Redmap: Republican Plan to Win 2016 (Even if They Don't Get More Votes)

I don't usually run two posts in a row from the same source, but frankly, this topic is important. And to be honest, a clip from The Rachel Maddow Show is probably the easiest-to-swallow way to take your medicine, if you haven't heard of this issue. Rachel has a way of distilling a lecture into something you want to learn. And this one is a doozy. [Story continues below]

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

If you didn't know, the Republican victory in the House of Representatives in the 2012 election was achieved by gerrymander. More people voted for Democratic candidates total, but because of the hinky way that Congressional districts are drawn up, more Republicans were elected. This rubs me the wrong way, but is semi-tolerable, because by district, the Republican actually did win. The quarrel is only with how the districts are drawn. But, given the GOP desire to turn several "blue" states into "red" states--by changing the way electoral votes are divided--gives me more pause. With that scheme, the district gets the spoils, and ends in a result where the statewide winner can lose huge chunks of electoral votes even though he/she carried the state.

The fact of the matter is, had this scheme been in place in 2012, Mitt Romney would be getting inaugurated this weekend, despite losing by millions of votes. This sort of scheming could only be done by a party that doesn't care what voters think. It can only be done by a party that puts winning and power ahead of the wants, needs and desires of the American people. My question is this: do American conservatives and Republicans care? Or are they also willing to "win" at any cost, even if they really lost? Any conservatives want to tell me (Dan?). 

Red vs. Blue: The State of the Nation 2008

Images from source

For the last few election cycles, we Americans seem to have settled (or had settled for us) a standardized coloring for states that vote Republican and Democratic. The funny part of course, is that GOP states are now called "red states," something that I'm sure makes some of the more hard-core conservatives bristle.

In 2000 and 2004, the maps were a vast field of red, with some blue around the edges. This spawned several cartoon maps with derogatory names plastered over the red states (all of which were hilarious). But this year, the blue flowed inland, from all directions. This leaves a still contiguous "Red America," but it is much smaller than it used to be. But the still giant size of that red mass is misleading. And when you see the country broken down by county, it looks even redder.

I've heard some conserva-talkers claim that this swollen redness (instead of needing salve), proves that Barack Obama has no mandate. Thankfully, the site excerpted below has put together some helpful maps that show what the country would look like if the population were evenly spread around. Those red states (and counties) can be kinda devoid of people don'tcha know.

[Excerpt]

Maps of the 2008 US presidential election results

The states are colored red or blue to indicate whether a majority of their voters voted for the Republican candidate, John McCain, or the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama, respectively. Looking at this map it gives the impression that the Republicans won the election handily, since there is rather more red on the map than there is blue. In fact, however, the reverse is true – the Democrats won by a substantial margin. The explanation for this apparent paradox, as pointed out by many people, is that the map fails to take account of the population distribution. It fails to allow for the fact that the population of the red states is on average significantly lower than that of the blue ones. The blue may be small in area, but they represent a large number of voters, which is what matters in an election. . .

Read more here.

3 Days to Go: The Electoral Vote Right Now

With three days to go, despite talks of a resurgence for John McCain (mostly on FOX "News" and the right-wing blogs), the future looks bright for Barack Obama. But we Democrats, liberals and progressives have been burned before, and most of us are avoiding the "L"-word (landslide) like the plague. Apparently, without realizing it, we're a bunch of superstitious individuals who believe we're gonna jinx it, or something.

So, no matter what happens, we're all going to feel foolish on November 5th. If Obama wins, we'll feel foolish for ever having been so worried. If McCain pulls off an upset, we'll feel foolish for believing we had it in the bag--in addition to a laundry list of extremely negative emotions. As a long-time cynic and pessimist, I'll do what I always do: hope for the best, but try to be prepared for the worst.

Still, the latest poll aggregators are very encouraging. Take a look.







Sources: Pollster.com, FiveThirtyEight.com, RealClearPolitics.com, Electoral-Vote.com

Democrats Lead on Electoral Map?

Image from World Atlas

Let's hope so. I still can't help thinking, this thing shouldn't even be close enough to worry about. Historically, has a deeply (and long-term) unpopular President, with a week economy and an intractable foreign war (or other major kerfuffle) ever managed to cede the White House to his own party?

This should be a slam dunk. I'm still crossing my fingers, and hoping that all the current goings on will be long forgotten by November.

[Excerpt]

Democrats favored in electoral map
Electoral College road to the White House favors Democrats; McCain playing defense

The electoral road to the White House favors Democrats this fall — either Barack Obama or Hillary Rodham Clinton — and has Republican John McCain playing defense to thwart a presidential power shift. . .

Read more at: Raw Story