Tag Archives: gerrymandering

Knocking it out old-school in the fighting 22nd

Unlike many past election years, I haven’t been keeping close track of the state of play in Democratic or Republican primary contests for my Congressional District. Part of the reason for this is the redistricting debacle that New York State recently put itself through. The short version goes like this: the Democratic majority tried to implement a kind of lopsided gerrymander that would likely have flipped three seats into the Democratic column. That map was struck down by a circuit court in Maryland, and New York went with a more “equitable” version.

I have made my opinion on redistricting clear in previous posts, but to summarize: I don’t believe in unilateral disarmament. Red states are gerrymandering the living hell out of their congressional and legislative maps, adding dozens of safe GOP seats nationwide, ignoring court orders that don’t suit them, etc. Democrat-led states, on the other hand, are acting like boy scouts, implementing non partisan redistricting commissions, deferring to the courts, etc. The result may very well be permanent Republican crazy-ass rule. But Democrats can take heart in having been good little girls and boys.

What’s my number?

Okay, so … for a while, my residence was in the 19th district. I was getting invited to meet and greets with Antonio Delgado, the incumbent in that district who has since been named Lieutenant Governor by Kathy Hochul. Then came the court decision, and now I’m back in the 22nd, currently represented by the inimitable Claudia Tenney, the only NY Republican in Congress to vote against the recent bill protecting marriage equality. As I believe I’ve mentioned before, Claudia has decided to run in another district, as the new 22nd is a bit bluer than the old one, now that it includes Syracuse.

With Tenney off trying to gain a seat in the new 23rd, a beet-red southern tier district that stretches to Lake Erie, I am not at all clear on who will be running for the 22nd on the Republican side. I mean, I can read Ballotopedia like anyone else, so I know that Brandon Williams and Steven Wells are vying for the GOP nod. What I don’t know is who the hell they are. Wells seems to be harping on immigration, the Biden Crisis at the border, etc., wheras Williams appears to be a COVID skeptic, anti-lockdown corporatist.

Party of Roosevelt, Jackson, Kennedy, and Wallace

The Democrats in the primary race have been shooting me postcards for a few weeks. I’ve heard from Francis Conole, a dude who looks to be seven feet tall, Sam Roberts, a guy who was particularly good at getting his picture taken with Democratic leadership, and Sarah Klee Hood, who actually stopped by my house when I wasn’t there. Hood may be the best organized one – she was going door-to-door, after all. I have no sense, though, that the party leadership has any preference between these three.

What about policy? Conole seems like one of those Dem party pragmatists, like Anthony Brindisi was – you know, “common sense” solutions, etc. He does pay lip service to universal healthcare, or “greater access” to healthcare – that’s more like what he’s claiming. Then there’s the campaign finance question – apparently a crypto billionaire is bankrolling Mr. Conole to some extent. Not a particularly encouraging sign. Roberts has some very thin details on his policy page – mostly generalities about jobs, conservation, supporting policing, and – yes – “access” to healthcare.

Sarah Klee Hood, on the other hand, appears to support single payer and has posted info-graphics to explain its merits. Not bad.

Divide and conquer

Primaries in New York State are always confusing. They break up some local races from federal and some state races, strangely. For instance, primaries for congressional seats and state senate seats are held on August 23; the gubernatorial primary was held in June. They probably do this to confuse voters, but whatever.

Make your voice heard … even when that means just voting.

luv u,

jp

Check out our political opinion podcast, Strange Sound.

Taking a chance on the twenty third

My mind has been a piece of shit all week, so I apologize in advance for this column. About all I can manage is a trash-talk session about my member of the House of Representatives, the honorable Claudia Tenney, who announced her re-election bid this week.

It’s not surprising that she wants to return to Congress. After all, it’s the best way she can serve vol … I mean, her liege lord Trump, king-in-waiting of the future imperial autocracy formerly known as America. The twist is that she has just been gerrymandered out of her district (NY-22) by the New York State legislature, run by majority Democrats who apparently recall Claudia’s tenure as a state senator.

We go way back

I mentioned at one point that Claudia and I are from the same small town (New Hartford) in upstate New York and that we went to high school together for about 4 months. I graduated in January, and was two years ahead of her, so I remember her not at all, though as I said in that previous column, I knew her brother fairly well.

