Comments on: Potential challenger for Bobby Scott

By: Mac

Mac — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:10:09 +0000

Let’s get after these statists…. Go Coby!

By: Albert a. Bell

Albert a. Bell — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:13:47 +0000

“Just who we need in Congress, another shouter!”

By: Anon E. Mouse

Anon E. Mouse — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 05:23:56 +0000

Districts should be drawn by computer, taking into account nothing more that population density and contiguity. Race and ethnicity should not be factors.

By: Steve Vaughan

Steve Vaughan — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:21:36 +0000

And..while creating minority-majority district is a good thing, it’s a two-edged sword. As Vivian pointed out, but shoving every African-American voter they could into the 3rd, the GOP in 2001 made the 4th impossible for a Democrat of any color to win. So while African-Americans are assured of electing an African-American in the third, they have no influence on what happens in the 4th, 1st and 7th. Is that a good trade off?

By: vjp

vjp — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:55:33 +0000

One more thing: before the 1990 redistricting, Scott’s area of Newport News was in the 1st CD. The Dems were in charge then. They created the district so that he would be able to run. (Same with the drawing of the 11th CD for Leslie Byrne.)

By: vjp

vjp — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:51:33 +0000

You’re missing the point, Alma. Ask the black voters who were moved out of the 3rd and split into the 4th & the 7th whether they think they have a voice. Prior to the last round of redistricting, the 4th was close enough that they almost elected a black representative. By taking those voters out, they made the 4th impregnable.

And yes, the redistricting protects the incumbent, in this case, Bobby Scott. By making the district inhospitable to Republicans, Scott is assured that he will not face a formidable challenger.

(BTW – I happen to think Bobby does a great job representing his constituents. But that’s not the point. The point is competition.)

By: vjp

vjp — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:43:11 +0000

There is a difference between a good thing and the redistricting process. I’m shocked that you don’t understand how the process works.

By: Alma Kesling

Alma Kesling — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:41:04 +0000

I still think the redistricting of the 3rd CD gave a representative to a group of people who really had no representation before. Maybe I’ll revisit that time and see if I feel differently, but I don’t think I will. Anytime a redistricting tilts toward a minority, to me that’s a good thing, no matter the party in power, or the party to be in power.

By: Alma Kesling

Alma Kesling — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:37:53 +0000

No kidding, Mouse! She’s awefully agreeable today. I thought the 3rd CD redistricting was a wonderful thing. Wow, how could I have been so wrong? I felt it gave the minority voters a voice they didn’t have before. I’m shocked Vivian felt the 3rd CD redistricting was not a good thing.

By: vjp

vjp — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:35:27 +0000

No, it didn’t.

By: vjp

vjp — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:35:01 +0000

You’re kidding. You’re saying securing the incombant is the reason for redistricting?? REALLY? As opposed to insuring a group of voters are given a voice, where as they didn’t have it before redistricting? Really?

That is exactly what partisan redistricting does.

The voters’ voices are of no concern to the people who draw the lines. It is all about maintaining – or increasing – the strength of the party in charge. At the top of the list is protecting the incumbents.

Show me where redistricting has ever resulted in an increase in the voters’ voices.

Partisan redistricting allows the electeds to select the voters, instead of the voters to select their representatives. And partisan redistricting is all that VA has ever known. When the Democrats were in charge, they did it that way, just as the Republicans did (and will do next time).

Before redistricting took place do you think Bobby Scott would’ve been elected in the 3rd CD?

The redistricting took place because Virginia was ordered to do it by the justice department, to make a majority-minority district. How does that ensure the incumbent?

Actually, you’re not quite right on this. Redistricting takes place every 10 years (unless you live in Texas, in which case it takes place whenever they feel like doing it). The Justice Department does not order redistricting; what they do is to approve the plans. In the case of the 3rd, they had to approve the way the district was drawn – and the last time around, in 2001, there was a big fight over how the 3rd was redrawn. (The 4th was also a big problem – they took the black vote out of the 4th and split it between the 3rd & the 7th.)

