GOP Gerrymandering: Dems Never Had A Chance
However, as Bill Moyers points out, Republican gerrymandering rigged the game so much that it was all but impossible for Democrats to rack up enough wins in 2014 to avoid losing control of Congress.
In Pennsylvania, one state in which the GOP drew the congressional districts in a brazenly partisan way, Democratic candidates collected 44 percent of the vote, yet Democratic candidates won only 5 House seats out of 18. In other words, Democrats secured only 27 percent of Pennsylvania’s congressional seats despite winning nearly half of the votes.
This should not come as a surprise, nor should it be seen as anything but an intentional long-range scheme by Republicans to make sure they are over-represented in Washington for years to come.
GOP donors plowed cash into state legislative efforts in 2010 for the very purpose of redrawing congressional lines. In the following year, as the tea party wave brought hundreds of Republicans into office, newly empowered Republican governors and state legislatures carved congressional districts for maximum partisan advantage. Democrats attempted this too, but only in two states: Maryland and Illinois. For the GOP however, strictly partisan gerrymandering prevailed in Ohio, Pennsylvania Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Texas, Louisiana, Arizona, Tennessee and beyond.
Democrats have a lot of lessons to learn after this week’s electoral disaster. One of those lessons must be to not count on fair play by Republicans. Respecting the will of the voters and allowing democracy to work is not on their agenda. Winning at all costs is. To forget or ignore that would be foolish and even suicidal for the Democratic Party.
Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Mark Quincy Adams
A proud 'pragmatic progressive' Mark Quincy Adams has been a political
talk show host and prolific pontificator since 1992. Find him on Facebook and Twitter @politicalglutton
40 responses to GOP Gerrymandering: Dems Never Had A Chance
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Foundryman November 6th, 2014 at 11:08
Gerrymandering has destroyed the integrity, fairness and honesty of the electoral process of the worlds greatest democracy, way to go righties!! That’s being true American patriots right there!!…cheat, rig and swindle… and don’t forget to keep wiping with the Constitution…
If Dems can’t get enough money and quality candidates that can win on the issues in these gerrymandered districts, this is the new America…
greenfloyd November 6th, 2014 at 11:57
It’s important to keep things in perspective. This was no mandate considering the very low turnout overall. Essentially this was a partisan election that only brought out those of us with a dog in the race. The fundamentals are still the same as they will be in 2016… jobs, health-care, housing, education, etc. All the things that Ds are good at and Rs suck at.
Foundryman November 6th, 2014 at 12:08
Gerrymandering has destroyed the integrity, fairness and honesty of the electoral process of the worlds greatest democracy, way to go righties!! That’s being true American patriots right there!!…cheat, rig and swindle… and don’t forget to keep wiping with the Constitution…
If Dems can’t get enough money and quality candidates that can win on the issues in these gerrymandered districts, this is the new America…
floyd[@]greenfloyd.org November 6th, 2014 at 12:57
It’s important to keep things in perspective. This was no mandate considering the very low turnout overall. Essentially this was a partisan election that only brought out those of us with a dog in the race. The fundamentals are still the same as they will be in 2016… jobs, health-care, housing, education, etc. All the things that Ds are good at and Rs suck at.
tiredoftea November 6th, 2014 at 11:10
Gerrymandering is the smoking gun of a skewed political system, but it isn’t the main reason why Dems lost. As Moyers pointed out, “Republicans won on the weakness of Democratic candidates, a poor resource allocation strategy by Democratic party leaders, particularly DCCC chair Steve Israel, and an election narrative that did little to inspire base Democratic voters.” But, historically, the sitting President’s party loses seats in Congress, for whatever reason. It stings and Dems should be embarrassed by the turnout, but there is no surprise in the result. It was even within historical norms for losses in the Senate and Congress, so looking too hard for mischief only slows Dems from doing what they must to take back those seats in the next election.
Foundryman November 6th, 2014 at 11:12
That’s true, we have GOT to get stronger candidates who will not back down from their liberal beliefs and take the right on head on…
Mark Quincy Adams November 6th, 2014 at 11:45
Agreed. Few Progressive politicians have dared to express how Liberals always have and always will be good for the people. Our politicians have been intimidated into hiding their opinions and making a strong case for Progressive policies. I think voters, even if it’s on a subconscious leval, see that and are turned off.
