Nerd Alert! Washington passes Mass

[Sounder]

Originally Posted by bgwah

I did not make any insult.

Yes you did.

And I'm sorry, but you've never been able to accept the facts. You've been proven wrong before and what do you do? You just quit replying.

An example please?

You deny reality and say that the leading GOP candidate has absolutely no chance of winning the nomination. That's just silly.

No, it is true. You don't comprehend what the GOP base is I guess. 2/3 of the party hate the guy; he has zero chance!

I also notice you ignored by earlier comment about George W. Bush. Thus I can only conclude that you did indeed vote for him. You know what that makes you? A hypocrite.

No it does not. My choice was between Bush vs. Kerry. If you think Bush is fiscally irresponsible, what does that make Kerry, who proposed even more spending than Bush did? I am not a Bush fan but vs. Kerry, it was an easy choice.

Pardon me for finding it hard to take you or any other Republican seriously when you say you support things like anti-statism, or fiscal responsibility and small government.

Start reading conservative, classic liberal, and libertarian commentary more to find out what the other side really thinks.

You perhaps know the GOP base in Western Washington (and maybe Upstate NY if I recall correctly), but Republicans are not the same nationwide.

How often do read National Review, Townhall, Weekly Standard, listen to Rush Limbaugh etc.? How do you know what the GOP base is thinking? I have my pulse on the party pretty damn well. BTW, if bible thumpers made up a bulk of the base, explain why the Bauer's and Robertson's have never been real contenders?

I have to strongly disagree that bible-thumpers are a small minority in the GOP. In places like Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, northeastern states where you would think the GOP is dominated by these "classic liberals," we have people like Arlen Specter and Lincoln Chafee (moderate Republicans) being challenged in the primaries by bible-thumping ultra right-wingers and only winning by tiny margins!

Were they bible thumpers or anti-statists, or both? In a perfect world, Chafee and Spector are Democrats. Chafee & Spector = big time statists. I would vote for an anti-statist bible tumper any day of the week over these two.

Half of them will be voting for Bloomberg!

More Democrats would vote Bloomberg than GOP.

[Sounder]

Here is a redistricting idea if Apr 2007 were Apr 2010. Only Reichert would have to move (a few miles) to keep his seat:



1st District: Bainbridge Island, Silverdale, Edmonds, Bothell, Mukilteo
2nd District: Bellingham, Mt. Vernon, Oak Harbor, Snohomish, Downtown Everett
3rd District: Vancouver, Longview, Centralia, Raymond, Stevenson
4th District: Yakima, Tri-Cities, Moses Lake, Omak, Chelan
5th District: Spokane, Walla Walla, Pullman, Clarkston, Colville
6th District: Bremerton, Olympia, Gig Harbor, Port Angeles, Aberdeen
7th District: Seattle, Shoreline, Lake Forest Park
8th District: Bellevue, Kirkland, Monroe, Wenatchee, Ellensburg
9th District: Tacoma, Lakewood, Puyallup, Eatonville
10th District: Federal Way, Kent, Auburn, Renton, Burien, Vashon Island

[bgwah]

Originally Posted by Sounder

Yes you did.

I disagree.

Originally Posted by Sounder

An example please?

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...7&postcount=12

No, it is true. You don't comprehend what the GOP base is I guess. 2/3 of the party hate the guy; he has zero chance!

Let's look at the polls from some early primary states...
Iowa:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/app...EWS09/71231042 +6 Huckabee
http://www.strategicvision.biz/polit...oll_010208.htm +2 Romney
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/31/iowa.poll/ +3 Romney
http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2...c379814340.txt +7 Huckabee

South Carolina:
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/Poll...2-c393c42cd851 Huckabee +10
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Dec07b-Reps.pdf Huckabee +8
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...-clinton-lead/ Huckabee +7

I'm not saying Huckabee has it in the bag. I'm merely saying he has a relatively good chance. The fact that you are denying this is just silly.

No it does not. My choice was between Bush vs. Kerry. If you think Bush is fiscally irresponsible, what does that make Kerry, who proposed even more spending than Bush did? I am not a Bush fan but vs. Kerry, it was an easy choice.

What a convenient answer. If the GOP was truly dominated by the type of people you claim it is, then George W. Bush would have been defeated in a primary.

