hokiewolf said:
SmaptyWolf said:
caryking said:
Civilized said:
caryking said:
Civilized said:
caryking said:
Civilized said:
Gulfstream4 said:
Werewolf said:
#WINNING; that's what it's called, #Sieve.
All he does is win. No wonder our liberal friends hate him so much. Heck, I would too if I were in their shoes.
Yes, hundreds of millions of people around the world think Trump is a colossal clown because...he wins too much.
Oh, and because he didn't come up through the political ranks.
You guys sure have your ears to the streets.
And… hundreds of millions of people thinks he's great! Civ, you don't like Trump, we get it. Your narrative about people thinking he is a colossal clown certainly didn't prohibit the majority in voting for him.
it really does pain you to be in the minority, by vote and electorally..
LOLOL
Really? Trump's approval rating is sub-40%.
I guarantee you that "Trump winning" (winning what exactly? A self-inflicted trade war that's a tax on the American people?) and "Trump not coming up through the political ranks" would not make a top-20 list of reasons why 60%+ of the country disapprove of the job he's doing.
And I'm really curious for y'all to name me another halfway developed nation other than Poland or Russia where Trump would have any significant electoral support. And I'm not even sure he would in Russia. And no, North Korea doesn't count.
You guys twist yourself into a pretzel trying to come up with reasons why Trump is seen as such a buffoon by the American left, some Republicans, and the rest of the developed world when the answer is simply that he's a buffoon.
Civ can't win here in the US, so, as a typical liberal globalist, he tries to bring Trumps electability to other countries. Civ… who cares?
I don't!
BTW, half of Europe were in the White House kissing his hand in front of the world, last week…. Again, who cares? I don't!!
LOL
He has historically low approval ratings in America, Cary.
Forget Europe, he's not popular here.
But I'm sure his historically low approval is because he's doing so much winning.
Trump would win by a larger margin today. Grant it, I realize people don't like the person, that is Trump; however, they support the majority of the policies.
losing hasn't settle well for you, has it?
Trump is so confident, he's desperately trying to gerrymander every red state he can mid-decade to steal congressional seats. Such a winner!
Lol, MAGA Republicans are such pieces of crap.
yeah, don't need to hear from you on gerrymandering because frankly democrats are the experts.
Is that an evidence-based conclusion or are you just trying to both-sides the issue?
"Hey GPT, have Republicans or Democrats benefited more from gerrymandering over the last few decades?"
1. Republicans Have Gained Disproportionately from Gerrymandering
A 2020 study found that when Republicans controlled redistricting over the past 20 years, their share of U.S. House seats typically increased by 9.1% in the subsequent electionwhereas Democrats saw no significant seat-share boost when they held redistricting control .
The same study reported that under Republican control, nearly one in 10 voters experienced changes to their district boundaries, creating potential confusion and voter disruption
2. Republican-Driven Initiatives Exacerbated the Impact
The REDMAP (Redistricting Majority Project), launched in 2010, helped Republicans flip control of state legislatures in key states and leverage sophisticated mapping tools to draw favorable congressional and legislative districts .
For example, Republicans controlled redistricting in over 210 House districts, compared to just 44 under Democratic control, enabling major advantage in drawing maps .
Analyses have shown that Republican-skewed maps added an estimated 16-seat advantage in the U.S. House, though Democratic gerrymanders in a few states reduced the net effect to 58 seats .
3. Broader Analyses Confirm GOP Advantage
The Brennan Center reports that in states where Republicans controlled both chambers and the governorship, they engineered district maps that gave them a net 1617 seat advantage in congressional delegations .
Post2010 reapportionment maps in battleground states (e.g., Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Ohio, Florida) consistently favored Republicans, leading to disproportionate representation, even when Democrats won the statewide vote .
4. Democrats Also Partisan, But to a Smaller Extent
Democrats have used redistricting strategically in certain statessuch as Illinois, New Mexico, Oregon, and New Jerseyto shore up incumbents or gain extra seats .
However, these Democratic efforts are generally more limited in scale and effectiveness compared to the fortress-like Republican gerrymanders seen in other states .
ETA: almost forgot Professor GPT's conclusion!
Conclusion
Over the last 20 years, Republicans have generally been more effective and influential in leveraging gerrymandering for partisan gain. The data shows they not only achieved larger seat-share increases when in control, but also broader voter disruption, aided by coordinated strategies like REDMAP and extensive state-level control.
Democrats have engaged in gerrymandering in specific states, but their overall impact appears less consistent and less substantial when compared to Republican efforts.
If you'd like, I can break this down further by state, or walk through how independent commissions have changed the dynamic in specific regions.
