chrisishardcore.com

Comments: Roundup

Chris, Very well said in summing up/agreeing to end the redistricting dilemma...redistricting, as it is often said, is politics at it's finest (or worst - depending upon train of thought and which side you're on).

As for the North Georgia thing...you've hit the nail on the head for Forsyth, Cherokee, and Dawson Counties (look at grouping Lumpkin in there too - 1 local Democrat left in power)...Not that I really care, but I honestly don't know what the Democratic Party could do to regain power/clout in these areas (as I said to Tings...I know most of the local candidates, in Dawson and Forsyth, there are some of them that "at heart" are still traditional, Southern Dem's (which is basically a moderate Republican / very moderate Dem)...but being a (D) with all (R)'s voting doesn't get you elected...this is something that Republicans must watch out for as well (don't let (D)'s win the primary - just b/c they have an (R) next to their name doesn't mean anything (case in point: Bubba vs. Bill...now I will admit I'm biased b/c I worked on Bill's campaign).

One last thing...being a Republican in a Republican circle of friends, if you want to know what it takes to sway Republican votes to a Democratic candidate...I'd look for Cathy Cox for Governor before Mark Taylor...I know Taylor pulls some South Georgia (Albany area) Republican voters...but as for those young women college students/recent graduates, and housewives...Cathy Cox will bring in far more "outside party" voters than Taylor (just my perspective, from what I've seen and heard - you'd be surprised at the number of devote Republicans I know that have openly told me they'd support Cox, but probably just not vote if Taylor gets the nod).

This is crazy as hell to say...but if Cathy Cox won the Governorship (twice - 06 and 10) and actually got some things accomplished with a Republican Legislature...could she be a Democratic Presidential candidate in say 2012, or 2016? Just some way out in left field thought that I had the other day (while putting out my "W - Still the President" yard sign of course!!)

Again, I look forward to some more comments and some more discussion.

Posted by cbearden at November 16, 2004 10:42 PM

No, no, no. I do not want you to give in. I do not want the democrat party to disappear. I do want us to engage in a discussion of ideas without resorting to the vitriol that accompanies a lot of D/R dialogue.

As to programs doing the redistricting. Maybe. But the problem I see with that is you can plug statistical information into them but you can't plug the human factor. Culture, neighborhoods, etc. Yeah, I know, the ones we humans draw don't always consider that stuff either but they do a better job than computers.

Posted by davenfl at November 16, 2004 10:52 PM

First redistricting reform: obviously the method used by federal judges to reapportion the state legislature is a good model. So is the Iowa one, which has taken politics out of the process but seems to work just fine. This "fair map" is much of the story of the Republicans finally taking over the legislature.

I don't advocate turning over the process to a computer. Far from it. I think the best thing to do would be to have appointees from both political parties, appointees from academia, redistricting professionals (like the Reapportionment office) and maybe randomly selected Georgians from various walks of life -- business executives or something like that. Require a 3/5 vote from this panel so that no one group can outweigh another. It would prevent whatever party had a majority from just doing a political gerrymander and it would also prevent the Democrat and Republican appointees from teaming up to do a maximum political gerrymander at the expense of other principles. I personally think political competitiveness should be a primary principle in at least one house, preferably the house, so that the state legislature acts more like the federal one was intended to act.

Also, on redistricting, surely the gerrymandering of Congressional districts is not serving the country well. You argue that a clear majority of voters has chosen conservative Republicans in this country but in many districts they don't even have a choice. Larry Sabato used to do a "50 to watch" (or something like that) every year but this past year he only had a "dirty 30." In a House that is supposed to be condusive to change we aren't getting that much, although it is possible. In Texas, 5 Democratic members of Congress were elected in 2002 under maps adopted by a bipartisan panel. They all came from districts that Bush carried in 2000. In 2004, 5 either lost or retired after a Republican legislature changed the maps, either making their districts more Republican or placing them with other Republican incumbents. Pennsylvania and Michigan send clear Republican majorities to Congress while Gore and Kerry carried both and they switched from Republican governors to Democratic ones midterm. Both had outgoing Republican legislatures that did a number on their districts. Florida and Virginia both have competitive statewide races but huge majorities for Republicans in their state legislatures. In Virginia's state house plan, bodies of water are used to make districts contiguous.

In Idaho Republicanism is legitimately on the rise. Their legislature was tied in 1992 and now is about 75% Republican. But in many other areas, I'm skeptical as to whether 50.1% of the people are deciding what kind of representation they want or 50.1% of one primary or other is. So we differ on that judgement call. I will remind you that in Georgia, Congressional races were the only races run on the same map in 2004 as they were in 2002. And we picked up a seat while a "vulnerable" Democratic incumbent won with 62% of the vote in middle Georgia, increasing his margin of victory by about 20 points over two years prior.

Posted by chris at November 16, 2004 11:49 PM

Cbearden:

You are right in saying that you can't really see a way a Democrat could win Cherokee, Forsyth, Dawson or Lumpkin county. I don't discount it completely. The next Bill Clinton could be buying a home in Cumming as we speak and anyway actually winning in those areas at this time is something for a local candidate to figure out, not me (I live in House District 80, Senate District 40).

But the goal for Democrats is not to win those areas but just be more competitive. We do about 2 or 3 points better in the five core metro counties every year (DeKalb, Fulton, Gwinnett, Cobb and Clayton). In the surrounding exurban counties (about 15 of them) Kerry got 27%, Barnes got about 33% in 2002. On the state level we're getting about 57% in the core metro counties and somewhere between 40% (2002) and 55% (1998) in the rest of the state.

For a Democratic candidate to win a governor's race or any other race, he needs to improve on Barnes performance either 4% in each region, or by better than that in selective regions. Here's some math: If a Democratic candidate does as "well" as Barnes in all regions of the state but improves by 8% in the 5 core counties, he or she wins. Or you could do about 15% better in the exurban counties as long as you do as well in the rest of the state and the metro counties. Or you can do 10% better in the rest of the state and match performance in the exurbs and suburbs (suburbs = core 5 counties).

So take your pick. But clearly if a Democrat could improve Barnes 56% in the suburb counties to 59% (not impossible -- that's the trend), could get the exurb percentage from 33 to 38% and could up rest of state performance by 4 points it would be enough to win. Now here's the kicker -- we can plot and strategize about how to do this in each region but the easiest way to achieve all 3 of those goals would be to just present one compelling narrative that plays statewide, instead of trying to come up with a targeted campaign message for each media market or region. Something to think about.

One way to go after the Forsyth/Cherokee types is to figure out what is attractive about living in DeKalb or Cobb that is also compatable with living further out. Certainly Perdue giving more money in his transportation budget to Jenkins county (home district of party switcher Don Cheeks) than fast growing Forsyth is a good start, but then you can't just be negative, you have to also offer something positive. Perception matters so much and if people perceive that you're a good critic and not much else then they'll vote for the other guy so that you can sit on the sidelines and do what you do best -- criticize. Later!

Posted by chris at November 17, 2004 12:04 AM

Here's something interesting for the day: John Oxendine now has his own commericals for "Insurance Commissioner" purposes only (of course) that I just witnessed on AJC when going to watch Zell's final speech....so Cathy Cox has to put tv commercials out about old people and voter fraud, and now Oxendine is doing the same (I guess he's reading the same news I am: Herman Cain for Lt. Governor in 2006...plus who knows who of the state Senators...needless to say, Oxendine probably isn't going to win) and Cox is setting herself up nicely for Governor...I suppose Sonny Perdue and Mark Taylor will have commericals out soon that fall under their "job titles"...uhm, yeah...why is taxpayer money spent on candidate promotion? How about the same commercial, just not with the "potential" candidate in it anywhere (that's only fair isn't it?)...I bet there would be less commercials produced if that were the case!

Posted by cbearden at November 19, 2004 01:24 PM

Cathy Cox has a very questionable professional and personal past. With the overwhelming support in this for disgust for homosexuals, I doubt Cathy Cox could survive any real scrutiny on her personal life.

Posted by Sara at January 2, 2005 05:40 PM

Post a comment