Italgato wrote:P Diddle's post on redistricting yesterday indeed misses the "reality" of what is occuring. [..]
"Republicans say that the remapping could give them from three to five seats."
Some of the philosophizing on this post is interesting but I do hope that the realists understand that, in the final analysis, any president, yes, even Bill Clinton, who could not really get any of his favorite legislation passed during his eight year tenure, must have his party in control of the Senate and the House.
Two things.
Point of PDiddie was that, when all of these TX tactics turn out to have succeeded, they might well incite many other states to start undertaking redistrictings at any moment they can see political benefit in it as well.
Some of those states will be Democratic. So the final outcome of the process thats now started may well involve a bit more than those "three to five" seats, and could turn out to the benefit of either party. In the meantime, arbitrarily-timed, partisan redistrictings will have added a degree of anarchy to the system.
Second, the point of posts like c.i.'s and others', that insist to vote "for anyone who can beat Bush", is not to make it possible for that "anyone" to pass "all of his favorite legislation". Its about, at least, stopping the Bush-Republicans from passing
theirs. As in: even something approaching deadlock would have less destructive effects than the current free rein to Bush politics.