Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General Gerrymandering

I followed the ACA for awhile, more interested in how it would affect my forecasts for elections than the law itself. It didn't effect me, so I really didn't care one way or the other.

But Gallup was polling whether the law help more people or hurt more people. For most of the Obama regime, the poll came out on hurt. Here's an example.

More Still Say Health Law Has Hurt Instead of Helped Them

https://news.gallup.com/poll/178094/say-health-law-hurt-instead-helped.aspx

This is why it was an albatross around Obama's and the Democrat's neck. Those for the law didn't want to hear from those who it hurt and those against the law didn't want to hear from those it helped. Nothing new in the political partisanship round there.

The thing is with the ACA, people became use to it, it became part of their comfort zone. Once that happens, it becomes politically stupid to try to repeal it. But while people were very uncomfortable with it, the GOP milked it for all it was worth. Peoples view on the ACA was one of the reason Trump won in 2016, 49% opposed it, 40% favored it. Then Trump and the GOP overplayed their hand big time which resulted in 2018 happening.

All in all, Trump is political deaf and dumb when it comes to elections.

Wow, a poll from 2014, in which few of the provisions really had just BARELY taken effect.
Wow, maybe you could have used a poll from 2010 instead, when almost NONE of the provisions had taken effect and there's a good likelihood a GIGANTIC number of Americans expressed doubts.

LOL, okay. Now you know why people voted the way they did. The facts are,
2010 52% of all Americans opposed the ACA. This resulted in a 52-44 margin of all Americans voting for Republican congressional candidates letting the GOP gain 63 seats and retake control of the House of Representatives.

2014 27% of all Americans were saying the ACA was hurting them vs. 16% who said it helped them. The people were saying the law hurts more folks than it helps. 53% of all Americans opposed the ACA. Due to this Americans voted 52-46 for Republican congressional candidate enabling them to retain control of the house. More importantly, Americans voted 52-43 in the senate elections enabling the Republicans to pick up 9 senate seats and take control of the senate.

The opposition to the ACA in 2016 40% in favor/49% against helped Trump defeat Clinton. Of those opposing the ACA, Trump won them 82-13 over Hillary Clinton.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls/national/president

Then in 2018, once Trump made the ACA popular the year before, 47% favor, 40% oppose, it helped the Democrats regain the house, the Democrats gaining 44 seats as Americans voted for the Democratic congressional candidates 54-45.

Although in 2018, I think the dislike of Trump had much more to do with the the American People kicking out the Republicans than the ACA. But no doubt, the ACA figured into it.

These are the facts. I posted the links prior. Now Jeffrey, you can try to dispute the facts if you like. But I take that as more a partisan rant than disputing the facts the ACA played a major role in deciding the 2010 House elections, the 2014 senate elections, probably a significant role in the 2016 election. Less, but also played a role in 2018.

Once the American people became use to the ACA, where it fit into their comfort zone, Trump and the GOP were politically stupid to try to repeal it. All that did was make a piece of legislation that had been highly unpopular, popular. Without Trump, in my opinion the ACA would still be unpopular. But that's irrelevant, the ACA certainly influenced if not decided certain elections. What I found strange was in 2012 when Obama beat Romney, neither talked about the ACA or made it a campaign issue. Most likely because of RomneyCare in Massachusetts when Romney was governor. He didn't have a leg to stand on.

Now which facts are you disputing here?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

https://news.gallup.com/poll/178094/say-health-law-hurt-instead-helped.aspx

Or didn't you read the whole post before you went off on a partisan rant?

First you'd have to show where I disputed...well....anything.
I just think it's foolish to try and use 2014 polling for a bill that had just recently passed and had barely even been implemented, because everyone now realizes several things about programs like the ACA:

First, people barely even know that the ACA and Obamacare are the same thing, and when polls ask people about "Obamacare" they say they hate it but when described AS the Affordable Care Act, they have a more positive reactiion.
Second, people...the same ones who often don't know O'care and ACA are the same, react harshly UNTIL they learn what's about to be taken away, which is precisely WHY Trump AND the Republicans COULD NOT REPEAL it despite over SIXTY attempts!
And that's WITH a trifecta!

There's nothing partisan about pointing out facts.
And it's a fact that Americans ALSO ranted and raved about how awful Social Security and Medicare were, until successive administrations tried taking them away.
Millions of very conservative elderly people suddenly turned into Gray Panthers the last time SS and Medicare were seriously threatened.

