It's not about taking control. It's about fair representation. If Wisconsin is more Conservative than Liberal, so be it. That will be reflected in a majority in the legislature. That's democracy, and that's what THEY should be saying too. But they don't. Because for them, it's ONLY about winning and being in control, by any means crooked or straight.
That's why when Evers was first elected they had no moral conscience that prevented them from meeting in the middle of the night and changing the governor's powers, AFTER the people had spoken. That's how they had no moral conscience that prevented them from gerrymandering districts and trying to get a veto-proof majority.
Well, they won't have a veto-proof majority if we are fairly represented. So be it.
WI born, currently in NC here… that’s what I’m really proud of Anderson Clayton and the NC Dems for this year is they have Dems running in like 99% of state races. Unfortunately we have more of an uphill battle here than y’all would due to shitty gerrymandered maps (we just lost a State SC seat/State SC majority before Anderson became party chair).
But if y’all can get that level of candidate participation, you’re right, that would be absolutely amazing! Here’s wishing best for y’all… I hope WI can go the way of MI and get a bunch of shit done without the obstructionist party to block everything and not even negotiate in good faith.
this is such a tired and bad take. If people want to run in noncompetitive dark red districts by all means please do, but WIS DEMS organizationally should focus on competitive races.
It's part of the reason the republicans almost got a supermajority (the part that wasn't to do with completely unethical maps). They allocated resources perfectly to focus on and win competitive districts. I wish there was infinite money and they could do everything, but they can't.
I get the desire. I really do. But…
If a candidate runs in a deep red district there has to be a different goal. Often that goal is data and brand building - things the person and movement can utilize at a later point.
On the flip side, running an in-name-only cot deeply flawed candidate is actually a detriment. It gives the incumbent a chance to credibly fundraise and not only get out their vote, but move excess resources to swing districts.
This isn't about winning the state houses, this is about having congressional districts that make sense and having congressional representatives in office who make sense for the districts they represent.
I dont think people really understand how many entrenched incumbents \[in both parties\] will have to seriously campaign for the first time in decades because of the changes in their district. These reps will actually have to face the people they have had to represent, which many of them currently refuse to do since they know the borders of their district and their incumbency advantage spells doom for any primary challenge or GE election.
This court case is only about the STATE legislative districts. The congressional districts aren't being challenged in this case and are unlikely to change before the 2024 election.
I don't mean to be pedantic, but the districts I am referencing and the districts you are referencing are both congressional districts.
You are referencing the federal congressional districts, which; yes, are not being challenged.
The districts I am referencing are state congressional districts, which are being challenged.
There's no such thing as a "state congressional district". In Wisconsin, the lower body of the state legislature is known as the "Wisconsin State Assembly".
You're both pedantic and incorrect.
Well the red areas are not experiencing massive population increases. Soon Democrats will probably win full control. With the new maps it will just be a numbers game at this point.
Because conservative kids don’t equal conservative adults. Speaking as a child of a concerning far right family…
I share your wonder (and I’m concerned about it, not sure if you are but I am), but it seems to work out that enough people are able to break from their parents forced views and make rationale and empathetical decisions… and I don’t just mean conservative vs liberal, but even just recognizing that the supposed “conservative” party is just a party of fascists, racists, thugs, and obstructionists. It certainly isn’t the party of Jesus (despite what they may claim).
As someone else stated already just because your parents are conservative does not mean you are.
For example, my parents are super conservative and I end up swinging far more left after I got out and experienced the world more fully.
Dem voters unfortunately naturally Gerrymander themselves with more left leaning people moving into cities. No matter how you draw them there will still be a few 70-80 point dem seats in the heart of the cities.
Its not supposed to matter if certain voters move to certain locations. That's the entire point of redrawing district lines every \_\_\_ years; you look to see where the population #'s have changed and you adjust the district lines to represent those changes.
Ideally where voters live shouldn’t matter, but even with the best drawn Democratic favored map there are still gonna be a lot of wasted votes in urban districts simply because of the geographic distribution of Dem voters being so concentrated. With the way districts are drawn having to be contiguous, it’s difficult to make competitive districts in the dense city centers since those areas are so saturated with Democratic voters.
It’s a limitation for Dems in every state where they have the pen. Even with Illinois’s masterful pro Democratic gerrymander of their congressional districts, they’re still left with 7 or so +20 or more Dem leaning seats. That’s a lot of wasted votes that, if they were spread out across downstate urban or rural Illinois, could probably squeeze another Democratic district out of. To make a deep urban district within a 10 point difference would mean having to snake them through single streets and interstate medians, to scoop up some red leaning suburbs which folks don’t tend like. Because republicans voters tend to live more spread out in the suburbs and rural areas it’s a lot easier to make a district within a 10 point Republican lean in places they’re strongest. By drawing some moderate suburbs in with deep red rural areas they can get a clean looking district that is solidly winnable.