Foundryman November 6th, 2014 at 11:54
Just like Allison Grimes refusal to say she voted for Obama, I mean, what the hell!! If the candidates cannot stand on their convictions and virulently defend them they will lose, or most of them will. The republicans won’t back down from theirs..
tiredoftea November 6th, 2014 at 12:10
Gerrymandering is the smoking gun of a skewed political system, but it isn’t the main reason why Dems lost. As Moyers pointed out, “Republicans won on the weakness of Democratic candidates, a poor resource allocation strategy by Democratic party leaders, particularly DCCC chair Steve Israel, and an election narrative that did little to inspire base Democratic voters.” But, historically, the sitting President’s party loses seats in Congress, for whatever reason. It stings and Dems should be embarrassed by the turnout, but there is no surprise in the result. It was even within historical norms for losses in the Senate and Congress, so looking too hard for mischief only slows Dems from doing what they must to take back those seats in the next election.
Foundryman November 6th, 2014 at 12:12
That’s true, we have GOT to get stronger candidates who will not back down from their liberal beliefs and take the right on head on…
Mark Quincy Adams November 6th, 2014 at 12:45
Agreed. Few Progressive politicians have dared to express how Liberals always have and always will be good for the people. Our politicians have been intimidated into hiding their opinions and making a strong case for Progressive policies. I think voters, even if it’s on a subconscious leval, see that and are turned off.
Foundryman November 6th, 2014 at 12:54
Just like Allison Grimes refusal to say she voted for Obama, I mean, what the hell!! If the candidates cannot stand on their convictions and virulently defend them they will lose, or most of them will. The republicans won’t back down from theirs..
Herb Sarge Phelps November 6th, 2014 at 11:22
Democrats have a long history of throwing away golden opportunities. Running from their and Obama’s successes, allowing the other side to define the topic and then refusing to call their hand, but just start throwing mud like them. Negative fund raising email topics (I got so many I quit opening them) that made me feel it was useless to donate at time when I had no extra money anyway and if I did donate it would be a big sacrifice, I sure didn’t want to think I was donating to failure at my sacrifice. It was gerrymandering, it was big money, it was typical right wing propaganda being bought by everybody even when it was crazy talk. I think we need to figure out how be a powerful party that can disagree with each other and still be on the same team.
tiredoftea November 6th, 2014 at 11:44
No, there is an unusual opportunity to create a meaningful national Progressive Party that will address the apathy of the latino, black, young and lefty Dems that the existing Dem party has abandoned.
R.J. Carter November 6th, 2014 at 13:15
I for one heartily support any effort to create a national Progressive party from within the core of the Democratic party.
Or, to put it another way, I support any effort that causes the Democratic party to fracture into smaller, less powerful groups. :-)
Suzanne McFly November 6th, 2014 at 13:26
Stop your wishful thinking RJ, Cruz is your problem not ours. :)
tiredoftea November 6th, 2014 at 13:45
Be careful what you wish for! It’s as likely that the “progressive” Dems will leave the “Republican Lite” party as it is that a fractured Republican party will leave the TP fringe that’s gripped it. It will merge with its natural allies in the center.
Herb Sarge Phelps November 6th, 2014 at 12:22
Democrats have a long history of throwing away golden opportunities. Running from their and Obama’s successes, allowing the other side to define the topic and then refusing to call their hand, but just start throwing mud like them. Negative fund raising email topics (I got so many I quit opening them) that made me feel it was useless to donate at time when I had no extra money anyway and if I did donate it would be a big sacrifice, I sure didn’t want to think I was donating to failure at my sacrifice. It was gerrymandering, it was big money, it was typical right wing propaganda being bought by everybody even when it was crazy talk. I think we need to figure out how be a powerful party that can disagree with each other and still be on the same team.
tiredoftea November 6th, 2014 at 12:44
No, there is an unusual opportunity to create a meaningful national Progressive Party that will address the apathy of the latino, black, young and lefty Dems that the existing Dem party has abandoned.
R.J. Carter November 6th, 2014 at 14:15
I for one heartily support any effort to create a national Progressive party from within the core of the Democratic party.
Or, to put it another way, I support any effort that causes the Democratic party to fracture into smaller, less powerful groups. :-)
Suzanne McFly November 6th, 2014 at 14:26
Stop your wishful thinking RJ, Cruz is your problem not ours. :)
tiredoftea November 6th, 2014 at 14:45
Be careful what you wish for! It’s as likely that the “progressive” Dems will leave the “Republican Lite” party as it is that a fractured Republican party will leave the TP fringe that’s gripped it. It will merge with its natural allies in the center.
greenfloyd November 6th, 2014 at 11:44
AlJazeera America has an interesting chart up here. It seems to indicate voter turn out was the key factor, even over districting and voter ID (although those don’t help). Interestingly, states and DC with marijuana legalization on the ballot generally had higher (sorry) turnout. If you don’t give the people a good reason to vote, they wont! It’s just that simple.