Start reading conservative, classic liberal, and libertarian commentary more to find out what the other side really thinks.

How often do read National Review, Townhall, Weekly Standard, listen to Rush Limbaugh etc.? How do you know what the GOP base is thinking? I have my pulse on the party pretty damn well. BTW, if bible thumpers made up a bulk of the base, explain why the Bauer's and Robertson's have never been real contenders?

You got me there! The only blog I ever look at (and check daily) is the ultra-liberal SoundPolitics. Not a Republican to be found there (oh, wait...). But no, I have not read the specific literature you mentioned or listened to Rush Limbaugh. I have been discussing politics online for years, though.

Were they bible thumpers or anti-statists, or both? In a perfect world, Chafee and Spector are Democrats. Chafee & Spector = big time statists. I would vote for an anti-statist bible tumper any day of the week over these two.

I consider them bible thumpers. You must have a different definition of statist than I do. Politicians who support state violations of our civil liberties with the Patriot Act, support constitutional amendments to oppress homosexuals (using the state to oppress a minority they dislike), and have supported some of the biggest spending increases in U.S. history seem like statists to me.

More Democrats would vote Bloomberg than GOP.

It depends on who the major party candidates are, but it is certainly possible.

[Sounder]

Originally Posted by bgwah

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...7&postcount=12

Pretty weak. BTW, Dan Evans is a Republican in name only.

I'm not saying Huckabee has it in the bag. I'm merely saying he has a relatively good chance. The fact that you are denying this is just silly.

0% chance. Again, look at his record. You can cite all the polls you want, doesn't change the reality that his record sucks and will be exposed if he enters the top 3 in the GOP race.

What a convenient answer. If the GOP was truly dominated by the type of people you claim it is, then George W. Bush would have been defeated in a primary.

When was the last time a sitting President was knocked out of the race in the party primary? Bush is way better than Kerry, so the choice was easy, despite my distaste for Bush. The better answer was to elect better congressional and senate candidates in the primaries. Hopefully the GOP learned their lesson in 2006. The base had enough and abandoned them. Thankfully Lott will quit and Stevens will be in jail, so that takes care of two of the big statist, crony GOP porkers. The GOP has plenty of porkers, but a few reformers. The Dems lack any reformers these days.

You got me there! The only blog I ever look at (and check daily) is the ultra-liberal SoundPolitics. Not a Republican to be found there (oh, wait...).

There you go, a non-bible thumping, classic liberal GOP blog. Most of the posters there were one time lefties who figured out the wrongs of their ways.

I consider them bible thumpers. You must have a different definition of statist than I do. Politicians who support state violations of our civil liberties with the Patriot Act, support constitutional amendments to oppress homosexuals (using the state to oppress a minority they dislike), and have supported some of the biggest spending increases in U.S. history seem like statists to me.

Protecting our freedom & opposition to special groupings is not statism. BTW, most of the growth in spending has been bi-partisan with the Dems demanding way more spending. The GOP is loaded with statists, but the Dems are almost 100% statist. I am working to rid my party of statists, to form a true alternative to the facist/statist movement growing globally and locally.

[Sounder]

Originally Posted by Sounder

Pretty weak. BTW, Dan Evans is a Republican in name only.

Quick addendum:

You could argue the opposite about Dixie Lee Ray. Washington is a weird state politcally.

[Ginkgo]

Sounder: Please find a way to get Ballard back into the 1st district! Pre-1992, I voted in that swing district and my vote had an impact. Since 1992 I have been in the 7th and my vote [for US representative] is really no longer relevant.

[bgwah]

Originally Posted by Sounder

Pretty weak. BTW, Dan Evans is a Republican in name only.

In other words... I proved you wrong. You must not like Evans for "infecting" your area with Evergreen State College.

0% chance. Again, look at his record. You can cite all the polls you want, doesn't change the reality that his record sucks and will be exposed if he enters the top 3 in the GOP race.

He already is in the top 3. I think Romney will edge out Huckabee in Iowa, but I will acknowledge that anything could happen and a Huckabee win doesn't strike me as anywhere near impossible.

