|
And when they fail, it tends to be spectacular. True, they usually go down in the fourth or fifth election after redistrictings, rather than the third. But Democrats' gerrymanderings in the South blew up in the second election after redistrictings, in 1994. So the "rules" are not that strong.
This is a talking point from last fall. There are more than 15 R-held House districts that Kerry won or got within 1-2% of winning.
I compared gerrymanders across the U.S. last election. Texas was the last state Republicans could gerrymander, so their present number of seats is for practical purposes the maximum they can possibly achieve. The net difference between partisan gerrymanderings is that Republicans have 20 more than Democrats do- rather exactly their present advantage in seats overall.
I don't know what Schneider has been smoking. I see 40-50 districts in play this election, 45+ of them Republican-held, with Democrats now already with the upper hand in 10-15 of them. David Brooks said on Friday that two weeks ago the House Republican leadership concluded it was going to lose majority in November. DeLay jumping off keeps the boat afloat a little longer. But November simply looks like hell for House Republicans in the Northeast- three seats in Philadelphia suburbia look gone, one or two are good to go in New York State, two or possibly all three could fall in Connecticut, one's looking better than 50/50 in New Hampshire. Then there are two or three ripe in Minnesota and Iowa, three to five between L.A. and Denver, and a half dozen that are possible pickups between Pittsburgh and St. Louis. Southern Florida might be good for one or two pickups. And that's without any further Republican decline- which is clearly in the cards.
|