Spirit of America November 6th, 2014 at 14:44
I always thought (meaning my own view & reason) that the many men & women that died/gave limbs/blood so I could vote was reason enough, especially when coupled with the fact that w/the freedoms & rights I am granted comes the duty to participate. Nothing is free in my book.
greenfloyd November 6th, 2014 at 16:57
If I had my druthers it would be against the law not to vote! Your view is admirable and I agree, however, in the real world (what ever that is) people need motivation, the old “what’s in it for me?” thing. :)
Spirit of America November 6th, 2014 at 17:05
“If I had my druthers it would be against the law not to vote!”
This has come up in conversation a few times over the years in my life and to tell you the truth, I’m still not sure how I feel about it… meaning if it came up on a ballot next election, I would have to think long and hard how I would vote, I see some pros/cons on both sides and haven’t gone either direction yet.
greenfloyd November 6th, 2014 at 17:20
Maybe we could turn it around and give everyone who votes a tax break?
Spirit of America November 6th, 2014 at 18:13
Wow, never heard that idea before, but I like it!
floyd[@]greenfloyd.org November 6th, 2014 at 12:44
AlJazeera America has an interesting chart up here. It seems to indicate voter turn out was the key factor, even over districting and voter ID (although those don’t help). Interestingly, states and DC with marijuana legalization on the ballot generally had higher (sorry) turnout. If you don’t give the people a good reason to vote, they wont! It’s just that simple.
Spirit of America November 6th, 2014 at 15:44
I always thought (meaning my own view & reason) that the many men & women that died/gave limbs/blood so I could vote was reason enough, especially when coupled with the fact that w/the freedoms & rights I am granted comes the duty to participate. Nothing is free in my book.
floyd[@]greenfloyd.org November 6th, 2014 at 17:57
If I had my druthers it would be against the law not to vote! Your view is admirable and I agree, however, in the real world (what ever that is) people need motivation, the old “what’s in it for me?” thing. :)
Spirit of America November 6th, 2014 at 18:05
“If I had my druthers it would be against the law not to vote!”
This has come up in conversation a few times over the years in my life and to tell you the truth, I’m still not sure how I feel about it… meaning if it came up on a ballot next election, I would have to think long and hard how I would vote, I see some pros/cons on both sides and haven’t gone either direction yet.
floyd[@]greenfloyd.org November 6th, 2014 at 18:20
Maybe we could turn it around and give everyone who votes a tax break?
Spirit of America November 6th, 2014 at 19:13
Wow, never heard that idea before, but I like it!
William November 6th, 2014 at 13:45
I suspect the GOP will be on their best behavior.
and here’s why.
from AP
Though the political climate of 2016 is unpredictable and no
one knows which senators may retire or die by then, as of now Senate
Republicans face daunting odds that year. They are set to defend 24 Senate
seats that year compared with just 10 for Democrats. And seven of those GOP
seats are in states Obama carried in 2012.
michaelW1966 November 7th, 2014 at 11:53
I for one don’t expect Republicans to hold the Senate in 2016 however, the House is going to be a hard hill to climb for Democrats in 2016, I will say if they don’t take it as well in 2016 Pelosi and Co will be GONE from leadership positions
William November 6th, 2014 at 14:45
I suspect the GOP will be on their best behavior.
and here’s why.
from AP
Though the political climate of 2016 is unpredictable and no
one knows which senators may retire or die by then, as of now Senate
Republicans face daunting odds that year. They are set to defend 24 Senate
seats that year compared with just 10 for Democrats. And seven of those GOP
seats are in states Obama carried in 2012.
michaelW1966 November 7th, 2014 at 12:53
I for one don’t expect Republicans to hold the Senate in 2016 however, the House is going to be a hard hill to climb for Democrats in 2016, I will say if they don’t take it as well in 2016 Pelosi and Co will be GONE from leadership positions
greenfloyd November 6th, 2014 at 18:29
Not all together good or bad, here’s a Ferguson MO update: 4 in 10 Ferguson voters cast ballots; turnout still trails county, 2010 totals
floyd[@]greenfloyd.org November 6th, 2014 at 19:29
Not all together good or bad, here’s a Ferguson MO update: 4 in 10 Ferguson voters cast ballots; turnout still trails county, 2010 totals