There's nothing partisan about pointing out the fact that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act are now every bit as much a "third rail" that mustn't be touched, just as much as Social Security and Medicare, and there's nothing partisan about pointing out that the GOP's openly stated goals have been to either dismantle or privatize all three, along with anything and everything else they can get their hands on.
They've come right out and said it, Perotista...because they are the partisans.

Once this Supreme Court gets its legs under it I have no reason to believe they won't abolish the ACA along with Roe v Wade. John Roberts has lost control of the court and it now pretty much belongs to Clarence Thomas.

Since the court is a non-partisan entity they will be able to get away with it where congress failed.

If they can convince Manchin and Senema to kill the filibuster, congress can pass bills and make them exempt from Supreme Court review. It's rare, but it has been considered quite a bit in the past. There was a whole movement to remove the Supreme Court from reviewing issues like school prayer and marriage equality, with conflicting memos from Ted Olson (against it) versus John Roberts (for it):

Court Stripping Movement

It's ironic that John Roberts, now the Chief Justice was in favor of stripping the rights of the Supreme Court from reviewing constitutionality, and leaving that to congress!

I wouldn't count too much on a rewrite of the filibuster. Or on the SCOTUS ceding any power to congress,

More likely Trump will get to appoint another justice during his next term.

You might as well do away with the filibuster now. The next Republican controlled senate with a Republican president will surely do away with it. It’s gone either today or tomorrow. The problem, previous enacted legislation will then become like executive orders. With EO’s any new president can rescind, repeal, change them to the new president’s heart’s desire. You seen this with Trump repealing quite a lot of Obama’s EO’s and Biden now repealing Trump’s. Previous passed legislation by the other party will become the same as EO’s with a new president who has control of both chambers of congress. Repeal, rescind and then pass whatever legislation that party, and president wants. You have seen what the nuclear option has done with presidential appointments, legislation will fall into that same category.

I think one forgets it was the filibuster that halted repeal of the ACA back in 2017. Without the filibuster, the ACA would have been history. You could see the same for long cherished legislation like the civil rights act, voting rights act and other legislation. All it would take is 218 votes in the house, 51 in the senate and a president willing to sign it.

We will have wild lurches to the left and then to the right with no moderation whatsoever. Republicans repealing any and all Democratic Party passed legislation and then the Democrats doing the same for all Republican passed legislation. But that is what lies ahead. It’s going to happen; all one has to do is look at EO’s today. So you might as well do away with the filibuster now or let the Republicans do away with it at some time in the future.

The latest on redistricting.

Six states have now finalized their redrawn congressional maps for the 2020s: Oregon, Maine, Nebraska, Indiana, West Virginia and, most recently, Texas. Democrats have gained seven seats nationally from the redistricting process so far, Republicans have gained one, and the number of competitive seats has dropped by six. Some of this is because Republicans lost a seat due to reapportionment in West Virginia and Oregon Democrats were able to use their control of the redistricting process to draw a significantly more favorable map for themselves, but it is also due to Texas Republicans giving Democratic incumbents safer districts in exchange for shoring up their own seats.

So Texas is a wash. If gerrymandering occurred there, it was to give incumbents safer seats. Both parties ensuring self-preservation. No huge gerrymandering for a Republican advantage in Texas took place. The Illinois map, although drawn hasn't been finalized and voted into law. Once signed into law the Democrats gain 2 seats there. So far redistricting contrary to Democratic fears has been going all the Democrats way.

So as of 25 Oct 2021 redistricting, if one counts Illinois which will be final in a few days, the Democrats has a plus 8. A democratic gain of 9 minus the GOP gain of 1. This could make for the Republicans retaking the house much harder.

This is why i said the generic congressional ballot only shows a nationwide preference on who or one would be voting for. It's not district by district. Another interesting aspect of all this is instead of having 9 competitive districts if one went by the old map, you're down to just 3. There's been 66 out of the 435 districts drawn so far and signed into law. When Illinois finishes, that will be another 17 districts to be added.

The biggest surprise so far is Texas. No Republican gerrymandering as I suspect everyone thought they would. Illinois and Oregon gerrymandering was no surprise, those two states did the same after the 2010 census. Now Texas, big surprise. I suppose one could say Texas gerrymandered quite a lot, but it was gerrymandering to make incumbents of both parties safer, not to give one party a big advantage. Anyway, that my take on this.

I think Republicans are pretty happy with the current filibuster limitations, since they get everything they want and can use it to block most everything Democrats want. Democrats tend to want to pass legislation to solve problems. Republicans want to pack the judiciary and keep the status quo.

But certainly. the second a majority Republican government wants to pass something, the filibuster is dead.