The creation of a majority-minority district was a direct result of the 1990 Census: the black population in VA had increased to the point that there should be such a district.

By: Alma Kesling

Alma Kesling — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:31:12 +0000

Before redistricting took place do you think Bobby Scott would’ve been elected in the 3rd CD?

The redistricting took place because Virginia was ordered to do it by the justice department, to make a majority-minority district. How does that ensure the incumbent?

By: Alma Kesling

Alma Kesling — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:26:59 +0000

You’re kidding. You’re saying securing the incombant is the reason for redistricting?? REALLY? As opposed to insuring a group of voters are given a voice, where as they didn’t have it before redistricting? Really?

By: Alma Kesling

Alma Kesling — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:24:47 +0000

But that’s what it did.

By: Anon E. Mouse

Anon E. Mouse — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:56:19 +0000

Because of my posts HERE, MB is afraid to have me post on HIS blog! He asks about someone’s age, and he acts like a petulant teenager.

By: Max Shapiro

Max Shapiro — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 06:43:03 +0000

Are you serious? I worked Brambleton and Bolling Park all day election day. You are correct, no one came to me asking who to be told to vote for. They looked at me, saw I was white and immediately gave me nasty, disgusted looks. They went right to the DEM table and asked who to be told to vote for. You can think I’m lying, but I was there for 13 hours, I saw it first hand. People who told me personally they would vote for my candidate refused to look at me and instead went right for the sample ballot.

The answer is 20 and if you think it means I am ignorant think again. My personal library would put yours to shame.

By: MB

MB — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 06:21:52 +0000

You’re a liar, Max Shapiro. No one walked up to you and asked “who to be told to vote for.”

(Also, still waiting on the answer to my earlier question. 19?)

By: Max Shapiro

Max Shapiro — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 05:52:59 +0000

Take away party affiliation on the ballot and ban any electioneering within 500 feet of a polling place and I think the playing field would be greatly evened. The DEM sample ballot is god in most of the precincts in Norfolk. I worked the polls and a heavily black precinct on election day and greater than 50% of the people walked up and asked who to be told to vote for.

By: Anon E. Mouse

Anon E. Mouse — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 02:51:43 +0000

You’re in a very agreeable mood today, Vivian.

By: vjp

vjp — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:48:20 +0000

For once, I agree with you, Mouse. That’s the net effect of redistricting – at least as long as it is done in a partisan manner.

By: vjp

vjp — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:47:36 +0000

Um, no, Alma. That’s not what redistricting does.

By: vjp

vjp — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:46:27 +0000

I agree with Steve on this.

By: Anon E. Mouse

Anon E. Mouse — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:45:40 +0000

It’s meant to secure incumbents, nothing more.

By: Alma Kesling

Alma Kesling — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:53:35 +0000

Yeah, kinda like what the Republicans did down there in Texas. Not like this kind of voter manipulation is a Democrat Party exclusive.

And actually, the redistricting is doing exactly what it was meant to do, have a representative that gives voice to a large group of people in this area that didn’t have representation before.

By: Steve Vaughan

Steve Vaughan — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:33:43 +0000

Rick: In theory I agree. But it’s a stupid waste of resources for any political party to support a challenger in a district as gerrymandered as the 3rd — or the 1st CD or the 96th HOD district on the other side.
The winner of the every election for the 3rd CD was decided in 2001 during redistricting (actually it has been impossible for a Republican to win the 3rd CD since at least 1991).

By: Rick Sincere

Rick Sincere — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:14:27 +0000

Every incumbent politician deserves a challenger, no matter how popular he or she might be.

Contested elections are the essence of democracy. The fact that so many seats are won by candidates who have no opponent is shameful.

The more candidates there are, the more robust and healthy is our political system.

By: Alma Kesling

Alma Kesling — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:05:23 +0000

Why would Dillard proclaim himself an advocate for the military? They have the biggest advocate in the world, the Military Industrial Complex. jeeez pete. That’s like saying I’m an advocate for millionaires. Oh wait, that is a Republican Party platform plank already. Okay, nevermind.