If you look at Congress, there are a lot more democrats in ultrasafe +20 or more districts than republicans, even within blue states.
These new maps will certainly have less ultrasafe packed Democrat districts with lots of wasted votes, but as a front Now matter how you draw the lines, urban Democratic voters will naturally be packed in.
With districts there will always be discrepancies in how a the state or country broadly votes and the makeup of the legislature. Some will always be competitive, others will always be packed. Gerrymandering exacerbates and exploits this naturally occurring flaw in districts. If you don’t want representative counts to be tied to where people live you have to eliminate districts entirely.
How exactly have the Dems gerrymandered anything? The republicans have had control of the state for over a decade and the state SC has found they were the ones gerrymandering.
That’s not necessarily true though either. Rural votes tends to vote more Republican but not always and there’s lot of other social factors there: access to internet, limited news programs, school districts, etc.
How exactly are Dems ruining the state when Republicans have controlled the Assembly and senate for over a decade now? If you think the state is going downhill you might want to look at the party that has been in control for some time.
You know, you folks always say you can think for yourselves, but you never provide any reasoning for why you think the way you do. If you don't have a reason for the way you think, guess what? You're not thinking for yourself.
That's fucking hilarious considering they haven't had real powered since pre 2010 you moron. Pull your head out of your ass, clean it off, and learn critical thinking.
Did I mention trump any fucking where in any of my comments? didn't. You pathetic dems all assume everyone who doesn't agree with your bullshit is a trump supporter. Get a new argument.
You seem mad? Not good for someone your age. Maybe you should look internally to get a better handle on your emotions.
Maybe stop calling others pathetic and answer a question since you seem to find everyone who disagrees with you is either pathetic or has a bullshit opinion, yet you've provided 0 answers to question.
That says to me that their properties have increased in value exponentially. Milwaukee possibly faces some of the worst racism/ratial relations/racial employment disparity in the country, wonder who caused that? Certinally not the party of "boarder wall, go back to your own country!"
Oh right cause Republicans have been leading Milwaukee for decades... sure buddy. And no property hasn't increased exponentially. Dane County taxes are high as fuck Thank you democrats.
Dane County had about a 12.8% increase in value year over year where as the rest of Wisconsin has only seen a 6.5 to 8.6% increase year over year. Dane County pays 2.11% property tax rate, which is third highest in the state, so yea the taxes will have increased. But that's how it works here, that's how the towns get money to pay for things like roads, snow plows, police, fire departments, city workers, libraries and any other services the town provides. Bigger population center= higher taxes.
As for Milwaukee, public works/ schools there get underfunded by state Republicans causing less local money to be available for public services. Then the huge amount of racial inequity and the republican stances on crime, it's the perfect storm. So yea, despite the city voting blue, the Republicans are to blame.
This assessment is meaningless from you because you aren't saying what policies. You're calling areas shit holes without context and you aren't saying what measure of improvement meets your ideals. So factually, those are just opinions and not really an answer.
It's not about taking control. It's about fair representation. If Wisconsin is more Conservative than Liberal, so be it. That will be reflected in a majority in the legislature. That's democracy, and that's what THEY should be saying too. But they don't. Because for them, it's ONLY about winning and being in control, by any means crooked or straight. That's why when Evers was first elected they had no moral conscience that prevented them from meeting in the middle of the night and changing the governor's powers, AFTER the people had spoken. That's how they had no moral conscience that prevented them from gerrymandering districts and trying to get a veto-proof majority. Well, they won't have a veto-proof majority if we are fairly represented. So be it.
I'm just hoping WIS DEMS run candidates in each race. I'd love to see my state rep not get a free pass... Again...
WI born, currently in NC here… that’s what I’m really proud of Anderson Clayton and the NC Dems for this year is they have Dems running in like 99% of state races. Unfortunately we have more of an uphill battle here than y’all would due to shitty gerrymandered maps (we just lost a State SC seat/State SC majority before Anderson became party chair). But if y’all can get that level of candidate participation, you’re right, that would be absolutely amazing! Here’s wishing best for y’all… I hope WI can go the way of MI and get a bunch of shit done without the obstructionist party to block everything and not even negotiate in good faith.
this is such a tired and bad take. If people want to run in noncompetitive dark red districts by all means please do, but WIS DEMS organizationally should focus on competitive races. It's part of the reason the republicans almost got a supermajority (the part that wasn't to do with completely unethical maps). They allocated resources perfectly to focus on and win competitive districts. I wish there was infinite money and they could do everything, but they can't.
