Shutdown over. Republicans blinked.

[Guynemer]

Yes. Politics is more polarized now. Pretty much everyone thinks that.

No, I was posting that to counter your statement that the Dems have more safe seats than the GOP.

[Sava]

That is not my recollection.

My bad. I actually read it.

[Sava]

No, I was posting that to counter your statement that the Dems have more safe seats than the GOP.

*due to gerrymandering

[kentonio]

Again: polls today mean precisely ****-all when assessing an election a year away.

Jesus Christ, how many times do I have to say it?

It's not about individual polls it's about polling trends. The GOP right now is less popular than it has been at any point in the last 21 years, and that's not just a flash in the pan daily poll, it's part of a decline that has been happening all year. Can they recover? Sure, but right now they aren't doing anything TO recover, they're just doubling down on stupid.

[Sava]

And for the life of me, I can't find that TIME article. I saw it in print. Can't find it online.

[DinoDoc]

We totally believe you Sava.

[Dinner]

We learned that US defaulting is good, and while those damn liberal communists won this round, the good fight is not over.

That, sadly, seems to be exactly what most of the tea party not patriots seem to have learned. They truly are the retarded kid on the short bus.

[Dinner]

It's not about individual polls it's about polling trends. The GOP right now is less popular than it has been at any point in the last 21 years, and that's not just a flash in the pan daily poll, it's part of a decline that has been happening all year. Can they recover? Sure, but right now they aren't doing anything TO recover, they're just doubling down on stupid.

Don't get too excited about polls 1-3 years out because the last time the GOP hit rock bottom in the polls was right after they shut down the government back in the 90's and then tried to impeach Clinton for getting a blow job. Sadly, Bush then won in 2000 though that was mainly because Dems were complacent and thought they didn't have to really try to win.

[PLATO]

Actually, I think the TIME article you mentioned before was the one that said the Dems have more safe seats due to gerrymandering.

Those other ones just showed that gerrymandering didn't and won't affect either party's ability to win or keep the House.

So yeah, gerrymandering isn't the problem. It's been here. It's always been here. It's not particularly more effective than it's been historically.

So yeah.

That is kind of hard to imagine as the States set the districts and 30 States have Republican Governors. Still, I guess it is possible that larger States with Democratic Governors have more districts to mess around with.

[Sava]

We totally believe you Sava.

Then you find it.

What are your thoughts on this idiotic argument?

Also, Guy, the incumbency rate for the House hasn't changed much in the past... well... ever. So if 90% of the House is always getting re-elected, how would 100 or so seats ever be up for grabs?

The gerrymandering belief just doesn't hold up. I know it's a sexy thing... "oh my god Republicans are so evil! They are gaming the system"

It's just not true.

[Guynemer]

*due to gerrymandering

You lost me, and I no longer care.

[Sava]

You lost me, and I no longer care.

You misunderstand what I said. The number of "safe" seats due to gerrymandering numbers around 40. The rest of the safe seats are because the country is more polarized (in rhetoric, at least) and the historical incumbency rates.

[Guynemer]

You're going to have to provide a source for that statistic/estimate, to say nothing of the Dems having more safe seats from gerrymandering than the GOP.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Folks like Boehner are going to be remembered the same way we remember Neville Chamberlain.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/361414/norquist-defunders-owe-conservatives-apology-betsy-woodruff

“It’d be a good idea if they stopped referring to other Republicans as Hitler appeasers because they opposed the strategy they put forward which failed,” Norquist says. “I think if you make a mistake as big as what they did, you owe your fellow senators and congressmen a big apology — and your constituents, as well, because nothing they did advanced the cause of repealing or dismantling Obamacare.”

That's Grover ****ing Norquist who thinks y'all were too obstructionist.

[Sava]

You're going to have to provide a source for that statistic/estimate, to say nothing of the Dems having more safe seats from gerrymandering than the GOP.

I've been providing numerous sources all week. Maybe do some reading, k?

There's a glut of information out there. I'm not going to spend my time spoon feeding you. Read the data.

http://election.princeton.edu/2013/10/10/a-prediction-for-2014-house-elections-take-1/

http://election.princeton.edu/2013/10/09/partisan-gerrymanderings-hidden-burden/

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/the-great-gerrymander-of-2012.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The number of "safe" gerrymandered seats isn't the issue. You seem fixated on that. Those who work in the field use a variety of standards to define what those are. That's why you can't just google it and find the number. It's always based on someone's interpretation.

I'm not going to reword all the conclusions in these studies. If you want to understand political realities in this country, there are sources available. Enjoy.