We’ve been forcing the GOP to spend across the board on races they thought they could win easily.
That sort of works both ways. Keep in mind that a seat without an incumbent, and in a special election, is always closer than one with an incumbent. It therefore is not logical to compare Handel’s margin with Price’s last margin; one can expect Handel to win easily next time around.
Gerrymandering: A recent report by the Brennan Center, Extreme Maps, finds that “partisan bias resulting largely from the worst gerrymandering abuses in just a few battleground states provides Republicans a durable advantage of 16–17 seats in the current Congress, representing a significant portion of the 24 seats Democrats would need to gain control of the House in 2020.” Gerrymandering in Georgia was found, with statistical significance, to give Republicans an extra seat in Congress.
It should be pointed out here that everything the GOP knows about gerrymandering they learned from the Democrats. In 1992, which is one House race that I personally ran analytics on, the Democrats won 258 seats; without their gerrymandering, their seats count would have been around 223, give or take a few.
Gerrymandering isn’t going anywhere, as it is protected on a national scale by the Constitution, and the only states that seem interested in ending gerrymandering for their states (which they can do if they wish) are blue already.
The outline of gerrymandering is controlled by the state legislatures, who are as red as they have been since the 1920’s.
But……because of the way Democrats have moved over the last few years (Dems are now concentrated in urban centers, with a few exceptions; the era of the FDR-rural-democrat is over) it’s doubtful that an unbiased (e.g., computer generated) national congressional map would tilt the House very much. I did run some cursory analytics on this, (this is very different from the analysis done by the Brennan Center) and maybe 3–4 seats would flip if you got rid of all gerrymandering and went to an unbiased map. Despite the competitive nature of the Senate and the White House….it’s a GOP country out there.
What you want, although you don’t want to say it, is to replace the GOP gerrymander with a Dem gerrymander. Your citation to Extreme Maps, of course, admits this:
‘States where Democrats had sole control of redistricting have high partisan bias within state congressional delegations’
People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
Voter suppression: As Ari Berman reported in The Nation on Monday, Karen Handel used her position as Georgia’s Secretary of State to enforce strict voter ID policies that disproportionately affect youth and people of color;
This is, of course, utter nonsense. There is no analytic data I have ever seen that has shown that any identity group has been impacted by voter ID laws. In fact, since such laws have passed, analytics shows that the groups that the left most loudly rants about “being impacted” have most often had their turnout INCREASED.
Then, there’s the small problem of the SCOTUS being on record as stating unequivocally that Voter ID laws do not egregiously impact the ability to vote, as long as the appropriate ID is easily obtainable and free.
There are also a lack of logic in this objection. It is impossible to affect voter registration based on color, simply because color is not recorded as a fact on the voter roles. If a law were to actually affect voter registration, it would affect it by economic class, and there is no economic class in this country that is not predominately white. So, if what you say about impact were to be true, then the GOP are hurting their own voters with Voter ID more than anyone else.
purge thousands of eligible voters from the voter rolls;
Indeed? Then I would suggest to you that instead of raising money for some organization called “flippable”, you might raise money to bring a class action suit against a given state on behalf of those “thousands of eligible voters” who were denied their Constitutional rights.
But, you won’t. Know why? Because they don’t exist. :-)
and remove Democratic candidates from the ballot based on spurious challenges to their residency.
A residency challenge is never spurious. Where a candidate lives is germane to the voter who may or may not wish to vote for that candidate. You personally may not think it is germane, but many, MANY people do.
The GOP has used analytics, voter suppression tactics, and huge infusions of funding to win big majorities in the states.
Actually, they’ve used good governance, for the most part. With a couple of exceptions where the GOP governance blundered (Missouri, Louisiana) the states under GOP governance have better business environments and better debt-to-receipts ratios than the blue states, and better credit ratings.
If I was a cynic, I’d say that it appears that Democrats cannot govern effectively in an environment where they can’t print their own money.
Oops. I said it.