When was the last time a sitting President was knocked out of the race in the party primary? Bush is way better than Kerry, so the choice was easy, despite my distaste for Bush. The better answer was to elect better congressional and senate candidates in the primaries. Hopefully the GOP learned their lesson in 2006. The base had enough and abandoned them. Thankfully Lott will quit and Stevens will be in jail, so that takes care of two of the big statist, crony GOP porkers. The GOP has plenty of porkers, but a few reformers. The Dems lack any reformers these days.

I disagree.

Protecting our freedom & opposition to special groupings is not statism. BTW, most of the growth in spending has been bi-partisan with the Dems demanding way more spending. The GOP is loaded with statists, but the Dems are almost 100% statist. I am working to rid my party of statists, to form a true alternative to the facist/statist movement growing globally and locally.

Special groupings? Like a constitutional amendments to give heterosexual a specific right that homosexuals do not have? Interesting that you apparently wouldn't consider heterosexual couples a special grouping. The Democratic Party has some pretty bad people in Congress / presidential candidates (Hillary Clinton) and I never said they didn't. As for the rest, I'll just have to disagree...

[Sounder]

Originally Posted by bgwah

In other words... I proved you wrong. You must not like Evans for "infecting" your area with Evergreen State College.

That's just the tip of the ice berg.

He already is in the top 3. I think Romney will edge out Huckabee in Iowa, but I will acknowledge that anything could happen and a Huckabee win doesn't strike me as anywhere near impossible.

Rush Limbaugh today: "Mike Huckabee is no conservative." My dark horse is Fred Thompson.

I disagree.

Who are the reformers? Why the lack of reform with a the new party in charge?

Special groupings? Like a constitutional amendments to give heterosexual a specific right that homosexuals do not have?

Homosexuals are allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex. They have that right too. What they lack is the ability to live together with the one they love and have the extra benefits from government that married couples have. If that's the problem, why just give that right to homosexuals? I am against the constitutional amendment, but I understand the reasoning behind it. When courts become undemocratic dictators, the way to reign them is with the constitution.

[bgwah]

Originally Posted by Sounder

Rush Limbaugh today: "Mike Huckabee is no conservative." My dark horse is Fred Thompson.

I'm not counting Thompson out yet, but I think it will be hard for Thompson to win without winning most of the southern primaries, and quite frankly I think Huckabee will win them.

Who are the reformers? Why the lack of reform with a the new party in charge?

I highly doubt we would consider the same people reformers, so I'm not sure what the point of this question is. I would like to see a change in Democratic leadership for Congress--we need leaders who won't bow down to Bush and the GOP.

Homosexuals are allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex. They have that right too. What they lack is the ability to live together with the one they love and have the extra benefits from government that married couples have. If that's the problem, why just give that right to homosexuals? I am against the constitutional amendment, but I understand the reasoning behind it. When courts become undemocratic dictators, the way to reign them is with the constitution.

You could also make marriage an exclusively homosexual institution and tell heterosexual couples that they have the same right to marry a person of the same gender. I personally think that is silly. I don't understand the reasoning of the amendment at all. The federal government should probably just stay out of marriage altogether. When it comes to my state I would like to see unions for all--let couples go get a "marriage" from whatever religious institution they want.

Are you still denying that it's even slightly possible for Huckabee to get the nomination? I'd feel kind of depressed if I were you. Romney really needed to win Iowa. Now McCain will probably take New Hampshire, and judging by the posts you've made in this thread, you probably would rather not have a McCain vs. Huckabee primary.

I, on the other hand, was very happy with the Democratic primary. Clinton in third is a dream come true. She'll get nasty and that will make it extra fun to watch her lose New Hampshire (well, hopefully lose New Hampshire!).



**oh, and about sitting Presidents losing primaries, Truman dropped out in 1952 after losing the NH primary, LBJ dropped out in 1968 after doing poorly in the NH primary and then getting challenged by RFK, and Reagan almost managed to topple Ford in 1976. And I didn't specifically mean Bush losing the 2004 primary. He probably shouldn't have won the 2000 primary either (if the GOP is truly as you describe it), although it wasn't quite as obvious what he really was yet so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. And 60% of Republican caucus-goers in Iowa said they were born-again or evangelical Christians. That doesn't necessarily mean all of them are "bible thumpers," but I think it is safe to say the religious right is not a tiny faction within the GOP.

[Bond James Bond]

Is there anything worthwhile being discussed in this thread?

Or is it just some off-topic political stuff?

[UrbanBen]

Originally Posted by Bond James Bond

Is there anything worthwhile being discussed in this thread?

Or is it just some off-topic political stuff?

It's two idiots fighting with each other over something inane.

[UrbanBen]

Originally Posted by taiwanesedrummer36

Hmmmm, sounds like "Big Dig" jk jk....

More and more people just love Washington.

The big dig just finished - nobody will ever care how much it cost again, it's just very nice.

[bgwah]

Originally Posted by UrbanBen

It's two idiots fighting with each other over something inane.

I didn't know the Presidency of the United States wasn't important and that people who care about it are idiots. Thanks for enlightening us with your immense wisdom, asshole.

But in the end I knew Bond & crew would come in and whine. It always happens when a discussion gets a little off topic (yet is still very interesting). You have to ask what it is about. You know, you could just read it...

[Bond James Bond]

Well, I'll leave it open. For now.

[UrbanBen]

Originally Posted by bgwah

I didn't know the Presidency of the United States wasn't important and that people who care about it are idiots. Thanks for enlightening us with your immense wisdom, asshole.

But in the end I knew Bond & crew would come in and whine. It always happens when a discussion gets a little off topic (yet is still very interesting). You have to ask what it is about. You know, you could just read it...

I'm not "& crew" - I just happen to have been curious about the original topic. And I'm quite interested in the election, but your discussion of it here seemed more about posturing than a debate of the issues or of politics.

What I'm interested in more is that this population growth has staved off a big drop in our real estate prices. It's a little frustrating, because I'd like to buy - I need to move to Europe in a few years, most likely, but I need to hold onto any purchase for two years or get a tax hit.

[bgwah]

Okay, I'm insane and have redistricted Washington to have a 10th district.



I mostly used 2007 OFM numbers. An ideal district is about 648,800 people.

I started with the fifth district (brown). Every county you see that is entirely within the fifth district has been that since at least the 1980s. In the 1980s, part of western Walla Walla County was put into the fourth district. Currently, small parts of western Adams County near Othello are in the fourth district. I needed about 22,200 people from Walla Walla and/or Adams Counties in the fourth, and used these previous districts as precedent. I took about 13,000 from Othello/Adams Panhandle and the rest from rural Walla Walla County and Waitsburg. I left the city of Walla Walla and College Place and what not in the fifth district.

I then moved onto the fourth (blue). Okanogan County was only put in the fifth district in 2002, and I moved it back to the fourth. The rest of the 4th district is the same as it always has been barring Yakima and Klickitat counties. The Tri-Cities and Yakima (the city) have always been in the fourth, so I decided to leave that it that way. Klickitat County and a portion of Yakima, however, have to be in a bicascadial district. I decided to cross at the southern part of the state based on precedent---districts almost always cross here when they have to. In the 80s, a portion of Clark and all of Skamania Counties were in the fourth, in the 90s a portion of Klickitat was in the 3rd, and now a portion of Skamania is in the 4th. So, I needed about 128,200 people from Yakima County out of the fourth district. I left all of Yakima City in the fourth, however I had to put Union Gap as well as some unincorporated suburban areas to the east and west of Yakima into the third district. All of south Yakima County is in the third.

Now, onto the third district (dark green). With part of Yakima and all of Klickitat counties, we now have more than 100,000 Easterners in the third district. Add in Skamania, Clark, and Cowlitz County and we’re at about 649,400 for the third district—about 600 too many. So a small area of NW Cowlitz County with about 600 people is now in the yellow district.

The yellow district is the “new” district—WA-10. With a portion of Cowlitz and all of Wahkiakum, Lewis, Pacific, Grays Harbor, Thurston, Mason, Jefferson, and Clallam counties, we have an Olympia-Lewis County-Coastal-Peninsula district. However, these counties fell about 88,000 people short of 648,800, so I put about 88,000 people from east Pierce County into the tenth district. You might be wondering why I put east Pierce into the tenth instead of west Pierce or part of Kitsap County, and I will explain why in the next paragraph.

