Monday, June 27, 2011


Somewhat dubious analysis of the Republican redistricting maps for NC in this morning's Politico ("dubious" because any article that quotes "Democrat" Brad Crone didn't dig very far). But the conclusion offers something that Republicans aren't thinking about (in their lust to shove the shiv in Miller, Kissell, and Shuler):
...Thomas Mills, a Democratic consultant in the state, said it’s possible Republicans might overreach and endanger their own incumbents by drawing Democratic-oriented areas into their districts. One possibility: that in weakening Shuler, Republicans would place the Democratic stronghold of Asheville within McHenry’s new boundaries.

“The days of Democrats being in the majority are over, but the seats that Republicans hold may be competitive by the end of the decade,” said Mills. “Things change.” But, he said, “They’re going to make this as ugly as they possibly can.”

Republicans "overreach"? How out of character that would be!

They mention Republican pudge Patrick McHenry as ironically not prospering necessarily by a map drawn to hurt Shuler. They don't mention Foxx and how she may be weakened. Her 5th District seat was already under-populated, according to the Census, and the map-drawers were already going to have to add tens of thousands of new voters to the 5th. From where will they snatch them, and will they be as dependably Foxx-addled as, say, the pudding-heads in Stokes County?


The Teahadist said...

On this blog you have opposed gerrymandering because it makes incumbents more difficult to unseat. Now you say the Republican plan will make incumbents like Foxx and McHenry less difficult to unseat.

So...which is more important to you: 1) preserving partisan bias and insulting Republicans, or 2) staying true to your principles and praising the plan?

BTW, I've been searching your archives for any mention of how awful it was that the Democratic party blatantly gerrymandered NC districts, but I can't find any. Perhaps you or another commenter could point them out so no one gets the mistaken impression that you're a biased hypocrite.

Anonymous said...

There is no hypocrisy here.

Gerrymandering by Dems = GOOD!

Gerrymandering by Repubs = BAD!

Examples of "good" gerrymandering would be the 2000 NC redistricting, the current Illinois and California.

Examples of "bad" gerrymandering would be the anticipated NC redistricting.

See? It's simple!

brotherdoc said...

Both sides gerrymander? This is news to the Teahadist? Until all the states get wise and/or some (not this) SCOTUS demands they all use non-partisan boards to draw the districts fairly, we will see this game every ten years. Last time I looked NC still has more registered Dem voters than GOPer voters. Not that I expect that cuts any ice with the current Raleigh leadership.

Not Really said...

Gerrymandering is bad no matter who's doing it. I don't think JW is saying any different, just pointing out that it might backfire on Republicans this time.

I'll be interested to see what happens in CA, where they have a non-partisan board drawing up the districts. Unfortunately, we're not likely to see that here anytime soon.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous indeed, there is hypocrisy here, to say the least, and if the truth be told, for ~ a century.

Go back to the '60s, where the Democratic-controlled NC legislature gerrymandered, time after time, in their attempts to unseat James Broyhill. But it backfired everytime.

Anonymous said...

Brotherdoc, aren't you conveniently forgetting the growing numbers of Unaffiliated, etc.?

Opinionated said...

The local Democratic Party has repeatedly lobbied in support of a non-partisan redistricting commission for the last several years. I still wish the folks in Raleigh had listened, because I prefer fairness to cynical partisanship every time.

neutral party said...

The democrats have been in charge of the state senate for over 100 years and the house and governors mansion for most of that time.

If they wanted non-partisan redistricting, they could have had it. It's nice that the local dem party "lobbied" for it, but why didn't we get it?