

[Deleted member 7528]

Um, that's not really true in Texas. The Democrats have made slow but steady gains there for the past 20 years. Democratic presidential candidates received 38% in 2000, 43% in 2008, 43% in 2016, and nearly 47% in 2020. Also, what kind of "hateful" messaging are Democrats specifically making to rural areas? And given that urban areas are by far the main economic engines of this country - and especially states like NC - how much sense does it make to have impoverished rural areas dictating policy to booming urban areas where all of the job and population growth is? From an economic viewpoint it makes no sense.

https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/democrats-losing-texas-latinos-trump/

This shift has shattered years of political assumption—and perhaps arrogance. Democrats ranging from Barack Obama’s Latino outreach coordinator, Cuauhtémoc Figueroa, to former San Antonio mayor and presidential candidate Julián Castro had long maintained that Hispanic voters would be the party’s salvation in the Lone Star State. Their logic was syllogistic. In the early 2020s, according to the state demographer’s projections, Texas’s Hispanic population would achieve plurality status, constituting around 41 percent of the state’s total and surpassing non-Hispanic white Texans as its largest demographic group. And most Hispanic Texans—more than 60 percent in 2016—voted Democratic.

Banking on an identity-based appeal, Democrats last year trotted out the sort of bilingual messaging in South Texas that has played well among Mexican Americans in Los Angeles and Puerto Ricans in New York, focused on a celebration of diversity and immigration. Republicans, by contrast, recognized that Hispanic South Texans share many of the same values as non-Hispanic white voters elsewhere in Texas and swept in with a pitch about defending gun rights, promoting the oil and gas industry, restricting abortion, and supporting law enforcement. Republicans proved more persuasive.

 

[Highland Deac]

https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/democrats-losing-texas-latinos-trump/

This shift has shattered years of political assumption—and perhaps arrogance. Democrats ranging from Barack Obama’s Latino outreach coordinator, Cuauhtémoc Figueroa, to former San Antonio mayor and presidential candidate Julián Castro had long maintained that Hispanic voters would be the party’s salvation in the Lone Star State. Their logic was syllogistic. In the early 2020s, according to the state demographer’s projections, Texas’s Hispanic population would achieve plurality status, constituting around 41 percent of the state’s total and surpassing non-Hispanic white Texans as its largest demographic group. And most Hispanic Texans—more than 60 percent in 2016—voted Democratic.

Banking on an identity-based appeal, Democrats last year trotted out the sort of bilingual messaging in South Texas that has played well among Mexican Americans in Los Angeles and Puerto Ricans in New York, focused on a celebration of diversity and immigration. Republicans, by contrast, recognized that Hispanic South Texans share many of the same values as non-Hispanic white voters elsewhere in Texas and swept in with a pitch about defending gun rights, promoting the oil and gas industry, restricting abortion, and supporting law enforcement. Republicans proved more persuasive.

That's a nice article, but as you like to say, look at the math. George W. Bush got 61% of the vote in Texas in 2000. John McCain got 55.5% in 2008, and Donald Trump got 52.2% in 2016 and 52.1% in 2020. I mean, you can quote all the articles that you want, but do these actual election results indicate that Texas is, as you claim, getting redder?

 

[Highland Deac]

Or let me put it another way. Bush got a 23-point margin of victory in Texas in 2004. Romney won by 15.8% in 2012, Trump won by 9.0% in 2016, and he won by 5.6% in 2020.

 

[Deleted member 7528]

That's a nice article, but as you like to say, look at the math. George W. Bush got 61% of the vote in Texas in 2000. John McCain got 55.5% in 2008, and Donald Trump got 52.2% in 2016 and 52.1% in 2020. I mean, you can quote all the articles that you want, but do these actual election results indicate that Texas is, as you claim, getting redder?

Hispanic voters are trending red, so if you're looking to demographics to explain that shift, that's not it. That's urbanization at work, and likely migration of Californians/New Yorkers fleeing the governments in those States. That obviously hurts Republicans in Texas but you don't have to win by much to win, and with 25/38 of Congresspeople, 2/2 Senators, 1/1 Governors and as you point out an unbroken string of supporting GOP candidates for President, that will do.

 

[Deleted member 7528]

Re your second question, this is a good pod of Dems struggles in Rural NC. It is two former Democrat party officials and a journalist, so you won't even have to listen to any Republicans:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podca...s-in-rural-areas/id1475912744?i=1000539847695

 

[Highland Deac]

I never mentioned demographics, and the the bottom line is that the state isn't getting any redder as you claimed, certainly not at the presidential level. And a good deal of the GOP majority in House Districts and the TX state legislature is increasingly dependent upon heavy gerrymandering, the topic that you so enjoyed discussing on the NC thread.

 

[Highland Deac]

Re your second question, this is a good pod of Dems struggles in Rural NC. It is two former Democrat party officials and a journalist, so you won't even have to listen to any Republicans:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podca...s-in-rural-areas/id1475912744?i=1000539847695

I'll listen to it, but I have read a good many articles interviewing rural people on why they hate Democrats (the NY Times has run about 100 of these articles since 2016 interviewing rural residents.) Also, having grown up in an NC rural area - I still visit there often to see relatives, including my parents - I think I have a very good idea of why rural residents hate Democrats, as it hear about it constantly and see it on facebook. The general impression is that Democrats need to become more like Republicans in what they support, especially in cultural and social issues. And you never answered the question of why rural areas should dominate state politics when urban areas are what's driving nearly all of the economic growth in the state.

 

[Deleted member 7528]

I never mentioned demographics, and the the bottom line is that the state isn't getting any redder as you claimed, certainly not at the presidential level. And a good deal of the GOP majority in House Districts and the TX state legislature is increasingly dependent upon heavy gerrymandering, the topic that you so enjoyed discussing on the NC thread.

This is the NC thread. "heavy gerrymandering" isn't present on the current maps. There isn't, for example, even an allegation that race plays a factor in any district, which stands in stark contrast to maps submitted by both parties in our lifetimes. What is the legal basis to challenge the current maps?

It would take heavy gerrymandering to achieve the balance you all desire based upon the overall statewide affiliation. You can't win Chapel Hill twice, and the clustering of Dems into their safe spaces creates pockets indivisible other than by heavy gerrymandering, and I thought you guys were against that.

eta: I recommend that pod for NC pol stuff. I think that guy is fair and his guests are usually pretty interesting people. It's not a localized version of the national shouting contests piped into everyone's iPhones.

 

[Deleted member 7528]

Every person should get equal say, not every acre.

I'll listen to it, but I have read a good many articles interviewing rural people on why they hate Democrats (the NY Times has run about 100 of these articles since 2016 interviewing rural residents.) Also, having grown up in an NC rural area - I still visit there often to see relatives, including my parents - I think I have a very good idea of why rural residents hate Democrats, as it hear about it constantly and see it on facebook. The general impression is that Democrats need to become more like Republicans in what they support, especially in cultural and social issues. And you never answered the question of why rural areas should dominate state politics when urban areas are what's driving nearly all of the economic growth in the state.

Are you proposing that we weight voting based on your economic contribution? That the 800,000 people in Charlotte are more important than the 800,000 people in the Foothills? If so, I think we figured out why Dems aren't running well in the Foothills.

 

[Highland Deac]

This is the NC thread. "heavy gerrymandering" isn't present on the current maps. There isn't, for example, even an allegation that race plays a factor in any district, which stands in stark contrast to maps submitted by both parties in our lifetimes. What is the legal basis to challenge the current maps?

It would take heavy gerrymandering to achieve the balance you all desire based upon the overall statewide affiliation. You can't win Chapel Hill twice, and the clustering of Dems into their safe spaces creates pockets indivisible other than by heavy gerrymandering, and I thought you guys were against that.

I'm sure that only dividing the state's largest heavily Democratic counties into 3 districts is purely nonpartisan. LOL. The bottom line is that rural residents will be greatly overrepresented with these new House districts in term of partisan and political influence, and urban ones will be underrepresented politically. Congratulations. Are you still sticking to your line that having a representative living in a city means that cities will be represented?

 

[Highland Deac]

Are you proposing that we weight voting based on your economic contribution? That the 800,000 people in Charlotte are more important than the 800,000 people in the Foothills? If so, I think we figured out why Dems aren't running well in the Foothills.

What I'm proposing is that perhaps dividing Mecklenburg County into 3 districts reduces their influence in favor of foothills voters. In other words, those 800,000 foothills voters get nearly all of the political power, while the 800,000 Mecklenburg voters get little to nothing, as their voting power is diluted. And you're too smart not to know that.

 

[Deleted member 7528]

I'm sure that only dividing the state's largest heavily Democratic counties into 3 districts is purely nonpartisan. LOL. The bottom line is that rural residents will be greatly overrepresented with these new House districts in term of partisan and political influence, and urban ones will be underrepresented politically. Congratulations. Are you still sticking to your line that having a representative living in a city means that cities will be represented?

I really don't think you all have thought this through. What do you think would happen if the urban areas were more concentrated? You'd go from winning Price's district 60/40 to 80/20. We can't have two districts hold everyone living between Chapel Hill and Raleigh. There are three million people in Orange, Durham, Chatham, Granville, Wake, Johnston and Harnett counties.

 

[Highland Deac]

This is the NC thread. "heavy gerrymandering" isn't present on the current maps. There isn't, for example, even an allegation that race plays a factor in any district, which stands in stark contrast to maps submitted by both parties in our lifetimes. What is the legal basis to challenge the current maps?

