ext_90803 ([identity profile] badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] talkpolitics 2012-11-09 05:39 pm (UTC)

Um. The NY Times Shift Map (which I provided and you are using here) " turned to the right" meant a change in the PRESIDENTIAL vote from the 2008 election.

I'm aware of what it says and what it means. It certainly does not indicate, as dwer thinks, some sort of leftward shift. Nothing in the numbers do.

(And you provided the neato animation, I found the page on my own, thanks)

Here is Pennsylvania, a typically purple state, except when you look at the Congressional districts drawn up by Republicans. O REALLY?

Yeah, state legislatures typically work out districts to be friendly to whoever's in power. I don't see how Obama performing extremely well in Democratic districts says a lot about the majority of the state, especially since the populations of said districts are basically even.

Maybe Pennsylvania isn't really purple, but the Republicans underperform.

Democratic senators INCREASED, Republicans lost any chance of taking the Senate.

Granted. The question, however, is why.

Republican majorities in several state houses decreased SIGNIFICANTLY. And several state legislatures now have Democratic super-majorities.

And there were states where the GOP improved, they still have a majority of governorships, etc. This supposed leftward shift? It doesn't exist.

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
(will be screened if not validated)
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting