>As I said before, it’s hard to prove that, because the Zimmerman campaigns complaints were ignored in favor of more crime reporting which played into Santos’ hands.

This is bullshit and you know it. Campaigns have press releases or statements on their website. This stuff is independent of press coverage.

The oppo presented was about Santos's wealth (which they presented as sketchy but without real evidence of wrongdoing ) and phony charity. Nothing about lying about his ancestry, his employment, or his education.

DCCC and Zimmerman focused more on his anti-abortion views and connection with Trump.

> I never said the DCCC covered it, I said his opponent covered i

You haven't shown that though... The only oppo-report is DCCC's, unless you have another?

From the article:

>The document does, however, list Santos’s educational and professional claims without question. The bulk of the 87-page research document leans into Santos’s ties to Trump and his antiabortion stance.

DCCC oppo-research focused on Trump ties and the fake charity, instead of deep-diving his background.

You claim that the media didn't cover it, but the DCCC research didn't cover it either. Which is entirely the point.

>The state republican party needs to deal with its dishonesty and corruption problem. Surely that's the state party you're referring to.

The state Republican party is a burning trash fire and has been for at least a decade. Losing to a burning trash fire should spark introspection.

>Zimmerman pointed out during the campaign that Santos was sketchy.

Do you have a link for Zimmerman calling out specific lies?

The divorce as oppo-research only really works in the context of everything else being a lie. Gay men have been married to women before. If Zimmerman brought up the other lies, do you have a link? Because this week or so is really the first I am hearing of Santos lying about a charity, about where he worked, and about his Jewish ancestry.

Democrats aren't responsible for Santos. But they are responsible for Zimmerman. Investigating your opponent for oppo-research is super basic in elections. State party needs to figure out where they fucked up.

On the one hand, it isn't the Democrats' fault that Santos is a lying piece of shit. On the other-hand, the fact that the state party couldn't find this blatant shit is political malpractice. Were they even trying to win?

> Man gives $300 million of his own money and helped raise $3 billion but hey, no preferential treatment. > >

He also led the effort to make NYU medical school free

> When you think of a hate crime, you think it’s physical before anything else.

No, vandalism is pretty common for anti-semitic hate crimes. Vandalizing Jewish cemeteries for example. Swastikas spray painted on Jewish places such as schools, synagogues etc.

...good.

Is it possible to do a hybrid approach? Shove the NYPost ones into the thread, but higher profile cases are allowed outside (e.g. crime involving a politician).

>If the democrats were less naïve, they never would have done redistricting reform in the first place

It was a ballot initiative. Some Democrats and some Republicans pushed for it. Democrats tried to amend it to be more favorable to them but that failed.

They had no real choice. They probably could have gotten away with a slightly more favorable map. But they went so insanely blatant. One party states have issues where they think they can brute force their way through political issues. See Kansas and Kentucky on abortion.

My point is that they didn't sit on their hands.

>The republicans are the party of literal voter suppression

Turnout in NY was garbage and turnout in Georgia skyrocketed.

>handing over drawing a map to a bunch of conservatives in NYS is “fair” but go off.

Stop breaking the law.

>I guess dems should sit on their hands

Maryland, Illinois, Nevada.

In NY, they probably could have gotten away with a less aggressive one.

Edit: Someone asked if they actually would have gotten away with a less aggressive gerrymander.

This is a good question. It's my opinion, obviously, but let me explain my thinking.

1. Democrats blatantly failed to follow IRC procedures. That counted against them in the final decision. Specifically, there are guidelines on what to do if there is an impasse in the IRC, including deadlines etc. Democrats just jumped straight into forcing a new map through the legislature.

2. The original court decision basically told them this and said "fix this map by this date, and do it properly" and the Democrats just... ignored the court. The theory is that they thought they could run out the clock and the court would be forced to let them use the map they picked (this happened in Ohio for Republicans, but they didn't blatantly ignore the court). Ignoring the judiciary is also a point against you.

3. One judge only dissented in part. He basically outlines what Democrats should have done, which is pass their original IRC map. I want to highlight this because the map Democrats presented to the IRC is not what the legislature passed. The judge points out that there were big commonalities between the Republican IRC map and the Democratic one, especially regarding upstate. Some of the blatant gerrymandering was packing upstate votes.

4. Less specific, but I think if they passed the original IRC map, Republicans would have a more difficult time showing a gerrymander. According to 538, the result is +1 Democratic seats, -2 Republican seats, and while there are some gerrymanders, it is less obvious. In contrast, the Democratic gerrymander is +2 Democratic seats, -3 Republican seats.

>His district looked like that even before the recent redistricting

He had a part of Brooklyn but thie change was really bad. Compare the two.

>it was a way of linking Jewish communities on the UWS and Brooklyn.

Two different Jewish communities.

It does suck. I don't have more to add, your comment covers it.

>Lol Cuomo appointed the judge that threw out NY’s congressional maps, lost the house for the Dems, and has the audacity to say literally anything.

If the Democrats were less greedy, they could have snagged an extra seat or two. Instead, you are left trying to defend a map that was gerrymandered to shit and that blatantly violated the NYS constitutional amendment.

Just absurd. No one is forcing you to defend that piece of shit map. For fuck's sake, Nadler's seat had a thin line snaking through Brooklyn. Suozzi's seat was Long Island and a chunk of Westchester. They split up Asian neighborhoods in Queens.

A bus pillaged my village and burned down my ancestral home.