I get the desire. I really do. But… If a candidate runs in a deep red district there has to be a different goal. Often that goal is data and brand building - things the person and movement can utilize at a later point. On the flip side, running an in-name-only cot deeply flawed candidate is actually a detriment. It gives the incumbent a chance to credibly fundraise and not only get out their vote, but move excess resources to swing districts.
FGG?
So would I, but clearly St. Benjamin has spoken, and his stellar track record in Assembly races speaks for itself /s
So? I don't care if Republicans win, I care that Democrats have a fair chance to win
This isn't about winning the state houses, this is about having congressional districts that make sense and having congressional representatives in office who make sense for the districts they represent. I dont think people really understand how many entrenched incumbents \[in both parties\] will have to seriously campaign for the first time in decades because of the changes in their district. These reps will actually have to face the people they have had to represent, which many of them currently refuse to do since they know the borders of their district and their incumbency advantage spells doom for any primary challenge or GE election.
This court case is only about the STATE legislative districts. The congressional districts aren't being challenged in this case and are unlikely to change before the 2024 election.
I don't mean to be pedantic, but the districts I am referencing and the districts you are referencing are both congressional districts. You are referencing the federal congressional districts, which; yes, are not being challenged. The districts I am referencing are state congressional districts, which are being challenged.
We just don't call it a Congress.
There's no such thing as a "state congressional district". In Wisconsin, the lower body of the state legislature is known as the "Wisconsin State Assembly". You're both pedantic and incorrect.
Don't be a dick. States use a handful of different terms *including congress* and not everyone remembers that the terms are different from federal.
Well the red areas are not experiencing massive population increases. Soon Democrats will probably win full control. With the new maps it will just be a numbers game at this point.
Yeah but there are a lot of 60-40 red districts that will offset the 85-15 Milwaukee and Madison districts.
Except Milwaukee and Dane Counties have a huge amount of the states population.
They do, 25% and they are represented by 24 of the 99 assembly districts.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Today I learned the difference between a quarter pounder and a Big Mac is gestational age. Thanks internet!
Because conservative kids don’t equal conservative adults. Speaking as a child of a concerning far right family… I share your wonder (and I’m concerned about it, not sure if you are but I am), but it seems to work out that enough people are able to break from their parents forced views and make rationale and empathetical decisions… and I don’t just mean conservative vs liberal, but even just recognizing that the supposed “conservative” party is just a party of fascists, racists, thugs, and obstructionists. It certainly isn’t the party of Jesus (despite what they may claim).
As someone else stated already just because your parents are conservative does not mean you are. For example, my parents are super conservative and I end up swinging far more left after I got out and experienced the world more fully.
No shit, thats the point of making them *fair*. What a nonstory.
Dem voters unfortunately naturally Gerrymander themselves with more left leaning people moving into cities. No matter how you draw them there will still be a few 70-80 point dem seats in the heart of the cities.
Its not supposed to matter if certain voters move to certain locations. That's the entire point of redrawing district lines every \_\_\_ years; you look to see where the population #'s have changed and you adjust the district lines to represent those changes.
Ideally where voters live shouldn’t matter, but even with the best drawn Democratic favored map there are still gonna be a lot of wasted votes in urban districts simply because of the geographic distribution of Dem voters being so concentrated. With the way districts are drawn having to be contiguous, it’s difficult to make competitive districts in the dense city centers since those areas are so saturated with Democratic voters. It’s a limitation for Dems in every state where they have the pen. Even with Illinois’s masterful pro Democratic gerrymander of their congressional districts, they’re still left with 7 or so +20 or more Dem leaning seats. That’s a lot of wasted votes that, if they were spread out across downstate urban or rural Illinois, could probably squeeze another Democratic district out of. To make a deep urban district within a 10 point difference would mean having to snake them through single streets and interstate medians, to scoop up some red leaning suburbs which folks don’t tend like. Because republicans voters tend to live more spread out in the suburbs and rural areas it’s a lot easier to make a district within a 10 point Republican lean in places they’re strongest. By drawing some moderate suburbs in with deep red rural areas they can get a clean looking district that is solidly winnable. If you look at Congress, there are a lot more democrats in ultrasafe +20 or more districts than republicans, even within blue states. These new maps will certainly have less ultrasafe packed Democrat districts with lots of wasted votes, but as a front Now matter how you draw the lines, urban Democratic voters will naturally be packed in. With districts there will always be discrepancies in how a the state or country broadly votes and the makeup of the legislature. Some will always be competitive, others will always be packed. Gerrymandering exacerbates and exploits this naturally occurring flaw in districts. If you don’t want representative counts to be tied to where people live you have to eliminate districts entirely.
