Mid decade redistricting

[El Luchador]

2 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

 

Oh ye of little brain. The reason Republicans have zero Reps in Congress is because Massachusetts is not gerrymandered. State rules say each district must contain one ninth of the state's population (~780k). If you took any single person in Massachusetts and chose the 780k citizens closest to them, Trump would have lost every single dis9ltrict, every time. There is not a single part of the state that contains enough Republicans to constitue a majority unless you gerrymander. 

   

[Wrestleknownothing]

6 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

You really are missing something in your understanding of the issue.

Your inability to grasp simple concepts makes me feel better about what I said, not worse.

[1032004]

2 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

 

Oh ye of little brain. The reason Republicans have zero Reps in Congress is because Massachusetts is not gerrymandered. State rules say each district must contain one ninth of the state's population (~780k). If you took any single person in Massachusetts and chose the 780k citizens closest to them, Trump would have lost every single dis9ltrict, every time. There is not a single part of the state that contains enough Republicans to constitue a majority unless you gerrymander. 

How do they often end up with Republican governors?  Do they have a lot of people vote R for governor but D for President?

[Caveira]

1 minute ago, 1032004 said:

How do they often end up with Republican governors?  Do they have a lot of people vote R for governor but D for President?

The more rational parts of the state vote red in larger numbers.  That’s pretty easy to see.  

[Offthemat]

6 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

How do they often end up with Republican governors?  Do they have a lot of people vote R for governor but D for President?

I can’t wait for his waterlogged answer to this.

[El Luchador]

1 hour ago, 1032004 said:

How do they often end up with Republican governors?  Do they have a lot of people vote R for governor but D for President?

This is evidence of gerrymandering. How do you guys not understand this? It's getting mind numbing.

[Wrestleknownothing]

1 hour ago, 1032004 said:

How do they often end up with Republican governors?  Do they have a lot of people vote R for governor but D for President?

Yes. From 1992-2024 a Democratic candidate has won Massachusetts every time with 60% - 66% of the vote. The last time a Republican won the presidential vote in Massachusetts was 1984 (Reagan vs Mondale). That is 10 straight elections where they voted for a Democratic candidate for president, yet in the same time they have had 5 Republican and 2 Democratic governors.

The reality of Massachusetts is that 64% of voters are neither enrolled as Democrat or Republican. Meanwhile only 26% are registered as Democrat and only 8% are registered as Republican.

So unlike the sheep @Offthemat and @El Luchador, sometimes they vote one way, sometimes they vote the other way. They clearly view state politics differently than national politics.

[WrestlingRasta]

As hard as concept it is for some here to grasp, there are a whooooooole lot of people who do not vote a straight line party ticket.  There are a whooooooole lot of people that the stance on the issues is more important than the letter next to the name.  There are also a whooooooole lot of people that understand the more local the election (mayor/city council vs governor vs president), the more direct impact it has on your life. 

Edited 11 hours ago by WrestlingRasta

[El Luchador]

What has become most clear to me is there are a significant number of people here who completely don't understand what gerrymandering is.  While they give evidence of the effects of it they think they are making an argument against it.

[Wrestleknownothing]

19 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

What has become most clear to me is there are a significant number of people here who completely don't understand what gerrymandering is.  While they give evidence of the effects of it they think they are making an argument against it.

So far your argument for is cuz Trump said so.

Meanwhile, the gerrymander project gives them an overall A grade and an A for partisan fairness.

You are not bright, but you are loyal. A perfect Trump Republican. 

[1032004]

35 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Yes. From 1992-2024 a Democratic candidate has won Massachusetts every time with 60% - 66% of the vote. The last time a Republican won the presidential vote in Massachusetts was 1984 (Reagan vs Mondale). That is 10 straight elections where they voted for a Democratic candidate for president, yet in the same time they have had 5 Republican and 2 Democratic governors.

The reality of Massachusetts is that 64% of voters are neither enrolled as Democrat or Republican. Meanwhile only 26% are registered as Democrat and only 8% are registered as Republican.

So unlike the sheep @Offthemat and @El Luchador, sometimes they vote one way, sometimes they vote the other way. They clearly view state politics differently than national politics.

Thanks, that’s kinda what I figured but I’m not too familiar with MA.  I know that’s been a similar story recently where I live in NC with the R Presidential candidate winning the last 4 races but the governor has been a D since 2017.  Of course last year it wasn’t too difficult for the D candidate to defeat a self-described Nazi.

