- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: CA Prop 50 projected to pass
Posted on 11/4/25 at 11:22 pm to Indefatigable
Posted on 11/4/25 at 11:22 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
ETA: I don’t need an article to explain it. I’ve literally done the work myself on squeezing districts within current constitutional parameters. It’s just not the overall game changer you’re wanting it to be, and that’s with today’s politics. These things change constantly. Should we go through this every two years now? Just redrawing lines every election?
If you had done the work yourself, you'd know the GOP absolutely will dominate the House if this moves forward.
1
Posted on 11/4/25 at 11:23 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
If you had done the work yourself, you'd know the GOP absolutely will dominate the House if this moves forward.
Let’s bookmark and revisit this a year from now. Neither party will “dominate” the House for the foreseeable future. Single digit majorities isn’t “domination”.
Posted on 11/4/25 at 11:25 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Let’s bookmark and revisit this a year from now. Neither party will “dominate” the House for the foreseeable future. Single digit majorities isn’t “domination”.
Go ahead. You will be shocked when everything I've said is accurate. Assuming GOP states do what they should.
Posted on 11/4/25 at 11:25 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
You’re on a message board. If you don’t think it should exist, don’t frequent it. Seems pretty simple.
Honestly, not against you but all the crying in the world isn’t going to fix this country.
Posted on 11/4/25 at 11:34 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
Assuming GOP states do what they should.
Are there any that can realistically squeeze more than one seat? And how many of those are you counting?
Let’s say KS, MO, LA, AL, SC, NC. Who am I missing? I’m just not seeing where something like a 222-213 house is some sort of massive W that’s worth the constant redistricting.
Posted on 11/5/25 at 12:13 am to Indefatigable
quote:
Who am I missing?
Florida and Ohio.
Posted on 11/5/25 at 12:22 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
Florida and Ohio.
So that gets us to say 12-15 seats net for thE GOP. Hell, let’s say it gets us to 20. Are 237 seats the enormous and irreversible mandate you’re referring to?
Because 20+ seats have been flipped no less than four times in the past couple decades.
This post was edited on 11/5/25 at 12:25 am
Posted on 11/5/25 at 12:42 am to Indefatigable
quote:
So that gets us to say 12-15 seats net for thE GOP. Hell, let’s say it gets us to 20. Are 237 seats the enormous and irreversible mandate you’re referring to?
Because 20+ seats have been flipped no less than four times in the past couple decades.
These aren't going to be swing districts.
Posted on 11/5/25 at 12:47 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
These aren't going to be swing districts.
Not for 2026, no. But it’ll give that super-powerful 230-240 seats I guess. Which means nothing because of the Senate.
So what happens in 2027? Are we districting again for 2028 based on where votes shifted? For 2030?
The comes the Census so we’re starting fresh again?
I don’t think you see the forest through the trees.
Posted on 11/5/25 at 5:02 am to Indefatigable
The supreme court would rule on these districts ultimately. You cant purposely draw lines to discriminate against other people.
Its how fricking gerrymandering started and then its how it was reversed and you ended up with an absurd amount of democratic gerrymandered districts.
If all things were equal, yes republicans would end up with far more districts because the supreme court would undo the whole mess.
Its how fricking gerrymandering started and then its how it was reversed and you ended up with an absurd amount of democratic gerrymandered districts.
If all things were equal, yes republicans would end up with far more districts because the supreme court would undo the whole mess.
Posted on 11/5/25 at 5:07 am to udtiger
quote:
It's time.
Blue states control most of both coasts, including the entire Pacific coast and Hawaii.
Posted on 11/5/25 at 5:48 am to weagle1999
We should elect our politicians rather than let the system elect them. Both sides gerrymander and it is anathema to democracy.
At minimum, we should prohibit mid-decade redistricting and require bipartisan commissions to draw fair, transparent maps.
At minimum, we should prohibit mid-decade redistricting and require bipartisan commissions to draw fair, transparent maps.
Posted on 11/5/25 at 5:53 am to Indefatigable
quote:
So what happens in 2027? Are we districting again for 2028 based on where votes shifted? For 2030?
The comes the Census so we’re starting fresh again?
I don’t think you see the forest through the trees.
The simple fact is that there are more DEMs in this country than Reps. This has led to a lot of wasted votes for DEMs over the years in overly-saturated districts. If the DEMs really want to maximize their vote/district, they can create more solid blue districts.
And if they can ever flip one or 2 of those lightly-populated Western states (Montana, Wyoming, etc. ) then they'll own the Senate, too, taking advantage of that structural advantage the GOP has enjoyed for decades.
Posted on 11/5/25 at 5:59 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Lots of Republicans forget, when they are in power, that there are more Democrats in the US
*communists. The Democrat party does not exist.
Posted on 11/5/25 at 6:09 am to SlowFlowPro
It’s something like 18% of the population controls the majority of the Senate
Posted on 11/5/25 at 6:13 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Stop LARPing
I'm not larping.
The Constitution is a contract just like any other and in its inception is essentially a marriage contract with a pre-nup.
Every divorced person once told another person they would be with them "in good times and in bad until death do us part" (or to that effect).
A married couple would have split and divided up the property (and agreed in visitation/custody) a long time ago.
Posted on 11/5/25 at 6:16 am to udtiger
There is no possible way for this separation/divorce. You'd be talking about a migration of 200M plus people, and how would the borders be drawn? Take California. About 40% of California votes GOP. Or TX, where it's more like 45%. That is literally unworkable.
And how can you break up a state like TX where all the cities are blue? You can't do it geographically.
Plus all the blue areas would have all of the jobs in their little islands. Are we going to be like the EU with free travel/work permits, etc?
It's just dumb.
And how can you break up a state like TX where all the cities are blue? You can't do it geographically.
Plus all the blue areas would have all of the jobs in their little islands. Are we going to be like the EU with free travel/work permits, etc?
It's just dumb.
Posted on 11/5/25 at 6:23 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
There is no possible way for this separation/divorce. You'd be talking about a migration of 200M plus people, and how would the borders be drawn? Take California. About 40% of California votes GOP. Or TX, where it's more like 45%. That is literally unworkable.
And how can you break up a state like TX where all the cities are blue? You can't do it geographically.
Plus all the blue areas would have all of the jobs in their little islands. Are we going to be like the EU with free travel/work permits, etc?
Nothing worth doing is easy.
quote:
It's just dumb.
I'm sure you tell your clients that when they come in for your services.
Posted on 11/5/25 at 6:24 am to udtiger
quote:
Nothing worth doing is easy.
So you haven't the slightest clue? I figured
It's not hard. It's not possible.
quote:
I'm sure you tell your clients that when they come in for your services.
If my clients do/say something dumb, I'm quite open about it. If they can't handle it then I don't want to work with them.
Posted on 11/5/25 at 6:26 am to TigersHuskers
quote:
Lol no they won't.
they already have started
texas, missouri,etc
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News