like the most plausible explanation for the current Democrat hyperventilation. I mean, what is new York or Illinois going to do, gerrymander even more and have even fewer Republican representatives? It seems like they’ve hit the maximum effect they can get out of that. They can’t get more than 100%, and they are pretty much already there. Maybe they can eke out a few more in California and New York State, but that is about it.
On the other hand, Republicans have not done a lot of gerrymandering. As a general rule, they try to play fair. Well, that means that there is a good deal of “headroom” for increased Republican representatives, while there is almost none for Democrats.
Republicans don’t even have to actually gerrymander. All they have to do is to make districts fair, and they gain a buttload of seats!
I also think that this demonstrates a huge weakness of the Democrats: They have to cheat to win. In other words, if things were actually fair, there would be no Democrat party. They would have gone the way of the Whigs long ago.
The fact that most people do not agree with him is an indictment against their political philosophy. The cheating is merely a symptom. The real problem is that their ideas are so unpopular that they must cheat in order to keep power.
Here’s an example of the problem facing Democrats:
What is she going to do? They are already at 9-0, and so there is just no more room for them to get even more extreme. In other words, her threat is a very empty one. Gerrymandering won’t work for her, because the Democrats have no “headroom.” In statistical terms, there are no more “degrees of freedom.” It is all locked in, and nothing can vary from what already is. They have already taken the last cookie.
So yeah, Massachusetts, it is an empty threat.