Well, when she serves in Congress, Claudia of course represents the whole sprawling 22nd House district, and as per custom, her home town appears next to her name. However, the NY legislature saw fit to sever her town from the rump of the 22nd district, which will now encompass Syracuse and will be a hard win for any republican, particularly an autocrat like Claudia. Revenge is a bitch.

Finding a new home

So Claudia’s district no longer exists, in essence. Strangely, Nate Silver lists her as an incumbent in the new 23rd district, which covers the southern tier all the way to freaking Ohio, but that just includes a corner of her current 22nd district. Nevertheless, she has just announced her intention to run for the nomination to win that seat, which Silver calls an R+26 district – literally the reddest district in New York.

I’d say she stands a fair chance against Tom Reed, who currently holds the 23rd. Claudia is about as right-wing as a New York House member can get. She’s a full-on Trump acolyte, constantly obsessing over immigration, enthusiastic second amendment absolutist, and so on. On the other hand, she doesn’t live in the new 23rd district, so people might hold that against her. (Fellow New Hartford native Luke Radel has some thoughts on this – check out his latest installment of Elected News.)

Either way works

There are those who deplore the practice of gerrymandering, and who accuse people on the left of hypocrisy when they applaud partisan redistricting in blue states. I’m of the opinion that representation is a national problem, and until it’s handled on a national basis, the opposition to the autocratic party shouldn’t unilaterally disarm.

I say this, even though nonpartisan redistricting commissions often come up with positive results from a Democratic standpoint largely because the maps end up reflecting demographic shifts that generally favor the left. In all honesty, though, as much as I can’t stand Claudia and think she’s an embarrassment at best, I honestly don’t care whether or not she’s in Congress, so long as the autocratic party she belongs to loses two or three seats in New York. That’s my bottom line.

luv u,

jp

Check out our political opinion podcast, Strange Sound.

Eleven angry men.

When you think about the Kavanaugh nomination, you really need to step back and see the full picture. Sure, stopping the nomination is crucial, and it’s perhaps fortunate that he planted the seeds of his own self-destruction decades ago, long before his tenure as a hyperpolitical operative in the Republican Party. (Honestly, the guy is like the Zelig of American conservatism, working on the Star investigation, researching Vince Foster, participating in the “Brooks Brothers Riot” during the Florida recount, and on from there.) But if his nomination fails, they will attempt to fill the slot quite quickly with a much more boring, just as reactionary judge capable of serving multiple decades on the Supreme Court. So … why not just withdraw this troubled judge?

Well, HE seems nice.My guess is that they’re clinging to this one because Kavanaugh has proven to be such a reliable operative, and because he has a freakishly expansive view of executive power and privilege. (He apparently developed that during his stints in the W. Bush administration.) It’s hard to be certain of their reasoning, but their overarching motivations are quite clear. They want this seat and they want it now. The GOP has been working on this project for decades, taking an already conservativeĀ  court steadily to the right since Nixon’s days in power. A solid reactionary majority is the right’s insurance policy; it’s their trump card, no pun intended.

Consider the Republican party’s position. They remain, in essence, the party of white men. As this becomes less and less a nation of white men, it is an imperative for them to stave off the inevitable erosion of their voter base. The Senate is not so much of a problem, as a distinctly regional party can dominate that body given that party’s geographic distribution (e.g. Wyoming’s Senate delegation isĀ  equal to California’s, even though the latter state is 70 times the size of the former in terms of population). The hyper-partisan GOP gerrymandering of the House in 2010 has made that body a lot more like the Senate in terms of representation, but that is a short-term solution for them. And the Presidency? They have lost the popular vote in six out of the last seven elections, so they mostly rely on narrow electoral college victories.

The Supreme Court, on the other hand, is the ultimate arbiter of public policy. With a solid reactionary majority, the GOP will be able to defeat progressive policies long after the party can no longer dominate electoral politics. So there’s much at stake in the coming days for those eleven angry white men on the Judiciary Committee …. much more than the problematic optics of the Kavanaugh hearing.

Elections matter, people. We need to take the Court seriously.

luv u,

jp