It’s about time! Gerrymander scorecard.

It’s About Time!

How do you feel about changing the clocks — springing forward and falling back? I personally hate it. It takes both me and my dog a while to adjust. Since I get up around 5:30 a.m. seven days a week, my German Shorthaired Pointer, Lili, needs time to reset her internal clock as well. Depending on which way we’ve sprung or fallen, she’ll want to be walked and fed at either 4:30 a.m. or 6:30 a.m.

I’ve reported before that the Georgia legislature voted to move to Atlantic (Bermuda) time year-round. Now, the House Energy and Commerce Committee has voted 48–1 to make Daylight Saving Time permanent.

The president was ecstatic, tweeting: “Big Vote today (48–1!) in the Energy and Commerce Committee on a Bill including The Sunshine Protection Act, which will make Daylight Saving Time Permanent! This is so important — hundreds of millions of dollars are spent every year by people, cities, and states being forced to change their clocks. Many of these clocks are located in towers, and the cost of renting or using heavy equipment to do this twice a year is prohibitive! It’s time that people can stop worrying about the clock, not to mention all the work and money spent on this ridiculous, twice-yearly production. It will also be a very nice win for the Republican Party. We are going with the far more popular alternative — saving daylight — which gives you a longer, brighter day. And who can be against that? This is an easy one! The House and Senate should push hard for more daylight at the end of the day. Very popular and, most importantly, no more changing of the clocks — a big inconvenience and, for our government, a very costly event!”

I think he left out the confusion it causes for hens trying to lay their eggs on schedule — and for dairy cows wondering when it’s time to be milked.

My clocks reset automatically, so I’ve had my own run-in with time changes. I remember waking up one morning to go deer hunting and completely forgetting about the time change. I got up, walked the dog, and headed out to my tree stand — only to be puzzled by how long it was taking for sunrise. When I checked my watch (which I only wear when hunting), it read 4:30 a.m. instead of 5:30. I’m fairly certain that was the longest hour of my life. The deer seemed confused too — nothing was stirring that morning.

Who Gained, Who Lost in the Latest Gerrymandering Wars?

I’ve written before about “safe” seats versus “competitive” House seats. Most seats in the House are safe, and the purpose of gerrymandering is to make even more of them that way. California sought more safe Democratic seats. Texas aimed for more safe Republican seats — and specifically tried to eliminate the seats held by Jasmine Crockett and Al Green. Tennessee worked to dismantle the safe Democratic seat in Memphis, much as it previously did with the one in Nashville, converting both into safe Republican seats.

So when all is said and done, which party came out ahead? Karl Rove has weighed in on the question. (See: Gerrymandering Isn’t Enough for the GOP — WSJ)

Rove finds there are 184 safe Democratic seats, 188 safe Republican seats, and only 63 competitive ones — 18 of which are considered toss-ups. To maintain control of the House, Republicans must win 30 of those 63 competitive seats. Democrats need 34 to regain control and install Hakeem Jeffries as Speaker.

In a typical off-year election, the president’s party loses around 30 seats. But this is far from a typical election. When Obama’s approval rating dropped to 45 percent, Democrats lost 63 seats. With Trump’s approval now below 40 percent, it would be remarkable if Republicans managed to hold the House. However, gerrymandering makes it nearly impossible for them to lose 63 or more seats.

Brace yourself: Hakeem Jeffries as Speaker, Democrats in control of all House committees, and impeachment — part three.