It would take heavy gerrymandering to achieve the balance you all desire based upon the overall statewide affiliation. You can't win Chapel Hill twice, and the clustering of Dems into their safe spaces creates pockets indivisible other than by heavy gerrymandering, and I thought you guys were against that.

eta: I recommend that pod for NC pol stuff. I think that guy is fair and his guests are usually pretty interesting people. It's not a localized version of the national shouting contests piped into everyone's iPhones.

The heavy gerrymandering I mentioned referred to Texas, not NC. Although it applies here as well, especially in the state legislature.

 

[Highland Deac]

I really don't think you all have thought this through. What do you think would happen if the urban areas were more concentrated? You'd go from winning Price's district 60/40 to 80/20. We can't have two districts hold everyone living between Chapel Hill and Raleigh. There are three million people in Orange, Durham, Chatham, Granville, Wake, Johnston and Harnett counties.

You can argue it however you like, but the end result is that 3 heavily Democratic urban counties (the most populous in the state) are going to be divided into 3 districts with voters that in some cases are hundreds of miles away and with which they have nothing in common, and that as a result the mostly Democratic voters in those counties will have little to no political representation, while voters in rural counties will have dominant representation. As I said, congratulations.

 

[Deleted member 7528]

The heavy gerrymandering I mentioned referred to Texas, not NC. Although it applies here as well, especially in the state legislature.

I haven't ever tried to do the State districts. This might make me a bad citizen, but my district changed five times since I moved to my last house, and I quit following who my person was (as an urbanite, it didn't matter to me which Dem represented me. None of them did).

 

[Deleted member 7528]

You can argue it however you like, but the end result is that 3 heavily Democratic urban counties (the most populous in the state) are going to be divided into 3 districts with voters that in some cases are hundreds of miles away and with which they have nothing in common, and that as a result the mostly Democratic voters in those counties will have little to no political representation, while voters in rural counties will have dominant representation. As I said, congratulations.

Versus, what?

Give Charlotte, Winston-Guilford, and Raleigh their own Congressperson? Cool. Throw in a bonus one for Chapel Hill-Durham, and one more just to go crazy. That's a 9-5 map. Is that what you want?

 

[Highland Deac]

Versus, what?

Give Charlotte, Winston-Guilford, and Raleigh their own Congressperson? Cool. Throw in a bonus one for Chapel Hill-Durham, and one more just to go crazy. That's a 9-5 map.

You appear to be operating under the illusion that I expect NC Democrats to have a majority of the state delegation. I do not, as I'm well aware that their population is located in smaller areas. I also thought gerrymandering when NC Democrats did it was bad (although as I'm sure you're aware there have been articles pointing out that it's gotten even worse under Republicans.) What I would expect is that given the close partisan and demographic divide in this state that NC Democrats would have more than 3 of 14 House Districts if the districts were more fairly drawn, and that it is obvious that the NC GOP legislature has deliberately created districts to provide them with maximum partisan advantage by diluting the voting power of the larger urban (blue) counties. My own preference would be for NC to adopt the commission form of creating House districts using computer technology, as has already been done in other states with considerable success. Of course we all know there's no way in hell that's going to happen here, as the state legislature will give up complete control of drawing districts over their cold dead gavels. Again, congratulations.

 

[Deleted member 7528]

You appear to be operating under the illusion that I expect NC Democrats to have a majority of the state delegation. I do not, as I'm well aware that their population is located in smaller areas. I also thought gerrymandering when NC Democrats did it was bad (although as I'm sure you're aware there have been articles pointing out that it's gotten even worse under Republicans.) What I would expect is that given the close partisan and demographic divide in this state that NC Democrats would have more than 3 of 14 House Districts if the districts were more fairly drawn, and that it is obvious that the NC GOP legislature has deliberately created districts to provide them with maximum partisan advantage by diluting the voting power of the larger urban (blue) counties. My own preference would be for NC to adopt the commission form of creating House districts using computer technology, as has already been done in other states with considerable success. Of course we all know there's no way in hell that's going to happen here, as the state legislature will give up complete control of drawing districts over their cold dead gavels. Again, congratulations.

Do you know what that map would have to look like to get either 7-7 or even 6-8 split? It would as bad as the 1993 map the dems put forth and 10x worse than the current one. The only way to find 6-7 different spaces of contiguous land where Dems outnumber Pubs 52-48 would look like someone through a baseball through a plate glass window painted like North Carolina.

It's the same issue with the Electoral College: you can't win California/Chapel Hill twice.

 

[WFFaithful]

Are you proposing that we weight voting based on your economic contribution? That the 800,000 people in Charlotte are more important than the 800,000 people in the Foothills? If so, I think we figured out why Dems aren't running well in the Foothills.

You're arguing that districts should be gerrymandered to allow the smaller rural population a larger representation in the name of "ideological diversity."