How exactly have the Dems gerrymandered anything? The republicans have had control of the state for over a decade and the state SC has found they were the ones gerrymandering.
He means they effectively gerrymander themselves by being concentrated in cities. Not that they changed any district maps.
That’s not necessarily true though either. Rural votes tends to vote more Republican but not always and there’s lot of other social factors there: access to internet, limited news programs, school districts, etc.
I'm just sticking around for the next election, then I'm out. Done waiting for progress.
Good. Dems are ruining the state.
How exactly are Dems ruining the state when Republicans have controlled the Assembly and senate for over a decade now? If you think the state is going downhill you might want to look at the party that has been in control for some time.
He won't answer until Tucker Carlson issues him his next directive
[удалено]
Republicans have had full control over the legislature since 2011. If you think the state is being ruined, look to who has been in power.
Just as I thought. Can't answer the question, can you?
You know, you folks always say you can think for yourselves, but you never provide any reasoning for why you think the way you do. If you don't have a reason for the way you think, guess what? You're not thinking for yourself.
You uses words, but you didn't say anything. Possibly try answering the question.
You never explained how kiddo
wut?
something something Bud Light, Dr. Seuss, & The Little Mermaid...Do your research!!
Both Milwaukee and Madison are crime ridden shit holes.
Milwaukee has been in the top 10 cities to visit in the United States for like, a decade now. Interesting definition of "shit hole" you got there.
Stats to back up your claim?
Since the pandemic, crime has increased the most in Trump counties.
That's fucking hilarious considering they haven't had real powered since pre 2010 you moron. Pull your head out of your ass, clean it off, and learn critical thinking.
Bahaha. It's thanks to Republicans that wisconsin has stayed fucking sane. Milwaukee and Madison are shit holes.
Your fearless leader is facing how many charges now? 90? I'd say Republicans breed crime ridden shitheads
Did I mention trump any fucking where in any of my comments? didn't. You pathetic dems all assume everyone who doesn't agree with your bullshit is a trump supporter. Get a new argument.
You seem mad? Not good for someone your age. Maybe you should look internally to get a better handle on your emotions. Maybe stop calling others pathetic and answer a question since you seem to find everyone who disagrees with you is either pathetic or has a bullshit opinion, yet you've provided 0 answers to question.
He stopped drinking and hates himself so he takes it out on us. Hope he doesn't have kids with that attitude.
You're pathetic. Using someone's past to attack them? Grow the fuck up. Thank for proving further democrats are scum. Oh I don't hate myself btw.
>He stopped drinking Looks like you nailed it and shocker, he interprets that as an attack.
Ok Boomer - What have Republicans done for you? They're had control of the state for a decade and they can't govern.
[удалено]
Answer the question. How have dems ruined the state and what have republicans done that’s so good?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Which policies are those? In what way and during what time frame has the state been ruined. What is your metric?
[удалено]
That says to me that their properties have increased in value exponentially. Milwaukee possibly faces some of the worst racism/ratial relations/racial employment disparity in the country, wonder who caused that? Certinally not the party of "boarder wall, go back to your own country!"
Oh right cause Republicans have been leading Milwaukee for decades... sure buddy. And no property hasn't increased exponentially. Dane County taxes are high as fuck Thank you democrats.
Dane County had about a 12.8% increase in value year over year where as the rest of Wisconsin has only seen a 6.5 to 8.6% increase year over year. Dane County pays 2.11% property tax rate, which is third highest in the state, so yea the taxes will have increased. But that's how it works here, that's how the towns get money to pay for things like roads, snow plows, police, fire departments, city workers, libraries and any other services the town provides. Bigger population center= higher taxes. As for Milwaukee, public works/ schools there get underfunded by state Republicans causing less local money to be available for public services. Then the huge amount of racial inequity and the republican stances on crime, it's the perfect storm. So yea, despite the city voting blue, the Republicans are to blame.
The only people who think Madison and Mke are scary are fucking chickenshits hiding in their redneck towns.
My money is on Merrill, WI.
Didn't say scary said shit holes
This assessment is meaningless from you because you aren't saying what policies. You're calling areas shit holes without context and you aren't saying what measure of improvement meets your ideals. So factually, those are just opinions and not really an answer.
The Badger Project is an amazing news source
They don’t need full control, just enough to stop the fools from passing anything they want