But I also know NC has bad gerrymandering favoring the R’s.

[Offthemat]

53 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

The reality of Massachusetts is that 64% of voters are neither enrolled as Democrat or Republican. Meanwhile only 26% are registered as Democrat and only 8% are registered as Republican.

 

Deeper and deeper you go.  The party registration numbers are due to voting rules.  In Massachusetts, voters who are registered, but not as a dim or Republican, can vote in whichever primary they wish.  In some states voters can only vote in the party primary they are registered as.  
 

That still doesn’t answer the question of why they vote for Republican governors and dim presidents.  Dim gubernatorial candidates must be real whackos.

[Caveira]

22 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Of course last year it wasn’t too difficult for the D candidate to defeat a self-described Nazi.

Show me the self described Nazi quote boss 

[1032004]

3 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Show me the self described Nazi quote boss 

https://nypost.com/2024/09/19/us-news/gop-north-carolina-lt-gov-mark-robinson-claimed-to-be-a-black-nazi-and-wanted-to-buy-slaves-as-sexist-racist-online-remarks-revealed/

[Wrestleknownothing]

20 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Deeper and deeper you go.  The party registration numbers are due to voting rules.  In Massachusetts, voters who are registered, but not as a dim or Republican, can vote in whichever primary they wish.  In some states voters can only vote in the party primary they are registered as.  
 

That still doesn’t answer the question of why they vote for Republican governors and dim presidents.  Dim gubernatorial candidates must be real whackos.

I understand that shallow is your specialty, but I do not have the first clue why they vote differently on presidential elections than gubernatorial ones. If you want to know, do some research. Don't just let others do the thinking for you.

[Offthemat]

8 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

I understand that shallow is your specialty, but I do not have the first clue why they vote differently on presidential elections than gubernatorial ones. If you want to know, do some research. Don't just let others do the thinking for you.

Now you’ve lost track of your conversation, I didn’t ask the question, but I did express interest in your response.  

[Wrestleknownothing]

53 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Now you’ve lost track of your conversation, I didn’t ask the question, but I did express interest in your response.  

It is you who has lost track. The question was how, you brought up why.

[Offthemat]

15 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

It is you who has lost track. The question was how, you brought up why.

I brought up that you didn’t answer the guy’s question.  But since, you’ve said that you don’t know, and I’m sure that’s correct. 

[Wrestleknownothing]

21 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

I brought up that you didn’t answer the guy’s question.  But since, you’ve said that you don’t know, and I’m sure that’s correct. 

Not only did I answer his question, he even thanked me for answering his question. You brought up why, as though why was the question. Why was not the question. At the risk of quoting someone who does not know the difference between how and why, "Now you've lost track of your conversation".

[JimmySpeaks]

4 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Not only did I answer his question, he even thanked me for answering his question. You brought up why, as though why was the question. Why was not the question. At the risk of quoting someone who does not know the difference between how and why, "Now you've lost track of your conversation".

You’re one giant circle jerk 

[Wrestleknownothing]

23 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

You’re one giant circle jerk 

Is @Offthemat's mommy here to stick up for him? Boo hoo.

[Offthemat]

31 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Not only did I answer his question, he even thanked me for answering his question. You brought up why, as though why was the question. Why was not the question. At the risk of quoting someone who does not know the difference between how and why, "Now you've lost track of your conversation".

You could have answered how opposites get elected, and you could have answered why opposites get elected, with the same ‘who knows’ answer.  That’s the only thing you got right, everything else proved that dims gerrymander more than Republicans.  Other than that, I’m going along with @JimmySpeaks.

[Offthemat]

3 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Is @Offthemat's mommy here to stick up for him? Boo hoo.

That’s the problem you have when you argue stupidly like you’ve done here.  You might convince yourself that you’re right, but everyone else can read it and reach their own conclusions. 

[Wrestleknownothing]

5 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

That’s the problem you have when you argue stupidly like you’ve done here.  You might convince yourself that you’re right, but everyone else can read it and reach their own conclusions. 

The only time I worry about being wrong is when you agree with me.

[JimmySpeaks]

3 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Is @Offthemat's mommy here to stick up for him? Boo hoo.

Nah it’s your daddy here telling it like it is.  You continue to babble aimlessly while avoiding answering anything you’re asked.   I know it sounds good in your head but you might want to leave it there.