I then created the 6th district (light green). It looks very similar to the 80s version of the 6th—west Pierce/Tacoma and south Kitsap/Bremerton. It contains the military bases, most of Tacoma, and Kitsap up to and including Bremerton. This is Dicks’ district, and would probably make him happy with its military bases and Tacoma + Bremerton. He lives in Mason County, but he only moved there in the 90s. If Dicks wants this district, he’ll have to move back to Pierce/Kitsap. Otherwise he could have the tenth. Although the 6th currently has the peninsula, its included parts of if not all of Tacoma/Bremerton for decades, and based on this I decided to name this the 6th district and the yellow district the 10th, as the peninsula/coast have been thrown around quite a bit and have not been in the same district for very long.

The next district I made was the pink one—the 9th. I’d just like to say that the borders in this part of Pierce are very approximate, so don’t get too picky with them! We have city estimates for 2007, but you kind of have to blindly guess for unincorporated areas. Anyway, the pink takes about 219,135 from Pierce and the rest from King. It has a small part of Tacoma and kind of the Puyallup Sumner areas (well, it’s supposed to!). With its core in south King and north Pierce, it isn’t too different from today. But today it’s kind of a stretched out fugly district all the way to Olympia, and I didn’t let that happen this time. It goes up to Burien and Seatac, and includes some unincorporated areas south and east of Renton. It has Auburn to Maple Valley and Black Diamond down to Enumclaw, and also includes Vashon Island.

The cyan district is the 8th. Auburn is now in the 9th, so assuming Reichert is still around he is going to have to move to Renton or Bellevue or something, unless he wants to lose to Adam Smith. The 8th district no longer includes east Pierce or parts the parts of south King County previously mentioned. It now includes Kirkland and Redmond and is more of an eastside/east King district.

The 7th district is red. Seattle alone has over 586,000 people. I got it up to 648,800 by putting the White Center, Riverton, and Skyway CDPs into it. I also put most of Tukwila into it, but the southern tip is in the 9th district (only about 1,500 people IIRC). Not much else to say about this district—it’s basically the same as it has been for decades.

The orange district is the first. It takes about 79,365 people from north Kitsap County (including Bainbridge Island, where Inslee lives) and about 134,835 people from north King County, where it has Shoreline to Woodinville and most of the Finn Hill CDP. With Redmond and Kirkland in the 8th now, a larger chunk of Snohomish County has to be in this district (about 434,600 people or two thirds of the district). It keeps the southwestern-most part of Snohomish County that it already has (Lynnwood, Edmonds, Bothell, etc.). It now, however, has Everett, which is currently in the first district. Population-wise, most of Snohomish is now in the first district. The huge majority of its land area, however, is still in the second.

The second district (purple) loses Everett, but keeps the rest of Snohomish it already has. Without Everett, it isn’t really a Seattle area district anymore, but for the most part its borders have barely changed just like the 7th’s (rapidly growing suburban Snohomish County probably had something to do with this).

So, to summarize, I tried to make this as realistic as possible and not change the districts from the way they have been over the past few decades too much (and used precedent when making difficult decisions like what I should do with the bicascadial district or the Olympic Peninsula). Dicks would have to move a few miles if he wants to keep the military/Tacoma/Bremerton district, but could also run as the incumbent in the 10th district if he so desired. Reichert would have to move a bit north or east to keep the 8th district. Creating this has confirmed by belief that the most border changes (if we get a 10th district) are going to have to occur in the South Sound. Okay, that was a big post and may be full of spelling and grammatical errors, but I'm too lazy to check.

Comments welcome.

[Bond James Bond]

It's official: bgwah is a nerd.

[Brandon1978]

Originally Posted by sequoias

That sounds ridiclous to me. They should raise the water utility rates in the desert region because they are wasting water to keep grass green in the middle of the desert? Can't they try to save water for something more important?

Well, everyone there lives in detached houses in the suburbs (or else Phoenix is one big suburb--I've been there), so they all have traditional middle-latitude, temperate-climate lawns to water. I don't understand why native-like cacti and rocks aren't more common as landscaping styles in that area. But then, why are mcmansions, so remote from amenities and everything interesting, so popular in the first place?

[CrazyAboutCities]

I'm curious what is Washington's fastest growing city? I already know that Bakersfield is California's fastest growing city and Redmond is Oregon's fastest growing city. What's about Washington? I never hear anything about it for almost three years of living here in Seattle. Anyone know?

[tritown]

I think the fastest-growing city is Pasco.

1990: ~20,000
2000: ~32,000
2007 (est): ~50,000